McCain not the Republican Voice of Reason

Many Democrats are using John McCain's death to politicize their hatred of President Trump, calling him the GOP voice of reson; so the neocon war hawk that was lockstep with Bush 43 is the voice of reason? John McCain never saw a military solution he didn't like. That includes Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and had harsh words against the Russian incursion into Georgia; in a precursor to his fecklessness Obama stated, "I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict,"(once President, Obama pretty much courted the Russians for the entire 8 years he was in office; the selling of US uranium to Russia was believed tied to Russia backing the Obama/Kerry Iran agreement) "The bitter battle over who's performed best has already begun. A McCain aide calls Obama "bizarrely in sync with Moscow." Obama's campaign suggested McCain had a conflict of interest because his foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, had lobbied for Georgia." the voice of reason?.

McCain was also vehemently against the Iran agreement, saying he agreed with President Trump. “I did not support the nuclear deal at the time it was proposed, and many of its specific terms will make it harder to pursue the comprehensive strategy we need. In that sense, I agree with the President that the deal is not in the vital national interests of the United States," ...Trump had twice certified Iran's compliance with the deal. But on Friday, he declared that Iran had violated the "spirit" of the accord with its non-nuclear behavior, citing its support for Assad and militant groups in the Middle East in addition to its ballistic-missile program."

McCain also roundly criticized President Obama's Israel policies, referring to the President's rhetoric as a "temper tantrum". McCain's also condemned President Obama's feckless Ukraine policy, calling the President, "the most naive president in history." This was consistent with McCains worldview of Russia, stating at one point “[Vladimir] Putin is not America’s friend, nor merely a competitor,” McCain said. “Putin is America’s enemy, not because we wish it so but because he has chosen to be.”
The left now calls McCain the voice of reason is becasue he was a "never Trumper", to the point of sending an emissary to pickup the fabricated Trump dossier, and passed it on to Comey, not knowing the FBI already had a copy. Further McCain was the key vote that stopped the Senate from repealing Obamacare.

Seperated families and conflating with NAZIs

 In the debate over separating children from their families at the Southern Border, Democrats seem comfortable that while President Obama locked up hundred of thousands of unaccompanied minors in sordid conditions, he did not separate most them from their families. What the Democrats want you to ignore is the fact every unaccompanied minor is the result of separated family and the flood of unaccompanied minors that showed up on the Southern border was the result of President Obama policy of giving unaccompanied minors a pass into the country.  The Democrats also bemoan the  lasting affects of children being separated from their families; how is this different from what unaccompanied minors have been through, where they were no only separated from their families but had to travel unaccompanied an extremely dangerous trip of near 2000 miles, where many of the unaccompanied minors  had to endure attacks, robberies and the females rape. Certainly this will also have a lasting affect on their psyche

At least the media is covering what is going on and President Trump is trying to change a poorly thought out policy. Now the left is accusing President Trump of suspension of due process. The immigration policies have been broken for decades, and now the left expects President Trump to fix it with just a phone and a pin; something of course that is the suspension of due process.

"Donald Trump likes to divide families when they first cross the U.S.-Mexico border; Barack Obama preferred to let them get settled in the interior and then send ICE agents to arrest mommy or daddy at home or work, leaving the children behind...During the Obama years, more than 40,000 U.S.-born kids whose parents had been deported were dumped into foster care." https://www.oregonlive.com/... This compared to the 2000 family separations that occurred under President Trump at the border.
President Obama also caged over 90,000 unaccompanied minors in a tidal wave of foreign nation children that flocked to the border are President Obama said they would get a pass into the country. So the fact is President Obama forced the separation of families with his unaccompanied minors policy. This is much like the Democrats separating fathers from black families when they offered much more welfare money to single mothers, then families still living in poverty.  

The term fascists defines a type of totalitarian collective government that eliminates indivual rights in the name of security, often using reactive violence to quite dissent;  but to the left it means any action they don't like, even though the left is renown for using fascists tactics to crate fear from the puplic and forward their political worldview.  Here is a little education, fascism excludes any president that advocates indivual rights and liberty, as fascists rule is by governmental fiat through more and more suffocating regulations. President Obama increased the power of the government by implementing a slew of regulations all intent on controlling the means of production and trying to create a collective that would kowtow to world governance. President Obama also ignored court orders, while President Trump has adhered to all the court orders from activist judges that have interfered with President Trumps Constitution powers; he complained but he followed them and waited for a Supreme court ruling that have found on his side every time. A fascist regime is also against the will of the people because the powers that be know better. This is exemplified by the left making up allegations and forcing a fishing expedition without any predicate crime; which has never happened before in the history of the DOJ; all to overturn a legal election.

The left has also become a apologist for NAZI tactics, as they trivialize the horrors the victims when they conflate the detention of illegal foreign Nationals, to NAZI death camps and other atrocities. The end result is many are ignorant the level of debauchery by the NAZIs. Some of this ignorance comes from the fear of microaggressions (in the case of learning about NAZI atrocities there is nothing "micro") by snowflakes. There are many that would be so traumatized just by reading about the NAZI death camps, they would rather be ignorant of the horrid reality and assume it was no worse that ICE separating families that illegally crossed the border. There is simply nothing that the illegal foreign nationals have experienced that is in any way comparable to being marched into gas chambers. As someone said, the moment one mentions NAZI they have lost the argument.

Q&A the Lefts False Narrative about President Trump

The following are obvious responses to the lefts false narrative about President Trump

"You don't think Trump and his minions connections to Putin and Russia are troubling?"

After a through investigation, the FBI has said they found no collusion between Trump and/or his minions with any suspected crimes by Russia.

"Wow, I guess anything unethical, dishonest, or potentially illegal done by those you agree with is a manufactured crisis."

No, there is so far no evidence that Trump has done anything illegal, nor members of his Administration. In the Flynn case, the FBI has reported Flynn violated no crime, period. Again this is a manufactured crisis that will again go nowhere, BTW, if Russia is so much of an adversary, why did the President tell their ambassador that he will have more flexibility to work with Putin after his re-election or why would HRC sell them all those US uranium rights? It's all just more liberal BS..

"You don't think delegitimizing the press, intelligence agencies, judges, and other such arbiters of truth and Constitutional authority is troubling?"

No, these entities  have long sense abrogated their Constitutional roles and are now ultra partisan and tied to an anti Constitutional agenda. On what planet does the President have no freedom of speech against the press or Supreme court  A cursory look at history shows an ongoing battle between the Presidency and the press and supreme court. Further criticism of the Supreme Court such as the Southern Democrat majority Supreme Court,  Dred Scott decision (1857), collated the abolitionist movement leading to freeing the slaves. Further, the Democrat run media is no longer the harbinger of our Democracy having abused it's position as seen by our Founding Fathers, rather the press is simply the propaganda wing for the Democrat Party (ie The Department of Enlightenment and Propaganda).

