VIDEO MB Obama’s Nation Rape Amnesty: Joy for Some and Sadness for Many – Illegals Shouldn’t Get Rewarded – Legals are Chumps

-MB Obama Claims ‘Borders Mean Something,’ Illegal Immigrants Shouldn’t Get Rewarded
-SEIU CA Rallies Push Legal Status for Remaining Illegal Aliens, Applaud Obama
-Help The Poor. Block the Amnesty
-Obama’s Executive Action Will Finish Off America
-Rand Paul Blasts Obama Executive Actions, Cites Internment Camps
-Congressman: Obama Has “Gone Rogue”
Central Americans Undertake Grueling Journey Through Mexico To U.S.
Obama has just raped the nation in every way. This cannot stand. We didn’t invite his illegal assault just because we were running on the beach.

Here is just part of the ‘right on’ response from Trey Gowdy in response to Obama’s Executive Amnesty.

.”Whether previous administrations acted outside of constitutional boundaries is not license to do the same. The President himself recognized his inability to do what he just did – 22 separate times. This action is not only detrimental to any chance in the new Congress for a sustainable, long-term solution on immigration, but also to the bedrock of our system of government – respect for the rule of law.”

“When the executive branch acts outside of constitutional boundaries the legislative branch must use all powers afforded it to respond and restore the constitutional equilibrium. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Rather, it should hasten the resolve of all Americans to make certain her elected officials honor the foundational document they swore to protect and defend.”

22 November, 2014 by Julio Severo

Obama announced yesterday, November 20, 2014, a major amnesty benefiting millions of illegal immigrants.

Obama is not doing it for kindness. It is similar to “bolsa-família,” a populist family-fund program from the Brazilian government that provides cash to millions of Brazilians. In fact, the government of President Barack Obama thinks that this Brazilian program is very important.

Many of those benefited by Obama’s amnesty are also Brazilians, who are fleeing from the leftist hell in Brazil, but by being aided by Obama, they are also aiding to produce the leftist hell in the U.S.

The handout (family fund) of President Dima Rousseff is bad, but is the handout (amnesty) of President Barack Obama good? After all, what is this story?

Well, Brazilian evangelical and Catholic conservatives who are in the U.S. are celebrating Obama’s immigration amnesty. Some of these Brazilians are my friends and I am seeing their celebration.

Yet, American evangelical and Catholic conservatives are not celebrating, because they know that this massive handout is Obama’s strategy to solidify the socialist hell in the U.S. Some of these Americans are my friends and I am seeing their sadness.

In this situation, what side would you choose? Would you celebrate with Brazilian evangelical and catholic conservatives who need the immigration amnesty?

Or would you cry with American evangelical and catholic conservatives?

What side would you choose?

What I find most troubling is the Brazilian attitude. They condemn Rousseff’s family fund as a strategy to solidify her socialist power, but they are eager to get Obama’s immigration amnesty, whose strategy is solidify the socialist power in the U.S.

Immigrants granted amnesty today will be the future voters for Obama’s Democratic Party, which is similar to the ruling Workers’ Party of Rousseff in regard to anti-life and anti-family policies.

Even though most of the immigrants, including Brazilians, are against abortion and gay “marriage,” they have relatives who also need the generous immigration amnesty of the Democratic Party, regardless if this party is pro-abortion and pro-sodomy.

What is most important in this situation?

Money and prosperity. When people want them, they do not care about the means to get them.

I watched on YouTube a prank of a handsome young man in a very expensive car. He drove through several streets and offered — just by signaling with his hands, with no word — a lift to several beautiful young women who were walking on the sidewalk. Even though they were suspicious about him and objected that they did not know him, all of them accepted the ride.

Money, prosperity and comfort draw people.

Obama is offering a ride with the car that past generations of Americans worked hard to get.

Brazilian conservatives do not care about the motivations of him who is offering the ride. They want to ride and be a part of the money, prosperity and comfort.

The socialist side that has this power is going to get the support even from Brazilian conservatives. It is what is happening between them and Obama. They say that they are fleeing Rousseff’s handouts, but run for Obama’s handouts and even ask help from Obama, expecting him to deliver them from socialist Rousseff.

What do not money, prosperity and comfort do to people? They forget that they are conservative. But socialists — whether Obama or Rousseff — do not forget what they are.

Family funds, immigration amnesties and other “rides” are part of the socialist revolution sweeping Brazil and the U.S.

Conservatives should stop using clever and even illegal ways to enter the U.S.

Some years ago I was in a prayer meeting in Brazil and the Presbyterian minister asked prayer for a young couple, who was about to travel to the U.S. It was not just a trip. It was a move.

They had all the papers necessary for the trip. They had paid a very large sum to an American group to get fake papers.

They had a very successful trip. Later, they were granted amnesty. Now, they are “American.” Now, they have money, prosperity and comfort.

Did God hear their prayer?

Is God hearing Obama’s socialist “prayers”?

MB Obama Claims ‘Borders Mean Something,’ Illegal Immigrants Shouldn’t Get Rewarded
21 Nov 2014 by Tony Lee

On Friday, at the Las Vegas, Nevada high school where then-candidate Barack Obama pivoted to his “Si, Se Puede” (Yes, we can) message in 2008, President Barack Obama celebrated his executive amnesty in which he essentially declared, “Yes, I can.”

After announcing his executive amnesty at the White House on Thursday evening that will give temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants, Obama went to Del Sol High School in Nevada and became the salesman-in-chief. Obama will reportedly try to “aggressively” sell his executive amnesty in the coming weeks across the country, including next Tuesday in Chicago with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

He sold his executive overreach by claiming that his executive amnesty was not “amnesty” but actually “accountability” for illegal immigrants.

“It’s not amnesty,” Obama claimed. “What we are offering is accountability.”

