Friday, November 22, 2013


Obama affirms "respect for Afghan sovereignty" in letter to Karzai

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

KarzaiObama.jpg

Here is the letter he should have written:
His Excellency
Hamid Karzai
President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Kabul 
Dear Mr. President:
Our "mission" in Afghanistan is pointless. It will never be a stable, pluralistic republic.
We have lost thousands of lives and wasted billions of dollars, and the Islamic supremacists of the Taliban are stronger than ever. You have even invited them to participate in elections and in the government, only reinforcing how pointless our mission is there.
What's more, you have done nothing to stop the ongoing jihad attacks by your own forces and/or jihadis who have infiltrated those forces against the American troops who are training them. Enough. I will not be responsible for the wanton shedding of more American blood in pursuit of the fantasy of Afghanistan as a reliable U.S. ally.
You want any more American aid? Put your military at girls' schools, to stop them from being blown up. Encourage the education of women. Protect their equality of rights.
Contact that last remaining Afghan Jew. Give him police protection, and encourage him to invite his family and other Afghan Jewish exiles back into the country. Provide protection for the remaining Afghan Hindus, and encourage Afghan non-Muslim exiles to come back. They will enrich your country far more than American dollars could ever do.
But if and only if you protect women's rights and religious minorities, you can have those dollars as well -- at least a few.
We are leaving immediately, but will continue to strike against jihad terror training camps and other facilities when necessary.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
P.S.: Don't expect any more bags of cash from the CIA, either.
Here is what he actually wrote:
His Excellency
Hamid Karzai
President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Kabul 
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased that we have reached agreement on the text of a Bilateral Security Agreement that will enable the United States and Afghanistan to implement the promise of our Strategic Partnership. This is a strong agreement for both our countries, which provides the foundation to continue our cooperation to build a better future for Afghanistan. It provides the basis for cooperating in a new context after 2014, when the International Security Assistance Force mission will have ended, the number of U.S. forces will be much reduced, and a sovereign Afghanistan will be responsible for its security, with the support of the international community. In that new context, America's role in Afghanistan will be one of a supporting partner. Under this Agreement, we will be cooperating in training, advising, and assisting your forces and in a targeted, smaller counterterrorism mission as we continue to help strengthen Afghanistan's own growing counterterrorism capabilities. We look forward to concluding this agreement promptly.
"We will be cooperating in training, advising, and assisting your forces" -- i.e., there will continue to be green-on-blue attacks.
I know that you have been concerned for some time to limit the impact of the conflict in Afghanistan on the Afghan people, with particular attention to the sensitive issue of the safety and privacy of people in their homes. Over time, and especially in the recent past, we have redoubled our efforts to ensure that Afghan homes are respected by our forces and that our operations are conducted consistent with your law. We will continue to make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes and in their daily lives, just as we do for our own citizens.
Except for when we subject our own citizens to massive, relentless surveillance based on our unwillingness to admit the nature of the actual threat we face, requiring us in turn to pretend that the threat comes from everyone equally.
Many of my countrymen and women have given their lives or been seriously wounded in the pursuit of protecting Afghans, and we honor the enormous sacrifices they have made, side by side with Afghans.
Many of my countrymen and women have given their lives or been seriously wounded by their Afghan "allies" they were "side by side with" in the "pursuit of protecting Afghans."
As this new Agreement states, U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals.
U.S. forces shall, however, continue to serve as a shooting gallery for our putative Afghan "allies."
The U.S. commitment to Afghanistan's independence, territorial integrity, and national unity, as enshrined in our Strategic Partnership Agreement, is enduring, as is our respect for Afghan sovereignty. 
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Terry McAuliffe won't take his place as the Governor of Virginia until January, but he isn't wasting any time when it comes to getting ahead on his anti-gun agenda. During the campaign, McAuliffe advocated for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines. Now, he's hired Lori Haas, the Virginia State Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence [CSGV], to help with his transition team. Haas' daughter was shot during the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. More from the DC:
Despite claiming support for the Second Amendment, Haas’s appointment to this position to help assemble his Administration sends a very clear message to gun owners and sportsmen in Virginia that their rights are already under attack in Richmond.
CSGV is an extremist group that demands harsher gun control restrictions and laws than the Brady Campaign. Their activists have advocated for the criminilization of private gun ownership, limited magazine capacity and gun bans. They've also made the NRA their number one target. Here's more from their website:
1) We are taking an aggressive approach with political advocacy. Our message to elected officials is simple: “The era of no accountability is over. If you do the NRA’s bidding and put our loved ones in the line of fire, we will educate your constituents about your record.” This strategy involves the use of social media campaigns and hard-hitting TV, radio and print ads.
2) We are building personal relationships with legislators and challenging them to become dedicated, long-term advocates for sensible gun laws. The victims and survivors of gun violence on our staff are the leaders in this lobbying effort. We are also looking to facilitate the advocacy of state/local activists whenever and wherever we can.
3) We are the first gun violence prevention group to talk about the issue in terms of democratic values, and to use the term “insurrectionism” to describe the NRA’s treasonous interpretation of the Second Amendment. By exposing the hypocrisy of the NRA’s “freedom” message, we have reframed the debate and put them on the defensive.

