Friday, June 27, 2014

About those 300 U.S. military advisers that the Obama administration has ordered to Iraq.
They belong on the United States border with Mexico. They are urgently needed to assess what U.S. military force should be deployed immediately to secure our own border, not Iraq's border, from what is surely the most unconventional and, I believe, the most dangerous war in our history. As tens of thousands of so-called unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crash our southern border, we are undergoing a war against the existence, the concept of the USA as a nation-state.

After all, a nation-state doesn't exist unless it controls its borders and protects its citizens. We, the People, do neither. But the existential danger here comes not from the assault itself. Nightmarishly, it comes from the Obama administration, which, in its greatest betrayal, is leading, or at least supporting, the aliens' charge.

That's why the cavalry isn't coming.

A normal government -- one with the best interests of its own citizens at heart -- would have taken immediate steps to 1) halt these border crossings that pose a dire threat to public health and safety, and 2) set in motion the deportation efforts necessary to return these illegal aliens to their home countries.

But the Obama administration is not a normal government. It saw these veritable columns of minor aliens forming, and, rather than stop them from entering the country, actually sought to help them, borrowing a phrase from Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., wipe their feet on our "welfare welcome mat" and stay.

How do I know this? Every American should examine the Department of Homeland Security solicitation notice that appeared six months ago at the federal business opportunities site The notice seeks "Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children," describing exactly the services now required to process, not deport, this massive influx.

According to this notice posted back on Jan. 29, 2014, DHS was already gearing up to receive "approximately 65,000 UAC in total."

How did DHS know this? Something is rotten in Washington, and it starts with the federal government's twisted priorities. DHS, the notice states, has "a continuing and mission critical responsibility for accepting custody of unaccompanied alien children from U.S. Border Patrol and other Federal agencies and transporting these juveniles to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States."
Three cheers for right-wing obstructionism. Can we have more, please, and louder? 
This week's unanimous Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's illegal recess appointments is a double smackdown. First, it's a rebuke against arrogant White House power-grabbers who thought they could act with absolute impunity and interminable immunity. Second, the ruling is a reproach of all the establishment pushovers on Capitol Hill who put comity above constitutional principle.

In a nutshell: The high court determined that Obama lawlessly exceeded his executive authority when he foisted three members onto the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, during what Democrats declared was a phony-baloney Senate "recess." In reality, the Senate was holding pro forma sessions over winter break precisely to prevent such circumvention. The ability to convene pro forma sessions is a power retained in both the House and Senate. It's a time-honored, constitutionally protected tradition.

No matter. Our imperial president and his crafty lawyers declared that the Senate wasn't in business despite the Senate's declaration that it was, and the White House rammed through the appointments of Terence Flynn, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block while the Senate took a brief weekend break in between the pro forma sessions. The steamrolling gave the NLRB a quorum -- and a green light to issue hundreds and hundreds of legally suspect decisions.

But conservatives objected. Plaintiff Noel Canning, the businessman who challenged the legitimacy of NLRB decisions made by the shadily packed panel, objected. And President Rules-For-Thee-But-Not-For-Me got hoisted by his own petard. The high court resoundingly rejected the administration's ploy to usurp "the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to determine how and when to conduct its business."

The decision also vindicates conservative pushback against Obama's overreaching recess appointments of radical SEIU lawyer Craig Becker in 2010 and unfettered financial czar Richard Cordray in 2012. As Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, put it: "(T)he real victory goes to the Constitution's separation of powers. ... By striking down these appointments, the Supreme Court delivered a much-needed bench-slap to the Obama administration's contempt for the Constitution."

The Canning decision should embolden "obstructionist" conservatives on Capitol Hill -- led by House Republicans -- who have raised bloody hell over Obama's imperial governance in defiance of establishment GOP go-along, get-alongism. Staunch conservative Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out after the NLRB ruling: "This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration's calls for greater federal executive power."

Thanks to patriotic obstructionism, this should and will be far from the last rebuke. Continued accommodation of this control-freak president and his cronies is suicide. There are only two responsible replies to a Constitution-trampling, end-run executive unilaterally declaring, "Yes, I can":

1) "No, you can't."