Obama also said that illegal immigrants “shouldn’t get rewarded for cutting in line” and conceded that “undocumented workers broke our immigration laws.” He even conceded that “some are dangerous” criminals.

Obama said that since illegal immigrants who qualify for his executive amnesty will have to register with the federal government, pass a background check, pay their fair share of taxes, they will be held “accountable” even though Obama is rewarding them for breaking the country’s immigration laws and treating them differently under the rule of law. All that was still not enough for a heckler who felt Obama did not go big enough on his executive amnesty.

Obama also said America was exceptional not because of its rule of law but because “we welcome” illegal immigrant DREAMers. Obama said he believes in “fairness” and mentioned that the “immigration system feels fundamentally unfair” even though Obama’s executive amnesty rewarded illegal immigrants at the expense of legal immigrants who have been waiting in line for years or decades to come lawfully to the United States.

Obama then declared that he thought “borders mean something” and he believed in “secure borders.” Obama’s own immigration enforcement officials, though, have sued the administration for preventing them from deporting illegal immigrants who are not some of the most violent and dangerous criminals. Obama’s former ICE director, John Sandweg told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that, “if you are a run-of-the mill immigrant living here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.” According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own data, “only 0.08% of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants were removed from the interior in 2013 who were not convicted criminals or fugitives.” On Friday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that, “if you get past the border, you’re home free under Obama’s orders.”

Obama again said he would not give up on comprehensive amnesty legislation and called for Congress to pass a bill that gives illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and would reward high-tech companies with more high-tech guest-worker visas even though America has a surplus of high-tech workers.

This was Obama’s third trip to Del Sol High School—and each trip has been significant. Obama’s first trip was after his 2008 primary loss to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire after Obama won in Iowa. Though Obama lost New Hampshire, his “Yes we can” concession speech may have won him the primary and the general election. “Yes we can” translates to “Si se puede” in Spanish, which Cesar Chavez made famous. And when Obama first visited Del Sol High School in 2008, he road-tested his new stump speech. In 2008 before the Nevada caucuses, Obama said that “change for me is not just rhetoric… It’s been the cause of my life.” And he then declared, “Si, se puede!” Obama’s second trip to the high school was in January of 2013 when he announced his comprehensive amnesty plan that he wanted Congress to pass.

SEIU CA Rallies Push Legal Status for Remaining Illegal Aliens, Applaud Obama
SEIU-Rally amnesty
21 Nov 2014 by Michelle Moons

SEIU celebratory rallies held across California continued throughout Friday taking names of those who don’t qualify under President Obama’s new and expanded legal status for millions of illegal aliens while heralding his iron fisted legal status declaration.

SEIU California announced 12 rallies throughout California, saying, “Community members who have fought for comprehensive immigration reform will join affected families, local elected officials, and legal experts for a news conference following today’s announcement that President Obama will take administrative action to move comprehensive immigration reform forward.”

One SEIU rally involved taking signatures from any who said they would not be included under the new and expanded executive order, presumptively remaining illegally present in the U.S.. A photo and description was posted to the SEIU California Twitter account reading, “Names of friends and family who won’t benefit from ?#ImmigrationAction – but the Presidents 1st action helps millions.”

The powerful union also unveiled new website “iAmerica is for American immigrant families of all walks of life, providing tools and support to get informed, inspire change and impact America’s future,” reads the front page of the site. The site devotes a section to registering voters. Another section called, Make an Impact lists one of five actions as “Take another selfie” and “amplify the call for immigration reform.”

Watch parties and press conference scheduled around the country are also posted on iAmerica. The site even boasts a section on finding legal services throughout the country, pulling from a database in a joint project of the Immigration Advocates Network and Pro Bono Net. Television network Univision, RocktheVote, National Immigration Law Center and MiFamilia Vota Education Fund are just a few of the organization that have joined with SEIU in sponsoring iAmerica according to the website.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

Help The Poor. Block the Amnesty
Marx As An Adviser On How Best To Screw The Poor.
November 22nd, 2014 By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary)

He Works For Nobody Else In America

There are people out there who genuinely appreciate all that President Obama has done since he found the American crown adrift in the gutter back in 2008. The TaxProf blog explains who these fortunate individuals are below.

12,040 new ultra high net worth (UHNW) individuals were minted this year, pushing the global UHNW population to a record 211,275, a 6% increase from 2013. The combined wealth of the world’s UHNW individuals – defined as those with US$30 million and above in net assets – increased by 7% to US$29.725 trillion in 2014, almost twice the GDP of the world’s largest economy, the United States.

It was in the interest of all of his newly-minted billionaire buddies that the president chose to act decisively on immigration and legalize 5 million individuals who came to the United States illegally. The President explains his latest act of corporate welfare below.

Administration officials estimate approximately 5 million people could apply for temporary protected status that would require a background check and hefty application fees. Those eligible could legally work in the United States for up to three years. Because Obama’s administrative changes can be erased by the next president, advocates believe many who are eligible will think long and hard before stepping forward. Lifting some existing DACA restrictions will make 270,000 more people eligible for enforcement discretion under Obama’s waivers. Including undocumented parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal residents opens the door to another 4 million people, according to the administration.

Barack Obama’s editorial Cheerleader Paul Krugman, makes an argument that we should appreciate this as a humane initiative. He explains that we are doing for the children.

First, there are more than a million young people in this country who came — yes, illegally — as children and have lived here ever since. Second, there are large numbers of children who were born here — which makes them U.S. citizens, with all the same rights you and I have — but whose parents came illegally, and are legally subject to being deported. What should we do about these people and their families? There are some forces in our political life who want us to bring out the iron fist — to seek out and deport young residents who weren’t born here but have never known another home, to seek out and deport the undocumented parents of American children and force those children either to go into exile or to fend for themselves.

