Update On The Kidnappings: Hamas Cheers, The IDF Keeps Searching

 

The IDF is continuing an exhaustive search of the Hebron area, which, given their normal efficiency and that of the Shin Bet leads me to believe that the three Israeli teens are still being kept somewhere in the vicinity. In fact, one of my Lil' Birdies tells me that the silence and lack of demands could even be a good sign. It may very well mean that the kidnappers have not been able to move the three Israeli boys out of the area to a more secure spot, say, in Gaza. After all,any announcements or attempts at communication could very well lead the IDF to the kidnappers..so the odds are that they're laying low for now.

The IDF are calling the search for the boys Operation Brothers' Keeper, and are also using it as an opportunity to take down the Hamas infrastructure in Judea and Samaria. Over 360 Hamas terrorists have been taken into custody. Yesterday, the IDF's sniffer dogs uncovered an underground Hamas tunnel system in Hebron.

Meanwhile, Hamas Leader Khalid Mesha'al is still denying that the kidnapping was a Hamas operation, but he loves theidea and is more than willing to cheer whoever did it on.



In an interview today with al Jazeera, Masha'al said "then blessed be the kidnappers, since it is a Palestinian obligation to release prisoners and make the occupation pay the price of the Palestinian suffering."

He also emphasized that the reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas calls for joint action to release all of the convicted terrorists Israel now holds as "a sacred national duty and devotion to using any means to realize this goal."

Mesha'al's interview came just hours after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh announced that a third intifada against 'the Zionist Enemy' had started.

Considering the fact that Hamas is still launching rockets at Israel from Gaza, I'd say the intifada never stopped.

The Israelis suspect that Salah al-Arudi, a member of Hamas' leadership who lives in Turkey eithe rhas a connection with the kidnappings or helped plan and finance them. He's financed terrorist cells in th epast and  has been urging the kidnapping of Israeli civilians for some time.

The Blame Israel First Syndrome

 

One of the frustrating aspects of following the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the “blame Israel first” syndrome.

Writing in the Telegraph, Alan Johnson articulates the dynamic that is at play in It’s time to Stop Infantilising the Palestinians. (h/t Elder of Ziyon)

First, by granting only one side to the conflict agency and responsibility, the dichotomy distorts key events of the conflict (e.g. the war of 1948, the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in 2000, Gaza after the 2005 disengagement). The Palestinians are cast as passive victims; a compelled people (Haaretz writer Yitkhak Laor claims the second intifada was “instigated” by … Israeli policy); a duped people (activist Tikva Honig-Parnass writes of “Barak’s pre-planned collapse of the Camp David talks in October 2000”); and a people beyond the reach of judgement. Academic Jacqueline Rose views Palestinian suicide bombers as “people driven to extremes” and argues that Israel has “the responsibility for [the] dilemma” of the suicide bomber.

Second, the dichotomous understanding of Palestinians and Israelis distorts our understanding of Israel’s security. The threats Israel faces are discounted and the security measures taken by Israel reframed as motiveless and cruel acts….

The third consequence of this dichotomous thinking about the nature of the two peoples is the infantalisation of the Palestinians: they remain perpetually below the age of responsibility; the source of their behaviour always external to themselves, always located in Israel’s actions.

By the way, Alan Johnson was the Professor shouted down with abusive profanity at U. Ireland – Galway, by anti-Israel BDS protesters.

A case in point of this dynamic is the common complaint that Israeli security checkpoints impede Palestinian economic progress. It’s a common refrain but it ignores the reality on the ground.
Aaron Menenberg observed the inner workings of the Palestinian Authority for two years recently and wrote about his experience in Terrorists & Kleptocrats: How Corruption is Eating the Palestinians Alive at The Tower Magazine. Menenberg dealt with regular Palestinians and contrasted their willingness to work for the betterment of themselves and their society with their political leadership’s interest in maintaining their perks and positions.

