Thursday, January 31, 2013

How Obama Is Causing The Double Dip Recession
By DICK MORRIS / Published on

Now that the economy is officially contracting, it's a good time to look back and list the various Obama policies that are causing it.  We do this not in the spirit of blame but rather to point to the corrective steps he needs to take to head off a new recession.  After several quarters of optimistic but rigged data showing the economy growing at a 2 percent clip, the truth is emerging: We are on the verge of a double dip recession).

Here's why:

•  Our exports to China are artificially depressed because of Beijing’s deliberate weakening of its currency to underprice its goods in the US market and overprice ours' in theirs'.   Correction: Demand that China stops manipulating its currency and impose taxes on currency exchanges if they don't.

•  Stop insisting on tax increases which fall on small businesses.  Cut spending instead.  The negative multiplier effect of a tax increase is much less than that of a spending cut.

•  Be far more aggressive in expanding oil and gas production.  Our huge oil import bill - about $40 billion a year - is dragging our economy down.

•  The current contraction is before the tax increases Obama just passed have hit.  These tax hikes on upper income people will take $50 billion of demand out of the economy and his 2 percent increase in the payroll tax will take out over $100 billion more.  These tax increases go directly toward cutting demand and employment. Correction: Cut spending instead.

•  The rising cost of health insurance due to Obamcare and increased costs of government - particularly EPA - regulation.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics - aka the B.S. - will doubtless show unemployment steady at some ridiculously low number like 7.8%.  But University of Maryland economist Peter Morici says that "labor force participation is lower today than when President Obama took office...factoring in discouraged adults and others working part-time that would prefer full time work, the unemployment rate is 14.4%.

And, around the corner is a likely reduction in the US credit rating by Moody's.

People ask: How can the Republican Party come back?  Because of the impact of Obama's economic policies which will soon be evident even to the most optimistic and obtuse.

Israeli jets bomb Syrian military target to stop weapons bound for Hizballah jihadists

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

"Among Israeli officials' chief fears is that Assad will pass chemical weapons or sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah."

"Syria confirms Israeli jets bombed military site," by Ben Hubbard for the Associated Press, January 30:
BEIRUT (AP) — Israel conducted a rare airstrike on a military target inside Syria, foreign officials and Syrian state TV said Wednesday, amid fears President Bashar Assad's regime is providing weapons to the Islamic militant group Hezbollah. 
A statement from the Syrian military read aloud on state TV confirmed the strike, saying the jets bombed a military research center in the area of Jamraya, northwest of the capital, Damascus.
The statement said the center was responsible for "raising the level of resistance and self-defense" of Syria's military. It said the strike destroyed the center and a nearby building, killing two workers and wounding five others.
U.S. and regional security officials reported the strike earlier Wednesday but did not say exactly where it took place.
Regional security officials said Israel had been planning in the days leading up to the airstrike to hit a shipment of weapons bound for Hezbollah, Lebanon's most powerful military force. Among Israeli officials' chief fears is that Assad will pass chemical weapons or sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah — something that could change the balance of power in the region and greatly hinder Israel's ability to conduct air sorties in Lebanon.
The regional officials said the shipment Israel was planning to strike included Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles, which would be strategically "game-changing" in the hands of Hezbollah by enabling the group to carry out fiercer attacks on Israel and shoot down Israeli jets, helicopters and surveillance drones.
Hezbollah has committed to Israel's destruction and has gone to war against the Jewish state in the past.
A U.S. official confirmed the strike, saying it hit a convoy of trucks....

The Spending Sequester Will Grow the Private Economy -- Don’t Back Off

Yesterday's report of a 0.1 percent GDP decline for the fourth quarter came as a surprise to most forecasters. But it actually masks considerable strength in the private economy. Namely, housing investment in the fourth quarter jumped 15.3 percent annually, business equipment and software spiked 12.4 percent, and real private final sales rose 2.6 percent. All in, the domestic private sector of the economy increased 3.4 percent annually -- a very respectable gain.

And here’s one for the record books: Working ahead of year-end tax hikes, individuals shifted so much money to the fourth quarter at the 35 percent top rate that personal income grew by 7.9 percent annually -- a huge number. And there’s more: In order to beat the taxman, dividend income rose 85.2 percent annually. You think tax incentives don’t matter? Guess again.

Now, all this private-sector strength occurred despite the fact that government spending -- namely military spending -- dropped 6.6 percent. Inventories also lost ground and the trade deficit widened.

But here’s a key point: Military spending has now fallen virtually to its lower sequester-spending-cut baseline. It did so in one quarter by about $40 billion. So the brunt of the impact over the coming years has already been felt. (Normally, as of recent years, military spending has been virtually flat.)

Which leads me to another key point: Even with the fourth-quarter contraction, the latest GDP report shows that falling government spending can coexist with rising private economic activity. This is an important point in terms of the upcoming spending sequester. Lower federal spending, limited government, and a smaller spending-to-GDP ratio will be good for growth. The military spending plunge will not likely be repeated. But by keeping resources in private hands, rather than transferring them to the inefficient government sector, the spending sequester is actually pro-growth.

Big-government Keynesians think big spending provides big growth. They are wrong. This has been a 2 percent recovery -- the worst in modern times -- dating back to 1947. So let’s try something different. Let’s shrink government. Let’s let the private sector breathe and generate entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

Spending is the true tax measure of the economy, according to Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and others. Even a modest sequester spending cut of maybe $60 billion in 2013, and perhaps more than $1 trillion over ten years (most of which will come from a slower spending growth rate, not real reductions), will be the best thing to inspire business and market confidence as well as international credibility. And it maybe even shave a point or two off the spending share of GDP.

On March 1 the spending sequester is supposed to kick in by law. If Congress wants to help the U.S. economy, the best thing it can do right now is implement this sequester. Then it can round out an even larger growth package, including large- and small-business tax reform and adjustments to stop entitlements from going bankrupt.

History Lesson: Under Fascist Bush, Democrats Feared Tyranny

History Lesson: Under Fascist Bush, Democrats Feared Tyranny

Once upon a time, a group of people known as the "Democrats" expressed great fear of tyranny by government.This was a time long, long ago, when a man from a place called Texas, representing a people known as the Republicans, occupied the White House. Leaders of the Democrats feared tyranny by the Republicans and called the man from Texas racist, oppressive and tyrannical.

