Monday, September 8, 2014

The length of time that illegal immigrants stay in the Untied States has spiked drastically over the last decade, according to a recent Pew Research Center study [emphasis added]:
Among the nation’s 10.4 million unauthorized adults, a shrinking share have been in the country for less than five years—15% in 2012, compared with 38% in 2000. A rising share have lived in the U.S. for a decade or more—62% in 2012, compared with 35% in 2000. About a fifth (21%) had been in the U.S. for two decades or more as of 2012.
The rise of long-term residents has been encouraged by laws in the United States that make it easier for aliens to blend in and assimilate into American society. These include allowing illegal immigrants to obtain temporary drivers licenses, fly (probably with less hassle from TSA than most legal residents have), and to go to public school on your taxpayer dollar.

In fact, the number of long-term illegal residents has now acutely outnumbered the number of those who remain in the country for only a short-period of time.

With laws that do little more than encourage aliens to stay, and with an immigration court system that is underfunded and grossly back-logged with cases, it is no wonder that these illegal foreigners are finding it easy to lengthen their stay in the United States.
The only difference between Obama’s ISIS strategy in defeating the Islamic terror group and Obamacare is that under Obama’s strategy, ISIS will likely be able to keep their doctors and their current coverage, while under Obamacare you will not. Oh, and it won’t cost ISIS even a penny more to beat Obama than it would have previously. 
Make no mistake though: Neither will work the way they are being sold.

That’s because Obama’s strategy relies upon the extreme Islamic states --states that made ISIS possible-- forming into a coalition to defend us from the ISIS extremists that they have funded for years. Falling short of the all out war that Henry Kissinger urged upon Obama against ISIS, the president-- of sorts—says that the guys who failed to be able to stand up to Osama bin Laden when he was a stateless refugee, the folks who couldn’t defeat Saddam Hussein, the states that couldn’t stand up to the Muslim Brotherhood or Iran should suddenly become resolute.

And moderate.

Obama’s strategy will fail because those people don’t actually exist.

“We're going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition,” wished the guy who couldn’t even get a budget passed as president, “that can control territory and that we can work with.”

Develop a moderate Sunni opposition? That we can work with?

Because THAT strategy was NEVER tried before.

Why doesn’t Obama just stick to things he knows more about, like stopping the seas from rising, Grammy-winning audiobooks, and peace prizes?

What Obama lacks in executive ability he matches in a lack of originality.

I’m not saying that Obama steals ideas that he claims to be his own, I’m just saying that the title of his next book ought to be “Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Stole from Someone Else, Mostly Communists and Marxists. But It’s All Bush’s Fault.”

Obama was handed a moderate Sunni opposition in Iraq protected by U.S. troops—created by George W. Bush-- and he forsook them. It’s hard to be moderate when the extremists want to kill you with U.S permission.

And if Obama thinks that countries like Saudi Arabia are going to help us, then he’s crazier than I already know him to be. The Saudis are funding the extremists in the same way the Kaiser funded Russian socialists during the Great War. At this rate, expect the Kaiser to eventually abdicate, again.

“Obama doesn’t seem to get it,” Ramzy Mardini, an analyst with the Atlantic Council, a Washington policy group told Bloomberg News by e-mail. “No Arab leader wants to publicly join hands with the ‘Great Satan’ and ‘Crusaders’ in fighting a war in the Middle East.”

That’s because guys like Obama have consistently told the American people and the rest of the world that America actually doesn’t care about Iraq. And some people—some people in the Middle East and in America, even believed him.

I’m not one of them.

Here’s the deal, my fellow Americans: You either make a commitment to Iraq or you don’t. You do it because the stakes are high enough for your own country that the expenditure of blood makes it in your national best interest.

We can have differences in how we got here, but there is no doubt that we are at a Rubicon of sorts.

If, as Obama has said, this is not our fight, then why are we fighting it?

But if, as Obama’s actions and words suggest, we do have something at stake, why didn’t we take it seriously and stick to it when the situation was manageable in Iraq in 2009?

It will take that kind of commitment to win-- again.

Obama has said that in just meeting with world leaders at a NATO summit he knows his fellow heads of state understand the gravity of the threat that ISIS poses to everyone. I hope that’s true.

Because clearly Obama understands nothing about the threat ISIS poses to the United States of America.

Jihad Recruitment in Mosques Intensifies in Wake of Cyber-Security Crackdown

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

According to three separate studies over the past decade, 80% of the mosques in America are teaching and promoting jihad. Jihad recruitment in the mosques is not new.

Mosques should be monitored.