What is really un-Ameican is pushing the belief that somehow criticizing the press or judge decisions is somehow un-Constitutional, undermining or stifling the freedom of the press. Perhaps you have an example of Trump censoring the press in any way, beyond simply saying if the press mis-reports something about him he is going to speak up about it; and if a particular member or organization of the press is continually falsely reporting the news, he may not call on them during a press conference, something Presidents have done for decades (remember the battle between Obama and Fox news?). Further, the only entity that can undermine the press, is the press itself. As an example, when the press is openly in favor of one political party over another and OOO in continually demonizing and  delegitimizing one party candidate over another, the press will have successfully undermined itself, by the act of self- censoring to conceal the abuses of one party over another; this is what happens in nondemocratic countries, except in America is is not being forced, but truly self initiated and delegitimizing itself to the American people. 

The President and the Supreme Court have always had a confrontational relationship, which is by designed when you have a separation of powers. A good example was FDR, who was in constant battle with the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court shut down many of his programs, "He asked Congress to empower him to appoint an additional justice for any member of the court over age 70 who did not retire. He sought to name as many as six additional Supreme Court justices, as well as up to 44 judges to the lower federal courts" so he could pack the judicatory in his favor. There was also President Obama who took the opportunity during one of his State of the Union Addresses, to criticize the Supreme Court on their recent Citizens United decision; whether you agree with the decision or not, using his State of the Union Address with it's captive audiences including the Supreme Court seek directly in from the of the President, left no question as to his disdain for the ruling.

Every day Trump blames someone for his failures (media, judges, intelligence agencies, Democrats, foreigners, Muslims, Trump University lawsuit plaintiffs, women he's mistreated, workers he failed to pay"

In this list there is not one point where Trump is blaming anyone for a failure on his part at all; nothing. Most are simply cases of a civil nature and others are areas of contention that Trump is vocal about. Trump may blame some on the list for causing major problems in this country, and enough voters agreed with him make him President. While you may disagree with these contentions, Trump has not even been in office long enough for any of his policies to have failed, let alone any blame laying that might occur.

You have pretty much defined why Trump is President and why HRC is not. All the left does is try and drum up these manufactured crisis, and then regardless of the real story, they repeated the stories of suspected wrong doing and possible criminal activity, but never anything substantial that anything of note has actually occurred. It's all just BS and spin with nothing substantial. But hey, keep it up. The delegitimizing frenzy by the left on acts to confirm to those that voted for Trump (and some that did not) that they did the right thing and the left continues to have disdain for the working class Deplorables that simply don't know how to make an intelligent decision or even run their own lives, and forgotten that the US is all about self rule, not rule by the Democrat elite.

The Fallacy of Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler

Anyone that uses Hitler and the NAZIs as an example of a partisan demonetization is beyond ignorant, and has obviously done no independent research (read a book!). One fact is the German people were unbelievably oppressed by the The Treaty of Versailles. The Germans also preferred a strong centralized government and viewed Democracy as weak form of government, preferring a reactionary government that can quickly respond to problems without the need for a consensuses. The US was founded on the US Constitution, which is the rule of law; the American people know no other, nor will they accept any other form of government. No one person, no matter how popular, can place themselves before the law, without eventual consequences and their ouster (the structure of the Constitution was specifically designed not to allow any absolute dictator, group of people, or king from taking over). The left is rioting and resulting in the destruction of property, injury and even deaths. Yet you are concerned about Trump? If one opens their eyes and see which party has been pushing the boundaries of more governmental control against the will of the people. WE have a President that touted pushing "collective solutions", which by definition rob the citizenry of indivual rights.  One thing that has not considered or discussed is the US is a representative republic with numerous safeguards including the separation of powers, that guarantee no one branch, primarily the Executive branch can overstep their authority. Even Obama, who continually pushed past his authority as President was held back by the Judicial Branch. Many of the people that voted for Trump were outraged becasue the rule of law (the strongest pillar of our representative republic), was being subordinated by the Obama Administration and his DOJ. It should be interesting to note that Obama promised not to try and legislate via executive actions and then we went and used them liberally to bypass congress. There is also the false belief that Democrats somehow are the savior of black America, when nothing could be further than the truth. Let's not forget that Southern Democrats, continued to resist seeing the freed slaves as equal human beings (something the Republicans championed long before the civil war), well into the 1960s, and then not until the Democrats abandoned the south, claiming a new found morality by championing the civil rights legislation they had blocked for decades. The end result is blacks are now trapped in government run plantations, run by Democrats. These Democrat segregated cities have high murder rates (if a black male between 15 and 35 dies, there is a 48% probability it was the result of being murdered, being the primary cause of death in this age group), low wages, high unemployment, high crime (which leads to higher incarceration of blacks), poor education; but the worst is almost total dependence on government handouts, which is the result of welfare system. This Democrat experiment in social engineering destroyed the black family structure as it paid more money to families  without  a father/husband living at home . The demands and cries for help, to be delivered from these hell holes fall on Democrats deaf ears, except when they need their voting block every two years. Finally, any discussion of NAZI tatics would not be complete without the Brown Shirts (The Sturmabteilung or SA). Their purpose was to respond to neighborhoods and squash and rersistance to the NAZI movement, using violence and terror. If one looks at the US today, one sees, not the right, but the left is perpetrating violence and terror. There is video evidence that members of the Democrat party would pay homeless and/or mentally ill people to try and disrupt Trump rallies. Then you have convincing evidence that an admitted NAZI sympathizer, George Soros is paying bus loads of primarily black agitators to again disrupt Trump rallies. And since Trump won the election, Soros has continues to bus these agitators to various cities resulting in violent demonstrations that have resulted in injuries and deaths. Of course none of these agitators even remotely resemble the violence and inhumanity of the NAZI's, but much like the Communist Party of the 1950s, the Democrat party has now become an exclusive club that demands strict adherence to an agenda; an agenda that has the purpose of denigrating indivual rights with the promise of central control from an elite and forced equality, paid for by the working middle class, which, it turns out was the end game of ObamaCare.

Obama and Hillary Clinton; Conman/ Con- Woman, Incompetent and Fascists

The following is a response to pair of liberal letters to the editor, this one from the elitists;
 The first;  A revelation from the current election campaign has been generally overlooked. For a democracy to succeed, its citizens have to be well educated, and in particular develop the ability of critical thinking, distinguishing facts from fiction. The fact that millions of our citizens can be deceived by a presidential candidate who is a con artist underscores the failure of our educational system.

