As The Obama DOJ Handcuffs Them, Many Blacks Beg Cops For Protection

 

The thing about the Left is that with Obama in charge, they win even when they lose. After drug dealer Freddie Gray died in police custody, the mob burned down a decent amount of Baltimore, whipped up by 'activists' and Marilyn Mosby, the State's Attorney for Baltimore who actually allowed the mob to have free reign to burn and loot in part of the city while police were ordered to stand down.

The politically motivated charges brought by Marilyn Mosby were thrown out of court as being absolutely absurd, which they were and every one of the six officers were acquitted. her conduct was so egregious that there's even talk of having her impeached.

The same thing happened in Ferguson, Missouri where Michael Brown robbed a convenience store, assaulted the clerk, tried to wrestle a gun away from a policeman and then was shot by that policeman when he refused to halt and charged him instead with his 300 plus pound body.

In both situations, the Obama Justice Department moved in, did an 'investigation' of course found what they called 'racist behavior' with little or no actual evidence, sanctioned the police departments for 'racist behavior' and demanded wholesale changes...or else.

And of course, they got them, especially in Democrat ruled Baltimore.

But apparently this behavior had unforeseen consequences, as even the notoriously politically correct Washington Post admits, if you read between the lines.

Not only has it become extremely difficult to recruit police in both places, but crime has skyrocketed to the point where residents and business people with an actual stake in their community are begging for more police protection and quicker response time. At the same time, activists and opportunistic politicians, many of whom don't actually live in these neighborhoods are pushing the Justice department to place more and more restraints on the police.

The result of course is easy to predict. Pro-active policing, the use of police presence to prevent crime before it happens is virtually disappearing. What police officer wants to risk a reprimand or even getting fired by politically correct departments wary of crossing Democrat politicians? Crimes that were often prevented by experienced officers using that legendary 'sixth sense' experienced police acquire are now occurring. Arrests in black communities are diminishing - why take a risk of an angry crowd assembling to protest the arrest of a drug dealer or even a traffic stop? Easier and far less risky to just show up after the crime's been committed and take a report, something that I'm sure infuriates police officers who became cops because of a deep seated desire to protect the innocent.

Eight days had passed since the Justice Department issued a scathing review of the Baltimore Police Department, detailing years of racial discrimination in its law enforcement practices.

Yet the 40 or so longtime residents who gathered in a West Baltimore church basement on this August night — many of whom were older black women afraid to walk to the store or leave their homes at night — had come to urge police to clear their corners of miscreants and restore order to their crime-plagued community.

“Please, help me,” pleaded gas station owner Chaudhry Masood, whose parking lot has been overrun by loiterers and where a 17-year-old was recently shot and killed. [...]

The Aug. 10 report came more than a year after the death of Freddie Gray in police custody. His funeral touched off riots, an unsuccessful prosecution of six police officers and the Justice Department investigation. Many of the abuses that investigators found centered on the way police officers interact with black Baltimoreans, including people congregating on street corners. The report concluded that Baltimore officers had “nearly unfettered discretion to criminalize the act of standing on public sidewalks.” [...]

Clearing the corners has been a mainstay of Baltimore policing for decades, a way for a beat cop to show who’s boss and to break up open-air drug markets that once numbered 200 across the city.

Anthony Barksdale, who retired from the force in 2014 as a deputy police commissioner, said he would tell young men, “Fellas, I know you’re going to give my corner,” and they would scatter.

After the Justice Department report, Barksdale said, “Everybody on the corner is challenging the police. Then when the police drive by and don’t push them off, the citizens are saying, ‘What the hell are the cops good for?’ ”

Barksdale took exception to the report’s criticism that stops of pedestrians were concentrated in a few black neighborhoods. Barksdale, who is black and grew up in West Baltimore, said that’s true only because “police are responding to crime.”

The Justice Department, he said, has effectively “turned over control of the corners to the criminal elements. The city is suffering already, and it’s going to suffer more. . . . They need to understand the streets of Baltimore are no joke, and they’ve given the bad elements more authority to destroy the neighborhoods.”

On top of all this, as existing police get sick and tired of an impossible job and go elsewhere, quality recruits to replace them are harder and harder to find. What this  eventually leads to is standards being dropped simply to keep the numbers at a sustainable level.

Here's an example. One of my best friends from high school joined the LAPD and was apparently pretty good at it, having promoted and having been cited by the Department for bravery. He left to continue his career elsewhere after the riots in the early 1990's, when the L.A. city council forced the existing chief, Daryl Gates to resign and hired Willie Williams to replace him, someone with little actual police experience but the overriding qualification of being black. He turned out to be an extraordinarily inept administrator who politicized the department and cultivated a circle of sycophants and toadies. He was so incompetent and borderline corrupt that eventually the city was forced to buy out his contract and replace him.

A lot of experienced police officers left during this time, and as we now know, recruiting standards were significantly lowered to replace them. The end results of this were things like the Ramparts Police scandal, which resulted in more than 140 civil lawsuits against the city of Los Angeles and cost the city an estimated $125 million in settlements, not to mention the legal fees and administrative costs.

Another thing to reflect on is where this attack on local police forces actually originates from. A leaked document from George Soros' Open Society Foundation shows the extent of the money involved in financing groups like Black Lives Matter (who also got millions of dollars from the Ford Foundation) with the express idea of undermining local control of police forces and ultimately federalizing them using the Obama Justice department coupled with targeted social unrest.

Soros and others are also spending large amounts of money to see to it that hard Left progressives - like Marilyn Mosby - are elected to key positions as prosecutors and attorneys general in America's cities.

All that aside, in fairness it needs mentioning that there probably are a lot of the locals who don't like the police or how they behave. To quote one Fred Price in North St. Louis a year or so ago after the police took out a crackhouse in his neighborhood, killing one of the denizens who pointed a gun at them:

“They provoked the situation,” Price, 33, said. “Situations like this make us want to keep the police out of the neighborhood. They’re shooting first, then asking questions.”

While I might disagree with Mr. Price he has a point. And points the way to a win-win solution, which I presented before when I wrote about this at the time it occurred:

The locals don't like the police, to put it mildly, and I'm sure that the police themselves don't enjoy going into neighborhoods where their attempts to do a difficult job are looked upon by a significant number of the inhabitants as the provocation of racist interlopers.
Mr. Fred Price points the way to a win win resolution that will please everyone. Let's indeed give the residents of north St. Louis and other similar areas a way to keep the police out of their neighborhoods.
Let the residents take a vote on making their neighborhoods off limits to police. If such a vote passes, let the residents make their own arrangements for crime prevention or policing should they see fit to do so,and offer property owners a discount on their taxes based on this city service they would no longer be using.
Police would be limited to enforcing the perimeters of such neighborhoods, so that thugs and criminals would be prevented from leaving these neighborhoods during certain hours. But inside the perimeter, the residents themselves would take responsibility.
Based on certain incidents that have happened in neighborhoods like this in the past during tense times, it would probably make sense to eliminate or at least cut back fire department and EMT service as well, since many times they require a police escort in order to guarantee the safety of the firemen and EMT personnel. Or perhaps these communities might be able to make special  arrangements not to attack them.