To refresh your recollection, we offer a few examples from the distant past:

Billionaire Democratic contributor George Soros. He said the George W. Bush White House displayed the "supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany" and that Bush's administration used rhetoric that echoed his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,'" Soros said, "it reminds me of the Germans." Soros later said: "The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. ... Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propaganda machines."

Former Vice President Al Gore. He said: "(George W. Bush's) executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. ... And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brown shirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President."

Former two-time Democratic presidential candidate and civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson. After Congress passed new anti-terrorism laws following 9/11, he said: "We are in danger. The extreme right wing has seized the government. Tonight, (John) Ashcroft and the CIA and the FBI and Homeland Security and the IRS can work together. So look out, because without a definition of who is a terrorist, anyone can be. ... Martin Luther King could have been. ... The right-wing media, the FBI -- they are targeting our leadership."
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. He said: "What we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not. ... (President Bush) is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor -- to create Empire America." An Iraq War opponent, McDermott said, "The President of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who sits on four Senate committees, including Armed Services and Commerce. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, she said, "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."

Entertainer and liberal activist Harry Belafonte. When asked whether the number and prominence of blacks in the Bush administration suggested a lack of racism on Bush's part, Belafonte said, "Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, former presidential candidate. He characterized the contest between Democrats and Republicans as "a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

Shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, Dean actually mused about an "interesting theory" he'd heard -- that G.W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 yet took no action to stop it!

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 2003, Albright said she thought Bush had already captured Osama bin Laden -- but that Bush was not going to reveal this until just before the 2004 election to get maximum political benefit! She later claimed she was joking, but Morton Kondracke, who overheard the comment, said, "She was not smiling when she said this," and that others in the room heard it, too, "and they didn't think it was a joke."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., sitting member of all six subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He compared the newly conservative-controlled Republican House of Representatives to "the Duma and the Reichstag" -- referring to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.

An anti-gun New York newspaper published a report and interactive map with the names and addresses of gun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Shortly after this, an anti-gun columnist for a prominent New Jersey paper said: "(I got) a nasty note from one of my most progressive friends who says ... 'You're a fool because when the right wing takes over the government, we're gonna need guns. ... And then there won't be guns to fight them back."

"Words matter," Obama once said.

During the Bush years, Democrats feared, or at least claimed to fear, the possibility of tyranny -- precisely the purpose of the Second Amendment. If these Democrats were even remotely sincere, why wouldn't any self-respecting patriot want the right to keep and bear arms to protect against thugs like that? Indeed, why not mandatory gun ownership -- at least when Republicans control the White House?

You warned us. We believe you. The threat of tyranny is ever-present.
'Don't mess with a soldier's mail, his money, 
or his chow'
By: Diane Sori

I'm floored...NO other way to say it as yesterday a friend asked me if I knew that some of our troops in Afghanistan are NO longer being served a cooked breakfast.

Sadly, I didn't know but I sure made it a point to educate myself post haste, and what I found made me angry beyond anything mere words could express. Yes, it's true...some of our brave men and women in uniform, the very ones who lay their lives on the line everyday to keep us safe and free, are now in certain areas of Afghanistan being denied a cooked breakfast, including those heading out on patrol.

There is something very wrong with this picture and the only polite thing I can say.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama, this miserable excuse of a Commander-in-Chief, the man who gives away billions of dollars, F16's, and Abrams tanks to Egypt, a now Muslim Brotherhood controlled country, won't feed our American troops three squares a day.

Gee, I wonder just how many hot breakfasts for our troops equals one of Obama's Hawaiian many troop breakfasts could be had instead of spending money on Michelle's ballgowns and endless many troops breakfasts could be had for the 100+ golf forays he's many troop breakfasts could be had instead of wasting monies on satisfying campaign contributors' pet pork projects...and how many troop breakfasts could be had with all the monies Obama funnels into those freebies and handouts he gives to the ILLEGALS and especially to the 'sponges' of our society, including the welfare food stamp recipients, to buy their votes and allegiance...NO, instead of cutting all this nonsense he chooses instead to stop feeding our troops hot meals because his vacations and allegiance buying is more important than those fighting for our country.

And while some will say it's NOT Obama directly who's ordered this I say, bull, because as Commander-in-Chief and president he could have stopped this just by saying 'NO way...cutting meals for our troops is NOT an option and will NOT happen on my watch'. But a man who sides with our enemies and apologizes for our troop's actions every chance he gets could care less what our troops are fed.

And so the Pentagon, with NO opposition from Obama, decided to cut cooked breakfast for some troops in Afghanistan by claiming it was because of the troop withdrawal schedule. Currently, 17 bases have suspended serving troops cooked breakfast and more bases will stop on February 1st. I guess they figure if the troops are eventually coming home, and with the draw down in progress, why spend the money to feed them even though we've all always been taught that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and that would be especially so for troops on the front lines.

And while these meal cuts have a lot to do with morale more than with hunger per se, the MREs being offered as a replacement are NO substitute for a hot meal, especially for those who might at a moments notice be called to fight...for those who might come home without arms or legs...or even a body bag.

Adding to this is the simple fact that this cut is way out of line if for NO other reason than that as long as any of our people are in harms way the least we can do is feed them as these bureaucrats would feed in three squares a day.

And guess preparation for sweeping budget cuts across all military programs scheduled to begin as early as next month, more cuts for our troops were recently announced, including laundry and recreation, again using the excuse that it has to with the final troop pull-out, which by the way won't happen until 2014 so why cut meals or anything now...or ever.

It has gotten so bad that one soldier wrote to the Home Post Facebook page ( :
I am currently in Paktika Provence and we do not have breakfast or midnight meal. We are down to 2 hot meals a day (lunch and dinner) or guys who run missions at night and work night shift only get one hot meal a day. The Battle Space owner out here instructed the Contractor who is in charge if the chow halls out here to cancel the meals. What they did not consider is that there a lot of units that are still out here and will be here for quite some time to come (my unit). I don't know why the DOD is not owning up to the facts. It appears to me they are trying to cover up the fact that we are not being fed.
Another soldier, 'Disappointed in Afghanistan' wrote:
I am here and its breakfast time and the dining facility is CLOSED. There were a box of MREs out at dinnertime last night for the taking, but no one seemed to be taking them (no surprise), I surmise, most, like myself, are simply skipping the most important meal of the day. Bad decision by someone. Hot chow in the morning is not only good, its good for morale. Probably why on missions or exercises when MREs are necessary, they are offered for the LUNCHTIME meal, with hot breakfast and dinners. Why do Soldiers here have two hot meals back-back w/in three hours of one another, and then go without for 18 hours? Doesn't make sense. All leaders know (or at least should know), there are three things you don't mess with: A Soldier's mail, his money, or his chow. Hopefully common sense will eventually prevail.
NO cooked unfair and so wrong, and some of the troops have began writing home to their families to please send them breakfast care packages, and some of those families in Iowa contacted their Congressman, Representative Bruce Braley who issued this statement:

I am troubled that the Army would deny any deployed troops three meals per day, regardless of force size,” Braley wrote. “These men and women put their lives on the line every day to protect the very freedoms we cherish. The exhaustive mental and physical labor that is required by soldiers to fight in harsh and unforgiving conditions is tremendous. We shouldn’t deny our troops something as fundamental as a proper meal. I am positive that with the logistical mastery the Army has exhibited in combat operations around the world, you can logistically administer the procedure of serving breakfast every day.”

