BREAKING NEWS...a third captive has been beheaded by ISIS...this time British aid worker David Haines. And Obama still says this is NOT islam...it exactly is islam as it's in the qur'an to do exactly what they're doing...Sura 9:5 says it all...period.
Click on link below...graphic...NOT for the squeamish.
Contact Elected Officials
- Why This Blog
- Investigative Reports
- Contact Elected Officials
- The United West
- The Geller Report
- Reuters / RRS U.S. News
- RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Website and Live Radio Link
- RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS PodBean Podcasts
- RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on Facebook / MeWe / YouTube / Spotify
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Iraq: A chain of car bomb explosions claimed the lives of at least 19 people in Baghdad. Iraqi security officials said the serial blasts occurred minutes apart in a Shia neighborhood in southeastern Baghdad on Wednesday. More than 30 people were wounded.
Reaction to the US President's speech. The so-called moderate Syrian Islamists announced that they are allied to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). That destroys any expectations that moderate Muslims would work with the US effort.
Turkey announced that the US cannot use any of its bases or resources in fighting ISIL Turkey also will permit no US soldiers in Turkey for the purpose of fighting ISIL.
CIA announced that the upper limit of ISIL fighting strength is 31,500. This number is significantly higher than the number used earlier in the week. The nature of the fight continues to escalate.
UN-Fiji: Al Nusra Front fighters released all 45 Fijian peacekeepers unharmed. Fighters from the Front captured the Fijians on 28 August on the Golan Heights after their UN superiors ordered them to lay down their weapons.
Comment: The UN peacekeeping mission on the Golan Heights serves no purpose if it cannot keep the peace. It has never had any significant value as an on-site eyewitness resource. It runs away or surrenders rather than interposes itself to keep the peace between adversaries. It is time to end this farce.
Ukraine: A senior official in Kyiv said, "If Donbas is not cleared peacefully, we will have no alternative to clear it of invaders by imposing martial law and mobilizing all of the resources of the country.
Comment: The threat of martial law is most likely a bluff. Ukraine already has used every resource readily available, but has failed to suppress the rebellion. If the regime decided to order conscription in western Ukraine to support national mobilization, for example, the Kyiv regime might face another popular uprising to overthrow it. It lacks the funds for such a surge and western Ukrainians do not seem to perceive the eastern situation as so dire.
And where they are now—lower—has helped the economy greatly in the last month.
For years I’ve puzzled over how so many Americans have lost the connection between inexpensive, reliable energy sources and a robust economy. But this month’s retail sales numbers make the connection clear. Retail sales were up in line with expectations. The rise in sales largely reflected lower gas prices, which meant that more money was available to consumers to spend on something besides fuel.
“U.S. retail sales rose in August as Americans bought automobiles and a range of other goods,” reports Reuters, “which should ease some concerns about consumer spending and support expectations for sturdy growth in the third quarter…. While sales at service stations fell 0.8 percent, that reflected declining gasoline prices, which should free up income and support discretionary spending in the months ahead.”
While the economy has adjusted to the reality of higher gas prices and higher taxes under Obama, an economy that has lower gas prices and lower taxes does better than one that does not. Money moves from fuel costs and tax receipts when those costs go down into, say, electronics purchases like the iPhone 6.
That’s simple math and common sense.
That of course is why the GOP skunks the Democrats when it comes to energy policy: math and common sense are never liberal strong suits.
If you want an overarching bureaucracy dedicated to slowing down the economy, sapping its vitality and drive, and denying consumers choice in the marketplace, then the Democrats are definitely for you.
That’s been fairly obvious since 2006.
But if you want the best post-Obama recovery the world will ever see, then vote GOP.
Since Obama was elected in 2008, a revolution in energy has transformed the world. The United States has never, ever had more proven reserves of cheap so-called fossil fuels. Even with the government doing all it can to stop energy production, there is a massive glut of some types of oil because refineries are running at capacity to process that fuel. To some extent however this increase in production here at home has yet to be felt in worldwide oil markets. The oil produced here at home won’t go into the open market, but will stay here due to the oil exportation ban.
We can buy oil from foreigners; we just can’t sell them oil.