The definition of a conman is someone that promises one thing and delivers either something else, something inferior or nothing. Considering Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises and knowingly lied to the American People about his now failing government control of medical care in the US, Obama is certainly one of the biggest conman that has ever been. With Hillary being a congenital liar and ready to continue the Obama juggernaut, in she wins the presidency we will be replacing a conman for a con-woman. While Trump has tweeted some questionable facts, if he did not live up to his agreements, he would not have been so successful; this is what happens in the real world. If you are not dependable you will fail. In politics, being undependable to the people is sometimes a prerequisite, where lies are called having misspoke, or as Hillary said when called on not being a victim of sniper fire, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement". WHAT? Being undependable is especially important when you are a Democrat promising more than one can ever deliver. With all his faults, Trump is not a politician and actually knows that the people want, rather than the likes of the Democrats telling the people they are too stupid for self government, so the government must ignore the will of the people, as Americans need to be coerced to give up their indivual rights, their culture, their love of country, their borders, their sovereignty and their right to self government, all in the name of globalism, as we bow to world governance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, Trump may be a son of a bit@h, but he's the peoples son of a bit@h, and not part of the political elite that wants to put an end to American exceptionalism.

The second is a liberal ignoring his own progressive embrace fascism, while falsely accusing him of the same, as he also demonizes Trump for his lack of political correctness;  If Trump represents anything it is Fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world. If that is what half of the US voters support then we are like Germany in the early 1930's and will suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

If any politician represents, "fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world", it is the Obama, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. By all measures Hillary is an elitist, who not only "lack(s) of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US", the evidence is she really doesn't care. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 8 years ago, the result of Obama's incompetence. But his incompetence is a globalist agenda driven, while Hillary's incompetence continues to be driven corruption, with her seemingly unending need for wealth and power. It's interesting to note that Hillary rarely runs on her record as a senator and Sec. Of State, but rather demonizes Trump lack of political correctness, calling out his supposed xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

Most toss the word "fascism" around without really knowing what it means; it is not Nazism. Fascism is a close relationship between the government and the means of production. Benito Mussolini, considered one of the great socialist writers, saw fascism as a method to give an economic generator to socialism (nationalization of the means of production usually failed to produce national wealth, becasue the government had taken over as was trying to run the means of production ie manufacturing, even though they had no expertise or experience in production. Fascism allows the original non-government entities with expertise to remain running the means of production, but maintains control through regulations). We already see that Hillary has accepted millions from the corporate America, and there is little doubt their "donations" will be returned 10 fold.

Fascism also needs a strike force to respond to those that threaten the government and/or their control of the means of production. Prior to Obama the US did not have a civilian national security force, but now we do with the huge expanse of Homeland Security; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama So Obama has laid down the framework with back office deals and numerous regulations, both designed to remove impediments to production while maintaining control of the economy.

The question is not will US voters vote to support an oppressive government, instead the question is will US voters continue to allow the growth of oppression that has been but in overdrive by Obama and will no doubt be continued by Hillary Clinton.

There (is) an Undeniable Nexus Between Islamic Doctrine and Terrorism Committed by Muslims

No one I know believes that all Muslims are terrorists; however anyone with a good knowledge of Islam can not help to come to the conclusion that the terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, that we see in the world today, is legitimized in Islamic scripture; it is also false that there are "There was no justification in the Koran" for Islamic terrorism", there are also other holy books of Islam that has the same fiery language. As Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, has written in his book, he first thought he would be prosecuting a terrorists that was using some bastardized version of Islam to justify his terrorism. However as he studied the Koran and other Islamic holy books, he discovered the opposite.

"As I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims. The Blind Sheikh, the jury was allowed to learn, was not a fringe lunatic; he was a globally renowned scholar of sharia whose influence over a spate of international jihadist organizations was based on his doctorate from al-Azhar University, the world’s most influential center of Islamic thought. And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award. Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind". http://www.terrorismanalysts.c....

Further most of the Muslim refugees coming to European countries are men; "About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women. http://time.com/4122186/syrian...  It is also true that only half are from Syria. It would surely make sense to put a temporary hold on Muslim refugees coming into the US until Homeland Security and/or the FBI can properly vet them (the FBI was said they have no basis to vet most of the refugees). While the registering of Muslim US citizens would be highly problematic, a hold on new refugees and closer scrutiny of those already here is well within the scope and authority given to a US President from the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" (this is what President Carter used to stop Iranians from entering the country during the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981). It should also be noted that all refugees are asked their religion as it is a major component of refugee status when coming to the US.

Finally it should be noted that President Obama has instructed DHS not to use social media to vet Muslim immigrants and/or refugees seeking visas; this is rationalized by the President saying social media is more based on religious beliefs and believes that "actions" are the only thing that counts as far as vetting Muslim, not the posting of violent Islamic extremism or a disdain for America and Democracy for fear of a "civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations"" with the Muslim community at large. http://abcnews.go.com/US/secre...

Obama; "(Gun Violence) is something we should politicize."

Before we delve into the left politicizing gun violence, lets look at the facts behind violent crime itself. Over the last 20 years, the American people have certainly showed a great deal of responsibility as violent crime has been reduced by nearly 50% while ownership has and continues to explode.

Any poll, data, study or graph by the anti-gun zealots must be consistent with this fact, and pretty much always fail in this respect; polls can be rigged, studies depend on the data used and graph's are  dependent on the data used. The only independent and reliable data available for violent crimes and homicide rates comes from the FBI UCR totals and end result tells us the 1) Violent crimes and homicide rates have been falling for over 20 years  2)  The number of guns owned by the citizenry have no relationship to violent crime. Mythbusting Gun Ownership Decline in US

What is interesting about fact #2 is there does seem to be a disconnect between guns bought and guns owned. As you see below, gun manufacturers show guns sold have increased every year; the NCIC background checks for gun sales have increased every year, yet the gun ownership graph shows ownership decreasing (and it's not like guns are a commensurable product). The reason is the elephant in the room. While data for gun sales and NCIC are from verifiable sources, gun ownership data  come from telephone polls; these polls have become notoriously inaccurate, add to that the widely accepted fact most people are hesitant to talk about their gun ownership, any result would be guaranteed inaccurate; most likely exceedingly low. The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

 The other facts are those cities with the most strict gun laws tend to have the highest rate of violent crime; especially gun crimes. The whole anti-gun movement is propaganda by liberals and Democrats that have created a strawman to use politically; in this case the Democrats want the citizenry to believe gun crime crimes are approaching an epidemic, when they actually maxed out on the 70's and have been steadily falling ever since. The truth is Democrats have a horrible record with crimes in the cities they run, a fact that is consistently ignored by the main street media; black on black crime in these Democrat run cities are the only instances where violent crime is on the rise.

 


po·lit·i·cize 1. to give a political character or bias to: to politicize a religious debate.

