Saturday, February 28, 2015


We are being duped by our own pResident and RINOs. IMAM OBAMA WANTS WAR POWERS … Did the Caliphate really exist on it's own legs, before Obama, or did the puppet Imam Obama help it to exist? Kiss the 2016 elections good-bye.
Obama destabilizes countries. Supports Hamas against Israel, Removes Mubarak for Muslim Brotherhood, Qaddafi for Al Qaeda … wanted to take out Assad for ISIS … do we see a pattern! And we are not even talking about how he bends over backwards for all the Dictators around the World! His motive is to punish America and control it … much like Bill Ayers and his ilk wanted decades ago!

The Sunni Caliphate Master Plan includes:

1. Expand Sunni control by any means necessary
2. Remove sectarian Middle East government
3. Get Iran and Israel into a nuclear conflict
4. Mop up the mess and claim a Sunni Caliphate under the NWO control.
5. Crash the world economy and claim the NWO will bring peace.
6. It will not fly among armed citizens but lots of people will die just like the last time it was tried

Turkey is a NATO member and will call for NATO help when the Russians support Syria. The Russians do not want the pipeline. The Saudi's and Turkey both want the pipeline through Syria. The Russians will not give up their only warm water Navy port in Targus, Syria.

A Steady stream of unrelenting reports from the region say it's not a bluff. Bibi himself is directly discussing this publicly, Bibi's preparing to engage. No way he can allow Iranian troops and their weapons systems on Israel's border, that just ain't gonna happen. I think Jarrett has green lighted Iran to do this ahead of the deal's signing. I firmly believe Iran has a new ally, America. Israel in return acquires a new enemy, America! Welcome to "one nation under the Brotherhood and Allah," mirage'd as Alice in Wonderland.

Friday, February 27, 2015




Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Knew from First Minutes that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack, E-mails Disclose

Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame …
From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility.

These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 

The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously.

At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials.


About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related:

15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.
At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack:

Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”
Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack.
I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m.— minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after 
Secretary Clinton’s testimony.  As I’ve also previously detailed (see here and here), Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi.
Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists. An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed.
At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media. At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being.

The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.”

Thursday, February 26, 2015


As a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for President Barack Obama, I am appalled that some Democratic members of Congress are planning to boycott the speech of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3 to a joint session of Congress. At bottom, this controversy is not mainly about protocol and politics -- it is about the constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers.
Under the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches share responsibility for making and implementing important foreign-policy decisions. Congress has a critical role to play in scrutinizing the decisions of the president when these decisions involve national security, relationships with allies and the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Congress has every right to invite, even over the president's strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program. Indeed, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who probably knows more about this issue than any world leader, because it threatens the very existence of the nation state of the Jewish people.
Congress has the right to disagree with the prime minister, but the idea that some members of Congress will not give him the courtesy of listening violates protocol and basic decency to a far greater extent than anything Mr. Netanyahu is accused of doing for having accepted an invitation from Congress. 

FILE - In this Jan. 14, 2015 file picture US Secretary of State John Kerry, left, listens to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, as they walk in the city of Geneva, Switzerland, during a bilateral meeting ahead of nuclear discussions. (Martial Trezzini/AP)
"...a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability." "Where it once aimed to eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, the administration now appears ready to accept an infrastructure of thousands of Iranian centrifuges." For full report, link here:

Recall that President Obama sent Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby Congress with phone calls last month against conditionally imposing new sanctions on Iran if the deal were to fail. What the president objects to is not that Mr. Netanyahu will speak to Congress, but the content of what he intends to say. This constitutes a direct intrusion on the power of Congress and on the constitutional separation of powers.

Not only should all members of Congress attend Mr. Netanyahu's speech, but President Obama -- as a constitutional scholar -- should urge members of Congress to do their constitutional duty of listening to opposing views in order to check and balance the policies of the administration.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Speaker John Boehner's decision to invite Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Netanyahu's decision to accept, no legal scholar can dispute that Congress has the power to act independently of the president in matters of foreign policy. Whether any deal with Iran would technically constitute a treaty requiring Senate confirmation, it is certainly treaty-like in its impact. Moreover, the president can't implement the deal without some action or in action by Congress.

Congress also has a role in implementing the president's promise -- made on behalf of our nation as a whole -- that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That promise seems to be in the process of being broken, as reports in the media and Congress circulate that the deal on the table contains a sunset provision that would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons after a certain number of years.

Once it became clear that Iran will eventually be permitted to become a nuclear-weapon power, it has already become such a power for practical purposes. The Saudis and the Arab emirates will not wait until Iran turns the last screw on its nuclear bomb. As soon as this deal is struck, with its sunset provision, these countries would begin to develop their own nuclear-weapon programs, as would other countries in the region. If Congress thinks this is a bad deal, it has the responsibility to act.

Another reason members of Congress should not boycott Mr. Netanyahu's speech is that support for Israel has always been a bipartisan issue. The decision by some members to boycott Israel's prime minister endangers this bipartisan support. This will not only hurt Israel but will also endanger support for Democrats among pro-Israel voters. I certainly would never vote for or support a member of Congress who walked out on Israel's prime minister.

One should walk out on tyrants, bigots and radical extremists, as the U.S. did when Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and called for Israel's destruction at the United Nations. To use such an extreme tactic against our closest ally, and the Middle East's only vibrant democracy, is not only to insult Israel's prime minister but to put Israel in a category in which it does not belong.

So let members of Congress who disagree with the prime minister's decision to accept Speaker Boehner's invitation express that disagreement privately and even publicly, but let them not walk out on a speech from which they may learn a great deal and which may help them prevent the president from making a disastrous foreign-policy mistake. Inviting a prime minister of an ally to educate Congress about a pressing foreign-policy decision is in the highest tradition of our democratic system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School and theauthor of "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas" (Rosetta Books, 2014).


“Jihadi John” identified by intelligence officials as … a wealthy dilettante

So much for the jobs program. The ISIS terrorist who became known as “Jihadi John” for his British accent in videos depicting the brutal beheading of Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff has been identified today by the Washington Post as Mohammed Emwazi, based on information from intelligence sources. Emwazi’s life was hardly Dickensian:
The world knows him as “Jihadi John,” the masked man with a British accent who has beheaded several hostages held by the Islamic State and who taunts audiences in videos circulated widely online.
QUESTIONS ON ‘JIHADI JOHN’    British authorities came under mounting pressure Friday to explain how they let ’Jihadi John’ the militant who would become the symbol of Islamic State brutality, slip from their grasp when he had been on their radar for years. Prime Minister David Cameron defended the country’s security services, saying they have to make difficult judgment calls. However, security analysts said questions would need to be answered about how Mohammed Emwazi, a university-educated West Londoner, was transformed into the menacing masked figure featured in beheading videos, and how he was able to travel to Syria around 2013 when intelligence officials had suspected since at least 2009 that he had links to extremists. 
But his real name, according to friends and others familiar with his case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming. He is believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined the Islamic State, the group whose barbarity he has come to symbolize. …
The Kuwaiti-born Emwazi, in his mid-20s, appears to have left little trail on social media or elsewhere online. Those who knew him say he was polite and had a penchant for wearing stylish clothes while adhering to the tenets of his Islamic faith. He had a beard and was mindful of making eye contact with women, friends said.

He was raised in a middle-class neighborhood in London and on occasion prayed at a mosque in Greenwich.

World News Videos | US News Videos
British intelligence had identified him as a risk as far back as 2009, when they stopped Emwazi from traveling to Somalia to join al-Shabaab. After getting kicked out of Dar es Salaam, he and two others were sent to Amsterdam, where MI-5 detained and questioned him. They let him return to the UK, though, where Emwazi’s radicalization continued. A year later, they stopped him from going to Kuwait. Two years after that, Emwazi found his way out of the UK and into Syria.

It doesn’t appear that the catalyst for Emwazi was grinding poverty, in other words, and a jobs program wouldn’t have had much impact on him. The cause of Emwazi’s “violent extremism” was his adoption of radical Islam, and the lure of jihad overseas — first in Somalia, and then in Syria.

The British are hardly alone in this problem. ABC News’ Brian Ross reports on the hunt for the terrorist who led the slaughter of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt, purportedly on the shores of Libya. The masked terrorist called the location “south of Rome,” and the way he said it has intelligence experts pretty sure he’s an American:

World News Videos | US News Videos

The accent is clearly American. It will be interesting to see if ISIS Joe was as well known to American counterterrorism officials as Jihadi John was to our British counterparts.