If the Palestinians were led by Izzat and Sammy and those who, like them, wanted to build a better society, things would be dramatically better. If Palestinian leaders reflected the common desire for an independent judiciary capable of enforcing the rule of law, there would be capable judges protecting businesses from government overreach. If Palestinian leaders recognized that schools capable of teaching all Palestinian children the skills and knowledge they need to achieve a better life than their parents are critical to the future of the Palestinian people, there would be more teachers interested in and capable of achieving these goals.

Unfortunately, the reality is just as Izzat implied. The elite class of politicians and businessmen that make up the Palestinian Authority have different interests and different responsibilities than the rest of Palestinian society. Put another way, the average Palestinian is not often the constituency the Palestinian Authority is serving. The PA Ministry of Agriculture did not have Sammy or his employees’ best interests in mind, and was clearly prioritizing its own needs; it was not responsible to the people it, as a government, has a duty to serve. And Izzat’s bosses in the same ministry did not care about the future of Izzat’s children, only the future of their own sons and daughters. Unfortunately for Sammy, Izzat, and a sizeable majority of Palestinians, the interests of the few in power are dramatically different than theirs.

In fact in Predictable Reactions After the Abduction of Three Israeli Students, Peter Berkowitz observed:

Israel has done more over the last several years to improve the quality of Palestinians’ lives than lift travel restrictions. It has worked with the Palestinian Energy Authority to build electricity substations; advanced cash to the PA to help it meet its budgetary requirements; increased permits for Palestinians to work in Israel; adopted numerous measures in the West Bank to increase the export and import of goods; and approved special measures to facilitate West Bank tourism during holiday season.
Sources sowing enmity persist. PA schools teach hatred of Jews and Israel. Hamas still plots acts of violence, as does Islamic Jihad. A small number of Israeli West Bank residents are lawless. Occasionally IDF soldiers act stupidly or viciously. And even under the best of circumstances, points of friction between the IDF and Palestinian population are inevitable

Yet the larger tendency is striking. Over the last several years, Israel has not only given the Palestinians substantial room to build the infrastructure of a state but has directly assisted in its construction. The latest round of Palestinian terrorism should not reverse the tendency. The risks of enlarging Palestinian self-rule are outweighed by the costs of the alternative.

Israel has, in fact, been freeing up its control of the Palestinians. (In part, that’s what’s allowed Hamas to build an infrastructure in the West Bank.) But it is the Palestinian Authority which is holding its people back. Still measures that Israel takes in its own self defense get blamed for the lack of progress.

When will the Palestinians be responsible for themselves?

by David Gerstman..cross posted at  Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

#HillaryLies - And An Attempt To Make Her Look Good Reveals It!

It's an odd thing, but sometimes your friends can do you a lot more harm trying to make you look good than your enemies can.

There's a story in the New York Post, one of what appears to be several excerpts from a new book entitled "Blood Feud: The Clintons Vs. The Obamas" by Edward Klein, a 'journalist' with a thoroughly justified reputation for, shall we say, stretching the truth more than a little.

According to him, Mrs. Clinton "bristled at the Benghazi deception", by which he means she knew that this was a well planned terrorist assault by an al-Qaeda affiliate and argued with President Obama that his story about Benghazi being the result of a protest over an anti-Islam video wasn't credible.

According to Klein, the president refused to listen and demanded that she put out a State Department press release as soon as possible pushing the 'it was the video' narrative.

Hillary then called Bill Clinton and they discussed the matter:

After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.

“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.

“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”


The two discussed various options, including her resigning as Secretary of State:

If her resignation hurt Obama’s chances of winning re-election, her fellow Democrats would never forgive her. Hillary was already thinking of running for president in 2016, and her political future, as well as Obama’s, hung in the balance.

Obama had put Hillary in a corner, and she and Bill didn’t see a way out. And so, shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an “inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet.”

The Benghazi Deception was in full swing.


There are two possibilities here...and neither of them cast Lady Macbeth in anything like a good light.

If Klein is telling the truth, then what we have here is a politician so consumed with ambition that she was willing to openly lie to the American people, and even to the families of the deceased not for any good of the country but simply for her own personal political ambition and to satisfy an obscene lust for power.