Oh how right he is as this cut is beyond goes all the way to a deliberate slap in the face to those serving...but then what can you expect from an administration, and especially from a president who sides with those who hate America (just like he does) every chance he gets.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Playing 20 Questions With The Commander In Chief

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Playing 20 Questions With The Commander In Chief
Anyone who has ever sat through one of President Barack Hussein Obama’s heavy-petting sessions the corporate media call “interviews” or one of his extremely infrequent press conferences knows that wresting a straight answer from Barry is one tall order. As a conservative, I have about the same chance of scoring a sit-down with his Imperial Highness as Media Matters high priest David Brock does of silencing the voices in his head.

But what if I could interrupt one of Obama’s secret skeet-shooting sessions for a little verbal one-on-one? What questions would I pose to the most deliberately opaque President in American history? Since CBS News’ Steve Kroft has already handled the light lifting, I suppose there’s not much point in repeating the same softballs “60 Minutes” substituted for substantive sound bites.

I compiled a list of 20 questions I’d love to hear Obama answer. Of course, given his dim view of media outlets that don’t toe his statist line, I’m aware that I’m more likely to play Q&A with Obama’s auditory hallucinations and/or his little friend who totes the unregistered, semi-automatic handgun with a capacity of well more than seven rounds. But, hey: If liberals can dream of a day without liberty, then I can certainly dream of a day with a forthright President.

Thus, I would pose these interrogatives to The One, and I fully intend to do so (right about the same time Secretary of State — and Obama heir apparent — Hillary Clinton learns how to make those crocodile tears believable):
  1. Since your plan to reduce so-called “gun violence” centers on the elimination of so-called “assault weapons” instead of something that hasn’t already been proven ineffective in places like Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and Newtown, Conn., will you consider yourself responsible when so-called “gun crime” rises after you disarm the people? Or will you just stick with blaming President George W. Bush, conservatives and/or law-abiding citizens for your own ineffectiveness?

  2. I suppose you can’t really deport Piers Morgan just for being an imperious British twinkie, but can’t you sign an executive order forcing him to do his show from the Camp Lejeune rifle range? I would DVR the heck out of that show.

  3. How do members of your Secret Service detail manage to stifle their laughter when (if) you shoot skeet at Camp David?

  4. How do you Democrats reconcile being pro-abortion but anti-capital punishment? Is it just that the unborn are easier targets, or are you concerned about the death penalty’s detrimental effect on the ability of ACORN (or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves these days) to “get out the vote”?

  5. Is Eric Holder’s Spanish good enough to order lunch in Mexico, or do his narcoterrorist clients speak English?

  6. Did you let the “Benghazi Four” die because you really didn’t give a crap, or did you think you were watching “Blackhawk Down” on Air Force One’s big screen before grubbing for cash in Las Vegas?

  7. Does Hillary Clinton make little stabby gestures every time your back is turned?

  8. Since you’ve broken your promise to close Gitmo, have you considered putting in a golf course? I hear it’s lovely this time of year, and you could hit the links with some of your friends?

  9. When the Democrat Channel (aka MSNBC) minions come for a visit, how do you get those unsightly Rachel Maddow stains out of the rug in the Oval Office? Furthermore, does Al Sharpton have to fight the urge to pick up Maddow and hurl her at every teenage intern who walks by?

  10. What did fake Congressional witness Sandra Fluke have to do in exchange for the Democrats making her famous (for a little while, anyway)? Did it involve the sort of behavior Bill Clinton might enjoy? Did she charge the whole thing to Georgetown University?

  11. Is it possible to dial some of those 1-900 numbers from an Obamaphone?

  12. How come I’ve never seen your wife and Oprah Winfrey in the same room? Hang on; they’ve been in the same room. Which one was which?

  13. As or at which is Joe Biden most effective:
    a.Throw rug
    d.Guessing the number of jelly beans in the jar on your desk

  14. Do you actually enjoy hanging out with union thugs like Richard Trumka, or is that just part of the job? (Cough twice if you’re afraid to answer because they’re in the room.)

  15. According to your party and its corporate media, high gas prices were the fault of President George W. Bush during his term, but you are powerless to affect them. Does it hurt your feelings to hear your own minions say you’re impotent by comparison?

  16. Where is the “Choom gang” now, and can you hook a brother up?

  17. Have you told Malia and Sasha about the crippling national debt with which you’re saddling their generation, or will they be running for office as well?

  18. Since you lied about not hiking taxes on the middle class, can we at least get a better spot in line for the Obamacare death panels?

  19. If the Democrats successfully pass Representative Jose Serrano’s bill to eliminate the 22nd Amendment, will you personally visit the Texas Legislature to convince lawmakers to ratify it, or will you send Serrano? (If I were you, I’d send Serrano.) Also, will you still be known as “President Obama” or will you go with something cooler, like “His Most Royal and Serene Highness, Lord of All He Surveys and Ruler of the Known Universe, the Sultan Barack I?”

  20. Before he goes to bed at night, does the boogeyman check under his bed for Rahm Emanuel?
I’m willing to acknowledge that not all of these questions are worthy of a dignified interview with the commander in chief, but neither is the current commander in chief. At the very least, I’d obviously hit the real issues a great deal harder than Kroft. Fortunately for me, I work for Personal Liberty Digest™, not some bush-league liberal hack farm like “60 Minutes.”

Immigration Reform, School Choice and the Proposed Border Commission

By: Hugh Hewitt / Townhall Columnist
First, a terrific compendium of think tank analyses of immigration compiled by the wizards at is here.

If you are going to debate immigration reform, be smart about immigration reform, especially about the positions of the opposite party's intellectuals.