Related Posts:
Good news: FBI is investigating ISIS aspirants in all 50 states
NBC’s Richard Engel: ISIS ‘effectively taking over’ Libya
ISIS captures dozens of Christians in Syria

Monday, February 23, 2015


Giuliani Destroys Obama in Epic Speech: Netanyahu Is 'A Man Who Fights for His People, Unlike Our President' 


Who Are the Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Leaders Obama Met?  Follow the links in this post and get a real education on what the MSM won't tell the American people about OBAMA!
The White House has released the names of senior American Muslim leaders that President Obama met with personally last week. The list of names was included on the transcript of the White House daily press briefing on Thursday, despite journalists having requested the information much sooner. Prior to that, the White House had refused to name the leaders.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with the President meeting with representatives from any faith community and with the Muslim community in particular. Yet some of the individuals who met with the President have alarming links to the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations that have funded terrorism.

Azhar Azeez represented the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in the talks with Obama. Declassified FBI documents show that ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group as early as 1987 and its past leaders include Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who was convicted on terrorism related charges in 2004.

In 2007, ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity shut down by the U.S. government for financing Hamas. The U.S. Department of Justice listed ISNA as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Mr. Azeez is also the senior National Director of Islamic Relief USA, the American branch of Islamic Relief worldwide. The United Arab Emirates lists Islamic Relief Worldwide as a terrorist organization. Israel also banned Islamic Relief from operating in the disputed territories it administers, accusing it of funding Hamas.

According to the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs “The IRW provides support and assistance to Hamas’s infrastructure. The IRW’s activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by Hamas operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further Hamas’s ideology among the Palestinian population.”

Five senior members of Islamic Relief USA were named in a list of 30 Muslim Brotherhood operatives in America by the leading Egyptian newspaper El-Watan.

Azeez’s bio also says he is a founder and past president of the Dallas/Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR is also listed as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

Imam Mohamed Magid is the President of the Islamic Society of North America and head of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society ( ADAMS) Center, in which capacity he met with the President. The ADAMS Center was investigated by the FBI for connections to terrorism funding and was raided in 2004 by federal agents.

Mohamed Magid signed a letter in September 2014 alongside other Islamist leaders which condemned the Islamic Statewhile asserting the need for an Islamic Caliphate and supporting the hududpunishments of sharia law, which include amputation, flogging and the execution of apostates. The letter said that a person could only be regarded as an apostate if the person “openly declares disbelief.”

Azhar Azeez also signed the aforementioned letter. Among the other signatories to that letter was terrorist supporting Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, who in the past endorsed a fatwa that authorized the killing of US soldiers. He also said that giving donations to jihadists who fight Israel count as zakatand said as recently as 2013 that Muslim leaders should give Hamas financial and military assistance to fight Israel. Bin Bayyah was cited by Obama in an address to the UN in September 2014 as a Muslim leader who supports peace.

Hoda Hawa is National Policy Advisor of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of which, Mather Hathout, served jail time in Egypt for his membership in the group.

In 2001 the then President of MPAC said that Israel should be included on the suspect list of those who might have perpetrated 9/11. MPAC cooperated with other Muslim-Brotherhood aligned groups to oppose the appointment of Muslim anti-Islamist activist Dr. Zudhi Jasser to the U.S. Commission on International Freedom.

MPAC co-founder Mather Hathout has also made statements in the past in support of Lebanese Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah.

They also have a very limited following. A 2011 Gallup poll found that only 6% of Muslim-American males and 1% of females chose MPAC as the organization that most represents their interests, even though MPAC has large resources and has been around since 1988.

Also present was Rahat Hussain, president of the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) . The UMAA received thousands of dollars from the Alavi Foundation, an Iranian propaganda front group, from 2005 onwards. Clarion Project discovered that they received at least $138,000 from the Alavi Foundationbetween 2005 and 2012. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigations chief, Adam Kaufmann, said “We found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation.”

The British Government is set this week to launch a major clampdown on Muslim Brotherhood front groups and the funding of terrorism after lengthy investigations found multiple Muslim Brotherhood entities operating within the country.

Yet in America the State Department received a delegation from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The meetings were described as “fruitful” by one of the delegates. The State Department, after facing criticism for the meeting, then doubled down on their decision to do so in a later press briefing.

This is while Brotherhood representatives in Turkey are calling for violence on the streets in Egypt, saying “we are now in the retaliation phase.” At the same time, a Brotherhood TV station based in Turkey broadcast a threat to all foreigners in Egypt that they must flee the country or face being targeted by terrorist attacks, while another Muslim Brotherhood figure said “It is time to begin armed insurrection.”