There was a time when to politicize a tragedy was considered almost a morale sin; the idea that one would take human pain and give it a political spin or bias in order to further a political agenda, without regard for the victim(s), was an anathema. Well no more, not since President Obama. The first indication that politicizing human tragedy was now blatantly acceptable to President Obama, started when his former White House Chief of Staff (and currently mayor of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel stated publicly the White House world view,"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."  Then President then confirmed that blatantly politicizing human tragedy would be his standard course, when he spoke on limiting gun ownership , “Of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere, will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”  Obama; Gun Control Politicizing Not Politics


What the President is saying,  when he says mass murder should be politicized, is to infer that the victims are a faceless collective and the Democrats have the right to declare mass murder as a for and against issue; in other words one can declare ownership of the high ground saying we are the only party that is against mass shootings. One way this is done to is insinuate that their policies will stop mass shootings, while other parties either do nothing or make it worse.  Unfortunately the Democrats, and liberals are on the wrong side of the Gun Safety argument, considering violent crime has decreased near 50% in the last 20 years while gun possession has significantly increased; US Gun Homocide Study However the Democrats have pushed a lie on the American people that violent crime is an epidemic, so if you want this to stop, they need to votes for Democrats. However when one has only to look at cities they have their gun-control policies, and one sees rampant and out of control crime,  the same cities (Chicago being the most obvious) have the strictest gun laws in the country. Harvard Study; Gun Control is Counterproductive


Then you have Hillary Clinton harping on the less guns less crimes myth saying she is for Australian style gun confiscation;  leading the NRA to rightfully exclaim, "This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Friday. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people." Hillary Clinton Calls for Gun Confiscation ; The Democrats are so sure of themselves, that they have politisized this myth of a gun violence epidemic, that you have the likes of California  Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom pushing  a anti-gun initiative for background checks for ammunition, to try and up his popularity to win the upcoming Governors election. (As an prime example of the politicizing of gun violence, it's worth noting that a similar bill "SB-53" was co-sponsored by California State Senator Leland Yee; the bill died in the Assembly about the time Yee was indited for gun smuggling. You can't make this stuff up).  This  pushed by Newsom, would cost tens of millions of dollars and generate reams of useless data, as once in the hands of the purchaser there is no way to traceit, even if it was used for illegal purposes.. But more important, it politicizes recent mass shootings and continues to push the myth of a gun violence epidemic; when the real culprits are a handful of sociopathic terrorists, that plan these monstrous acts for months or even years.  These terrorists that came before all passed the background checks the Democrats are pushing and waited the appropriate waiting periods to buy guns and ammo.

"Those policies, from background checks to “assault weapon” bans, to magazine restrictions, are the abstract ideas and concepts...Where these ideas/concepts continually fail in the real world is when they are forced to go beyond fuzzy “feel good” concepts into actual language in legislation, and people get to see the details… and the concrete liberties that would be lost for vague promises of “safety” that have never materialized when a gun control bill passes." Gun Control Supporters Losing Culture War

In regards to large capacity their is no evidence that they are any deadlier simply changing a larger number of low capacity magazines (something that can be easily be done in less than 5 seconds). In a recent press conference the Washington DC Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, blamed high-capacity magazines for DC's high murder rate, “Multiple of our cases have high-capacity magazines and multiple rounds fired making the shots more lethal,” However, COP Lanier was stymied when it was revealed that the Washington DC Police Dept does not keep records on the capacity of the magazines with the firearms that are seized. Scapegoat Alert! D.C. Murders Increase, Police Chief Blames Large Capacity Magazines It's just more smoke coming from liberals trying to divert responsibility from their failed leadership.


So, as we look at the anti-gun zealots, we see a manufactured crisis, egged on by the left, politicizing the rise in  a very narrowly defined type of mass shootings, (ignoring the slaughter of black on black crime in many urban cities) that involved a sociopath usually targeting schools and churches. However these mass shootings were so limited in number, that even an increase does not rise to anything close to an epidemic. As I quoted in my last posting US Enjoying Lowest Crime Rate in Decades ; "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000 So the so called sharp rise in Mass shootings is 10 more shootings a year than before 16.4 vs 6.4 previously; hardly enough to call for wholesale gun restrictions that regardless, would have no affect on these extremely limited type of shootings.

As a final caveat it would be dishonest to presume that all those calling out for more gun restrictions are politically motivated. While this may be the case with most politicians, the majority honestly feel that more guns equals more violent crimes, and this seems to be the totality of their world view.  Gun control advocates are utopians. Their perspective is that, if guns are no longer readily available, violence will evaporate. But there are so many guns in circulation that it would take decades to reduce their availability — unless legislators adopt the police-state policy of sending cops door-to-door to confiscate firearms. California Lawmakers Train Sights on Gun Ownership

US Complains Russia Bombs CIA Trained al Qaeda Forces

The White House has complained that Russia bombed the al Qaeda forces the US has been training to fight Assad. US Complains As Russia Bombs Its Terrorists

Yes the US/CIA has been training al Qaeda aligned jihadists (Div 30 mercenaries) to fight against Syria and ISIL, the problem being these so called "moderate" Syrian rebels are almost all affiliated with al Qaeda. $500 million has been spent for this training (supposedly for a 5000 Syrian Rebel fighters), which has resulted in massive desertions, leaving a total "4 or 5" still fighting in Syria. The most recent graduating class of 54 Div 30 fighters, promptly handed over all their US supplied weaponry to al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria Isn't al Qaeda our enemy? Didn't they hijack and crash 4 commercial airlines, brought down the Twin Trade Towers and killed 3000 Americans? Can you imagine if President Obama would have campaigned on training al Qaeda to fight against Syria? I don't get it

..

FOIA Docs Show CIA Stood by as Arms Shipments from Benghazi Enabled the Rise of ISIS

 Note: most this information comes from the ultra-left Salon.com

If the Middle East explodes into full scale war, the fact that Iran has been delayed creating their nuclear weapon will be lost on the 100,000's that will be wounded or killed. Thanks to Obama, the Middle East is devolving into a quagmire. First Hillary Clinton took out Gaddafi (much like Bush took out Hussien) with no apparent long range strategy. Today Libya is a quagmire of rebel factions fighting for control as ISIS is making their own inroads into the country. It has now been confirmed through FOIA documents that show "how the CIA stood by as arms shipments from Libya enabled the rise of ISIS...weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria...

The Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the State Department and CIA facilities in Benghazi at the same time that the flow of weapons stopped." This dispersal of weapons is what led to the birth of ISIS. “[w]estern countries, the Gulf states, and Turkey are supporting rebel efforts against the Assad regime in a proxy war, putting them on the same side as, if not working together with, the terrorists now overrunning Iraq".

The conclusion of the final House report is clear: “From the Annex in Benghazi, the CIA was collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria.” Long story short: The CIA was watching closely as our allies transferred weapons to Syrian rebels. Then after the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi 9.11.2012, Hillary Clinton and her US State Department launched into damage control, using the YouTube video as a red herring to cover the CIA program in Benghazi. Another interesting fact is the US State Department publicly apologized to Egypt on Egyptian radio and TV, for the YouTube anti-Islam video prior to the demonstration in Cairo; it's almost as though the State Department meant to draw attention to the video, which would make sense if they received advanced notice of the attack and needed to spark a demonstration that could be used as a subterfuge to divert attention from the Benghazi gun running operation by the CIA..

