Sunday, September 29, 2013

State Department confirms that jihadists seized warehouse full of U.S. weapons intended for Syria "moderates"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

KavkazUSAid.jpgAl-Qaeda mujahedin getting USAID

The State Department official said that this “illustrates how vitally important it is that we continue to provide assistance to moderate opposition forces who share our deep concerns over the threat that extremists pose to the communities within Syria and to their country’s future.” Actually, it illustrates the spectacular failure of the Obama Administration to aid the "moderates" it claims are in control among the Syrian rebels.

"Officials: Al Qaeda Seized U.S. Supplies and Foreign Weapons Meant for Syria Opposition," by Sara Carter for The Blaze, September 27 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
Terrorist fighters with an Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Syria seized weapons and other supplies meant for the secular Syrian Supreme Military Council, U.S. State Department and other western officials confirmed to TheBlaze. 
According to reports from Syria, small arms and ammunition stashed at a warehouse located along the border town of Azaz supplied by Saudi Arabia and Qatar were taken more than a week ago by the Al Qaeda affiliate.
A State Department official with knowledge of the incident confirmed to TheBlaze that U.S. ready-to-eat meals, known as MREs, and other non-lethal supplies were taken by fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS. The group is extremely dangerous and threatened this month to “cleanse” towns along the border of any secular Muslims and pro-western opposition groups, according to reports.
We can confirm that ISIS has seized control of a warehouse containing a small number of U.S. MREs intended for the Supreme Military Council,” a State Department official told TheBlaze.
The clashes between the Free Syrian Army and the Al Qaeda affiliate in the town of Azaz, where the supplies were stolen from, “illustrates how vitally important it is that we continue to provide assistance to moderate opposition forces who share our deep concerns over the threat that extremists pose to the communities within Syria and to their country’s future,” the official said.
In an interview with TheBlaze’s TV “For The Record,” Free Syrian Army ground commander Col. Riad El Asaad said his men would fight Al Qaeda factions that have penetrated Syria. El Asaad said he and many of his men are targets of the foreign Al Qaeda factions in his country.
The State Department official said that despite “extensive vetting to mitigate the risk,” non-lethal assistance can end up in the hands of unintended recipients, such as terrorist groups....
Earlier this week, TheBlaze reported on a photo of ISIS-linked Commander Muhajireen Kavkaz wa Sham, who along with other rebels, appeared to be donning battle gear and a rocket-propelled grenade inside a U.S. Agency for International Development tent.
“It looks like they got the tent from the raid on the depot,” said a U.S. official, who asked not to be named due to the nature of their work. “It’s not surprising – it happens in war zones – bad guys sometimes get their hands on weapons not intended for them.”
Government Shutdown is a Fantastic Idea; Here's Why  
Mike Shedlock / Townhall Columnist
Looking for a reason to support a government shutdown? If so, please consider Obama Stripped to Skeleton Staff in a Government Shutdown.
A U.S. government shutdown means President Barack Obama will have fewer people to cook meals, do the laundry, clean the floors or change the light bulbs, according to a White House contingency plan.

About three-fourths of president’s 1,701-person staff would be sent home. The national security team would be cut back, fewer economists would be tracking the economy and there wouldn’t be as many budget officials to track spending.

Of the total, 438 people work directly for the president. Under a shutdown, 129 could continue working, according to the contingency plan.

Biden, who has a staff of 24, would have had to make do with 12.

Obama’s national security staff of 66 would be cut to 42. Similar staff cuts would be imposed at the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which are all part of the president’s executive office.
Fantastic Idea

If you think that a government shutdown is a fantastic idea (I sure do), then please contact your elected representatives and let them know.
IMF Proposes Eurozone Fiscal Union, Banking Union, Harmonized Employment, Common Unemployment Scheme, Firewall Tax
In the biggest nannycrat proposal ever, the IMF announced it's vision for the United States of Europe (without using that name to describe the proposal).