Given that these American Muslim leaders have highly problematic connections to Muslim Brotherhood front groups, why are they being given access to meet the President personally, especially when one takes into account the presence of genuine anti-Islamist Muslim leaders like Dr. Zudhi Jasser who are denied such opportunities?

Is it any wonder then, as Khaled Abu Toameh wrote for the Gatestone Institute, that the USA is currently viewed in the Middle East as an ally of terrorism?

Elliot Friedland is a research fellow for the Clarion Project.

Sunday, February 22, 2015


Egypt's Sisi: Muslim Brotherhood & ISIS – Same Ideology

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has conducted an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel in which he called the Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhoodessentially one and the same and reiterated his call for a sweeping reform of religious ideas.

Asked whether the Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood posed the greater threat, he responded, “They both share the same ideology. But the Muslim Brotherhood is the origin of all of it. All these other [Sunni] extremists emanated from them.”

He also tackled Islamismdirectly, saying, “I propose removing wrong and distorted ideas from the religious discourse.” This echoed his speech to Al-Azhar University, the pre-eminent seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world in which he called on the clerics to challenge the ideology behind global jihadism. He told the clerics, “We need to revolutionize our religion.”

Al-Azhar’s clerics have so far responded tepidly to his overtures. They issued a statement after the immolation of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassabeh by the Islamic State forbidding burning people alive.

Head of al-Azhar, SheikhAhmed al-Tayib stated that, “Islam forbids killing of the innocent human soul ... It forbids mutilating the human soul by burning or in any other way even during wars against an enemy that attacks you.”

Sheikh al-Tayib also said the action of ISIS in burning Moaz al-Kassabeh “requires the punishment mentioned in the Koran for these corrupt oppressors who fight against God and his prophet: killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs.”

In the wide-ranging Der Spiegelinterview, el-Sisi was asked many difficult questions concerning his human rights record. He defended the killings at the Rabaa mosque in which at least 650 supporters of ousted Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammed Morsi were killed. He argued that, “The number of victims at Rabaa could have been 10 times higher if the people had stormed the square.”

He also blamed the inferior quality of Egyptian police training. In answer to accusations that Germany’s police would have acted differently, he responded: “I am not ashamed to admit that there is a civilizational gap between us and you. The police and people in Germany are civilized and have a sense of responsibility. German police are equipped with the latest capabilities and get the best training. And in your country, protesters would not use weapons in the middle of the demonstrations to target police.”

He dismissed a question about the maltreatment of human rights activists who were instrumental in the 2011 revolution. Ahmed Maher, Mohammed Adel and Ahmed Duma were all founders of the April 6 Movement in the early days of the revolution but are now serving three years apiece for violating a new protest law.

He stated that the judiciary is independent, although he admitted he has the power to issue presidential amnesties.

Dodging questions about human rights, he instead focused on the importance of stability in Egypt.

His statements in this interview tally with the speech he gave at the end of January in which he declared war to the death against Islamist militants in the Sinai and vowed to crush them.


A Brain is a Terrible Thing to Waste. Fifty shades of stupid hiding behind a predisposition of liberal prejudice.  

So Marie Harf, the genius behind the “jobs for jihadis” plan, apparently wrote back in college that us conservative evangelicals loving Israel makes US foreign policy more difficult or something:
DAILY CALLER – State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf wrote her college honors thesis on “how conservative evangelical support for Israel complicates U.S. foreign policy,” according to Indiana University records.
Harf’s thesis further illustrates the collegiate thinking in an Obama administration that has alienated a key American ally in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Harf, 33, previously worked on Obama’s 2012 campaign.
These people are a joke. She was blaming everyone else before she even got a job in the Obama administration.



Abolish the filibuster … and get on with it!
"I’ve been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason. No more clinging to constitutional and procedural restraint. It’s time to go nuclear." - Charles Krauthammer
In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend.

Republicans find themselves on the sidelines bleating plaintively about violations of the separation of powers. They thought they found an instrument of resistance in funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The House has funded the whole department except for the immigration service, which was denied the money to implement Obama’s executive amnesty.

But Democrats have filibustered the bill in the Senate, where it will die. And as the night follows day, Republicans, not the filibustering Democrats, will be blamed for shutting down DHS and jeopardizing the nation’s safety at a time of heightened international terrorism. 

