Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, is alleged to have family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (National Review, July 2013). The Muslim Brotherhood took over the government of Egypt and was later removed from power. There are some valid questions about the role the Obama Administration played in the Muslim Brotherhood takeover and the role the Obama Administration played in resisting the ousting of the Brotherhood. Inquiring minds want to know, and Judicial Watch plans to help them find the answers.
Judicial Watch posted the following announcement yesterday:
Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department seeking any and all communications – including emails – from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chief of Staff Huma Abedin with Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00321)). This latest lawsuit will require the State Department to answer questions about and conduct thorough searches of Hillary Clinton’s newly discovered hidden email accounts. Judicial Watch also has nearly a dozen other active FOIA lawsuits that may require the State Department to search these email accounts. Huma Abedin is also alleged to have a secret account as well.
Judicial Watch submitted its original FOIA request on August 27, 2014. The State Department was required by law to respond by September 26, 2014 at the latest to Judicial Watch’s request for:
- Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
- Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.
To date, the State Department has not responded.
Ms. Mahmoud threatened Mrs. Clinton after Morsi was ousted. According to JihadWatch.org:
In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”
The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”
“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s communications,” stated Tom Fitton. “The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications.”
It will be interesting to see if Judicial Watch ever obtains any of those records.
Yesterday Commentary Magazine posted an article entitled, “Clinton’s Parallel Government and Obama’s Great Miscalculation.” The article deals with some of the implications of the recent revelation regarding Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State using a private email account and her own private server. This is not normally the way government business is conducted.
The article points out:
Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton’s home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.
But homebrew email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.
There are a few interesting things here. How many investigations into the Benghazi attack failed to note the private email account? If the investigations missed that, what else did they miss? How many people in the Obama Administration received emails relating to government business from this private email account and failed to notice that it did not come from a government email account? Was this noted? Did anyone care?
The article concludes:
…Sometimes the Clintons’ parallel government works in Obama’s favor, such as Clinton’s Benghazi disaster. Her independent email server and private addresses enabled her to hide her correspondence on the attack, which also shielded the rest of the administration from that scrutiny. Obama is infamously secretive about his own records and his administration’s unprecedented lack of transparency was a good match for the Clintons.
But it also meant a certain degree of this went beyond his control. Hillary’s family foundation, which essentially became a super-PAC for foreign governments, was supposed to have donations vetted. They didn’t. They were supposed to have Bill Clinton’s paid events cleared. And they did–they were cleared by Hillary’s State Department. They weren’t supposed to accept foreign-government money while Hillary was secretary of state. They did.
Clintonworld operated as a distinct, independent entity for its own purposes while also running American foreign policy. The phrase “conflict of interest” does not even begin to approach the disturbing ethical calculations here. But it can’t be argued that Obama didn’t know what he was getting the country into. He just thought he could control it. He was wrong, and he was wrong to try. And we’re only beginning to see the consequences.
This could get interesting. There is, after all, no honor among thieves.
One of the talking points of the Obama Administration regarding executive amnesty is that it will be good for the American economy. That is debatable considering the number of legal Americans currently unable to find jobs, but what it is about to do to the American taxpayer is definitely destructive.
The article reports:
The U.S. government will spend nearly half a billion dollars, expand its workforce by 3,100 and open a 280,000-square-foot compound in Virginia to carry out President Obama’s amnesty order, according to detailed government figures provided to Judicial Watch.
The numbers are breathtaking and include a $647,590 monthly rent bill for a new facility at 2200 Crystal Drive in Arlington Virginia. It will be the processing headquarters for two Obama amnesty plans—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)—that will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. Last month a federal court in Texas blocked the amnesty order, but records show the administration is ready to pull the trigger if it succeeds in appealing the ruling.
The article goes on to break down the administrative costs of executive amnesty–both the initial cost and the ongoing cost. This is an unbelievably bad deal for all Americans. We do need to streamline our immigration policies, but we cannot successfully assimilate three thousand people in a matter of months without bankrupting federal and state governments.
Executive amnesty is a nightmare waiting to happen.
The article reports:
“Out of an abundance of caution, however, Defendants wish to bring one issue to the Court’s attention,” said the administration’s document given to the judge. “Between November 24, 2014 and the issuance of the Court’s [Feb. 16] Order, USCIS granted three-year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines.”