Yes Dr. Krugman, suffer the children; but just whose children do we make suffer? We are bringing 5 million new people into a labor force that has the lowest civilian participation rate that we’ve had in nearly 4 decades. We are opening the country to more people, in complete violation of our laws; when there simply is not gainful economic employment available for the people we already have. Glenn Reynolds links to the following data from the WSJ.

The official U.S. unemployment rate has indeed fallen steadily during the past few years, but the economic recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the previous employment peak of any prior recovery. The labor-force participation rate recently touched a 36-year low of 62.7%. The number of Americans not in the labor force set a record high of 92.6 million in September. Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis. Worse, middle-class incomes continue to fall during the recovery, losing even more ground than during the December 2007 to June 2009 recession. The number in poverty has also continued to soar, to about 50 million Americans. That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the U.S. Census has been tracking poverty. Income inequality has risen more in the past few years than at any recent time.

To understand who exactly benefits from this policy, we need to keep in mind who benefits from the influx low-skill, low wage labor into the current US economy. An economist that both Paul Krugman and President Obama undoubtedly have great admiration for explained the following :

“Relative surplus-population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply of labour works.” The availability of labour influences wage rates, and the larger the unemployed workforce grows, the more this forces down wage rates; conversely, if there are plenty jobs available and unemployment is low, this tends to raise the average level of wages—in that case workers are able to change jobs rapidly to get better pay. – Karl Marx, “Wages,” December 1847

So who really gets served by this amnesty being proposed by President Obama? Who really has been served by the entire Goldbama Sachs Presidency? We know whose assets have increased since The Goldman One took office. We know what has happened to the rest of the workforce. In any good piece of detective fiction, the inspector has to ask himself “Qui Bono?” It’s always being run for the 1%. The ones that Barack Obama has helped occupy Wall Street.

In forcing this executive amnesty down the throats of the American People; our president has indeed been a good, little Ivy League radical and read his Karl Marx. It’s just that he uses it as a playbook on how to enrich his billionaire donors rather than a critique on the abuses of unconstrained capital. It’s always the Working Class American who pays in freedom, blood and treasure any time a Liberal “Man of The People” occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Obama’s Executive Action Will Finish Off America
Economic consequences of unilateral amnesty will be a death blow
November 22, 2014 by Kurt Nimmo

Obama’s unconstitutional executive action “to shield millions of undocumented immigrants,” as The New York Times puts it, is a brazen effort to further impoverish the American middle class and convert the country into a third world wasteland.

This reality is ignored by the corporate media as it celebrates Obama’s “landmark” betrayal of the Constitution.

The establishment media fails to point out the obvious: the federal government has merged a huge underclass into the system, specifically the tax system.

Details were spelled out by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller on Thursday. He noted that the legalization of illegals will impose further financial obligations on American taxpayers.

“Illegal immigrants will receive huge payments from American taxpayers under rules now being imposed by President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty,” Munro writes.

He points out statements by Cecilia Munoz, a former immigration lobbyist who is now a top Obama aide. Munoz admitted millions of impoverished and near impoverished Mexican immigrants will become part of the tax system.

Munro cites a study showing that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty.

Once these immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, Munro notes, they will be entitled to Earned Income Tax Credit payments. “A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone,” he writes.

This huge transfer of wealth from productive Americans to a parasitical class of poverty-stricken immigrants will hasten the economic demise of the nation.

Prior to the legalization of illegal immigrants, 49% of Americans received some sort of transfer payment from the government: Social Security, food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children program, unemployment, subsidized housing, railroad retirement, veterans’ benefits, etc.

Obamacare is further exacerbating the situation. “This law is going to financially cripple millions of American families. It truly is a death panel for the U.S. economy,” writes Michael Snyder.

Add to this the $29 trillion given to “too big to fail” banks, and you have a situation that will soon result in economic collapse.

The situation is not happenstance or due to government bungling and ineptitude. It is part of a carefully orchestrated plan to loot the remaining wealth of the country and destroy the middle class.

Obama’s unconstitutional executive action will import Mexico’s political and economic system into the United States — a tiny financial elite lording over millions of desperately poor campesinos.

Rand Paul Blasts Obama Executive Actions, Cites Internment Camps

Obama Announces Immigration Plan – Charles Krauthammer -O’Reilly

Congressman: Obama Has “Gone Rogue”

obama border

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ferguson Grand Jury fails to reach a decision – Two New Black Panther Members Arrested with Explosives Near Ferguson

November 22nd, 2014 By: streiff (Diary)

Via the Washington Times:

The Ferguson, Mo., grand jury considering the indictment of Officer Darren Wilson, who killed teenager Michael Brown during an altercation in August, left the justice center in St. Louis on Friday without reaching a decision.

Sources told CNN on Saturday that it was unclear when the jury would reconvene.

Ferguson grand jury fails to reach decision on Darren Wilson indictment
Ferguson dont burn
‘Just don’t burn my shop down. Don’t destroy it’
November 22, 2014 By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times

The Ferguson, Mo., grand jury considering the indictment of Officer Darren Wilson, who killed teenager Michael Brown during an altercation in August, left the justice center in St. Louis on Friday without reaching a decision.

Sources told CNN on Saturday that it was unclear when the jury would reconvene.

Local business owners are bracing for more looting and vandalism.

Natalie DuBose, owner of Natalie Cakes and More in Ferguson told CNN she has had fewer customers in anticipation of the jury’s decision.

“If I can’t open my doors every morning, I can’t feed my kids in the evening,” said Ms. DuBose, a mother of two said, and asked protesters to spare her shop, the network reported.

“Just don’t burn my shop down. Don’t destroy it,” she pleaded.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard to Ferguson last week as law enforcement prepares for more violence in the streets.

Protesters are already planning to shut down roads in the area after the decision is announced.