That should disqualify her from even being considered for any position of office or of public trust.

And if Klein is lying just to peddle a few books? Certainly possible. But if that's what going on here, then it just means that Secretary Clinton was an active and willing partner in the deception, a scenario I personally think is much more likely than the one Klein is selling.

Needless to say, if she was a willing partner and enabler of the Benghazi coverup, that the same thing applies..we have a foully corrupt, scheming politico who should never be considered for any position of office or public trust.

Odd that this book and this excerpt were apparently disseminated to try and exonerate Hillary,make her look honorable. It does just the opposite either way you look at it.

As always, #HillaryLies. It's simply whom she is.

Forum: If Abortion On Demand Is Both Legal And Constitutional, Why Not Suicide And Euthanasia ?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:  If Abortion On Demand Is Both Legal And Constitutional, Why Not Suicide And Euthanasia ?



Virginia Right!: Or why children of illegals who were brought here through no fault of their own deserve amnesty and not unborn babies who are here through no fault of their own.

The Independent Sentinel: Why stop with abortion- it's only a matter of geography - why not kill them after they're born if we're not happy with the results. Actually, hasn't that been suggested by one of the loons Obama surrounds himself with?

Bookworm Room: Abortion on demand is legal because those who support it can argue, less and less convincingly as prenatal care and imaging advance, that a fetus is not a person. That's a difficult argument to make about either depressed or sick people. They may not be enjoying themselves, but they're standing there before you, large as life and twice as natural. When we seem them, we recognize their inherent vitality, a vitality that ought not to be destroyed either by what one hopes is only a transient depression or an illness (even a fatal one) that can be managed humanely.

Peter Singer -- who holds an endowed ethics chair at Princeton -- thinks parents should have a month after the child's birth within which to decide to euthanize it because it's defective. As you can imagine, the disability rights people loath him. He's also the guy who founded the radical animal rights movement. PETA isn't his organization, but it's his brain child. He ran afoul of animal rights activists, though, when he said bestiality was ethically acceptable provided the animal consents. The PETA crowd said that cows can't give consent, so it's always rape. Did I mention that he has an endowed chair at Princeton?

As for the post-birth abortion, a Planned Parenthood representative in Florida said that it was up to a woman and her doctor whether she wanted to "abort" the baby after it was born.

It's views such as these that have pushed me away from being pro-choice. There's something very ugly going on there. Garden-variety pro-choice people should really look at the movement's core and wonder whether they're celebrating choice or death.

Simply Jews : Why, if we base our decisions on that old joke that a Jewish embryo isn't considered a person before he/she gets a law or medicine degree, we could expand the Singer's proposal a bit further.

Jokes aside, when I was reading this, the professor's ideas combined with his attitude to bestiality gave me a few ideas about the professor's immediate future that I would loath to air in this group. Not in writing anyway.

And another corollary: the case of prof Singer, like many other sadly similar cases in the academic circles cause me a grave concern about the future of our higher education and, as a result, about our future in general. I am saying "our", because here the status is very similar.

Princeton... someone should clean up these places, or we all are in big trouble.


The Razor: First of all I do not agree that abortion is Constitutional. My view is that it was a clear-cut case of judicial overreach.

Although I am personally and very (I might add) Pro-Life I still maintain a pro-choice stance simply because I believe Law is too blunt an instrument for cases such as these that require more of a scalpel. Is abortion murder? I believe like most Americans that within the first few weeks of pregnancy, it’s not. But you get into the second trimester and especially the third, and it clearly becomes murder. Suicide is clearly murder, but should a person be charged with a crime for having attempted it? Nope because who would the State be acting on behalf of? Who is the injured party in such an instance? The State has too much power already; to intrude on a person’s decision to kill himself or herself simply strikes me as a greater intrusion than when it interferes with abortion. As for euthanasia, it should be made available to those whose condition is terminally ill. What has been happening in the Netherlands stretches the definition of “terminally ill” to include mental illness which is going too far.