Via translation from El Pais, please consider IMF suggests common unemployment benefits for the eurozone.
The IMF proposes more discipline, more fiscal integration, and the creation of a common unemployment benefit and risk sharing scheme to help the club of countries that have experienced damage in this crisis currency.

Fund staff argues that ommon fiscal governance, along with the banking union, are necessary to offset the "weaknesses in the architecture" of the eurozone, reinforce the club of 17 to future crises. In addition, the study argues that the most urgent step to acquire banking union goes through a firewall overall tax.

The pillars of a fiscal union , according to IMF staff, go through a series of mechanisms to pool the risks and avoid further costly bailouts, always subject to greater fiscal discipline. The tighter control over public finances of each country, which occur revenues and expenditures, is the condition of these forward-looking statements, both from the point of view of the IMF and Brussels.

Obedience and monitoring standards would allow the creation of a liquidity fund for troubled countries including a common unemployment benefit or "rainy day fund".

This fund would be nurtured with an amount equivalent to between 1.5% and 2% of the GDP of member countries, which is in line for a fund with Germany for its most troubled regions.

Harmonisation of Employment

But there is much work ahead for something like a common shutdown could crystallize into a eurozone labor markets as diverse. "A common insurance scheme would require a minimum of harmonization in taxation of employment plus pension rights, which would be a positive step towards a single labor market," the report warns.

The fiscal integration also requires a kind of Eurobonds or form of joint financing, led by the center of power and backed by global revenue, which would be possible once common tax structure is already underway.

A single monitoring mechanism should complement a firm commitment to establish a strong firewall " to anchor confidence in the banking system. " And this will require common money too: "While some insurance against banking fiascos be funded by the industry itself, a common fund for recapitalization, liquidation and deposit guarantee would reduce the risk of infection."

The True Vision - A United State of Europe

That is the most comprehensive vision for the United States of Europe we have seen yet. And I propose an immediate up-or-down vote, right now, in all of the 17 member countries.

I am quite sure the unemployed in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy will be 100% in favor of a common unemployment scheme, especially if Germany would foot the bill. And France would always vote for more taxes as a matter of course, the bigger the tax hikes the better.

Common work rules would have to be along the lines of the French work rules of course. And who could possibly be against common pension schemes at the expense of Germany and the Northern European countries?

The more I think about this the more perfect the proposal is. It is complete with every nuance the nannycrats want. So let's not delay. We need an up-or-down vote right now, not by the governments of each country, but rather by the citizens of each county who can decide if they like all of the proposed benefits and taxes necessary to make the United States of Europe work.

While the media has been fixated on Republican infighting over how to deal with Obamacare, it has completely ignored the panic-induced irrational rhetoric coming from Democrats on the same subject.

No, they aren’t openly forming circular firing squads like Republicans do – progressives put their agenda above ego and public disagreement. But they are worried because, while Obamacare was built to fail, it wasn’t expected to fail so early. That failure puts at risk the progressive dream of single-payer health care in the United States.

We are moving past the “cost estimate” stage of Obamacare into reality of what Obamacare will mean to Americans’ pockets. As the state exchanges get ready to go live on Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services released the cost of insurance premiums for individuals in some states, and the numbers aren’t good.

Sure, progressive “journalists,” such as New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, took a thesaurus to White House press releases and published rewritten end zone dances, featuring lines like, “I grant that glitches and setbacks have occurred, mostly but not entirely because of fanatical Republican sabotage effort.”

While Chait was claiming premium “savings” and declaring, “I have yet to see a single conservative grapple with the positive developments,” serious analysts such as the Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy brought some honesty to the table. He writes, “HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect.”

In fact, Roy found that comparing apples to apples and not apples to Subarus, “Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent.”

When the comparison is an honest one it is not much of a “positive development.”

This fact has progressives worried. Obamacare was designed to fail, but it was designed to fail eventually, not quickly. Progressives, with the help of the media, would blame a failure a few years from now on the “free market.” But failure from the start will force the blame fall where is squarely belongs – on government control.

How, you may ask, could an exchange set up, governed and subsidized by a government bureaucracy be called a “free market”? It’s already happened.

