Sunday, May 26, 2013

Rand Paul: Senate Is Arming Al-Qaeda And Voting To Enter The War in Syria

 http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lya58ja6sl1qzu6nxo1_500.jpg

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted to send a bill to the floor for a vote that authorizes “critical support to the Syrian opposition through provision of military assistance, training, and additional humanitarian support.”

The bill's official title is the Syria Transition Support Act, and its  two co-authors were Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN). Aside from providing weaponry and armaments, the bill includes:


• “Creation of a $250 million transition fund each year through FY2015 drawn from funds otherwise appropriated for regional transition support”;

• “Sanctions on arms and oil sales to Assad: Targeting any person that the President of the United States determines has knowingly participated in or facilitated a transaction related to the sale or transfer of military equipment, arms, petroleum, or petroleum products to the Assad regime.”; and

• “Amendment to the Syria Accountability Act: To allow for sanctions removal once a transitional government is in place and certain terrorism and WMD criteria have been met.”

That last one is important, and we'll return to it later.

The bill easily got through committee  15-3, and the only Senator to offer meaningful opposition was Senator Rand Paul ( R-KY).

“This is an important moment. You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda,” Paul said.

 He's 100% correct.

The biggest and most prominent armed factions in the Syrian resistance are outright al-Qaeda affiliates like   Jabhat al-Nusra and the Syrian Free Army, which is a mixture of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda dominated factions. Even the new 'official' Syrian resistance groups President Obama formed as a figleaf,  the Syrian Opposition Coalition,(SOC)and the associated Joint Military Council are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.The leader of the SOC is one Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus,  a religious cleric closely allied to the Damascus branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and fairly hardline and radical himself.

Senator Paul tried to tack two amendments on to the bill, one that would have forbidden the transfer of weapons to the radical Islamists of the rebel forces and another that would have prevented the use of U.S. military armed forces in Syria.

Both were voted down.

There were the usual pro-forma remarks from Paul's colleagues about 'oversight' and transparency' but in the end, there's nothing to stop the Syrian rebels from simply telling us what we want to hear to get weapons and our money, and then turning those guns on whomever they wish...including us. The Qu'ran tells Muslims explicitly that any promise made to kuffars (non-Muslims), any treaty or agreement is null and void whenever it's convenient.

Anyone taken a look at what's happening in Afghanistan lately?

Just for the record, (not that it matters), the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted after 9/11 specifically called for finding and destroying al-Qaeda..and here we are a few years later voting to supply arms to them!

What this is setting the stage for is a formalization of President's Obama's desire to put Islamists in charge of yet another Muslim country.

What happened in Benghazi was a failed Fast and Furious style covert attempt to purchase and send weapons from Khaddaffi's arsenals to the Syrian rebels. That failed, so now we're going to be doing it openly.

I would not be at all surprised to see U.S. boots on the ground in Syria in the next few months if Assad continues to hold out. That could have been what's behind the deployment of those 1,800 Marines off the USS Kearsarge who landed at the Israeli port of Eilat nine days ago and are now stationed on Jordan's Syrian border.

Americans traditionally rally behind a sitting president when there's a foreign intervention or crisis, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a U.S. intervention in Syria wasn't timed to head off the fallout from the massive scandals the Obama regime finds itself entangled in of late.

This is a major strategic error on steroids.

Copycat Jihad - French Soldier Stabbed In Paris

A French soldier who was patrolling in uniform with two other soldiers as part of France's Vigipirate anti-terror surveillance unit was stabbed in the neck from behind in the Hauts-de-Seine suburb of Paris.Th ejoint police and army patrol was a security precaution ordered by the French Government after France's intervention in th ejihad invasion of Mali.

The soldier, Cedric Cordier, was in a busy underground train station when he was attacked from behind and stabbed in the throat.

According to CCTV surveillance footage, the suspect is tall and bearded, aged about 35, possibly of North African origin and wearing a white Arab-style tunic.

French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told a CNN affiliate that the attacker deliberately targeted the soldier and wanted "to kill a soldier who is in charge of French security."

Several French officials noted the similarity between the Woolwich murder in Britain and the attack on a uniformed soldier in France. Both Woolwich and Hauts-de-Seine are relatively quiet neighborhoods, with Hauts-de-Seine being mostly a commercial district, although both abut restive Muslim neighborhoods and both attacks appear to be deliberately aimed at the military.

The soldier was badly injured but is expected to survive,

Memorial Day: An Honest Man Versus A Liar



This Memorial Day, I had a few requests to rerun a piece I did last year..and since I still think it's quite relevant in view of some recent remarks and actions by President Obama and a number of others, here it is:

A big story over the Memorial Day weekend concerned one Chris Hayes, a commentator over at MSNBC who celebrated Memorial Day by announcing how uncomfortable he was with referring to our fallen warriors as heroes.



CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that'll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke, who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, [Steve] Beck, sorry, um, I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

This sounds like the sort of double talking faux intellectual rap nerdy poli sci majors use to try and get credulous freshman girls out of their panties at an Obama after party once a few joints have made the rounds.

Nevertheless, I have to give Mr. Hayes credit.

The fact is, most self-styled progressives hate and despise the military. Oh, they'll pay lip service to 'supporting the troops' because, you know, it sounds patriotic and provides them a fig leaf, but the attitude is fairly obvious. To people like Chris Hayes, the people that go into the military are suckers and dupes, and more than one of his comrades on the left have shown that this is exactly how they see it...especially when they think no one's listening too closely.



Hayes, one of the editors of the far Left-wing fringe magazine The Nation was simply being honest, and I commend him for that.

Far less commendable were his efforts to walk things back once he came under fire from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and blogs on the right side of the fence. But then, the species is not noted for its courage.

Even more interesting were the attempts to defend Chris Hayes remarks from the left, most of them again using the usual sophistry to question whether the term 'heroes' is appropriate.

Let's examine something.

At the present time, we have a volunteer military. What that means is that some young men in our society made a choice to restrict their own freedom and risk their lives to defend the rest of us..including the Chris Hayes's of the country. Whether they actually see combat or not, there's a degree of selflessness and honor in doing so that can only be characterized as heroic. And there's always the chance, even in peace time or behind the lines that things can go horribly wrong.

The Left, for instance, has always had a good chuckle over President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service. What never seems to get mentioned is that two airmen in his unit died in training accidents during his service. The risks are always inherent.

