Monday, December 15, 2014

Jordan’s King Blames Israel for ISIS?!

Can King Abdullah II of Jordan be saved?
Can King Abdullah II of Jordan be saved?

In an interview with Charlie Rose on 5 December 2014, Jordan’s king made the following statement:”[There is] A necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issue forward, especially with all of us now are dealing with a much bigger problem; the international fight against the international jihadists…the world has moved on but if we don’t unravel this and solve this problem between Israelis and Palestinians we are going to fight this fight with one arm behind our back.”.

While this statement might sound well intended, it actually subliminally dictates an alarming rhetoric: the king is openly saying the war on global Jihadist terror–in this case he was talking about the war on ISIS– could be ineffective because of the situation in Israel. And an ineffective war means terrorists could win and kill more Americans. This is what the king told millions of American and Western viewers.

Still, the above could have passed as an exaggeration or a misjudgment, was it not for the things the king said next.

When Charlie Rose asked the king whether there was a chance for a peace deal during the remaining period of Obama’s term, he responded:”It has to be because what happens if it is not. This is the critical factor that both sides have to understand, we are now moving into something much bigger, the global fight, the generational fight, if this thing is still cooking and not resolved how are we going to succeed on this larger problem?”  The king is telling millions of Americans that their country’s war on terror would not succeed– and thus ISIS might grow and even win– unless Israel and the Palestinians sign another peace agreement during president Obama’s term.

But what are the Obama’s “terms” Jordan’s king talking about there? President Obama made his peace vision very clear right before AIPAC back in 2011: Israel returning to its 1967 borders.

Click link to read entire article...

* About the Author: Mudar Zahran is the Secretrary General of the Jordanian Coalition of Opposition, a known Jordanian- Palestinian politician and writer, who now resides in the UK as a political refugee. His writings regularly appear in Arab, Israeli, and American publications.
I don’t know if this is a good personality trait or a character flaw, but it always brings a big smile to my face when a leftist tries to argue for bigger government but inadvertently makes an argument in favor of smaller government. Sort of like scoring a goal against your own team in soccer.

It seems to happens quite a bit at the New York Times.

ANew York Times columnist, for instance, pushed for a tax-hiking fiscal agreement back in 2011 based on a chart showing that the only successful budget deal was the one that cut taxes.

The following year, another New York Timescolumnist accidentally demonstrated that politicians are trying to curtail tax competition because they want to increase overall tax burdens.

In a major story on the pension system in the Netherlands this year, theNew York Times inadvertently acknowledged that genuine private savings is the best route to obtain a secure retirement.

But it’s not just people who write for the New York Times.

The International Monetary Fund accidentally confirmed that the value-added tax is a revenue machine to finance bigger government and heavier tax burdens.

A statist in Illinois tried to argue that higher taxes don’t enable higher spending, but his argument was based on the fact that politicians raised taxes so they wouldn’t have to cut spending.

We now have another example of a leftist inadvertently making an argument in favor of limited government (h/t: Coyote Blog via Cafe Hayek).

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones recently published an article that includes a chart showing that private-sector job creation has been much stronger under Obama’s recovery than during Bush’s recovery.

So how do we interpret this data?

I think one interpretation, as I argued both in 2012 and in 2013, is that gridlock is good for the economy. As you can see from Drum’s chart, job creation in the private sector jumped
significantly toward the end of 2010, just as the GOP took control of the House of Representatives.

It’s quite reasonable to think, after all, that the private sector greeted the development with a sigh of relief since it meant Obama would be stymied if he tried to impose any major new fiscal or regulatory burdens through the legislative process.
Senate Democrats released a highly controversial report on the CIA’s post-9/11 Enhanced Interrogation Techniques this week and the pushback was swift. Critics took issue with everything from the partisan nature of the report, to the fact that CIA operatives were not even interviewed, to the conclusion that the EITs were not an effective means of acquiring intelligence. 
Regarding the actual tactics, there’s no way around the fact that they were unpleasant and in some cases downright disturbing. But what about their constitutionality? Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in on Wednesday, saying that the Constitution itself is actually silent on the matter.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is joining the debate over the Senate's torture report by saying it is difficult to rule out the use of extreme measures to extract information if millions of lives were threatened.
Scalia tells a Swiss radio network that American and European liberals who say such tactics may never be used are being self-righteous.
The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.
Scalia says nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.
CIA Director John Brennan reminded Americans this week that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the intelligence agency was “looked to for answers.”

“Indeed, there were numerous, credible and very worrisome reports about a second and third wave of major attacks against the United States,” he said, “And while we grieved…we feared more blows from an enemy we couldn’t see and an evil we couldn’t fathom. This is the backdrop against which the agency was directed by President Bush to carry out a program to detain terrorist suspects around the world.”