Like I said, a win win. The inhabitants of these neighborhoods would get the kind of policing they deserve, and the men and women the majorities in these communities see as vicious police killers would have no opportunity to practice their racism. And the police wouldn't have to go into these areas where they're seen as the enemy, making life easier and less dangerous for them.

 

 Of course, if the people in these communities voted to continue to allow the police to serve them, it certainly wouldn't be out of line for the police to demand respect and a healthy benefit of the doubt in exchange. 

My bet is that most people who have an actual stake in these communities - a job, a home, families and perhaps a business - would vote for option number two.




Selah

Obama Picks Stealth Leftist Merrick Garland For Supreme Court

President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland today to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. It's his way of creating a political issue by challenging the Senate Republicans to deny him a SCOTUS justice appointment of someone who appears qualified.

So far, the Senate isn't buying it. As Fox news reported, both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary chair Mike Lee are standing firm on the principle that a lame duck president should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year:

Yet within minutes, Republicans doubled down on their opposition to confirming any nominee in an election year, insisting that the vacant seat not be filled until a new president is sworn in.

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor.

Obama, anticipating the swift resistance, urged Republicans to reconsider, adding it would be unprecedented for Garland not to at least get a hearing.

“I hope they’re fair. That’s all,” Obama said. “To give him a fair hearing and up or down vote.” [...]

A Senate confirmation is required for any nominee to join the bench.

Before the announcement, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also told Fox News that neither he nor his GOP colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee would back down and declared once more he would stop the nomination from going forward.

“We’ve been clear,” Lee said of his plan to reject Garland’s nomination.

If the principle of allowing the American people to have a voice in something like a Supreme Court pick is to be adhered to, Garland's nomination shouldn't even be considered no matter how qualified or unqualified he might be. If he gets a hearing and is rejected, it will just be a soundbite to paint Republicans as 'obstructionist.'

Any nominee President Obama proposes in an election year should be rejected forthwith simply on principle. "Fair' is not something in this president's vocabulary when it comes to applying it to others.

And when you do a little digging you find that there are other reasons Merrick Garland doesn't belong on the Court unless you favor a partisan Leftist tilt. It was none other than Pravda-on-the-Hudson that wrote that "If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years."

The same article wrote that according to a measure of judicial ideology developed by four political scientists and considered a "reasonably good predictor of voting on the Supreme Court," Garland is close to Justice Elena Kagan in terms of how he would rule.

That's hardly surprising when you look at his background. He's a stanch Democrat from Chicago and Harvard Law who was appointed to his D.C. Circuit seat by none other than Bill Clinton. Before that, he clerked for none other than the very far Left Warren Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. often considered one of the most left leaning justices in the Court's history. In his confirmation hearing in December 1995 to consider Garland's nomination to the D.C. Circuit, Garland that Brennan was one of the justices he most admired.

His paper trail is fairly limited and he's done some decent work as a prosecutor, but using that ancient wisdom, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree, and if it did, there's no way a hyper partisan president like Obama would have picked him. Garland can only be considered 'qualified' if you like the idea of a locked in Leftist majority in the Supreme Court.

We'll see if the GOP Senate has finally managed to grow a spine.

Obama's Gun Diktat - The Devil In The Details

 

President Barack Hussein Obama has followed through on his promise to 'go after guns' via executive order and it was really quite a show. I especially liked the part where he started weeping crocodile tears over schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

"First graders in Newtown. First graders," Obama said, pausing to collect himself. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad."

This concern for children from a man who fought tooth and nail for infanticide?  So touching.

At first glance, the president's diktat on guns seems reasonable. Prog fascists are very good at that, and of course, the president was quick to use the usual progressive talking point  that everyone knows this is the right thing to do. Or to use his exact words, there's what he called 'a broad consensus' supporting this, but those mean nasty Republicans in Congress just won't act, so he has to.

The president admitted that his plan wouldn't have stopped what happened in San Bernardino, but he feels this has to be done anyway, in order to 'make if harder for criminals to get guns.'

I wish all the victims of the murders attributed to the President's own efforts to put guns in the hands of criminals via Fast and Furious had been in the room, looking right at him when he said that. Now, their reaction would have been must see TV.

Before we discuss what the president has in mind, let's get something out in the open. Prog fascists aren't interested in getting guns out of the hands of criminals. They want confiscation of guns from the law abiding, because that's the route to the absolute power they revel in. There's nothing the president is proposing that's going to get guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will make a lot of law abiding citizens helpless before them.

When you deal with a Barack Obama and those of his ilk, you have to realize that they play the long game. First, they propose something that sounds relatively reasonable, like say, ObamaCare where if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan...and just think of the savings and how cheap the premiums will be! Months later when the peons wake up down the road and realize how they've been lied to and screwed over, it's too late to get rid of it without a major effort.

Please keep this in mind as we continue our discussion...Obama's agenda never changes. When it comes to our pathological liar of a president, whatever he and his dutiful minions might say to grease something through has nothing to do with how it's eventually applied. And the ultimate destination remains the same. In this case, it's gun confiscation.

So with that said, let's look at President Obama's new diktat on guns. And remember, he's tried to get this sort of thing through congress twice before and both times it has failed by bi-partisan majorities.

The first thing he wants is to promulgate that wonderful lefty myth, 'the gun show loophole.' The truth, as anyone who's ever been to one can tell you is that it doesn't exist.

If you go to a gun show, what you will see is licensed dealers,, because the people whom put on these things aren't looking to go to jail for aiding and abetting illegal weapons transaction. If you see something on one of the dealer's tables you like, they still are required to do a background check, the same as if you were in a brick and mortar store. All the laws, restrictions, waiting periods etc. all still apply. Also, as a licensed dealer in every state of the union you're restricted to either selling guns at the registered address of your store or at an organized, licensed gun show. You can sell guns online out of state, but they must be legal in your buyer's home state and they must be shipped to a licensed dealer in your buyer's home state, where once again a background check has to be done and a waiting period imposed in accordance with the laws of the purchaser's home state. Doing it any other way is a felony offense and not something a licensed gun dealer is going to risk prison and the loss of his livelihood for. So the president talking about closing this fairy tale 'loophole' this means very little in and of itself and it certainly won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it fits in with the rest of the president's agenda when it comes to convincing people who aren't even aware of which end of a firearm points where that this is somehow necessary and important.

The next thing he wants, and the heart of his plan is to hire a lot more ATF and FBI agents to provide scrutiny on things like enhanced background checks. But remember two things; first of all, they work for President Obama and are going to do what he tells them to do - just like the IRS. And second, criminals don't obtain firearms using methods where a background check is required. In the case of San Bernardino, the two killers and the friend that purchased additional firearms and explosives for them had no criminal record. And in the Newtown shooting, Adam Lanza likewise had no record, and got his weaponry by murdering his own mother in her bed. Not only that, but as I've pointed out before, the only reason any children died is because a school employee violated lock down procedure and let him in.

So if gun confiscation is the ultimate aim, criminals aren't really a very productive target. To really confiscate as many guns as possible, you have to go after the law abiding and somehow transform them into people who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms to defend themselves. And the best way is to work the 'mental health' and the enhanced background check angles, the really devious parts of Obama's plan.