AQI was pushed out of Iraq as a result of Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (While AQI formed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq, they remained a Sunni insurgency in Iraq, until western forces contracted and trained them to join Syrian rebels fighting against Syria). AQI at this point was in disarray with few military bases in Iraq. When the US pulled out of Iraq (2011) a civil war ensued in Iraq resulting in AQI reforming and made significant head way in Iraq. It was at this point that AQI was armed and trained by western forces to fight along side the Syrian rebels. When the US stopped it's military assault on Syria (a truce brokered by Putin to rid Syria of it's chemical weapons) , AQI, along with other Sunni insurgency fighters became ISIL; (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) or simply IS (for Islamic State). This was something that was completely overlooked and underestimated by the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton (remember a “JV” Terrorist Group?) until they discovered they had created a monster..

So the primary causes of ISIS was western countries arming Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to fight along with Syrian rebels; The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq.
Salon.com

So NATO inadvertently creates ISIS while trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. And now Iran will be pumping money and arms to Syria and those ISIS forces moving against Saudi Arabia (while some ISIS forces are attacking Syria, like Syria ISIS is Sunni, and their primary enemy is Shia; ie Saudi Arabia). It's just the continuing proxy wars between the US/NATO and Russia/Syria using the Sunnis and Shias. But Iran may not have it's nuclear bomb yet, so all is good. Right?

Treaty With Iran Will Fund Terrorism

Ayatollah Khamenei said from the beginning of the treaty talks that he would trade a suspension of Iran's nuclear program (and only the Nuclear program) for the immediate end to all sanctions see Iran Treaty a Subterfuge That is what he said 20 months ago and that is in the treaty he signed. “Even after this deal, our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change"...“Whether the deal is approved or disapproved, we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon,”..."America is still the Great Satan".

When John Kerry gave the US a preview of the treaty he talked about keeping sanctions on Iran from funding terrorism, lifting of sanctions would only occur after Iran has demonstrated they are holding up their end of the bargain and the US/UN will have inspectors in Iran that will be able to monitor Iran's Nuclear program and military bases. Ayatollah Khamenei said none of that was true, and the White house responded that Khamenei was just posturing to his base; as if the Supreme Ruler for life, that dictates what the people are supposed to think about everything, needs a base. Of course what we now know is all the lies and posturing were coming from John Kerry and the White House. The UN monitors will be forbidden from inspection any Iranian military base.

The immediate lifting of the sanctions means at least some of the $150 billion in Iranian assets and the $50 billion signing bonus, will be used to fund terrorist groups (this has been admitted by the White House) such as Hezbollah and Hamas, Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Assad government in Syria. So expect the middle east to explode in new violence, while John Kerry waits for his Nobel Peace prize (and possibly a Presidential bid) and President Obama leaves our allies to fend for themselves and as he walks away, doting on his legacy.

Iran Deal a Subterfuge

The nuclear arms deal with Iran appears to be the product of an Iranian plan, resulting in removal of international sanctions, while still allowing Iran to sponsor terrorism in the middle east. It is has been reported in 2006 the Iranian top religious and supreme leader  Ayatollah Khamenei, signed a fatwa (a religious and  legal policy pronouncement) against the use of nuclear weapons. While many question the existence of such a fatwa, if it is true (or even if it not), than all the fear over Iran building nuclear weapons, was engineered by Iran solely for the purpose to access $150 billion of their money blocked by sanctions and the $50 billion signing bonus offered by the US

"Even after this deal, our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change. We don’t have any negotiations or deal with the U.S. on different issues (other than nuclear) in the world." Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei

ISIS Soldiers Are Not Looking For a Job

 President Obama has been preaching, the cause of ISIS terrorism is poverty and the lack of jobs in the middle east.  The problem with this naivete is western non-secular solutions will not work in the collective religious societies of Eastern Islam.  A Muslims life is to worship and humble their self before god; it is a life of service, charity and austerity. Islam simply doesn't fit the consumer/capitalism mold. In the United States poverty and unemployment often leads to criminal behavior, but in Islam, poverty (or austere living) is more often than not a choice, so as not be distracted by unnecessary possessions that get between man and his God (this is also an early Christian belief).In other words Muslims don't join ISIS becasue they are looking for a well paying job with good benifits.

In a society that is dedicated to the worship of god, community and service, everyone has his place and there is always something to do; each according to their ability, each according to their contribution.*  Unemployment and poverty simply do not have the same meaning in eastern Islam as it does in the west. And it is liberty, freedom of thought, consumerism and western education that, in a Christian context, are the four horsemen of the apocalypses of Islam. Islam is a religion the decided itself from the 13th century that science (discovering the structure of the natural world without divine regulation) was an anathema that needed to be fought so Islam can survive. To suggest the same as an answer to radical Jihad, is much the same as offering Americans another chance at British tyranny.

* There are two of these clever sayings that are meant to define Communists. The first (which I used to describe Islam) describes the Communists Dictatorship for the purposes of re-education, which places a priority on collectivism and working for the benefit of the state (in the case of Islam it is to the benefit of Allah); "each according to their ability, each according to their contribution. Once the re-education has been successful and the second revolution has occurred that frees the people from the yoke of the oppressive dictatorship and collectivism, the people will  finally be free to enjoy life on their individualists terms; a paradise described as "each according to their ability; each according to their needs". This might explain why the left has been the constant apologists for Islam, despite the carnage being waged by radical Islamic.

Violent Extremisim is Islam

Why does President Obama refuse to relent and admit that what the President describes as violent extremism in the world (that is operating in the "name" of Islam), is actually radical Islam (aka radical Jihad)? The most obvious answer is the President is an apologist to the west (particularly in the US) for Islam, continuing what has been called his war on reality. Does one really believe that President Obama did not know the importance of the French "Freedom of Speech" march, where the US was conspicuously absent?  Instead we have a President who view on free speech seems more in line with Muslim clerics than the first Amendment. Remarking to the video tape that was wrongfully blamed on the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya in  Benghazi, Jay Carney said,“Obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. Obama Speech on Paris Attacks This compared to British cleric Anjem Choudary “Muslims love the Messenger Muhammad (saw) more than their parents, children and even themselves!” “Why don’t people understand?...Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!” Free Speech Doesn't Extend to the Prophets of Allah Even the Pope has entered the subect of free speech "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others...They are provocateurs...There is a limit." Vatican: Pope's Charlie Hebdo Comments do not Justify Attack. Certainly Jay Carney and the Pope qualified their remarks, but freedom of speech can not be qualified by who it will offended.  The only qualification to free speech is speech or actions created for the principal purpose of creating the same unnecessary, immediate and catastrophic fear and/or panic. In other words freedom of speech is the qualification; no ifs, ands or buts.