This means among other things being smart about school choice for immigrant children. Vouchers for newly regularized immigrants under the age of 18 empowering them to attend any public or private school in the city in which they reside should be part of the GOP amendments to any immigration reform bill. The cost of such a voucher is zero additional dollars if used in a public school and if used for, say, a Catholic school, it would be far less than the actual cost of attendance –which is about $3500 on average for a Catholic school in the U.S.—but enough to get some private schools to accept some of the young, newly regularized immigrants.

The reasons for marrying vouchers and education reform to immigration reform are many, and that is why I discussed the idea with both Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Jeff Flake on the Monday their bipartisan group's principles were announced (those transcripts are here), and with AEI’s James Pethokoukis the same day, and why I hope many more conservatives will take up the idea in the weeks ahead.

First, while education is largely a local and state issue, the federal government has plenary authority over immigration. It has the power to impose vouchers on every school district in the country when it comes to newly regularized immigrants under the age of 18. It doesn’t have to use the Constitution’s spending power or its taxing power. The Congress can simply mandate that the newly regularized young immigrants may attend any school in the city in which they locate and it can give a private school voucher payable from the Treasury. So Congress has the authority.

Next, regularizing these children and then condemning them to the worst performing elementary and secondary school does nothing to advance the assimilation goals of the genuine immigration reformer.

Pethokoukis has written about this and assimilation ought to be a huge focus of regularization.

Third, as Arthur Brooks has repeatedly argued, conservatives have to be for the poor –really be for them—if we want to make the best case, which is the moral case, for free enterprise.

A grudging acceptance of immigration reform does nothing to communicate the reality of the conservative hope for immigrants. Putting the education of the newly regularized immigrants at the heart of the GOP response to immigration reform puts a moral response at the center of the conservative contribution to the debate.

Fourth, adding vouchers for immigrants under the age of 18 adds that issue to the larger debate in a way that will quickly divide the Democratic activists, some if not many of whom look at immigration reform as a means to an end of generating loyal voters and foot soldiers in their larger ambitions. Introducing vouchers into the debate throws a light on the decrepit schools into which many of these immigrants are herded –read Jay Matthew’s Work Hard, Be Nice on the origins of the KIPP program in Houston’s inner city schools—and would thus broaden the discussion into areas that the left doesn’t want to go, which brings me to the last but perhaps most appealing to some argument for marrying vouchers to immigration reform.

If vouchers can be introduced for immigrant children, school choice will quickly spread to many millions of children. The very first call I got on this idea the Monday the debate opened was from a young woman asking why her sister's kid couldn’t have a voucher but an illegal immigrant kid could. Precisely the reaction that I expected and the answer is twofold.

First, the federal government cannot mandate the use of vouchers for state governments and for local school systems. The Congress can, however, create vouchers which must be honored under its authority over federal immigration law. Even if it could expedite the use of vouchers through its spending power, it will not do so because of the blocking power of the teachers' unions. Those unions will be hard pressed to oppose immigration reform legislation because it proposes to empower the parents of newly regularized immigrant minors.

Second, and this is the key, once such vouchers are issued to and used by regularized immigrants the same sort of vouchers will be demanded by millions of parents sick to death of the failure of urban education, a failure rooted in a lack of competition. Vouchers for regularized immigrant children are the wedge to open up the use of vouchers across the United States. They are a very good thing on their own, but they would be the door to school choice for all children. Refusing to support a great reform simply because you are not first in line to benefit from it is shortsighted in the extreme.

It will take just one senator or representative to offer a well-written amendment to the immigration reform bill to thrust the issue of education into the center of this debate, and every member of Congress who starts talking this up will get very good press which he or she will deserve. Judging by their responses to my questions on the subject, neither Senator Rubio nor Senator Flake seemed to have considered doing so although the question of what happens to children brought into the country illegally by their parents in fact sparked the debate’s reopening last year, but both seemed intrigued.

The immigration reform train is moving out of the station and doing so very, very quickly. Conservatives and the GOP leaders they look to can demand that some things be on that train that serve the public good, and not settle for just genuine border security. Will the left really stand against vouchers that will obtain real education opportunity for the children they purport to be trying to help?

One final note on the debate as it opens.

The left, led by the Washington Post's Greg Plum, quickly zeroed in on the proposed Border Commission yesterday, and demanded that it only be advisory, which of course means it must be invested with real authority, and the triggers it is empowered to pull on regularization must be tied to real, measurable improvements, including the numbers of miles of new, double fencing built. Its membership must not be susceptible to being captured and manipulated, as “independent” commissions on redistricting were captured and manipulated by Democrats in Arizona and California. Governors and Attorneys General in California, Arizona, New Mexico and three northern border states as well as Florida with its immigration issues makes sense, along with three members named by the leaders of the parties in both houses. I'd like to serve on that commission in order to make sure its proceedings were publicized, and the GOP must use its appointments to serve that end of keeping the public's attention focused on the deliberations.

The new legislation must also oblige the Commission to hold public hearings, to conduct its business transparently, and to vote publicly and not by voice vote so that the elected officials and appointees serving must publicly declare that so many miles of double fencing have been built, so many agents have been deployed etc, and do so issue by issue. Such a commission could be constructed so as to really work and to force along border security improvement, but not if it is like most D.C. commissions. A citizen suit provision --so beloved by the left in environmental laws-- should be included to provide for court review of triggers that ought not to have been pulled. (In fact, the new law should make sure that environmental laws do not obstruct border security improvements.)

The Rubio-led GOP effort is off to a good start, and Jeff Flake is another welcome, new voice in the debate, but it is just a start and the Republicans have to be willing to work on the details, be innovative and continually appear in public and defend their ideas.

Beginning with vouchers for new immigrants under the age of 18.
Whose Welfare?

Whose Welfare?

If there is ever a contest for the law with the most grossly misleading title, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 should be a prime candidate, because the last thing this Act protects is the welfare of Indian children.

The theory behind the Indian Child Welfare Act is that an American Indian child should be raised in an American Indian culture.

Based on that theory, a newborn baby of American Indian ancestry, who was adopted immediately after birth by a white couple, was at 27 months of age taken away from the only parents she has ever known and given to her father.

Apparently the tribe has rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act. If this child were of any other race, a court would be free to decide the case on the basis of whatever was in the best interests of the child. Instead, the child is treated almost as property, contrary to the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery.

