Thursday, September 18, 2014


Obama Exploits Anniversary Of Navy Yard Shooting To Call For More Gun Control

obama-angry-3
On the anniversary of the Washington Navy Yard Shooting—a crime committed by a shooter who passed both state and federal background checks and maintained a security clearance, and who used a weapon not affected by any proposed gun control legislation—President Barack Obama issued a statement calling for more gun control laws.
One year ago, our dedicated military and civilian personnel at the Washington Navy Yard were targeted in an unspeakable act of violence that took the lives of 12 American patriots. As we remember men and women taken from us so senselessly, we keep close their family and friends, stand with the survivors who continue to heal and pay tribute to the first responders who acted with skill and bravery.
At the same time, we continue to improve security at our country’s bases and installations to protect our military and civilian personnel who help keep us safe. One year ago, 12 Americans went to work to protect and strengthen the country they loved.
Today, we must do the same – rejecting atrocities like these as the new normal and renewing our call for common-sense reforms that respect our traditions while reducing the gun violence that shatters too many American families every day.
Obama provided no specifics proposals in his brief statement, but posturing by gun control groups acting in concert with the White House suggests a shift away from bans on “assault weapons” towards a concerted effort to impose “universal background checks” as a de facto gun registry for all future firearm sales.

Sometimes good intentions have unintended consequences. Just ask the principal of Woodruff High School in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Principal Aaron Fulmer made national headlines this week after he directed students to remove American flags from their pickup trucks on September 11.

The patriotic teenagers had mounted large American flags in their truck beds – in violation of a longstanding school policy.

The policy, which has been in place for more than 20 years, bans anything that creates a disturbance on campus or draws an unusual amount of attention to itself.

“A bumper sticker is not going to do that from a distance, but a pole flag is,” Superintendent Rallie Liston told me in a telephone interview. “The American flag was never an issue for us. It was never anti-American flag. It was just no pole flags – period.”

Liston said the original rule was created to prevent students from showing up at school with Confederate flags.

“It was inflammatory,” the superintendent told me. “Finally, we reached a point where we said no more pole flags.”

American flag bumper stickers are fine. So are American flag T-shirts. But students simply cannot fly American flags in their pickup trucks. Such behavior is impermissible.

As the superintendent explained, it prevents someone from showing up with something offensive.

“If it’s an American flag – everybody is excited about it,” he said. “But what if it’s the Nazi flag or another flag you might not be congruent with?”

As you might imagine, the school’s decision has led to lots of protests and name-calling. A group of parents even stood outside the school waving American flags.

Superintendent Liston says all the anti-American accusations are just as far from the truth as can be.

“These are the most God-fearing, flag-waving, patriotic people you will ever find,” he said. “They are God and Country.”

But he said that with the growing fears over the Islamic State as well as the 9/11 commemoration – he realized at bit of hindsight was necessary.

“We dropped the ball with 9/11,” he told me matter-of-factly. “In hindsight we apologize to any veteran or service person for this happening. That was not our intent. It was just a rule that has been consistently enforced.”

In the meantime, he said there’s a good chance that next year the school will host a special program commemorating 9/11.

“I don’t want to ever get in the position where we take the American flag down again,” Liston told me.

Superintendent Liston seems like a true Southern gentleman – and I believe his apology is sincere.

As we say in the South – you know when somebody’s cooking your grits. And Superintendent Liston was not cooking my grits.

Nevertheless, it’s deeply troubling when any public school suppresses the patriotism of American teenagers.

Massive Beheading Plot Thwarted in Australia: Jihadists Planned Mass Kidnappings and Beheadings on Home Soil

Screen Shot 2014-09-17 at 8.50.24 PMPamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

What is about beheading that is contagious among devout Muslims? Jihad. 

In the largest terrorist raids led by Australian Federal Police led to the arrests of 15 jihadists. Law enforcement  foiled a plan where jihadists were planning to kidnap random public members and behead them on camera.