COLORADO SPRINGS -- Author Malcolm Gladwell has a new bestseller that turns conventional wisdom about the Biblical David vs. Goliath battle on its head: "David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants." In short, it's Goliath who really had the odds stacked against him from the get-go. The overconfident giant with poor eyesight, weighted down with heavy armor and multiple swords, never had a chance against lean, nimble, sharp-shooting expert David.

The new Colorado gun-rights recall campaign against arrogant state Sen. Evie Hudak and myopic Democrats may well be a perfect update to Gladwell's book.

Refresher: In September, grassroots Second Amendment activists ousted two top Democratic state senators for their promotion of radical, job-destroying gun-control measures backed by New York and D.C. special interests. Vice President Joe Biden himself personally lobbied state Democrats to adopt the new gun-rights restrictions. Billionaire gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg dumped gobs of cash and lobbying expertise into the state.

But bigger coffers and bully pulpits weren't enough. National pundits called the historic recalls of Democratic state Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs and state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo "stunning," a "surprise" and a "shocker." Indeed, there was no such precedent in Colorado history. The gun-rights activists were outspent by at least a 7-to-1 margin. Giron's district went for Obama by 20 points; yet she lost by 12.

Bitter losers blamed the NRA. But the recall movement in both districts was spearheaded by local neophytes who were not initially supported by the GOP political establishment or any big-moneyed interests. In Colorado Springs, these vastly underestimated activists gathered more than 16,000 signatures for their Recall Morse petition in a matter of weeks. In Pueblo, the recall leaders were a pair of brothers who run a family plumbing business.

Local gun-rights activists may have been perceived as the weaker, disadvantaged and less experienced combatants. But these Gladwellian Davids had energy, passion and public opinion on their side.

And they're not done. On Oct. 4, the secretary of state approved a new petition to recall a third Democratic state senator whose gun-grabbing extremism made national headlines this spring. Evie Hudak represents Senate District 19, which encompasses Arvada and Westminster in the metro Denver area. During a legislative hearing in March on the Democrats' plan to ban students from carrying concealed firearms on campus, a condescending Hudak rebuked pro-concealed carry advocate and rape victim Amanda Collins.

"I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun... Chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you," Hudak lectured. But even the liberal Denver Post pointed out that the old statistics Hudak cited from a liberal anti-gun group applied only to women with guns who were attacked by "intimate acquaintances," not strangers, as was the case with Collins.

Hudak's dishonest defense of disarming and disempowering women sent a chilling message from government to constituents: About to be raped, assaulted or murdered? The odds are against you.

Don't bother to fight back.

Recall Hudak organizers are trying to gather at least 25,000 signatures by early December. They already have faced death threats and harassment. Liberal supporters of Hudak have littered the district with scare-mongering door hangers depicting gun-rights activists as dangerous criminals and sex offenders. The group distributing those fliers, "Democracy Defense Fund," is also behind deceptive "community alert" robocalls spreading the same slanderous message. The smear campaign is funded by a D.C. outfit, the Environmental Majority PAC, which already has dumped $50,000 into pro-Hudak committees.