When Walgreens announced it planned to drop the insurance it has been providing employees because of Obamacare, none other than the Washington Post hailed it as a great development for them. Those 160,000 employees would not be able to keep the plan they had if they liked it, as the president repeatedly promised. Instead, they would be “joining a growing list of large employers seeking to control costs by having employees shop for coverage in a private marketplace.” (emphasis added)

Of course, there’s nothing “private” about it. But that lie is out there, with the credibility of none other than the Washington Post behind it. Which was the point. People who don’t pay attention will now be exposed to it, and it will spread.

Developments of this sort are now commonplace. The list of companies dropping coverage or cutting hours to avoid Obamacare’s costs now number more than 300 and is growing every day.

With this growing pressure and increasing public realization of the failures of Obamacare, its proponents are getting desperate. The plan is in motion. The law is in place. No matter how much spin they put on it, this lemon seems ready to collapse at the starting line. This is leading to some unhinged behavior.

This week Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called opponents of Obamacare “anarchists” for working within the normal functions of government to defund it. The president’s senior advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, said the White House is “not for negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” Ironically, he said this Thursday, the day before the president announced he’d spoken to the president of Iran, and while he is in the midst of negotiating with Syria over chemical weapons. No to talking with Republicans, yes to Iran and Syria.

Were the President a beer spokesman he might say, 'I don’t always associate with terrorists, but when I do, I prefer they be real terrorists and have been responsible for murdering Americans.' It’s appropriate, I suppose, because he is the “worst president in the world.”

The president himself is engaging in an ever-growing rhetorical meltdown. In his continued effort to sell Obamacare to the public, he’s been giving speeches about its virtues. Part of his rhetorical repertoire is the claim that “there's no serious evidence that the law … is holding back economic growth." The absurdity of this lie can be explained only by desperation or, as he has claimed in the cases of Fast & Furious and the IRS targeting of his political opponents, the president simply hasn’t read or seen any media stories about all the layoffs and cuts in hours.

As more of the train derails the rhetoric will become more desperate.

That’s why a one-year delay, the strategy being discussed now by Republicans, shouldn’t be pursued.

A delay gives Obamacare time, and time is life. That’s why the president has delayed as many of the most egregious parts of the law. The further away from launch it collapses the more likely their plan to blame the private market is to work. Republicans should be doing what they can to speed up the inevitable collapse and suing to force the administration to have Obamacare implemented as it is written, as they wrote and passed it. After all, as they’ve been constantly reminding everyone, “It’s the law,” not “mostly the law.”

What Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, did this week was invaluable in that it forced the problems the government created to the top of the consciousness of the American public (though the media is trying to undo that damage). But the collective attention span of the American people is short. In a year or two it will be forgotten. The best chance to destroy Obamacare is to get out of its way and let nature take its course.
Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are eligible to be President or Vice-President
By: Diane Sori

Last Tuesday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz showed what an elected official should be...a champion of 'We the People.'  In a 21-hour 'non-filibuster' filibuster, Cruz let it be known about the danger facing us all...the danger that is ObamaCare. By standing strong, Ted Cruz got thrust into the limelight as the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016...and rightly so.

One of those standing united with Ted Cruz, and speaking when he needed a break, was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who in 2012 was on Mitt Romney's Vice-Presidential 'short list' and whose name is also be spoken of for the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016. 

However, with both Cruz and Rubio's names comes the issue raised by some that neither meets the requirement of being a ‘natural born citizen.’  But what most do NOT realize is that in the case of both men this concern can be resolved by just reading the words...or lack of the Constitution itself...just reading the words as written...NOT trying to change or reinterpret words that our Founders made clear and simple in their meaning.

Let me explain...let's start with the critical issue that is at the crux of the issues raised...what exactly is a 'natural born citizen'?  Simply, the Constitution does NOT define those words, but the Framers’ understanding...combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress...indicate that the phrase meant both birth abroad to American parents (in a manner regulated by federal law...more on that later), and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship.