The officials excused the deception by claiming that the announced Feb. 18 start-date “may have led to confusion about when USCIS had begun providing three-year terms of deferred action to individuals already eligible for deferred action under 2012 DACA.”
The lack of respect the Obama Administration seems to have for the Constitution and for the American people is simply amazing. Hopefully the judge in Texas will put a stop to this since Congress does not seem to be able to.
Yesterday Western Journalism posted an article about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s speech before Congress. The irony in the article is that many of the gulf state Arab leaders agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu–not President Obama on how to deal with the Middle East. It also occurs to me that since Prime Minister Netanyahu lives in the Middle East, he might know more about how things work than someone who does not live there.
The article reports:
Tzvi Yechezkieli, the Arab affairs expert of Channel 10, said that many Arab commentators supported the content of Netanyahu’s speech. He cited a commentator on Al-Arabiya TV, who had said that he could have written a large part of the speech.
Yechezkieli said that the Arab countries are convinced that Obama will not safeguard their security interests in the current negotiations with Iran and will not protect them against Iranian aggression.
Evidently Israel is not the only country in the region worried about Iranian aggression.
The article quotes the Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj:
“I will conclude by saying the following: Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.’s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents. Do you agree with me?”
President Obama has behaved like a petulant child during the run-up to the speech, the speech, and after the speech. It would be nice to have a President who looked past himself and was watching out for the interests of America and our American allies in the Middle East.
Yesterday the New York Times reported that during her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did not use a government email account, but strictly used her personal email account to conduct government business. This is a violation of the law that states that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
The article reports:
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
…Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.
Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.
This is another example of the Clintons playing fast and loose with the law. Anyone who supports a presidential run by Hillary Clinton is opening the way for a president and cabinet that have no respect for the laws that are supposed to govern America.
Bret Stephens posted an article entitled, “Israel and the Democrats,” and Chris Steward posted an article entitled, “In What Way Is Iran A Reliable Negotiating Partner?”
The article reports:
But that party is evaporating. A 2014 Pew survey found that just 39% of liberal Democrats are more sympathetic to Israel than they are to the Palestinians. That compares with 77% of conservative Republicans. During last summer’s war in Gaza, Pew found liberals about as likely to blame Israel as they were to blame Hamas for the violence.
That means the GOP is now the engine, the Democrats at best a wheel, in U.S. support for Israel. The Obama administration is the kill switch. Over the weekend, a defensive White House put out a statement noting the various ways it has supported Israel. It highlighted the 1985 U.S.-Israel free-trade agreement and a military assistance package concluded in 2007. When Barack Obama must cite the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides, you know there is a problem.
…Yet the calendar chiefly dictating the timing of Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was set by John Kerry , not John Boehner , when the secretary of state decided that the U.S. and Iran would have to conclude a framework deal by the end of this month. Mr. Netanyahu is only guilty of wanting to speak to Congress before it is handed a diplomatic fait accompli that amounts to a serial betrayal of every promise Mr. Obama ever made to Israel.
Bret Stephens goes on to list the betrayals of Israel by the Obama Administration. Please follow the link above to read the entire article.
Chris Steward reminds us of the history of America’s relationship with Iran and Iran’s intentions and actions toward western civilization.
He points out:
Iran is a state sponsor of terror and has been officially listed as such for more than 30 years. It has developed an extensive military-industrial complex, the Defense Industries Organization, which is capable of supplying all of its own military equipment, weapons and ammunition. With this capability, Iran has become the primary supplier of weapons to two other state sponsors of terror, Sudan and Syria, as well as the primary sponsor of other foreign terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, Hamas and numerous Shiite militias in Iraq. With Iran’s help, Hezbollah has stockpiled about 60,000 surface-to-surface rockets in Lebanon while Hamas has stockpiled about 10,000 surface-to-surface rockets in Gaza, all for the stated purpose of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
Tehran’s regime suppresses internal dissent and has executed tens of thousands of its own citizens for opposing the regime. It is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. military personnel in Iraq through improvised explosive devices supplied to Shiite militias in the past decade. Iran counts as close allies Russia, China and North Korea, which team with the regime in developing ballistic missiles and nuclear capabilities.