Doctor-patient confidentiality? Faggedabboudit. Health and Human services rules have now been changed to put the onus on physicians to report anything you tell them that seems even slightly amiss to the FBI or the ATF. And what doctor is going to take the risk of potential liability by not doing so? No matter how minor or what the cause is, just a report from your physician that you seemed slightly depressed or not your usual self can ultimately be used to confiscate any guns you own.

And you can trust states ruled by 'progressives' to take this even further. California just put a law into effect requiring physicians to ask patients if they own guns, which guns they posses and where they keep them. Failure to answer alone is grounds for the doctor to report this to the FBI or the ATF, and a doctor can even order your guns seized by court order if he really wants to cooperate with the State. After all, if he doesn't and something happens...do I need to draw you a picture? We could even be talking about criminal liability here, or forfeiting a license to practice. Fear of government is the meat prog fascists thrive on.

VA will also be a fertile grounds for this. Veterans, after all, can all be labeled victims of PTSD, mental stress, maladjustment to peacetime society, call it what you want. The psycho veteran beloved of Hollywood scriptwriters has become a cliche these days. And these are men and women who likely own firearms and have been trained to use them. You can expect them to be heavily targeted for confiscation by the Regime.

What about victims of lawfare? A spurned girl friend can accuse a man of sexual assault, claim he threatened her and/or file a police report with no proof at all except her word. Thanks to VAWA, a woman can even have a man locked up with no real evidence at all, or say that self inflicted bruises were the result of assault or domestic abuse. Any family law attorney or criminal lawyer will tell you that this sort of thing happens with disturbing frequency nowadays. That's especially true when it comes to divorce cases, particularly where child custody is involved. And even if it's proven that the accusation is totally unfounded, it remains on the record. Goodbye Second Amendment rights!

The key, you see, is who gets to decide who has criminal intent or who is too mentally unstable to own firearms. With the enhanced background check phase of this, it's President Obama's employees who will now get to decide that. Trust them to follow orders and push it to the limit. And again, remember...the president's ultimate destination is full gun confiscation.

Ultimately, this can even be extended to 'extremists' whom criticize the president or his policies forcefully. And in time, it will be, bit by bit unless this is stopped in its tracks. Mark my words on that.

Congress has already spoken out about this to some extent:

Kevin McCarthy Verified account ‏@GOPLeader

Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms. @POTUS doesn't have a constitutional right to legislate from the executive branch.

Brian Babin ✔ @RepBrianBabin

Obama’s executive gun orders must be rejected. We are a #ConstitutionalRepublic & Pres. cannot bypass Congress when initiatives are blocked.

11:18 AM - 4 Jan 2016

Speaker Paul Ryan said none of Obama’s proposals would have prevented the recent mass shootings in the U.S. 

“His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected,” Ryan said. “No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.”

Talk is cheap, fellas. let's see what you DO.


UPDATE: Ah well...unfortunately they're showing us the answer as I write this.

Biden Bails As Obama And Hillary Come To Terms

 

As I predicted here, Joe Biden finally  issued a formal statement today that he is not running for president in 2016.

It's no secret that  the Clintons and the Obamas despise each other, so t his didn't take any crystal ball to figure out...all you had to do was to piece together certain events to realize that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had come to a  rapprochement.

The amount of  media coverage given to the  scandal surrounding the Clinton's 'charitable foundation', the e-mail servers scandal and the scads of articles championing 'good old likable honest Joe Biden' as the Democrat savior from the usual suspects all had to have been done at the bidding of  the Obama regime, as usual. otherwise, none of it would have happened.

But as I've written elsewhere, Mrs. Clinton had a few cards of her own to play. Just having  her attorneys offer congress candid testimony on a number of things in exchange for immunity from prosecution could make Barack Hussein Obama's final months in office a nightmare.

And she also had another convenient weapon.  It shouldn't be any surprise, but the Democrats choose their nominee via an extremely undemocratic process. Instead of the party's voters picking their nominee via votes in the primaries, the real power is in the hands of a large number of party insiders called 'super delegates' whom have the power to override whatever choices the voters in the primary might make. That's why Mrs. Clinton wasn't the nominee in 2008.

It's become known that  a number of the female super delegates who are in positions of power in the party have anointed Hillary based on her gender and have let it be known that any attempt to sideline her would have extreme consequences.

Even Barack Obama has to deal with reality sometimes. So the two sat down and had a chat, probably a few days or so before the debate, or perhaps Mr. Bill made a quick trip to the White House.

Then, despite a number of voter polls showing that Bernie Sanders won that debate, the usual media suspects trumpet it as a Clinton triumph,  often in surprisingly similar language using terms like 'polished performance'... not that they'd ever collude on something like that, right?

And just like magic, all the noise about a Biden candidacy suddenly subsided into silence, and President Obama took  steps to curtail the FBI investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal and the almost certain breaches of national security involved.  After all, the FBI  works for him.

 Biden got  the call from the White House and now, he's bowing out after a suitable interval to preserve appearances. He'll endorse Hillary when he's told it's time for him to do so.

Poor old Bernie! Even an irascible, ranting old Commie should have known better than to think that the Dems would ever put a Jew on the national ticket, even an irreligious, anti-Israel one. The last time they made that mistake was in 2000 with Joe Lieberman, and it cost them the Muslim vote  and likely the election.

So what did Mrs. Clinton or her husband offer Obama in return?

 

Author and media figure Ed Klein is a source I personally view with a certain amount of skepticism.  But he had a story out not too long ago that sounds fairly plausible. According to Klein, he was told by someone at the White House that President Obama's terms for endorsing Biden and campaigning for him included Biden allowing the president to choose Biden's running mate and a commitment from Biden to agree to serve only one term.

According to Klein, Obama's choice for Biden's running mate was former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Aside from being black, Governor Patrick does share Barack Obama's ideology, so that much makes sense.

If that was what Barack Obama wanted, I have no doubt the Clintons would make that deal in a New York minute.

How Obama Will Pay For 'Free' Community College - By Screwing The Middle Class

 


In tomorrow nights State of the Union speech, President Obama is supposed to announce his latest gimmee, two years of free community college for whomever wants it. Aside from the fact that this will cause community colleges to raise their tuition and fees dramatically ('hey, the government's paying!') just like most 4 year institutions, there's the question of how the Feds are going to pay for this.

Do I really need to tell you that the president plans to screw the middle class again? Over the holiday weekend, when no one was paying attention, the White House leaked its new plan for $320 billion in new taxes  including a major capital gains hike (particularly immoral since this money has already been taxed once as income) and a 20% increase in the death tax rate. But wait,there's more:

A new 7 basis point (0.07%) tax on the liabilities (not assets) of the 100 or so U.S. firms with assets over $50 billion. This will obviously be passed along to these firms' customers and employees, since businesses don't pay taxes--people do.

There would be a new cap in the amount one could accumulate in the aggregate in all IRA and 401(k) type accounts of $3.4 million. After that, you can't save any more new dollars. The idea is that this is enough to secure a $210,000 annual distribution in retirement, which the government apparently deems "enough" for a retiree.