Protest groups, schools, and local business have requested a 48-hour advanced notice of the decision, but that request has not been granted.

Community leaders, activists, and the family of the slain teenager, Michael Brown, have asked for calm and peaceful demonstrations.

On Friday President Obama echoed those pleas, urging protesters to follow the rule of law.

“This is a country that allows everybody to express their views, allows them to peacefully assemble, to protest actions that they think are unjust,” Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview broadcast Friday. “But using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are.”

But protesters are still assembling and police arrested three more on Friday after a group blocking traffic refused to move out of the road, CNN reported.

Many of the protests are taking place on West Florissant Avenue, which crosses the road where Mr. Brown was killed by Officer Darren Wilson in August.

One woman told CNN she wishes everyone would just go home.

“I just don’t want more trouble. I live here,” she said.

Two New Black Panther Members Arrested with Explosives Near Ferguson
FBI Arrests 2 Men In Ferguson They Say Were Gathering Weapons
21 Nov 2014 by Dan Riehl

CBS Los Angeles

The FBI arrested two alleged New Black Panther members on Thursday on outstanding warrants, they’re “accused of purchasing explosives they apparently planned to use during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, a law enforcement source told CBS News.”

It’s believed they planned to use the explosives in pipe bombs. The men are said to be from the St. Louis area and were arrested as part of an FBI undercover operation.

The suspects, whose names were not released, were arraigned in federal court on Friday.

The FBI said Friday it has deployed about 100 agents to the St. Louis area ahead of the decision, in case demonstrators take to the streets as they did after Brown’s death.

Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Problems with Benghazi Intelligence Committee Report and Select Committee, Mike Rogers White Wash

Benghazi They Watched Them Die
November 22, 2014

A two-year investigation by the Mike Rogers led House Intelligence Committee in a white wash to protect himself and his wife’s involvement has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Disregarding a series of persistent reports of misconduct, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. According to Rogers Report it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people, even though it was proven that she lied to America then tried to cover it up.

The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

The attacks in Benghazi killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. A Libyan extremist, Ahmed Abu Khatalla, is facing trial on murder charges after he was captured in Libya and taken to the U.S.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Republicans criticized the Obama administration and its then-secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016. People in and out of government have alleged that a CIA response team was ordered to “stand down” after the State Department compound came under attack, that a military rescue was nixed, that officials intentionally downplayed the role of al-Qaida figures in the attack, and that Stevens and the CIA were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels. The Rogers Report stated none of that is true, even though the evidence to refute the report’s findings have been publicly available for some time now and has been reported this blog and other places.

The report did find, however, that the State Department facility where Stevens and Smith were killed was not well-protected, and that State Department security agents knew they could not defend it from a well-armed attack. Previous reports have found that requests for security improvements were not acted upon in Washington.

“We spent thousands of hours asking questions, poring over documents, reviewing intelligence assessments, reading cables and emails, and held a total of 20 committee events and hearings,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the committee’s chairman, and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat, in a joint statement.

“We conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials from Benghazi and Tripoli as well as eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes. Their actions saved lives,” they said.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who serves on the intelligence panel and the Benghazi select committee, said, “It’s my hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again, and that the Benghazi Select Committee will accept these findings and instead focus its attention on the State Department’s progress in securing our facilities around the world and standing up our fast response capabilities.”

Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama’s national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.

But Rice’s comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
The Report CLAIMS: in the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.

“To this day,” the report said, “significant intelligence gaps regarding the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers remain.”

Mike Rogers who retired and did not seek re-election will be a radio talk show host.

Prosecutor of Muslim who Masterminded World Trade Center Attack Slams Chairman of Benghazi Select Committee
October 11, 2014 By Ben Barrack

When it comes to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, there simply cannot be enough healthy skepticism. Those who optimistically assumed the appointment of Rep. Trey Gowdy as Chairman would ensure success are the ones who could use more. In addition to all of the concerns raised early on, the antennae of the man who successfully prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” for his role in the first World Trade Center attack are now going up too.

Benghazi Chairman Gowdy criticized by seasoned prosecutor.

Shortly after the House Select Committee on Benghazi was announced in May, reported on the red flags raised by the hiring of Philip Kiko as the Committee’s Executive Director. Such an appointment came with conflicts of interest that compromised the process. As reported, another conflict of interest could involve the appointment of Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman as chief counsel. The extent of his relationship with Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey – who had a role in the military response to Benghazi – should be thoroughly vetted.

Now, in an article at National Review Andy McCarthy provides additional cause for concern. In particular, he’s critical of Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), both for how slow the process appears to be moving as well as Gowdy’s performance at the first open hearing more than four months after the committee’s formation was announced (the next one isn’t expected until December):

It was the day’s most dramatic exchange: Representative Gowdy was questioning Secretary Starr. The chairman had expertly set the stage by adducing Starr’s agreement that diplomatic security in dangerous places is a cost-benefit analysis. That is, the degree of risk tolerated depends on the government’s calculation of the benefit derived from whatever mission requires an American presence. With his witness thus cornered, Gowdy pounced: There being no more perilous place on the planet for Americans than the jihadist hornet’s nest of Benghazi, he asked Starr,

“We know the risk of being in Benghazi. Can you tell us what our policy was in Libya that overcame those risks? In other words, why were we there?”

Starr tried to dance away, going into a speech about how such questions “have been fundamental to the Department for over thirty years,” and that there have thus been evacuations, removal of family members, reductions of personnel, etc. Gowdy, however, would have none of it — after all, none of the measures Starr listed was taken in Benghazi. So again, the chairman demanded,

“We know the risk in Benghazi. My colleagues and you and others have done a wonderful job of highlighting some of the “trip wires” — I think [that] is the diplomatic term. What policy were we pursuing in Libya that was so great that it overcame all of the trip wires?”

After some hesitation, Secretary Starr meekly replied: “Not being here at the time, sir, I cannot answer that question for you.”


