6 things to know about the new Democrat House


1. By reviewing the Ocasio-Cortez initial announcement on the “Green New Deal,” we can see her blind spots and her focus

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Suggests Super Wealthy be Taxed Up to 70% to Fund ‘Green New Deal’

In a 4 January 2019 Mediaite article, the basic information on the Anderson Cooper interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which she first unveils the Green New Deal appears in print.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat with Anderson Cooper for an upcoming 60 Minutes interview set to air this Sunday, a portion of which has been released as a promotion. In the released segment, Ocasio-Cortez reveals how exactly she suggests paying for the environmental agenda known as the “Green New Deal” — with remarkably higher tax rates for the super wealthy.

Ocasio-Cortez suggests in the clip that in her esteem, people should be doing more to pay their “fair share.” When Cooper pressed on how she could possibly pay for the deal, she pointed to the progressive tax rate system in the 1960s, explaining that if you earn 0 to $75,000 a year, you would only pay 10% or 15% in income tax.

She continued:

“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your $10 millionth, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

(Read more at Mediaite)

From reading this, we can glean:

  • Regarding her view of salaries and rich people
    1. Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to understand that if income (or another reward) is removed, people will likely not produce at the same level
    2. The people earning $10 million are company owners that — when they scale back — may cause many people to lose their jobs. It seems she didn’t learn anything from Obama’s “The Great Recession” or Solyndra.
    3. She objectifies rich people as miniature banks for funding her pie-in-the-sky programs (not as people capable of compassion, mercy, or other laudable traits).
    4. She wants to divide us (the noble “green” voters) from the “rich” (who, according to her, do not pay their “fair share”).
  • Regarding her elevated view of “green” projects
    1. She assumes that “green” projects are so noble that they will escape strong questions by the press
    2. When she does get the muted criticism that this is “radical,” she glosses over the undercurrent of association with the failed states of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and many other broken states by glorying in the title.

Democrats are dangerous to business

2. By reviewing the details of her “Green New Deal,” we can see how it will explode costs and kill jobs

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more dangerous than you think

The 3 January 2019 Washington Examiner opinion piece that describes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed “Green New Deal” should be reviewed by all (along with the linked draft resolution).

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., hasn’t officially started her first term in office, but she’s already pushing a massive, far-left proposal that would fundamentally transform much of the economy and push the country closer than ever to socialism.

For several weeks, you might have heard Ocasio-Cortez reference the creation of a “Green New Deal,” but until recently, few people knew what would be included in the plan. In a draft resolution to form a select committee in the House that would help develop legislation to put her plan in action, Ocasio-Cortez finally outlined numerous proposals that she says should be part of future Green New Deal legislation. Taken together, the many ideas included in Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would be the most radical policy shift in modern U.S. history, dramatically increasing the size and power of government and running up the national debt by trillions of dollars.

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and at least 40 House Democrats, would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.

This policy alone would create widespread economic chaos. Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation. My colleagues at the Heartland Institute found that electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.

Not only is Ocasio-Cortez proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, she’s demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal doesn’t merely advocate for a gigantic shift in the U.S. energy industry. Her draft resolution says one of the proposed House committee’s priorities would be “upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” Taken literally, this mandate would cost trillions of dollars. There were about 136 million housing units in the United States in 2017, not including any businesses. Even if it would cost just $10,000 to “upgrade” every home and apartment, an extremely low estimate, this one relatively small part of her plan would cost more than $1.3 trillion.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

As much as people have enjoyed the sudden renaissance of jobs caused by Trump’s deregulation, Ocasio-Cortez’s turn towards the bureaucracy of socialism must be resisted. Not only does it abandon our resources of oil, gas, and coal — it cannot do anything to regulate the biggest polluters (China, India, and third world countries).

Additionally, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill plays loosely with tax dollars being collected and handed out. In fact, it is wrong on so many levels, because:

  1. The quickest way to raise the price of a commodity (like electrical power) is to mandate that the public buy that commodity from a monopoly (the green power producers)
  2. The best way to ensure a service (like the installation of green power conduits) is inordinately high-priced involves requiring everyone install them under penalty of law
  3. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates the use of natural resources (that — through gasoline formulation technology and scrubbing technology — have become increasingly cleaner)
  4. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates currently good-paying jobs in a time window too short to allow a workable transition

3. If the above issues are not enough, Ocasio-Cortez doubles down on forcing entrepreneurs from New York

Ocasio-Cortez Tax Plan Creates 82.7% Top Income Tax Rate for New Yorkers

If we go to a 4 January 2019 article by Americans for Tax Reform, we find a bleaker picture painted for the job creators of New York.

In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will call for federal income tax rates of up to 70 percent as part of a proposal to create vast new government spending programs.

The current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket.

New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent:

Federal income tax rate: 70.0%
NY state income tax rate: 8.82%
NYC income tax rate: 3.876%
TOTAL: 82.696%

New Yorkers would not be the only ones suffering under the Ocasio-Cortez plan. California taxpayers would pay a top rate of 83.3 percent (70 percent plus the California rate of 13.30 percent).

(Read more at Americans for Tax Reform)

If this is not a formula for speeding the exodus of businesses from New York, I don’t know what is.

Pelosi gives it away to foriegn nations

4. For those concerned with border security, the new House Democrats have nothing. But they do have a nice gift for the dictators of Central America.

Democrat Spending Bill Offers $12 Billion More for Foreign Aid, $0 for Border Wall

A 3 January 2019 Breitbart article outlines the excesses the Democrats have taken to advance socialism and abortion internationally.

The spending bills proposed by House Democrats to end the partial government shutdown offer no funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, but provide over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested, according to a statement on Thursday from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The statement warned the new House Democrat majority of President Trump’s intention to veto the bills, noting that the administration “cannot accept legislation that provides unnecessary funding for wasteful programs while ignoring the Nation’s urgent border security needs.”

The statement reiterated President Trump’s request for “at least $5 billion for border security” and asserted that the Democrats’ proposal “does not come close to providing these necessary investments and authorities.”
The White House then highlighted the billions in funding the Democrats are offering for “unnecessary programs at excessive levels” beyond what the Trump administration requested, including:

  • $12 billion more for “international affairs programs,” including $2.9 billion more “for economic and development assistance, including funding for the West Bank/Gaza, Syria, and Pakistan, where our foreign aid is either frozen or under review.”
  • $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restored funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund, which would undermine the administration’s Mexico City Policy that bars the use of taxpayer dollars for foreign organizations that “promote or perform abortions.”
  • Approximately $2 billion more than requested for the Environmental Protection Agency
  • $7.1 billion more than the administration requested for Housing and Urban Development programs

(Read more at Breitbart)

Of course, these Democrats have to know that these measures will not pass the Republican Senate and will not be signed into law by President Trump.