Fortunately, the legal issues growing out of this case are now before the Supreme Court of the United States. We can only hope that the justices will use their wisdom, instead of their cleverness, to decide this case.

Solomon’s wisdom provided a good example many centuries ago, in a case where two women each claimed to be the mother of a child and each demanded custody. Since he did not know who was the real mother, King Solomon said that he would cut the child in half and give each mother her half.

When one of the women dropped her claim, in order to spare the child's life, he knew that she was the real mother. Anyone who would ruin a helpless child's life, in order to assert their own legal prerogatives, or to protect the tribe's turf, raises very serious questions about what kind of parent they are.

The question is not which home is better, but whether the child will ever feel secure in any home again, after the shock of being forcibly taken away.

The welfare of a flesh-and-blood human being should trump theories about cultures -- especially in the case of a two-year-old child, who has been torn away from the only parents she has ever known, and treated as a pawn in a legalistic game.

This little girl is just the latest in a long line of Indian children who have been ripped out of the only family they have ever known and given to someone who is a stranger to them, often living on an Indian reservation that is foreign to them. This has happened even to children who have spent a decade or more with a family to which they have become attached and is attached to them.

There have already been too many scenes of weeping and frightened children, crying out in vain for the only mother and father they have known, as they are forcibly dragged away.

Whatever the merits or demerits of various theories about culture, they are still just theories. But too many people put their pet theories ahead of flesh-and-blood human beings.

One of the rationales for the Indian Child Welfare Act is that, in the past, Indian children were wantonly wrested from their Indian parents and sent off to be raised by non-Indians. But nothing we can do today can undo the wrongs of the past -- especially not by creating the same wrongs again, in reverse.

While those who are most victimized by the so-called Indian Child Welfare Act are the children ripped out of their homes to satisfy some theory, they are not the only victims.

Indian children without biological parents to take care of them can be needlessly left in institutional care, when there are not enough Indian foster parents or adoptive parents to take them into their homes.

The Alice in Wonderland legal situation can hardly encourage non-Indian families to take care of these children, when that can so easily lead to heartbreak for both the children themselves and the surrogate parents who have become attached to them.

The New York Times reports that fewer than 2 percent of the children in Minnesota are Indian, but 15 percent of the children in that state's foster care system are Indian. In Montana, 9 percent of the children are Indian, but Indian children make up 37 percent of the children in foster care.

What a price to pay for a theory!

An event I wholeheartedly support

On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive actions against your 2nd amendment Constitutional right to bear arms. He did this without the consent of Congress which in itself, violates the foundation of the Constitution and the co-equal branches of government.

In response to these unconstitutional actions by the President, on .223, February 23, 2013 the American people will stand together in defiance to protect the right that protects ALL of our rights, the 2nd Amendment! They will organize locally so that they may band together neighbor to neighbor and reassert their community's right to determine their own destiny! Join today by selecting an option below:
Yes! I want to resist. Please connect me with others near me!
Yes! I want to help organize a rally near me!
Yes! I have begun organizing a rally and would like to register it for promotion and would like to be provided with a list of people who sign up close to me!
Please provide sponsoring organization if you've already organized a rally and need promotion assistance.

Already registered and looking for an event? Check out the Official List of Rallies here.

Paid for by Stop This Insanity Inc., a 501 c4
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
In conjunction with Stockton Strategies LLC.

Immigration reform...a necessary evil
By: Diane Sori

“Yesterday the ghost of immigration reform past reared its ugly head. In 1986 we went down this exact same road with amnesty for 2-3 million illegal immigrants. I heard the word “contingent” used often. Furthermore, the Senate Judiciary Committee is headed by Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The final decision on immigration could mean a permanent dependent class and a permanent electoral block for the next generation. One can only estimate where political loyalties would lie, and imagine what happens to job opportunities for those here in America legally.” - LTC Allen West

So said Allen West after Monday's press conference where a bipartisan group of Senators announced a 'Pathway to Citizenship' proposal that would give legal status to the 11 million ILLEGALS currently in this country (three times larger than the amnesty plan passed under Reagan in 1986, which legalized about 3 million immigrants but did NOTHING about enforcement), and would include those students currently under auspices of the 'Dream Act'.

And while Allen is one hundred percent correct in what he says (he usually is), and I might add that I personally believe ALL who came here ILLEGALLY are criminals knowingly breaking our laws, hence the term ILLEGALS, the fact remains that most people, conservatives included, do want some sort of plan that would lead to citizenship for the people already here, in addition to an overhaul of the non-functioning non-enforced immigration laws currently on the books.

And non-enforced is at the crux of the problem for the non-enforcement is what allowed us to reach the point we're at now.

But at this point in time make NO mistake about overhaul is needed because Republicans are sadly losing the Hispanic vote, a vote they once had, as witnessed by the November election where Hispanics ran from ALL Republican candidates like they were poison, sending a clear message that we must find a solution to the very real immigration conundrum.

According to committee member Florida Senator Marco Rubio (whose original plan this proposal is somewhat based upon), this proposal starts with the fact that our borders MUST be secured and sealed BEFORE any other measures move forward. And by 'securing' that also means that a better tracking of people here on visas must be implemented (especially to insure that they leave when their visa is up). Only after that's been accomplished would ILLEGALS be permitted to apply for legal status by applying for a green card to earn a chance to stay, and a green card would NOT happen unless a thorough background check was done and proof of gainful employment along with an established work record is presented. Also, a fine and any back taxes owed would have to be paid before the green card was given, and the person receiving the green card would NOT qualify for any federal aid. Learning English and civics would also be a

After having a green card for a probationary number of years (still to be determined) ONLY then would they be allowed to apply for citizenship, but they would go to the back of the line BEHIND those who've come here legally and applied the right way. Also of note is that NO ILLEGALS convicted of crimes would be allowed to get a green card...they would be deported.

And no matter what the naysayers claim, this proposal is NOT blanket amnesty because as Marco Rubio says, “Amnesty is the forgiveness of something and nothing is being forgiven.”

Basically, when everything is stripped away, this 'Pathway to Citizenship' proposal is really just giving the ILLEGALS a chance to file for a green card as they should have done when they first came here.

In addition, when this proposal was presented, Rubio made it clear, and this is extremely important, the Democrats must at all costs be kept from passing a bill that gives these ILLEGALS the right to vote before they complete the so-called 'Pathway to Citizenship'...meaning NO voting until they have become full citizens.

This one point is beyond critical because if allowed to happen we all know the outcome...a lock hold on our government by the liberal Democrats will be the rule of law for years to come and this, while the Democrats goal, is NOT the intended goal of this proposal.