Starr’s job is diplomatic security and, as he conceded, it cannot be done without knowing the administration’s policy objectives. Regardless of what his responsibilities were when the Benghazi massacre occurred, he cannot responsibly do his current job without knowing what the government’s policy was at the time. Libya has been steadily disintegrating ever since the attack — in fact, our embassy in Tripoli recently had to be evacuated just before being stormed and taken over by jihadists. It is inconceivable that Starr does not know what the Libya policy was.

But that is just half the equation. When a knowledgeable witness refuses to answer a critical question, the interrogator does not just let him off the hook. The witness gets grilled: Isn’t it a fact that the policy was X?

Gowdy did not grill Starr. And Gowdy — the chairman who has access to the intelligence the committee has been gathering for five months, the accomplished prosecutor who is not fool enough to ask a key question to which he did not know the answer — did not fill in the information gap. He abruptly ended the hearing, content to leave the policy shrouded in mystery.

Of course, the question Gowdy could have asked at that point is one similar to what Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing early last year, when Paul wanted to know if the U.S. was involved in transferring weapons out of Libya. Applying it to Gowdy, he should have said something to Starr like:

“Is it true that the policy in Benghazi was to procure and transfer weapons to Turkey and then onto Syria?”

That Gowdy did not do so is yet another red flag in the process.

While Gowdy has clearly demonstrated his bonafides as an extremely skilled and courageous prosecutor, climbing the Benghazi truth mountain is a major league test. Yes, he’s been a stellar prosecutor and if any member of Congress can climb that mountain, he’s the best choice. Unfortunately, doing so requires him to go after his own party – hard.

In particular, as has reported, the best way for Gowdy to demonstrate both non-partisanship and a sincere desire to get to the truth, he would depose the outgoing chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and the outgoing ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

For that matter, it would also require Gowdy to depose the man who appointed him as Chairman – Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). This past June, reported on a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch that demand records of briefings about Benghazi issued to eight members of Congress, four of which were the Republicans listed above and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

True Bi-partisanship from Gowdy would involve deposing Republicans Mike Rogers and John Boehner (photo via flickr)

The eight members named in the FOIA appear to be the same eight members identified in a bombshell report by Seymour Hersh, published in April of this year. In his report, Hersh alleges that in early 2012, then CIA Director David Petraeus (someone else Gowdy should depose) ran the logistics of a weapons trafficking operation out of Benghazi. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are alleged to have provided the funding. When the Benghazi attacks happened in September, the ‘rat line’ of weapons leaving the CIA Annex in Benghazi and ultimately to Syria, stopped, which greatly angered Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Based on Hersh’s piece, the eight members of Congress were made aware of this.

As chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees respectively, Rogers and Chambliss are both resigning after their terms end this year. Is this not curious? In particular, Chambliss’s resignation is very much so. If Republicans gain the majority in the Senate, Chambliss would be poised to become chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Gowdy has successfully positioned himself as a tough congressman who places lady justice ahead of partisan politics. If he truly means that, he will be deposing Republican members of Congress.

Being non-partisan should not mean playing nice with the other side; that’s Senator John McCain’s definition. Sometimes, the best way to demonstrate bi-partisanship is to hold your own accountable as well as the other side. Doing the former first would be a great place to start because it would neutralize subsequent cries of partisanship from the other side.

To this point, Gowdy has not chosen that course.

Benghazi Tfernandez
Blood of Benghazi 4
Benghazi sticker

Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Ex-Deputy Nat’l Security Adviser Says President LIED About Islam Being Religion of Peace

Islam How Dare Religion-of-Peace-
November 22, 2014 By Ben Barrack

Former George W. Bush Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams (2005-09) and former Chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (2001-06) squared off recently over the issue of Islam. Abrams had a problem with referring to Islam as a ‘religion of peace’ and said Bush “was lying about the problem” whenever he said it. Gerson took the opposing view.

According to Christian Post:

Two former George W. Bush administration officials, Elliot Abrams and Michael Gerson, debated Monday whether it is appropriate for presidents to call Islam a religion of peace.

“What is authentic Islam? Is ISIS an authentic form of Islam, or is it not? I think it’s very important that the United States government shut-up about that question,” Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, declared at the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Faith Angle Forum.

“It used to annoy me enormously when President [George W.] Bush, for whom I was working, would say, ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’” continued Abrams, who served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser.

As the article points out, that comment about Bush referring to Islam as a religion of peace very well may have been a shot at Gerson specifically. Here is Bush inside the Islamic Center of Washington on September 17, 2001, just six days after America was attacked. At the time, Gerson was the head of of Bush’s speech writing team:

Just three days earlier – on September 14th – Bush delivered a speech attributed to Gerson. It was inside the Washington National Cathedral, as reported. While Gerson may or may not have had anything to do with the extremely ill-advised decision to have Bush speak there (because he did so alongside Muzammil Siddiqi, the President of the largest Muslim Brotherhood group in the U.S. at the time), Gerson is credited with writing Bush’s speech that day:

Asked to cite his favorite addresses, Mr. Gerson pointed to those that immediately followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, specifically a line from an address given three days afterward, at the National Cathedral: “Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end. And the Lord of life holds all who die, and all who mourn.”

As proud as Gerson may have been with that excerpt, he and anyone involved should have been ashamed that Muzammil Siddiqi spoke from the pulpit of the Cathedral that day. You can watch the video here (Siddiqi takes the pulpit at about the 1 hour mark, just after “America the Beautiful” is sung), go to:

Leader of largest Muslim Brotherhood group in the U.S. at National Cathedral on 9/14/01.

