Thursday, November 15, 2012

Netanyahu: "Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others are deliberately harming our citizens, while intentionally hiding behind their citizens"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


It is good that he said it. Not that the international media will pay any attention at all. They aid and abet the "Palestinian" propaganda about Israelis harming civilians. "Statement by PM Netanyahu on Operation Pillar of Defense to Israeli Public," from IMRA, November 14:
Statement by PM Netanyahu (Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Wednesday, 14 November 2012), made the following statement:
"Citizens of Israel,
I want to praise the IDF soldiers and commanders, led by Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz , who is commanding the operation as we speak. I want to note the Israel Security Agency, headed by Director Yoram Cohen, for their vital part in the operational accomplishments that we have already achieved. I thank the citizens of Israel for their unwavering support of this operation. I thank the residents of southern Israel who are at the front, and exhibit strength and restraint.
Hamas and the terror organizations decided to escalate their attacks on the citizens of Israel over the last few days. We will not accept a situation in which Israeli citizens are threatened by the terror of rockets. No country would accept this, Israel will not accept it.
Today, we hit Hamas strategic targets precisely. We have significantly debilitated their ability to launch rockets from Gaza to the center of Israel, and we are now working to disable their ability to launch rockets towards the south. The terrorist organizations – Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others – are deliberately harming our citizens, while intentionally hiding behind their citizens.
On the other hand, we avoid harming civilians as much as possible and that is one fundamental difference between us. It also indicates the big difference between our objectives, and not only in our methods. They want to obliterate us from the face of the earth and they have no qualms about hurting civilians and innocents.
Today, we sent an unequivocal message to Hamas and the other terror organizations, and if need be the IDF is prepared to expand the operation. We will continue to do everything necessary to defend our citizens."
Electoral College

Electoral College 

By: Rich Galen / Townhall Columnist


The United States Constitution provides for an indirect election of the President. That is, you didn't vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney last week; you voted for electors pledged to vote for one or the other.

The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which superseded a large section of Article II, Section 1) suggests says that the ballots of the electors in the several states having marked their ballots for President and Vice President shall "transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."

On or about January 6, 2013 (probably January 7th or 8th as the 6th is on a Sunday) that counting will take place and Barack Obama will be declared President and Joe Biden will be declared Vice President.

That part we know all too well. What we don't pay much attention to is the original (and un-amended) language of Article II, Section 1 which states:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

Note, the Constitution does not prescribe that the candidate with the most votes in a given state be granted all of the Electors. It leaves the "Manner" of selection up to the State Legislatures.

Indeed, if the State Legislature of Upper Iguana determined that its Governor should choose the electors, then a popular vote would be unnecessary as he (or she) could pick electors for what ever candidate he (or she) desires.

Or, Upper Iguanians might decide to let the Legislators themselves choose the Electors.

Granted, either of these is unlikely in any real state except for Illinois, but it would be possible.

The current system is well known: 48 states and the District of Columbia award all of a states' Electors to the candidate that wins the majority of the votes in that state.

The other two states, Nebraska and Maine have a better plan: They award Electors by Congressional District. Nebraska has three Congressional Districts; Maine has two.

The winner in each CD gets that Elector and the candidate with the most votes statewide gets the Electors awarded for the two Senate seats.

I have no idea what the effects on the 2012 election would have been if all 50 states and DC had adopted that concept and it doesn't matter because both sides knew the rules going in. It does seem, though, that awarding Electors by CD would put more than eight or nine states in play every four years.

In California, which has 55 EVs, Romney would have had a shot at as many as 16 Electors in Districts likely to be represented by Republicans.

Similarly, in Texas Obama might have picked up as many as 12 of the 38 EVs available there.

The direct election of the President would likely mean that all of the attention would be paid to the high population areas: New York City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Miami and so on. The smaller cities and towns would be left out in the cold.

There may be some very good reason that I'm missing that argues against a Congressional District selection of Electors, but I can't think of it.

Not every CD would go for the Presidential candidate whose party is represented by the Member of Congress, so it is not a direct one-to-one relationship.

I understand it would make it much harder for the networks to "call" a state the moment the polls close based upon exit polls, but the method of electing a President shouldn't be designed for the convenience of the national press corps.

Over the next days or weeks researchers will have voting results that are granular to be able to determine what would have happened if the CD system were in place in 2012; but it wasn't so the two campaigns didn't design their efforts to reflect it.

The Constitution allows State Legislatures to determine the method of choosing Electors, so this system doesn't need a Constitutional amendment; it could be done in the next few months.

Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home 

By: Hugh Hewitt  / Townhall Columnist


With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week's vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner's --details here on the president's plan-- the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.

The media is focused on speculation about the "big deal" and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.

The deadline for the most important political and legal decisions of the near term is being made in every state:

Whether or not to establish a state health insurance exchange pursuant to Obamacare. The original deadline for each governor to decide was this Friday, but HHS has graciously given the states another month to decide which poison to pick: Subservience via establishment of a puppet exchange or takeover of the state's insurance business via a big foot federal health exchange. The rules the feds have dictated the states must follow in making their choice are here.