2) "Hell no, you can't."

US military personnel forced to submit to the sharia during Ramadan

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Our troops must adhere to the sharia during the Islamic month of Ramadan in Bahrain and other Muslim countries. Subjected to dawah (proselytizing) by an Islamic cultural adviser at the Naval Support Activity, soldiers are forced to sit through lessons on Islam. No eating, drinking, alcohol, smoking during the month of Ramadan.

This is what the Obama administration and the US military are obsessed with as armies of jihad tear through the Middle East.

Screen Shot 2014-06-26 at 11.54.14 AM
Military newspaper Stars and Stripes report:
“It actually made me want to do a lot more research into the religion,” said Petty Officer 1st Class James Ramirez.
Really? How about equal time for the Jewish faith? The Christian faith? The Hindu faith?

US military  are encouraged “to experience Iftar in a Ramadan tent.”

Why anyone who is not a Muslim must stop eating (except in secret) during Ramadan is another example of Islamic supremacism. Unlike Jewish law, which pertains only to Jews, and Canon Law, which pertains only to Catholics, the Sharia asserts its totalitarian authority over non-Muslims.

During the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, Jews fast from sunup to sundown. Nowhere and at no time has the idea of no one else eating been considered. Nor should it.

The idea that our servicemen and women cannot have a coffee on their drive to work is outrageous and indicative of how far the West has gone in the norming of the sharia. Muslims eat a giant meal before sunup, but our boys and girls can’t have a coffee while we defend these countries in many cases? Supremacism and submission.

And it doesn’t stop there. Our soldiers (men and women) must wear long sleeve shirts. No alcohol or smoking  is permitted, and if all this weren’t pathetic enough, soldiers are instructed to say “Ramadan Kareem.”

Stay on top of what’s really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.

US personnel in Bahrain prepare for Ramadan
By Hendrick Simoes 
Stars and Stripes 
Published: June 26, 2014 (thanks to witness)
Ali Hassan, a base cultural adviser at Naval Support Activity Bahrain, briefs about 150 U.S. personnel about Islam, the Islamic lunar calender, and about customs and traditions during Ramadan, Tuesday.
MANAMA, Bahrain — U.S. personnel accustomed to drinking their coffee on the drive to work will have to put that habit on hold for about a month. It’s one of a few lifestyle changes Americans will have to make during the holy month of Ramadan.
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. Officials expect Ramadan to begin at sunrise on Saturday, depending on when the new moon is sighted. The holy month lasts for approximately 30 days — until about July 28. For Muslims around the world, Ramadan is a month of fasting and devotion to God. Most Muslims fast from dawn to sunset, when families gather for Iftar — the meal that breaks the fast.

White House to Congress: We Did Not See ISIL Coming House Intel Chief: Obama Ignored Iraq Warnings

Pamela Geller / Atlas

Obama blew it in Libya. In Syria, In Egypt. In Nigeria. In Israel. In Iraq.

Now the Obama administration is saying that they didn’t see Iraq coming. More lies. The House intel chief emphatically states that the White House ignored warnings.
Rep. Mike Rogers, who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said lawmakers were briefed more than a year ago that the al Qaeda-inspired group had access to a cache of Western passports and sought to carry out attacks against the U.S. and its allies.
The Michigan Republican slammed the administration, claiming it ignored repeated intelligence community assessments about the threat, and asserting that the president’s ambivalence toward those assessments had resulted in “a policy failure.”
“Not responding is a decision, not making a decision is a decision,” Mr. Rogers told reporters at a briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
 The U.S. missed the opportunity to strike ISIL a month Ago
Catherine Herridge, Chief intelligence correspondent for Fox News, revealed that a crucial opportunity to launch airstrikes against ISIL was missed a month ago, according to congressional sources.
Catherine Herridge said that the opportunity was missed “about a month ago when ISIS was still on the Syrian border and away from the city centers.” She cited warnings that Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) confirmed today.
Feckless. Reckless. Lethal. The most dangerous administration in American history.