William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition (RFC), was in attendance that day and wrote the following about the experience:

My stomach churned as I watched Muzammil Siddiqi, the Imam for the Islamic Society of North America, stand on stage with President George W. Bush in the National Cathedral. Imam Siddiqi is a radical extremist who has participated in anti-American demonstrations in front of the White House as recently as October of 2000. He has in the past called for a Jihad or holy war against this nation. While the Christian and Jewish leaders at the event prayed for our nation and for the dead and dying from the attack, Imam Siddiqi did not do so. At no time did he condemn the acts of the terrorists nor did he pray for America or for the families of those who lost their lives in the Jihad attack against the United States.

Instead of pointing to that speech as one of his favorites, Gerson may have been better served by resigning instead of agreeing to write it. It can be argued that the decision to have Bush and ISNA President Muzammil Siddiqi share the pulpit that day helped set the stage for the recent Muslim prayer service inside that Cathedral on November 14th of this year. Siddiqi’s successor with ISNA – Mohammed Magid – issued the Islamic call to prayer from the pulpit.

Here is Siddiqi’s speech from a Christian Cathedral, with Bush in the audience, just THREE DAYS AFTER 9/11:

If Obama “evolved” on gay marriage, the National Cathedral certainly “evolved” on the issue of Muslim inclusiveness.

Back to the debate between Gerson and Abrams, which took place just three days after that Muslim prayer service…

The “real response” to Bush, and later President Barack Obama, declaring the Islam is a religion of peace, he said, should be “where is their theology degree from?”

“For American government officials to be telling Muslims, ‘I know real Islam’ … is ridiculous,” he added. “… It would be an outrage about Judaism and Christianity as well. … For government officials who are 99 percent Christians to be trying to find what is authentic in Islam seems to me to be a fool’s errand.”

Abrams’ comments came during the question and answer session and were not part of his prepared remarks. The whole session lasted about three hours and he made similar remarks later in the session in response to another reporter’s question.

When presidents say Islam is a religion of peace, “the average American thinks this is crap,” he said, because the average American reasons that “the only people doing the beheadings are Muslims, so don’t tell me it’s all wonderful.”

To Abrams’ point, the Caliph of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies, which makes him far more qualified to determine what Islam truly is than any Christian, stealth jihadist (or Obama) who asserts that al-Baghdadi is not practicing the real Islam and that his group is “not Islamic”, as Obama stated in a speech earlier this year:

Gerson doesn’t appear to have learned anything and doubled down on the same mentality that would have Bush speak alongside a Muslim Brotherhood President inside a Christian Cathedral and then declare “Islam is Peace” three days later from inside a Mosque. After Abrams clearly implied that Gerson made Bush a liar, Gerson responded with a ridiculously absurd morally equivalent argument directed at Nigerian Christians:

By calling Islam a “religion of peace” after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Abrams said, Bush was “basically lying about the problem,” because, … the terrorists “view themselves as good Muslims.”

“How is that exclusively a problem with Islam?” Gerson responded, then mentioned other religious groups, such as Christians in Nigeria, who commit violence in the name of their faith.

That is beyond irresponsible from Gerson. His assertion that Christians in Nigeria – who are fighting for their very existence against Boko Haram – are on equal footing with terrorists, is despicable. As has reported, Nigerian Christians are being slaughtered mercilessly by Muslims under the Boko Haram banner.

George W. Bush and ISNA President Siddiqi on 9/14/01 at National Cathedral.

Earlier this year, hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram and most – if not all – have already been sold to Muslims. It was the inspiration for the grossly inept #BringBackOurGirls campaign (which was really about distracting Americans from news about the House Select Committee on Benghazi). Would Gerson object to Nigerian Christians or the families of those kidnapped girls slaughtering their captors?

Any acts of violence perpetrated by Christians in Nigeria are in self-defense and should be lauded, not chided.

Gerson is a fool.

Note: Gerson was recruited to the Bush campaign in 1999 by none other than Karl Rove. Perhaps even more so than Gerson, Rove is responsible for the political strategy of reaching out to Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Siddiqi. It was Rove who welcomed Siddiqi and other such leaders into the Oval Office on September 26, 2001, less than two weeks after Bush’s speech alongside Siddiqi at the National Cathedral.

Quoting from an article in the New American:

…sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush’s new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”

In addition to Abrams’ implication that Gerson made Bush a liar, Rove clearly implicated himself as one.

Here is the link to the video of the entire 9/14/01 Ceremony at the National Cathedral:


Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Giving thanks for the counter-jihad network

Diana West appreciates those who carefully covered National Cathedral service
cathedral mosque
Nov 21, 2014 by Diana West

I am giving special thanks this year for the hard work of patriots who toil without recompense to expose the many vectors of Islamic subversion currently eroding the already hollowed-out institutions of Western society.

To this end, I will tell a story about a story. It concerns the first Muslim prayer service ever held at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. As I wrote last week, this weirdly “invitation-only” service, which took place on Friday, Nov. 14, gathered representatives of Muslim groups with proven links to Hamas and to Hamas’ parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood. This means that, however briefly, jihad-linked groups took over the National Cathedral, where presidents and other great Americans have lain in state. These terror links led some media to label the event overall a “Muslim Brotherhood event,” or an “Islamist” or “extremist” event. As the service itself demonstrated, however, it was all strictly Islamic.

How do I know that? Not from 24/7 media, national or local. Not from the armies of think tanks that occupy Washington and its environs. Not from religious or political leaders, either. No professional organization with experts or a newsroom that I am aware of bothered to analyze the Muslim service at the National Cathedral, even though it was live-streamed on the Internet and available to all.

I am able to tell you about the contents of the service only thanks to the incredible international counter-jihad movement. This movement lives and breathes in the ether of the Internet, on an array of blogs, on YouTube. This case of Islam at the cathedral shows how the network works.