MASSIVE: The Daily Telegraph reports at least 600 officers from the Australian Federal Police, ASIO officers and the NSW counter terrorism unit launched the strikes before dawn this morning.

To my colleagues at the Q Society and SION – Australia, be safe!

Screen Shot 2014-09-17 at 8.52.41 PMAFDI San Fran Moderate ad 9-8
Australian terror raids: AFP, ASIO move on suspected terrorists,” News.com. au, September 18, 2014 (thanks to Kenneth)
HORRIFIC details have emerged of a plot to behead an Australian and upload it to social media in a deliberate attack against the country.
While the claims remain unconfirmed, Channel Seven reports one the men charged in this morning’s raids in Sydney planned to kidnap a random Australian, execute them by beheading and film the act and post on social media.
Meanwhile Channel Ten adds the man planned to drape the victim in an ISIL flag.
EARLIER
ASIO and the Australian Federal Police have launched a number of raids across homes in Sydney and Brisbane this morning in the nation’s biggest counter-terrorism operation in history.
The operation is understood to have been given the green light after months of surveillance of Australians believed to be linked to extremist terror group Islamic State in Iraq and...

     


House approves Obama’s foredoomed plan to arm “moderate” jihadists against “extremist” jihadists

/ Jihad Watch
 
BoehnerBreitbart reported last week that “the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), Al Nusra Front, and the Islamic State have paired together in order to fight President Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Armed Forces, according to statements from multiple commanders from within the FSA. ‘We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun,’ said Bassel Idriss, a commander of a Free Syrian Army brigade.”

In July 2013, Free Syrian Army fighters entered the Christian village of Oum Sharshouh and began burning down houses and terrorizing the population, forcing 250 Christian families to flee the area. Worthy News reported that just two days later, Free Syrian Army rebels “targeted the residents of al-Duwayr/Douar, a Christian village close to the city of Homs and near Syria’s border with Lebanon….Around 350 armed militants forcefully entered the homes of Christian families who were all rounded-up in the main square of the village and then summarily executed.” And in September 2013, a day after Secretary of State John Kerry praised the Free Syrian Army as “a real moderate opposition,” the FSA took to the Internet to post videos of its attack on the ancient Syrian Christian city of Maaloula, one of the few places where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken.

These are the moderates Obama and Boehner want to arm.

“House approves Syria aid,” by Scott Wong and Cristina Marcos, The Hill, September 17, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The House voted Wednesday to grant President Obama authority to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels waging war against Islamic extremists.

Despite vocal opposition from both war-weary liberals and defense hawks who feel the Syria plan should include more robust steps, majorities in both conferences voted 273-156 to back Obama’s plan to give military aid to vetted members of the Free Syrian Army.

The total yes vote included 114 Democrats and 159 Republicans; opposition was just as bipartisan, with 85 Democrats and 71 Republicans voting no. The Syria language was considered as an amendment to a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown on Oct. 1.

The House later Wednesday is expected to pass the $1 trillion continuing resolution or CR, and will then send the full package over to the Senate, which is expected to approve it on Thursday.

Earlier in the day, Obama pledged that he would not send in ground troops to fight ISIS, saying it’s more effective to support military allies “so they can secure their own countries future.”

How To Save America And Create 20 Million Jobs Instantly

by /Personal Liberty Digest

Hi. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. And do I have a plan for the Republican Party — if the Republicans want to win elections by a landslide, if they want to save the economy and if they want to create 20 million middle-class jobs almost overnight.
 
Back in 1994, a Contract with America won Republicans control of Congress. In my latest book, “The Murder of the Middle Class,” I lay out the Middle-Class Contract with America that will help do it again in 2014 and 2016. If only the GOP would listen, we could turn around this terrible economy, save the middle class and return America to greatness.
 