A nice cul-de-sac. But there is a way out for the GOP. Go bold. Go nuclear. Abolish the filibuster. Pass the bill and send it to the president.
I know that breaks a lot of china. But Congress is already knee-deep in fractured porcelain. On policy, Obama has repeatedly usurped congressional power, most egregiously with an executive amnesty for illegal immigrants that for four years he himself had insisted was unlawful (a view given significant support this week in a federal district court).

As for procedure, then-majority leader Reid (D-Nev.) went nuclear in November 2013 when he abolished the filibuster for presidential appointees and judicial nominees (below the Supreme Court). He did it to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with liberals. The nation’s liberal chorus cheered. “Elections are supposed to have consequences,” read one typical commentary. “It was time to push the button.” Boom.

My beef with Reid was not what he did but how he did it. The filibuster has grown in use and power over the decades to the point of dysfunction. Everything needed 60 votes. This is relatively new and nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
My problem was the egregious way Reid changed the rule: by a simple majority, 52-48, with zero Republicans onboard (and three Democrats defecting). As I wrote at the time, “If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules.”
I was not the only one to warn that Democrats would rue the day. Once you go nuclear, so can the other guy.
Reid went first. Time for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to finish the job. Push the button. Abolish the filibuster.
Then immediately pass the House homeland security bill and send it to the president. He is likely to veto it, but the politics will have been radically changed. The current story line is: Republican Congress won’t fund DHS, threatening to shut it down. New story line: Obama vetoes funding for DHS, threatening to shut it down.

The latter narrative is more accurate: Democrats are stopping the funding. Moreover, a presidential veto would lead to a more fair allocation of blame. And it’s blame allocation that determines which side blinks first. The president will have a major incentive to find some face-saving finesse.

But filibuster abolition is more than a one-shot proposition. It would radically change the next two years. It would give Republicans full control of the Congress and allow swift passage of a GOP agenda.

It would also clarify the antagonists: a lawless president vs. a willful Congress. The GOP could be sending bill after bill to the president’s desk — on tax reform, trade, Obamacare and, if it has the guts, immigration.

Obama’s choice? Sign, veto or negotiate a compromise. If he vetoes, then Republicans take that issue to the country in 2016.

What’s the downside? Democrats showed in 2013 their willingness to trash Senate procedure for a mess of pottage — three judges on one court. If Republicans stand pat now, what’s to stop Democrats from abolishing the filibuster altogether when it suits them in the future?

And think of the upside. A GOP resort to the nuclear option might make Democrats come to their senses and negotiate a new understanding that any fundamental change in Senate rules — e.g., altering the filibuster — will henceforth require some agreed-to supermajority. No more bare-majority party-line coups.

This would be ideal. But that’s for later. For now, go for the doable. Abolish the filibuster and challenge the president. And when asked, “How can you do such a thing?” tell them to ask Harry Reid.

Saturday, February 21, 2015


Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.


Rudy Giuliani clarifies Obama comments by claiming the President has been influenced by communism, socialism …
BY Celeste Katz

Jeff Bachner/for New York Daily News …  Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he believes the President has been influenced by communism and socialism.

Trying to explain his controversial comments that President Obama doesn’t love America, Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he believes the President has been influenced by communism and socialism.

“Look, this man was brought up basically in a white family, so whatever he learned or didn’t learn, I attribute this more to the influence of communism and socialism” than to his race, Giuliani told the Daily News.

“I don’t (see) this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t,” the former mayor added. “Logically, think about his background. . . The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old” through family connections.


When Obama was 9, he was living in Indonesia with his mother and his stepfather. Giuliani said he was referencing Obama’s grandfather having introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party.

The former mayor also brought up Obama’s relationship with “quasi-communist” community organizer Saul Alinsky and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Giuliani, a 2008 presidential hopeful, set off a national firestorm when he told an exclusive gathering of conservatives, pols and media figures on Wednesday night, “I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that this President loves America.

“He doesn’t love you. He doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up: To love this country,” Giuliani said of Obama at the Manhattan dinner, which was arranged for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

The former mayor also brought up Obama’s relationship with 'quasi-communist' community organizer Saul Alinsky and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Amid the uproar, Giuliani has spent the last two days explaining and contextualizing his comments in various interviews — but refusing to apologize.

In his interview with The News, which had a reporter at the Wednesday night dinner, Giuliani said he stood by his comments about the President because they were “from the heart” and not politically calculated.