First, the blog Vlad Tepes captured the streaming footage of the 80-minute Muslim service. Next, Arabic translator Rita Malik assessed the English and Arabic service for Gates of Vienna and provided a summary that was posted there. Enter Islamic expert Andrew Bostom, author of several indispensable books on Islamic jihad, anti-Semitism and Islamic totalitarianism, who analyzed several of the Quranic verses used in the service by consulting some of the essential Quranic commentaries Muslims use to understand their religious book. Bostom posted his findings at his blog,

Finally, Gates of Vienna and Vlad Tepes compressed everything to create a watchable, educational YouTube video of four and a half minutes. (As a bonus, Gates of Vienna also posted the short video’s transcript.) Soon, the video was mirrored at other counter-jihad sites, such as the Scandinavian blog Tundra Tabloids and Denmark’s

Swift and seamless volunteer operations like this keep anyone informed who wants to be informed. For their extremely hard work, I am truly thankful.

What exactly did the Muslims preach from their mock-up mosque inside the cathedral far from Christian symbols and imagery save one cross that Muslim worshippers literally turned their back upon? Last week, I mentioned some Quranic verses denigrating Jews and Christians that are typically part of Islamic prayer sessions. One of these, Quran 1:7, was indeed in the main sermon by South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool.

More shocking, however, was the inclusion of Quran 3:26-27. Addressing Allah, this verse sequence begins: “Possessor of the kingdom, You give the kingdom to whom You will, and You take the kingdom from whom You will, and You endure with honour whom You will, and You humiliate whom You will.”

Sounds like the invocation of an all-powerful deity, right? Nothing much to raise the hackles on a passing infidel – unless, that is, he is consulting the Quranic commentaries as Andrew Bostom did.

At his blog, Bostom explains that these lines, as explicated by authoritative Quranic commentaries, contain an inherent threat of jihad conquest. Bostom shows that classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir (1300-1373) and Al-Suyuti (1445-1505) are in accord on the historical context in which these verses were, as Muslims believe, “revealed” by Allah.

Ibn Kathir relates them to a time when Allah was said to have prepared to allow Muslims “to reach the eastern and western parts of the world and (give) dominance to his religion (Islam) and law (Shariah) over all other religions and laws.” Similarly, Al-Suyuti pegs them to a promise to Muslims conveyed by Muhammad of “sovereignty over Persia and Byzantium” – in other words, sovereignty over Zoroastrians (Persia) and Christians (Byzantium). It is difficult not to notice that these same ancient lands overlap or abut the current ISIS battlefield.

For a 20th-century gloss, Bostom cites the noted Quranic commentary by Maulana Muhammad Shafi (1897-1976), a prolific Islamic scholar and former grand mufti of India. Of these same verses, Shafi writes: “In these verses, Muslims have been taught and prompted to make a particular prayer which, in a subtle way, gives an indication that they are going to overpower disbelievers.”

Overpower disbelievers?

Shafi points out that these same lines “so eloquently (bring) into focus the most perfect power of Allah as it manifests itself in the rise and fall of nations and in revolutions that rock countries. … Here, enemies of Islam have been warned that they have not learned their lesson from the rise and fall of past wielders of power.”

Enemies of Islam have been warned? Episcopalians can call this “ecumenism,” but it sure sounds like jihad to me. Now, at least, we all know it.

Radical Islam
Wake Up Islam Jihad Muslim

Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Push, Pull, Come Along Side

This 2013 Christmas message seems to be good for today also
December 3, 2013

I recently walked into a store that had signs on door saying Push Pull – on the inside and outside of the same door. The instructions are confusing as they present two opposite commands at the same time, now you have to decide which command is better. Ever feel like you’re being pulled in opposite directions at the same time, now that is stressful.

This time of year can accentuate feelings of being pulled in opposite directions and not having enough time to get everything accomplished, increasing stress. We take great pleasure in finding the right gift for that someone special even though that creates stress.

Today’s life is full of hassles, deadlines, frustrations, and demands. For many people, stress is so commonplace that it is a way of life. Stress isn’t always bad. In small doses, it can help you perform under pressure and motivate you to do your best. But when you’re constantly running in emergency mode, your mind and body pay the price. You can protect yourself by recognizing the signs and symptoms of stress and taking steps to reduce its harmful effects.

The stress response is the body’s way of protecting you. When working properly, it helps you stay focused, energetic, and alert. In emergency situations, stress can save your life—giving you extra strength to defend yourself, for example, or spurring you to slam on the brakes to avoid an accident.

The stress response also helps you rise to meet challenges. Stress is what keeps you on your toes during a presentation at work, sharpens your concentration when you’re attempting the game-winning free throw, or drives you to study for an exam when you’d rather be watching TV.

Beyond a certain point, stress stops being helpful and starts causing major damage to your health, your mood, your productivity, your relationships, and your quality of life.

In today’s spiraling downward world economy many people will not be able to enjoy Christmas as they have or would like to, which can be harmful stress to your body. How you react and manage yourself in that situation will make all the difference in the world to your health.

A study performed by the American Psychological Association indicated that Americans, particularly women, are more likely to experience increased stress during the holidays [1]. The same study also indicated that people are more likely to engage in comfort eating or sedentary activities like watching TV to manage their stress. I would suggest simply pushing away from the table, desk, or TV and go out for a walk. You’d be surprised when a little fresh air and exercise will do you.

You have something to give that won’t cost a lot, won’t create a lot of harmful stress and which can put a smile on your and someone else’s face. Whether you see their smile or receive a thank you or not, you’ll notice your stress has been reduced and you’ll experience joy – which is not the same as happiness. The prescription is simple: give of yourself and do something nice for someone else while not expecting anything in return. As you do something nice for someone else while not expecting anything in return you will not feel like you are being pulled in opposite directions, rather that you have come along side the person you are helping…

Many years ago a large family faced a prospect of no Christmas dinner and no presents for any of the children. A few days before Christmas three grocery bags were discovered on the porch by the front door. The bags contained a turkey and plenty of food for a grateful Christmas meal as well as several full books of S&H Green Stamps which provided the gifts. The greater gift given that Christmas to the anonymous giver and the grateful family is joy. The ones who received that grateful gift of joy are still paying it forward. For a brief moment in time the anonymous giver and the grateful family came along side each other, stress relived, and burdens were lifted.