We know they are actively recruiting in European mosques.
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…” The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
According to a critical study of jihadic doctrine as taught and advanced in American mosques, an overwhelming number of American mosques teach, advance, promote violent jihad as dictated by Islamic teaching.

Congressional hearings into this question by Rep. Peter King (Republican of New York), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, generated a firestorm of criticism and controversy among his colleagues, the press, and the general public. But he was right.
Though similar hearings have taken place at least fourteen times since 2001,[1] King was labeled a latter-day Joe McCarthy and the hearings called an assault on civil liberties and a contemporary witch-hunt. Yet the larger dilemmas outlined by both the congressman and some of his witnesses remain: To what extent are American Muslims, native-born as well as naturalized, being radicalized by Islamists? And what steps can those who are sworn to the protection of American citizenry take that will uncover and disrupt the plots of those willing to take up arms against others for the sake of jihad?

Islamic State using leaked Snowden info to evade U.S. intelligence

/ Jihad Watch
edward-snowden1How proud Snowden and his friend Glenn Greenwald (who has addressed gatherings of Hamas-linked CAIR) must be to be enabling jihad on this scale. “Islamic State using leaked Snowden info to evade U.S. intelligence,” by Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times, September 4, 2014:
A former top official at the National Security Agency says the Islamic State terrorist group has “clearly” capitalized on the voluminous leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and is exploiting the top-secret disclosures to evade U.S. intelligence.
Bottom line: Islamic State killers are harder to find because they know how to avoid detection.
Chris Inglis was the NSA’s deputy director during Mr. Snowden’s flood of documents to the news media last year. Mr. Snowden disclosed how the agency eavesdrops, including spying on Internet communications such as emails and on the Web’s ubiquitous social media.
Asked by The Washington Times if the Islamic State has studied Mr. Snowden’s documents and taken action, Mr. Inglis answered, “Clearly.”
The top-secret spill has proven ready-made for the Islamic State (also referred to as ISIL or ISIS). It relies heavily on Internet channels to communicate internally and to spread propaganda.
Mr. Snowden “went way beyond disclosing things that bore on privacy concerns,” said Mr. Inglis, who retired in January. “‘Sources and methods’ is what we say inside the intelligence community — the means and methods we use to hold our adversaries at risk, and ISIL is clearly one of those.
“Having disclosed all of those methods, or at least some degree of those methods, it would be impossible to imagine that, as intelligent as they are in the use of technology, in the employment of communications for their own purposes, it’s impossible to imagine that they wouldn’t understand how they might be at risk to intelligence services around the world, not the least of which is the U.S. And they necessarily do what they think is in their best interest to defend themselves,” he said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden ran the NSA when al Qaeda struck on Sept. 11, 2001. He moved to modernize technology and methodology in an agency that some internal critics said “had gone deaf” in the 1990s.
“The changed communications practices and patterns of terrorist groups following the Snowden revelations have impacted our ability to track and monitor these groups,” said Mr. Hayden, who writes a bimonthly column for The Times.
Matthew G. Olsen, who directs the National Counterterrorism Center, supports Mr. Hayden’s assessment.
“Following the disclosure of the stolen NSA documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate to avoid surveillance. They are moving to more secure communications platforms, using encryption and avoiding electronic communications altogether,” Mr. Olsen, a former NSA general counsel, said Wednesday at the Brookings Institution.
“This is a problem for us in many areas where we have limited human collection and depend on intercepted communications to identify and disrupt plots.”
A former military official said some Islamic State operators have virtually disappeared, giving no hint as to their whereabouts or actions.
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, an Iraqi devoted to former al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, is known to practice evasive tradecraft that undoubtedly improved because of Mr. Snowden’s disclosures.
A former military intelligence official said the U.S. thought it had killed him several times when he was a chieftain in al Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into the Islamic State.
The U.S. later discovered he had passed his communication devices to another terrorist whom intelligence agencies tracked thinking he was the man who then went by the name Abu Dura.

Kissinger: Iran Is a Bigger Threat for U.S. Than ISIS
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Iran is a larger problem for the United States than the threat of the Islamic State's jihadist aggression, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger maintained in an NPR interview Saturday.

"I think a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran," Kissinger told NPR's Scott Simon,  explaining that Iran is a powerful nation with incentive to reconstruct its historical ancient Persian Empire while ISIS "is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology."

"There has come into being a kind of a Shia belt from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut," said Kissinger, secretary of state to late Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. "This gives Iran the opportunity to reconstruct the ancient Persian Empire — this time under the Shia label — in the rebuilding of the Middle East that will inevitably have to take place when the new international borders [are] drawn. The borders of the settlement of 1919-'20 are essentially collapsing."