Stay on top of what’s really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.
White House to Congress: We Did Not See ISIL Coming,” Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 25, 2014 
Obama administration officials briefed senators on chaos in Iraq
Senior Obama administration officials’ closed-door briefing to senators Tuesday night revealed that the White House did not anticipate and was not prepared for the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), which has wreaked havoc in Iraq and seized many key cities in recent weeks.
Top State Department and Defense Department officials joined senators Tuesday evening for a briefing on the quickly developing chaos in Iraq and future U.S. plans for a response.
Sources familiar with the brief said that the administration officials repeated talking points issued over the past several days in both open and closed door meetings and had trouble communicating a concrete plan for response.

Obama seeks $500 million from Congress to help “moderate” Syrian rebels

  / Jihad Watch
ObamafingerDoesn’t Obama know that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has bulldozed the part of the Syria/Iraq border that it controls? Doesn’t he know that there are no significant forces in Syria that want a secular state, but only various bands of pro-Sharia Islamic supremacists? Doesn’t it occur to him how incoherent it is to want to arm these people in Syria and fight against them in Iraq?

For there is no significant difference between the “rebels” fighting Assad and the “extremists” fighting Maliki.

“Obama seeks $500 million from Congress to help moderate Syrian rebels,” Reuters, June 26, 2014:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama, under pressure from some lawmakers for greater U.S. backing for Syria’s opposition, on Thursday asked the U.S. Congress approve $500 million to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels seeking to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
A White House statement said rebels would be vetted before being given assistance, in an effort to assuage concerns that some equipment provided to the Syrian opposition might ultimately fall into the hands of U.S. enemies.
Obama has been under strong pressure from some lawmakers, such as Republican Senator John McCain Of Arizona, to increase assistance to the rebels in Syria’s three-year-old civil war. Some lawmakers have accused Obama of being passive and indecisive for months, allowing Assad to repulse a threat to his government.
Obama’s request for $500 million followed through on a promise he made in late May in a foreign policy speech that he would “ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators.”…

Democrats Threaten Obama Unilateral Action On Immigration If GOP Doesn’t Act

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Top Democrats threatened Thursday that President Barack Obama will unilaterally decide what changes should be made to the Nation’s immigration policy if Congressional Republicans don’t act soon.

Obama has so far held off on changes to the Administration’s deportation policy, urging Republicans to bring immigration reform legislation to the floor before July.

“We’re at the end of the line,” Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday. “We’re not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.

“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added. “…[I]n the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (Ill.) also chimed in on the issue of immigration reform Thursday, urging House Speaker John Boehner to move on the issue which hasn’t seen Congressional action since the Senate passed a broad bipartisan reform measure last year.

“I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

A day earlier, however, Boehner issued a memo to fellow Republicans informing lawmakers that he plans to sue the President for the very sort of executive actions the Democrats claim Obama will use to force the immigration issue.

The GOP isn’t likely to bring immigration reform legislation in the House, especially with a crisis currently unfolding at the border due to Administration policies which have provoked a flood of illegal unaccompanied minors coming to the U.S.

And any unilateral actions the President takes are likely to be cited in Boehner’s lawsuit if it gains traction.

Supreme Court Rules Against Obama Over Recess Appointment Power

The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level administration posts with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama.

But the justices stopped short of a more sweeping decision that would have effectively ended a president's power to make recess appointments when the Senate takes a break.

It was the high court's first case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause, ending with a unanimous decision that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal.

Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.

Rejecting that argument, Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that the Senate is not in recess if lawmakers actually say they are in session and retain the power to conduct business. He said a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.

The impact of the decision may be less important since Senate Democrats changed the rules to make it harder for the chamber's minority party — currently the GOP — to block Obama's nominations.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration disagreed with the court's ruling. But he said that while the White House was reviewing the decision, "we'll honor it."