As with Morse and Giron, this latest recall isn't just about guns. It's about political hubris and malpractice. Morse refused to read emails from his own constituents. Colorado Second Amendment supporters were shut out of hearings, while Democrats flew in Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords' husband to testify. They abused their power to rig the game, and voters held them accountable.

In September, Hudak was caught surfing the Internet during a critical legislative hearing on Colorado's Corrections Department and Parole Division. Instead of doing her job, Hudak was looking at photos of the late actor Patrick Swayze, tweeting about water on Mars and Obamacare, and Facebooking yoga life lessons and art museum pieces. She dismissed criticism after she was caught, sneering that the hearing testimony was "repetitious" and that "multitasking" helped her "pay attention."

Translation: Goofing off helped her stay awake.

You can't tell from Hudak's indifferent behavior, but the stakes are sky-high in this modern David vs. Goliath battle. Democrats hold Colorado's state Senate by an 18-17 margin. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper's fate also hangs in the balance. And grassroots gun-rights groups in other states are gearing up to launch similar recalls.

It's no wonder Hudak's allies have sunk to such slimy depths as to sabotage recall activists' ability to gather signatures and communicate with voters. The lumbering Goliaths of gun control are tone-deaf, policy-dumb and totally desperate. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

They Know What They’re Doing, And They Think It’s Funny

by / Personal Liberty Digest
They Know What They’re Doing, And They Think It’s Funny
UPI FILE

The Obama White House has attempted to stake a claim as the home of a Presidential Administration that grants the American people an “an unprecedented level of openness in government.” But the Administration’s routine unwillingness to disclose concrete information to journalists, the use of its own media assets to disseminate information while circumventing press scrutiny and the broader Federal government’s increasingly aggressive surveillance and prosecution of journalists and whistle-blowers all tell a story far different than the fairy tale the President would like Americans to believe.

The most transparent aspect of President Barack Obama’s Administration is  how obviously averse it is to the press. It exhibits — dare it be written — an almost Communistic dedication to control the President’s message, how it’s interpreted and, most importantly, Obama’s image. To put it overly simply — and to provide a measuring stick in the form of another recent President who had his own special relationship with the press — if Obama chokes on a pretzel, no one in America will ever know.

The Obama Administration has made lofty promises about open government — but has prosecuted whistle-blowers who leak information painting the Administration in an unfavorable light more aggressively than any other in history.

Jeff Bachman, a professorial lecturer in Human Rights at the School of International Service at American University, noted in an op-ed for The Hill in May: “The Obama administration has sent a clear message. Government officials and journalists who wish to work together to create news stories through the leak of classified information that portray the president and his administration in a positive light should have no fear. And to the journalists and whistle-blowers thinking about publishing that other kind of classified information, be prepared to have your emails read, your phones tapped without your knowledge and your life and career turned upside down.”

And while the Administration isn’t busy making journalists and civically minded witnesses of government wrongdoing — potential leakers — worry over the potential consequences of running afoul of the Federal government in the public interest, it is making it increasingly easy for members of the press to go on autopilot and to provide Americans with an Administration-approved message.

The Obama Administration has been praised for embracing social media and the Internet as a key vehicle for providing the public with information about the Executive Office. But a casual and obviously necessary embrace of 21st century technology to communicate with an increasingly always-connected public has not been the Administration’s goal. Instead, the Obama Administration has simply done as much as it can to cut out the middle man, the trained journalist who knows the difference between a marketing ploy and an honest response, so that information is dropped without journalistic vetting into the email inboxes or onto the social media pages of average Americans.

In a recent POLITICO piece, political journalists Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen offered a survey of the Obama Administration’s strategy for insulating itself from journalists, writing: “One authentically new technique pioneered by the Obama White House is government creation of content — photos of the president, videos of White House officials, blog posts written by Obama aides — which can then be instantly released to the masses through social media. And they are obsessed with taking advantage of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every other social media forum, not just for campaigning, but governing. They are more disciplined about cracking down on staff that leak, or reporters who write things they don’t like.”