People like Chris Hayes don't understand this because increasingly, there's a social and even a regional divide on those whom serve and those whom don't. Because of that, many people who think like Chris Hayes not only have never served in the military themselves, they frequently don't know anyone who has. To them, it seems like anyone who would volunteer for the military is someone beneath them socially and intellectually,someone who had no other option. Especially for patriotic motives, which they also think of as borderline neanderthal. I mean, why would someone risk his life at minimal pay for such a deeply flawed country like America if they were, you know, smart?

That brings up an interesting point. I wonder if Mr. Hayes and his friends on the left have ever considered what it might be like if the military, law enforcement, the whole security apparatus started thinking like they do and looking out for number one?

We actually have an example of what that's like, and it's fairly close at hand.

Just south of our borders, there's a war going on between various drug cartels over control of the drug traffic and Mexico's organized crime industry. The two main players are the old line Sinaloa Cartel and a new, upstart cartel known as the Zetas. Guess where the Zetas came from?

They were originally part of an elite U.S.-trained military force designed to combat and defeat the drug cartels. And at some point, they took a good look at what and whom they were defending for $100 per month, got smart and went into the cartel business for themselves. A large chunk of Mexico's army and police have made the same sort of decision, either by actively getting involved with one of the cartels or passively by taking a payoff to look the other way.

Towards the end of the Western Empire, Rome's legions did exactly the same thing, selling themselves to the highest bidder and even sacking a city here and there. So did the notorious 'Free Companies' in the 14th century during the slack periods of ceasefire during the Hundred Year's War.

That's what happens when patriotism, loyalty and honor are no longer a motive and people with arms who know how to use them 'get smart', look out for number one and start pillaging the elites that used to despise them. And that's something Chris Hayes and his comrades on the Left ought to spend some time thinking about the next time they're tempted to open their mouths in this fashion.

Speaking of which, having dealt with the honest man, let's deal with someone of an entire different sort.

President Barack Obama (aside from apparently confusing Memorial Day and Veteran's Day) had a number of flowery things to say to mark the occasion. Here's a sample:


We’re calling on all Americans to join us in honoring and supporting our extraordinary Vietnam veterans who are among the more than three million Americans who served in that war. There are so many ways to show our appreciation to these veterans and their families, and many of them are available at www.vietnamwar50th.com.

As this anniversary proceeds we will also continue working to ensure that our Vietnam Veterans– and all veterans – receive the services, respect, and support they have earned. Our efforts on behalf of Vietnam veterans are part of our larger effort to make sure our nation is serving all our veterans as well as they served us. And because no veteran who fights for our nation overseas should have to fight for a job when they come home, this country has made it a priority for businesses to hire veterans and provided resources that make it easier for veterans to find a job.

Supporting and honoring our veterans and their families can’t be the work of government and our businesses alone. That’s why the First Lady and the Vice President’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden, are leading a national effort, Joining Forces, to mobilize Americans in supporting today’s military families and veterans. Only about one percent of Americans may wear the uniform, but 100 percent of Americans need to be supporting those who do.


Let's take a look at how President Obama has 'supported those who serve', to use his phrase.

Our commander-in-chief showed his support for our military and their families at the beginning of his term by attempting to charge our wounded warriors for the medical care they were receiving for free via the VA, making them take out their own private insurance...this while the president, congress, various apparatchniks and their families get the best medical care available at no charge. He only backed off after the national commanders of veteran's groups like the American Legion and the VFW threatened to make the mother of all stinks over the matter.

President Obama recently doubled down on this 'respect' by slashing VA benefits in his new military budget, specifically from a program many vets depend on called TriCare as part of his crusade to hollow out our military.

Not only that, but the president's remarks on veteran's fighting for jobs must ring maddeningly hollow to career military who have literally been thrown out of the service without the full pensions they were just short of earning, again because of the cuts President Obama mandated.

Then, of course, there were the ongoing efforts by the Obama Department of Justice to disenfranchise military votes overseas during the 2010 midterms.

Not to say that President Obama doesn't find our military useful at times. Aside from taking credit for Admiral McRaven's planning and decisions on the bin-Laden raid, you might remember this president's use of dead military bodies being flown back to American soil as a political photo-op in defiance of Department of Defense regulations,the wishes of the families and simple common decency.

Small wonder that after this kind of 'support' from President Obama, very few veterans are going to vote for him, and we can almost certainly expect another effort by the Department of Justice to disenfranchise as much of our active duty military vote as possible in the coming November election.

You see, when it comes down to it, President Obama has exactly the same attitude towards our military that Chris Hayes does. The difference is that Chris Hayes, just for a minute, decided to be honest about it.

Without question, I prefer the honest man, no matter how flawed and misguided his reasoning.Such men can be worked with, at least on some level. The liar is only fit to be cast bodily out of the Temple.


-selah-

Friday, May 24, 2013

AG Holder Perjures Himself Under Oath On Press Surveillance Scandal



Here's a smoking gun for you. Attorney General Holder is speaking to Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia of the oversight committee about the AP scandal...and at 5:00 Holder says clearly, under oath that he never had anything to do with signing off on spying on the press:

"In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy."

Today, it came out that it was Eric Holder who personally signed off on the warrant to spy on FOX News senior correspondent James Rosen...and who knows how many others.

Not only that, but it was Holder's decision to keep the warrants secret for years.

Can you say 'fishing expedition'? Can you say clear violation of the First Amendment?

Sure you can.

And who was the DOJ attorney who filed in district court to keep the illegal surveillance ongoing and secret for years even though they hadn't found anything? That would be U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen - the same attorney who was charged with deciding whether to pursue the House’s contempt citation against his boss, Eric Holder, over Fast and Furious.And - what a coincidence - he just happens to be leading the FBI investigation into the leak that involved the DOJ subpoenaing AP reporters’ phone records.

And who appointed him to that position? None other than James Cole, Holder's deputy, who took over after Holder recused himself.

Even more disgusting, President Obama acted socked, just shocked about all this and proclaimed yesterday in that faux sincere baritone of his that he had  ordered the Attorney General to review the DOJ’s guidelines for spying on reporters.

In other words, Eric Holder will be in charge of investigating what Eric Holder did. And in the areas where he recused himself , he has a couple of loyal, dependable  soldiers to take care of things.

Yet the fact remains that Holder committing perjury and likely obstruction of justice, and that particular cat is now out of the bag.


The Latest LATMA - Cutting Edge Israeli Satire



This week: Muhammad al-Dura lives and other PR victories.

The Jihad Comes To Sweden

Stockholm riots Sweden

For the past five days and nights, the city of Stockholm's Muslim neighborhoods have been the site of wide spread arson and violence reminiscent of Le Petit Jihad in France that first took place in 2005. Since then, it's essentially become an annual event.