Iran is not just a problem for the Middle East. In South and Central America it has engaged in money laundering, drug and arms trafficking, counterfeiting, promoting jihad, and plotting terrorist attacks.
Why in the world are we negotiating with these people? And why in the world are we condemning Israel for telling the truth about the futility of these negotiations?
I am not familiar with the source of this story, so please understand that I am not endorsing it–although I suspect it may be true. I am posting it because I doubt it will ever appear in the American media.
The article reports:
Officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran claim they have documents that prove the United States assisted Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which they claim is a crime according to international laws, according to the Iranian news media. And there is suspicion that President Barack Obama declassified the documents and released them to a left-wing think-tank to hurt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Iranians published a copy of a 129-page memorandum they claim is one of about 100 copies distributed by the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) while under contract with the Pentagon in 1987. The Iranian press reported that Israeli nuclear facilities that were built independently were similar in structure to U.S. nuclear facilities such as Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories which are key facilities for creating and testing nuclear weaponry, Iranian-controlled news agencies reported.
The article concludes:
According to Iranian news reports, the information was released after Grant Smith, director of the left-wing Washington think-tank Institute for Research on Middle Eastern Policy, submitted a Freedom of Information Act application in 2012. When he was never given the requested documents, Smith filed a lawsuit in September 2014, and a judged ruled that the Pentagon must comply with the request. According to the Iranian news stories, Smith in his lawsuit outlined how the U.S. government failed to comply with federal laws at the time that Israel was developing a nuclear program.
“It’s our basic position that in 1987 the Department of Defense discovered that Israel had a nuclear weapons program, detailed it and then has covered it up for 25 years in violation of the Symington and Glenn amendments, costing taxpayers $86 billion,” said Smith during a hearing before a judge in the District of Columbia in late 2014.
I wonder if the Jewish Americans who support President Obama will ever realize the threat to Israel he represents.
Isn’t it interesting that Israel has had nuclear weapons for more than twenty years and no one in the Middle East has felt threatened by this fact. It is common knowledge that when Iran obtains nuclear weapons that a nuclear arms race will begin in the Middle East. That tells us all we need to know–the Arab countries know their neighbors better than America does.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The U.S. Constitution also states:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Note that in both cases, Congress is tasked with the responsibility of levying taxes.
The article reports:
Obama’s preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike that would fund liberal infrastructure projects like mass transit. But if Congress fails to do as Obama wishes, just as Congress has failed to pass the immigration reforms that Obama prefers, Obama could take actions unilaterally instead. This past November, for example, Obama gave work permits, Social Security Numbers, and drivers licenses to approximately 4 million illegal immigrants.
The President has frequently exceeded his executive authority. Congress has been reluctant (or toothless) to fight back. Unless members of Congress from both political parties begin to stand up to these power grabs, by the time President Obama leaves office, our country will be unrecognizable. It’s time to put the good of America above party politics.
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Hill is reporting today that the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, formed by President Obama after three events last year which involved the death of black Americans, has recommended that all officer-involved shootings be reported to the federal government. I believe that this recommendation is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The states are in charge of local police departments–not the federal government. This is a dangerous consolidation of power by the federal government.
The article reports:
The Obama spokesman said the administration would take into account whether a state or local agency was following the recommendations when considering grant applications.
“[T]he president has asked the Community Oriented Policing Services Office at the Department of Justice to take responsibility for advancing the work of the task force, including prioritizing grant funding to law enforcement agencies that meet appropriate benchmarks that are related to these recommendations,” Earnest (White House press secretary Josh Earnest) said.
This is how government takeovers work–we have seen it in education–the government gives money for education to states if the states are willing to comply with certain government programs. If the states do not comply, they do not get government money–it is a subtle takeover of something that the states are supposed to control.
A government takeover of local police departments is a serious threat to our representative republic. Also note that the government has been giving used military equipment to our local law enforcement agencies–equipment that is not appropriate for use on the streets of towns and cities in America.
We have been negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program since 2013. Yahoo News posted a timeline of highlights in American-Iranian relations. During that time, most of what Iran has done is buy time to continue its nuclear program.