No one ever says that these questions are easy. If they do then something is wrong with them. But as moral human beings we need to consider them and question our beliefs if only to avoid the slippery slope rightly feared by many. But the existence of such a slope should not empower the State nor should it increase needless suffering.

But ask me next week. Perhaps my opinion will change.

 JoshuaPundit: Actually, to answer the question directly,  we're already there to some degree. Euthanasia is already legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg and up for serious consideration in most of the EU, and assisted suicide is legal in the States of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana as well as in the countries of Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Colombia and Japan. And again, there are many more jurisdictions considering it and I have no doubt that the list will be longer by this time next year.And there's no reason it shouldn't be. After all, if life ends in the womb or years later in a discreet medical facility after a few papers get signed, what's the diff? One less mouth to feed, one less file to process. Next please!

What I'm going to write next invites ridicule, which is fine. But some of you may want to mull it over.

Western culture has always prided itself on its freedoms, but the chief impetus for them has always been a recognition that the individual is important, and that freedom itself is a gift to be passed on to future generations. Our culture has changed to the point where these two principles have become something that gets mouthed frequently, but is less and less nonored in practice. What our culture has embraced instead is an anti-life stance, where the individual is dispensable and future generations don't matter as opposed to the all important gratification of the NOW.Even though many people still hold to the realizations and principles behind the west's freedoms, many of our leaders, educators and those who run what E.J. Terrell Jr. once called the Kultursmog do not.

I am by no means a person who says that abortion is always wrong in all situations. But we now have made abortion on demand a modern sacrament, a holy writ not to be challenged no matter what. Why shouldn't euthanasia and assisted suicide be next on the list, along with all the other 'changes' we've embraced, or at least allowed?

We now have a leader who is a fierce advocate for actual infanticide. A mere thirty or forty years ago someone with this view would have been shunned and run out of public life. Many countries in the West are not even reproducing at replacement rates, the very definition of marriage is in the process of being dismantled, and the killing of a child because the kid was merely inconvenient is the subject of a 'comedy' now getting rave reviews in the usual places.

I regard that as decadent and unholy. There are really no other words for it.

America has been, in my view at least, the beneficiary of G-d's providence in many ways. I can't help but wonder if what we're embracing now is going to change that.


The Glittering Eye : If that were the law, I don't think there is a coherent principle opposing them. However, it's not the law. The law is actually mischievous since making the state's interest in the lives of the unborn contingent on an imaginary point of viability encourages those who oppose abortion on principle to seek to capitalize on the state's interest and those who support abortion on demand on principle to make the imagined rights pre-viability absolute. A continuing, zero-sum conflict.

On top of that existing law is bad public policy unless you believe that we need a lot fewer people with educations and jobs and a lot more people without either one. The problem, of course, is that the coherent public policy positions (abortion on demand paid by the state on the one hand and sweeping restrictions on abortion on the other) are each anathema to a substantial chunk of the population. So we're left with incoherent, bad public policy.

Ask Marion: Americans like to see themselves as the most compassionate people on the planet, rescuers of the downtrodden and the heroes that ride in on the white horses to save people, cultures and nations around the world… and sometimes we do and have.

But as a nation we have virtually all accepted the reality of abortion on some level, just like animal lovers have accepted our cruel system for euthanizing more healthy pets every year than any other country in the world. All God’s creatures:

In 2008 we had the choice and opportunity to vote for an all (rather radical) pro-choice ticket, Obama-Biden or a ticket with a fence straddler worried about the vote and a offending anyone, McCain, paired up with a strong pro-life candidate, who had walked the walk, Palin. We elected the radicals twice.

Abortion -> On The Ground At March For Life 2014 – New Poll: 62% of Americans Now Believe Abortion is Morally Wrong and most Pro-Choice advocates don’t even know Planned Parenthood’s Roots or who Margaret Sanger was… an absolute believer in abortion, euthanasia and eugenics. And since President Obama took office, who as Senator voted for partial birth abortions and not giving aid, care or even comfort to tiny babies who survive abortion procedure. See Gary Bauer: 'More Babies Have Been Aborted Than Jobs Have Been Created' Under Obama.

Economic issues aside, it is estimated that 7.5 million companion animals enter shelters each year, and additional 1 million more have been added to that number or just abandoned since the economic downturn in 2009. Only about 30% are reclaimed and approximately 2.7 million animals are adopted (1.2 million dogs and 1.4 million cats).

And over 1,200 Military Dogs have been put down by the Obama Regime.

Eating dogs was bad enough. Killing over 1,200 faithful military dogs who were protecting American troops in Afghanistan is worse:

The heroic service dogs were euthanized because they were deemed too “dangerous” for civilian adoption or jobs with law enforcement agencies, as well as for medical reasons according to U.S. Air Force reports given to Congress.

The dogs were used as guards and to sniff out terrorist bombs.

It’s not as if no homes could be found:

Currently more than 300 people are waiting to adopt a military dog, with an average waiting time of 18 months.

Betraying those who loyally served in Afghanistan and Iraq has been characteristic of the current administration. And if you actually believe that they care more about our two legged Veterans than they do about the 4-legged ones... then Houston... we have a problem. All but 1 of the Michael Vick fighting dogs were able to be rehabbed and re-homed... and none had problems. Everyone of these military canines deserved better!!

Obamaland radical crazies… just a few of the present and former Czars… advisers, cabinet members:

Kathleen Sebelius.Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist Tiller, and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.

Science Czar John P. Holdren – Updated 9.2.09 He Advocated de-developing the US to a world of zero growth, says the Constitution backs compulsory Abortion and believes we should seize babies born to unwed women

Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar advocated removing people’s organs without explicit consent.


Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother and his Complete Lives System, who believes we should deny coverage to the elderly an disabled ‘for the Greater Good’

Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, Death Panels… are all part of, or will be the result of ObamaCare!!

If we do not get rid of ObamaCare and the hold the Progressives have on our government… the death panels are already here. (remember when they called Sarah Palin crazy?, now people like Howard Dean have admitted she was right) A committee of non-medical professionals will make the decisions of who gets what treatments and medications, if any. They will decide against the old… the useless eaters as they call them; the mentally and physically disabled, including Veterans (Is there really an doubt after what we have seen at Veteran’s Affairs over the past few months:); and then anyone else they have no use for. And as the money and help dries up for those afflicted with or caring for people with Alzheimer’s, Autism, Dementia, PTSD, etc etc (all on the rise) and no help is available, the cries for assisted suicide or euthanasia will become louder… the benevolent left… will say YES!

And for the record: Rockefeller Soft Kill Depopulation Plans Exposed. Both Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates have spoken on depopulation. And you can bet it won’t be them or their families!

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Personally feel it will be in the next few years.


  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

How The Palestinians And The Left Are Celebrating The Israeli Kidnappings

By now, most of you know that three Israeli teens were confirmed kidnapped near Gush Etzion, almost certainly by Hamas.

While most Israelis and many(but believe me, not all) Jews in the Diaspora are praying for their safe return, the Palestinians are celebrating this 'successful operation' in their usual hideous fashion.

 

This image came not from Hamas, but from the official Fatah Facebook page showing the three kids as Jewish 'rats' caught in a trap.

Fatah also instructed 'activists' to destroy any CCTV footage that might aid the Israelis in finding the kidnapped kids.




 And of course, candies and sweets are being passed out in Gaza, while the rockets are still being fired at Israel.





As a matter of fact, Hamas,who has not claimed responsibility may not be the kidnappers.

Abbas' thugs in the al-Aksa Martyr's Brigade issued a statement online claiming that they were holding the children and they would only be released in a swap for imprisoned convicted terrorists.

“We won’t release the three children, except in return for thousands of prisoners,” the statement read.

Remember, al-Aksa has pulled off this sort of thing before.

 Al-Quds, a Palestinian news agency, published an article on Wednesday describing the creative ways in which Arabs are celebrating the campaign through personal photographs, shaping the words out of string beans, or even carving them on a Libyan beach.

 

In Israel itself, notorious MK  MK Hanin Zoabi (United Arab List) sparked outrage even from her colleagues on the Left when she said  that those who kidnap Israeli children are not terrorists.