The parallels are quite interesting. The excuse for Le Petit Jihad in France was two Muslim teenage criminals fleeing police who managed to get themselves electrocuted. Stockholm's jihad started in the almost entirely Muslim suburb of Husby, where a Muslim man attacked police brandishing a machete and was shot dead by police.

The riots have spread to at least nine other predominantly Muslim neighborhoods like Rinkeby, Jakobsberg, Norsborg and Tensta. Several schools have been set on fire along with numerous cars, as well as a police station in Aelvsjoe. Fire bombs and Molotov cocktails are the weapons of choice, just as they were in Paris.

And just as in France, the media, the police(at least on the record) and officialdom avoid the terms 'Islam' or 'Muslims' as though they were swear words, using the euphemism 'immigrants' and 'youths'. Personally, if I were a law abiding immigrant to Sweden from European countries like Poland or Russia or even from the Middle East, I'd be absolutely outraged at being lumped in with the sort of people who are rioting, looting and burning parts of Stockholm today, but it is what it is.

So far, Swedish police and firefighting units appear to have been caught unprepared by the Muslim 'youths' and as in France and Britain, have even been forced to retreat on a number of occasions to the delight of many local Muslims:




Their tactics now appear to be to simply let things burn if no lives are in danger. There have been too many firemen and police injured trying to respond to arson and then ambushed.

Sweden has, for some time, been importing large numbers of Muslim immigrants from places like Afghanistan,Iraq,North Africa and Somalia and it's an attractive destination because of its liberal asylum policies and welfare benefits. The result has been that rather than integrating into Swedish society, the Muslims have imported their own culture to Sweden along with a corresponding rise in crime (particularly rapes of native Swedes) and the expenditure for social welfare benefits. In Husby, for instance, the percentage of the population receiving social welfare benefits is over four times as large as the average in Sweden as a whole.

And true to form, the Socialist Swedish government is the first to blame the rioting on yes, Sweden and Swedes.

For instance, Swedish Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag went public early on attributing the rioting to high unemployment and social exclusion in Sweden's immigrant-dominated areas.

"We know that there is discrimination in these areas, and these events don't improve the image of these areas, where there is a lot of positive stuff going on but which is totally eclipsed right now," he announced in an interview with TT, the Swedish News Bureau.

And of course, Muslim 'activists' on the scene were quick to attribute the violence to racism on the part of Sweden's notoriously politically correct police..

Rami al-Khamisi, a law student and founder of the youth organisation Megafonen, told the Swedish edition of online newspaper The Local that he had been insulted racially by police. Teenagers, he said, had been called "monkeys".

To listen to Khamisi and his friends, the riots are all about racism and segregation in Sweden "over the past 10, 20 years" from both a class and a race perspective. What's more some Swedes, especially in the current government appear to be eager to buy it.

As in France, what's going on in Sweden and a number of other European countries isn't about jobs, or racial slurs, or equality.

It's about flag planting and intimidation. They want to essentially establish a state within a state where sharia and Muslims rule.

As a look at the Qu'ran will tell you, this is standard operating procedure for Muslims in infidel countries once there are enough of them so that the tipping point is reached - "Kuffars, pay us the jizya (tribute) or face our violent jihad."

The Swedes have a small but efficient military and dispatching them to the riot areas, shooting a number of the rioters and deporting many of the others back to their countries of origin would end this quickly, but since it would be an admission thatthe entire multicultural experiment foisted on Swedes by their government has been an abject failure, that's unlikely to happen.

Instead, they'll allow the Muslims to take over the turf, riot periodically as reminder to keep the jizya flowing and knuckle under.

If you think this is something overseas and unrelated to the United States, just give it a few years. Boston and Ft. Hood are signposts along the road.

Interview With Tommy Robinson Of The English Defense League On The Woolwich Murders



An eye opening interview with the English Defense League's Tommy Robinson on Islamist terrorism in the UK and the Woolwich murders.

(h/t Vlad tepes)

The Council Has Spoken!! This Week;s Watcher's Council Results

 

Alea iacta est...the Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and we have the results  for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

Usually, it's the coverup, not the crime. But in this case, it's both.

 

This week's winner, Bookworm Room's Is the IRS scandal the worst political scandal in American history? I say “yes   examines the IRS scandal in a great piece that went fairly viral this week  Here's a slice:


There’s been a lot of debate swirling amongst the pundits lately. Is the Watergate cover-up worse than the Benghazi cover-up or vice versa? Is the only scandal that matters the Justice Department’s decision to tap Associated Press phones, because that’s the only one that the media will care about? What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Ignore all that. The absolute worst scandal that’s emerged lately, and the worst administration scandal in American history is the IRS scandal. Why? Because you, the People, became the targets of a comprehensive federal government effort to stifle dissent, one made using the government’s overwhelming and disproportionate policing and taxing powers.

All of the other scandals, going back to Andrew Johnson’s post-Civil War scandals, Warren G. Harding’s 1920s Teapot Dome scandal, Nixon’s Watergate, Reagan’s Iran-Contra, and Clinton’s Oval Office sexcapades have actually been narrowly focused acts of cronyism, garden-variety political chicanery, or personal failings. It’s been insider stuff.

The IRS scandal, by contrast, is a direct attack on the American people. Right now, Progressives throughout America are pretending that this scandal doesn’t matter: “Obama wasn’t involved.” “Tea Partiers had it coming because they’re all corrupt.” “Obama would have won the election anyway.” “It was just a coincidence that the only groups that had their applications scrutinized, sometimes for years, were politically conservative. It means nothing that, when one group changed its name to sound Progressive, its application was approved in only three weeks.” “This is just a bureaucratic snafu.” “It’s a few rogue agents in Ohio.”

Those who offer these excuses are either morally flawed themselves or delusional idiots. Pastor Martin Niemoller, who once supported the Nazi party, finally and famously figured things out after World War II:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Once a government gets the bit between its teeth and starts targeting special interest groups, that is the end of freedom, not just for those first groups targeted, but for everyone.

Okay, that was the throat-clearing. Now it’s time to add the latest chapter in the long list of examples showing that the IRS engaged in a politically motivated witch-hunt against people who don’t toe the Progressive/Democrat party line:

The Thomas More Society (a Catholic organization) says that an IRS office in California ordered a group called “Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas” to detail the meaning and content of the prayers they offered. That was not an isolated event. IRS agents demanded the same information from “Coalition of Life of Iowa,” which was required to explain what went on at the group’s prayer meetings.

When Rep. Aaron Schock (R., Ill.) asked outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller whether these were appropriate questions, Miller didn’t even have the courage to say “no.” Instead, he said meaninglessly that “It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either.”