The article reports:
October 2013: Burns and Sullivan hold a fourth secret meeting with Iranian officials, and then a fifth, this time joined by chief U.S. negotiator Sherman. The framework nuclear deal hashed out in the early secret talks begins to gain clarity. A new round of larger nuclear talks with world powers is held in Geneva at which Sherman meets publicly with Zarif.
November 2013: World powers meet Iran again in Geneva. Burns and Sullivan are among the U.S. delegation but are not identified as such. They are kept hidden from public view, entering meeting rooms only after photographers and journalists are escorted out. They stay at a separate hotel from the main delegation and enter the talks through service entrances.
Nov. 23, 2013: Western powers and Iran reach initial deal on curbing Iran’s nuclear program.
Note that in 2013 the goal was to curb Iran’s nuclear program. That is not where we are today. We have forgotten our goal of never allowing Iran to go nuclear.
Michael Rubin posted an article at Commentary Magazine today about the current negotiations with Iran. In the article, he points out the fact that Iran is holding Americans hostage–even as we are negotiating about their nuclear program.
The article lists four hostages:
- Saeed Abedini. Iran has long been hostile to Christianity. While the Iranian city of Isfahan hosts a large Armenian community which thrives today, the Armenian Christians settled in Isfahan only because they were forcibly relocated there from northwestern Iran as the shah at the time doubted their loyalty. Non-Orthodox Christians have special difficulty in Iran. Past State Department human-rights reports, for example, depict the disappearance and murder of priests and, especially, evangelical Christians whose community is small but growing in Iran. Abedini, a 34-year-old from Idaho, was arrested during a 2012 trip to Tehran to visit family and sentenced to eight years in prison. He is a married father of two small children.
- Robert Levinson. A former FBI agent whom Iran alleges to have worked for a CIA contractor visited Kish Island, an Iranian free-trade zone which is visa-free, in an effort to research a cigarette smuggling case when he was seized by Iranian intelligence in 2007. While the Iranians have sought at times to deny responsibility or knowledge of Levinson’s case, the state-run Iranian press acknowledged Iranian involvement. He remains the longest-held Iranian hostage. Perhaps reflecting its role as the de facto lobby of the Islamic Republic, the National Iranian American Council has distinguished itself by omitting Levinson in its calls for the release of hostages.
- Amir Hekmati. A former American Marine, Hekmati was arrested in August 2011 while visiting family in Tehran. Charged with espionage, he was initially sentenced to death, a sentence later commuted. While some Iranians might look askance at his military service, it should be remembered that because Iran has conscription, many male Iranian graduate students seeking to come to the United States to continue their education or to visit family have served in the Iranian military. The charges were more ridiculous considering Hekmati sought and received permission from Iranian authorities in the United States before traveling. Hekmati had briefly launched a hunger strike which he subsequently suspended.
- Jason Rezaian. The Washington Post’s Tehran bureau chief, Rezaian was arrested on undisclosed security-related offenses on July 22, 2014, and initially held incommunicado. On January 15, 2015, an Iranian prosecutor announced that Rezaian would stand trial in a revolutionary court. His case is slated to be heard by one of Iran’s most notorious hanging judges.
The article concludes:
When the State Department counsels quiet diplomacy, what diplomats are seeking is enough distraction to sweep the problem under the rug. They should not be able to. Indeed, there should not be another meeting held, let alone incentive given or payment made, until they are happily at home and reunited with their families. Quite the contrary, there should be no end to sanctions and punishment until the Americans—all four—come home.
We should not be negotiating nuclear arms with people who hold our citizens hostage. Until these hostages are released, we should tighten economic sanctions.
Last Tuesday, the Center for Security Policy posted a story documenting a House Intelligence Committee Member’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not really news–the Obama Administration is rife with people who have family or other connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. This partially explains why the Obama Administration has provided so little assistance to Egyptian President al-Sisi in his fight to end the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (where the group began).
The article at the Center for Security Policy reports:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently appointed Rep. André Carson (D-IN) to a coveted position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This panel is charged with oversight of the United States’ most sensitive national intelligence capabilities and operations. These include any directed at Islamic supremacists seeking to impose worldwide – through violent and, where necessary, through stealthy forms of jihad – the totalitarian program they call shariah.