So of course, no real incentive to save, as well as no accounting for inflation.

And of course, if you're an ex-president $210,00 isn't deemed to be nearly enough. Then your pension is $200,000, but it is the same the salary of a Cabinet secretary and geared to inflation..so it rises accordingly. And that's without figuring in free medical care , Secret Service protection, and reimbursements for staff, travel, mail, and office expenses for life.

And then there's this gem. A number of families have been taking advantage of what are called 529 plans, in order to save money for their children's college education. Under the current law, 529 plans work a lot like Roth IRAs: you put money in, the money grows tax-free for college and withdrawals and distributions are tax-free provided they are to pay for college. So that encourages people to save for their children's education.

Ah, but now this president wants to extend hope and change to this area.  Under the Obama plan, earnings growth in a 529 plan would no longer be tax-free. Instead, earnings would face taxation upon withdrawal, even if the withdrawal is to pay for college.

So what we have is yet another instance of the government changing the rules once people have already committed their money to these plans... to rob the productive and thrifty who have sacrificed for their children's education in order to 'redistribute' this money to those who couldn't be bothered.

Amnesty - What The President Can And Can't Get Away With

 

President Obama has announced that he intends to halt deportations by executive order for an estimated 5 million illegal migrants in America. Given our family unification policies, you can probably triple that number in real life.

The president had dinner with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the leaders of the congressional Asian, Black and Hispanic caucuses to discuss his plans which he will anounce publicly tomorrow. No Republicans, of course, were invited.

Off topic: Don't be surprised if the Ferguson verdict is announced tommorrow as well, to distract the public.

He is doing this  now, before December 12th when the new budget measure will need to be passed with the idea of deliberately antagonizing Republicans in hopes they will shut down the government. There's absolutely no better way to poison the well and torpedo any hopes of cooperation between congress and the White House than this juvenile  nonsense.The American people are decisively  against it, even  many members of his own party, which is why he delayed this until after the midterms.

Reportedly, the illegal migrants this president is going to free from any deportations will be exempt from using ObamaCare.  That, of course is another flat out, deliberate lie. The first illegal migrant who takes this to court will win easily because legally  they are eligible for all public benefits, including welfare.

Cooperation and compromise is not is his vocabulary, and this tantrum over the repudiation of his policies by the electorate is just the start.

This sort of action by executive diktat is bad policy, sets a horrendous precedent, and makes absolutely no sense in terms of governing the country  in partnership with congress. It is a cynical and hateful politicalploy at the expense of the American  people.

That said, can he get away with it? It all depends on what you mean.

The latest fairy tale  the Professional left is putting out there is that former Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush did the same thing. That isn't true, and explaining why that's so illustrates how uniquely awful what President Obama has planned  actually is.

President Ronald Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens involved consulting and negotiating with congress, notably Democrat Senator  Ted Kennedy. Reagan foolishly agreed to it because he trusted Kennedy's word that other portions of the legislation that called for border enforcement would be honored. Of course, they never were.

In 1987, the Reagan administration took executive action to halt  deportations for 200,000 Nicaraguans whom had fled from the Sandinistas. This was also done with the cooperation and input of congress in an obvious political asylum situation.

The same thing is true of President Bush '41's 1990 halt of deportations of Chinese students during the Tian An Min Square protests and his 1991 freeze on  Kuwaitis being deported to their home country after the Iraqi invasion. Congress was in the loop in both cases from day one. And additionally, Bush's halt of deportations in both these cases was intended to be temporary. The relatively small number of people this affected, mostly students, were almost all  repatriated back to their home countries once the political situation changed.

What President Obama is planning, aside from being done without any attempt to involve congress involves huge numbers compared to any of the actions by Bush or Reagan. And it is intended to be permanent.

What this president is planning is known legally as 'prosecutorial discretion,'  and yes, it is entirely legal and has been recognized by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions. So President Obama can legally say that he is exempting 5 million illegal migrants from deportation.In fact, this is pretty much a formal declaration of wht he and his administration have been doing anyway for years. It's ridiculously easy to see where this differs from what Presidents Reagan and Bush did, not to mention the numbers involved.

Here's what the president can't do. While he can exempt people from deportation, he has no authority whatsoever to give them green cards, social security cards or a 'path to citizenship.'  They still maintain their status as illegal migrants, but are simply not subject to prosecution and deportation as long as President Obama is in office.

They cannot import family members, they cannot work legally ( although this will likely be winked at in most states where illegal migrants live), and they cannot vote legally. That's the law, and that's what the Constitution says. That's why Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens needed to be legislated, while his executive action to halt  deportations for Nicaraguans did not, although in that case Reagan sought and obtained the cooperation and input of congress.

So, what can Congress do? 

They can, of course, shut down the government which is exactly what President Obama is hoping. That's one way to do things, but it might be more effective to operate selectively and use the power of the purse. For instance, congress has the authority (and the numbers, come January) to cut off funds for the president's $3 billion global warming slush fund. They can avoid funding anything concerned with this planned amnesty, and they can reverse it in January of 2017 and start   deporting these same people again if they wish provided the Republican either take the White House and/or garner a veto proof majority, which might easily happen given how unpopular this is. In fact, because this will ignite fury in most Americans, there may even be enough Democrats interested in saving their own hides to join with Republicans in quashing this. The GOP can even campaign on reversing this in 2016 if they like.

By the way, the latest fairy tale you're being told is that this can't be defunded because it operates out of fees rather than congressional appropriations. It is a real mark of how stupid our elites think the peasants are that they would even try this one. 

No government department is in business for themselves. Any and all monies they collect are the property of the United States government and the Constitution clearly gives congress the power to decide what to do with it. Your local cops may collect revenue for your city from parking fees and speeding tickets, and your building and safety department may collect inspection fees, but the money doesn't belong to them. Your city or town council, the legislative branch decides who gets what and how much. The Federal government works exactly the same way.Congress can withhold every dime from the president's new program.

Congress can also  refuse to confirm any of President Obama's nominees, especially judges. The Democrats, after all, did that to a lot of George W. Bush's nominees for no good reason once they took over in 2007. The GOP  can even say, truthfully,  that since President Obama showed blatantly that he had no intention of cooperating with congress, they're simply returning the favor. They can submit common sense legislation that forces him to use his veto pen and shows whom the real obstructionists in congress are. They can tie his hands at every turn, and honestly say that until he reverses himself, that's simply how things are going to be. This can apply to ObamaCare as well, since the president has said he will never sign any legislation repealing or changing it in any way.

Congress can even halt the president's discretionary funds. No more fundraisers on the taxpayer's dime, no more taxpayer funded lavish parties or vacations, no more greens fees for those golf games he loves so much and major limitations to the White House staff for him and the First Lady. Perhaps Mooch-elle can make the president one of her famous lunches from time to time. Or he can foot the bill for a cook if he wants one.And his groceries.

 

And of course, the ultimate response is for both houses of congress to forget about silly things like lawsuits and  hire a special prosecutor to investigate a number of things this president has been involved in that are flagrantly illegal,with the idea of bringing articles of impeachment to the House for a vote.

That's where this is ultimately going anyway.