The press, notably a number of New York Times journalists who were targeted for government investigations for their journalistic efforts, have complained about the current White House’s stymying of the press’ ability to cover the President over the past several months. And, in late October, New York Times photographer Doug Mills summed up the current White House media strategy succinctly in a conversation with Administration Press Secretary Jay Carney.

According to National Journal, Mills, accompanied by other members of the White House Correspondents’ Association, expressed his disdain for the White House’s practice of denying Presidential access to photographers and videographers not employed by the Administration.

“You guys,” Mills said, “are just like TASS.”

TASS stands for Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union. It is the state-run news agency that provides all of those manly pictures of Russian President Vladimir Putin flying with geese and wrestling bears.

Carney, a former Moscow reporter for TIME, promptly laughed in the journalist’s face.

“Oh, so now we’re like Stalin?”

According to the Journal’s accounting of events, Olivier Knox, a Yahoo reporter and White House correspondent, interjected, “It’s not funny, Jay.”

But that’s just classic Carney.

Watch any White House press briefing where Carney is asked a series of tough questions by journalists, and it’s impossible to miss the verbal gymnastics the press secretary employs to avoid providing answers — not to mention the obvious glee he takes in his deceptive abilities. And after any one of those exchanges that result in the viral flood of online videos titled in ways like “Reporter Skewers Carney On Obama Untruths,” the White House sets in motion the wheels of its own taxpayer-funded press machine. Its Twitter feed is filled with marketing copy, its websites wallpapered with cheery pro-Obama — truthful or not — infographics and its various tax-exempt propagandist allies crank out pro-White House copy complete with White House-approved talking points before the reporters sitting in the room with Carney are even able to make heads or tails of his usually noncommittal language and endless referrals to other bureaucratic officials.

Knox is right. That the Administration is so comfortably able to control the message certainly isn’t funny, it’s frightening.
Op-ed: 
JFK…the man…the myth…and anything but today’s Democrat 
By: Diane Sori
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
And with those words…said by John Fitzgerald Kennedy at his inaugural address in 1961…so-called ‘Camelot’ began. Words that became part of our nation’s collective consciousness…words embraced by both Democrats and Republicans…yet words bastardized and twisted by today’s Democrats to mean, ‘ask what your country can do for you so we can keep your loyal to the party.’

And nowhere is the twisting of these great words more evident than in today’s Obama run government as ‘We the People’ are asked to turn over our Constitutionally given freedoms and rights to aid Obama’s goal of cradle-to-grave control over every aspect of our lives…as we’re taxed and bled dry as this government redistributes our wealth to fund its goal of transforming our beloved America into something unrecognizable to us.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy…our nation’s first Roman Catholic president…which was as big a deal back in 1960 as Obama being our (supposed) first black president is today...is probably the most documented and chronicled Democratic politician to date. Yet JFK…the man today’s Democrats so revere…was more of a mainstream Democrat who belonged to a Democratic Party where grassroots
Democrats...today's ‘Blue Dogs’...were the true champions of middle class Americans, and a party where civil rights blossomed because it was the right thing to do NOT because blacks were seen as pawns to be used and manipulated for votes as they are by the Democrats of today.

So when did the Democratic Party of JFK start to change…when did the Democratic Party veer so course that it started to embrace far-left progressivism and outright socialism…it started abruptly on November 22, 1963 with a single bullet…the day ‘Camelot’ died…or did ‘Camelot’ always exist only in the minds and hearts of the old-time Kennedy Democrats…the brand of Democrats that are NO longer around as the Democratic Party of 50 years ago little resembles…if it resembles at all…today’s Democratic Party.

And what of Kennedy himself…are his ideals even compatible with today’s Democrats…I think NOT for his very words echo more the ideals and beliefs of today’s Republican Party…of today’s TEA Party movement…than the words of Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his Democratic Party faithful…a band of miscreants led by the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and little lapdog Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“I don’t believe in big government”…“I believe in the balanced budget.” So said JFK during the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate in 1960…words as ‘foreign’ to the ears and minds of today’s Democrats as was his belief in capitalism and the free market for JFK understood what today’s Democratic Party and its leaders do NOT…he understood the Economics 101 concept of ‘you cannot spend more than you take in.’ In fact, mere weeks after his Inauguration he said, “Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased — not a reduced — flow of revenues to the federal government.” Sounds like Republican ideology doesn’t it.