Preeminent among the practitioners of this jihadist agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, according to evidence introduced by the U.S. government into the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, the Brotherhood’s self-declared mission in America is: “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands [i.e., those of non-Muslims] and those of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (From the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, Government Exhibit 003-0085, 3:04-CR-240-G.)
It is, therefore, problematic and potentially detrimental to the national security that Rep. Carson has extensive and longstanding ties to organizations and individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. As established in a dossier and video released today by the Center for Security Policy, the Indiana congressman has an extensive record of involvement with, support of and support from a virtual Who’s Who of Brotherhood front organizations in America and leading figures in the jihad movement in this country. The dossier makes it clear that, as a group, they have “a documented history of serving as unregistered foreign agents, engaging in material support for terrorism and possessing direct ties to the Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
If the American media were doing its job, this would be called treason.
The article reminds us:
It is wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence an individual with extensive personal and political associations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihadist infrastructure in America. At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.
If voters do not start paying attention to what their representatives do soon and voting against those that are not acting in the voters’ interests, they will find themselves in an unrecognizable country with their freedoms being taken away and replaced by the sort of legal systems the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the National Review on Friday about some of the information that has been leaked out about the upcoming nuclear treaty with Iran.
The article reminds us of the relationship between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Iran is not negotiating in good faith–Iran is stalling for enough time to complete their work on an atomic bomb–at that point the negotiations will be moot.
Joel C. Rosenberg posted an article on his blog yesterday entitled, “The biggest threat now is not Radical Islam. It is “Apocalyptic Islam.”” The article includes excerpts from his speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention.
Mr. Rosenberg states:
The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what I call “Apocalyptic Islam.”
This term — “Apocalyptic Islam” — is one that each of needs to become familiar with and begin to teach others. Why? Because for the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states whose rulers are driven not by political ideology — or even mere religious theology — but by apocalyptic, genocidal End Times eschatology.
The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe the End of days has come. Both believe their messiah – known as the “Mahdi” — is coming at any moment. Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Yet each has entirely different strategies to hasten his arrival or appearance on earth.
ISIS wants to build a caliphate. Iran wants to build The Bomb. ISIS is committing genocide now. Iran is preparing to commit genocide later.
Part of the doctrine of this form of Islam is that the coming of the Mahdi can be hastened by causing chaos around the world. Therefore there is no reluctance to cause harm to innocent people.
Mr. Rosenberg concludes:
These facts have real-world implications. Our President and many policy-makers are ignoring both the facts and their implications. But we must be clear: we face a threat from Radical Islam which seeks to attack us. We face an even greater threat from Apocalyptic Islam which seeks to annihilate us.
The article at the National Review looks at President Obama’s history in dealing with Iran:
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.
Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?
It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.
The article at National Review reminds us that Congress has the power to put in place economic sanctions on Iran. He also suggests that the United States make it clear that we will not stand in the way of any country willing to take the problem of Iran’s nuclear program into its own hands.
The article at the National Review concludes:
Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.
Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.
This is one of those times in American History where the survival of our nation depends on Congress having a backbone. I don’t find that encouraging.
Yesterday the New York Post posted an editorial in response to intelligence information regarding Jihad John, shown in ISIS videos beheading westerners.
The article reminds us that the facts show the fallacy of recent U.S. State Department comments on terrorists:
Contrary to the claim that the attraction to radical Islam is being driven by economic deprivation, Emwazi grew up in a wealthy household in West London, attended nice schools and graduated with a degree in computer programming.
And he was no recent transplant: His family moved to Britain from Kuwait back when he was six.
This picture should put to rest the ridiculous assertion by the State Department’s Marie Harf that fighting ISIS means understanding the “root causes that leads people to join these groups” — e.g., a lack of good jobs.
Jihad John, Muhammad Emwazi, is educated an middle-class. Osama bin Laden was wealthy. It seems that material or professional success has very little to do with becoming a terrorist.
The article reports:
Investigators have already scoured 744 backup tapes and gleaned 32,774 unique emails, but just two weeks ago they found an additional 424 tapes that could contain even more Lerner emails, Deputy Inspector General Timothy P. Camus told the House Oversight Committee in a rare late-night hearing meant to look into the status of the investigation.