Yes the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but radical Islam has been an integral part of Islam since the beginning.  Perhaps a bigger question, where is the out cry from the billions of peaceful Muslims after Jihadists violence has lead to death and dismemberment throughout the world?  Certainly the large majority of the billion (plus) Muslims in the world are attracted to that part of Islam that preaches the peaceful devotion to their god Allah through the five bases of the Islamic faith: shahada (confession of faith), salat (prayer), zakat (almsgiving), sawm (fasting, especially during the month of Ramadan), and hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). But once one moves beyond the basic observance of Islam, the more radical one becomes. While the majority of Muslims do not agree with the violence of radical Jihad, they still recognize it is a legitimate aspect of Islam, and as the very meaning of Muslim is to "submit", they are hesitant to speak out against it.

 The origins of Islam was to bring warring tribes together under a single belief system, hence one is also faced with the fiery writings of Mohammad, the Koran and Sharia law that define a strict code of conduct and punishments for violating these codes; and since these behaviors and punishments come from 1000 year old documents, they reflect the misogyny and barbarity of the time.

"Islam’s success may also have been due to its ability to transcend nations and races, its provision of a common language and its moral code which provided a great advance over tribal culture, assisting commercial relations, trade and trust between traders. In addition its monetary and accounting systems and legal code were useful in adjudicating financial contracts and disputes. This expansion in trade, as well as the open intellectual environment of early Islam, gave rise to the wealth of its civilization.

The Abbasid dynasty, which ruled from Baghdad from 750 to 1258, provided the peak of Islamic civilization. In the 9th century the collective sayings and interpretations of the early caliphs were recorded in the hadith. The Abbasid’s greatest achievements were in the area of philosophy, science and mathematics, in which they led the world. They studied, preserved and translated the Greek classics. The Muslim world is justifiably proud of its achievements in this regard. Muslim scholars provided major contributions to mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, physics and medicine. This was a civilization that surpassed all others in its prosperity and achievement.

In the pre-enlightenment of the 13th Century, the theologians of the Catholic church (ie St Thomas Aquinas)  began to write about how human beings have the natural capacity to discover knowledge about the world without divine revelation; in other words god works through individuals just as it works through the church. This was a time when Islam had reached it's peak This planted the seeds for the eventual acceptance of scientific thought, however Islam was conspicuously absent.

"Muslim scholars argue that Quran urges quest for knowledge of nature by observation, and this inspired the development of scientific method by Muslims. However in the 12th century when Muslim philosophers began to suggest that truth itself may be revealed by empirical observation as well as from the Quran, there was a religious crackdown, the gate of ijtihad was closed and scientific research largely ceased in the Muslim world. It was eventually pursued in Europe, but not without resistance from religious authorities there. The start or the 13th century saw the beginning of the relative decline of Islamic civilization. This decline was not caused by outside forces. It was not caused by a lack of dedication to Islam. It was caused by Islam itself. This is because rejection of science and scientific method was rejection of what was to later become the main driving force in industrial prosperity.

Scientific research in the Muslim world declined and the intellectual environment became inhospitable to the open and honest exchange of ideas. The craft guilds, which also existed in Europe, may have been more successful under Islam in preserving their monopolies, excluding competition and product improvement. Craftsmen were granted higher status than merchants, and were able to restrict the idea of free competition. There was a feeling in the Muslim world that improvement was unnecessary, except perhaps in the technology of warfare. Gradually all the advancements known to the Muslim world passed to Europe, where the knowledge was eventually utilized to greater effect. Prosperity and the rise and fall of Islam

In other words while the minions of Allah want to live a loving and peaceful life, it is the clerics that enforce the strict code of behavior that is intrinsic  to Islam that are driving radical Jihad.  This was exactly what Egyptian President  Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was talking about in his speech to called for a "religious revolution" in which Muslim clerics and IMAMs take the lead in rethinking the direction Islam has taken recently.

 "I am referring here to the religious clerics. … It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Islamic world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!..."That thinking — I am not saying 'religion' but 'thinking' — that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It's antagonizing the entire world! ... All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective...Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Egypt's President Urges Muslim Clerics to End Violent Islamic Ideology, Lead Peaceful 'Religious Revolution' in Groundbreaking Speech

President Obama Does Not Have the Authority to Ignore Immigration Law;

 To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Prosecutional discretion is not an absolute privilege. To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
There's no logical stopping point to the prosecutorial justification underlying President Obama's immigration policies. Presidents could simply decide not to enforce entire sections of the Clean Air Act, tax code or labor laws, or exempt entire categories of people — defined unilaterally by the president — on the assertion that those laws are "unfair" and there aren't enough resources to go around. The president would have power to grant a "privilege" or exemption from any federal law, defying the plain language those laws and the will of the people's Congress. Constitutional Limits to Prosecutorial Discretion

The projected executive action (EA) by President Obama, if signed, will be doing the illegal immigrants all ready in this country a great disservice. In previous cases President Regan and Bush used an EA  that addressed omissions in existing immigration legislation, that did not cover the children of illegal aliens that were allowed to stay in the country to pursue legal status. In other words the EA addressed issue in an existing law and unlike President Obama's EA, did not create a new law, which is unconstitutional. The EA also does not carry with it the same authority of a law voted in by Congress and signed by the President; this EA will simply be a directions to Homeland Security (via prosecutional discretion) to stop deportations of illegal immigrants already in the country, but prosecutional discretion does not legalize a violation of the law, it simply says in this specific case justice is otherwise served by not prosecuting a law breaker. This means that Obama's projected order does not change the fact that the illegal immigrants in the US will still be violating the law; so this security blanket could quickly be pulled out from under these same immigrants by a court order or the whim of the next President.  In this case illegal immigrants will continue to live in the shadows not knowing what is going to happen to them as there is no law behind the President EA.

Consider the President has already shorted ICE with the money and agents necessary for deportations. President Obama’s budget would rewrite the federal government’s interior immigration enforcement priorities, cutting funding for states that try to help enforce immigration laws and scaling back the number of immigrants the federal government will detain while they await deportation. He sent the proposal to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, at a time when congressional lawmakers are trying to write a broad immigration bill to bolster border security and interior enforcement, and to screen millions of illegal immigrants who could gain legal status under the legislation. All of that will cost money, but Mr. Obama’s budget cuts overall funding for the Homeland Security Department. It particularly trims interior enforcement initiatives, such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which has widespread support among members of Congress...Ms. Napolitano’s budget boosts spending by $1.1 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol and officers who watch the ports of entry. But it reduces by nearly $650 million, or 11 percent, funds for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles interior investigations and deportations. Obamas Budget a Blow to Immigration Enforcers

There is also the effect the President's EA will have on blacks and other minorities. "As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point." Blacks Hit Hard by Increased Immigration 

Another issue not being reported on is how President Obama's Executive Amnesty will continue the  victimization of illegal aliens.  Since the majority of Americans are already against amnesty without even experiencing the inevitable hardships it will cause, the left will again allow the focus of their unpopular agenda to be scapegoated. When one considers that Americans have yet to feel the full effect of ObamaCare, which has never been popular to begin with, the Presidents actions now will likely guarantee the next president will have to run on revoking both the President Obama's EA on immigration and ObamaCare as well.  And of course that doesn't even consider the likelihood that once Obama's  Executive Amnesty is in place, he will announce another EA to give healthcare to the illegal aliens in the country, now protected from deportation. Whatever happens there will surely be a collective sigh of relief (that has not been heard since Woodrow Wilson's time) once this lame duck President is finally gone. 