In our non-Council category, the winner was the one and only  Mark Steyn with The Autocrat Accountants   submitted by The Watcher. It's pure Steyn, as he looks at the IRS scandal and its deeper implications with his usual brilliance.  Do read it.

OK, here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.....'cause we're cool like that!

Thursday, May 23, 2013

British MPAC Justifies Woolwich Murderers



In contrast to the Muslim Council of Britain and many other British Muslims, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee's founding spokesperson Asghar Bukhari went on British Television and after saying that British Muslims were right in condemning the Woolwich terror attack essentially said that the killings were justified and understandable.

Since the Muslim Council of Britain is an umbrella group that supposedly represents the MPAC, this is particularly noteworthy.

Bukhari, who has said in the past that "Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are 'Mujahadeen' and are blessed by Allah," blamed British foreign policy and the British government for the attacks saying, "The government can't admit that it's their policy that's driving the anger". He also accused other Muslim organizations in Britain, saying they have "washed their hands" of Muslim youth and are not teaching them other ways of achieving change in British society.

While Bukhari was careful not to step too far over the line, the MPAC's Facebook page tells a different story and put out this statement to is 11,000 followers:

"I absolutely despise such pathetic reactions to the incident that has taken place today. We all understand that murdering human beings is wrong, so that's not breaking news for any of us.

However, we must understand and acknowledge that the media is painting this as an irrational, crazy and barbaric act committed by a Muslim for no other reason apart from the fact that their religion teaches them intolerance and "barbarism – this is the enemy's narrative.

They have told the world that Muslims are a people who come from a barbaric and savage past, whose existence is violent, whose religion teaches them nothing but horrifying extremism.

By apologising in such a stupid way these pathetic Muslims are reinforcing the enemy's narrative, which is telling the world that these murderers did what they did because their religion makes them inherently violent and evil. They are acknowledging this fraudulent narrative, reinforcing it, supporting it and also apologising for it.

What they are doing is basically standing up and saying "I'm sorry our religion makes us violent, but we're not all like that". No! Our religion has nothing to do with it.

Muslims are the most oppressed people on earth, we have been denied our freedom, we have been denied our equality, we have been denied any justice, we have even been denied the right to tell the world our own story.

This incident today was horrific, but it was not because Islam teaches barbarism, it happened because it was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation. These people did what they did because they wanted to get a message across, a message that tells the world that they are sick of being oppressed, colonised, demonised, killed and murdered, simply for being Muslim.

I know it was done in a WRONG and IMMORAL way, I will never condone such a thing, but no one has the right to ignore the message, because it's the only way terrorism will end - on both sides.

Our government doesn't look so noble crying about terrorist acts when it commits terrorism abroad on Muslim lands."


Another statement, from Raza Nadim (another MPAC spokesperson) said, "So many damn Muslim orgs coming out to apologise about Woolwich - why do I need to apologise? I didn't do anything. Is the attack bad? Of course, but why have Muslims got to apologise?"

Interesting...Islam had nothing to do with this, but the two killers claimed they were doing this in the name of Islam and screamed 'Allahu akbar ' while they were beheading a British soldier?

And one might think that there's a difference between condemning something done in the name of your religion as evil and 'apologizing' for it, but maybe that's just how I see it.

Whether the MPAC and their friends like it or not, the Woolwich murders do reflect on Islam, because of the fact that the kind of violence towards non-Muslims that happened in Woolwich yesterday is relatively commonplace around the world. A real giant step for a substantial number of Muslims worldwide andespecially in the West would be to take a real look at Islam and think about why so many of its followers commit violence and terrorism around the globe in the name of their religion and what they could change to stop that rather than blaming others.

But I hold your breath waiting for it to happen.Because it's quite obvious that there's a substantial number of Muslims who continue to think killing non-believers in the name of Allah is just fine and dandy, and that the Qu'ran and Hadiths justify it. Sometimes, they just feel its prudent to make the expected noises to distance themselves from that politically.

What's sad is how that affects Muslims who want no part of that agenda and merely want to live their lives in peace like the rest of us.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

A Beheading in Woolwich

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1905187.ece/ALTERNATES/s308/Woolwich-Attack-1905187.jpg


The big story in Britain today happened in Woolwich, a southeastern suburb of London.

Two jihadis set upon a serving off duty soldier in the street, hacked him to death with machetes and cleavers, beheaded him, and then left his body in the middle of the road. As you can see in the above photos this was done in broad daylight in front of a number of witnesses,and the perpetrators were not at all embarrassed or reticent about what they were doing or how they felt about it.

During the attack, the two men screamed 'Allahu Akbar!' repeatedly and asked witnesses to film the murder on their cell phone cameras. One of the killers looked at those filming athe murder and said in a clear south London accent‘We swear by Allah we will never stop fighting you.You people will never be safe. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.’

When the police arrived 20 minutes or so later, the jihadis confronted them with weapons that included a revolver. An armed female police officer shot them down when she was charged, but apparently did not kill the two men, who are now in custody and were taken to a police hospital.

Prime Minister David Cameron was quick to label this a 'terror attack'.

The incident stunned Britain. Woolwich is not a no go area Muslim of London, and in fact is the home of the The Royal Artillery Barracks. The attack took place less than 200 yards away from the barracks and apparently was proceeded by a car crash.

One eyewitness claims the two men came out of a blue Vauxhall that had crashed, dragging 'a white guy behind them'. Another eyewitness claims that the soldier was deliberately run over by the car, after which the Muslims seized him and dragged him into the street.They then proceeded to hack him to death.

The attack was condemned in strong terms by the Muslim Council of Britain, the primary Muslim organization in the UK. "We condemn this unreservedly,’ a spokesman said. ‘Our thoughts are with the victim and his family.

‘We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country’s Armed Forces, proudly and with honour."

Last night Al Qaeda celebrated the murder of the soldier on its main website, Al-Shamoukh Al-Islam, saying: ‘Allah is the greatest – the liquidation of a British soldier in their own home – South London.’

More than 200 members of the English Defence League gathered in Woolwich last night. A speech was made by EDL leader Tommy Robinson, with the crowd chanting ‘Rule Britannia’ and ‘EDL’. The demonstrators were kept under very close watch by the police.

(h/t, Snoopy)

Obama Blames WH Counsel For Benghazi And IRS-Gate

 

It looks like we now know why Ezra Klein and a number of other Lefty media types made a special trip to the White House yesterday.

They were briefed that this 'leak' was coming and to spread this narrative around like manure.

The new fall-person (to keep things politically correct)for both Benghazi and IRS-Gate is none other than the president's own lawyer, White House Counsel to the President  Kathryn Ruemmler.

The reliably Left wing site BuzzFeed 'leaked' statements by 'White House Advisers' blaming her for both scandals...one scapegoat for both debacles, you might say:

BuzzFeed has learned that key members of President Obama’s national security team, including deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, pushed to release a comprehensive timeline of events documenting the attack that would also synthesize the views of the various government agencies into one report. The CIA also wanted the White House to put out such a timeline, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.

Those plans were quashed, however, when the White House Counsel’s office, which is led by Kathryn Ruemmler, advised the officials to not release any information to the public out of fear it could be used against them in any subsequent investigations and other legal complications. {...}

“It was aggravating,” one administration official said. “It comes back to Kathryn Ruemmler, Kathyrn Ruemmler, Kathryn Ruemmler. I hate to say it, as it sounds like piling on, but it’s on her doorstep too.”

Ruemmler has also come under fire this week for not making the president and others aware of the IRS investigation.


You see, it was Kathryn Ruemmler, Kathyrn Ruemmler, Kathryn Ruemmler who was responsible for everything. President Obama really, really would have come clean about IRS-Gate before the election, even woulda apologized to the Tea Party, Evangelicals and Pro-Israel groups on national TV.But his nasty, evil lawyer stopped him.

Same with Benghazi.It was Kathryn Ruemmler, Kathyrn Ruemmler, Kathryn Ruemmler who forced those brave souls in the White House to edit those talking points twelve times. She made everyone go on the Sunday news shows and push the lie about how this was all due to a video.It was Kathryn Ruemmler, Kathyrn Ruemmler, Kathryn Ruemmler who forced Hillary Clinton to lie her head off in front of Congress to protect Mrs. Clinton's reputation. Hillary, truthful soul that she is fought it tooth and nail, but Kathryn Ruemmler, Kathyrn Ruemmler, Kathryn Ruemmler overruled her and made her say those things.She made all of them say those things..the president, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Jay Carney.She threatened to whip them if they didn't.

 

Give them another week and they'll probably be saying that it was Kathryn Ruemmler, Kathyrn Ruemmler, Kathryn Ruemmler who ordered Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi in the first place, took away his security and ordered the Special forces twice to stand down and not rescue the Americans there after the attack. Hillary and President Obama wanted to save them, but she just wouldn't let them.

I know that some single women voted for this president because they thought he was cool, and because they bought the bogus 'Republican War On Women' schtick.

Ask yourselves this. Do you think Mitt Romney, for all his faults would act this cravenly towards a female subordinate and make her a scapegoat for his own mistakes? George W. Bush, whom I have very little good to say about at least had that level of manly behavior, and goodness knows Condi Rice screwed up enough that he could have shoveled the blame for a lot of things he caught hell for on her.

I bet you can't even imagine Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio doing it..in fact, there are probably a lot of Democrats you can't imagine doing it either.

Not only is it moral cowardice, but this kind of behavior shows a deeply engrained contempt for all of us. This president and his team think we're all stupid, that we would buy that his lawyer had this kind of power over him and the rest of the White House.

Think about it.

And while you're at it, check out Twitchy on this..among other things, there are some tweets that are too good to miss.

BREAKING:Issa To Haul Lerner Back Before Committee,Says She Waived 5th Amendment Rights With Opening Statement



Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa has instructed to committee to subpoena IRS official Lori Lerner to appear again before his committee, saying that her opening statement waived her Fif the Amendment rights against self-incrimination. If you listen to it, he appears to be entirely correct:



You're not allowed to place a self-serving statement on the record and then claim the Fifth - you have to do it from the outset.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

“The precedents are clear that this is not something you can turn on and turn off,” he told POLITICO. “She made testimony after she was sworn in, asserted her innocence in a number of areas, even answered questions asserting that a document was true … So she gave partial testimony and then tried to revoke that.”

He said he was not expecting that.

“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”


That's why Issa had Lerner look at a transcript of the previous fairy tales she told the committee under oath and acknowledge that these were her statements.

In other words, her tits are in the wringer, to use a quaint Southernism I've always liked.

Issa doesn't want Lerner, or at least not Lerner alone. He wants to put the fear of G-d into her so that she'll see the wisdom of cutting a deal by selling out some of the other rats above her in the pecking order on the SS Obama.

All roads on this one lead to the White House.

IRS-Gate Update- Stonewalling And Denials As The Fiction Falls Apart

Aside from Senior IRS official Lori Lerner taking the Fifth and refusing to answer any questions, there are a number of other disturbing developments taking place on IRS-Gate.

For starters, the IRS has defied congress's request for all communications between the agency and the White House about targeting conservative, evangelical and pro-Israel groups.

In a May 14 letter signed by Rep. Dave Camp and Sander Levin, Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the House Ways and Means Committee, the IRS was given a deadline of Tuesday, May 21 to comply with their committee’s demand for the information and records, including records of any communications between IRS and the Treasury on the matter.

The IRS missed the deadline and has apparently decided to stonewall...and we all know they didn't make that decision without guidance from the White House. No federal agency would.

It's also come out that the IRS' own internal investigation ended May 12th, 2012, six months before the election but was deliberately hidden from Congress.I wonder who gave that order:
Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee's chairman, said that the committee learned just yesterday that the IRS completed its own investigation a year before a Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed.

But despite the IRS recognizing in May 2012 that its employees were treating right-wing groups differently from other organizations, Issa said, IRS personnel withheld those conclusions from legislators.

'Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,' Issa said. 'While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General's report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 - May 3 of 2012 - and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later.'

'Think about it,' he continued: 'For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.'

Moreover,the Administration's claim that the wrongdoing was limited to 'a few low level agents' is falling apart like a paper in the rain.

In fact, the IRS' own system makes a few low level IRS employees conducting as jihad on groups selected for their ideology impossible:
When an application for tax exempt status comes into the IRS, agents have 270 days to work through that application. If the application is not processed within those 270 days it automatically triggers flags in the system. When that happens, individual agents are required to input a status update on that individual case once a month, every month until the case is resolved.

Keep in mind, at least 300 groups were targeted out of Cincinnati alone. Those applications spent anywhere from 18 months to nearly 3 years in the system and some still don't have their non-profit status. 300 groups multiplied by at least 18 months for each group, means thousands of red flags would have been generated in the system.

So who in the chain of command would have received all these flags? The answer, according to the IRS directory, one woman in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas, the Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Division. Because all six of our IRS workers have different individual and territory managers, Cindy Thomas is one manager they all have common.