But even with this proposal and the best of bi-partisan intentions, Obama can always be counted on to throw a wrench into the mix and to play politics, as witnessed yesterday in his speech in Las Vegas. While NOT outwardly challenging this bi-partisan Senate bill, Obama did NOT endorse it and in fact tried to sabotage it.

As expected, Obama wants a faster path to citizenship for ILLEGALS, that gay couples (who he called our brothers and sisters) living here ILLEGALLY to be included in any proposal, and said absolutely NOTHING about border security being implemented first before anything else goes forward. Of course he wouldn't because if it was up to him he'd open all the in the more that come here and support Democrats the better it is.

But most importantly was Barack HUSSEIN Obama's threat, and threat it was, and I quote, "If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away."

Just who the hell does this man think he is to 'insist' on when or on what Congress votes. NO president has the right to 'insist' dictate...when or on what Congress votes on. Talk about overstepping his bounds...but than again, Obama doesn't see himself as president but as our supreme ruler and savior (gag).

And with statements like this, Barack HUSSEIN Obama has proven himself yet again to have committed crimes against America by NOT abiding by our system of checks and balances of power. So once the Senate proposal is passed (and I believe it will be), and according to its content, lets deport this Constitution hating ILLEGAL president back to where he came from...and it 'aint Hawaii.

Oh, and by the way, he can take ALL his muzzie brethren with him.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Israeli source confirms Iran nuke plant exploded

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Good news: "Israeli Source Confirms Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Plant Exploded," by Chana Ya'ar for Israel National News, January 28 (thanks to Voice of the Copts):
An Israeli intelligence source has confirmed Iran’s Fordow underground nuclear uranium enrichment facility sustained major damage in a “mega explosion” that occurred last week. Fordow, which contains at least 2,700 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, is located deep beneath a mountain near the Iranian city of Qom.
Some 200 workers were trapped inside the facility at the time, according to a report published Monday by The Times, a UK-based newspaper.
The report quoted an Israeli official as saying “We’re still in the early stages of trying to comprehend what happened and the extend of its significance.” The source added that it was not yet known whether the explosion was “an act of sabotage or incidental.”
The official declined to reveal whether Israeli aircraft had been in the vicinity at the time of the explosion.
Iran has denied that any explosion occurred at the facility, claiming in a statement to the official IRNA news agency that reports of the blast were nothing more than “Western propaganda.”
News of the explosion was reported Friday by the U.S.-based WND website.

Obama's Divide the GOP and Conquer Strategy

Obama's Divide the GOP and Conquer StrategyBy: Rachel Alexander / Townhall Columnist

Obama has figured out how to force his left wing agenda through even though he was reelected with a divided country. He cherry picks issues which divide the Republican Party. The Republican Party ends up fighting within itself, diverting the public's attention to its chaos rather than Obama's agenda. The Republican Party is left looking unprincipled, confused and hypocritical.

Look at the most recent high-profile political battles. With the help of the complicit liberal media, Obama made extending the payroll tax cut to avoid the “fiscal cliff” one of the biggest issues. It is not a clear-cut Republican versus Democrat issue, because while Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes, government spending is out of control. Every time the extension has come up for a vote, Republicans are split. If they vote to extend it, they look fiscally irresponsible. If they vote to end it, they look like they support a tax increase. Either way they will be skewered by both the left and the right for deserting their principles, and Obama skates away free to pursue his agenda with little scrutiny. The Democrats escape scrutiny on the payroll tax cut extension votes because they don't claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility or friend of the taxpayers. They merely claim to stand for murky concepts like “caring about Americans.”

The latest issue Obama is dividing Republicans over is raising the debt ceiling. Naturally Republicans oppose increasing it, while Democrats support an increase in order to support their ever-ballooning social programs.

However, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have figured out how to convolute the issue in order to divide Republicans. Compounding that, the liberal news media spins its coverage so that the average American does not fully understand the dynamics.

Republicans attempted to add deep spending cuts and a requirement to pass a budget to the bill, in order to get something they would never be able to get passed otherwise. The most recent bill to increase the debt ceiling limit included a provision that would freeze the salaries of members of Congress until they passed a budget. The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009, forcing Congress to pass temporary resolutions every six months. Called No Budget, No Pay, it divided the GOP. 199 Republicans voted for it, and 33 voted against it. Slightly more Democrats voted against it than for it, objecting to the No Pay provision as a “budget gimmick.”

There was virtually no criticism of the Democrats by the liberal media for opposing this common sense corrective provision. Instead, the media portrayed the legislation in the worst possible light for Republicans. Rather than characterizing it as a “forced budget” bill, the media focused instead on the part that makes Republicans look bad, increasing debt spending, calling it a bill to raise the debt ceiling.

The Republicans’ “budget gimmick” appears to have worked, since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said the Senate will pass the No Budget, No Pay bill and finally settle on a real budget. Don’t expect the liberal media to identify this as a significant victory for Republicans. Nor will the liberal media remind anyone that this isn’t the first time Republicans achieved a victory over the Democrats by forcing a stand down vote. Republicans forced President Clinton into signing a balanced budget amendment to curtail spending by following through on a threat to shutdown the government in 1995-96.

A real budget is going to require deep spending cuts. It is easy to predict how Obama will use the budget bill to divide the GOP. He will find an area to cut that conservatives do not want to cut, like the defense budget, and make that the most important issue. Obama’s plan is to put conservatives in a catch-22 and make those who oppose the budget look like big spenders, and those who support the budget look like they don’t care about our military.

Instead of falling into his trap, conservatives have a way out. The Pentagon has a history of wasteful spending. Conservatives should figure out how to cut some of the Pentagon’s budget as well as foreign aid, which studies have shown too often finds its way into the pockets of dictators and does little to improve the economies of poor countries. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) exposes wasteful spending each year in his annual government waste reports. He should take the lead on negotiating spending cuts for the budget bill.

This will help shift the focus back to where it belongs, on the Democrats who want to continue wasting our money on outrageous pork projects like the Alabama Watermelon Queen Tour, advertising for caviar, and a robotic squirrel.

Republicans need to go on the offensive and quit letting Obama dictate which issues receive the most attention and how they are characterized. Instead of “fiscal cliff” and “raising the debt ceiling,” Republicans need to use language like “going bankrupt” and “financial ruin.” Why not turn the tables on the Democrats and use their own emotional rhetoric against them? If deep spending cuts aren’t made, we won’t be able to pay teachers and law enforcement.