The outcome was the least significant loss possible for the administration. The lower court had gone further, ruling that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise during that recess could be filled.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said he would have upheld the reasoning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"The only remaining practical use for the recess-appointment power is the ignoble one of enabling presidents to circumvent the Senate's role in the appointment process, which is precisely what happened here," said Scalia, who took the unusual step of reading his concurrence from the bench.

The ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB.

Republican leaders in both houses of Congress, House Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, praised the court for rejecting what they described as Obama's unconstitutional power grab. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the decision underscores the importance of the Senate rule change to make sure that a small number of senators cannot block qualified nominees.

Several hundred decisions the NLRB made with the recess-appointed members will now have to be re-decided by the current board. However, the result in most cases is likely to be the same, given similar pro-labor leanings of the current majority.

Obama has made relatively few recess appointments — 32 in his five-plus years in office, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush made 171 such appointments over two terms and President Bill Clinton filled 139 posts that way in his eight years in office.

But Obama was the first president to try to make recess appointments when Congress explicitly said it was not in recess. The Constitution requires that the Senate and House must get the other's consent for any break lasting longer than three days. At the end of 2011, the Republican-controlled House would not give the Democratic-led Senate permission for a longer break.

The partisan roles were reversed during Bush's presidency, when Senate Democrats sought ways to prevent the president from making recess appointments.

In fact, the very basis on which the justices decided the case — that the Senate can use extremely brief sessions to avoid a formal recess — was a tactic devised by Reid to frustrate Bush.

On a practical level, there may be little difference between how the court decided the case and the way Scalia wishes it had been decided, said Andy Pincus, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer in Washington.

"The recess appointment power has receded into practical irrelevance," Pincus said, pointing to the now-common Senate practice of blocking recess appointments by convening for pro forma sessions. "Today's decision likely cements that reality."

A recess appointment can last no more than two years. Recess appointees who subsequently won Senate confirmation include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, two current NLRB members and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray.

The case challenging the appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a soft drink bottling company in Yakima, Washington. The company claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed and that the board therefore did not have enough members to do business.

Noel Canning prevailed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and two other appeals courts also had ruled against recess appointments.
Is the key to the IRS scandal hiding in Russia...part 2 of 3
By: Diane Sori

As we all know Obama and his cronies are currently plagued by many scandals, and the IRS scandal is one of the most grievous of all facing him and his administration today.

As I wrote earlier this week concerning the missing IRS e-mails, Craig RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner...and I both believe they went missing because they show Barack HUSSEIN Obama to be the one who ordered Lois Lerner to award 501(c)(3) status to known terrorist front groups, including to Da'wa, where his brother, Malik Obama, was its secretary at the time the status was given. But this affront is just the beginning of how deep the missing e-mail trail might go.

As Craig presented on Wednesday in part 1 ( of our 3-part investigative series it's our belief that Edward Snowden...the man who blew the whistle on the NSA spying on 'We the People' by bringing to light an eavesdropping operation that included the phone metadata program; the NSA questioning and tapping into internet communications through companies like Google and Facebook; and with the widespread tapping of international communication networks...that this very man just might hold the key to the missing e-mails. A key that includes his being able to either retrieve them or that he might actually be in possession of them...a scenario that is more likely.

And now word has been circulating through cyberspace that Edward Snowden wants to come home to America but can't for once he sets foot on American soil the DOJ has said he will be arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Simply, the Espionage Act of 1917 (ch. 30, tit. I § 3, 40 Stat. 217, 219), and an amendment to it known as the Sedition Act, was Woodrow Wilson's response to World War I's so-called "warfare by propaganda" and had parts to it that infringed upon freedom of speech. The parts dealing with espionage contained standard clauses criminalizing "obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States" and it deems a criminal anyone who, "when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war..."

Remember, the U.S. was at war...and still is...when Snowden became a whistleblower, and that the feds still claim that what Snowden divulged in regards to the NSA 'supposedly' spying on American citizens is simply NOT true, and that by doing what he did he jeopardized national security.