Yeah, the ban is stupid; the ban is shortsighted; the ban is non-economical. And that of course is why the Democrats like it.
If there were a single policy area that our next president could concentrate on to right our economy it would be in supporting domestic energy production. And lower taxes. And repealing Obamacare.
And reforming welfare. Oh, and don’t forget education: fixing education would be huge. We could also use labor union reform to be honest with you. And a better funded military.
So please, vote GOP.
Better yet, help the GOP. Because the GOP needs all the help it can get, even with these generous assists from Democrats.
Let’s Remind Those Wimps In Congress What The Constitution Says
by Chip Wood / Personal Liberty Digest
At the top of the list is what to do about the Muslim terrorists running the Islamic State. The cries to “do something” increased exponentially after they beheaded two American journalists and posted the videos on the Internet.
President Obama brought some well-deserved scorn down on his head when he admitted last month that his administration has not yet agreed on a strategy of how to deal with the terrorists. In remarks last week, the President went from promising to “degrade and destroy” the Muslim terrorists to making their threats “manageable.”
Vice President Joe Biden was much more dramatic, promising that the U.S. would chase ISIS “to the gates of hell.” However, he did not say how we were going to do it — or what we’d do when we caught them.
During his meetings with NATO members last week, the President managed to get nine other nations to agree that they’d do something to help counter the growing threat of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. There was no unanimity on exactly what those measures might be, but everyone agreed that it would not include those notorious “boots on the ground” that Obama has promised to avoid.
Now the President says he’s ready to announce a plan. He will address the nation tomorrow night to tell us what it is.
Whatever U.S. actions the President recommends, there is one thing his spokesmen have been clear that he definitely will not do. He will not ask Congress for a declaration of war, as the Constitution requires.
And here’s what’s even worse: Most members of Congress, including the leaders of both parties, are perfectly fine with that abnegation of their Constitutional authority.
Yes, both Republicans and Democrats are more than content to let our imperial president do whatever he wants when it comes to confronting the Islamic State. With elections just two months away, the last thing Democrats want to do is to be forced to vote on going to war. And even most Republicans seem delighted to avoid being put on the spot.
Oh, a few of them have said something about paying lip service to Congress. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is sounding more amenable to taking military action against ISIS. A few days ago he declared: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek Congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”
Of course, “seek[ing] Congressional authorization” is emphatically not the same thing as a formal declaration of war, which is what the Constitution requires.
That same Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to say how money will be spent by the federal government. But those wimps in Congress have seldom exercised their Constitutional prerogatives here, either.
The Founding Fathers knew that unchecked government always and everywhere posed the greatest threat to our “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That’s why they did their best to “bind men down with the chains of a Constitution.”
Too bad there are so few men (or women) in Washington today who will live up to that sacred responsibility.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Top Ten Quran Verses for Understanding ISIS, the Islamic StatePamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs
For those in the media who are still scratching their heads as to why the Islamic State does what it does, or wrongly calls ISIS “psychopaths,” as FOX News’s Megyn Kelly does, here is a basic and easy to understand guide to why they wage war.
Jihadists fighting for ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) claim that they are following the commands of Allah and Muhammad. Yet Westernized Muslims, politicians, and the media claim that ISIS is violating the principles of Islam.
Who’s right? In the following video, David Wood presents the top ten Quran verses for understanding the beliefs and actions of ISIS. Click on photo or link below to see video.
The post Top Ten Quran Verses for Understanding ISIS, the Islamic State appeared first on Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.
CIA: Islamic State has 2 to 3 times more jihadis than previous estimate
Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch
“CIA: Islamic State Has 2 To 3 Times More Fighters Than Previous Estimate,” by Caroline Lee Smith, Washington Free Beacon, September 12, 2014:
Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch
“CIA: Islamic State Has 2 To 3 Times More Fighters Than Previous Estimate,” by Caroline Lee Smith, Washington Free Beacon, September 12, 2014:
A new assessment from the CIA on Thursday said that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant “can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria,” a CIA spokesman told USA Today.
The estimate is up to triple the previous estimate of 10,000.