Fortunately, there are a number of Israeli Arabs who don't feel that way, even in the face of death threats.

As despicable as this response from the vast majority of Palestinians is, it's to be expected. They've done far worse over the years.

But the West's reaction is simply abominable.

The Israelis are desperately searching for the missing kids throughout the Hebron area, where they're believed to be held. The response from the Obama White House? To lean on Israel to 'urge restraint.'
Apparently the Obama team thinks Israel has arrested too many Hamas operative in Judea and Samaria for its liking.

The EU took a full five days before issuing a perfunctory condemnation, and the UN actually issued a statement saying they were uncertain whether a kidnapping had actually even taken place!.

None of them are reconsidering in the slightest their support for the new Fatah-Hamas unity government.  

In fact, in the middle of all this, the EU actually adopted a ten page proclamation together with the Arab League hailing "‘Palestine’s commitment to democracy and human rights’ and lauding the new unity government while harshly condemning Israel - or, as they put it , the Occupying Power'- for human rights violations galore, including what they termed the “grave humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip” caused by "the closure" imposed by Israel against Hamas for firing rockets at Israel's civilians. Of course, there was no mention of the Egyptian government's participation in closing the tunnels and working to keep Hamas from obtaining heavy weapons on their side of the border.

It was so blatantly biased that the Israeli foreign ministry actually summoned EU Ambassador Lars Faaborg-Andersen to complain.

The message here is one that even the most reluctant Israelis are beginning to understand. To the EU and President Obama's team, the kidnapped teens and the rockets being fired into Israel are collateral damage of little importance next to a Jew-free Palestinian reichlet and an indefensible Israel on the 1948 cease fire lines.

The EU,of course has been the most outspoken about this, since they see it as excusing their craven behavior during the Holocaust(with some honorable exceptions), and a way of appeasing their new, restive Muslim populations as attacks on Jews in Europe continue to rise.

In the U.S., while most Americans remain pro-Israel, Barack Obama has largely succeeded in making Israel a partisan issue. And a look at what's happening on America's campuses and on the Left, sparked by a president who declared as early as 2009 that his goal was to create distance between America and Israel is a sign that things may be changing.

No matter how many concessions 'for peace' Israel makes, it will never be enough, because the ultimate goal is no Israel at all, not just as far as the Arabs aree concerned by Israel's implacable enemies in the West.

In essence, it's a movement towards a redo of the 1948 UN vote that created the State of Israel with a "no" outcome, and one of the best reasons I can think of that a strong, vital Jewish State is an absolute necessity.

The Real Bullies Among Us

The Obama Regime has made an 'anti-bullying' campaign a major issue since Day One, and the Left has eagerly followed.

The president has made numerous speeches, sponsored conferences and even endorsed legislation forcing public schools to enact anti-bullying codes of conduct and submit data to the Department of Education showing compliance.

 

Yes, nobody likes a bully.

Today, the Washington Redskins football team and their owner, Dan Snyder were subjected to some bullying. For quite some time, they've been subjected to a campaign to change their traditional nickname based on a 2006 appeal by a handful of activists that claims the name is derogatory to Native Americans.

The team and its owner have continuously refused to change their nickname, so some additional bullying tactics were called for. Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday cancelled six federal trademarks of Washington Redskins.

What that means is that the Redskins no longer own their proprietary trademark, and anyone can produce tee shirts, jackets, caps and other merchandise with the team logo on it without compensating the Redskins. It amounts to the government taking of private property without compensation, something the Constitution declares is illegal.

The team has been through this before and successfully appealed a similar decision like this in court, and there's no doubt they will appeal this one as well. The rules about  what's supposedly derogatory and what isn't when it comes to trademarks and ads is so vague and subjective that in the end, it really depends on what you personally see as demeaning. Once again, we're talking about a right not to be offended that simply doesn't exist. I mean, is the term 'redskin peanuts' offensive? Should it be banned?

The Redskins aside, this got me to thinking. For all the noise about bullying, it's the Obama Regime and the Left that are the prime practitioners.