Obama's Same Old Climate Game With the Chinese

Is the President Obama's climate change agreement really a game changer?  Well I guess that depends on how you define the current game we are playing with the Chinese and what new game we are  now supposed to play. China has agreed to set a target of reaching a peak in its carbon emissions by 2030; what is going to happen after that is vague and it's also non binding. The US-China climate change deal is terrible On the other hand, The President Obama has offered up for the US pretty much the same plan he committed to after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009; to reduce carbon emissions in the US  17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030 Climate change policy of the United States his new deal with the Chinese the President would cut  US carbon admissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. So it seems all the President has accomplished, is to give the Chinese (already the top carbon polluter) permission to build dirty coal fired power plants to their hearts content for the next 15 years , while the President continues to play his 2009 carbon emissions reduction plan game, which includes closing down clean coal power plants  ("Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,") here at home. Obama said energy costs will skyrocket with his cap and trade Sounds like President Obama's same old game to me.

Obama Prepares for Executive Amnesty; Orders 31 million Green Card Blanks

On of the best ways to discover what the Obama Whitehouse is up to is to review government solicitations "drafts"; this is the methods in which government entities gets quotes for services.  Below a solicitation for what is commonly refereed to a Permanent Resident Alien Green Cards.

Consumables
Solicitation Number: HSSCCG-14-R-00028
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Citizenship & Immigration Services
Location: USCIS Contracting Office

USCIS Contracting will be posting a solicitation for the requirement of Card Stock used by the USCIS Document Management Division. The objective of this procurement is to provide card consumables for the Document Management Division (DMD) that will be used to produce Permanent Resident Cards (PRC) and Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards. The requirement is for an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total. The ordering periods for this requirement shall be for a total of five (5) years. www.fbo.gov/index   However part of the Draft was subsequently expunged after it was reported by Breitbart (but still available here "In addition, the Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential “surge” in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements."

So President Obama's Department of Homeland security is planning on a surge of 4-9 million aliens a year (or 34 Million over 5 years) that will be receiving Permanent Resident Cards; this will increase the population of the US by about 10 %.  A USCIS official told MailOnline on Monday that the draft was published 'in case the president makes the move we think he will, obama-readies-executive-order-illegal-aliens The President Obama's Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the solicitation draft, he first responded that questions about the draft was a “relatively clever way” of trying to predict Obama’s decision". When pressed further Earnest made the ludicrous comment “You would have to ask the DHS about orders of green colored papers that they’ve ordered?” What? President Obama, through his official representative has reached a height of hubris never seen before in Presidential politics. Even the press corp sat stunned with one reporter shouting “Don’t be absurd with us!” replied White House CBS reporter Major Garrett. “That’s not just an ordinary piece of paper it’s central to what the president has promised in public to do" White-House-Order-For-Surge-of-Immigration-ID-s-For-Ongoing-Operations

So what would the affect of an additional 34 million amnestied immigrants. According the  Center for Immigration Studies, "Based on the 1986 amnesty, we estimate that incomes for uninsured illegal aliens would rise modestly after legalization, leaving 3.1 million (out of 3.4 million) uninsured illegal immigrants qualified for Medicaid".. "The estimated cost of providing Medicaid coverage to 3.1 million amnestied illegal immigrants would be $8.1 billion annually." So not counting the surge of patients that would probably leave state Medicaid systems overwhelmed and impossible to utilize, an increase of even 31 million amnestied immigrants would cost an additional  $81 billion a year. Further since, " During the budget period 2014-2019, in which Medicaid expansion takes effect, covering 3.1 million amnestied immigrants would conservatively cost taxpayers $48.6 billion"; an increase of 31 million amnestied immigrants would cost $480 billion over 5 years . medicaid-costs ; While I remain very skeptical of Liberal conspiracy scenarios, it is difficult not to equate President Obama's amnesty plans to the; Cloward–Piven strategy that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward–Piven

It is also common knowledge that the electorate does not want President Obama's Executive Amnesty plan by a wide margin 63% to 22%; but the issue is much larger than that. President Obama himself has stated "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.“ President Obama has said that if congress doesn't act on immigration, he will; ignoring the point that it is red letter illegal. Not only would this executive action not conform to the appropriate role as President, it would also be a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. So President Obama knows that his Executive Amnesty  is a violation of his office and extremely unpopular, so just in case there a few voters that would not vote for a Democrat if the President goes through with his Executive Amnesty, he is waiting until the mid term election has passed; this and other political decisions based on the unpopularity of his policies, President Obama will surely go down as the most liberal and blatantly political President the US has ever known. 

Obama was Right to Vacillate on Syria

Leon Panetta, stumping his new book, has blamed Obama for not starting a bombing campaign against Syria after the use of chemical weapons (crossing a "red line"). What is interesting is Obama's actions in Syria may have been the one bright area in his disastrous Presidency. Staring with the assault on Libya, the US and Saudi Arabia armed al Qaeda soldiers that were the enemy of our enemy at the time. The army of terrorists moved to Syria to join Syrian rebels and received more training and guns, much of which were smuggled out of Benghazi through Turkey. It was at this point that Obama parted from the neo-cons, doubting that any further arms given to the Syrian Rebels could be kept from the al Qaeda forces. After the chemical weapons attack that was at once blamed on the Assad regime,  Obama held back on a US bombing campaign against Syria. This allowed a UN Commission investigation; the end result of which, showed it was highly likely the chemical attack was a provocateur attack by the anti-Assad al Qaeda/ ISIL terrorists. Of course with the pulling back from hostilities against Assad, the al Qaeda army reformed as ISIL and swarmed into Iraq.

The end result was allowing Russia to intervene and start the process of removing the stock piled chemical weapons from Syria without any further bloodshed. The true loser here is Saudi Arabia, who counted on the US to remove Assad from Syria. This also showed the absurdity of the propaganda that Syria was a breading ground for these Sunni Islamic terrorists, when in reality it has been Saudi Arabia from the beginning (as I said before there is no difference in the allegation that al Qaeda was in Iraq and that al Qaeda is in Syria; they are/were both a pretext to invade and overthrow sovereign countries for NATO's political purposes); it seems to have been completely forgotten that  Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian as were 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11. There is also the fact that is was Leon Penetta as secretary of Defense whom informed Congress that his military takes it's orders from NATO, so the idea that our Commander in Chief might hold back his neo-con agenda must have been infuriating.