“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August, an increase from our previous assessment of at least 10,000 fighters,” said CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani
“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”
The details about the increased number of fighters come as the Pentagon refines its intelligence on the area, including surveillance flights underway over Syria.
CNN reported that the number of fighters is also on the rise because it includes those freed from prisons by ISIL. More than 15,000 fighters from 80 countries have gone to Syria, a CIA source said. He said it was unclear whether the foreigners went to Syria to be part of ISIL or to fight against it.Is that really unclear? Has there really been any significant number of reports about foreign Muslims going to Syria to fight against the Islamic State? A few Shia have gone to aid Hizballah against the Islamic State, but there is not much beyond that.
Obama's War Plan Rattles Nervous Democrats as Midterms ApproachNEWSMAX
In a nation weary of war, yet alarmed by the prospect of an emerging threat, President Barack Obama's plan to strike Islamic State militants is ruffling the usual left-right politics in several races that will decide control of the Senate.
Republicans who have hammered the president on a variety of issues for months have tamped down their rhetoric and, frequently, are avoiding taking a clear stand on his proposal. Some of the nation's most endangered incumbent Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have expressed skepticism to portions of Obama's plan, saying they fear a new plunge into a new Middle East war where supposed allies can become enemies.
Others want to talk about something else, or are trying to avoid talking about the issue at all.
The complexities, leading to mixed and cautious responses from both sides, mean the issue might not matter much at all come Election Day, when Republicans need a net gain of six seats to take control of the Senate.
"I'm having a hard time seeing this as a game-changer," said William A. Galston, a Brookings Institution scholar and former Clinton White House adviser. "A lot of people who would have said 'hell no' to the president's speech were cheering him on."
Republicans have made attacking Obama and his policies the cornerstone of their Senate campaign, especially as they target Democrats in states the president lost in 2012. They had in recent days stepped up their attacks on the president's foreign policy, hoping to further tie vulnerable Democrats to an unpopular leader.
Despite that rhetoric, several GOP Senate candidates appear wary of taking detailed positions on the president's proposal to fight Islamic State militants with air strikes and U.S.-armed Syrian rebels, but not American ground troops, since he laid it out in a televised speech Wednesday night.
New Hampshire Republican Senate nominee Scott Brown, a former senator from Massachusetts, sharply criticized Obama's leadership in an interview Friday. But he declined to say whether he would vote to authorize more military intervention in the Mideast.
"I would need to listen to the generals on the ground and get their input and guidance as I have in the past," he said. "When you're ... making a decision to send people into harm's way, you need to have all the facts and I don't have those facts."
In North Carolina, Republican Senate nominee Thom Tillis said the militants "are growing stronger each day because of President Obama's failed foreign policy and lack of leadership."
When it comes to combatting the militants, "no option should be left off the table," said Tillis, who faces first-term Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. Yet when asked about Obama's proposal to arm Syrian rebels fighting a three-way war against both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, Tillis' campaign said he "has reservations about sending arms that could be seized by ISIS terrorists."
Posted by Diane Sori at 12:00 AM 3 comments:
Labels: al-Qaeda, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, boots on the ground, Iraq, ISIS, John Kerry, Mujahedeen Army, NO strategy strategy, shock and awe, strategic alliances, Sunni caliphate, Syria, war, war chest, word semantics
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
War...America is Indeed at War
By: Diane Sori
- Secretary of State John 'Swiftboat' Kerry trying to claim that America is NOT at war with ISIS
WAR...guess Kerry just does NOT know what constitutes war...or just does NOT want to accept the fact that once again America is at war...this time being dragged into war by a president who fears declaring war for political reasons alone and who has NO idea or desire to fight a war so that America wins.
And Kerry's cluelessness as to what is war could easily be solved if he went to a dictionary and looked it up for if he did he'd find that war is simply any conflict carried on by force of arms between nations or between parties within a nation whether it be by land, sea, or air...as in a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. And war...albeit a very limited and targeted war...is exactly what Barack HUSSEIN Obama initiated when he ordered the first bomb to be dropped on ISIS. (article continues below video)
Click on link to hear John Kerry's words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euMOddJHmcQ
And with John 'Swiftboat' Kerry obviously clueless...deliberately clueless perhaps... as to what makes certain actions...even limited actions...a war...he just does NOT get that even Obama's ’NO strategy' strategy is indeed an act of war...a misguided war but a war nevertheless...a war maybe NOT against a country per se but a war against an enemy within a country just the same.