Yesterday, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama announced that Alabama would not be establishing the exchange or expanding Medicaid. The latter is not surprising, as the expansion will quickly eat away at state budgets.

But Bentley's position on the exchange --he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no-- is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.

Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed --by the Sooners' AG, and the amended complaint is here-- and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.

The amended complaint of the State of Oklahoma argues in crucial part:
II. The New Claims 
8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.
9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.
10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.
11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange.
Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.
12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.
This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state's legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.

States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country's leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown's Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state's legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the "is the penalty a tax" debate.

Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.

But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.

The status of states' decision-making on the exchanges is reviewed on a state-by-state basis here.

The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn't. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun.

The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The left scored a knock-down with the president's re-election, but the fight isn't over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president's re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won't be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.

Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president's head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.

But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.

Jill Kelley Helped Muslim Nations, Hezbollah Infiltrate Central Command, MacDill Base; “Go To Girl” For Muslim Parties w/ Generals

By Debbie Schlussel


Jill Khawam Kelley was the hand-picked lobbyist for Muslim nations and their agenda at Central Command.

Kelley, who is part of the soap opera that the Petraeus scandal spawned, was in charge of hosting parties and social events to push the Islamic agenda of Middle Eastern countries. She was seen by Muslim Mid-East nations, especially Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, as the “go to” woman to push their agenda on top American generals. She was a lobbyist for their cause and, yet, wasn’t required to register as a lobbyist, like all others who host lavish parties for top American officials, like she did, in an attempt to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Kelley, a dhimmi Christian Arab of Lebanese descent, was well known in the Muslim Arab embassies of Washington for doing their bidding and hosting their parties at and near MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, where our nation’s top generals are based. It’s where Central Command–the U.S. Armed Forces’ leadership over wars and military personnel Middle East–is headquartered.

When a friend of mine said that he thought the financially troubled Khawam sisters, Kelley and Natalie Khawam, were spies for Lebanon and the Arab world, I originally expressed skepticism. I believed that these twin sisters with obvious twin nose jobs were merely bimbo gold diggers in slutty outfits, who used their Delilah ways to first nab rich husbands, and then nab idiotic top American generals to participate in Lifetime-Channel-worthy bitter child custody disputes. But then I learned that Ms. Kelley, who was until this week under the radar, was quietly involved in pushing the agenda of Muslim Arab nations on our nation’s top generals with whom she’d grown close by design. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Ms. Kelley got her hooks into our two top generals in the Middle East, David Petraeus and John Allen. I’m now convinced that my friend, lawyer Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana, who has excellent instincts, was correct.

I’ve long written about the infiltration of Central Command at MacDill Air Base in Tampa by Islamic terrorists. Islamic Jihad founder and convicted Islamic terrorist, Sami Al-Arian, was an instructor on the Middle East to our top generals at MacDill Air Force Base AT THE VERY SAME TIME that he was planning mergers and terrorist attacks in Israel with “the brothers of HAMAS” and while he was bringing Muslim illegal alien Islamic terrorists to the U.S. Al-Arian’s friend and co-conspirator, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah (one of those Al-Arian brought here), who became the Secretary-General of the worldwide Islamic Jihad terrorist group, was also a lecturer at MacDill and also taught our top generals his poisonous views on the Middle East and Israel. FBI and INS agents who investigated Shallah and Al-Arian were alarmed at the influence these two top Islamic terrorists had over CentCom. They were also alarmed to find many books on the inner workings of MacDill in Shallah’s house when they raided it.

So when people ask me how I think these women were able to insert themselves into top generals’ lives and topple them (along with, apparently, the men they married), I think back to the fact that our top generals gladly allowed top terrorists to infiltrate Central Command as alleged “professors” on the Middle East. And when generals like Petraeus and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. openly attack Israel and America’s relationship with Israel, people like Jill Khawam Kelley and Al-Arian and Shallah are the reason why. Khawam Kelley isn’t an innocent socialite. She’s an agent of influence for Arab Muslim nations.

The Washington Post reports:
A military officer who is a former member of Petraeus’s staff said Kelley was a “self-appointed” go-between for Central Command officers with Lebanese and other Middle Eastern officials. . . . At the parties Jill Kelley hosted at her Tampa mansion, guests were frequently treated to the indulgences of celebrity life: valet parking, string quartets on the lawn, premium cigars and champagne, and caviar-laden buffets.
The main recipients of the largess were military brass — including some of the nation’s most senior commanders — based at nearby MacDill Air Force Base.
Kelley flaunted her access to these military VIPs. . . . The investigations of Petraeus’s and Allen’s actions, nonetheless, have raised questions about how Kelley, a woman with no formal military role, cultivated such close ties to two of the nation’s most revered generals.
One former aide to Allen, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the case, suggested that Kelley had become a de facto social ambassador among high-ranking personnel at MacDill, home to the U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Middle Eastern diplomats in Washington also knew Ms. Kelley, who came from a Lebanese immigrant family and who helped arrange social activities when dignitaries from the region visited Tampa, diplomats said. She also sometimes attended parties at Washington embassies.
I guarantee you that Jill Khawam Kelley wasn’t hosting visits from dignitaries from Israel. And, other than those from Israel, every single “Middle Eastern diplomat” in Washington is a Muslim, most of them Muslim Arabs. And all of them Muslims with an agenda that is anti-Israel and anti-Western. And definitely not in America’s best interests. They come to Tampa for one reason and one reason only–to ingratiate themselves with the top military brass at CentCom at MacDill.