Enough with President Obama's Lies

The Presidents lying started with, "If you want your Doctor you can keep your doctor and if you like your plan you can keep your plan" (and it will save families $2400 @year but now costs an average of $2400@ year more); then it was 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church and he never heard anything racial or anti-American. He was going to end partisan politics; he said the current gun laws are enough, but has since argued for more restrictive laws including reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban that by his own words is only symbolic; do we really need an attack on the second amendment taken solely in the name of symbolism? Obama said he believed in the sanctity of a one woman one man marriage and now pushes for anything but. Obama pledged not to hire lobbyists and pledged to participate in the public financing system, then opted out and spent more money than has ever been spent on a single candidate. The President chastised prior Presidents for military action taken without the consent of Congress, yet has never asked Congress for consent in an ongoing series of military campaigns. There is also the fact that President Obama castigated Republicans, who he says have policies that enriches the top 1% - 10%, which causes wealth disparity (aka wealth inequality). Yet for 6 years he has done nothing to stop the Federal Reserve from loaning  money at 0%, which is they key reason the rich are pouring money into the stock market that continues it's upward spike causing greater wealth in equality , while the middle class is still dealing with the loss of 10 years of equity as a result of the 2008 sub prime bank melt down.

Obama and the White House swore to the American people that attack on Bengazi was because of a video and that we had al Qaeda on the run. The President has been heard to say Syria is a breading ground for al Qaeda, yet the Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime are mostly al Qaeda (claiming a connection between Syria and al Qaeda is exactly the same as the claiming a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, both are a dishonest pretext for war). The US armed these Syrian rebels with arms captured in Libya. Al Qaeda has now regrouped under the name of ISIS/ISIL and with weapons and training given to them by the US and other NATO members, and now they have invaded Iraq. Now we hear Obama say his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave him bad intelligence on ISIS/ISIL (of course this is the same person that said the Muslim Brotherhood was non-secular and lied to congress about the NSA with the "least untruthful" lie he could think of), so like Jeremiah Wright, Clapper gets thrown under the bus (and there are so many more!).

Hopefully the American people will realize in the next election that all these lies and violations of the Constitution would not have been possible without a co-dependent Democratic Senate. This may be the case as Nancy Pelosi seems to only come out to declare the end of the Republican party, when she fears the Democrats may be routed..

Is President Obama a Sunni?

Why is President Obama  so intent on destabilizing the Middle East (and Libya) while  fighting along side the extremist  Sunnis? So far he as destabilized Libya, now in controlled by al Qaeda, destabilized Egypt were the President stood up for the Sunni extremist Muslim Brotherhood and now all that's needed for the Sunni Caliphate is the capitulation of Syria. The US assault on Syria is an interesting campaign of retribution, propaganda and the US unholy alliance with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia.  A year ago President Obama  armed and trained (Sunnis) al Qaeda fighters, calling them Syrian Rebel  fighters; known today as  ISIS or the Islamic State. Prior to the Syrian assault, the US and Saudi Arabia consistently blames Syria for allowing terrorists training camps. This was quite the absurdity   as Saudi Arabia probably funds over 90% of the radical Sunni terrorists in the middle East (9 out of 15 of the hijackers on 9/11/2001 were citizens of Saudi Arabia).

When chemical weapons were used on civilians and Syrian soldiers during this assault on Syria, the US was quick to blame it on Assad; with some very questionable evidence and reasoning. However is was thought almost from the beginning that the use of poison gas would only benefit the Syrian Rebels; it was confirmed later by a UN investigation that radical Sunni jihadists in the Syrian Rebel army had gassed their own people in  an agent provocateur act to create international condemnation of Assad. Then there is the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. While it was strategically a US disaster, there is also evidence from numerous sources that confiscated Libyan weapons were being stored in Benghazi by the CIA (there were 31 CIA agents in Benghazi at the time the US embassy was attacked) to arm the Syrian Rebels The Real Benghazi Story ;

It appears the attack occurred when a local al Qaeda wanted the guns for themselves and swarmed the embassy and annex building and seized the weaponry; this is the reason there was so much misdirection form from the White House, trying to create an alternate explanation. When the US followed the Russian lead, ending the assault on Syria, to allow Assad to turn over his chemical arsenal, Saudi Arabia was furious as Obama had promised to remove Assad. The plan now, as I understand is the US is going to arm the Syrian Rebel fighters (of which over 90% are now loyal to ISIS) to fight ISIS?? Only if the endgame is to bring down the Syrian regime does this make any sense. Of course Syria has it's friends like Russia and Iran that may take exception to such an endgame. For right now Assad has been told not to fire on US fighter planes as they are not to attack Syria; for now.   

There is No Arguing With the Left

One of the differences I see between liberal and conservatives is liberals seem to define themselves by the righteousness of their argument; it therefore becomes dogma. Anyone the speaks against liberal dogma is not just illknowleged as conservatives view those that disagree, but an enemy that must be de-humanized, demonized and extinguished; as Saul Alinsky promoted, your opponent must be treated with complete disdain with no redeeming value whatsoever. The left also needs to believe that they either speak for the majority, even though they represent a small minority and the only way the left makes has ever political headway is to promise for than they can ever deliver and then blame the right when it doesn't happen.

 In order for liberal dogma to be possible, they must selectively remember the past and perpetuate the lies told at the time ( If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it"). One of those I heard recently was the Bush was an AWOL draft dodger; this is repeating the lie from Dan Rather and the "Killian Documents". It turns out the documents were fabricated and than forged to appear to be from the personal files of then Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. CBS first claimed the documents had been authenticated by experts until the very experts came forward saying the documents appeared to have been forged. The end result was CBS fired the story producer and three other CBS producers connected with the story were forced to resign; Dan Rather subsequently took an early retirement.

Then there is the Bush Patriot Act was a prelude to a Police State; this one is tricky because Obama started off where Bush ended (the Bush Patriot Act looks almost reasonable and tame, compared to that added to and re-authorized by Obama); it is Obama that (begrudgingly) re-authorized the NDAA giving him authorization for targeted assassinations and drone strikes (at the whim of the President, including American citizens outside the US),  'free rein for martial law' that has created the framework for a police state, and the government authority for the indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama also re-authorized the Bush Patriot Act, but unlike the Bush law, allows the NSA to monitor all our phone calls and computer activity, not just those to or from foreign countries. He also expanded the TSA to a "civilian national security force", "to achieve the national security objectives we've set." It should obvious to anyone that the government can not have a police state unless it has a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the US military). Add to this President Obama's detain for the US Constitution and it's separation of powers, and you can have a real Police State on your hands.

The only positive that has come out of the last 6 years of President Obama's rule is the electorate can see what liberal collective rule looks like. Who they turn to is yet to be decided, but the prevailing attitude will surely be, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" Okay not really, but they will certainly be looking for the adults to take over.