Merry Christmas from our house to yours.

It would appear that MB Obama is not trying to come along side but rather tear our nation apart.

1] Berktold, Jennifer. Greenberg, Anna. “Holiday Stress”. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from on December 2, 2013.

Clipart by Dennis Cox:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO An Imperial Presidency: Releases 4 More GITMO – Secretly extends US combat operation in Afghanistan

Obama bummer
Obama Administration Defiantly Releases More Gitmo Detainees
“What the Obama Administration is doing is dangerous and, frankly, reckless.”
November 22, 2014 by Bradford Thomas | Truth Revolt |

Nearly lost amidst the turmoil over President Obama’s historic unilateral action on immigration Thursday was yet another act of defiance by the administration. Despite requests from Republicans to stop any further transfers of Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees, the administration signaled Thursday that they wouldrelease four al Qaeda fighters from Yemen, including a “senior figure” in the organization, and one extremist from Tunisia.

These most recent transfers come in spite of reports of previously released detainees joining the Islamic State and increased pressure from Republicans to stop what they deem to be potentially dangerous to U.S. interests.

In a written response issued Thursday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman and vocal critic of the administration Buck McKeon (R-CA) called the administration’s actions “dangerous” and “reckless” and said that he has contacted Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to express his frustration over “a new swell of recidivism”:

“As long as detainees are rejoining the battlefield, these transfers must stop.

“I have written to Secretary Hagel expressing my frustration and great concern over a new swell of recidivism. If just one U.S. soldier loses their life over these transfers, we will have failed in our duty to the American people.

“What the Obama Administration is doing is dangerous and, frankly, reckless. They have chosen many times to put politics above national security. It’s time they stop playing with fire and start doing what’s right. Until we can assure the terrorists stay off the battlefield, they must stay behind bars.”

McKeon had written Hagel in late October requesting that the administration stop transfers. In a Nov. 13 committee hearing, McKeon confronted Hagel on the issue. Clearly his efforts did not deter the administration’s plans to chip away at the number of Gitmo detainees. The transfers leave 143 detainees in the facility the president once vowed to close.

Obama secretly extends US combat operation in Afghanistan
President Barack Obama has secretly signed an order that expands the United States’ direct combat role in Afghanistan throughout 2015, the New York Times reported
November 22, 2014 by RT

President Barack Obama has secretly signed an order that expands the United States’ direct combat role in Afghanistan throughout 2015, the New York Times reported.

Signed over the last few weeks, the secret order permits American forces to continue to battle the Taliban and other militants that pose a threat to either the Afghan government or US personnel. According to the Times, US jets, bombers, and drones will be able to aid ground troops – be they Afghan or US forces – in whatever mission they undertake.

Under the order, ground troops could join Afghan troops on missions, and airstrikes could be carried out in their support.

If true, this marks a significant expansion of America’s role in Afghanistan in 2015. Previously, President Obama said US forces would not be involved in combat operations once the new year begins. He did say troops would continue training Afghan forces and track down remaining Al-Qaeda members.

Obama signed the secret order after tense debates within the administration. The military reportedly argued that it would allow the US to keep the pressure on the Taliban and other groups should details emerge that they are planning to attack American troops. Civilian aides, meanwhile, said the role of combat troops should be limited to counter-terror missions against Al-Qaeda.

The Times said an administration official painted the secret order’s authorization as a win for the military, but another said the US would not carry out “offensive missions” against the Taliban in 2015.

“We will no longer target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban,” the official said. “To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to Al Qaeda, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.”

The change in direction came as the administration faces pointed criticism from those who say the US withdrew from Iraq too quickly, allowing the so-called Islamic State to make rapid gains in a country whose military proved to be easily intimidated and defeated.

Meanwhile, new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has a much softer position on the US presence in his country compared to his predecessor Hamid Karzai. Ghani reportedly asked the US to keep battling the Taliban into 2015. He also removed restrictions against US airstrikes and joint raids that were implemented by Karzai.

It appears that the number of troops that will be operating in Afghanistan next year will remain unchanged from previous plans. There will be 9,800 soldiers left throughout next year, and that number will be cut in half by the end of the year.

By the end of 2016, the remaining troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan, ending the US military presence in the country.

An Imperial Presidency
November 21, 2014

A new video released by the GOP on Friday calls out former Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for her hypocrisy on the issue of executive action.

In 2008, Clinton said the George W. Bush administration was transforming the executive branch into an “imperial presidency.” In 2014, Clinton said she supported President Obama’s decision to grant citizenship to more than four million illegal immigrants.

Clinton unknowingly provided the narration for the GOP’s newest video.

“Unfortunately our current president does not seem to understand the basic character of the office he holds,” Clinton said of Bush in April 2008. “Rather than faithfully execute the laws, he has rewritten them through signing statements, ignored them through secret legal opinions, undermined them by elevating ideology over facts. Rather than defending the constitution, he has defied its principles and traditions.”

Eerily enough, Clinton’s jab at Bush more than six years ago is equally true of Obama today. Nevertheless, Clinton has continued to adhere to the Democratic party line and support the president as he takes “unconstitutional” action (his words) to advance his own progressive agenda.

“He has abused his power while failing to understand its purpose,” Clinton said in 2008. “This administration’s unbridled ambition to transform the executive into an imperial presidency in an attempt to strengthen the office has weakened our nation.”

“Stop the Obama-Clinton Immigration Overreach,” the ad implores.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments