Bombs Away… goodbye mosque

Well, in other news:

Trump Breaks Obama’s Rules And Bombs Mosque Killing the ISIS’ Entire Iraqi Leadership

Bright Stars

Obama’s old rules of Mosques being off limits is off the table. President Trump authorized an air strike on a mosque in Mosul, Iraq, which has wiped out the entire remaining Iraqi ISIS leadership. This comes as the organization collapses all around itself.

Read: http://www.brightstars.me/2017/12/18/trump-breaks-obamas-rules-bombs-mosque-killing-isis-entire-iraqi-leadership/

But think of all the IEDs and suicide missions it saved.

Rules Of Engagement = Destroy it! I’d say it was an extremely efficient use of a bomb.

Hungary to rescue Christians

The First Country to Officially Defend Christians Persecuted by ISIS

Hungary has drawn criticism for favoring Christian over Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq.
Christianity Today

This week, Hungary, which has during the past year come under pressure for its handling of Europe’s mass migration crisis, has become the first government to open an office specifically to address the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Europe.

“Today, Christianity has become the most persecuted religion, where out of five people killed [for] religious reasons, four of them are Christians,” Catholic News Agency (CNA) quoted Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources, Zoltan Balog, as saying. “In 81 countries around the world, Christians are persecuted, and 200 million Christians live in areas where they are discriminated against. Millions of Christian lives are threatened by followers of radical religious ideologies.”

Read more: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/september/first-country-to-officially-defend-christians-persecuted-by.html?visit_source=twitter

Yet at the same time, many of our leaders like Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with countless subordinate officials, refuse to call them Radical Islamic Terrorists.

But they have seen fit to condemn the Crusades or criticize Christians whenever possible. And they do throw around words like Islamaphobia to describe their own political critics.

Faced with confronting ethnic or religious cleansing, they cannot be forced to utter the words radical Islamic terrorists. That could offend Muslims. But they can call out critics of their refugee policy that caters to Muslims as bigots. These leaders and officials worry about families of illegal immigrants or Muslims being ripped apart byt the rule of law, yet cannot condemn the slaughter of Christian families and cleansing in Iraq and Syria.

At least Hungary can call it out and recognize it — for the human rights catastrophe it is.

Hillary can’t hide from the truth

Hillary is like the first female ambassador of ISIS. She aided in creating ISIS. Now she claims they are rooting for Trump to win. Why would they do that, when no one did more for their efforts than Obama and Hillary?

Counter Jihad

The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency. ISIS swept western Iraq because of the failures of Hillary Clinton and her boss, President Barack Obama.

But that is only half the story. ISIS also exists in Syria. How is it that the United States allowed it to survive there? Lee Smith, at Tablet magazine, points out that letting Syria fester was the intentional policy of the Obama administration — in order to cosy up to Iran.

Audacity: Clinton Claims ISIS ‘Praying to Allah’ to Elect Trump

Probably the scariest part is that she falls for propaganda and apparently gave up critical thinking some years ago. Now she says trust her to protect America’s interests.

For someone who will not say ISIS terrorists are Muslim or Islamic, she claims they are praying to Allah over Trump. I bet they are secretly hoping for Hillary — in their Islamic way — who’s been very, very good for them.

Conclusion: Hillary needs to be put out to permanent pasture with her hubby, Bubba and fenced off from public service, ever.

Ben Rhodes hearing turns to Iraq debate

Crazier than crazy, this is why Democrats should not have an ounce of credibility from anyone. This took my seething disgust level to a historic high, which is hard to do.

Rhodes Wikipedia Public Domain

Rep Jason Chaffetz held a House hearing about the Ben Rhodes lie doctrine and his lengthy interview with NYT Magazine. But what happens is totally in your American face.

Rhodes for his part refused to go to the hearing, even after laying his whole case out, how the fiction writer describes it, on what the administration did in creating the Iran deal.

Democrats turn it into a hearing about the Iraq war and WMD — remember their most favorite acronym of all time. Who knew that Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, yellow cake would be a viable defense for the deception and lies of the Iran deal?

Lets forget for a moment that the Iran deal was wrong all the way around. That it was the product of 3+ years of lies and obfuscation to avoid Congress; that it went right by Congress and was mischaracterized as to what it even is. But that is what we’re supposed to do: forget all the Art of Deception and lying Obama and Democrats are engaged in.

They did have John Hannah as one witness. The Democrats spent nearly all their time questioning him about his participation in Dick Cheney’s office in the lead up to Iraq. But never mind that the Iraq issue went through Congress, kept Congress informed, then it even voted on the authorization.

To recap, Democrats got their hearing …. the one on Iraq and WMD. (fundraisers probably going out as I write) Republicans had a hearing — between injections of Scooter Libby, Iraq, WMD, yellow cake, Valerie Plame, Colin Powel and Dick Cheney — on the Ben Rhodes expose about the construction of the Iran deal, hard as it was to fit that in with time constraints and all.

But how many times has that happened where Democrats hijacked the hearing process into something else? As true obfuscators of reality, they continually hide, deceive, and conceal truth from the American people and rely on repeating their talking points.(true or not) Politics is the motive, so some believe. To make the worse worser, the administration did not even want Congress’s oversight in and on the deal.