If critics are playing them up, he said, “I’m glad they’re making a big deal out of it, (because it’s) an issue of life and death, which is a lack of leadership by our President.”

Most of the likely 2016 GOP candidates have avoided addressing the Giuliani situation at length.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Friday that Walker said “no” when asked if Giuliani had crossed the line with his accusations, then added, “I don’t think it’s worth getting into the battle” over whether Obama loves the U.S.A. or not.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, “doesn’t question President Obama’s motives. He does question President Obama’s disastrous policies,” a spokeswoman said.

Republican insiders said Giuliani is doing damage to the GOP’s image.

“I think it hurts the GOP brand once again,” a Republican strategist said. “It’s these types of comments that make the independent voter just think that we’re crazy!”

Giuliani responded on Friday, “I don’t know how good the political judgment of the people in my party is — because they blew the last two elections.”
Some GOP insiders defended Giuliani and said he is giving voice to what many may believe, but fear to say.
“When the Pope is sounding more hawkish than the President of the United States, then the White House just doesn’t get it,” a longtime party operative said, “and I believe Rudy’s genuinely frustrated about that — as are a lot of other people.”

Friday, February 20, 2015


LET'S LIGHT THE WAY TO ALLAH … sure they are woven into our history starting with the first overseas international military conflict.

Sing Along If You Know It

“The Marines’ Hymn” is the oldest and probably best known of the official military songs in the United States. Even those who don’t know the difference between a squid and a devil dog recognize the song’s first line: “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” Yet even the most loyal leatherneck can’t tell you the exact origins of the song. According to some, a Marine wrote the song during the Mexican-American War in the late 1840s, but this is only a guess.

All we really know is that the song’s opening lines were already part of Marine Crops lore by 1850. “The shores of Tripoli” was stitched on the Marine Corps battle colors shortly after the Marines hoisted the American flag over the Tripolitan city of Derna in 1805. “The halls of Montezuma” was added to the Corps’ flag after the Marines captured Chapultepec Castle in 1847 during the war with Mexico. The line commemorates two of the most dramatic moments in early Marine Corps history. But what exactly happened on the shores and in the halls?

For 20 years at the end of the 18th century, pirates operating off the Barbary Coast—the present day North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya—harassed American ships and captured sailors to be held for ransom. During that period, the United States, like most European nations, either paid the ransom or bought protection from these attacks by paying tributes to the pashas that ruled over the North African territories. In 1801, however, newly elected President Thomas Jefferson announced that the US would no longer pay these tributes, a stance that he had held since he had first gone to Europe to discuss the matter in the 1780s. Arguing that rewarding these terrorist-like attacks only encouraged more of the same behavior, Jefferson rejected the Pasha of Tripoli’s demand of a $225,000 tribute from the new administration. The outraged pasha declared war on the US, and in response, Jefferson sent over the Navy and the Marines.
A fleet of brand new American frigates set up a blockade around several Barbary Coast ports, but the Pasha of Tripoli refused to surrender. In fact, his pirates captured the USS Philadelphia in late 1803, and its crew was taken hostage. Had not Stephen Decatur and a small band of Marines managed to fight their way on board long enough to scuttle the ship in early 1804, the Philadelphia’s big guns would have been turned against the other American vessels.
The war’s decisive battle was fought a year later in 1805. A small force of Marines backed by a much larger force of mercenaries captured the city of Derna, forcing the Pasha to make a deal. The resulting peace agreement was far from perfect (as the Pasha held more American prisoners than the US did Tripolitans, the US agreed to pay a sum of money for the release of the difference), but Americans viewed the war as a victory. They had delivered a fighting force to the Old World and forced concessions from a foreign ruler. The Marines and the American Navy were celebrated as symbols of the young nation’s military muscle.
A little more than 40 years later, the Marines again played a pivotal role in a foreign military campaign. War broke out between the US and Mexico in 1846. By 1847, American forces had seized control of the war, but the nation’s capital, Mexico City, had not been taken. The heart of the ancient city was defended by Chapultepec Castle, also known as the “Halls of Montezuma.” Perched on a hill, the castle served as a military academy in 1847, but with large guns mounted behind its walls, it also offered protection to the surrounding city.

On September 13, 1847, a unit of Marines joined the Army soldiers ordered to take the castle. Withering rifle and artillery fire from behind the stone walls—much of it aimed by teenaged cadets—took a deadly toll, but the Marines and infantrymen successfully scaled the walls and captured the castle. This opened up the city to the American forces and moved the war to a speedy conclusion.

