Friday, January 25, 2013

Hillary Lets the Jihadist Cat Out of the Bag
By: Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch
 
After four years of pretending there is no jihad against the free world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blurted out the truth during her testimony on the Benghazi jihad massacre Wednesday: “We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” she said, adding: “We have to recognize this is a global movement.”

We do? Yet the Obama administration has for years steadfastly and repeatedly denied both that there was a jihadist threat at all and that it was a global movement. So far has the Obama administration been from acknowledging that there was a jihad threat that less than two months into Obama’s first term, on March 16, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted proudly that in her first testimony to Congress, “I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Even “terrorism,” absent a modifier, was a politically correct euphemism for jihad violence that demonstrated an unwillingness to examine the beliefs of the jihadists, for to have done so would have led straight into Islam.

Those who described those dedicated to destroying the United States simply as “terrorists” generally did not want to admit that Islam had anything to do with that war. George W. Bush had started this ball rolling when he proclaimed Islam a “religion of peace” shortly after 9/11; however, Bush officials could and did explore the Islamic texts and teachings that illuminated jihadist motives and goals. Under Obama, it became official U.S. policy not to do so.

On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he was questioned repeatedly by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about whether the Fort Hood jihad mass murders, the attempted jihad car bombing in Times Square, and the Christmas underwear jihad bomber over Detroit could be attributed to “radical Islam.” Holder repeatedly refused to agree to this, going only so far as to say: “There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious.”

Noted Smith: “I don’t know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals. If you can’t name the enemy, then you’re going to have a hard time trying to respond to them.”

Indeed. Nonetheless, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, who is the current Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, echoed Holder’s reluctance to say that Islam had anything to do with jihad terrorism on May 26, 2010, during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He declared: “Nor do we describe our enemies as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.” Brennan has repeated this many times, and has defined the enemy not as a global movement, but as a “small fringe of fanatics” consisting of al-Qaeda and “its terrorist affiliates.”

It was no surprise, then, that Brennan readily agreed in October 2011 to demands from Islamic supremacist groups with links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, to purge all training materials for law enforcement and intelligence agents of all mention of Islam or jihad. Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

In December 2011, when Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) asked Paul Stockton, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, whether “we are at war with violent Islamist extremism,” Stockton did his best to dodge the question and finally answered: “I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.”

This created numerous absurd situations, since Islamic jihadists so often spoke of Islam and jihad in explaining and justifying their actions, but the Obama administration plowed ahead anyway. Most notoriously, it characterized the November 2009 Fort Hood jihad massacre, when Major Nidal Hasan, a self-described “soldier of Allah” who had given numerous indications of his jihadist proclivities and was shouting “Allahu akbar” as he murdered thirteen Americans, not as Islamic jihad or even terrorism, but as “workplace violence.”

And now, after years of politically correct obfuscation, Hillary Clinton describes our enemies as “jihadists.”

Will Brennan rebuke her? Will Obama? Probably not, since they can be sure that an ever-compliant mainstream media won’t ever ask the uncomfortable questions that should be asked at this point: Does this signify a departure from administration policy? Is the Obama administration going to reevaluate its refusal to examine the role that Islam plays in motivating those who identify themselves as mujehedin, jihadists, warriors of jihad and Islam? Doesn’t Hillary’s statement undercut everything the administration has stood for all along – and, incidentally, demonstrate the cynicism and dishonesty of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations campaign to make Americans think that jihad is just getting in your exercise or taking the kids to school?

But of course, it was just a slip of the tongue. “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar,” said Abraham Lincoln, and in doing so, he demonstrated why the Obama administration’s See-No-Jihad, Speak-No-Jihad policy is doomed to failure: the Muslim enemies of the United States are obviously Islamic jihadists, as shown by their own words, their largely unchallenged claim within the Islamic world to represent authentic Islam, and their references to Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions and gain new recruits – again largely unchallenged. Hillary Clinton knows they’re jihadists, and that’s why she called them that, although she would almost certainly not have done so if she had been more collected and not caught off guard. But it is when one is under pressure that the lies give way. And so they did.

The Ultimate in Hypocrisy 

By: Michael Youssef / Townhall Columnis

Where can one look to find the ultimate hypocrisy today?

One would think we could look to current politicians, among whom there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

Or we could look to Al Gore, who preaches “green,” but makes more than $100 million from the “black gold” of Qatar. In selling Current TV, Gore’s failed television network, to Al Jazeera, he merely confirmed what nearly everyone knew about him: that the only green he believes in is the color of money.

But to find the ultimate hypocrisy, we need only look a little further—for if you guessed it is closely connected with Al Jazeera, Qatar, and Al Gore, you would be very close.