And Jill Khawam Kelley was their social director in that mission.

Kelley’s sister, Natalie Khawam, was married to a top Bush administration official, Grayson Wolfe, Director of Broader Middle East Initiatives and Iraqi Reconstruction at the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and frequently accompanied him on trips to the Middle East, including to Pakistan. Before that position, Wolfe was the Bush-installed Manager of the Private Sector Development Office of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq. How many of the Khawam’s insider Arab Muslim friends did he give sweetheart contracts to? Before It’s News has more and asks more questions about the consulting and contracting firm that Wolfe now heads. Although they are now embroiled in a bitter custody fight over their son, you have to wonder what influence Khawam had on him and what was done in the Middle East. She recently sued her former employer, a Jewish lawyer, Barry Cohen, but gave up after her lawsuit was shown to be phony. Cohen struck back and found that Khawam engaged in bankruptcy fraud.

My friend wasn’t so far-fetched when he insisted the Khawam chicks are modern day Mata Haris for the Muslim Arabs.

Just look at what they’ve accomplished for the Muslim Mid-East, all of it under the radar . . . until Paula Broadwell had the stupidity to send her threatening e-mails and Jill Khawam Kelley had the stupidity of complaining about it to shirtless FBI agent Frederic Humphries.
Op-ed:
Cover-up and lies...or will Petraeus tell the truth
By: Diane Sori

“David Petraeus didn’t betray his country,” FOX commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano said.  “He betrayed his wife.  Big deal.“

Saying the federal investigation was “the use of law enforcement either for a personal vendetta that [Tampa military liaison] Jill Kelley pushed through her FBI agent connection, or a political vendetta by somebody wanting to silence, by embarrassing, humiliating and destroying the credibility of Petraeus.”

You think...

OK, let’s cut to the chase...even if this twisted story of generals running sexually amok while under Obama’s command had broken weeks before the election Obama would still NOT have lost (remember, the FIX was in even before the first ballot was cast), but, and this sums it up, the entire Benghazi affair was kept under lock and key by the Obama controlled main stream media to cover up the true story of...in my opinion...Obama’s guns and weapons running to the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly to al-Qaeda in Syria.

In other words the msm has covered-up Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s aiding and abetting the enemy, and as such is complicit in this whole traitorous affair. 

I firmly believe that Ambassador Stevens was MURDERED because he found out the truth and needed to be shut up, and now four-star general and ‘suddenly’ former CIA head David Petraeus is involved in a sex scandal that has ended his once illustrious career and destroyed his family.

And while Obama bloviates on TV and in print that Patraeus’ affair posed NO treat to national security, boxes full of classified secret documents were found in the basement of Paula Broardwell, the now infamous 15 minute of fame military mistress...hey, let’s call it like it is...paid whore or worse (more on that in a bit).

Paula Broadwell, the woman who I believe was a plant (in the guise of writing Petraeus’ biography) by the Obama administration to deliberately seduce the general to find out just how much he knew or uncovered about Benghazi’s truth and Stevens’ murder.

So now we have a run of the mill ‘who cares’ extramarital affair being used as subterfuge to take prying eyes off what should be a probing investigation into major security breaches, lies, and cover-ups.  And after keeping silent since resigning last week as head of the CIA and with his legacy in total shambles, it took just a mere 24 hours after Republicans and others started yelling 'subpoena,' for General David Petraeus to agree to ‘voluntarily’ testify before the House Committee investigating Benghazi. 

But guys remember this important fact...Petraues now has until tomorrow to 'prepare' his script, or worse... have it written for him, and have it checked and rechecked again before he opens his mouth ...and LIES for Obama.

Now we have to wonder what Obama has on Petraeus...and it’s NOT that he had an affair as affairs are a dime a dozen these days.

So, what does Obama have on Patreaus...and why did Broadwell have classified documents in her possession?  There is a rumbling of a thought deep inside me that Putin, yes ‘that’ Putin, is somehow involved, because remember Obama’s infamous words about what he’ll be able to do after he’s re-elected.

Is Paula Broadwell really a Russian spy...it would fit well into my supposition that Benghazi was a weapons smuggling operation gone bad, especially when you start adding up all the separate pieces of the puzzle and fit them into the whole.

And Petraeus found out and must be silenced with the long over affair the catalyst for that silencing.

So it now it comes down to disgraced four-star general David Petraeus to either turn traitor and (as I'm sure instructed to) lie about what he knows...or possibly do the right thing and honor the 'U.S. Soldier's Creed'* and tell the truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth...both under oath and under the eye of ‘We the People’ demanding the truth.

Tomorrow will tell, and I hope and pray that Patraeus does the right thing for love of country and for the families of those lost.


*The Soldier’s Creed
I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the
United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.