Why Do We Need Marines?

The battles at Derna and Chapultepec Castle were significant in advancing American military goals; the Marines celebrated their role in these events by sewing them into their flag—"From Tripoli to the Halls of the Montezuma." When some unknown songwriter decided to give the Corps an anthem, he began with this line, but it was probably more than just pride that guided this decision. Almost from its inception, the Marine Corps had faced challenges from officials who questioned its place in the American military establishment. The phrase, “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,” served as a reminder that America needed its Marines.

The case against the Marines began during the 1830s when President Andrew Jackson tried to dissolve the Corps. Marines had fought under his command at the Battle of New Orleans, but Old Hickory still believed that the US Army could absorb the branch. And there was some logic to his argument. The Marines had been founded on the British model; they were designed to be an adjunct to the Navy, providing the shock troops that took the beaches and secured the ports in the beginning of an amphibious assault, and so they were never intended to be part of extended land campaigns. They were trained to provide the first wave, the expeditionary force that rode shotgun for the Navy.

The Marines were also charged with another important task: protect naval officers from mutinies. Again, the British Navy provided the model. Life as a British sailor was particularly hellish. Often forced into service, spending their lives on the high sea or in distant ports, British sailors were kept under control through brutal force. The threat of mutiny was constant, so to protect the officers, a detail of Marines was always assigned to British ships. In fact, their quarters were strategically placed in between those of the crews and the officers.

Andrew Jackson, however, believed that the model was both dated and poorly suited to American realities. The US Navy was a far less critical part of America’s defenses (you know, not being an island like Great Britain is), and the Army could handle the onshore responsibilities previously assigned to the Marines. Nor was Jackson the only president to question the need for this separate branch. More than 100 years later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, another president with a background in the US Army, made the same argument. The US military simply did not need an entirely separate branch to provide the first wave during amphibious assaults.

Moreover, in the decades that followed, changing technologies strengthened the argument. The Marines had built their reputation by storming beaches in sometimes suicidal assaults; they loved to boast that they were the “first to fight,” the vanguard that secured the landing site that allowed the Army to land safely. As time wore on, however, those beaches became increasingly guarded by long-range missiles that could cherry-pick incoming Marine landing vessels. Amphibious assaults seemed to be a thing of the past, and arguably so were the Marines.

Semper Fi

Of course, the Marines have repeatedly challenged the argument. They point to a long line of service—from “the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”—to demonstrate their importance. Indeed, just as the song says, they “have fought in every clime and place…. [In] the snow of far-off Northern lands and in sunny tropic scenes.” They served in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, in France during World War I, in the Pacific theater during World War II, in Korea, in Vietnam, and most recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially in the most recent conflicts, though, their role has paralleled the Army’s; they are less amphibious shock troops than part of the infantry assigned a role in a long-term ground campaign.

In 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates cancelled the 20-year, $15 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. The EFV was introduced as the amphibious landing vehicle of the future, and its cancellation triggered yet another round of speculation that neither amphibious assault nor the Marines have much of a future. Secretary Gates was quick to declare his commitment to the Marines, though. “Let me be clear,” he insisted. “This decision does not call into question the Marine’s amphibious assault mission.” But Gates also acknowledged that the sort of “large-scale amphibious assault landings” of past wars may no longer be feasible, especially now that modern anti-ship missiles make it necessary to launch amphibious landing craft from as much as 60 miles away. And signaling that the Marines may once again be fighting for their lives, he ordered an analysis of the Marines’ role within a constantly evolving defense establishment.

Of course, the Marines have heard this sort of thing before. Their institutional heads have been on the chopping block since the 1830s. Perhaps that’s one reason why Marines are so committed to the Corps; their attachment to the branch is almost religious. So if the Corps does, once again, come under attack, the Marines will be ready. And among their arguments will be a song that reminds us of the role they have played from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.

Thursday, February 19, 2015


ISIS supporters kick Syrian prisoners to death and corpses are dragged through the streets … 


  • Barbaric video shows three Syrian soldiers being kicked to death in Raqqa 
  • Crowds push and shove to get close to the men while charges are read out 
  • They are then let loose on the victims, punching and kicking them to death 
  • The militants then chain the beaten and bloodied corpses to motorbikes
  • Bodies are dragged around the city centre by the grinning ISIS supporters 
A sickening new video has emerged showing hundreds of savage supporters of the Islamic State kicking, punching and stamping three terrified Syrian soldiers to death before dragging their bloodied corpses through the streets chained to the back of motorcycles.