On Monday, January 21, the beefy Emir of Qatar opened the Doha Third Forum to combat human trafficking. His royal highness played host to the annual conference, which takes place in Doha, the capital of Qatar.

Readers who are unfamiliar with Middle East politics would be excused for criticizing me for even mentioning this worthy cause in a negative light. The tragedy of human trafficking is a global catastrophe and needs all the exposure it can get. But it is the ultimate in hypocrisy for the Emir of Qatar to play host to such a worthy effort to stop that tragedy. It is like Osama bin Laden having hosted a Middle East conference on peace.

Qatar, and its billionaire Emir, have been funding and supporting Islamist radicals around the world for years. And in addition to dolling out money to those groups, they have spread an Islamist message by using their global megaphone, called Al Jazeera—an operation that was even shunned by some Arab countries because of its support for radicals.

It was said that when former President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt visited Qatar, he wanted to see Al Jazeera’s headquarters. When he saw the small size of the building, he reportedly said, “Is this the matchbox which is igniting all this fire?”

Al Jazeera has indeed created havoc. The Emir of Qatar and his Al Jazeera megaphone have a reputation for, as they say in the Middle East, “killing a person and weeping at his funeral.” In other words, they sow trouble and support radicals, and yet they try to appear as clean as Mother Teresa.

Having said all that, I need to clarify something for Western readers who may have watched the English-language division of Al Jazeera. For those viewers, the English version often seems “no more radical than CNN or BBC.” In fact, many of the personnel for the English division came from those two organizations.

But when it comes to the mother ship—the Arabic channel of Al Jazeera—it’s a whole different ballgame. On the Arabic version, reporter after reporter often creates a narrative that fits their anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic milieu.

Qatar and its rulers trying to cover themselves with the golden robe of a popular cause—such as their supposed support of the fight against human trafficking—is to cover what may not be savory intentions.

When it comes to hypocrisy, there is plenty of guilt to go around. But Doha’s hosting of the forum against human trafficking represents a new low in the annals of duplicity.

Head Start: Another Costly Government Failure

What’s more realistic: A unicorn, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or a successful government program?

This isn’t a trick question. Even though I’ve presented both theoretical and empirical arguments against government spending, that doesn’t mean every government program is a failure.

I suppose the answer depends on the definition of success.

Government roads do enable me to get from Virginia to Washington every day. And the Post Office usually gets mail from one side of the country to another. By that standard, many government programs and activities yield positive results.

But if the question is whether government achieves anything in a cost-efficient manner, you’re probably better off searching under your bed for unicorns.

If you pose this question to someone on the left, however, don’t be surprised if they point to Head Start. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that this program gives low-income kids a critical leg up before they start school.

I would like this to be true. I may not be fond of big and bloated government, but the best interests of these kids are more important than my desire for a talking point against the welfare state.

So what does the evidence say?

Head Start Cartoon

Here’s what the Washington Examiner wrote about the program, starting with an explanation of what the program is supposed to accomplish.

There are few institutions more sacrosanct in Washington than President Johnson’s Head Start program. The federal government spent more than $7.9 billion on the program in 2012 alone to provide preschool services for nearly 1 million low-income Americans. The program represents everything that is supposedly great about the liberal welfare state. It redistributes resources from wealthy to poor. It uses the power of the federal government to combat inequality by giving poor and minority students an educational boost before they fall behind their wealthier peers. There’s just one problem: It doesn’t work.

Is that an empty assertion? Nope, it’s the evidence from the government’s own research.

The ongoing randomized study of Head Start was based on a nationally representative sample of 5,000 children who applied for the program in 2002. Approximately half of the subjects received Head Start services, while the other half did not. The students were then tested on their language, literacy, math and school performance skills. …the 2010 Head Start Impact Study report notes, “the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole.” Specifically, the language, literacy, math and school performance skills of the Head Start children all failed to improve. …Now, the HHS has finally published a follow-up to its 2010 study that follows the same children through the end of third grade. And again, the HHS has concluded that Head Start is ineffective, concluding that Heat Start resulted in “very few impacts … in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices.” And those impacts that were found “did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.”

So what’s this costing the nation (above and beyond the failure to improve the lives of children)?

Since 1965, the federal government has spent $180 billion on Head Start. …Does that sound like a program you’d want to spend $8 billion on next year?

Now imagine the good things that would have happened if that money was left in the economy’s productive sector.

Or, if you like government, but at least want good results, imagine the good things that would have happened if state and local governments shifted $180 billion from the failed school monopoly into genuine school choice programs.