Republicans need to do more than be against Barack Obama. They need to present their vision and a detailed plan for how to reinvigorate the economy and create millions of high-paying, middle-class jobs. Here is the 10-point plan that can stop this long-term decline and dysfunction and once again make America’s middle class the greatest in the world. A Middle-Class Contract with America created by a small-business owner (that’s me) can do it again.

This is a common-sense contract to protect, save and serve America’s middle class. This “contract” has only three goals: Support, stimulate and reward middle-class job creation.

Start with a national income tax vacation. Ronald Reagan already proved a radical plan that gives power (and money) back to the people will turn even the worst recession since the Great Depression into the biggest economic expansion in world history. Reagan saved America from economic ruin by cutting taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent. This idea is Reagan on steroids! Obama wasted more than $2 trillion dollars (the updated cost) on a “stimulus to nowhere.” He gambled on big government and lost. Six years later, there is still no recovery for small business or middle-class jobs.

Like Reagan, I’m betting on the private sector. Government cannot save us from this Obama Great Depression. Only the taxpayers, investors and small business owners can save us. So my version of “stimulus” goes to the group of citizens that pay the taxes and create the jobs.

My national income tax vacation lets taxpayers take a vacation from income taxes and keep 100 percent of their income for one year. Sit back and watch the greatest economic explosion in world history. What will they do with their windfall? Start businesses, build businesses, expand businesses.

Pat Buchanan to Mitt Romney: Run for President in 2016

By Bill Hoffmann / NEWSMAX

Pat Buchanan has some no-nonsense advice for Mitt Romney on the 2016 Republican presidential nomination:

Go for it.

"It's very hard for me to see how someone could look at the fact that he's got a real shot at the nomination and then walk away from it when the man believes he ought to be president," Buchanan said Wednesday on "The Steve Malzberg Show"


"If it were me and I looked at those kinds of numbers, I'd be on the next flight to Manchester," Buchanan said.

Romney — who has insisted for months he has no interest in running again after a crushing loss to President Barack Obama in 2012 — acknowledged that "circumstances can change."

A day after Romney made that teasing statement, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found 35 percent of likely GOP caucus voters would vote for the former Massachusetts governor in 2016.

Buchanan — a veteran political commentator, former GOP presidential candidate and senior adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan — said he is impressed with Sen. Rand Paul.

He doesn't think, as some pundits have suggested, that the Kentucky Republican — in preparation for an expected run for president — is mainstreaming his positions and selling out his libertarian views.

"I wouldn't use that term on Rand Paul. I like him, but there's no doubt you've got to deal with certain realities . . . He's a realist in foreign policy. He's not an isolationist," Buchanan said.

"There's no doubt that some of the Libertarians are critical of Rand Paul and they feel he's not a purist and he's not as hard-core as his father [former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas]."

But Buchanan says Paul will be supported by his core base.

"You saw the poll: in New Hampshire, he's at 15 percent, I think, 5 percent ahead of anybody," he said.

"But nobody's got any real support, except Romney was not in the poll, which is very interesting."

Buchanan — author of "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority," published by Crown Forum — said Hillary Clinton, if she runs for the Democratic presidential nomination, will have some major explaining to do about her time in the Senate.

"She said the worst mistake of her Senate career – and it was a most important vote – was voting to authorize war in Iraq," Buchanan said.

"That is the father of everything that's going on in Iraq today. She said her most important vote was a mistake.

"Then she said she voted against the surge even though she believed it was a good idea to maintain her political viability in Iowa. She's going to have to answer for all this.

Op-ed:
Priorities Amiss for the Man Who Would Be King                                                                                    
By: Diane Sori

Point blank...our troops are needed to protect our unsecured borders and our troops might soon be sent back to Iraq to prevent those wanting to kill us all from doing so...but what does Obama have planned for our troops...he's sending 3000 of our bravest over to Liberia to try and help stop the spread of Ebola. That's 3000 American lives Obama is willing to put at risk of directly contracting one of the most deadly diseases known to man, as well as opening up the possibility of 3000 Americans becoming 'carriers' of said disease...'carriers' who then infect others... and so on down the line.

