Thursday, February 16, 2017

Just a Thought...
Problem Solved
By: Diane Sori / The Patriots Factor

Regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict...the only solution is a one-state's called Israel...period.
Former CIA Analyst: Yes, Former Obama Officials Were ‘Directly Involved’ In The Effort to Remove Flynn (And I'll Say Their Names)
Matt Vespa / Townhall Tipsheet

Former CIA Analyst: Yes, Former Obama Officials Were ‘Directly Involved’ In The Effort to Remove Flynn (And I'll Say Their Names)The fallout from the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is not over. We have Russia, leaks, and palace intrigue about former Obama administration officials laying the foundation to topple Flynn, who was knows for being staunchly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal. Guy wrote a post about the allegations. Flynn misled the vice president, which alone is an act that warrants being shown the door. Yet, multiple writers, namely Damon Linker at The Week and Eli Lake at Bloomberg have noted another sinister angle to this story, which is the number of leaks of highly sensitive information coming from this administration. It appears as if the intelligence community is willingly leaking intercepted phone calls with Trump officials (Flynn) to hamstring the administration from governing. Linker is no fan of Flynn, but added that dissatisfaction with an administration is handled through things called elections.

It is not the job of the America’s spies to sabotage the governance of whatever administration may be in power. Lake added that this could be just the beginning—and that more heads could roll (Conway, Bannon, maybe even the president himself).

Former CIA analyst and U.S. Army Reserve Lt. Col Tony Schaffer was pretty straightforward in his Fox Business appearance today, where he said that Obama officials were definitely behind the leaks—and even named a few of them (via Free Beacon):
Refugee-resettlement agencies are scrambling to cut staff and, in some cases, close entire offices as they prepare for a reduction in refugee arrivals to the U.S. under President Donald Trump’s unfolding policy.

A pro-refugee group leaked an “official guidance” from the U.S. State Department to NPR Wednesday that said refugee arrivals will begin to dry up after March 3.

As WND reported last week, the one part of Trump’s embattled executive order that was not blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court, was his reduction of the fiscal-2017 cap on refugees from 110,000 set by Barack Obama to 50,000. The fiscal year ends Oct. 1.

Since 35,000 refugees have already arrived, that would mean another 15,000 would be allowed in by Oct. 1. The fact that the State Department is now saying new arrivals will end by March 3 means Trump could be planning to lower the ceiling further since it would be nearly impossible to hit the 50,000 cap in a little over two weeks.

“I guess it could be done, but they would have to ramp up from about 300 or 400 a day to 2,000 a day, and that’s a monumental task,” noted Ann Corcoran, who runs the watchdog website Refugee Resettlement Watch.

The court also did not rule on a provision of Trump’s executive order that would make it easier for states and cities to veto refugee placements.

After the jihadist attack on Paris in November 2015, more than 24 U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, notified the Obama administration that they did not want to receive any refugees from Syria, since two refugees from that country were implicated in the coordinated attacks that killed 130 and wounded more than 300.

But Secretary of State John Kerry quickly informed the governors that they had no authority under the Refugee Act of 1980 to block the placements of refugees in their states. Trump wants to give them that authority, which would mean the refugees would continue to arrive at “welcoming cities” but not those putting up barriers.

Of the 85,000 refugees resettled in U.S cities and towns last year, a record 40,000, or nearly half, were Muslims.

260,000 Muslims per year entering U.S.

Read entire article here:

Trump, meeting with Netanyahu, backs away from Palestinian state
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch


A Palestinian state would only be a new base for renewed jihad attacks against a diminished Israel. It is refreshing to see an American President who is not committed to this false and faulty “solution.” What a difference: “Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State,” by Peter Baker and Mark Landler, New York […]

Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Trump, meeting with Netanyahu, backs away from Palestinian state on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

The Hypocrisy of Denial

Once when Mark Twain was trying to explain Richard Wagner’s music to a friend he said, “It’s better than it sounds.” This is a lot more than can be said for the recording of his wife’s sermon to her congregation which Rob Eshman included in his article, “Jews Against the Muslim Ban” in last week’s edition of the L.A. Jewish Journal. 

Rabbi Naomi Levy noted that she was afraid of many things in life but the one thing of which she was not afraid was Muslims. No doubt this is because she has either used the years since 9/11 as an opportunity to catch up on some sleep or she has just returned from living in her condo on Mars where the Muslim atrocities committed in London, Paris, Bali, Madrid, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando, Nice and on and on went unreported.

Beaming her wisdom towards her hapless audience Rabbi Naomi Levy displayed her affronted but misplaced ecumenism when she declared President Trump’s 90 day temporary ban on immigrants from seven countries in the Middle East to be immoral and un-American. Her biased activism in support of the LEFT’s agenda and her detestation of President Trump allowed her to omit that over 80% of the world’s Muslims were not affected by the temporary ban or that the seven countries it did affect were identified by the Obama Administration as the ones which recruited, trained and exported the largest number of terrorists: here.

Read entire article here: