Friday, February 1, 2013

Obama...more dangerous than you can imagine

OK guys...this is something Bamboo Bob and I spoke about last night and it needs needs to go VIRAL like right NOW!  The Obama administration is more dangerous than you can imagine...


Al-Qaeda: #MyJihad is carrying "earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying" attacks against "heart of the land of non-belief" -- U.S. and Europe

From: Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer 


The "heart of the land of non-belief"? You'd almost get the impression that their hatred of the U.S. and Europe has something to do with Islam. But I am sure that Abdul Cader Asmal and Omid Safi are working hard to set them straight.

"U.S. faces new Al Qaeda threat as terror group's 'strike map' is revealed," by Simon Tomlinson for the Daily Mail, January 31:
Al Qaeda has issued a new threat to carry out 'earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying' attacks on the U.S. and Europe, it emerged today. 
In a posting on a jihadist website, the terror group said the 'coming strikes' would target the 'heart of the land of non-belief' as well as countries aiding France in its crackdown on rebels in Mali.
The unidentified writer claimed the attacks would be 'group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the use of booby-trapped vehicles'.
U.S. officials say they are taking the threat seriously.
The message, posted on the Ansar al Mujahideen network on Sunday, carried the headline: 'Map of Al Qaeda and its future strikes'.
'The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times.'
The message, translated by The Washington Times, says the attacks will be 'strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.'
All attacks would be recorded and published, it added.
It goes on to warn France and those supporting its assault on Al Qaeda insurgents in Mali that they are facing a 'long war of attrition'....

Obama's Act of Constitutional Disobedience

Obama's Act of Constitutional Disobedience

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the crazy idea that the president has the power to make recess appointments while the Senate is not in recess.

"An interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction," Chief Judge David B. Sentelle wrote. "This cannot be the law."

The decision means the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which lacks a quorum to function without the improperly appointed members, should shut down until legitimate board members are confirmed by the Senate. But it won't. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the decision "does not have any impact, as I think the NLRB has already put out, on their operations or functions, or on the board itself."

So the administration is openly defying the courts and the Constitution. But why? The NLRB has to go to federal court to enforce its orders, and companies can seek review in the D.C. Circuit - the very court that just smacked down the NLRB.

There is some chance the Supreme Court could overturn the decision on appeal, but while they might take a more expansive view of the Recess Appointments power than the D.C. Circuit did, it's hard to imagine they would accept the idea that the president can decide the Senate is in recess, even when the Senate thinks it isn't. And regardless, the D.C. Circuit decision is good law unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

So the continued functioning of the NLRB seems to be, more than anything, an act of "Constitutional Disobedience," a concept now being touted by Georgetown Professor Louis Michael Seidman in a variety of mainstream media outlets.

Seidman was recently given space on the New York Times op-ed page to trash the Constitution, writing: "While we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance." On CBS Seidman insisted we "take back our own country" from the Constitution.

Obama was thinking along similar lines more than a decade ago. "As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama, then a University of Chicago Law School senior lecturer in constitutional law said in a 2001 radio interview. "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Unconstitutionally operating a federal agency in open defiance of the courts is about as good an example of breaking free from essential constraints as can be imagined, and it may be testing the waters for the outright rejection of the Constitution Seidman proposes.

Given the stakes, it is imperative for Congress to immediately zero out the NLRB's budget in upcoming negotiations over the continuing resolution to fund the federal government. If they instead acquiesce to Obama's apparent act of "constitutional disobedience," they may embolden him to push further towards Professor Seidman's goal of giving up on the Constitution altogether.

Hagel Testimony = Fail

I subscribe to the general theory that a President - Republican or Democrat should be able to have the people running his Departments, Commissions and Agencies that he wants.

Hagel Testimony = FailUnless there is some overriding disqualifying reason to reject him or her, the Senate should abide by the terms of Article II, Section 2 that says the President, "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Officers of the United States."

The nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense is an excellent case in point.

I may not agree with Hagel on the 3 I's - Iran, Iraq, and Israel - but we don't generally allow Secretaries of Defense to make foreign policy. Nor, for that matter, do Secretaries of State make foreign policy.

The President makes foreign policy and that policy is carried out by State and Defense.

If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton.

Hagel, as a former Republican U.S. Senator from Nebraska and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee might be uniquely qualified to oversee the long-term re-ordering of our military forces in a time of withdrawal from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the short term issues that attend the looming sequester.

A former infantryman in Vietnam with two Purple Hearts, Hagel should have been sailing through the confirmation process as easily as former Navel officer in Vietnam, John Kerry, sailed through his confirmation to be Secretary of State.

Hagel, to my knowledge never tossed his medals over the White House fence as Kerry infamously did.

Among other things, Hagel once said that Members of Congress were "intimidated" by what he called the "Jewish Lobby." Hagel opposed the concept of the surge in Iraq that, no matter what you think about the totality of the adventure, certainly stabilized that country enough for the U.S. to get out.

As a member of the U.S. Senate Hagel voted against unilateral sanctions against Iran, and, according to the Associated Press,"co-authored [a study] last year that called for an 80 percent cut in U.S. nuclear weapons, and elimination of all nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles."

Even with all that, my thinking, though shaken, remained on the side of giving the President the Cabinet Secretaries he wants.

Until yesterday.

Yesterday Chuck Hagel spent eight hours in a Senate Office building essentially denying everything he has written and/or said since before he campaigned with Barack Obama in 2008.

The Twitterverse was bubbling with hallway comments of Republican and Democratic Senators who were "shocked" at how badly he was performing.

CNN's Dana Bash filed a piece saying: "One senator who is undecided but was not at the Armed Services Committee hearing says it is 'all the talk - I mean all the talk.' Fellow senators are 'shocked' by how ill prepared Hagel seemed for basic questions about controversial comments he has made, this senator said.

It is possible that Hagel was lulled into a false sense of comfort testifying before many of his old Senate buddies on the heels of the love-in that greeted Kerry a week earlier.

It is no secret that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) doesn't like Hagel, and I would be very surprised if, in his rehearsals for yesterday's appearance, the staffer playing Sen. McCain didn't bombard Hagel in the same rude tone the real McCain used yesterday.

But that wasn't enough. Hagel didn't have very good answers to what appear to be reversals in position on issue after issue.

At one point he said he supports the Administration's concept of "containment" when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons.

That is most assuredly not the Administration's position on Iran's nukes. The position is denying Iran nuclear weapons, not containing them once Iran has them.

According to numerous sources a staffer passed Hagel a note after which, having read it, Hagel said: "I misspoke and said I supported the president's position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don't have a position on containment."

But, as the Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), pointed out, "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment. I just wanted to clarify the clarify."

The current Senate split is 55 Ds and 45 Rs so Hagel will probably be approved on a straight up-or-down vote.

Sara Murray and Julian E. Barnes wrote in the Wall Street Journal: An outright filibuster of a cabinet nominee would be unprecedented. Senate records reflect no instance of a filibuster being used to block a cabinet nominee, although nine have been defeated outright, without filibusters, and another 12 were withdrawn, sometimes in the face of a filibuster threat.

With all that, I hope President Obama withdraws the Hagel nomination for Secretary of Defense. If yesterday was any test, he is simply not up to the job.

Also a Mullfoto showing a lot of unused bicycles in downtown DC.
Israel will do what Israel has to do
By: Diane Sori

“The Syrians move chemical weapons to Hezbollah in order to enable them to launch it at us and we're the bad guys in the eyes of the world.”

So said an Israeli 'friend' as we discussed the newest developments along Israel's northern border and a simple fact was shared by us both...Israel has had enough...they are tired of living under the threats of those out to kill them.

And with the Syrian civil war spiraling out of control, Israeli officials and the Israeli media have been warning the Israeli people about increased tensions along their northern border, and that with the strong possibility of Assad's government falling, his stockpile of chemical weapons could very well fall into the hands of terrorists who are hell bent on ridding the world of the supposed Zionist regime. With that, on Wednesday, Israel launched a pre-emptive rocket strike on a truck convoy leaving Syria...a convoy that was carrying Russian made SA-17 anti-aircraft missile batteries and electronic equipment capable of disabling the GPS systems of Israeli drones...a Syrian convoy that was on its way to arming Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon...terrorists who in turn would use those weapons to severely cripple Israel's ability to fly reconnaissance missions over Lebanon.

Also, Syria has claimed that Israel carried out air strikes on one of their military research centers in the city of Jamraya. A research center my eye as Israel doesn't strike research centers but they do strike chemical weapons labs and chemical weapons stockpile facilities of the kind whose chemicals could be used against the Israeli people. And make NO mistake about it...if anyone in Syria dared to launch chemical weapons against Israel it will be the last thing they ever do as Israel will, as my Israeli 'friend' says, “go so strong that Syria will be on fire all over.”

      And while the Obama administration issued this statement through Ben Rhodes, a US deputy national security advisor, "Syria should not further destabilize the region by transferring weaponry to Hezbollah," this really means nothing and says nothing as Obama could care less what happens to Israel for these are NOT fighting words of a supposed supporter of Israel but are words said because some words...any words...were expected.

'Should not'...mild words one would use when chastising a small child NOT words one should use when defending an ally. So mild in fact that on Syrian state television a spokesperson quoted from a letter from the Foreign Ministry to the United Nations as saying that "Syria holds Israel and those who are protecting it at the Security Council responsible for the results of the attack and confirms its right to defend its land and sovereignty,"

And then out of the woodwork comes the usual cast of madmen and loons stepping forward with harsh condemnation of Israel, led off by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki who warned that the "Israeli entity may attack Egypt, Iraq, Iran and other countries under the pretext of (attacking) research centers for the production of a nuclear bomb."

Under the pretext...NO pretext here as the main loon Ahmadinejad has stated on numerous occasion that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map.

So it's NO surprise that Iran stuck its two cents in by issuing a threat to Israel in the form of a deputy foreign minister saying that the "strike on Syria will have serious consequences for Tel Aviv" and a senior adviser to Ahmadinejad saying that any attack on Syria would be as an attack on Iran itself.

Talk about an outward in-your-face laying down of the gauntlet.

And of course we have an Obama buddy from Egypt, the now Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt, the country to which he just sent four F-16 fighter jets to (with 20 more on the way), Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr also condemning the attack, saying "such an assault on Arab land is entirely rejected and represents a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law."

'Such an assault on Arab land'...what about all the assaults on Israeli land in the form of almost daily rocket attacks launched from Gaza...what about those assaults...

And what about any supposed violation of the UN charter...did Egypt ever really respect the UN charter or any international laws...I don't thinks so but hey, when you're an Obama bud you can pick and choose what you will follow and what you won't.

And so it begins for if any retaliation is done against Israel a war that will end all wars will begin for while Syria has a certain amount of chemical weapons and will gladly give them to Israel's enemies, rest assured that Israel will NOT sit idly by and allow its people to be gassed. Israel's counter-retaliation won't be pretty and will indeed set the Middle East on fire...literally on fire...and might I add rightly so.

And Barack HUSSEIN Obama will sit back and watch it all on TV as he did with the slaughter at Benghazi and issue orders for our military to stand down.

The time has now come to end once and for all this Arab/muslim/islamic threat of madman hell bent on eliminating NOT only Israel but any and everyone who stands in their way. Remember, the qur'an commands that they kill all the infidels and those infidels are Israel and us.