The only thing you can conclude from Democrats’ convoluted position is that if Iraq and the WMD was such a debacle, then that somehow mitigates what the administration did creating the Iran “art of deception” deal. So there is no rational reason now for looking into the deception and unconstitutional Iran agreement, even if Rhodes has been out boasting about the deceit involved in the Iran deal.

When Rhodes talked about his ‘compadres’ in the press he reaches out to, he reveals something more. This has been a pattern of Democrat WH operatives since the 90’s when Clinton advisers tipped off, directed or redirected reporters on what they should be covering or how. This came out in testimonies of the Clinton scandals.

The Obama administration lied repeatedly to get the deal done. But that is its pattern: lying about Obamacare, lying on Benghazi, then on the Iran deal from the start. And Democrats framed it as a binary choice that it was war on Iran or this deal, when this deal was the most flawed, subversive thing they could ever create even if they tried.

Now Dems can be ecstatic that, in the end, the focus was more on the Iraq decisions 14 years ago than on Iran. At least the opening statements of the witnesses and a few of their questions were related to the Iran agreement, not Iraq.

Sincerely disgusted. I can hardly wait to see what Ben-fiction-Rhodes will be writing about his time in the administration. Will they eat that up?

From the NYT piece that spawned the hoopla over the Iran deal:

He [Rhodes] expressed a deep personal hopelessness about the possibility of open, rational public debate in a brutally partisan climate. But didn’t the country deserve better? I kept asking him.

Must be sort of a self-imposed hopelessness since he didn’t even want to share details with Congress. Dang schedules and executive limitations that disallow such, while they do allow for countless hours of self-gratified elaboration to a reporter on the topic. But apparently Congress is off executive-privilege limits, unfortunately.

RightRing | Bullright

Another Upstanding American Traitor

Another upstanding Muslim and resident of Virginia just happened to be captured in Iraq, after surrendering while fighting for ISIS. But then it gets better.

NY Post – (story here)

IRBIL, Iraq — A Palestinian-American member of the Islamic State group gave himself up to an Iraqi Kurdish military unit in the country’s north on Monday, an Iraqi Kurdish general said, a rare instance of a voluntary surrender of a militant fighting with the extremist group in Iraq.

Read more: http://nypost.com/2016/03/14/american-isis-member-surrenders-to-kurds/

The man has been identified as Mohammed Jamal Amin, or Mohamad Jamal Khweis, and reported to be from Alexandria, Virginia. Possible discrepancies over the name.

Birds of the feather, you know.

Factoring Obama

Finally, O’Reilly called something almost entirely right about Obama.

Obama has stated that they have no strategy for Iraq or opposing ISIS. Big surprise. But what he should have said was “I don’t really care about it“. He didn’t.

Bill O Talking Points Memmo (June 8, 2015)

He was asked about ISIS and why the USA does not have a strategy to stop the brutal jihadists.

OBAMA: “When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people. It’s not – we don’t yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of Iraqis, as well ((EDIT)) The details of that are not yet worked out.”

So after nearly two years, the USA still does not have a plan to confront ISIS.

Here’s what the president said last August:

August 28, 2014, White House press conference

OBAMA: “We don’t have a strategy yet. I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

Now there are only two possible scenarios here.

One, that the U.S. military is grossly incompetent and cannot come up with a plan to defeat a terror group comprised of about 30,000 individuals.

Or two, that the president of the United States lacks the will to defeat an enemy that threatens every American.

Talking Points is throwing in with option number two.

Mr. Obama simply does not see the urgency and does not have the fire to take on terrorists who are slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

That’s the truth, and sadly millions of Americans are willing to accept that fact and still support the president. […/]

Of course we are back to the same old proverbial question about Obama’s motives. Either he is: (1)the most incompetent boob ever, or(2) his ideology and agenda are more less working, as planned, to create chaos for America — his number one mission. The problem is that Obama himself has been systematically ruling out the first possibility since his first day in office. There is no one in the world who could be as incompetent as Obama looks. He is just as quickly ruling in the latter possibility that this outcome is his agenda.

He already had at least two statements on ISIS before — two of them a year ago — in which he said they did not have a strategy yet. They did later claim to have cobbled one together. Though really not much of a strategy, except to declare it is a long-term problem. Yeah, caliphates generally are!

Yet we are out ahead of where they were at? But we’re not in denial, then or now.

So Obama’s first rule seems to be to deny what ISIS is. If that is part of his strategy then you really have to question the rest of it. So basically: ‘we will fight it and destroy it while not calling it what it is; and deny the source of the terrorism while admitting I don’t have a strategy.’ Sound like a plan? It does to Obama and that is the problem.

How can he be so hopeful about defeating something without a strategy? I know, it’s a faith-based strategy like his faith-based campaign, like his faith-based Obamacare. No, the optimism on defeating ISIS is camouflage to cover for the mission failure of that goal — which he would have to know it is, since almost everybody else sees it’s a failure. Then his backup plan to cover up that is to just blame it on the Pentagon for not having a strategy. Seems to be just smoke and mirrors at this point.

Lunacy in action

Lunatic alert: this time in Ithaca, NY at Cornell University campus. How dumb can a dean be? See the article.

“Scaffido casually endorses inviting an ISIS “freedom fighter’’ to conduct a “training camp” for students at the upstate Ithaca campus — bizarrely likening the activity to a sports camp.” – NY Post

Obviously he is a top contender for some kind of award from academia. That probably deserves one, to malign them as “freedom fighters” when they are anything but.

Speak up and forever hold the peace

Obama said in a message to the Iranian people:

    “We have to speak up for the future we seek”

What a bunch of nonsense, which is typical of Obamaspeak. Then he usually gets praised for excellent delivery. Too bad he couldn’t hear any applause from Tehran.

Straw man alert:

“The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.”

Who are all these people who are against a “diplomatic resolution”? People are opposed to failure. They are opposed to something that doesn’t work. They are opposed to giving away the store. They are opposed to a policy of containment that won’t work But they are not opposed to a diplomatic resolution. But what diplomatic resolution would not include congress? Diplomacy? And they are not opposed to a deal. As long as it is one that works.

But of course he is talking about “diplomacy” with a theocracy and dictatorship waiting for the Mahdi or 12th Imam. An ideology whose duty is to usher in and speed that age through violent jihad and terrorism.

BTW: Can anyone point out the difference between what Russia(Putin) is doing and what Iran is doing? It is the same thing different regions. Russia has invaded Ukraine on the auspices that they were invited there to stabilize it. Iran invaded Iraq under the guise of pushing back ISIS and calming things down. Both have ulterior motives. Both insist it was invited in as a good neighbor. Each believes it is justified in its expansionist motives.

Furthermore, what do the Iranian people have to do or say about the nuclear program? Right, it’s a democratic nuclear program. Petitions, phone calls, and letters to follow.

It’s Springtime in Iran. “Peace in our time.” Watch and listen to this video.

Neville Chamberlain 1938, after Munich Conference: “I believe it is “peace for our time.””

So people wrongly oppose a diplomatic resolution?

Obama blaming Bush for ISIS

Again Obama comes out to tell us the source of ISIS. Of course, it’s George Bush — could there be any other? That’s all anyone needs to know, right? And the ruse goes on.

Mr Obama said: “Two things: one is, Isis is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.

“We’ve got a 60 country coalition. We will slowly push back Isis out of Iraq”, he continued, adding: “I’m confident that will happen.”–Independent UK

ISIS was not a dot on the horizon when Bush was president, but it is his fault. More subtly, Obama actually blames America’s actions, foreign policy, and leadership (except for him) for the formation and evil of the Islamic State. By extension, those who elected Bush.

Obama is no different than Sen Chris Murphy who suggests the US is the cause of ISIS.
Even though he claimed he wasn’t blaming us for causing ISIS.

So the guy who cannot even mention the driving force behind this evil and the Islamic State, except by the Islamic acronym ISIL, can be taken seriously to define the original cause of “ISIL”? No, he isn’t kidding and neither am I. Does that make any sense?

The “underlying problem of disaffected Sunnis” is a fundamental issue in Iraq.
Wait, is he referencing some religious “sect” difference? No, that cannot be right!

Lets review:

  • Isis rose to significance under Obama
  • Isis grew organizationally and exponentially under Obama
  • ISIS invaded Iraq, and extended to Libya and Africa under Obama
  • He referred to them as the JV team.
  • They are driven and centered on Islam which he will not acknowledge.
  • They are armed with US equipment they got after we Obama pulled us out of Iraq — in a victory lap.
  • George Bush was no where in sight when ISIS spread into Iraq.
  • ISIS spawned when we got out of Iraq not when we went to Iraq.
  • Iran enters and deploys troops in Iraq under Obama. (delayed reaction from Bush)

Now lets consider his “aim before we shoot” philosophy:

  • Obama’s defiant support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
  • Obama’s unilateral adventure in Libya. (and his victory lap thereafter)
  • Look at the shape of Libya, ISIS ties, condition and terrorism there now.
  • Obama’s red line in Syria, getting bailed out by Vladamir Putin.
  • Obama’s cozy relationship with Castro
  • Obama inviting Iran into Syria. (it must have been Bush’s idea.)
  • A deal with Iran at any cost.
  • A policy of containment in Iran (even though they said it wasn’t)
  • A knee jerk reaction to boycott Netanyahu’s speech.
  • Obama’s campaign staff delving into Israel’s national election
  • Obama’s A team meddling in Canada’s election
  • Obama’s official promotion of gay marriage at State Dep as a priority.
  • Obama’s amnesty outreach to South America
  • Threatening border agents not to enforce the law.

We only have to look at the World, and Middle East in particular, to see all the fruits of unintended consequences Obama’s policies have wrought, including in the US. But we also suffer intended consequences of his policies. Egypt, Ukraine and Israel know those well.

He also telegraphed a message to young people that “you should be thinking about climate change, the economy, war and peace.” Yep, they should be talking and thinking “Climate Change” and climatology, since you know everything is related to climate change — except for what Bush caused!

How can any free person on this earth take anything this man said seriously? Kids this is why we Americans should not elect radicals — or faith-based candidates — to the Oval Office. It just isn’t a good idea.

Got that? Think about melting glacier ice, not ISIS cannibalizing the Mid East and Africa. Never mind either his stuck-in-the-mud policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

RightRing | Bullright

Brian Williams excuse road tour

Now that everyone in the free world knows the blunder Brian Williams made, let me put it in context. He made an attempt to apologize.

At least one guy, Christopher Chabris, is hypothesizing for newsy Brian that it could be a case of “false memory”.

An analogy of Brian’s tale is this: the difference between experiencing the effects of a tornado, to surveying the damage ten minutes after it went through.There is a huge difference. One does remember that kind of distinction. To conflate one with the other is a false memory? There’s also a difference between landing and a “hard landing” as he claimed.

But it is curious how many others in the media come to his defense, volunteering to attest to his honesty, bravery, and gutsy character. Enter Dan Rather.

Brian is an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor–and a brave one. I can attest that — like his predecessor Tom Brokaw — he is a superb pro, and a gutsy one.”

Of course a “false memory” could be whether you turned the coffee pot off or locked the door before leaving. But this distinction is breathtaking. I really thought it was me face-jumping off that building. I would have soon remembered, correctly, that it wasn’t. Because if this were an honest mistake, it required also denying the truth.

I bet that Baghdad Bob was probably a professor of false memory. Hillary Clinton is probably one person who wished Williams wouldn’t have said that right now.

Liar’s club

I think Liar’s Anonymous just found a new poster boy.

Like: Hi, I’m Brian Williams and I’m a liar. Nah, that is more than he’ll admit.

Williams was telling a story that he was on a helicopter in Iraq that was hit by an RPG and forced to land. The story comes from 2003, but he just repeated it again Friday at an event for a hero.

Then caught, he claims he doesn’t know why he misremembered it in that way. Maybe he and Hillary should get together sometime and share war stories.

See this article at Stars and Stripes.

Kind of begs the question how much of NBC’s newscast is misrepresentation?

Johnathon Turley names the IS overseas contingency

Operation Voldemort: The War Which Must Not Be Named

October 7, 2014 by jonathanturley

There is an interesting dimension to the ongoing circumvention of the Constitution over our latest undeclared war. While some Administration officials are finally calling our attacks in Syria as a “war,” the discomfort over defining this indefinite campaign has led to equal discomfort over naming it. After two months of airstrikes and statements that the campaign will likely go on for years, the Administration still have not named this war. The choice would now seem obvious: Operation Voldemort, the war which must not be named.

Usually, the military loves to give inspiring names to its campaigns, though sometimes the name can reveal a bit of insecurity like “Operation Just Cause” in Panama — a name that only seemed to amplify the questions of the legality or legitimacy of the invasion.

[…./]

Source reference: Wall Street Journal

See more: http://jonathanturley.org/2014/10/07/operation-voldemort-the-war-which-must-not-be-named/

Name that operation, not that this administration is listening to anything.

He has it right, they purposely do not want to name it. They might be as divided over that as they are everything else? The Joint Chiefs could name it and Obama would say “no, I don’t like it.”

I suggested another alternate name could be “Operation Denial” – keeping it simple. They deny we are at war with those we deny we are at war with, who hold beliefs they deny… against what they deny is a problem, in a place they deny could be a problem. So Obama and the left are at war with their denial.

Or I thought another could be Obama’s ‘Operation: IS Not’. (I do like that one.) But notice they have no problem naming the Ebola mission. Maybe what we really need is a name for Obama’s Oval Office Occupancy Operation? Or maybe just ask ISIS what name they’d like, since Obama is willing to use the ISIL name or whatever name they choose to use? Notice their name is allowed to offend anyone. In fact, it is supposed to.

What about “Operation Nobel Peace Prize”?

RightRing | Bullright

ISIS and CIA , Saudi Arabia’s Islamic State

Conventional wisdom, what is conventional in Iraq or Mid-East for that matter?

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

SEPT. 20, 2014 | NYT

BAGHDAD — The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.

“We know about who made Daesh,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/world/middleeast/suspicions-run-deep-in-iraq-that-cia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united.html?_r=2

The Islamic State . . . of Saudi Arabia

Between beheadings, they’ll help train the “moderate” Syrian rebels.
By Andrew C. McCarthy | NRO
September 20, 2014

The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive.

And let’s not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.
Advertisement

The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . . our “moderate Islamist” ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But the confusion is understandable.

Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars. […/]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388460/islamic-state-saudi-arabia-andrew-c-mccarthy

Pandora’s box

So boredom is the cause for radicalization and terrorists’ recruitment.
Isil’s Western converts are not motivated by Islam. They are motivated by boredom
— The Telegraph UK

Bombs fly on ISIS facilities in Syria.

Al Qaeda in Syria Was Close to Launching Attack on U.S., Europe
Leader of group targeted in initial strikes

Senior Obama administration officials who briefed reporters on the Syrian airstrikes said an al Qaeda group known as Khorasan was attacked after intelligence reports indicated that it posed an imminent threat of attack.

ABC: Syria refugee masses at Turkey’s border

The United Nations said the number of Syrian Kurds fleeing into neighbouring Turkey may have topped 100,000 and was likely to go much higher, as IS militants seized dozens of villages close to the border and advanced on the frontier town of Ayn al-Arab, known as Kobani in Kurdish. …./

“Islamic State are continuing to advance. Every place they pass through they kill, wound and kidnap people. Many people are missing and we believe they were kidnapped,” Welat Avar, a doctor, told Reuters by telephone from Kobani.

A Kurdish politician from Turkey who visited Kobani on Saturday said locals had told him IS fighters were beheading people as they went from village to village. …/

“Rather than a war this is a genocide operation … They are going into the villages and cutting the heads of one or two people and showing them to the villagers,” Ibrahim Binici, a deputy for Turkey’s pro-Kurdish HDP said.