It turns out Cindy Thomas' name is one we have heard before. The independent journalism group ProPublica says in November of 2012 they had requested information on conservatives groups that had received non-profit status.

Cindy Thomas, says Swann, is the highest-ranking employee in the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Department in Cincinnati.

Even the Washington Post is saying that a Special prosecutor is not a matter of if but when.

Personally, I think the president is just arrogant enough to try and brazen this out.

Watcher's Council Nominations - Takin' The 5th Edition





Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

'Nuff said.

This week's contest is dedicated to Rep. Darrel Issa..for relentless courage.

Council News:
This week, Ask Marionand Liberty's Spirit took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status with some great pieces.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let's see what we have this week....


Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions




Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Midnight In Benghazi - What Really Happened



The recent Benghazi hearings before the House Oversight Committee were extremely valuable in that America (or at least that part of America that was paying attention) heard three courageous whistle blowers testify as to the events on the ground as they happened. Even if it merely confirmed what a lot of us knew beforehand,it had value that these unimpeachable witnesses confirmed it. And also let the nation know the kind of pressure they were subjected to by the State Department and the Obama Administration to keep their mouths shut.

It's been said that the problem with Benghazi is that the whole affair is now so convoluted that the average person has trouble following all the threads. There's some truth in that, and the lack of dinosaur media coverage that would have been wall to wall if this were a Republican administration involved has aided and abetted that confusion. The one most honorable exception has been Sharyl Attkisson at CBS, and her honesty and conviction is likely to cost Ms.Attkisson her job, because she's been a little too good at it.

Perhaps what's really needed is a short summary that tells exactly what happened in Benghazi, to make it easier to follow.

What happened is that an American ambassador, Chris Stevens was stationed in the Benghazi consulate for some unknown reason, even though the British and the International Red Cross had already pulled their people out because it was too dangerous. The consulate was left without adequate security, even though Ambassador Stevens begged for it. On September 11th, 2012, that consulate was attacked by al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood forces armed with heavy weapons from Libyan government arsenals that the attackers obtained thanks to American aid in overthrowing Libyan dictator Moamar Khaddaffi. Four Americans died in the attacks, which were spread over nine hours. Even though there were ample security resources on the ground who could possibly have saved those four dead Americans, someone gave them the order to stand down. Instead, carefully edited talking points were concocted by the Obama Administration and an entire narrative was fed to the nation via a cooperative media that the attacks were a spontaneous protest over an obscure YouTube video, and that nothing could have been done to save the ambassador and the others whom were murdered.

The Obama Administration deliberately lied about what happened and has been trying to cover that up ever since.

That's essentially the basic summary of what happened. Or for those of you whom need a slogan to chant , here's an even simpler one:

"Obama Slept and Hillary Lied
About how four Americans died"


The media is still very much involved in trying to bury this. Here's the amazing testimony of Greg Hicks, a career diplomat and Ambassador Chris Steven's Deputy. This is probably the biggest national scandal since Watergate, yet wasn't carried on any major news outlet in full except FOX:



Among other things, Greg Hicks revealed that he called Hillary Clinton at 8PM EST that night to tell her that the consulate was under attack by al-Qaeda terrorists and that Ambassador Stevens was now missing.He called again at 9PM after he received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Ansar al-Sharia had brought Stevens' mutilated body into a hospital and that the ambassador was dead. was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. Secretary Clinton wasn't available..just not taking calls. And not only didn't she call Hicks back that evening, but she didn't bother getting in touch with him the following day. And President Obama? He dropped out very early in the proceedings, after he was briefed 5 PM EST by Leon Panetta. He had a campaign fundraiser to attend and decided to go to bed early.

It's important to remember the time frame here. The attack was spread over nine hours, and no one in Washington knew how long it was going to last. We're not talking about a game of basketball here, where the clock runs for a certain period and the action stops.The Obama Administration made a conscious decision not to get involved, so the nonsense peddled  about  'not having security assets who could get there in time' is a despicable lie.

As Hicks testified and others have confirmed, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson had a special forces team in Tripoli that twice suited up to go to Benghazi to rescue the Americans under siege and twice got stand down orders. Meanwhile, back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off the numerically superior jihadis for hours virtually alone before dying on a rooftop while waiting for back-up that never came.

Again, this is not some DC-based functionary. This is Ambassadors Stevens' deputy, his second in command, the man who took over the Libya station after Ambassador Stevens was murdered before he was demoted for not keeping his mouth suitably shut. And he says his jaw literally dropped when he heard Hillary and Susan Rice blaming this on a video.

No one should be under the assumption that this ends with Secretary Clinton either. One of President Obama's first acts as president was to remove the post of UN Ambassador from the authority of the Secretary of State and to make it a full cabinet post under his direct orders that reported to him.So if Ambassador Susan Rice was making the rounds of the Sunday shows lying about how the attack on our embassy was caused by an obscure video, she was not doing it without President Obama's full knowledge and consent.And someone gave the orders to our military not to go in. That ordinarily would be a presidential prerogative - unless President Obama was AWOL again.

One of the most despicable scenes in American history was played out at the funerals of the murdered men, where the president and Mrs. Clinton acted as though 'Chris' was their best friend. This was the same woman who lied repeatedly about 'Chris's' death, who denied she'd received cables from him desperately asking for more security and even had the heartlessness to lie to the the Woods family about how Tyrone Woods died, telling them at the funeral that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.'

Okay, that's the what, at least so far. Some aspects of 'who' are still in the process of being discovered. So let's get to the far more important question, 'why'.

I fully admit that here we get into some elements that are difficult to source on record. And I  also wanted to dig a little bit further and get some additional information, which is why I've been content not to write about this in depth yet. But at this point, given what I've learned, what follows holds together quite well.

The 'why'  is the key to understanding what really happened.

The first thing we have to look at is why a U.S. Ambassador was there in Benghazi in the first place. He was there as an envoy to Ansar al Sharia and the other jihadist groups that ruled Benghazi, and his assignment, according to what I've been able to find out, was to make a deal over the heavy weapons they had pilfered from Khaddaffi's armories thanks to President Obama's ill advised intervention in favor of the rebels. Stevens, who was intimately familiar with Libya, was there to purchase as many of these arms as he could outright to ship them to Ansar al-Sharia's al-Qaeda comrades in arms in Syria without the president having to inform congress. The idea was to help take out Basher Assad's regime covertly without the necessity of committing US forces, and as a secondary goal to dispose of as many of the arms as possible, buy off the Benghazi rebels if possible  and cover up what a huge mistake the Obama Administration had made by getting involved in Libya. There was absolutely no other reason for Ambassador Stevens to be in such a dangerous location virtually unprotected, except as an envoy to the jihadist forces controlling Benghazi.