Unfortunately, the Inspector General is still having problems getting the information he needs to pursue the case.
The article reports:
“You’re not entitled to certain documents,” Mr. George said.
“Oh really? We’ll see about that, won’t we,” Mr. Connolly replied, saying that he questioned whether Mr. George could be trusted if he’s refusing to provide documents, yet is in charge of an investigation into whether the IRS stonewalled document requests.
The hearing was the latest chapter in the complex investigation into the IRS’s targeting of tea party groups for special scrutiny.
Several congressional committees are still probing the matter, and both the inspector general and the Justice Department are conducting criminal investigations.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for the results of the Justice Department investigation.
The article reports:
Facts are such inconvenient things.
CNS News posted an article today about the Barron’s AP European History study guide. I have previously written articles about the changes made to AP American History, but this time the textbook writers (and the guide writers) have outdone themselves.
In explaining the difference between the political left and the political right, the guide instructs:
Things get interesting when Messrs. Roberts and Eder show the far right as “reactionary / fascist,” which they define simply as “those who want things like they used to be.” Never mind the bit about fascism having something to do with dictatorial rule, absolute power over individual freedom and prohibition of dissent. If you “want things to be like they used to be” – say, because you don’t want unelected judges imposing their views by fiat or because you think market-based solutions tend to work better than top-down central economic planning – you are a fascist.
Then comes the spit-take.
Justice Thomas, the second black justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote passionately in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” of growing up during segregation and overcoming racial discrimination. Even liberals have recognized his compelling background. During Justice Thomas’s confirmation process, columnist William Raspberry quoted a friend as saying, “Given the choice between two conservatives, I’ll take the one who’s been called ‘nr.’”
I hope someone is teaching our students how to think. Our schools are simply indoctrinating them.
The Washington Examiner posted a story today about the funding behind the support for net neutrality. Net neutrality is the politically correct expression used to describe the federal government’s takeover of the internet.
The article reports:
“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.
“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.
Yesterday The Examiner posted a story about the lack of cooperation between the FCC and Congress regarding this law.
The Examiner reported:
On the eve of the highly controversial attempt by Barack Obama and the Democrats to seize the Internet, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler flat-out refused to appear before Congress for questioning. Wheeler has also refused to provide information to Congress about the government takeover, demanding that Congress approve the proposal for the federal government to seize the Internet — deceptively called “Internet neutrality” — without knowing a thing about what they are approving.
…Supporters of so called net neutrality have a hidden agenda they wish to implement. Under the new rules the FCC would have the power to intrude upon and regulate free speech and freedom of the press. Collectivists have long decried the power of the people when the Internet is used to jettison their dependence on government-approved “news,” such as that which is provided by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Government elitists fear the truth in the hands of the people, and the Internet has allowed the people to do their own independent research and news gathering. Hillary Clinton, for example, has complained about having “too many news sources.” She further stated that the “net neutrality” regulations would give collectivists a “foot in the door” in the gradual move to totally control the Internet. Hillary once stated in 1998 that Internet news “needs a rethink.”
Regardless of the motives and long-term goals of the FCC, it has become obvious in recent years that more federal regulation is never a good thing. The only good news in this is that net neutrality will be tied up in the courts for years.
The article quotes the Secretary of State:
“I don’t think there ought to be a formal approval process,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the administration was consulting with Congress and that lawmakers would ultimately have to vote on lifting sanctions on Iran.
That’s very nice that he doesn’t want a formal approval process, but this is what Thomas.gov says about the role of the Senate as far as treaties are concerned:
In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch.
President Obama is about to sign a treaty with Iran that will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The President knows that the Senate will not approve that treaty. Therefore, the President does not want the Senate to have a chance to vote on the treaty. Will anyone stand up to President Obama and his total disregard for the U.S. Constitution?
Should a government official lose his job for doing something that is routinely done in bars all over America every night of the week? That is one way to look at the situation surrounding Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald. This is actually a really sad story. In an effort to relate to a homeless veteran, Secretary McDonald stated that he had served in the Special Forces. Unfortunately the moment was caught on camera. The sad part of this story is that Secretary McDonald is a military veteran (despite the fact that he was not in the Special Forces) and obviously has compassion for military veterans. The fact is that he lied. The question is, “How significant is that?” Actually, I think it is rather significant–if I were in the Special Forces and had seen action, I would resent someone who hadn’t served there claiming he had.
Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article noting the news coverage of this incident.
The article states:
A majority of headlines this week have characterized Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald’s claim that he served in the Army’s Special Forces as a “misstatement” and a “false claim.” Very few have referred to his admitted fabrication as a “lie.”
McDonald, who qualified but never served as a Ranger and did not serve in Special Forces, apologized this week for the falsehood.
Headlines from the Huffington Post, the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Examiner, the Hill and Military Times have used variations of “falsely claimed” in headlines regarding McDonald’s fabrication.
I hate to be difficult, but I can’t help but wonder if this event would have been reported differently if a Republican were in the White House.
The article reports:
…it has come to light that the Obama administration has been handing out illegal work permits for years. The Center for Immigration Studies has received documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that indicate millions of such illegal work permits have been issued since 2009.
The Center for Immigration Studies report is posted at Power Line. Follow the link above the view the entire report.
Some highlights of the report:
Government data reveal that more than 7.4 million work permits (formally known as Employment Authorization Documents) were issued to aliens from 2009 to 2014. Because neither lawful permanent residents (green card holders) nor temporary work visa holders need a work permit, this amounts to a huge parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the numerical limits and categories set by Congress. …
Approximately 2.1 million work permits were issued to aliens with temporary visas or who entered under the Visa Waiver Program. Of these, about 1.4 million (66 percent) had a visa status for which employment is generally prohibited under the law, except in what are supposed to be rare cases. For example, more than 548,000 work permits were issued to aliens on tourist visas and 593,000 were issued to foreign students. More than 213,000 were issued to dependents of students and guestworkers — all categories in which the law prohibits employment except in rare circumstances. …
More than 2.2 million work permits were issued over this time period to illegal aliens or aliens unqualified for admission. Nearly all of these (2.1 million) were illegal aliens who crossed the border illegally (Entered Without Inspection). Inexplicably, 2,860 work permits were issued to aliens who were denied asylum, were suspected of using fraudulent documents, were stowaways, or were refused at a port of entry….
A huge number of work permits, 1.9 million, were issued to aliens whose status was unknown, not recorded by the adjudicator, or not disclosed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes the applications.
How many Americans have left the work force because they could not find job? How many of the people with these illegal work permits are working at jobs that Americans would love to do? This is only a small taste of the damage President Obama’s illegal amnesty will do.
One of the many changes in child raising in recent years has been the fear of and the prevalence of peanut allergies. Allergies need to be taken seriously, and it has reached the point where some of my grandchildren are not allowed to bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school. It is a serious problem that seems to have increased in recent years. Well, some researchers have discovered some things that might help us understand what has happened.
The article reports:
All of the babies were given skin tests and found to be at high-risk for a peanut allergy. They were then split into two groups.
One group was instructed to consume peanuts, or a dissolvable peanut snack, on a regular basis.
the other was told to avoid peanuts.
The children were followed for five years and overall, the prevalence of peanut allergy in the peanut-avoidance group was 17 percent compared to 3 percent in the consumption group.
Researchers are calling this a landmark study because it may have answered the question as to what might be the best time to start feeding allergenic foods like peanuts, eggs, milk or tree nuts to infants who are at high risk for the development of food allergies.
The fact that conscientious parents delayed the introduction of peanuts may actually be responsible for the sudden increase in peanut allergies. How ironic. Hopefully this study may help us turn the tide on this problem. I want to go back to the days where peanut butter and jelly are allowed in our schools!
Alan Dershowitz is a Professor at Harvard University. He is a brilliant man with unassailable credentials as a political liberal. He has campaigned for President Obama twice. He posted an article in the Wall Street Journal today.
Professor Dershowitz states:
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.
Whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons should not be a partisan issue–if Iran goes nuclear, all Americans are in danger.
Professor Dershowitz continues:
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 inaction by Congress.
…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.
Professor Dershowitz concludes:
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.
This is a security issue for all Americans. Anyone in Congress who boycotts this speech should be defeated as soon as they are up for re-election.