He also reminded people that the program was authorized by the Bush administration and the Department of Justice. Only after President Obama took office, he continued, was the use of EITs banned.

Interestingly, more Americans believe the public release of the report on the EITs is more harmful to U.S. interests than the actual tactics themselves.

Dirty Bomb Attack May Have Been Stopped Due to Enhanced Interrogation

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

It is illustrative of the left’s hatred for America that our intel agencies are under fire for using enhanced interrogation techniques in the wake of 9/11. It is also illustrative of the left’s chokehold on the national dialogue and narrative.

The queston repeated back and forth is whether we got actionable intelligence. First off — it’s an absurd question. If we extracted intel and thwarted an Islamic attack, it was the right move, and if we didn’t, it wasn’t? There is no way of knowing that going in, and no responsible, rational administration is going risk thousands of American lives so that jihadists can rest comfortably at Gitmo with three halal squares, their laptops, prayer mats and...


Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Rubio, Ros-Lehtinen Banned From Nicaragua

By Greg Richter / NEWSMAX

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has banned two American lawmakers from his country after they helped push through legislation last week to ban Venezuelan officials from the United States.

"Just like they [U.S. officials] have their lists, we can make our own lists in Latin America of those who shouldn't enter our country," Ortega told Costa Rica's Tico Times.

Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen laughed off Ortega's ban, The Miami Herald reported.

"It's a badge of honor to be banned by a thug like Ortega. These authoritarian heads of state like Ortega, Maduro and the Castro brothers like to intimidate those who disagree with them and they use their power randomly and ruthlessly," Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement.

"I'm not worried about being banned in Nicaragua. What frightens me is the erosion of fundamental human rights throughout our hemisphere," the South Florida congresswoman said. "I'm proud of the law that Marco, [Sen.] Bob Menendez and I wrote that penalizes human-rights violators in Venezuela and we'll work to place violators on that list, ban or no ban."

President Barack Obama has indicated he will sign the bill into law.

Rubio and Ros-Lehtinen, Republicans from Miami, said the sanctions will keep out members of the Venezuelan government who oppress those in their native country while visiting areas such as South Florida to party.

"This is the first step to address human rights violations in Venezuela, and it will be a blow to the hypocrites in Nicolás Maduro’s regime who talk a lot about socialist sacrifice but who themselves are immune from its failures and live in a fantasy world of gold-plated iPads and fancy cars, even though most Venezuelans can’t even find basic necessities like food and toilet paper," Rubio said.

Though the sanctions don't directly target Nicaragua, Ortega's Sandinista government has received $3 billion in aid from Venezuela since taking power in 2007, the Herald reported. Ortega previously ruled the country in the 1980s when the Reagan administration backed the Contra rebels against them.

Nicauragua also is allied with the Castro government in Cuba, which Rubio and Ros-Lehtinen, both Cuban-Americans, oppose. Rubio, who is thought to be mulling a 2016 presidential run, likely is happy to be seen in the same light as Ronald Reagen vis-à-vis Ortega.

Ortega didn't say how long the ban had been in effect, Tico Times reported, but he said Ros-Lehtinen tried to enter the country last summer and was turned away.

Ortega said other American officials are on his banned list, but did not say who they are.

Screwed By the Senate Yet Again
By: Diane Sori

“It allows Republicans to show they are committed to ending Obama’s amnesty once and for all in the next Congress. If we agree it is indeed unconstitutional, we have no business funding it when the GOP controls Congress.”
- Senator Ted Cruz (TX.) before the vote on the 'CRomnibus' spending bill

Ted Cruz (along with Mike Lee) tried...he really did...but the Senate rejected his Constitutional proxy 'Point of Order' on Obama's immigration executive action when he directly targeted the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Rightfully using the spending bill as leverage to try and stop the implementation of Obama's executive ordered immigration reform, Cruz tried to defy RINO party leaders and their hanger-ons who cut deals with Obama and Reid to try and assure smooth passage of the $1.1 trillion spending bill. So in an attempt to force a Senate vote on said action as a condition for approving this disastrous bill, Cruz presented the argument that the bill violated the Constitution (and it surely does) because it would fund Obama’s plan as it rewrites current on-the-books immigration laws without any say whatsoever from Congress. And Cruz made sure he presented this to the Senate chamber in such a way that it was in keeping with long-standing Senate practices.

"If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote yes...if you believe Obama's amnesty is consistent with the Constitution, then vote no." Cruz had said in his trying to get his fellow Republicans to understand the severity of what they were voting on.

And yet the Senate rejected Cruz's arguments for NO other reason than the Senate is still controlled by the Democrats and a large number of turncoat RINOS until...and it can't come soon enough...January 6th when the 114th Congress is sworn in at noon.