Still, forget reality. These are the Democrats.

5. Democrats know from commercial sources that America wants Border Security

Americans want border security, and the numbers show it

A 5 January 2019 Fox News article on a recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans value border security.

President Trump is far from alone in his determination to secure our borders — according to a recent Gallup poll, Americans view immigration as the second-biggest problem facing the country today.

That’s bad news for the Democrat Party, which is hellbent on opposing the president’s efforts to fix our broken immigration system, especially the border wall he needs in order to get illegal immigration under control.

The Democrats have a very simple, two-part strategy on immigration: first and foremost, they want to keep President Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people; second, they want to make it even easier for foreigners to enter this country illegally.

With Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, it’s no surprise that Americans are deeply troubled by the immigration crisis.

Over the past several decades, millions of illegal immigrants have successfully evaded our efforts to enforce immigration laws, putting local economies and welfare programs under tremendous pressure to cope with the massive influx of undocumented workers and their families, most of whom receive at least one form of government welfare.

In fact, illegal immigration costs taxpayers a staggering $134.9 billion a year while contributing only $19 billion in state, federal, and local taxes. At the federal level, medical costs make up the lion’s share of government expenditures on illegal immigrants, while education is the largest single expense that illegal immigration imposes on state and local governments.

(Read more at Fox News)

Although it is the Democrats who seem hellbent on denying border security to America, I have to admit that the Republicans have had ample chances to fix the problem over the past two years.

6. If you don’t live in a major population center, the Democrats do not care about you.

Nolte: Tyrannical Democrats Introduce Bill to Kill Electoral College

According to a 4 January 2019 Breitbart article, the Democrats would like to silence the fly-over states between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to kill the electoral college.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen said in a press release. “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”

Democrat frustration over losing the presidency when they won the most votes is certainly justified. But it is also their own fault. If these triggered snowflakes would get over their Red State prejudices and dare to live amongst us, that influence might flip enough states. But they refuse to. These snobby bigots find Middle America icky, so they cower together in coastal and big city bubbles.

If you will pardon a small digression… never forget that those who claim to believe in Global Warming also choose to stubbornly live on the very same coasts that are supposed to be underwater already.

Anyway, eliminating the electoral college is the road to tyranny — which is why Democrats and the media desperately want it eliminated.

Trust me, the last place any free person wants to live is in a country where 51 percent of the population can strip the rights away from the 49 percent.

Imagine a country where the only way to get elected president is to appeal to the left-wing extremists who live in large population centers, which is exactly what would happen. In fact this would be the only way to win the presidency because it would be the easiest — the cheapest as far as ad buys, getting out the vote, and that most precious commodity of all: time. Campaigns are going to go to where the most votes are.

(Read more at Breitbart)

While the Democrats know that getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment to the constitution, I have read elsewhere that Democrats are doing an end-run on the electoral college by getting individual fly-over states to voluntarily give their delegates to the popular winner of the overall presidential election.

One point of division & one point of agreement on the Syrian withdrawal


The point of division

I’m with Trump on most policies, just not on the abandonment of Syrian Kurds, Christians, and Yazidis

As evidenced by my previous posts, I support the safety and livelihood of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. As evidenced by my posts, I have agreed with most of Trump’s actions in Syria. Recently, one strong point of agreement centers on the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2018 that promises to fund relief of Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq.

Problem is that this law does not provide protection for the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. Additionally, since it provides no protection, we know from prior experience what will happen when the current protection moves out. During Obama’s tenure, his abandonment of Iraq resulted in the birth of ISIS. Therefore, I (like the IDF reservist quoted below) oppose this policy of pulling out of Syria.

IDF reserve officer warns of Iran inroads

Former IDF officer: Withdrawal from Syria means Iran wins

As outlined in a 20 December 2018 OneNewsNow article, Israeli Defense Force Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi suggests that America’s withdrawal from Syria will result in a win for Iran.

Wednesday’s announcement for the U.S. to withdraw all its military forces from Syria marks an abrupt end to America’s strategy in the region – and sparks major concern from Israel, one of America’s greatest allies.

OneNewsNow spoke with Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi about the announcement. Zehavi, a former intelligence officer with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) within the IDF Northern Command, contends the move to extract a few thousand forces from Syria “will give Iran the ability to gain a massive stronghold in the region.”

As founder of the ALMA Research and Development Center in Israel, she attests that “a ground corridor to transfer weapons and soldiers from Tehran to Damascus and Beirut” will finally be established.

Zehavi says the efforts of Iran “to build a ground corridor – consisting of highways, roads and railways – began upon the regime change” in Iraq in 2003. However, the Syrian civil war put Iran’s efforts on hold.

Although ISIS was vastly incapacitated in Iraq and the greater majority of its territories were captured in Syria, Zehavi explains “[these] circumstances actually allowed Iranians to develop a ground corridor from Tehran to Damascus, through Iraq.” It is through this corridor, she says, that the Iranians will be “enabled to transfer weapons beyond Damascus” and all the way “to Israel’s northern border – into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon.” The former IDF officer identifies three potential routes that would provide a “continuous road-link” connecting Iran with Syria and Lebanon.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Not only will Iran flow their tools of power into the void created by an American exit, other bad actors like the Turks, Russians, and Chinese will take advantage of the situation.

To this date, I have supported all of Trump’s stances toward the state of Israel. However, this retreat from Syria will likely create a power void that will be very detrimental to Israel.

Putin welcomes US pullout from Syria

Putin welcomes US pullout from Syria

As proof that bad actors welcome our exit from Syria, a 20 December 2018 Associated Press article discusses how Putin has applauded the potential exit.

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the U.S. decision to pull its troops out of Syria, saying Thursday that “Donald is right.”

Speaking at Thursday’s annual marathon news conference, Putin said he agrees with U.S. President Donald Trump that the Islamic State group has been defeated, making the U.S. presence in Syria unnecessary. He also argued that the U.S. troops shouldn’t have been there to start with.

“I agree with the U.S. president, we have made significant progress in fighting terrorism on that territory and dealt serious blows to IS in Syria,” the Russian leader said.

He noted that there is still a danger that IS militants could flee from Syria to their home countries and other regions.

“It’s a big threat to all of us, including Russia, the United States, Europe and Asian countries,” Putin said. “Donald is right about that, I agree with him.”

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Considering that Russia has invaded Ukraine, taken Crimea, buzzed our Naval ships, and supplied the nuclear effort of Iran — we cannot consider this anything but a warning.