An envoy in the Arab world has a very carefully defined position. He relies on the age old rules of Arab hospitality, comes unarmed to his enemy and throws himself on their protection. And if the negotiations fail, especially if a state of war exists, his life can be forfeit. That's why not only was Stevens denied more security, but most of what he had was taken away, even when it became plain to him (if not to the Obama Administration) that the deal had failed and he and the rest of the Americans were in mortal danger.

Needless to say, the approach to Ansar al-Sharia and the other Muslim Brotherhood groups involved had to be off the radar. For it to come out publicly during an election that the Obama Administration was dealing with one al-Qaeda affiliate as a middleman to ship arms to another al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood group in Syria was not something that would have gone down well with either the American electorate or with the Russians, with whom the president was working on a diplomatic solution - at least officially.

The Saudis and the Qataris are the ones bankrolling the jihadi Sunni rebels in Syria, so it was their money that was involved.

 The murder of Stevens and the subsequent mutilation of his body (something that  was carefully hidden and unreported by the U.S. press, but was widely reported overseas) was the classic Arab negative response to the deal the Obama Administration was trying to achieve. It was an unmistakeable message. When Ansar al-Sharia was finished with him, it was they who took the body to a hospital under their control. And those Libyan arms wound up being used in places like Mali, Algeria and Sinai, as well as helping Ansar al-Shariah and their friends keep control of Benghazi.

Stevens likely wasn't rescued for two reasons. First,because the president was AWOL and no one else wanted to take responsibility for giving the order to send our forces in. It was Mrs. Clinton's '3 AM phone call' ad on steroids. And second because the way things went down,  it would almost certainly have raised a number of awkward questions in the middle of an election campaign that had President Obama's supposed foreign policy expertise as a major talking point.

In the end, Ambassador Stevens was far more useful as a dead martyr and photo-op than as a live ambassador subject to inconvenient congressional questioning.The talking points, of course, had to be constructed in such a way to lead as far away from the real story as possible, a story we now know they were fully aware of. The Obama Administration  was primarily concerned with protecting the president politically in the middle of his re-election campaign, and felt that by sequestering the survivors under pain of prosecution, classifying all the documents, videos and phone logs as top secret and relying on a compliant media to spread the narrative the Administration came up with they could make it work.

Even if we give the people in Washington responsible a pass  and say they simply weren't sure what to do, just fumbled badly and then worked to cover it up for political purposes, (which is what I personally think happened) it is a disgraceful and dishonorable performance that ought to at the very least lead to the firing or impeachment of every one involved, if not worse.

If nothing else, the ongoing strategic fallout is intense.

As one of my notorious Lil' Birdies who is definitely in a position to know told me, among other things the attempt by the Obama Administration to buy Libyan arms and ship them to jihadis in Syria  was seen as  a major double cross of Israel. The weapons included shoulder fired missiles not only capable of taking out Basher al-Assad's Russian-built helicopters but commercial airliners, including those landing in Israel. When the Israelis found out about a plot to have weapons like this shipped to their northern border without their knowledge, they were absolutely livid. So were the Iranians, who use commercial airliners to ship fighters and weaponry to Syria to bolster Basher Assad's forces.

The Israelis and the Iranians know the true story, and both have their own reasons for keeping quiet about it. The Iranians would rather not take the risk of embarrassing Obama and forcing him into taking real action against their illegal nuclear program, and the Israelis have apparently made a decision to use this as leverage for a quid pro quo in other areas while helping both their own interests and that of the Obama administration by doing some of the heavy lifting in Syria so the president needn't be tripped up by his usual chest pounding rhetoric about 'red lines' and chemical weapons.

The Russians, for their part,  were outraged at what they considered Obama's duplicity and have doubled down on their support for Assad, even moving substantial naval assets into the Eastern Mediterranean to prevent any attempts at establishing a no fly zone or otherwise intervening. More and more it appears that Syria will eventually end up fracturing along ethnic lines after a prolonged struggle, as I predicted some time ago.

In the end,  I think  it's doubtful the whole story on Benghazi is going to go public for a long time, if ever. While Mrs. Clinton and others may end up suffering some damage, not even Rep. Darrel Issa  or the Senate Republicans are going to want to take this to the ultimate end and reveal this as the major fiasco of U.S. foreign policy that it is. Nor, for various reasons are they going to want to cripple  a sitting U.S. president, particularly this one, for reasons that I'm sure are obvious.

In the end, this has turned out to be another sleazy, ill thought out gun running scandal... Fast and Furious, the Middle East edition, with less deaths involved but much greater strategic consequences.

IRS official Lois Lerner To Plead the Fifth At Congressional Hearing Tomorrow

Lois Lerner, the IRS head of the tax exempt organizations division is going to plead the Fifth tomorrow in front of Darrel Issa's committee rather than answer questions on the IRS scandal:
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times…

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

Obviously someone from the White House has spoken to her about how Presidential pardons work and what you need to do to earn them.

Let's remember what we're talking about here.No matter what Lerner's attorney says, the Fifth Amendment is only used to guard against self-incrimination for criminal acts. For starters, aside from the applicable civil-rights laws there's the Hatch Act, plus some of the IRS’s own regulations for employee conduct.She obviously has been implicated in illegal acts.

Meanwhile, Rep. Issa quite properly said no, and issued a subpoena for Lerner anyway.

This is exactly the right tactic. Let this foul government apparatchnik earn her pardon. Let her sit there sweating from every corrupt pore while Issa and the committee members grill her on the obvious lies she told when this started two weeks ago. Let her refuse to answer each question on grounds that she might incriminate herself and let the American people see.

Aside from the political theater benefits, this will set the stage for Congressman Issa to have a little chat with Lerner and her attorney afterwards about what could happen if her part in this disgraceful business comes to light from other sources, and why now might be a smart time to protect herself and make a deal.


Lest you feel sorry for Ms. Lerner's deer-in-the-headlights demeanor, keep in mind that this is not the first time she's abused an official position to try to bully and intimidate her fellow Americans for daring to exercise their constitutional rights.

Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard has a great piece on Lerner's behavior while she was working for the FEC. She viciously targeted the Christian Coalition, and while they were cleared eventually of any wrongdoing, they had to spend huge amounts in legal fees and expenses to fight what amounted to a jihad against them. It was so bad and so biased that according to Hemmingway's story, when the Christian Coalition's lead attorney heard she'd moved over to the IRS, he claims he remembers thinking, “Wow, this means the not for profit division is gearing up politically.”