Maps of ISIS conflict/control area

Iran is the bomb

Israel Warns of Iranian Sweet Talk; Says Nothing’s Changed

IPT

The international community is allowing the rise of ISIS to distract it from the far more dangerous prospect of a nuclear Iran, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz warned Wednesday. The comments followed his visit last week to the United States, where he met with senior State Department figures William Burns and Wendy Sherman.

“The Iranians are getting almost everything but giving almost nothing,” Steinitz told a Jerusalem news conference in which he expressed his belief that Iran is being far from truthful in its ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks. “Although it is important to defeat ISIS [Islamic State], if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it’s a different world for decades. This is the main threat to global security and should be the priority… I went [to Washington] concerned and I came back concerned,” Steinitz added. “I didn’t hear anything… that gave me hope.”

Protestors: ‘The Met Opera Glorifies Terrorism’

Protesters say ‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ justifies the 1985 murder of wheelchair-bound Jew Leon Klinghoffer

Israel Hayom reports:

The Met is scheduled to perform the opera between Oct. 20 and Nov. 15.

The opera deals with the death of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish passenger on the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985.

The ship was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists, who shot the wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer and threw him over board.

The opera’s critics say it justifies the killers’ actions and is prejudiced against Jews.

Supporters defend it on grounds of artistic freedom and claim it presents a thoughtful take on all sides.

Federal Employees Use Government Credit Cards at Casinos, Racetracks

Audit finds DOT has poor oversight over its travel card program
September 23, 2014 | Free Beacon
BY: Elizabeth Harrington

Department of Transportation (DOT) employees use government credit cards for cash advances at casinos and racetracks, according to a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Employees misused their government-issued travel cards in 2012, racking up $2.1 million in charges for personal items, and more than $180,000 in unauthorized cash advances while they were not on business trips.

The audit, released last week, examined the travel card program, which employees are authorized to use on hotels, transportation, and meals during government travel. The OIG found that the DOT does not have effective policies in place to prevent the government credit cards from being misused. In fact, the agency has no policy prohibiting employees from taking cash advances out at casinos.

Why oh why is Obama so stubbornly ignorant?

Obama says no boots on the ground, despite sending some troops to Iraq to work with the Kurds. But he has said no ground combat troops, he made up his mind.

(9/17/14)

MR. EARNEST: I did not see the full context of Secretary Gates’s remarks. But with that caveat, let me say that the President has been clear about the need to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in Iraq and in Syria. What the President has ruled out are American servicemen and women being in a position where they are the ones that are responsible for engaging in combat operations against ISIL on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The President will not consider that option.

What the President will do, however, is ramp up the assistance that we’re providing to Iraqi security forces as they take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country. The President has said that he will deploy and has already ordered American airstrikes against ISIL targets in support of Iraqi security forces and their ground operations.

Obama is adamant. “Ruled out” is pretty strong.

General Dempsey said:

“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Islamic State] targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”

To rule them out on a case-by-case basis? But that’s is not the only issue.
Josh Earnest tells Ed Henry that the troops sent can defend themselves.

(9/18/14)

Q The last one on that point — in your exchange with Jon, if U.S. troops are forward deployed, as you say, alongside Iraqi troops, giving them tactical guidance, and these U.S. troops are fired upon by ISIS, are the U.S. troops to do nothing?

MR. EARNEST: U.S. troops will have rules of engagement; they always do when they enter a situation like this.

Q And what would those be? Will they fire back at them?

MR. EARNEST: Again, I’m not going to detail those rules of engagement. The Department of Defense can do that for you. But certainly the Commander-in-Chief would expect that the American troops do what is necessary to defend themselves. That would be –-

Q If they’re defending themselves and they’re firing back they’re in combat.

 

The last statement key. “Defending themselves.” They will have the means of defending themselves, only. So they obviously are only in a an defensive posture. Earnest added:

MR. EARNEST: Iraq is a very dangerous place and American military personnel will have the equipment they need to defend themselves. But what their role will be — and this is what’s real important for people to understand — their role will not be to roll across the border in a long line of tanks to occupy significant territory in Iraq. Their role will be to provide advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces who are taking the fight on the ground against ISIL. In some cases, that could mean being on the ground in forward-deployed locations to call in airstrikes –-

At least they’ll have the equipment they need to defend themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

Prescription for ISIS

Short of wiping out ISIS which is needed, fast and furious, I have another prescription for ISIS that Obama can do on top of that. I think you will like it.

First. Obama has several times said they are not Islamic. True, Bush made similar stupid remarks about al Qaeda. Second, the Saudis are even concerned and said if ISIS is left unchecked, they could be in Britain or the US in months .

So they are a threat to the world and other Muslim countries. They should be a threat to other Muslims. That’s what we hear anyway. But they definitely threaten the world and humanity, and the future of mankind. If you threaten a species you are singled out and scorned. If you threaten humanity, oh well.

Now for the prescription. But because Barry has been so adamant and defiant about it, I suggest that he personally carry it out himself, not delegate it to anyone else. It’s simple communication, so he can handle it. It will make his theory more credible.

Simply go to his Saudi friends to give them a message. Since they are an authority in Islam and Wahhabism, then they can have a fatwā created and issued on ISIS and what they’re doing — rejecting the Islamic legitimacy of ISIS, telling Muslims not to take part in it in any way. They should have no problem if they disagree with ISIS’s credo. The guys in Riyadh can come up with something that delegitimizes them. And revoke their Mecca card. Even get a qaļā, a legal ruling, conveying similar sentiments.