Syrian Kurds protest news of Turkish planned attacks

The Latest: Syrians protest Turkish threats of offensive

In addition to the bad actors like the Russians, threats from the Turks against the Kurds surface in a 20 December 2018 Associated Press article.

Thousands of Syrians have gathered outside the headquarters for the U.S.-led coalition in northern Syria to protest Turkish threats of an imminent offensive.

The protesters congregating in Jalabiya southeast of Kobani city are demanding a clear stance from the coalition on threats by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to strike at U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters in northern Syria.

Turkey views the main Kurdish militia in Syria as a terrorist group and an extension of the insurgency within its borders. U.S. support for the group has strained ties between the two NATO allies.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

As mentioned previously, there are numerous bad actors in the area that would attack our current allies as soon as we leave the area.

Stand with Trump

Democrats, don’t hyperventilate. I’m not abandoning Trump

Democrats cannot count on my changing over to their socialist ranks. However, RINOs (like John Cornyn, Republican Senator from Texas) might consider bringing their voting record back in line with the campaign promises of most Republicans. For example, most Republicans (even the reprobate John McCain) campaigned on repealing Obamacare. Additionally, most Republicans campaigned on some form of border security.

Republicans, I stand with Trump. If you want my vote, your voting history had better align with my desires as expressed by Trump’s campaign promises.

Nonetheless, if I could bend Trump’s ear, I would bend it to protect the lives of the religious minorities of Syria and Iraq. These groups will come under great persecution as soon as the Russians, Turks, and Syrian government can start.

A point of agreement

We need to be out of Afghanistan

Trump pulling out of Syria. Might Afghanistan be next?

The Associated Press asked in a 20 December 2018 article whether Trump would pull out of Afghanistan next, now that he has decided to pull out of Syria.

Against the advice of many in his own administration, President Donald Trump is pulling U.S. troops out of Syria. Could a withdrawal from Afghanistan be far behind?

Trump has said his instinct is to quit Afghanistan as a lost cause, but more recently he’s suggested a willingness to stay in search of peace with the Taliban. However, the abruptness with which he turned the page on Syria raises questions about whether combat partners like Iraq and Afghanistan should feel confident that he will not pull the plug on them, too.

“If he’s willing to walk away from Syria, I think we should be concerned about whether Afghanistan is next,” Jennifer Cafarella, the director of intelligence planning at the Institute for the Study of War, said in an interview Wednesday.

(Read more, if you can stand the anti-Trump moralizing, at the Associated Press)

Although the article primarily consists of editorial comment and moralizing, it does raise a good question. In opposition to the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan seems to be little but a monoculture of Muslims. As opposed to the approximately 2,000 American troops in Syria that have seen few attacks from Muslim trainees, the 7,000 troops in Afghanistan (where our soldiers have been for 17 years) have seen numerous Muslim attacks.

So why should we continue to send young Americans to Afghanistan to die at the hands supposed allies? There must be some method of cleaning out garbage pails that does not involve splashing the rotten remnants in our faces.

Do we want to be there forever?

Donald Trump Dismisses Critics of Syria Withdrawal: ‘Do We Want to Be There Forever?’

According to one 20 December 2018 Breitbart article, President Trump dismissed critics of the Syria withdrawal by asking “Do we want to be there forever?”

President Donald Trump defended his decision to withdraw American troops from Syria on Thursday.

“Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing?” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Do we want to be there forever?”

Foreign policy hawks such as Sen. Bob Corker, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham adamantly criticized the president on Wednesday for ordering the withdrawal of forces in Syria.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Here, I am I complete agreement with President Trump. While the job of a soldier is dangerous, we should not have to endure attacks from our “allies.”

Obama’s and Hillary’s Two Big Lies


Thanks to http://truthfeed.com/

Obama’s Lie on Not Knowing of Hillary’s Illegal E-mail Server

PJmedia Calls it Obama’s Colossal Email Lie Final Test for Tarnished MSM

In a 24 September 2016 article that introduced me to the fact that Obama knew about Hillary’s server when he claimed he learned about it in the press, PJmedia had the following critique of this crooked, crooked situation:

“That Barack Obama communicated in 2012under a redacted pseudonym—with Hillary Clinton on the then secretary of State’s permeable home-brew email server and then claimed he did not know of that server’s existence until it was reported in the press in 2014 is far more than the usual politician’s prevarication.

Since the fish rots from the top—and in this case it stinks to high heaven—the surfacing of this particular presidential lie calls to question the entire FBI inquiry into the Clinton server, an investigation whose credibility was paper thin in the first place and has now completely vanished.

It’s time to ask that age-old question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

That we do know (as of this Friday’s dump) that one of Clinton’s own IT workers referred to her then just-announced 60-day email retention policy (who does that?) as “Hillary’s coverup operation” almost (but not completely) tells the story in those three quoted words. Even though they say it’s not the crime, but the coverup, in this case, it’s both.

The seriousness of this crime/coverup—involving the national security of our country—makes Watergate seem like a minor kerfuffle at a sewing circle. If the mainstream media does not investigate this thoroughly, they are unquestionably the court eunuchs many of us have accused them of being. Worse, they are the enablers of the decline of Western civilization.  Without a free and honest press — some of it anyway — not to mention adherence to the rule of law, such a civilization cannot survive.  And the decline can come remarkably swiftly.  We have plenty of  examples of that from twentieth century Europe.

If the mainstream broadcast media can bring itself to report on its golden boy and its golden girl, it will break an existing record of under-reporting on and covering for Democrats. Luckily, there is still the print media, a few conservative media outlets, and the British press. Otherwise, we would be at the whims of the CBS, NBC, and ABC nightly infotainment.

Obama lies to the face of CBS correspondent Bill Plante

For the Doubters, Here is the CBS article and the video where Obama LIES

In a 8 March 2015 CBS article, Obama lies (though not exposed until the above article submitted how Obama s-mailed to Hillary using a pseudonym).

“President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton’s private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

‘The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,’ the president told Plante.

Mr. Obama’s comments follow a long week of media scrutiny surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email address and the “home-brewed” server that hosted it.

‘The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed.’

Despite widespread criticism from Republicans who believe Clinton acted inappropriately, the president continued to defend his former Cabinet member’s record.

‘Let me just say that Hillary Clinton is and has been an outstanding public servant. She was a great secretary of state for me,’ Mr. Obama said.

Following the New York Times report Monday, the House Select Committee in charge of investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks issued a subpoena of Clinton’s private emails. Clinton herself took to Twitter late Wednesday in her first public statement regarding the clintonemail.com server controversy.

‘I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible,’ the likely Democratic presidential candidate tweeted.

The president reiterated his support of these actions.