The barbaric footage is believed to have been filmed in the terror group's de facto capital Raqqa and bears all the chilling hallmarks of ISIS' professionally produced and edited propaganda films.

The gruesome killing of three Syrian soldiers is just the latest in a long line of horrific filmed murders released by the Sunni Islamists since last summer's self-declaration of a caliphate in the vast areas of Syria and Iraq they control through a campaign of rape, massacre and brutal oppression.

Scroll down for video

Savage: The bloodthirsty crowd is seen being unleashed on the men, surging forward and raining down kicks, punches and beatings with whatever objects are close at hand

Gisly: After being kicked to death, the men's bodies are dragged through the centre of the city of Raqqa

Fear: The three prisoners are seen on their knees in the centre of a circle of militants, who link arms to hold back the throng of young men intent on taking part in the particularly savage triple murder

Horror: The video begins by a bearded cleric breathlessly reading out charges against three Syrian soldiers

ISIS' latest shocking murder video begins by showing hundreds of baying, bloodthirsty supporters of the terror group gathering in central Raqqa where a bearded cleric is seen breathlessly reading out charges against three Syrian soldiers dressed in military fatigues.

Laughing children are seen clambering on walls and on to the shoulders of their grinning fathers to get a better view of proceedings, while a large group of niqab-wearing women gather nearby.

The three prisoners are seen on their knees in the centre of a circle of the militants, who link arms to hold back the throng of young men intent on taking part in the savage triple murder.

The footage is edited so the cleric's feverish Arabic ranting reverberates and echoes as the crowd of young, T-shirt and baseball cap-wearing supporters push and shove to get closer to the victims.

Seconds later the crowd is unleashed on the men, surging forward and raining down kicks, punches and beatings with whatever objects are close at hand. So dense is the crowd desperate to take part in the brutal killings, that those on the periphery are more than a dozen rows back from the victims.

A capella religious singing and chanting - known as nasheeds - soundtracks the barbaric scene.

Audience: Laughing children are seen clambering on walls and on to the shoulders of their grinning fathers to get a better view of proceedings, while a large group of niqab-wearing women gather nearby
Throng: So dense is crowd desperate to take part in the brutal killing that those on the periphery are more than a dozen rows back from the victims

After showing the bloodthirsty crowd let loose on the men, the footage cuts to shots of their beaten and bloodied corpses being tied to the back of motorbikes.

In an act of shocking brutality, the bodies are then seen being dragged through the centre of Raqqa while cheering militants follow close behind in speeding 4x4s - a convoy of death, honking horns in support of the terror group's latest blood-soaked atrocity.

The heavily armed men riding the motorbikes are seen grinning and raising their index fingers in the air in a sign of religious devotion completely at odds with the sight of a chained and bloodied corpse bouncing along the road behind their vehicles.

The gruesome footage emerged as Syrian rebels captured another 32 soldiers and pro-government gunmen near the northern city of Aleppo, according to activists.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Aleppo-based activist Ahmad Hamed said the troops were seized in the village of Ratyan after it was retaken by the rebels yesterday.

The Observatory and Mr Hamed say intense clashes are taking outside a third village, Bashkoy, which was also taken by the government two days ago. The fighting comes as UN envoy Staffan de Mistura is trying to broker a truce for the war-ravaged Aleppo, Syria's largest city.
Filmed: While some of the young men join in the killing, others are simply keen to catch it all on camera
Savages: The bodies are seen being dragged through the centre of the city while cheering militants follow close behind in speeding 4x4s - a convoy of death, honking their horns in rabid support of the atrocity

More than 120,000 fighters supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have been killed in the country's civil war since it began in 2011, the Observatory reported in December.

They said some 11,000 members of government forces and loyalist militias had been killed in the five months since Assad delivered an inauguration speech for a third presidential term.

In a breakdown of the casualties, the group said some 5,631 armed forces members have been killed in violence including shelling, gunfights, aircraft crashes, suicide attacks, snipers, executions and car bombs since the speech.

Another 4,492 fighters from loyalist militias had been killed, as well as 735 fighters of Arab, Asian and Iranian origin, and 91 from the Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah, the monitoring group said.