Another calculatingly devious move by the man whose goal it is to bring down America any way he can...and this time it's by 'culling the herd' if you will courtesy of a sinister little nasty called Ebola.

But the truth is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama has NO business getting American military personnel involved in this...a medical crisis...period. Our troops are fighters...are America's warriors...sent overseas to win wars and to both secure and help keep the peace (at least that was always their mission pre-Obama)...they are NOT trained to play doctor. And with many Africa countries having already seen and come through numerous Ebola outbreaks since it was first documented in 1976, this disease appears to be one that waxes and wanes in cycles, meaning this current outbreak will also fade out on its own only to be resurrected again in 'x' number of years.

And it's important to remember that Ebola is primarily a disease of undeveloped countries...hot, dank, unclean, and unsanitary countries...countries barely living in the 20th century let alone the 21st. And while it's truly sad to see so many people sick and dying (half infected die and half infected survive), and as bad as this current epidemic appears to be at this point in time, it too will run its natural course like it has all the other times Ebola reared its ugly head.

And the fact is that due to our unsecured southern border 'We the People' face a tangible and very serious health crisis of our own as Barack HUSSEIN Obama has put out the welcome mat for any and all who wish to come here ILLEGALLY...for any and all to enter our country bringing with them diseases we here in America had long thought gone...bringing with them antibiotic-resistant diseases like certain virulent strains of TB.

So why is Obama doing this...why is he deliberately sending our troops into harm's way...why is he risking American lives to save people who hate America...two words say it all...'political gain.' Saying the current Ebola outbreak "is a looming threat to global security and that if the outbreak is NOT stopped now, hundreds of thousands of people may become infected," but let's be honest here...Barack HUSSEIN Obama does NOT care one iota about our troops being exposed to a deadly disease nor does he care about 'certain' (as in Christian) groups sick and dying in Africa...what he cares about is turning around his tanking poll numbers... numbers so low that members of his own party are deserting him like rats desert a sinking ship...deserting him as November looms large.

So what better way to become a hero of sorts...to turn those numbers around...than to have the world perceive him as the man who helped stop the spread of Ebola never mind that Ebola...like I've said so many times before...will burn itself out on its own accord...in its own due time. Plus now he can continue to say...to lie...that with our southern border situation now under control there is NO need to send any of our troops there.

And why pray tell does a medical problem in Africa have, as Obama claims, "profound implications for us all," especially when Ebola has NOT morphed into being airborne transmitted nor does it show any sign of it doing so any time soon NO matter what the naysayers claim. Ebola is NOT 'Captain Tripps' of 'The Stand'...it is NOT a virus that can be easily manipulated in the lab nor will it spread unchecked to kill countless thousands within days or weeks as some who love to cry wolf say...for in its current mode of transmission Ebola is a virus that can be somewhat easily contained until it once again naturally burns itself out by simply halting all travel...especially air travel...both in and out of the countries affected.

And what are the all-important details of Obama's decision to send our troops to Africa...first, the cost, as in $763 million of our taxpayer dollars will be spent on what he calls a "military-led plan" to help stop the spread of Ebola and prevent it from reaching the U.S. (when that money should be spent on securing our southern border)...second, calling for more doctors and health care professionals to voluntarily go into Ebola infected countries...third, having the military build more portable hospitals, laboratories, and other medical facilities...and lastly, increase training for first responders and other medical officials throughout West Africa.

To have our military build more portable hospitals, laboratories, and other medical facilities Obama said...to have our troops labor to aid in what he deems a humanitarian crisis while the real tangible crisis at hand...while the real threat to the American homeland will be fought with 'limited and targeted' air strikes and with NO boots on the ground. Whatever happened to the president's main job of protecting the American citizenry above all else...protecting Americans before rushing to the aid of others...especially others who have NO love for America or Americans.