ISIS, in comparison, still has a way to go before it poses the threat that Iran does, said Kissinger, as "they have to conquer more and more territory before they can become a strategic, permanent reality."

The former secretary, who gives a historical perspective of world affairs and events in his new book "World Order," said ISIS does, however, present a significant threat that will need addressed.

"They have cut the throat of an American on television," said Kissinger. "This is an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American."

After that, he said, the United States needs to "go into the long-range problem.

"I think when we are dealing with a unit like ISIS, we should not get into a position where they can lead us by establishing ground forces," Kissinger told NPR. "But we should set strategic objectives where we thwart any goal they set themselves, which we should be able to do by superior air power."

And if the United States can enlist other countries in its fight against ISIS, or get "other more local groups to do the ground fighting, we might actually destroy them."

Kissinger is scheduled to appear on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday.

Years Of War And We Have Not Learned A Thing
by / Personal Liberty Digest

Years Of War And We Have Not Learned A Thing
As we approach the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it seems that despite the years, the thousands of military casualties, trillions of dollars spent and regime changes caused, we in the U.S. seem to have learned little and accomplished less.

On Sept. 13, 2001, Hillary Clinton proclaimed that, “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.

Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.” President George W. Bush proclaimed much the same thing, using almost the exact same words, to Congress a week later as he sought and obtained a use of force agreement from Congress that essentially gave him and subsequent presidents carte blanch to bomb whomever they chose, all in the name of fighting a “war on terror.”

Funny, that “price” promised by Clinton and Bush apparently didn’t extend to our “ally” Saudi Arabia.

Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan in response to 9/11 — ostensibly to root out former CIA contract agent and U.S. ally (and Saudi Arabian national) Osama bin Laden (who we were told was responsible for the attacks) and unseat the Taliban that governed the country and harbored bin Laden — we were emphatically told by the Bush regime and the propaganda media that al-Qaida in Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed an “existential threat” to the U.S. and that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was the imprimatur Bush and the neocons used to rally Congress and Americans to the cause of perpetual Middle East war and regime change wherever and whenever in order to “spread democracy.”

Anyone in the Middle East and the African continent suddenly became a potential target of U.S. bombers and drone strikes… all for “humanitarian” reasons or to fight “terrorists” — terrorists that, it turns out, the U.S. and its “allies” were arming and training all along.

“We had to attack them there before they attack us here,” was a common refrain uttered by the Bush regime, his proxies, the propaganda media and, sadly, most Americans. It made for great theater and even greater sleight of hand. All this on the basis of a false meme: that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and there was a nexus between al-Qaida and Saddam. There was never a call to attack the real culprit: Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia provided 15 of the 9/11 hijackers (if you believe the official “story” as told by Washington) and much of the funding for the operation. This has been reported by such august “official” publications as The New York Times, and others. More details of the Saudi involvement are also likely what’s found on the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry of 9/11 that Reps. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) are trying to have declassified — information the two men called “shocking.”

For most of the 18 months following the Afghanistan invasion, all we heard from the Bush regime was a rallying cry to justify a war on Iraq. The resulting fearmongering, with an assist from an al-Qaida beheading video (Daniel Pearl), got Americans rousingly on board with the attack that commenced in March 2003.

The U.S. has been bombing ever since. It’s bombed wedding parties and birthdays in Pakistan and U.S. citizens in Yemen. In order to “save” citizens in Libya, it bombed them. It helped assassinate Moammar Gadhafi. “We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton yucked when she learned of Gadhafi’s death.

It’s bombed people in Mali, Somalia and Algeria. According to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, the drone campaign had killed at least 2,400 innocent civilians — including hundreds of children — by January 2014. Tens of thousands more died in Libya from NATO (read U.S.) bombs.

The result was a power vacuum in a once peaceful country that’s left hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Libyans dead or impoverished and caught in the crossfire of a sundry of militant groups vying for power. It also enabled the gunrunning operation through the Libyan consulate that got Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others killed.
Decisions Based on Politics Alone
By: Diane Sori

“This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had, from Central America, a surge of kids who were showing up at the border, got a lot of attention.” 
- Barack HUSSEIN Obama speaking to NBC’s Chuck Todd

This past Friday, Saudi's King Abdullah gave a news conference to lay out his plans for a 560 mile fence along his country's northern border...a fence to help secure the kingdom's desert frontiers from what he called "infiltrators and smugglers." 

A day later, Barack HUSSEIN Obama went on television to read off his teleprompter for the God-only-knows how many hundredth time to basically say... without actually saying the words...that he indeed was going to violate the law of our Constitution yet again with another one of his infamous executive orders, but that he would do so only AFTER the November election when it would have NO consequences for him politically.