‘I think that the fact that she is putting them forward will allow us to make sure that people have the information they need,’ Mr. Obama said.

Plante, who was a reporter covering ‘Bloody Sunday’ for CBS News 50 years ago, sat down for an interview with the president to talk about the recent Clinton controversy, foreign affairs and the state of race relations in the United States.

Obama’s and Hillary’s Big Lie on Serin Gas Supplied to Syrian Rebels

Evidence Points toward Obama/Clinton Supplying Rebels

In a 11 May 2015 Slate article, the suspicions of Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh point toward cooperative action between Obama, Clinton, and Syrian rebels in the gasing of Ghouta, Syria:

“But the criticism of Hersh’s latest piece echoes the controversy that recently met Hersh after he published two other stories—in December 2013 and April 2014, also in the London Review—about the Syrian civil war. Both stories cited anonymous sources, corroborated by second- and third-hand accounts, saying that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, were the first to use chemical weapons in the country’s ongoing civil war, specifically in a sarin gas attack on Ghouta, Syria, on Aug. 21, 2013.

At the time, President Obama had recently issued a ‘red line,’ saying that if Assad used chemical weapons, the U.S. would intervene in the conflict on the rebels’ behalf. Hersh argued that the government was blaming the rebel attack on Assad to justify direct involvement in the war. (The U.S. ultimately decided against entering the conflict directly.)

Hersh’s first story, from December 2013, said that the rebel group responsible for the sarin gas attack was the al-Nusra Front, an affiliate of al-Qaida. As the Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone and others noted at the time, Hersh also said that al-Nusra had ‘mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity.’ This first story asserted the administration “cherry-picked” evidence and deliberately manipulated intelligence to avoid implicating al-Nusra. But the story raised eyebrows, in part because the New Yorker and the Washington Post declined to publish it. But that wasn’t all: At Foreign Policy, Eliot Higgins cited open-source evidence—including YouTube videos—to show that the munitions in the gas attack had been used repeatedly by the Syrian military. ‘There is no evidence of Syrian rebel forces ever using this type of munition—and only Syrian government forces have ever been shown using them,’ Higgins wrote.”

Let’s see, Is the Obama/Clinton cabal lying about this one, too? Did Hillary lie about 2,800 emails? Did Hillary promise to bring 200,000 jobs to New York as senator fall flat just before she started blaming a 4-year-distant President Bush for her inaction?

No Russian Respect for Obama’s "Lead from Behind" Idiocy


According to the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, Russian warplanes have bombed a CIA-linked base in Syria.

Russians Show Disrespect for Obama by Taking Positions Up Against Ukraine

Current Russian Positions of 40K Troops Resemble the 2014 Crimean Invasion

A 17 August 2016 article in the Washington Free Beacon reveals that 40,000 Russian troops have been deployed to the Crimean border. Similar to the action taken before the Russian takeover of the Crimean peninsula in 2014.

“The Pentagon has identified eight staging areas in Russia where large numbers of military forces appear to be preparing for incursions into Ukraine, according to U.S. defense officials.

As many as 40,000 Russian troops, including tanks, armored vehicles, and air force units, are now arrayed along Ukraine’s eastern border with Russia.

Additionally, large numbers of Russian military forces will conduct exercises in the coming days that Pentagon officials say could be used as cover for an attack on Ukraine.

‘Russian units will likely practice reinforcing the [Crimean] peninsula through such activities as amphibious landings and air defense exercises, and this may involve the change out of equipment and long convoys of military vehicles,’ one defense official said.

The military exercises are an ominous sign. Similar large-scale Russian exercises were conducted near Ukraine a month before Moscow carried out the covert military operation to take over the strategic Black Sea peninsula in March 2014.

Obviously Putin has no fear of Obama’s reaction to another attack on our ally, Ukraine.

Russians Show Disrespect by Bombing Syrian Rebels Supported by Obama 

Russia Flies Bombing Missions from Iranian Air Bases

In the following video, Russian jets are shown taking off from an air base (purportedly in Iran) to bomb Syrian rebel positions.

Obama Rewards Russians for Aggression in Syria

Considering Obama’s History of Rewarding Russian Aggression, Why Would Russia Respect Us?

A 2 July 2016 Washington Post article points out how Obama has continually rewarded the Russians for aggression and undercut our allies (bold text was inserted for emphasis):

“FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal.

And so it goes again. Senior U.S. officials have publicly confirmed that Syria and Russia have grossly violated a cessation of hostilities negotiated by Mr. Kerry in February. They have continued to attack Western-backed rebels, deliberately targeted hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, and blocked aid convoys to besieged towns where children are starving to death.

Mr. Kerry warned that the consequence of such breaches would be a ‘Plan B’ of stepped-up U.S. support for anti-Assad rebels. Instead, as The Post’s Josh Rogin has reported, the administration delivered a new proposal to Moscow on Monday that offers Mr. Putin what he has been seeking for months: greater U.S.-Russian collaboration in targeting those anti-Assad rebels deemed to be ‘terrorists.’ In exchange, Russia would — again — promise to restrain its own and the Assad regime’s bombing of areas where Western-backed forces are located.

As several experts on Syria told The Post, it is a deal whose only tangible result would likely be the reinforcement of the Assad regime — whose relentless brutality has empowered the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. The U.S.-Russian collaboration would target an offshoot of al-Qaeda called Jabhat al-Nusra, whose forces are fighting the Assad regime in several areas, including the key city of Aleppo.

In practice, the Jabhat al-Nusra forces are intermixed with other rebel units; many Syrian fighters joined the presumed terrorists for practical rather than ideological reasons. An assault on them could have the effect of allowing the Assad regime to achieve what it says is its foremost objective, the recapture of Aleppo, tipping the balance of the civil war in its favor. The anti-Assad rebels backed by the West could be decisively undermined, even if Russia and the Syrian regime respected the no-bombing zones — which, given the history of past agreements, is a most unlikely prospect.

ISIS Chemical Weapon Mortars launched in Iraq at Peshmerga forces


This photo of Syrian civilians comes from AlJazeera.

Allies of Peshmerga in Northern Iraq report Gas Mortars

In the following 26 February 2016 CBN report, evidence of chemical gas mortar shells is displayed.  According to reporter Chuck HoltoN, CBN learned of the chemical weapons through contacts with the humanitarian group Free Burma Rangers (who was providing medical training at the time of the first attacks).

As mentioned in the report, there is concern that ISIS will smuggle these chemical weapons into Europe or the US.

Considering that the “red line” that Obama claimed would send the US into the Syrian civil war was the use of chemical weapons by Syria, why doesn’t Mr. Obama respond to this?  As noted by doctors in the video above, the Kurds cannot understand why neither the US nor the UN seem to pay their requests for analysis of these weapons any attention.