So as Vladimir Putin flexes his muscle in Ukraine...as Iran rattles its saber and continues to stir the pot of the so-called 'green soup'...as the South Korean man-child does whatever he wants while continuing to thumb his nose at the world...and as America is faced with a 'NO Strategy' strategy of divert and deflect...ISIS continues to grow stronger and more brutal with each passing day...all while Barack HUSSEIN Obama's main focus is on an outbreak of Ebola in Africa.

And for that he's willing to put our troops health and welfare in danger for those infected are his brethren of sorts...mostly (but NOT) all being both muslim and black...and sadly for we Americans those two things trump all for the racist in presidential clothing...for the muslim occupying the White House...for the man who would be king.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Night Watch

Pakistan-Al-Qaida: Update. The attack on the Pakistani frigate on 6 September has taken a new twist. The leader of the new South Asian branch of al-Qaida posted a statement to the web that claimed the attackers intended to attack a US aircraft carrier by firing missiles from the Pakistan Navy ship that they boarded. A US aircraft carrier was in the area at the time.

The web posting also claimed that Pakistan Navy insiders aided and abetted the plan and the execution of the attack.

Comment: The Pakistanis killed three and captured seven attackers. The new information, in some senses, makes the lapse of security even worse, because the attack team was so inept.

The fact that and the extent to which the Pakistan Navy contains al-Qaida sympathizers should be a serious concern for the US and Allied ships that call at Karachi. The other significant point is the ambition of this new al-Qaida group in trying to find a way to attack and aircraft carrier.

The plan to attack a US naval ship by firing anti-ship missiles from a Pakistan Navy ship is innovative. A better trained attack team might have succeeded in firing a missile.

Punjabi Taliban: The chief of the Taliban fighters in Punjab Province announced his group was abandoning its "armed struggle." Ismatullah Muawiya said that after consulting other Muslim leaders, his group would now limit its use of force to "infidel forces" and would focus on promoting Sharia.

He accompanied the announcement with a declaration of the group's patriotism and an expression of its desire to defend Pakistan from "outside threats".

Muawiya also said the Punjabi Taliban would continue to operate in Afghanistan, but would focus on preaching. He called on other Taliban factions to abandon their insurgencies in Pakistan. He called on the government to compensate those affected by its offensive in Waziristan and other tribal agencies and to rehabilitate them with "honor and dignity". "Peace is the need of the hour to foil conspiracies against Pakistan and its people," he said.

Comment: This faction of the Taliban has attacked government installations infrequently in the past six years, but with significant success. Its emergence in Punjab Province proved that the Taliban were not just a Pashtun tribal phenomenon and had appeal among Punjabis in eastern Pakistan. More on this story as details emerge.

Iraq: On 14 September, an Iraqi newspaper reported that "Vice President Nuri al-Maliki criticized Prime Minister Haydar al-Abadi's decision to stop the shelling of cities to prevent civilian casualties."

During a joint conference with Karbala Governor Aqil al-Turayhi, al-Maliki said: "Some cities have become deserted and turned into camps for DA'ISH (DA'ISH is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, (ISIL))." Al Maliki said that the "DA'ISH is a gang gathering in a place and seeking shelter in the cities and taking advantage of the government's decision to cease the shelling of the cities."

Comment: Al-Maliki's statements are symptomatic of the political disarray in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Abadi pulled a government together, primarily because of outside pressure. Al Maliki and others criticize strategy, while al-Abadi is trying to attract Sunnis to the government's side. Meanwhile, the Kurds want assurances that their territorial gains since June will be respected.

The unwillingness of political factions to put national security ahead of partisan advantage is a good indicator that the Iraqi leaders do not perceive the ISIL threat to be as imminent or as great as western media describe it. ISIL is extreme, but its observance of Islam conforms to the preachings of the Wahhab sect which dominates Saudi Arabia.