The Left And The Midterms..Denial, The First Stage Of Grief

The results of the midterms are in, and the Republican wave election that wasn't supposed to be one is over.

In their own way, the results are even more stunning then in 2010. The Republicans not only retained their control of the House but actually added seats, and took the majority in the senate by eight seats. The senate races that were supposed to be close, or result in Democrat wins - in Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Iowa and North Carolina - ended up being decisive Republican victories, And that included the governor's races,where Republicans held on to nine seats they were supposedly in danger of losing. In the end, Scott Walker, Rick Scott in Florida, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Sam Brownback in Kansas,and Terry Branstad in Iowa all won, and the GOP actually elected governors in three solid blue states, Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois.

Considering the amount of voter fraud that undoubtedly occurred in some of these races, the real margin of Republican victory was likely even larger than reported.

The Left's 'war on women' tactic largely fizzled out, and some of the candidates that attempted it, like Wendy Davis in Texas and Colorado's Mark Udall (mocked as 'Mark Uterus' in the normally Democrat-friendly Denver Post)went down to defeat. While Republicans carried the majority of married women, the Democrats still led when it came to unmarried women but nowhere near what they previously managed to get. Overall, according to the exit polls Democrats managed to take the vote among woman by a mere 5%, 52% versus 47% for Republicans, while the GOP won male voters by 56% to 42%.

The Latino turnout was nowhere near what the Democrats needed, and while blacks turned out in places like Georgia and North Carolina, the numbers there were insufficient to win in those states as well as nationally.

These trends indicate something just as the professional Left's reaction - and the president's - to last night tells us what to expect in the next two years.

In looking at how the Left responded, there are several things they mostly had in common.All of them talked about the midterm electorate being whiter and older than a normal presidential election and about what a 'tough map' it was for Democrats. Few if any of them mentioned the fact that this was a referendum on President Obama and his policies, as the president himself stated frequently in his efforts to gin up turn out.

Supposing that this "young non-white electorate" these people are talking about favors Democrats or simply favored Obama in the past is a rather interesting question when you consider that the likely Democrat nominee in 2016 will be the really old white lady who they rejected in 2008.

Anyone who's actually being honest knows that President Obama won the majority of the black vote and continues to enjoy their support (at least on paper) based to a significant extent on racial grounds. The president and the Democrats spent considerable effort wooing this group by telling them that President Obama was indeed on the ballot and that he was in danger of being impeached if they didn't turn out en masse. Posters featuring a lynching that took place in the 1920's and telling black voters that if they didn't turn out those days would be returning were circulated throughout the South. The fact they mostly didn't is a sign that perhaps enough of them actually took a look at this president's policies and the way they have disproportionally hurt black America to have some second thoughts.

The same is true of women in general, even unmarried women. Married women are generally women with families, and among their primary concerns is security at home and opportunities for themselves and their children. To a lesser extent the same is true of unmarried woman, many whom know that the fairy tales about Republicans wanting to ban contraception are nonsense. What both groups see for themselves is this president's failure to deal with threats abroad or even potential epidemics as well as the increased cost of living and their own reduced economic opportunities.The old story about this being 'Bush's fault' is simply past its sell by date, and it smells worse the longer it continues to be thrown out there.

This is going to affect the 'Democrat coalition', especially as out of the record 100 women in the new congress, the majority are Republicans. The new face of American women might very well be reflected by Iowa Senator Joni Ernst and Mia love, the new GOP congresswoman from Utah.



And speaking of which, the other thing the exit polls don't quite explain is the historic level of Republican seats in the house. The GOP at the grass roots level in the congressional districts is now stronger than it has been at any point going back all the way to the 1920s.

Avoid it however they wish, the Left can't avoid the fact that this election was a referendum on Barack Obama's dysfunctional presidency.Yes, denial, with a healthy helping of sour grapes.

Not even the president can avoid this reality, although he continues to do so.

The president, in a fit of temper refused to send the usual congratulatory messages to GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and instead gave a desultory press conference today. Here's what he said:

"On Friday, I look forward to hosting the entire Republican and Democratic leadership at the White House to chart a new course forward. Obviously, Republicans had a good night, and they deserve credit for running good campaigns. Beyond that I'll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through the results.

What stands out to me though, is the American people sent a message, one they've sent for several elections now. They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment. Still, as president, I have a unique responsibility to make this town work.

To everyone that voted, I want you to know that I heard you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too. All of us have to give more Americans a reason to feel like the ground is stable beneath their feet, that the future is secure, there's a path for young people to succeed, and folks in Washington are concerned about them. So I plan on spending every moment of the next two plus years doing the my job the best I can to keep this country safe and make sure more Americans share in its prosperity. "

OK, the actual turnout in the midterms is estimated to be in the mid 40's rather than one third, but what's one more fairy tale from this president? What the actual message the president sent was that the GOP wave - a 'good night' as he phrased it - had nothing to do with him or his policies, but was simply because people are dissatisfied with things 'not getting done'. Which of course is solely due to GOP obstructionism!

Just compare this to what Speaker John Boehner had to say, that he was "humbled by the responsibility the American people have placed with us."

"But this is not a time for celebration," he said. "It's time for government to start getting results and implementing solutions to the challenges facing our country, starting with our still-struggling economy."

For all the president's talk about 'working together', it's pretty obvious this president has no intention of doing so. For instance, he has already signaled that he's going ahead with amnesty for illegal aliens by executive order during the lame duck session as well as pushing through whatever appointments he can..such as a new, radical attorney general like Thomas Perez.

A real leader, of course would abstain from such tactics, obey the will of the people and try to work out an acceptable compromise with the new congress. That's not what we're dealing with here.

Columnist Peggy Noonan, hardly a right wing Republican, had a column in the Wall Street Journal this week that examined how past presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton dealt with this situation

She referred to their responses as "the sound of political graciousness" and said "it would be nice to hear it from Mr. Obama on Wednesday." Needless to say, we didn't nor will we. Instead, the president will go ahead with actions sure to infuriate the incoming congress and torpedo any ideas they have about working with him before they even take their seats.

Another thing a lot of the professional Left had in common in their responses was a call for the president to use his veto and for the Democrats to use the filibuster to stop the new GOP majorities from using their new clout to accomplish anything. The strategy is obvious...to keep things in gridlock which they will later attempt to blame on Republicans in 2016.

The Republicans need to remember that what happened last night wasn't so much an endorsement of the GOP as a realization that the democrats have failed to govern, that the country is very much on the wrong track and that this is a last chance to get it right.

They were, after all, elected to stop President Obama's agenda and reverse it.

Harry Reid effectively eliminated the use of the filibuster and changed the rules of the senate to please himself. He exercised total contempt for the GOP minority and Republicans were actually locked out of the room when it came to drawing up major legislation like the bogus Stimulus and ObamaCare, something unprecedented in American history. The Republicans should utilize Reid's 'innovations' as a guide and do the same. And a good place to start would be to explain to the American people that they are bringing to a vote over 200 pieces of legislation passed by the House that Senator Reid exercised a one man veto over and kept from ever even coming to the floor.

They are there to govern, and if they fail to demonstrate their ability to do so, the door swings both ways. Here's hoping they take that to heart and proceed to act on it.

Executive Orders Are Redistributing American Wealth

 

By Laura Rambeau Lee

It began with a guest appearance by then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa P. Jackson on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart back in April of 2010. During their discussion she stated that they were waiting for the price of carbon to be established so that we could meet our commitments to the country and the entire world.  What?  What exactly are our commitments to the country and the entire world?  Some research and digging into this seemingly innocuous statement led to some pretty interesting albeit disturbing discoveries.

 

On June 14, 1992 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)  was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  At this conference, referred to as the Rio Earth Summit, the participants crafted a blueprint for the world, commonly known as Agenda 21.  In its preamble, Agenda 21, Chapter 1 states:

“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.  However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.” 

In other words, the goal of the United Nations is social and economic justice through a redistribution of wealth scheme using the threat of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming or climate change to implement the market based solution of carbon emissions trading.  The International Monetary Fund  proposed a plan for a Green Fund to achieve this goal.

Following the Earth Summit President George H. W. Bush declared: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” – signed by G.H. Bush, 1992

Despite pressure from the United Nations partners, U.S. delegates did not sign on to the convention.

On June 29, 1993 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12852 establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development as a result of the Rio Earth Summit in an effort to cooperate and implement the goals of Agenda 21.  Our obligations to the world through a treaty never ratified by our Senate are being implemented through presidential executive orders.

During George W. Bush’s two terms as President he continued to further the goals of this United Nations agenda, following his father’s lead and continuing the work of President Clinton.

Why is all of this important?  This ties in directly with the push for cap and trade legislation that has been floating around the House and Senate for many years.  When Congress failed to pass a bill, on May 14, 2010 the E.P.A. unveiled their rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the largest industrial facilities, with a phased in approach that began on January 1, 2011.  As a result we are hearing about the many coal plants that are being forced to shut down in the next few years because they cannot meet these emissions reduction numbers, and it will be too expensive to retrofit their plants.  President Obama announced new CAFÉ standards for automobiles that will require them to achieve 36.5 miles to the gallon by 2016 and 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025.  The talking points are that this will help us achieve energy security and reduce our use of foreign oil.  But the truth is that the United States has committed to the United Nations and its partners to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and these CAFÉ standards will have to be met in order to achieve this goal. The taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, along with other implemented market based solutions, are being funneled through the United Nations to other U.N. member countries.

When cap and trade legislation failed to pass, then Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said: "The Obama administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won't legislate, the EPA will regulate.  Those who have spent years stalling need to understand: killing a Senate bill is no longer success.  And if Congress won't legislate a solution the EPA will regulate one, and it will come without the help to America's business and consumers contained in the American Power Act."   Senator Kerry replaced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Obama Administration, both tasked with the responsibility of redistributing the wealth of the American people to other developing United Nations member countries through USAID.

 

Americans must realize how much of our tax money is being sent overseas to meet our commitments to the global community under a treaty never ratified by this country but implemented through presidential executive orders and cabinet departments like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the State Department.  

At the 2009 Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15), U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged that developed countries would mobilize $100 billion by 2020 from both public and private sources for climate mitigation and adaptation in the developing world.  And you can bet that the bulk of that money will come from the hard earned labor and borrowed future earnings of middle class Americans.

 

Click to see the video of The Daily Show's interview of Lisa P. Jackson

 crossposted at Right Reason                                                                                              

Obama's De facto Amnesty Is Going to Bankrupt State Governments

One thing very few people are mentioning in the debate over President Obama's de facto amnesty is the effect it's going to have on the states and their budgets, where the 'unaccompanied children' are being dumped, almost always without the state's consent any many times even without their knowledge.

Today, President Obama's Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan sent out a nationwide fact sheet reminding the various school districts of what was referred to as their 'statutory responsibility' to educate these children, regardless of whether they're here legally or not.

As the fact sheet said, all children in the United States “are entitled to equal access to a public elementary and secondary education, regardless of their or their parents’ actual or perceived national origin, citizenship, or immigration status.”

This follows a letter sent May 8th by the Department of Education and he civil rights division of the Department of Justice warning districts to avoid any practices that could be perceived to “chill or discourage” children from signing up for school due to their immigration status.

“These practices contravene Federal law,” the letter stated.

It also pointed out that requiring children provide Social Security numbers or race and ethnicity data when enrolling must be voluntary, and that the age of the children could be proven using foreign records. Not only that, but the schools must be satisfied with the often superficial health checks the children are getting.

But aside from that, the financial burden of just the schooling of these children is going to cause huge deficits in state budgets and involve major cost cutting for the school districts that will directly effect the quality of education for the children already legally enrolled.

For instance, California has taken in to date 3,909 illegal migrant children so far whom were sent there by the Feds. Right now, California spends about $10,500 per pupil in K-12. And that was after huge cuts that have the teacher's unions screaming. In order to accommodate this new influx, the state is going to have to come up with a whopping $41 million plus from somewhere. That will involve a choice of raising taxes again in what is already one the highest taxed states in the country or making even more cuts in the educational services provided. Social services to illegal migrants already cost the state well over $20 billion per year without figuring this new amount in.Texas already spends $12.1 billion per year on illegal aliens.

 

In New Jersey, where approximately 1,500 or so illegal migrants were dropped by the feds, the Garden State, which has severe budget problems and sky high taxes already will be forced to come up with over $24 million somehow in either new taxes or budget cuts elsewhere.

Another consideration is what this is going to do to the actual quality of education. Few of these children aren't even literate in Spanish, let alone English. And the kids who are citizens or legal migrants, who are literate, whose parents are paying for all this? Well, they'll just have to wait for the others to catch up. And if their education suffers, that's unfortunate but you know,

There was a story on Drudge last week from the AP celebrating the fact that white children are now a minority in the public schools. Actually a little research shows that the numbers cut across ethnic lines and have a lot more to do with economics than race. It's not just whites but  Asians, Latinos, and anyone else who can manage to  afford it are taking their children out of dysfunctional public schools and going to private schools or doing homeschooling,  simply to try and give their kids a shot at a decent education.

This is almost definitely going to be an ongoing situation since President Obama obviously intends that most if not all of the current deluge of illegal migrants as well as those whom come after them and most of those already here  are going to stay. The word in DC is that the president plans to announce amnesty  by executive order around the Labor Day weekend, the end of the summer. It's up to the American people whether they want to go along with that agenda.

When Will Barack Obama Say Something About The Genocide Of Christians?

 


The lives of Christians in the Middle East are becoming a horror story, at least everywhere but in Israel.

In Syria, the Christians have been almost entirely driven out. Murders, rapes, kidnappings and forced conversions abound. Some have fled to Jordan, others to Lebanon where they have taken refuge with what's left of the local Maronite population.

 

“We are facing real genocide, but all the world has been silent, especially what we call the ‘First World,’” said Syriac Catholic Bishop Barnaba Yousif Habash, based in New Jersey, who has written President Barack Obama and visited both the State Department and Capitol Hill, pleading for U.S. action.

Now, Bishop Habash said during an Aug. 5 interview with the Register, “I don’t trust anyone in the American administration. I don’t have any expectations that they will help.”