Al Jazeera Reports Gas Attacks on Aleppo, Syria

The Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera says that ISIS …

“is suspected of having used mustard gas against civilians in Syria’s northern Aleppo province.

A medical group reported that those injured after at least 50 mortar shells were fired at residential areas of the town of Marea on Friday were exhibiting symptoms of chemical exposure.

Local sources told the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), a non-profit humanitarian organisation, that ISIL fighters engaged in clashes with rebels had carried out the attack.

SAMS said one of its field hospitals in Aleppo received injured civilians with symptoms including respiratory irritation, wheezing, coughing, irritation and redness of the eyes and mucous membranes, skin irritation, and severe itching.

Roughly 30 civilians developed skin blisters, with doctors identifying the cause to be mustard gas, SAMS reported.

No deaths have been reported as of yet.”

In related news, Al Jazeera reports that the UN is considering investigation of the gas attacks in Syria.

An Open Letter to Those Who Pledged to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution


Thanks to the Examiner for this photo.

To the President

Your recent baseless proclamations — such as  “I … am gratified by the strong support [for the Iran deal] of lawmakers and citizens alike,” “our goal has been first to contain and we have contained [ISIS],” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep doctor” — have prompted those who value our safety to check your claims before accepting them.  For those of us who have paid attention to your words all along, the virtually innumerable lies that you started spewing even before your first day in office over seven insufferable years ago when you started occupying the oval office have long ago had a similar effect. 

Therefore, if you should wonder why we do not accept “we can develop a system that thoroughly vettes each refugee as well as tracks them,”  climate change is our “greatest threat,” “

Mr. President, You Say “We Can Develop a System That Thoroughly Vettes Each Refugee As Well As Tracks Them”

New York Leader in the Syrian Community: “There is No Vetting”

A 19 November 2015 article in the New York Post points out the absolute possibility that IS is here and there is no way to vet Syrian immigrants when it said:

A leader of New York City’s Syrian community told The Post on Wednesday that ISIS terrorists have “absolutely” sneaked into America by posing as civil-war refugees — and joined sleeper cells just waiting to be activated.

“I believe the terrorists from Syria have been coming into the United States, not only in the past few years, but way before that,” said Aarafat “Ralph” Succar of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, home of the city’s largest enclave of Syrian immigrants. “I think they’re already at work.”

Succar, a member of the Bay Ridge Community Council, said corruption in his homeland is so rampant that anyone could easily pay bribes and obtain official identification papers bearing a fake name to disguise their real identity.

“You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” he said.

“These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.”

Succar, 57, who immigrated to the United States when he was 10, also noted that “Third World countries, particularly places like Syria, do not have the network of information the United States has.”

Mr. President, Your Message Changes Depending On Your Audience

During your Promotion of the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, You Repeatedly Bashed America

As reported on CNS News, the Human Right.Gov website, and the Washington Times, Obama suggested America’s example was not to be followed.  CNS News reported:

President Barack Obama, speaking at a town hall meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Friday, criticized the United States of America for telling other people to do what Americans fail to do themselves, for “growing inequality,” and because “our political system does not work as well as it should.”

Human Rights.Gov posts the following:

And so we, too, must act on behalf of justice.  We, too, must act on behalf of peace.  There are too many people who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality.  There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people.  (Applause.)  And there are too many of us on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.

The Washington Times reported:

“It is very important to avoid any political system where money overwhelms ideas,” said Mr. Obama, who raised a record $1.1 billion for his reelection campaign in 2012. “And the United States politics process has become so expensive and it lasts so long, and even though I was successful at it, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in television advertising and in all the things that go into a U.S. presidential campaign.”

He added, “When politicians have to raise so much money all the time, then they start listening a little bit more to the people who have money, as opposed to ordinary people.”

In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Obama also said politics in the U.S. “increasingly is defined by personal attacks and saying very sensational things in the media.” He urged young Asian leaders to try “to debate people you disagree with, without saying that they’re a terrible person.”

The president himself is engaged in a nasty, long-distance debate with Republicans over his plan to accept Syrian refugees in the U.S. He accused GOP opponents this week of being “scared of widows and orphans.”

At the town-hall event, Mr. Obama also warned young Asians to guard against racial divisions in politics, saying in the U.S., “it’s still an issue that comes up.”

“I really hope that all of you are fighting against the kinds of attitudes where you organize political parties or you organize interest groups just around ethnic or racial or tribal lines,” Mr. Obama said. “Because when you start doing that, it’s very easy for people to start thinking that whoever is not part of my group is somehow less than me. And once that mindset comes in, that’s how violence happens. That’s how discrimination happens. And societies that are divided ethnically and racially are almost never successful over the long term.”

He said in the U.S., “we’ve struggled with this for over 200 years, but it’s still an issue that comes up.”

The Only Time You Praise America Comes Just Before You Make a Request

In a Washington Times article covering the Thanksgiving address, a completely different scene is painted by the prevaricator’s words:

Nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims — men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families. What makes America America is that we offer that chance. We turn Lady Liberty’s light to the world and widen our circle of concern to say that all God’s children are worthy of our compassion and care. That’s part of what makes this the greatest country on Earth.

If, Mr. President, Suspending an Immigration Program based on religion is “shameful”

The Washington Post reported Obama’s disagreement with the concept of shutting down the importation of Muslims from the birthplace of ISIS:

“And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” he said, his voice rising. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

Then Why Did You Discontinue an Immigration Program for Religious Minorities from Iran

In a 6 February 2012 Navy Times article, the fact that Obama has suspended an immigration program from a Muslim-majority country (Iran) and the fact that the program did consider religion (it favored Christians, Zoroastrians, and other religious minorities) is the central point of this article:

The Obama administration has dramatically slowed the resettlement of Iraqi refugees — including former U.S. military translators and embassy workers — in the midst of growing concerns about al-Qaida’s potential ties with some asylum seekers, an administration official says.

Two Iraqi refugees who resettled in the United States in 2009 were arrested in May in Bowling Green, Ky., and are accused of plotting to send weapons and cash to al-Qaida in Iraq. But the senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, says that intelligence indicates the threat is much broader than the two refugees.

Authorities learned of the Kentucky plot through intelligence gleaned in late 2010, the official said.

“That threat stream led us to re-examine our vetting process for this population and really all of the refugee population,” the official said.

FBI Director Robert Mueller noted last year before the Kentucky arrests that a potential threat rested with “individuals who may have been resettled here in the United States that have had some association with al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

Why Did You Stop the Program for Coptic Christians from Egypt

A 21 February 2014 Investors’ Business Daily details how Obama suspended a similar program for Coptic Christians from Egypt.