Now cow-towing to pressure from those within his own party and fearing that his giving blanket amnesty at this point in time to those 11 million+ ILLEGALS already those ILLEGALS who in reality are criminals by their breaking our laws to get here...would negatively influence the election and cost Democrats control of the Senate. So what did Obama's handlers ...his puppet-masters...have him do...they had him pulling a political maneuver of sorts..."an ill-informed strategic decision that smacks of raw politics" both cover his tracks and hopefully save his party on election day. And they hope the media won't go against him for this was a total flip-flop from when in June he promised that he would initiate 'unilateral measures' ...translation: issue another executive the end of summer if Congress did NOT enact immigration reform legislation that met with his satisfaction.

Blackmail if you will...blackmail plain and simple.

But now as all the polls show his approval numbers tanking and as once blue states start to show a decided turn to the right, Obama is whining that partisan politics is the reason for the current delay in immigration reform. Once again blaming Republicans...blaming everyone but himself for his failures...Obama issued a statement through one of his 'YES men' that said, "...because of the Republicans' extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections." 

But Obama is fooling NO one if he thinks any of us believe those nonsensical words.

“When I take executive action, I want to make sure that it’s sustainable,” Obama himself said...Obama himself lied...for NO matter the outcome in November we all know that when the election is over and all the votes are tallied that he will sign whatever he damn well pleases...and this time it will be an executive order granting amnesty to many if NOT all existing the “the millions of people who are here, in many cases, for a decade or more” well as to allow many new "foreign professionals" as he calls stay in this stay here to continue to take what scarce jobs there are away from LEGAL stay and continue to rape our welfare, health care, and educational stay and become Democratic voters for generations to come.

But wasn't that his plan...his goal...all along? Guess was and still is.

And while Obama is a fool...and a dangerous fool at that...he is in NO way stupid for he knows that while a Republican take-back of the Senate would seriously undermine what remains of his second term...basically rendering him politically impotent if you will...he also knows that he holds the trump card as Congress cannot totally take away or negate his dreaded 'pen' and 'phone.'

But what exactly...what truth...threw this newest wrench in Obama unilaterally implementing immigration reform's really quite's the Democrats up for re-election who are shaking in their boots that they will NOT be re-elected because of his policy of looking away to what's happening at our southern border. That's it in a nutshell as these Democrats are hearing from their very angry and very frustrated constituents that Obama is doing NOTHING of substance about the surge of over 60,000+ children who have, over the past few months, crossed this still unsecured border and who are being 'distributed' to states all across our country...states who can ill-afford to be their wards in every sense of the word. And they are seething that it has become public knowledge that last year alone ICE released into an unsuspected public 36,000+ ILLEGALS...including 193 ILLEGALS convicted of homicide along with others convicted of lesser crimes...ILLEGALS who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings but who now are wandering unfettered throughout our beloved country.

And know that NOT only has Obama made his own party unhappy because of his actions or should I say inactions, now he has also made current Hispanic voters unhappy because he had promised them immigration reform this summer and they will remember that broken promise at the polls. And he has made the leftist ILLEGAL advocates angry as well for now this delay is bringing to a crashing halt their drive to get the ILLEGALS legal status in time for get them the vote so they can help keep the Democrats in power with the hope that our country will turn 'brown' in time for the 2016 presidential election...sorry but the truth must be told NO matter how politically incorrect it might be.

And while Obama continues to LIE in order to try to keep the Senate 'blue'...with his bloviations that “When I take executive action, I want to make sure that it’s sustainable...I want to spend some time, even as we’re getting all our ducks in a row for the executive action…to make sure that the public understands why we’re doing this, why it’s the right thing for the American people, why it’s the right thing for the American economy,” the truth is that while the number of children arriving alone might be somewhat dropping, what Obama is NOT saying...and what the Democrats up for re-election dare NOT even think about let alone that 65,000 people arrived in 'family units' this year...more than the unaccompanied children...and that number is five times higher than the 'family unit' influx during the year up to October 2013.

And with the cooler fall months soon upon us the number of ILLEGALS coming from Central America will indeed rise...and with his 'pen' and his 'phone' being put into use NO matter the outcome in November, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will have the votes in place for 2016...for in his eyes he does NOT really care that while he might lose the battle this November he will win the war for his party come 2016 with all these new voters...and that might just have been his plan all along.

Calculatingly deceptive little traitor isn't he...and it's 'We the People' who will continue to get screwed even when he's NO longer in office...for the now Obama created legal ILLEGALS will be his parting gift to us all...a gift that should have been returned to their country of origin long ago.