Syria's Christians have been mainly targeted by Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS) as well as the other Sunni factions. The Christians are being murdered using arms from Libya or from Qatar via Turkey that Islamic State and the other rebels got courtesy of the Obama Administration. President Obama has been supplying arms and training to ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliates covertly for quite some time now, while lying about it numerous times publicly and without bothering to clear it with congress

In Iraq, the news is even worse.Over 1500 civilians were slaughtered yesterday by Islamic State. Qaraqosh, the largest Christian town in northern Iraq’s Nineveh province was attacked by Islamic State, and all of its 60,000 residents who could manage to get away fled to Erbil in Kurdistan.

 

The Kurdish Persh Merga had managed to hold out against IS so far and literally begged the Obama Administration for arms to defend themselves. The response was that Washington was 'considering it' but they got no arms or aid because of President Obama's relationship with Turkey's Erdoğan and because the Obama Administration was concerned about upsetting the Maliki government in Iraq.

To add insult to injury, a $100 million cargo of Kurdish oil in a tanker off the Texas coast that would have provided the money to the Kurds to buy arms was ordered seized by U.S authorities which honored a demand from the Baghdad government who claimed the oil belonged to them. The Obama Administration supported this on the grounds that helping the Kurds might result in a break up of Iraq.

According to one of my sources Israel, who has a long standing relationship with the Kurds and supports an independent Kurdistan would be willing to help, but have no way to get any arms to the landlocked country. They helped arm and train the Persh Merga during the No Fly Zone era, but that was when Turkey had a very different relationship with Israel and could be used as a transit point. That's no longer possible.

 

The latest I hear is that Islamic State managed to push the Persh Merga back with the aid of all those gently used U.S. weapons the Iraqi Army dropped when it ran away and are advancing on Erbil,the capitol.Islamic State considers the Kurds 'apostates' because of their moderate Sunni beliefs but more importantly, this gives IS easy access between Iraq's second city of Mosul, which they overran on June 10, and the Syrian border. Even more importantly, IS gained control of Mosul Dam, Iraq's largest and the Ain Zalah oil field.Control of the dam would allow Islamic State to flood major cities or cut off significant water supplies and electricity.

Even worse is what is happening to the Yazidis, an ancient people whose religion mixes elements of Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. IS considers them devil worshipers and infidels. The largest community of them lived in Ninevah and when that was overrun by IS about 200,000 Yazidis and some Christians fled for Erbil, but about 40,000 people are now trapped on Mount Sinjar and surrounded by th Islamic State.The Washington Post today is quoting a UNICEF spokesperson as saying “There are children dying on the mountain, on the roads. There is no water, there is no vegetation, they are completely cut off and surrounded by Islamic State. It’s a disaster, a total disaster.”

 

The ones who were captured by Islamic State in Sinjar, Tal Affar and Zummar are even worse off. Here is a description from a report by Christiana Patto of the Assyrian Aid Society of Iraq:

Yesterday 45 children died of thirst. Some families throw their children from the top of Sinjar mountain in order not to see them die from hunger or thirst, or not to be taken by the terrorists. 1500 men were killed in front of their wives and families, 50 old men died also from thirst and illness. More than 70 girl and women including Christians were taken, raped and being captured and sold. More than 100 families are captured in Tel afar airport. There is about 50 Christian families in Sinjar. The terrorists were able to control the Syriac church there and cover the Cross with their black banner. Till now we do not know anything about those Christian families.

Others are apparently being help as prisoners and human shields by IS in Tel Afar.

And President Obama? Silence, although our UN Ambassador did make a statement:

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) recent attacks on Sinjar and Tal Afar in Ninewa province that have reportedly led to the displacement of tens of thousands of people, many from vulnerable minority communities, deepening Iraq’s already acute humanitarian crisis. ISIL’s reported abuse, kidnapping, torture and executions of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities and its systematic destruction of religious and cultural sites are appalling.

The United States supports the Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga Forces working to defend these areas against ISIL. We urge all parties to the conflict to allow safe access to the United Nations and its partners so they can deliver lifesaving humanitarian assistance, including to those Iraqi families reportedly encircled by ISIL on Mount Sinjar. The United States is committed to helping the people of Iraq as they confront the security and humanitarian challenges in their fight against ISIL. Iraq’s leaders must move swiftly to form a new, fully inclusive government that takes into account the rights, aspirations and legitimate concerns of all of Iraq’s communities. All Iraqis must come together to ensure that Iraq gets back on the path to a peaceful future and to prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity.

Just compare this language with some of the rhetoric the president and the ObamaState department have used to describe Israel defending itsaelf.

The Iraqi Army that cost $25 billion of your tax dollars to create is doing nothing, people are fleeing Erbil ahead of the Islamic State's US equipped armies and the Obama regime is still backing the corrupt and inept Maliki government! No arms for the Kurds and no US military support to stop the jihad of Islamic State. The answer is to wait for Maliki to form that magical 'new and inclusive government.'

 Maliki whose been essentially a 'caretaker'  since a fraudulent and inconclusive election in April has continued to defy any notion of doing anything like that and the Obama regime continues to support him for some reason, while Islamic State just gets stronger. So, stalemate.

Just compare this with the Obama team's quick action,pledges of vast amounts of money and support and florid language and outrageous demands on behalf of Hamas. Or the president's unilateral war on behalf of jihadis in Benghazi, Libya.

None of this, by the way came out of nowhere. President Obama and his team were fully aware of what was likely to happen. They just had other concerns,like partisan politics, fundraising and flooding America with illegal aliens:

Three weeks ago, a group of leaders from the opposition Free Syrian Army warned U.S. officials that a strategic city along the Iraqi border was about to fall to ISIS. It was the latest in a long series of increasingly anxious cries for help. The rebels never heard back from the Americans.

Five days ago, the predictions came true. Free Syrian Army units in the city of Der al Zour handed over their territory to the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, following weeks of desperate requests for help to international officials, including a direct appeal in a private meeting with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

“[The U.S. officials] showed an understanding of the situation but there was no movement at all,” the commander of the FSA battalion near Der al Zour told The Daily Beast in an interview. “There’s no clear American position in that part of Syria. We told the Americans we are going to fight ISIS and ISIS is close to us, but they did nothing.” [...]

For several weeks prior, FSA leaders had tried to sound the alarm. If Der al Zour fell to ISIS, the extremist group would have control of the transportation routes from their stronghold in Raqqa, Syria to their new territories in northern Iraq. The area is also rich in oil and gas resources and was the last FSA stronghold along the rapidly disappearing Iraq-Syria border.

About six weeks ago, a group of representatives of the FSA and the Syrian Opposition Coalition went to Jordan, and met with the international committee coordinating aid to the FSA based there. They presented a detailed urgent request for money, food, and weapons to be sent to the FSA in and around Der al Zour. Three weeks ago, just days after Mosul fell to ISIS, a group of FSA and SOC officials met with Power in Turkey and briefed her about the impending disaster on the Syrian side of the border. But after the meeting: nothing.

Again, the FSA are not exactly free of Islamists themselves, but the point is that the president and his team knew all about what was going on, and did nothing about it. They still haven't.