That might help explain the President of Iraq's statement on 15 September that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE do not need to participate in airstrikes against ISIL. He also regretted that Iran was excluded from today's conference in Paris about building a coalition.
WASHINGTON - The nightly news shows made it very clear this week that they've gotten behind Hillary Clinton's expected 2016 campaign for president.
 
The network news programs gave Clinton's trip to Iowa the gushing, royal treatment on Sunday, repeating it again on Monday, as she appeared before a throng of cheering Democrats where her party's first presidential nominating caucuses will be held. The coverage of her speech, which was loaded with empty platitudes and little else that was newsworthy, bordered on the worshipful.

That she has the 2016 Democratic nomination virtually sewed up at this juncture tells us everything we need to know about the sad state of the Democratic Party today.

She is manifestly ill-equipped to be president and has shown no talents to be a chief executive of anything, let alone the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

No one can name a major achievement in her career as First Lady, senator from New York, or Secretary of State.

Indeed, her role in all three jobs has been marked by failure, incompetence and grandstanding.

When President Clinton put her in charge of health care reform, she glued together a hopelessly incomprehensible Rube Goldberg contraption that no one could understand, or that could pass muster within her own party on Capitol Hill.

Republicans hit the road, making its defeat their No. 1 issue, and it wasn't a hard sell.

I remember a newsmaker health care panel I chaired at the time to discuss her plan, and the chief lobbyist of the politically powerful AARP told me it was so complicated and murky even he couldn't fully understand how it would work.

Her plan was so bad, House Democratic leaders never even brought it up for a vote in committee, let alone bring it to the House floor. It was a humiliating experience for the Clinton administration and a devastating defeat for a First Lady who was clearly in over her head on health policy.

But the little-known fact about Hillary's years in the White House was that she was often at odds with her husband over key issues and policies.

During that time, President Clinton worked closely with the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council which he had chaired during his time as governor. Their agenda was focused on expanding trade, reforming welfare, and championing non-union, charter school, education reforms -- positions that were fiercely opposed by the party's liberal base.

DLC leaders at the time told me that Hillary, who was far more liberal than her husband, opposed their centrist agenda within the White House.

Daily Read: On Poverty, Another War We Lost

by / Personal Liberty Digest
Daily Read: On Poverty, Another War We Lost
The Daily Signal’s Robert Rector in a Tuesday commentary tells us what the federal government has been able to accomplish after 50 years and $22 trillion taxpayer dollars spent waging President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.

Not much.

From the piece:

Over 100 million people, about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.
But today the Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually shows that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.
How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse?
The answer is it isn’t possible. Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state.
For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labelled as poor by Census fit that description.
Johnson’s goal was to give poor Americans the tools needed to pull themselves out of the poverty cycle, and he even sold his War on Poverty plan by discussing how it would shrink welfare doles.

Of course, the federal government has made great gains in power anytime it has declared “war” on anything (drugs, terror) and gladly spends about two-thirds of the nation’s overall budget on warfare and welfare (defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). In any free-market system, more power would come with more responsibility to demonstrate results. But the smoke and mirrors of the nation’s modern economy absolve leaders of that responsibility with unnatural economic meddling.

Thus, what look like failures to reduce poverty are, in reality, part of a larger economic problem that has to be answered by the leaders of a warfare/welfare state. And the left isn’t the only group at fault. 

Neoconservatives, while spending much time speaking out against domestic programs that make people dependent on government, are often all too happy to create international disturbances that leave people in far-off lands dependent on U.S. military welfare. I think we call it “spreading freedom.”

Next time a Barack Obama talks about hope and change through big domestic programs or a John McCain discusses safety through military adventurism, Americans who can no longer afford to be aloof must demand clear results.

We’ve seen three wars failed in the past half-century (drugs, terror and poverty); how many more can we afford to lose?

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — George W. Bush from Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004