If Obama believes as he says, he should have no problem doing that. So this is your mission, Barack Obama, should you accept it.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama seeks doctrine of revision

…to turn back the hand of time.

So on the eve of 9/11, Obama takes to prime time to announce his supposed plan against ISIS, which he calls ISIL. He could have given this speech at any time in the last 9 months. He didn’t and made it on this particular day, after his dwindling poll numbers came out.

I won’t even give it a word for word reply because there is really nothing new. But he did say, once again, that ISIS is not an Islamic organization. Nope, it’s not..it’s not! That came early in his slithering rhetoric so it could have muted anything after.

But there is one other point that deserves mention. He said this action is designed to save and help those displaced by ISIS. Its too late, ISIS did that months ago. He watched it, or maybe he didn’t read those briefings? But now that the damage is done, he promises continued humanitarian aid. I bet they wished help would have really came to prevent what ISIS did. He did have an answer, someone said thank you, America, for coming. That was supposedly for his help earlier on Mt. Sinjar. (aid and persuade campaign)

“We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands,” Obama said.

How can you return to a burned home, or without the family that were slaughtered? Of course that was the whole idea of ISIS to be so brutal as to drive the people out for good. Message received. But Obama, always late to the game, now offers them cordial sympathies and promises of hope. Be careful about Obama’s promises of hope.

He spoke quite literally the way Democrats do about war strategy. The saying is that they are always fighting the last war. In this case, Obama was making a speech on a commemorative eve of the 9/11 attacks. Or that was supposed to be the backdrop. But that backdrop is of being attacked, and then there was the attack on his watch in Benghazi.

Was it an attempt to rehabilitate his image and indeed the day? Maybe. A day which two years earlier he wished to erase. A day that came at the worst time of his presidency, campaign eve of reelection. And a day which he wanted to ignore even before the Benghazi attack happened. If anything became clear, it was that Obama wanted no part in either Iraq, or the war on terrorism. What do you know, they both showed up in the same place. What are the chances?

Then he had for a year ignored the problems in Syria, after laying down a red-line which he himself ignored. He wasn’t interested in that and Putin gave him an out. His lack of attention on Iraq did not go unnoticed either. The original ISIS, an off chute of al Qaeda in Iraq was driven from Iraq in the war. It festered in Syria and gained traction during the civil war before moving right in to Iraq.

One can say it was albeit a direct creation of Obama, and his policies. Democrats resist the temptations, they say, at extended stays in countries. So be it. They claim they are not against justified actions in countries though. But we saw their prototype version in action in Libya. And it was a stunning failure. Another thing Obama immediately ignored. Our enemies didn’t. His Libyan adventure laid the groundwork for Benghazi.

Obama had already forgotten about Libya prior to the Benghazi attack. It was in the rear view mirror. And Biden told us, if we were looking for a bumper sticker, which Dems undoubtedly were, it was that “Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” (even if GM was on life support) Who cares about details? Their message sold, evidenced by how many Dems repeated it ad nausea. Whether it is true or not never mattered to them. Success in a soundbite over success on the battlefield.

Now he says he is going to counter a “warped ideology” which earlier he denied was real. He has not lacked opportunities to counter it. We had Christians slaughtered across the Mid East. They were driven almost completely out of Iraq. The black-flag Islamists marched across the ME. He may be the only one in the world willing to claim it is not Islamic. I said before he should leave the apologetics to Islamic scholars, who do not dispute the point. That they are killing Muslims, too, means exactly what? If this is his answer to evil, to revise it, then I question and reject everything about it.

RightRing | Bullright

Ebola and ISIS: a chronic comparison

What does Ebola have in common with ISIS?

The simple answer is Obama. But that is where the commonality ends. Both represent threats and catastrophic circumstances.

The talk about Ebola is the call and challenge to scale up the treatment of Ebola. In fact, from the Center for Disease control, they say it is not just a problem for African areas but a problem for the whole world. It demands a world-wide response. The World Health Organization is telling everyone it demands our response. See WHO video here.

CDC: “I wish every world leader could see what I have seen. Stopping this outbreak is more than any one nation can do,” Dr. Frieden says. “The sooner the world comes together to help West Africans the safer we all will be.”

“The window of opportunity to stop Ebola from spreading widely throughout Africa and becoming a global threat for years to come is closing, but it is not yet closed,” Dr. Frieden continued. “If the world takes the immediate steps– which are direct requests from the front lines of the outbreak and the Presidents of each country – we can still turn this around.”

Now even Obama is well out front recording a message to Africa about the severe threat of Ebola. “Stopping this disease won’t be easy but we know how to do it,” Obama said.
Washington Post reported:

The decision to involve the military in providing equipment and other assistance for international health workers in Africa comes after mounting calls from some unlikely groups — most prominently the international medical organization Doctors Without Borders — demonstrating to the White House the urgency of the issue. “And then it could be a serious danger to the United States,” Obama said.

“We’re going to have to get U.S. military assets just to set up, for example, isolation units and equipment there,” he said, “to provide security for public health workers surging from around the world.”

From Anthony Fauci, dir. of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIHealth: “We’re left with a situation where if, in fact, this thing smolders on and on, we know mutations will accumulate,” he said. “And that has its own set of problems. We’ve really got to get this thing shut off.”