And while these charges against our opinion...are totally without basis as the NSA did indeed spy on 'We the People' and continues to do so, we believe the only tangible threat to America's national security comes from Obama himself along with his administration and NOT from the man being charged in absentia.

So while it's Craig's and my belief that charging Snowden with spying as per the Espionage Act is ludicrous at best, what's even more ludicrous is the feds adding "aiding and abetting" the enemy to the original charges, as Snowden did NO such thing. What Snowden did was inform 'We the People, about the illegal activities this administration, courtesy of the NSA, had done and continues to do. And how can what he did be considered espionage for if anyone had been spying and garnering information for an enemy logic would dictate that he would have 'sold' what he found to whomever he was spying for, and Eric Snowden did NO such thing.

Edward Snowden was a whistleblower and NOTHING more nor NOTHING less...a whistleblower who exposed illegal goings on in one branch of this corrupt Obama an administration that has NO respect for our nation's rule of law...has NO respect for the U.S. Constitution. And for that matter, the highest court in our land...the U.S. Supreme Court...NEVER ruled on the constitutionality or lack thereof of the Espionage Act of 1917 as it currently applies or does NOT apply to whisleblowers. So until they do, the Espionage Act as it now stands actually violates the First Amendment rights of those exposing corrupt acts done by our federal government.

So while the DOJ claims Snowden would be arrested if he ever returned to the U.S. said arrest itself would be questionable for without a SCOTUS ruling on whistleblowers the DOJ themselves could be breaking the law by the very act of arresting him...especially arresting him under the Espionage Act of 1917. And while some are calling for Snowden to be given immunity from prosecution what is NOT understood is that for one to be given immunity under our existing laws one has to be either a witness...which Snowden is NOT as he is the one being charged...or one has to a person who has committed and is being charged with said minor crime in order to entice that person to testify against someone who has committed a more grievous murder or kidnapping. And since Snowden did neither, giving him immunity from prosecution technically does NOT apply in his case.

However, there are a few ways that Snowden could return home and NOT be arrested, and that is by either offering him a plea bargain, granting him clemency, or giving him a presidential pardon under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution for what is believed to be Snowden's offenses against the United States. But the question is why would the feds want to do any of that when it's the federal government's wrongdoings that Snowden has exposed and could expose even more of.

Why...because by doing so would be in the feds best interest as any deal secured for Snowden NOT to be prosecuted would surely require him to answer questions that the feds really need answers to...questions like what is the full extent of the information he was able to obtain; how was he able to do what he did when he did NOT possess certain security clearances needed to do so; how could future systems be made more secure; and what else does he know that he has NOT yet divulged...especially any information he may have on other federal agencies besides the NSA. And most importantly of all...does he have anything on the IRS and the missing e-mails that can be traced directly back to Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Craig and I both believe he does for simple common sense assures that Edward Snowden must have known that if all was NOT right with the NSA things had to be NOT right in other federal agencies as well. And smart man that he is, you have to know that Eric Snowden would find a way to garner that information...incriminating information...that he is waiting for just the right time to release.

Remember, if Snowden has more information...and some believe he might be in possession of up to 1.5 million YES million that information could be proof positive that the Obama government NOT only broke the law under the Fourth Amendment (which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause) by spying on American citizens who posed NO threat whatsoever to national security, but information that could also directly tie Barack HUSSEIN Obama into the act of "aiding and abetting" the enemy during a time of war.

So if I was the feds I would tread very carefully with Edward Snowden...a man who should be hailed a hero...for without his disclosures we would still NOT know the extent of the grievous abuses of power our federal government is perpetrating against 'We the People.' And if I was the feds I would stop threatening to arrest him because what Snowdon might possibly be in possession addition to the fact that Lois Lerner herself granted 501(c)(3) status to terrorist supporting groups... could very well be the final key that unlocks the door into bringing this whole damn corrupt Obama government down.

Just saying.


In Monday's part 3 of our 3-part investigative report on the IRS scandal, Craig and I will tie up the so-called missing links...links that are NOT really missing per se, but are links that Obama and crew do NOT under any circumstances want the American people to know about.