25 Great Quotes from Black Conservatives

25 Great Quotes from Black Conservatives
25) "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -- Larry Elder
24) "I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally; however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person." -- Tim Scott
23) "Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot." -- Clarence Thomas
22) "They say African Americans. I say black people. I’ve only been to Africa once. I’ve been in America all my life!" -- Herman Cain
21) "As the old saying goes, 'money is power' and the more money the government takes, the more power it has over individuals." -- Angela McGlowan
20) "The government is not your salvation. The government is not your road to prosperity. Hard work, education will take you far beyond what any government program can ever promise." -- Mia Love
19) "Liberals worry that what's best for the individual might not be better for the public at large. But that philosophy assumes something vicious about each and every one of us. It assumes we only care about ourselves." -- Allen West
18) "Self esteem comes from achievements. Not from lax standards and false praise." -- Condi Rice
17) "If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it." -- Ward Connerly
16) "There is a simple maxim that I use to express this situation, 'when tolerance becomes a one way street, it leads to cultural suicide.'" -- Allen West
15) "Toure, I’ve seen hate up close. I know what it looks like. I’ve felt its hands on my skin, seen the look in its eyes, felt the burn of its words. It is deliberate and it is real. Racism is not disliking our black President because of his socialist leanings. Racism is the scar I carried near my lip for decades after one particularly harsh punch in the mouth from a kid screaming 'N*GGER!' at me while swinging away. Racism is that guy in the diner, the hoses and dogs turned on folks from my grandparents’ generation just looking to drink at a decent water fountain. When you accuse a person of racism, THAT is the legacy of hate you are laying at their feet. It’s every bit as heinous as accusing someone of being a child molester arbitrarily. When you accuse Mitt Romney and other conservatives like me of being racist based on no other proof besides the fact that we vehemently disagree with this President and his policies, you dilute the history and experiences of people like me. You cheapen that word – n*gger. You rob it of its true horror – a horror we should never forget or take for granted. Not only that, Toure; but you cheapen yourself. You make it clear to blacks like me that you, indeed have no clue in hell what real racism is or where it can be found." -- Kira Davis
14) "The right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do." -- Michael Steele
13) "If you are explaining, you are losing." -- J.C. Watts
12) “When caring for your neighbor becomes a compulsory obligation imposed by government instead of voluntary, charity turns to confiscation and freedom to achieve to involuntary servitude. To liberals, compassion seems to be defined by how many people are dependent on the government; to conservatives, it’s defined by how many people no longer need help. One promotes dependence, the other freedom, responsibility and achievement.” -- Star Parker
11) “Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.” -- Shelby Steele
10) "Good motives aside, white condescension does more damage than good. White condescension says to a black child, 'The rules used by other ethnic groups don’t apply to you. Forget about work hard, get an education, posses good values. No, for you, we’ll alter the rules by lowering the standards and expecting less.’ Expect less, get less.” -- Larry Elder
9) "I don't believe in quotas. America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights." -- Clarence Thomas
8) "The best way to help your neighbor is not to live off your neighbor." -- AlfonZo Rachel
7) "They said that I had sold out and (am an) Uncle Tom. And I said well, they deserve to have that view. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps." -- J.C. Watts
6) "The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -- Thomas Sowell
5) "It’s often said that the Democrats fight 'for the little guy.' That’s true: liberals fight to make sure the little guy stays little! Think about it. What if all the little guys were to prosper and become big guys? Then what? Who would liberals pretend to fight for? If the bamboozlers fight for anything, it’s to ensure that the little guy stays angry at those nasty conservatives who are holding him down." -- Angela McGlowan
4) "We might think of dollars as being 'certificates of performance.' The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That’s the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him." -- Walter Williams
3) "We've become a culture where earning money doesn't entitle you to it, but wanting it does. That is the essence of redistribution." -- Ken Blackwell
2) "Here’s Williams’ roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits." -- Walter Williams
1) "Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large." -- Thomas Sowell

Monday, January 28, 2013

The Most Important Amendment

By: Rich Galen / Townhall Columnist
We all know the term "The Bill of Rights" which are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution although few of us (including me) could name them.

Hint: None of them start "Thou shalt not …" Rather they tend to start "The Government (or Congress) shalt not …" Keep that in mind.

The First Amendment is a catch-all of rights upon which the Congress may not trample: It protects an individual's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and to petition the government.

The American press corps is very, very focused on the First Amendment and will go to great lengths to make sure that right is not diminished.

Similarly the Fifth Amendment is often a show stopper. The money clause in the Fifth Amendment is, of course the clause against self incrimination.

In practice, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the Fifth Amendment "requires the government to prove a criminal case against the defendant without the aid of the defendant as a witness against himself."

The Tenth Amendment, in total, reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This was dropped in to protect the notion of "Federalism" and might have been attempting to strike a balance between an all-powerful central government (read, George III) and a totally useless central government (read, Articles of Confederation).

The Amendment that is on everyone's lips these days is, of course, the Second: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

We walked through those to show the vast range of protective language the founders found necessary to include even after they had finished the body of the Constitution itself.

There are no unfettered rights. As we have discussed many times, the First Amendment does not protect your right to "falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" (as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is often quoted has having written in U.S. v. Schenck).

Anyone who as ever watched more than a few frames of a CSI episode knows that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination can be overturned by almost any judge issuing a warrant that allows the police to take a cheek swab to get your DNA.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean that any device that fires a projectile through a barrel as the result of a chemical reaction (known in higher scientific circles as "going boom") is protected.

Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.

Watching cable news chat shows tells us how important that Freedom of Speech thing is. The ownership of a network might, under public pressure, remove a host for what it considers to be egregious speech, but the government can't do it.

In the early days of the Iraq War a Country group called the Dixie Chicks publicly denounced the war in general and President George W. Bush in particular leading to radio stations around the country to stop pushing their songs and former fans to stop attending their songs.

You didn't have to like what the Dixie Chicks said, but you were limited in what you could to do express that dissatisfaction. Demanding the government toss them in the slam is not among them.

Compare and contrast to Vladimir Putin's reaction to a girl group in Moscow having put on an impromptu concert in opposition to his government. Into the Slaminski they went.

The battle over the Second Amendment will, in spite of a well-orchestrated effort to diminish or remove it by the American Left, end the same way the battle over the First and Fifth Amendments ended during the "Hollywood Black Listing" days of the late 1940s - early 1950s in spite of the overwhelming desire for the American Right to limit them.