But let’s close on an optimistic note. As far as I know, there’s no evidence that Head Start actually damages children. It’s just wasted money.

That’s a much better track record than other welfare state programs.

Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional


 
WASHINGTON — In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that would severely curtail the president’s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.


The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress.

The White House had no immediate comment but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

The ruling also threw into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made on Jan. 4, 2012, has been challenged in a separate case.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

“With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration’s flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as “a victory for accountability in government.”

Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

“Either the Senate is in session or it is in recess,” Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. “If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess’ described in the Constitution.”
Op-ed:
Arming our enemies with taxpayer dollars
By: Diane Sori

While we patriots have been busy keeping abreast of the important issues like Hillary's testimony, Obama's wanting to take away our guns, and four traitors being appointed to cabinet positions, the msm keeps trying to get us to focus on the oh so NOT important news of did Beyonce lip-sing at the inauguration (gag)...so that we wouldn't make a big deal of Barack HUSSEIN sending four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of a previously promised foreign aid deal.

Well guess what...I'm going to make a BIG deal of it.

Sending those four fighter jets to Egypt is just the tip of the iceberg of what Obama intends to send them. Back in 2010, Obama made a deal with then Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a longtime US ally, promising that by the end of 2013, 16 fighters jets and 200 Abrams tanks would be sent to Egypt. But then Murback's government fell to the Muslim Brotherhood supported Mohammed Morsi who assumed power in a rigged election.

Sound familiar...

And with the Muslim Brotherhood now in control of Egypt, Obama is still going ahead with the 2010 deal (which included the fighter jets and tanks) even while knowing that Morisi is NO friend to America or to Israel. (Morisi has even publicly spoken of NO longer honoring the Camp David Accords.) 
 
In fact, Morsi, an avowed islamist who wants to turn Egypt into a islamic state complete with sharia as law of the land, has ordered that hatred of Jews be taught to all Egyptian school children.

“Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them,” Morisi said. “They must be nursed on hatred. The hatred must continue.” 
 
Kind of obvious where Morisi intends to point these fighter jets now isn't it and Obama will look away...or he might even give Morisi coordinates on exactly where to aim them.

Morisi and the infamous Muslim Brotherhood are indeed an enemy to both America and Israel but not to Barack HUSSEIN Obama as he outwardly sides with and supports them every chance he gets. By giving these terrorists all the money and weapons they want, through deals like this, Obama is actually helping to aid them in their quest to make the Middle East Jew and Christian free...for bottom line...that is their goal and Obama knows it.

And making Obama's current Egyptian deal even worse is that it's our taxpayer dollars that are being used to 'aid and abet' this dangerous Morisi/Muslim Brotherhood regime. In fact, after Egyptian dissidents, terrorists, and thugs overthrew Mubarak and put Morisi into power, Obama pledged an additional $1 billion to aid Morisi's new government in a transition to democracy...like democracy was ever on Morisi's or the Muslim Brotherhood's mind.

Our taxpayer dollars are being used to aid the Muslim Brotherhood...I cannot stress that enough, and Barack HUSSEIN Obama is willingly and knowingly giving it to them.

So what does Congress do knowing who's now in control of Egypt...they do NOTHING. And even though many in Congress called for ending foreign aid to Egypt, they still did NOTHING. Even when national polls showed that 42% of Americans supported cutting the amount of aid to Egypt, and 29% supported cutting off ALL aid to now Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt, they still allowed the deal to go through. 

And when two weeks after the US Embassy in Egypt was attacked by terrorists (around the same time as Benghazi) Obama gave Morisi an emergency additional $450 million in aid, and Congress did NOTHING to stop this.

So why doesn't Congress act when everything Obama does is done to empower and aid our enemies...why do they do NOTHING to defund these ventures...why when all this is just added proof of where Obama's true allegiances lie for Morisi does NOT hide the fact that his government is most decidedly anti-American and anti-Israeli...why...

I'll tell you why...it's because NOT one person in Congress has the guts, courage and fortitude to say NO to Obama and his band of thugs.  NOT one person in Congress has the guts to call for the ARREST of this man for aiding and abetting the enemy.  Is it fear of the race card that stops them...is it fear of losing their cushy jobs and perks...who knows.  But what I do know is that Obama is NOT stupid...he knows this cowardly Congress will do NOTHING to stop his anti-American agenda...he knows he can plan America's demise as he threatens to take away the weapons of law-abiding Americans while freely giving weapons, including F-16 fighter jets and Abrams tanks to our enemies.

Our forefathers must be turning over in their graves...for how far we've fallen under the stewardship of Barack HUSSEIN Obama...a man far removed from the Founders vision of a leader...a traitor to everything they held dear.