In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning many times in various contexts even with being a 'natural-born citizen' a requirement to be President or Vice-President of this country.  But again, NOWHERE in the Constitution does it define ‘natural born citizen ' while 'native born' citizen is clearly defined.

And while Article 2 of the Constitution does state, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” the actual term ‘natural born citizen’ was ambiguous at best. Some contend that anyone born inside the U.S. should be considered a natural born citizen, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)* seems to back that view. 

They have stated that, "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

And herein lies the key, and read these words very carefully, “one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents...” Even to “alien parents,” as long as the child is born “in” the United States...that is the key phrase in Marco Rubio’s particular case.

In the case of Canadian born Ted Cruz the words "at birth" are key as Cruz's mother, a U.S. born American citizen, conferred citizenship to Ted under 'The Nationality Act of 1940' which states which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Stating those born in the United States or born outside the United States to at least one parent who was a citizen at the time of the child's birth allows citizenship to go to that child if that citizen parent spent a certain number of years in the U.S.

And this is where Ted Cruz's American citizenship is garnered from as Cruz being born to a born in America citizen mother, was able to assume her citizenship 'at birth' because under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986...Cruz was born in 1970...someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five years after the age of 14, in order to have citizenship conferred to them. 

The indisputable fact is that Ted Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born and raised in the Delaware...did NOT go to Canada until her mid-to late 20s. and did NOT have Ted until into her 30's...way beyond the mandatory 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. 

And herein lies Barack HUSSEIN Obama's problems for whether he was born in Kenya as some claim or whether he was born in Hawaii as others claim...his American citizen mother did NOT reside in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 as she was 18 years of age when Obama was born...only 4 years after reaching the mandatory 14 years of age...and Obama was born in 1961 so he comes under the same rules of law as Ted Cruz does.

This simple fact makes Barack HUSSEIN Obama ineligible to be President NO matter which side of the  'birther' vs 'non-birther' battle one is on.

As for Rubio, while we all know his parents were NOT citizens at the time of his birth there is NO doubt whatsoever that Marco Rubio was indeed born “in” the United States, in Miami in fact, as he has an indisputable birth certificate that proves just that.  His parents received their final naturalization papers in 1975, four years after Marco’ birth but there is NO denying that his “alien parents” were here LEGALLY, they came here through the LEGAL process, they lived here LEGALLY, and they became citizens LEGALLY as per the requirements of that day.  So, yes they were “alien parents” at the time of Marco’s birth but the Congressional Research Service clearly states that ‘under the Constitution’ as long as the person in question was born here, having “alien parents” means nothing.

There is even more credence in both Cruz and Rubio's eligibility to become either President or Vice-President.  Article Two: Section One, Clause 5 of the Constitution states the eligibility requirements for serving as either President or Vice President of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Now reread these words very carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...”  “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” This again is a key phrase that allows both Cruz and Rubio to be the Republican nominee for either position.

Let me again explain...the requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation...the United States of America...and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were opposed to.

So to make sure this did not happen, as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no one NOT born on United States soil would be eligible to become President, because they feared that England might still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.  

Breaking it down even further, this phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later years.

Now also take into account the words, “...have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  (Marco Rubio was born here, has lived here his entire life, and is over 35 years of age...Ted Cruz, while born in Canada, had citizenship conferred to him "at birth" through his mother, has lived here most of his life, and is over 35 years of age)  “...and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  “been fourteen Years a resident...” the word ‘resident’ contradicts the CRS’s interpretive ruling of having to “be born in” or did they take into account in their ruling that the Founders, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, realized that since the nation was new that maybe some who aspired to the presidency might have been born in England or elsewhere but came here as a child...hmmm, we will never know for sure. 

But critical in today's questioning is the memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), stating:

“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

And the words, "natural born citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" are the most important of all.

So with all the information I have presented, it should be clear to all that both Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio are indeed eligible to be either President or Vice-President of these United States.

And by the way....Cruz/Rubio 2016 or Rubio/Cruz 2016...either way works for me.
 *The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.  As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, the CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.