However, why is it he cannot talk about ISIS or the spreading Islamic State the same way? They can ban or restrict travel in areas affected by Ebola, but not so much on those traveling to and from the Islamic State with the potential to spread this poisonous ideology. Don’t rush to rash decisions on traveling to and from Syria.

Of course, comparing one severe threat to another draws criticism, but why should it? They are similar in nature and affects. Both are a disease.

When you hear these officials run to the microphone announcing Ebola is a serious world problem demanding an immediate reaction, it is chilling. What about ISIS? A response to Ebola cannot come fast enough, on a scale large enough to suit the need. They say the Ebola outbreak is vastly underestimated, an “International public health emergency” and an “urgent” matter of international concern. It is “critical” that it receive labels, they say, so that we provide resources.

Can they even say genocide?

What about ISIS, is there not an equal responsibility there? On ISIS and their ‘black-flag plague’ consuming the Middle East, Obama said:

“People like this [ISIS] ultimately fail,” … “They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.”

Try that with Ebola.

That a way to rally them to the cause, Obama. Imagine he said the exact thing about Ebola, paraphrasing: “These diseases ultimately fail, sooner or later.” There would be outrage about any passively dismissive statement to real immediate results of a disease spiraling out of control, which knows no borders or boundaries. Yet here we are watching a 1400 yr-old campaign being revived, kick started, and growing rapidly.

All the officials compete demanding action against the Ebola outbreak, epidemic. Maybe Ebola is a diversion from another plague spreading globally? (a genocide) More hypocrisy? One demands immediate condemnation, resources and all our efforts. The other is just a “regional problem”. Try that with Ebola, they’d laugh you right out of the UN.

But there is anther big contrast. While the headchopper plague meanders through the Mid East under Islamic ideology, Christianity is working to feed the poor, purify drinking water, and treat the sick. The biggest enemies of Islamists are, you guessed it, Christians. Christians are trying to help a sick world, Islamists have a passion for slaughter and an agenda against Christians. They are executing people from the tip of Africa to Iran. Christians are trying to save peoples lives, even from Ebola.

In Gaza, Muslim terrorists indiscriminately fire missiles into Israel hoping to kill and injure as many as possible, saying ‘God willing’. It’s an industry. Israel defends its modest homeland and they cry “human rights abuses” by Israel, calling it heavy-handed. Ever tell a headchopper that? Ever tell Hamas that? Has humanity ever witnessed such twisted rationalizations under a guise of humanitarianism?. Yet ISIS cutting out giant swaths of land across borders makes no difference. Then they all lecture America that we must show restraint in the face of evil. Obama tells Israel to show restraint. Indeed, at home Obama complains it takes time, criticizing people for being too far ahead of where they are at.

Now could you apply that to the Ebola outbreak? I think not. Speed, responsibility, and resources are the watchwords for Ebola. Though I get a sick feeling the black-flag death cult could come right in behind Ebola killing thousands as brutally as they can. Or killing people the world is trying to save, from a threat it is trying to eradicate. Still we have this epidemic of compassion for a disease and what it is doing in countries most of us will never see. It causes people to be working non-stop on a vaccine to stop or prevent the carnage — plans being put in place, policies implemented.Time is of the essence to prevent the spread of death. On ISIS not so much. I hear advisers say take your time to come up with a plan.

The real problem of Obama on ISIS is also the extreme irony. What Obama has done thus far is barely equivalent to treating the symptoms rather than the disease. They want to treat the Ebola disease by a goal to eradicate it. Obama’s stated goal on ISIS is to shrink it to a “manageable problem”. The goal against Ebola is to eliminate the threat and disease – presumably kill it and prevent its return. It’s ironic that Christians and missionaries work toward eliminating the spread of Ebola. When it comes to ISIS, Obama sat on his hands observing its spread and now said he wants to shrink it into “a manageable problem”.(shrink the death toll?) After the Foley beheading, he lectured it was a political problem. True to form, he now is looking blame Congress for his policy on ISIS, in effect making it a political problem.

So I haven’t heard anyone make the case that Ebola is strictly a political problem, requiring a political solution. That would sound ridiculous. And apply all his other excuses on ISIS to Ebola and you come up with the same notion.

Could it be that the world is both not a large enough nor a small enough place to deal with either threat? Not large enough to have the resources to deal with such a heinous problem; not small enough to be able contain and mitigate them.

 

Today starts the official BS campaign on ISIS, speech to follow. The campaign on Ebola is under way. Maybe it’s easier to talk about a terrible disease ravaging borders in Africa, threatening the world. Much harder to talk about a plague of anti-human ideology spreading across borders like wildfire. I doubt he’ll discuss Ebola from the golf course.

“Major Garrett Asks Why Anyone Should Watch Obama’s ISIS Speech”

RightRing | Bullright

What do words tell us?

If I were a speech writer for Obama, I would have wondered, maybe highlighted a couple lines in the text either for clarification, revision, or removal. Sorry for the wordiness of this but it is unavoidable.

The line in question was about religion. Here is the text:

Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

And people like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley, and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him. … And we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg

Seal of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

“Declared their ambitions to commit genocide” … and are carrying it out. The word is ‘committing.’