When it comes down to it, the most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights is any Amendment with which you, or I disagree. That means someone else's rights are being protected - against you or me.
Kissinger: US on Brink of Nuclear Crisis with Iran 

Former U.S. Secretary of State and Nobel Peace laureate Henry Kissinger is warning that the United States and Israel are very close to facing a crisis with a nuclear-arming Iran.

The 89-year-old Kissinger told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that such a crisis — a full-fledged atomic war — would be "a turning point in human history," the BBC reported.

"There has emerged in the region, the current and most urgent issue of nuclear proliferation. For 15 years, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [UNSC] have declared that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but it has been approaching," he said.

"In a few years, people will have to come to a determination of how to react, or the consequences of non-reaction.

"I believe this point will be reached in a very foreseeable future," he added.

Kissinger called for “serious” negotiations on both sides to avert the crisis. The most important thing, Kissinger said, was for the West to prevent letting things get so bad that Israel is forced to act alone.

"Unilateral intervention by Israel would be a desperate last resort, but the Iranians have to understand that if they keep using the negotiations to gain time to complete a nuclear programme then the situation will become extremely dangerous," he said.

If Tehran gets nuclear weapons, regimes across the Middle East and Africa will want them, too, Kissinger said.

"The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history," he said.

"If Iran acts as a nation and not as a revolutionary cause, there is no reason for America or other permanent members of the UNSC [United Nations Security Council] to be in conflict with it, nor any countries in the region. On that basis I would hope that a negotiated solution would be found in a measurable time."

I have said this since day one...

Rand Paul: Was Benghazi op running guns?

Senator says evidence from catastrophe suggests a political operation went awry

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration appears to be covering up a gun-running scheme in Benghazi that fell apart when jihadists attacked the U.S. mission there, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, charges Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul said he’s concerned by the “lack of security in advance of the attack, how they responded to the attack and the political coverup after the attack.”

Paul said the evidence suggests political motivations throughout, and it appears that a larger agenda was at work.

In an interview with WND, the senator said his “suspicion, although I don’t have any proof, is that guns were being smuggled out of Libya, through Turkey and into Syria.”

“And that may be what the CIA annex was doing there,” Paul said, “and the coverup was an attempt to massage and get over this issue without getting into the gun trade.”

His comments came in the wake of congressional hearings in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally was questioned about the calamity on her watch.

Paul said he “was very surprised she had never read any of the cables.”

“I found it to be inexcusable,” he said. “It is her job and … it is a dereliction of duty.”

Clinton claimed she didn’t see a classified State Department cable sent Aug. 16 that said the Benghazi consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”

Paul made headlines during the hearings when he grilled Clinton on her “failings” regarding the Benghazi attack.

“I think that ultimately, with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11,” he told the secretary of state during the hearing.

He also told Clinton that if he “had been president at the time of the attack” he would have “relieved” her of her post.

He noted there were many human judgment errors, “but no one was fired.”

“The people who make judgment errors need replaced, fired, and no longer in a position of making these judgment calls,” he said.

“Not to know of the request for security, really, I think, cost these people their lives. Their lives could have been saved had someone been more available, someone been aware of these things, more on top of the job.”

See the exchange:

He said the backdrop is that the attack was a consequence of America’s interventionist foreign policy.

“We should really be thinking to whom we give weapons,” he said.

“For years we gave weapons to the mujahedeen and bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. So we were in favor of radical jihad for over a decade,” he said.

He suggested the Obama administration is making a similar mistake “in a slightly different fashion by giving F-16s and Abrams tanks to Egypt.”

When asked if he has any reason to believe Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., will be a better secretary of state than Clinton, Paul said, “I think they’re identical, and they’re identical to many of the Republicans.”

He said it appears the parties in Washington are not that far apart on some issues.

“They all agree that we should be involved everywhere around the world and that we should give unlimited weaponry to every side of every conflict all around the world and that we should extend foreign aid without conditions,” he said.

As such, many committee hearings in which problems are supposed to be discussed “are simply a love fest,” he said, because of the philosophical agreement between Republicans and Democrats on those subjects.

“That is a part of the problem and while [in the Senate], I will be a lone wolf” to advocate for a new foreign aid system that he thinks would help prevent future abuse of American aid, he said.

He wants to make aid conditional.

“Countries should prove to us that they are willing and able to protect our embassies, they ought to turn over anybody who was involved in the attacks on our embassies as in Libya or as in Pakistan, they ought to free the man who helped us get bin Laden, Dr. Shakeel Afridi,” he said.

Further, it’s “economic nonsense” to continue borrowing money from China that is then handed out to other nations.

On the topic of Syria, he said, “It’s plausible that we’ve armed people in civil wars that we didn’t know who they were.”

He pointed out the possibility that al-Qaida has been armed at U.S. expense there.

Al Nusra and other extremists among the rebels in Syria possibly are connected to al-Qaida, he said.

“If we are giving arms, which we deny that we’re giving arms, they say that we’re only giving them to the good guys,” Paul said. “In the middle of a war-torn area, I don’t know if you’re giving a Minnesota multiphasic psychology test to everybody you’re giving arms to. I think it’s pretty difficult to determine who your friends are and who your foes are, who is extreme and who is not. When they come up asking for a rocket launcher, they’re probably acting like they’re your best friend.”

He said it largely will be up to the members of the U.S. House to continue investigating Benghazi.

“Many on [the Republican] side probably think it’s done, and many Republicans agree with Democrats that they’re fine with the foreign policy continuing as it is,” he said.

However, he said if the House “had some gumption, they can call people who were in the annex to hear their testimony and bring forth Ambassador Rice to talk about the coverup and military commanders.”

As a practical matter, he said the “military should be in charge of embassy security in countries that are emerging from civil war, and not the State Department.”

He said the equipment and personnel for the U.S. to use military force should be stationed nearby.

WND previously has reported on the discoveries about the Benghazi scandal, including when Paul asked Clinton during the congressional hearings about the weapons transfer operations. She responded, “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

In it was September when WND broke the story that Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

According to the 39-page report from independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.

WND also exclusively reported the facility may have violated the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions. Like most nations, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 United Nations convention.

Article 2 of the convention makes clear the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.”

According to the State report, there was a decision “to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility,” likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary.

And WND reported in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice may have deliberately misled the public when she went on television news shows and called the facility that had been targeted a “consulate.”