As President Obama offers asylum to “minor” terrorists providing “limited” material support to terrorism, he’s slamming shut the door on thousands of Christians fleeing terrorism in Muslim lands like Egypt.

In another end-run around Congress, President Obama has unilaterally eased immigration requirements for foreigners linked to terrorism.

He ordered the State Department and Homeland Security to ignore a post-9/11 law barring entry to those giving political or charitable aid to Hamas and other known terrorist groups.

If Syria Has 10% of Its Population as Christians, Why Are Only 3% of the Refugees Approved for Settlement Christians

The Cybercast News Service reports in an 17 November 2015 article:

President Obama said Monday that calls from some quarters for the U.S. to admit only Christian refugees from Syria were “shameful,” yet the reality is that today’s refugee system discriminates, not against Syrian Muslims, but against Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.

Critics say this is because the federal government relies on the United Nations in the refugee application process – and since Syrian Christians are often afraid to register with the U.N., they and other non-Muslims are left out.

Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.

Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Applications are then handled by one of nine State Department-managed resettlement support centers around the world, a process that includes vetting and interviews by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and takes an average of 18-24 months. There are occasions when a process can begin without UNHCR referral, but this usually applies in cases of close relatives of refugees already in the U.S.

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday.

The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists.

By comparison, Syria’s population breakdown in early 2011, before the civil war’s death toll and refugee exodus roiled the demographics, was 90 percent Muslim (including Sunnis, Shia, Alawites and Druze) and 10 percent Christian, according to the CIA World Factbook.

Mr. President, You Have a Duty to Protect the People of the USA

When you took the oath of office, you pledged to protect the Constitution.  Many would argue that you have failed miserably at protecting the Constitution due to the way you have changed law (fir example, the Defense of Marriage Act, Obamacare, immigration law, and other law) without the intervention of Congress.  Still, by promising to protect the Constitution, you became the chief law enforcer for the people of America.

Then Why Have You Set Up a Program to Allow “Minor Terrorists” to Immigrate to America

A 6 March 2014 Washington Times article points out the danger of your program to allow “minor terrorists” into the USA:

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, none of us ever imagined a dozen years later we’d be negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan, supplying aid to al Qaeda-affiliated “rebel” groups in Syria, and releasing from Gitmo some of the most hardened al Qaeda operatives. Under the Obama administration, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Now we can add another bizarre, and potentially dangerous, unilateral decree from the administration: Mr. Obama has ordered a change in immigration rules making it easier for so-called “minor” terrorists to gain refugee status and asylum in the United States.

I know some may think this is a story from the parody publication The Onion, but unfortunately, what was once absurd satire has now become reality. As he threatened at the State of the Union, Mr. Obama used an executive directive to unilaterally ease restrictions specifically for asylum-seekers who have provided what his administration terms “limited material support” to terrorist groups.

And Why Do Keep Pushing this Importation of Syrian Muslims As Your Efforts Produce Negative Results

An 18 November 2015 Wall Street Journal likewise questions the President’s push to import Muslims in light of current facts:

You must understand: President Obama is accustomed to kid-glove treatment from most of the media most of the time. So when he was asked repeatedly at a Monday news conference in Turkey why he continues to insist that he never underestimated Islamic State (ISIS), and that his strategy against the terrorist outfit is working, it follows that he would become a little touchy.

“So, this is another variation on the same question,” snapped Mr. Obama at one point. “And I guess—let me try it one last time.”

His additional explanation failed, of course, not because he’s a poor communicator but because he is attempting to push a political narrative so spectacularly at odds with recent events. Inside of a month, ISIS, which already controls territory in Iraq and Syria, has claimed responsibility for crashing a Russian jetliner, along with bombings in Beirut and now the massacre in Paris. ISIS is targeting police officers, soldiers, concertgoers and soccer spectators. U.S. allies are nervous and the American public is afraid, yet Mr. Obama insisted that “we have the right strategy and we’re going to see it through.”

That White House strategy involves resettling in the U.S. next year some 10,000 displaced Syrians to help alleviate the worst refugee crisis since World War II. More than half of the nation’s governors, citing security risks, are balking at this prospect. The Republican-controlled Congress will almost certainly try to stop resettlement, perhaps by blocking appropriations for it. And history suggests that it will be a very tough sell with the public. In a national poll taken by Fortune magazine in 1938, only about 5% of respondents wanted the U.S. to accept refugees fleeing European fascism; two-thirds agreed that “we should try to keep them out.”

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. has admitted 1.5 million refugees and immigrants from the Middle East. That includes 1,500 from Syria since the war began there in 2011. Michael Chertoff, who led the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, told me Monday that our vetting process works. Unlike European nations that face swarms of people showing up unscreened at the border and creating pressure to be admitted, the U.S. has the luxury of physical distance from the conflict, which allows it to be selective, he said. All potential Syrian refugees are vetted in person in the region they are fleeing, not on U.S. soil, and they are subjected to biometric and other background checks against security databases. The main complaint of critics is that the process is too slow. “We dealt with this issue when we had people coming from Iraq during the war, and it’s quite lengthy—like an 18 months-plus vetting process,” Mr. Chertoff said. “While nothing is perfect, it was a secure and reliable way of making sure you didn’t let in people who were trying to come under false pretenses.”

Mr. Chertoff argues that continuing to admit Syrian refugees makes sense strategically. “It allows us to truthfully say that we’re not hypocrites or bigoted against Muslims or people from other cultures,” he said. “That has a positive impact in terms of the disposition people around the world have toward the U.S. You don’t want to play into the narrative of the bad guy. That’s giving propaganda to the enemy.”

What most concerns the law-enforcement community is not a fake refugee but a long-term resident who later becomes radicalized. The Tsarnaev brothers, who perpetrated the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, arrived in the U.S. on tourist visas in 2002 at the ages of 15 and 8. Radicalization is an increasing problem, evidenced by the fact that stories about young Americans trying to sneak off to join jihad are no longer uncommon.

 Mr. President, You Say that These Syrian Refugees Will Pose Little Threat

Mr. President, The Last Time I Checked, We Had a Representative Republic

In these United States, the people elect Representatives to draw up our laws.  Although executive orders can be used to provide for minor details needed in implementation, you do not have the right to write law (as you declared you had done in regard to immigration law).  Therefore, when the people contact their Representatives and the House and the Governors stand against your edicts, you need to stand down and stop playing dictator.