“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation, and it's going to go on for some period of time." While Kerry might be right to some degree about the fact that this conflict will indeed be going on for quite some time...the fact is it does NOT have to if Obama would act like a true Commander-in-Chief and give the order to 'shock and awe' the savages called ISIS back to the bowels of hell from which they came. And Kerry's continuing bloviations that "many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war,” do indeed meet the definition of war.
And as Kerry keeps addressing what amounts to NOTHING more than semantics what he should be addressing...but obviously will NOT...is the fact that Obama is trying to defeat ISIS without American 'boots on the ground' and without Arab 'boots on the ground' as well. And this anything but a true strategy is sadly doomed to fail... deliberately and calculatedly doomed to fail...for with ISIS completely melded into the civilian populace in the major cities of Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi, it will take hard-core urban warfare...a door-to-door, hand-to-hand campaign if you will...to clear all of ISIS out of Iraq and Obama knows it. But his hoping that with some additional training and with some additional weapons this will allow Iraqi forces to do the job on their own is at best misguided thinking...outright dangerous thinking at worst...for Obama knows damn well that Iraqi troops have high-tailed it and ran in the past when the going got tough and he knows that without American troops by their side they will do so again...allowing ISIS to grow stronger, bolder, and more determined than ever before.
And stronger ISIS continues to grow as what was approximately 7,000 or so members back in June has now...according to the CIA...grown into an army of 31,500+ members (some estimates by other sources are as high as 80,000 members)...31,500+ members with each and every one of them determined 'in the name of allah' to kill us all. Picking up new members as they stormed through town after town in Iraq, ISIS has grown into and operates as a government of sorts as it's ISIS alone that now provides...or withholds...electricity, food, and water to the towns they take over.
And ISIS has NEVER hidden their goal of establishing a Sunni caliphate NO matter how many times Obama croaks that ISIS is NOT islamic. And ISIS is well on its way to that goal as they now... according to some estimates...control about 35,000 square miles extending from Syria though Iraq...a current swath of land roughly the size of Jordan...a swath of land with over 6 million people now living under their control...a swath of land that grows with each passing day. And ISIS has cash and assets on hand...a war chest if you will...of up to $2,000,000,000 (well above the assets of other terrorists groups like the Taliban and Hezbollah which only have assets of about half a million dollars each)...as well as garnering $3,000,000 a day on the black market from its captured oil and gas fields from which they can continually replenish their war chest.
But while ISIS has most assuredly grown into the most powerful militant group in Iraq...the most powerful militant group ever...its stranglehold on Iraq does rely to some degree on negotiating with smaller militant groups to forge alliances with them. And these groups include the notorious Mujahedeen Army, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Ansar al-Islam/Ansar al-Sunna, the Army of Muhammad, and others all fighting against the current Iraqi government...all currently tied in with ISIS, but all still operating somewhat independently on their own or in conjunction with al-Qaeda, the very terrorist group that has deemed ISIS to radical, brutal, and extreme even for them.
But such alliances we sadly do NOT have as the commitment of the nine nations Obama says he has on board is weak at best as NO deal has yet been worked out with Turkey (as I write this), the Saudis big contribution (sarcastically said) to this alliance is to help train some Sunni forces to fight against ISIS (which will bring Iran into the mix for they will in turn then aid the opposing Shi'ite forces cancelling out whatever the Saudis do); Britain and Germany have announced that they will NOT join Obama's air campaign against Syria; Jordan refuses to say publicly it is in the fight; and the Arab world continues to question where Obama's true loyalties lie even though it's obvious to most that he sides time and again with his brethren over the country he was elected to lead.
So even with the facts presented, the bottom line for some...some like John 'Swiftboat' Kerry and Barack HUSSEIN Obama...remains a battle of semantics as are we at war with ISIS or are we NOT in a war with ISIS...but semantics and words mean little when the truth is that whatever words one chooses to use the end result is that the savages known as ISIS are indeed out to kill us all.