Lonely phrases

“So ISIS speaks for no religion.” Was that completely necessary? On what facts does he base that? They believe they speak for Islam. In fact, they believe they are the self-declared spokesman for it. And masses of the Islam faith have not argued that point. Why was it so critically important for Obama to state that? He tries to separate ISIS from the religion of Islam, writ large. Again, why is that necessary? Others would seem more suited to make that distinction, except they don’t. He tries to put ISIS outside the parameters of Islam. We don’t need to do that. It is what it is — self-asserted. They certainly speak for some segment of it. Just declaring they don’t is a lonely phrase in there.

So he seemed more concerned that their actions are hurting Islam. If they are hurting Islam, that should not be of great importance to us. There seems to be no shortage of Islam defenders to make that case — but they don’t. It is not up to our president to explain why ISIS and the terrorists are not spokespersons for Islam. Sure it seems a simple thing and some probably see his motivation, not that I do. But why is there a need for it?

I realize there is a large world-wide population of Muslims to which it should matter, but why is it a priority to separate this violence, horror, and evil from Islam? The fact that he feels compelled to speaks for itself. Again, where are their voices? If a religion this large cannot make a case against this uber-evil, then what does that tell us?

Territorial control of ISIS

Rather, I recommend that we pose the question to Muslims: “do you realize these actions are being done in the name of your religion?” And it is not the first time — probably not the last. Had it been any other religion they would follow that tack. They’d say, “well I don’t believe they do, but others can make the case why they don’t speak for their membership.” But the majority of any other religion would beat them to it, to make that case. Not here, we don’t have that.

Of course, the real reason is his apologetics. He felt a need to separate them from the religion of Islam to defend it from this bloody stain. Again, that could be left to cleric spokesman and their academics. The ironic thing is Obama has Muslim advocates and activists all around him. I was no fan of Bush doing it either. Sometimes things are what they are. It would help if others were making the case. Instead, we see Muslims either joining ISIS-fever or registering their approval by their silence.

Someone please help Obama because if he has a heart it is sure not in this. We’ve seen his critique of Iraq politics and laying the problem at their feet. Yes. However, if ISIS is a threat to us and other countries, then how is it logical and rational to trust Iraq to solve the ISIS problem? That dependency on them places our security in their hands. Is that what we want to do? That is what Obama is doing — putting them in charge of our security and the free world’s. It would be nice if one of our generals took Obama out back and explained the food chain to him. He doesn’t seem to get the basics.

So then, I guess Obama speaks for no country either, especially not the USA.

 
RightRing | Bullright

Stupid policy tricks

More on Obama’s Libya adventure and Mid-East roadshow

Since Obama’s Libya adventure, and with the Mid-East on fire in what’s left of the Arab Spring, he has taken mostly to denying the very real results of his foreign policy foreplay. He avoids confronting the turmoil that he and his cohorts welcomed over a year ago. Results have not been fruitful, from Riyadh to Moscow, from Tripoli to Shanghai.

Post Obama’s little Libya intervention, which was supposed to be the model, we now have ISIS and the Islamic Caliphate State running wild from Damascus to Baghdad. Not to ignore all the other terrorist groups, it’s reported that there are 1200 terror groups just in Libya. Let’s forget South Africa for the moment. It was not an easy drive here.

Of course, there was Benghazi. But we‘ve moved on and terrorists have too. Then there was Obama’s version of a shell game with the vanishing red line in Syria — or was that a laser pointer in a Power Point presentation? Russia to the rescue, more on that later.

Then along comes the terrorists just when he was on a roll. Obama was forced to acknowledge ISIS, calling it JayVee in January after ignoring them for months.

‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

Yes, and he did think it was accurate. He thought talking smack would cut it as he dismissed them as a threat. That provides a good illustration. So just because Obama was elected doesn’t make him a good president. Just because he has AF-1 doesn’t mean he will make superior decisions. And just because he gets elected doesn’t mean he is qualified. Obama is proving it everyday. But Obama thought talking smack and dissing an enemy out of hand would suffice because that is the way he always treated his opponents or potential opponents: like they were nothing, not up to it, or beneath him. That’s his M/O.

Now the irony and embarrassment of being forced to respond to those JayVee hoodlums with F-18’s and 500-pounders from the deck of USS George H.W. Bush carrier. Oops!

Along the way, we heard what I call the doctrine of ‘walk softly and carry a big script’ had morphed into Obama’s official doctrine: “don’t do stupid shit”— “stuff” in the public version. But looking back, what has Obama done that wasn’t stupid, whether abroad or here at home?

He insulted Israel how many times? His red line was a nightly punch line. His “more flexible” approach to Russia was the foundation for all sorts of actions from Putin, and our concessions. Obama’s arms-running across the Middle East may have backfired throughout. His comments toward Israel in the middle of a war were a combination of insensitive and stupid. His meddling in Israel’s self defense all the while neglecting our own security, especially at the border. And his Executive “Dream” pen started the nightmare on the border. Yet he was counseling Israel on their aggressive approach under attack. How many degrees of stupid are there? And he shut down air travel to Tel Aviv.

He reduced sanctions on Iran as the centrifuges spin away. He watched Crimea be gobbled up by Russia, while making backhanded remarks that must have given Putin chuckles. He sent out Kerry to make stupid remarks. What good is doing stupid stuff if you don’t talk up a good game? And if all else fails, he still has his denial doctrine.

Then there was the traveling Snowden sideshow and eaves dropping on Angela Merkel. There are stupid actions and consequences for inaction, too. Obama prefers a mixture.

RightRing | Bullright