He certainly had that right.

CBS Reporter On Benghazi, Fast And Furious Reveals Her Computers Were Hacked

 

Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson,noted for her in depth reporting of the Obama Administration scandals of Fast and Furious and Benghazi has revealed that her work and personal computers were hacked:

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

In an interview, Attkisson told WPHT Philadelphia that she first realized she'd her computers were compromised back in February of 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's crony capitalism green energy scandals, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about."

Attkisson also said she thought there might be some relationship between what happened to her computers and "what's happened to James [Rosen]," the FOX News Senior White House correspondent whose phone records, computers and private e-mails were accessed when he was spied on by the Justice Department.

Coed Rescued After Getting High On Mushrooms, Stripping Naked



Ah, those devil 'shrooms!

Taylor Powers, a 21-year-old coed at the University of Colorado went hiking with two friends in Boulder County's Chautauqua Park and had to be rescued by authorities after they received a 911 call that a female hiker was “high on mushrooms and in distress” , had stripped naked and was running around loose

No less than 35 Boulder County Sheriff’s Office deputies and other assorted rescue personnel immediately responded to deal with this dangerous emergency...

Powers ended up having to be subdued and handcuffed before being placed in a rescue basket and manhandled(!) into a helicopter. No word on whether a cavity search or frisking was involved.

I'm sure the cell phone cams of those rescuers would be interesting viewing. And you have to wonder how many would have showed up if it were, say, a 75-year-old man with heart palpitations.

Powers was taken to a Boulder hospital for treatment and cited for unlawful consumption of a controlled substance.

What Municipal elections Look Like In A Solid Blue City

May 21 Voter Guide

Some of you whom live in more normal locations may be interested in how 'democracy' works in a totally Blue dominated city. It doesn't.

The above is a voter guide for today's municipal election from a Los Angeles organization called Hancock Park Patriots, whom I neither endorse nor am a member of, but the above e-mail they sent me is of interest.

Notice the number of offices marked 'no recommendation'. There's a good reason for that, since in these cases there's not even a lesser of two evils.

The mayoral race (incumbent Antonio Villaraigosa is not running because of term limits)is between Wendy Gruel and Eric Garcetti, two long time Democrat insiders who chief battle is whom can promise the public employee unions more and/or pander to the Hispanic vote, a neat trick since neither have a Spanish surname.

The City Attorney's race is likewise between two long time Democrat pols. The incumbent, Carmen Trutanich has a decent record of incompetence, failure and caving in on large settlements that have cost the city millions while the challenger, Mike Feuer could be justly said to make Rep.Nancy Pelosi look like a centrist Republican and would almost certainly outdo Trutanich in costing the city money.

The school board and community college races are likewise a battle between ethnic pandering and public employee union activists. In the school board race in particular, your choice is between a very Left wing hardline teacher's union activist and a gentleman with a Hispanic surname who lists his profession as 'community organizer', with all that implies.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is one of the largest and worst run school districts in America. It only graduates half its students in spite of spending the second highest dollar amount per pupil in the country, and even a large number of those that graduate are unable to do simple math or read at high school levels. Like New York City, there are a fair amount of teachers sitting in what's known as the 'rubber room' a place where the District houses teachers at full pay and benefits because they have been deemed too risky to have in a classroom,but almost impossible to fire because of the power of the teacher's union and the arcane union contracts. It can cost up to $1.6 million to fire a single teacher, and the average cost to do so if it's even possible is about $500,000.

Teacher's antics aside, classroom discipline and safety is a major problem at a number of schools. In a typical response, the school board just voted to ban suspensions of trouble making and disruptive students, directing officials to use 'alternative disciplinary practices' instead because - wait for it - the board felt that suspensions of unruly students which allow the other, non-disruptive children to enjoy a safe and more focused learning environment 'disproportionally affect minority students and hurt their academic achievement'. even the notoriously partisan Los Angeles Times can't quite spin this particular bit of idiocy.

In today's election, a resident of Los Angeles has a choice between two people who will simply exacerbate this sorry status quo.

Then there are four ballot measures.

They all contain sweeping proposals to ease traffic gridlock, make Los Angeles more business friendly and deal with the city's ballooning $216 million deficit.

Kidding, kidding!

Actually,one of them is a meaningless partisan political measure and the the rest of them of them deal with one of the few growth industries in Los Angeles, medical marijuana dispensaries.

Proposition C is simply a resolution to support a constitutional amendment overturning the 'Citizens United' Supreme Court ruling in order to, as the supposedly neutral analysis says 'state that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings' and that 'all citizens, regardless of wealth have an opportunity to have their political views heard.' Here's a sample of some more of the supposedly neutral analysis:

" a YES vote means that you want the people of the City to support an amendment to the US Constitution that would limit the right of corporations so that spending money on campaigns is not constitutionally protected speech,and that ensures that all citizens can have their views heard."

In a city like Los Angeles with a high proportion of low information voters, who wouldn't vote to "ensures that all citizens can have their views heard"? Especially if those views are 'directed' by a public employee union, of course.

First Amendment what???

This is what the powers that be in Los Angeles saw fit to waste taxpayer dollars on as well as man hours that should have been devoted to the people's business.

Let's move on to marijuana...

Pot is pretty much de facto legal in Los Angles, although you do need to go to the trouble of doctor shopping to get a prescription, which I'm told is no great difficulty.

In response to this, a number of entrepreneurs have set up shop. They're getting as common as convenience stores and utilizing a lot of commercial space that would likely otherwise sit idle with 'for rent' signs on them.

The socialists who run Los Angeles have a solution to deal with these budding (no pun intended) capitalists. Propositions D, E, and F are slightly competing plans to vastly increase taxation on the dispensaries in addition to what they're already paying and to severely limit their number to 135.

The result, of course will be the same thing that always happens when you limit outlets and raise the cost of doing business for the ones that remain open - much higher prices for consumers and believe it or not, less tax money for the city as consumers go back to the Old School methods of obtaining marijuana - buying it from non-legal sources or growing it themselves. Of course, it also means those 'for rent' signs will go back up, ensuring even less money for the city. And that a lot of the patrons of the remaining stores will be MediCal patients who aren't cost conscious in the least, since the taxpayers are footing the bill,

I don't use marijuana, so this doesn't particularly affect me personally, but I think it's a superb example of the mentality at work here...find a growing industry or market and strangle it with taxes and regulation.

This is how the City of Los Angeles retains its title as the worst city in America to do business in.

Welcome to one party socialist rule!