President Obama makes a very big deal about being a Christian. So do his followers. But whether it's Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Syria or Darfur, President Obama has done nothing concrete to stop the jihad against Christians by Muslims.

In fact, if you actually look at his foreign policy, he appears to be aiding and abetting it.

The hard question, the one no one seems to want to ask is why.

Obama Betrays Israel In A Last Ditch Effort To Save Hamas

President Barack Obama took some time off the golf course to call Israeli PM Netanyahu and demand an immediate, unconditional ceasefire in Gaza.In a statement the White House put it this way:

“The President made clear the strategic imperative of instituting an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement. The President reaffirmed the United States’ support for Egypt’s initiative, as well as regional and international coordination to end hostilities.”

Horse manure.

What happened is this; Secretary Kerry had originally told the Israelis that any ceasefire would ultimately entail Hamas disarming, but that for now what he was looking for was to implement the Egyptian proposal, which called for a ceasefire but allowed the IDF to stay in position and refused to recognize any of Hamas' demands, which involved an IDF withdrawal and the opening of the Israeli-Egyptian blockade, put in place to stop Hamas from obtaining heavy weapons from Iran.

Then Kerry tried to bypass the Egyptians and instead came up with a brand new proposal using Muslim Brotherhood friendly Qatar, who funds Hamas, and the anti-Semitic Islamist government of Turkey as intermediaries.The trio met in Paris, a city where John Kerry has had experience orchestrating betrayal before.



That new proposal was very different from what Kerry had told the Israelis only a day or two earlier. As one of my notorious Lil' Birdies told me directly, it recognized Hamas’ position as the ruler of the Gaza Strip, promised Hamas millions in aid and 'reconstruction' money ($47 million from the Obama Administration and $48 million from Qatar alone) and made no demands on Hamas as far as any demilitarization. Their rockets, tunnels and other weaponry would be allowed to remain in place. The IDF would have to withdraw, and the Rafah crossings and the Israeli Egyptian blockade would be lifted. Even worse, the wording of the proposal put Israel and Hamas on the same level, with no difference between the two.

This ridiculous proposal was unanimously rejected by Israel's security cabinet, even the most dovish members. They were literally shocked by this duplicity.

This was on Friday. The call from Barack Hussein Obama to Binyamin Netanyahu came today.

In his call to Netanyahu, Obama spoke of the need to enact “a sustainable ceasefire that both allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives and addresses Gaza’s long-term development and economic needs, while strengthening the Palestinian Authority.” He said that, ultimately, “any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must ensure the disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarization of Gaza.”

So in other words, Hamas is to be rewarded, even though they were the aggressors, even though they are a terrorist group, even after the entire world has seen where that money goes. And the 'Palestinian Authority' which Hamas is now part of? That has to strengthened. Maybe, with some Obama funded 'strengthening,' Hamas and their Fatah partners might have better luck next time attacking Israel and killing Jews...

The story the White House is putting out now, of course, is that the leaked proposal was 'just a draft', accompanied by the usual verbiage by this president of his commitment to Israel's security. Virtually no one in Israel believes that now.

Among other things, both Hamas leader Khalid Masha'al and Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh have already said that demilitarization will not happen, and both the president and John Kerry knew it. That why the so called 'draft' made no mention of it.In fact Hamas has already used a nice chunk of its 'humanitarian aid' money to purchase replacements for its missile arsenal from North Korea, which are en route.That's somethin else the president and our Secretary of State had to be aware of too.



Even worse, Obama is trying to hold the safety of Israel's population hostage. The Iron Dome missile defense system has been key to limiting Israeli civilian casualties.It was developed by Israel's Rafael, but as part of the quid pro quo for doing some of the funding as a joint weapons project, the U.S. demanded that while the system itself could be produced by Israel, the missiles themselves would be produced in America, and those are made by Raytheon.

At this point, Israel has used up a significant part of its stocks and had asked America for a resupply. Congress almost unanimously authorized the funds. But then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a heartless and nasty maneuver that had to come straight from the White House attached it to the $3.7 billion the president wants to fund amnesty for illegal aliens. The Senate Republicans as I write this are attempting to write up a separate bill to bring to the floor, but it's not certain Harry Reid will even allow it to come to a vote in the event the legislation gets out of committee. And then, even if it passes, it has to go back to the House and be signed by the president, all of which could take a very long time, especially with the president's 18 day luxury vacay at Martha's Vineyard coming up.

I obviously didn't hear the phone call between Netanyahu and Obama, but I would bet my dollar to you dime the subject came up, and that it was made plain to Netanyahu that unless he accedes to Kerry and Obama's demands and enables Hamas to rebuild, Israel might not get those Iron Dome missiles for awhile.

And of course, there's almost certainly another motivation for President Obama here. The biggest beneficiary of the current turmoil in Gaza is none other than Iran,because it takes the eyes of the world off the West's craven caving in on the July 2oth deadline to resolve Iran's rogue nuclear weapons program. Not only did the Iranians get another four months of 'negotiations' while the centrifuges spin, they got appeased for their trouble with a badly needed $2.5 billion bribe in the bargain.

President Obama realizes that like the Saudis, Egypt and the Emirates, Israel was appalled by this appeasement. And he knows that Netanyahu has his eye very much on that situation.In the president's view, it probably works much better for him if Israel still has to deal with a military threat to the south as well as from Iran's proxy Hezbollah in the north rather than to see Hamas defeated and Israel perhaps free to think about doing something about the Iranian threat itself.

So Netanyahu is in a difficult position. If Israel pulls out of Gaza without defeating Hamas and making sure they're no longer a threat, not only does he anger the IDF, the Egyptians and the Saudis, who want Hamas gone, but the Israeli people and his own, now united cabinet. There's a no question his government would fall, and it would deserve to. On the other hand, if he refuses, Israel's civilian population is endangered.

I realize how easy it is for me to say this, but if it were my decision not only would I refuse, but I would tell President Obama plainly that if Israel was unable to get replacements for the Iron Dome, I would simply be forced to give the Israeli air force carte blanche to do whatever was necessary to take out the missile launching sites, no matter how many civilian casualties it cost. After all, how many civilians has President Obama killed with his drone strikes? How many Serb civilians did America bomb in Kosovo? And no matter what, whether President Obama blinked or didn't I would immediately put Rafael to work re-engineering the Iron Dome missiles so they can be produced in Israel. Because if Israel gives in to this threat, it will be used again and again by this president.

Let's make no mistake here. The Obama Administration is aiding and abetting a genocidal terrorist group, and funding the rebuilding of their weapons arsenal and their terrorist infrastructure. John Kerry, UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and President Obama have become the “Save Hamas Squad,” and that's exactly how they're being referred to in Israel and elsewhere in the region.The relationship between the U.S. and Israel, or for that matter between the Saudis, Egypt and the Emirates has never been worse or more disaffected.

As for Israel, at a time when they most needed an ally, they have been given instead a spiteful betrayal. And it isn't just Israel.

No matter how this ends up, American Jews who voted for Obama are going to have to think about this: that the government and this president they voted for is now using their tax dollars to support and empower a genocidal terrorist group that would happily murder them.