Had the Senate sided with Cruz, this "mess of a bill" as he called it, would have been sent back to the House to have an amendment added to it that would have stopped the funding for Obama's unilateral immigration reform. But by a vote 22-74 against Cruz...and with less than half of the Senate’s 45 Republicans voting with him*...this still Harry Reid led Senate proved once again to be deaf to the wishes of 'We the People'...wishes that we shouted loud and clear back on November 4th.

And for those Republicans that voted against him...those like Sen. Bob Corker from Tennessee who had the audacity to call what Cruz did “irresponsible”...RINO extraordinaire Sen. Lindsey Graham from South Carolina who blamed Cruz's actions for causing the garnering of less votes than it would have gotten without him butting in... and Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah who said Cruz's antics irritated a lot of people... it will be remembered by true Conservatives next time they are up for re-election. And just know that payback will once it was just some six or so weeks a b*tch.

And with that, the 1,603-page $1.1 trillion spending bill...reminiscent in length of the nightmare ObamaCare bill isn't it...and the last major piece of legislation for this year...was passed by the Senate late Saturday night thus avoiding another possible government shutdown. But I say they should have shut the whole damn Obama government down, especially since essential services by law would continue to be funded. And as an added bonus by shutting the government down Obama could go play golf and thus do NO more harm to this country while he was doing so.

In a vote of 56 to 40** the so-called 'CRomnibus' bill (the combined continuing resolution and omnibus funding bill) will now provide funding for NOT only the dreaded ObamaCare, but for most government departments and agencies through fiscal year September 2015, that is except for the Department of Homeland Security which will only be funded through the end of February. And the Republicans say they intend to use the time between now and then to try and find ways to defund and halt Obama's easing of deportation rules...ain't going to hold my breath for that one...but with the new Republican controlled Congress being seated come January there is a possibility...albeit a remote one...that they can pull it off...that is if the party unites and stops all the in-fighting.

But this very in-fighting between the RINOS versus the Conservatives and TEA Party NOT of Cruz's doing in my opinion...has now afforded 'Prince' Harry Reid the opportunity to move ahead next week...before this lame-duck Congress goes on Christmas break...with the 24 Obama nominees who most likely would NOT have been approved come the new Congress...nominees like 13 district court judges, 11 nominees to administration posts including customs enforcement officials and Carolyn Colvin to head the Social Security Administration along with the ubber liberal Vivek Murphy for Surgeon General.

Just a bit more of anything but happiness thanks to the RINOS who would NOT support Cruz.

But what was even more surprising about this final vote is that six Democrats actually sided with the Republicans against passage but NOT because they saw Obama's actions as wrong but because of two provisions in specific that they did NOT a provision that weakens the Dodd-Frank Act's restrictions on banks that allows the banks to back their bets with taxpayer-backed insurance, and the other a provision that allows for an increase in the amounts that wealthy donors can give to major political parties. In fact, some Democrats claimed that these two provisions would have allowed already wealthy Wall Street employees to earn even more money, which they believe Republicans in turn would use to 'reward,' if you will, those who backed the spending deal.

Accusing the Republicans of kick-backs now aren't they.

But NO matter who voted which way, the bottom line is that 'We the People' are screwed and stuck with a monstrosity of a spending bill. And while the bill as passed does block funding of the 'risk corridors' (insurer's cost projections that in reality could cause individual plans to end up costing more than the insurers projections) that under ObamaCare could lead to a government bailout of the insurance companies at a huge cost to the American taxpayer, and does cut a bit more funding to the EPA to a tune of $60 million as well as prohibiting the IRA from targeting conservative organizations because of the way they chose to exercise their First Amendment rights, this 'CRomnibus' bill very unwisely caps spending for all-important national defense at $521 billion...very dangerous in this ever-expanding violent day and age of the islamic terrorist.

So as this sitting Congress soon retires for the holidays and as a new Congress gets ready to be seated, at least we start 2015 knowing we NO longer will have to deal with 'Prince' Harry Reid blocking every bill that originates with Republicans. But sadly, we also know that at least for now, work visas are still on the horizon for at least five million Obama-made legal ILLEGALS and all because the RINOS amongst us did NOT get that Ted Cruz was right...once again.

* Republicans voting with Cruz were Senators Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rob Portman (Ohio), James Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Jon Thune (S.D.) and David Vitter (La.).

** Democrats who voted against the 'CRomnibus' spending bill: Sherrod Brown (OH.), Al Franken (MN.), Joe Manchin (WV.), Claire McCaskill (MO.), Bernie Sanders (VT.), Elizabeth Warren (MA.). Republicans who voted against the 'CRomnibus' spending bill: Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ted Cruz (TX.), Dean Heller (NV.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Rand Paul (KY.), Rob Portman (OH.), James Risch (WI.), Marco Rubio (FL.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), David Vitter (LA.).