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort — thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate,” Kennedy said. Sounds NOT unlike Republican candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 Presidential Debates.

Also, in 1962 Kennedy issued an Executive Order that prohibited the FBI and CIA from collective bargaining for national security reasons…meaning like Republicans, Kennedy did NOT believe that unions should be in charge of our nation’s security. However, in 2002…true to liberal Democratic philosophy…Billy-Boy Clinton insisted that every part of the new Department of Homeland Security be subject to collective bargaining…and you all know how that turned out.

“As goes steel, so goes inflation” Kennedy said, and when US Steel announced an increase of $6 a ton in the price of steel, Kennedy knew that an agreement to hold prices steady was in place and this allowed him to get union leaders to drop their seventeen-cent-an hour proposal. Kennedy was able to convince all parties involved that they were helping to contain inflation to improve the country’s competitive position abroad. JFK…a Democrat concerned about inflation was a Democrat who stood strong against big union…something you will NEVER see from today’s Democratic Party.

And unlike many of today’s 'catering to the muslims' Democrats…Democrats like Obama and John Kerry who stab Israel in the back every chance they get...Kennedy was a staunch supporter of the Jewish State. “Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom,” Kennedy said as he initiated security ties with Israel, and founded the US-Israeli military alliance…something today’s Democrats are starting to shy away from.

Also during his short term in office Kennedy tried to push through (but failed) his version of health care reform…a Medicare bill that would have allowed those in the work force to contribute to their own old-age health insurance program under Social Security instead of being forced to rely on public or private charity. Sounds NOT unlike Republican Mitt Romney’s health savings accounts proposal.

“First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth…” Kennedy said. And so began an era of American exceptionality in space…an era ended by Barack HUSSEIN Obama and the Democrats with the discontinuation of the Shuttle program with NO replacement in sight...along with a newly Obama forced NASA objective of 'muslim outreach.' The man…the Democrat…who reached for the stars had his dream of space exploration cut short by his own supposed party.

And while today’s Democrats love to say they celebrate tolerance, unfortunately that tolerance is often done through a one-sided view of tolerance…intolerant tolerance so to speak…a view that treats those on the opposing side…meaning Republicans, TEA Partiers, and believers that America is ‘one nation under God’…as hate-mongers and extremists. And this is NO more evident than in the pro-abortion/pro-life debate. And here again Kennedy’s views are NOT in sync with today’s Democrats for Kennedy appointed pro-life judge Byron White to the Supreme Court. And while Kennedy was a known womanizer he had a certain moral compass that went hand-in-hand with his Roman Catholics beliefs…a belief in God, family, and the right to life.

But all was NOT as most Democrats today have made it out to be for Kennedy himself was NOT a popular president with the American people. The popularity he had..his fame and success so to speak…was as much because of Jackie Kennedy as it was because of anything he did or said. The young, beautiful Jackie enamored the American people to him for she was ‘Camelot’s’ queen more than he was its king.

And so Kennedy’s re-election in 1964 was not a given…and while today’s Democrats still see this man as the untouchable ‘King of the Democratic Party’…the reality is that aside from some memorable quotes and some beliefs that were anything but what the Democrats of today abide… JFK’s presidency was, for the most part, a presidency made of urban legend…a presidency forever seen through rose-colored, romanticized glasses. Kennedy’s true legacy is a legacy of The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis that took us to the brink of annihilation and back again, with his missteps in both dooming the Cuban people to 50+ continuing years of Fidel Castro and now his brother Raul Castro.

So while today we honor and memorialize our nation’s 35th president…a man whose presidency encompassed just 1000 days…it must be remembered that Kennedy's presidency was unfilled as to the possibilities of what it might have been. And now many question if JFK was liberal enough to have been a member of today’s Democratic party. And to that I say NO for I think Kennedy would have been more in step with today’s moderate Republicans …NOT RINOs per se…but more like the Republicans of conscious who are willing to cross party lines if it is for the good of the country.

And to that I say…period.