The House of Representatives Passes HR 4038 to Require Better Vetting of Syrians

Reuters reported in a 20 November 2015 article on the passage of a bill that would require more intense vetting of Syrian refugees:

The U.S. House of Representatives, defying a veto threat by President Barack Obama, overwhelmingly passed Republican-backed legislation on Thursday to suspend Obama’s program to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next year and then intensify the process of screening them. The measure, quickly drafted this week following the Islamic State attacks in Paris on Friday that killed 129 people, was approved on a vote of 289-137, with 47 of Obama’s 188 fellow Democrats breaking with the White House to support it.

It would require that high-level officials – the FBI director, the director of national intelligence and homeland security secretary – verify that each Syrian refugee poses no security risk.

Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said the bill would pause the program the White House announced in September to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. He said it was important to act quickly “when our national security is at stake.”

After the House vote, Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, called such screening both impractical and impossible.

“To ask me to have my FBI director or other members of the administration make personal guarantees would effectively grind the program to a halt,” Lynch told reporters at a news briefing with FBI Director James Comey.

The vote result came despite a last-ditch appeal for Democratic votes from Jeh Johnson, Obama’s secretary of homeland security, and Denis McDonough, his chief of staff.

It followed a testy exchange at a House hearing between lawmakers and Anne Richard, the assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration. Republicans responded with incredulity to her assertion there was only a “very, very small” threat of any of the Syrian refugees being a “terrorist”.

Some Republicans have said some refugees could be militants bent on attacking the United States, noting reports that at least one Paris attacker may have slipped into Europe among migrants registered in Greece.

31 Governors Reject the Idea of Hosting Syrian Refugees in their State

An 18 November 2015 Townhall article shows 31 governors to have rejected Syrian refugees on the grounds of protecting the safety of their citizens:

It’s now 31 states that are refusing to accept Syrian refugees due to security issues. Yesterday, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple said that he plans to send a letter to President Obama reiterating what other governors have said regarding this relocation initiative, which is that Washington needs to fix the vetting system (via Grand Forks Herald):

Dalrymple’s letter cites testimony by the FBI Director James Comey, who told Congress of inadequacies in the system that would prevent the thorough vetting of the 10,000 refugees the administration has pledged to admit into the U.S.

“For generations, our country has welcomed individuals and families seeking safety and asylum within the borders of the United States,” Dalrymple said in the release. “However, I am deeply concerned about the recent terrorist attacks carried out in France and the potential for this situation to arise in the U.S., especially given the testimony by FBI Director James Comey revealing gaps in the refugee screening system.”

The ISIS-linked terrorist attack in Paris last Friday prompted a surge in governors to refuse accepting refugees, especially after the FBI admitted that they have no way of screening every refugee we’re set to relocate in the United States. We’re set to accept 10,000. Hillary Clinton feels we should let in 65,000.

 Mr. President, If You Expect Us to Take Your Opinion On Muslim Immigrants

Why Have You Staffed Your Military Advisory Panels with Yes Men

In an 18 November 2015 NewsMax article former CBS investigative journalist has disclosed that Obama has pushed out any intelligence source that does not match his agenda:

Emmy-winning television journalist Sharyl Attkisson told Newsmax TV on Wednesday that her sources say that President Barack Obama does not read intelligence reports from his staff on jihadist groups that he does not consider terrorists.

“I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind — closed his mind, they say — to their intelligence that they’ve tried to bring him about various groups that he does not consider terrorists, even if they are on the U.S. list of designated terrorists,” Attkisson told “The Steve Malzberg Show” in an interview.

“He has his own ideas, and there are those who’ve known him a long time who say this dates back to law school,” she said. “He does not necessarily listen to the people with whom he disagrees.”

“He seems to dig in — and why I would suppose is because he thinks he’s right. He is facing formidable opposition on this particular point.”

Attkisson said the sources could not explain Obama’s reasoning for his approach to terrorism intelligence.

“I’ve only been told by those who have allegedly attempted to present him, or have been in the circle that has attempted to present him, with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t want it,” she told Malzberg. “He said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it, in some instances.”

 Why Have You Made The Rules of Engagement So That 75% of Sorties are Fruitless

 The Washington Free Beacon confirmed with American pilots that Obama’s rules of engagement result in 75% of sorties coming back without firing on the enemy:

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”

When asked to address Royce’s statement, a Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.

“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”

Mr. President, If These Are Merely Orphans and Widows

As mentioned by an 17 November 2015 NBC article, Obama took an international stage to make petty political points against Republicans when he said:

These are the same folks often times that say they’re so tough that just talking to (Russian President Vladimir) Putin or staring down ISIL (ISIS) or using some additional rhetoric will solve the problem — and they’re scared of widows and three-year-old orphans.

Then There Should be No Problem with Following Canada’s Example: Admit Families, Women, and Children

Reported in a 23 November 2015 Townhall article:

Canada is not taking any chances when it comes to its new influx of Syrian refugees. While the country is preparing to accept about 25,000 migrants by the end of the year, security concerns have convinced officials they should leave out a key demographic: single males.

The federal government’s much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned.

Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program.

To put the number 25,000 into perspective, that is about the population of Canada’s Yukon Territory. Most of the women and children refugees entering Canada will be placed in military bases upon arrival, CBC reports, before being relocated throughout the country.

If Syrian Refugees Are Only Widows and Orphans, Why were 5 Male Syrians Caught in Honduras with Forged Greek Passports

 On 18 November 2015, Reuters reported:

Honduran authorities said on Wednesday they had intercepted six Syrian nationals traveling on doctored Greek passports in the past week, including five who had been trying to reach the United States. Police said there were no signs of any links to last week’s deadly attacks in Paris that killed 129 people. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the shooting and suicide bombing assault.

Five of the men were detained late on Tuesday in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, on arrival from Costa Rica, and had been planning to head to the border with neighboring Guatemala, police said. They said passports had been doctored to replace the photographs with those of the Syrians.

Why were 5 Syrians Caught in Texas

A 21 November 2015 Breitbart Texas article explained:

Five more Syrians have been detained at an international port of entry in Laredo, Texas. The Syrian group consisted of one family unit and two additional males. This is the second group of Syrians this week who have arrived at the international bridge in Laredo.

DHS has confirmed to KGNS-TV8’s Valerie Gonzalez in Laredo that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken five Syrians into custody after they presented themselves at an official port of entry in Laredo. The family consisted of a man, a woman and a child. Two other men also presented themselves.

The statement from CBP says they took the group into custody and ran background checks against numerous law enforcement and national security databases. No derogatory information was found on any of the individuals.

To the Democrats in Congress

Do you want to tie yourselves to the Obama administration in light of the fact that Democrats may exist after Obama has passed from the political landscape and in light of the following facts:

As you can tell, all of these facts go against Obama’s current narrative.  Maybe that explains why Democrats are $2.2 million in debt.

To the Republicans in Congress

Thank those of you who are in both the Senate (especially Senator Cruz) and House for standing up for Christians seeking to immigrate.  Thank you who are in the House for insisting on strong vetting of all immigrants and for standing up for the rule of law.  Now please just avoid becoming the Democrat Lite (all the fiscal conservatism, none of the social “burdens”).

As the party that was founded to resist the forces of slavery, the Republican party must stand for those who cannot speak for themselves.  Right now, the ones that cannot speak for themselves include both your constituents (who Obama is oppressing through is through the hour-limiting Obamacare, higher taxes, and policies that violate our conscience) and the Christians of the Middle East.  First and foremost in your own house, these voiceless ones must be defended while the outside threat is stopped.

The dual nature of this task comes through clearly in the middle portion of two translations of Isaiah 1:17 (“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” [NIV] and “Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.” [NASB]).  Letting a group that has posted threats against our nation does not constitute a fulfillment of this verse.

Other Applicable Verses

Don’t Put Your Trust in Mortals

Because people have both physical limitations and a physical viewpoint, do not put all of your trust in them.

Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils; For why should he be esteemed? (Isaiah 2:22 NASB)

When God says something a second time, it should get your attention.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord Than to trust in man. (Psalms 118:8 NASB)

For God to mention something a third time, please take note.

Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish. How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the Lord his God, Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps faith forever; Who executes justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free. (Psalms 146:3-7 NASB)

Yes, Christians are commanded to spread the good news to all the world. If God determines that the witness to Muslims must happen in America, then that must be the case. However, to prevent the murder that has occurred in Allah’s name from spreading in a larger degree to the USA, I think that it is our duty to work with our government to prevent this.

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. (Mark 16:15 NASB)

The Results of Obama’s Weakening America


For the longest time, Obama has ignored (or at least not acted on) the Russian planes buzzing American shores, Russian warships parking offshore during the G20 summit, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.  Additionally, China has built man-made islands to expand their claim to South China Sea waters, support fighter aircraft, surveillance systems, and electronic warfare capabilities.  During the same time, Obama has snubbed allies like Egypt and Israel and refused aid to Ukraine.

So, in the light of all of these acts that could be interpreted as American weakness, China and Russia have stepped up their defiance of America.  Also, not wanting to be abandoned like Israel or Egypt, Canada has decided to reduce its support of us.

Chinese Ships Shadow US Navy Near Man-Made Islands

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Canada withdrawing fighter jets from Iraq, Syria, new PM tells Obama

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Russian Submarines Threaten Undersea Internet/Telephone Cables

New York Times: Russian Vessels Too Close for Comfort

In a 25 October 2015 New York Times article, Russia has found one more front to challenge America:

Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of tension or conflict.

The issue goes beyond old worries during the Cold War that the Russians would tap into the cables — a task American intelligence agencies also mastered decades ago. The alarm today is deeper: The ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent.

While there is no evidence yet of any cable cutting, the concern is part of a growing wariness among senior American and allied military and intelligence officials over the accelerated activity by Russian armed forces around the globe. At the same time, the internal debate in Washington illustrates how the United States is increasingly viewing every Russian move through a lens of deep distrust, reminiscent of relations during the Cold War.

Inside the Pentagon and the nation’s spy agencies, the assessments of Russia’s growing naval activities are highly classified and not publicly discussed in detail. American officials are secretive about what they are doing both to monitor the activity and to find ways to recover quickly if cables are cut. But more than a dozen officials confirmed in broad terms that it had become the source of significant attention in the Pentagon.

In private, however, commanders and intelligence officials are far more direct. They report that from the North Sea to Northeast Asia and even in waters closer to American shores, they are monitoring significantly increased Russian activity along the known routes of the cables, which carry the lifeblood of global electronic communications and commerce.

Just last month, the Russian spy ship Yantar, equipped with two self-propelled deep-sea submersible craft, cruised slowly off the East Coast of the United States on its way to Cuba — where one major cable lands near the American naval station at Guantánamo Bay. It was monitored constantly by American spy satellites, ships and planes. Navy officials said the Yantar and the submersible vehicles it can drop off its decks have the capability to cut cables miles down in the sea.

CNN Confirms Reports of Russian Ships Near Undersea Cables

A 28 October 2015 article by CNN confirms:

When a Russian military ship called the Yantar suddenly crossed the Atlantic and started moving down the East Coast of the United States last month, it set off alarm bells inside the world of U.S. naval intelligence.

U.S. spy satellites, aircraft and submarines tracked the ship all the way down the coast to Cuba, according to two U.S. defense officials.

It had been years since the U.S. had seen this type of activity by the Russians, officials said. While the Russians have insisted the Yantar is not a spy ship, U.S. naval intelligence believes it has one significant and unsettling capability: small underwater vehicles that can cut vital undersea cables carrying vast amounts of commercial and military data, voice communications and Internet service between the U.S. and Europe.

U.S. officials told CNN there was no indication that the Russians have any intention of cutting the cables, but they said that they are showing off their capability to U.S. naval intelligence by their actions.

It comes as the U.S. has watched for the last several months as Russian submarines in deep water have come close to the undersea cables. A classified network of Navy undersea sensors have been set off several times as the submarines approached the cables. The officials said the Russians would be aware in broad terms that their actions would cause the network to detect them.

Navy Times Confirms Discussions About Russian Subs

According to a a 30 October 2015 article in the Navy Times, Russian submarines figure significantly in Naval thoughts:

U.S. leaders are increasingly worried that Russia’s submarines could sever the communication arteries that drive global commerce.

The communications cables criss-cross tens of thousands of miles of ocean to relay Internet and phone data between continents. The concerns arose in September, when a Russian spy ship armed with two unmanned submersibles was detected in the vicinity of the cables,according to an Oct. 25 article in The New York Times.

The Russian operation has brought discussions normally held in classified settings to the fore: How can the U.S. Navy safeguard thousands of miles of critical infrastructure? It’s a vexing issue at a time when the Navy’s forces are stretched thin in the Middle East and while confronting emerging near-peer competitors like Russia and China.

Navy leaders are starting to raise the alarm about this potential choke point, and the solution they propose is autonomous underwater systems.

The head of the nuclear Navy said that the Navy needed to invest heavily in unmanned underwater systems to protect undersea infrastructure.

“The necessity exists because of challenges we face from potential adversaries,” said Adm. Frank Caldwell Jr., head of Naval Reactors, in an October briefing. “It exists because of the submarine [building] hiatus we took in the 1990s and the impending dip [in] force structure we’ll have late in the 2020s … and we may be called upon in the future to protect undersea infrastructure, something we haven’t really considered before.”

Purported Questions about Obama’s Mental Health

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js