It's the Regime and the Left who are bullying coal companies using the EPA and trying to put them out of business.

It's the Obama Regime that has been bullying countries like Israel, Honduras, and Egypt,among others.

It's the Regime and the Left that have been bullying bakers, florists,photographers and caterers to service homosexual weddings that violate their religious convictions. Ditto for Catholic institutions when it comes to providing abortificants and birth control to their employees.

It's the Obama campaign and the Left who bullied Sarah Palin and her children and attempted to bankrupt her and her family.

It's the Obama Regime that has used the IRS to bully groups and even individual donors who disagree with them politically.

It was the Obama Regime that bullied individual stockholders in GM (many of them retirees) and cut their holdings while leaving Union holdings intact.

And that's just a small sampling of the kind of bullying that's been going on since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office.

But come to think of it, that shouldn't be a surprise, given who 'progressives' actually are and who their predecessors were. Demonizing and bullying those they perceive as their enemies has been a tactic of theirs for a long time now.


 

Pat Condell: Why I Support Israel

The one and only Pat Condell on Israel, who as always gets right to the heart of the matter.(h/t, The Noisy Room)

Watcher's Council Nominations: The Search For The Lost E-mails Edition

Oh, the thrills and adventure...here's our heroine, Lois Lerner using the dreaded, deadly hashtag. That'll show them congress critters!

After hearing from the IRS that Lerner's emails for the past two years mysteriously died in a hard drive crash, one of those congress critters, Darrell Issa, subpoenaed Lerner's entire hard drive.

The IRS has already replied, saying well,you know, it was just sitting there not doing anything and we believe one of the guys, we can't remember exactly who, took it home to use it as a boat anchor. But that didn't work so good because it was too light, and it was too heavy to be a decent fishing sinker. So if we remember right, the story was that he cut it loose and threw it overboard and as far as we know it's somewhere at the bottom of Chesapeake Bay. Or it might have happened when he took his boat down river to Virginia, no one's really sure. Anyway, it's not here anymore. We regret that we can't be of more help, really we do.

This,I believe is what our grandfathers would have referred to as a real fish story.

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 morning.

This week's contest is dedicated to kidnap victims Ya'akov Naftali (ben Rachel Devorah), Gilad Michael (ben Bat Galim), and Eyal (Ben Iris) Teshura. Please pray for their safe return.

Council News:

The Council In Action!!

* VA Right's Tom White is on quite a roll after being one of the few political writers if not th eonly one to correctly predict Eric Cantor's demise in his native Virginia! He's been cited numerous places, was the subject of a laudatory article by NewsMax and was interviewed by, among other places, the Washington Post and The Columbia Journalism Review, and we'll definitely have those links for you once they're up.Council Akbar!!


This week, The MidKnight Review, Right Truth, The Pirate's Cove and Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

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.

To bring something to my attention 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. Then return the favor  by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

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

• Liberty's Spirit – The Humanitarian Crisis of Illegal Immigration and Its Underlying Meaning


• The Independent Sentinel – A Marxist President and a Fundamental Change We Can't Recover From


• The Noisy Room – Obama Facilitates The Rise Of The Caliphate


• The Razor – The Fact the GOP Leadership Is Stunned Says it All


• Joshuapundit-Kerry Signals That Joint Military Action With Iran In Iraq Is Imminent


• VA Right! - Setting Realistic Expectations on 7th District Funding – A Response to Anonymous Email


• The Glittering Eye -Failure Is An Orphan


• The Colossus of Rhodey – Priorities


• Nice Deb – Issa Subpoenas IRS Commissioner - IRS Required By Law To Keep Records of all Agency


• The Right Planet – The Blame Bush Meme


• Rhymes With Right – Thoughts On The Cantor Loss


• Bookworm Room – Bookworm's 5 Point Gun Manifesto: Or Why I believe in Gun Rights


• Ask Marion – Should Stupid Is As Stupid Does Be America's New Motto? And How Did We Get Here


• Simply Jews – Finally! Blondes exonerated. So?


• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Target Tehran

Honorable Mentions

• MidKnight Review - Why are mass shootings in our schools, almost non-existent in heavily populated, non-white, poorer, inner-city school districts? We have the answer (perhaps).


• Right Truth - Planned Parenthood Tells Dem Legislators To Support Sex-Selection Abortions…


• The Pirate's Cove - Berkley Looking To Save Us From Climate Change Using Stickers!


• David Gerstman/Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Massive Manhunt Underway for 3 Kidnapped Israeli Teens

Non-Council Submissions

• Mark Steyn – The Unmaking of the American World submitted by Liberty's Spirit


• Jonathan Turley.com –Hot Dog Crimes: Five Guys Restaurants Could Be Committing A Crime For Selling “Kosher Style” Hot Dogs In Washington State submitted by The Independent Sentinel


• Mark Steyn –"Harmless as an Enemy, Treacherous as a Friend" submitted by The Noisy Room


• Adam Garfinkle/American Interest –Iraq: What A way To Go submitted by The Razor


• Victor Davis Hanson – The New Children’s Crusade submitted by Joshuapundit


• Flopping Aces – IRS regulations require e-mails that are “federal records” to be stored in separate, permanent systemsubmitted by VA Right!


• Syria Comment – The Future of ISIS and the Sectarian Response: ISIS has Picked a Fight it Cannot Win submitted by The Glittering Eye


• Francis Fukuyama/WSJ – At the 'End of History' Still Stands Democracy submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey


• Father Z -Nancy “the Theologian” Pelosi scolds Archbp. Cordileone submitted by Nice Deb


• American Civil Rights Union – Bergdahl: They Don't Care About the Law, Get Over It submitted by The Right Planet


• Patterico's Pontifications – Are the Cartels Using the U.S Government to Deliver Their Footsoldiers Into the United States? submitted by Rhymes with Right


• James Lewis/American Thinker-Obama's Children's Crusade submitted by Bookworm Room


• Ryan Scott Welch/American Thinker – How the Tea Party Took Over the GOP in Texas submitted by Ask Marion


• Joy Pullmann/The Federalist – Everyone Say It Loudly: We Need Men submitted by The Watcher


• Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney/WSJ -The Collapsing Obama Doctrinesubmitted by The Watcher


• Blazing Cat Fur – Iraq: Maliki accuses Saudi Arabia of backing rebels submitted by The Watcher


• Andrew McCarthy – Don’t Blame Iraq on Obama Alone submitted by Watcher

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

Mexican Embassy: Mexicans 'Illegally' Crossing U.S. Border 'Are Not Committing a Crime'

An interesting video, especially when you contrast how illegal aliens are treated here as compared to a certain U.S. Marine, Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who crossed the border by mistake, committed no crime and is still rotting in a Mexican jail.

Or as one person in the video alludes to, the difference in the effort the Obama Administration is expending to free Sergeant Tahmoressi, a Marine who served honorably, with what the Regime was willing to do to free Bode Bergdahl.

Quite a contrast.

Hillary's Book Bombs - But It's A Great Undercover Campaign Contribution At Our Expense

Hillary Clinton's latest ghost written memoir, "Hard Choices" received a huge amount of attention in the press and sparked a well publicized book tour, but that apparently isn't translating into the sales Simon & Schuster were expecting based on the $14 million  dollar advance they gave her:

In an email this evening, a veteran publishing source calls the latest Hillary Clinton book, 'Hard Choices', a memoir of her State Department years, a "bomb." The source is referring to the early but underwhelming sales figures.

"Between us, they are nervous at S&S [Simon & Schuster]," says the source, who gave permission for his email to be published. "Sales were well below expectations and the media was a disaster."

According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, "They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks." The publishing house was "hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week."

"The 60k represents a less than 10% sell thru based on what they shipped," says the source.

It's been reported that one million copies of Clinton's book were shipped weeks before the June 10 publication date. "They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime," the source writes in the email.

'Nervous at Simom & Schuster?' I doubt that.

Since I know a bit about how book publishing works, I can tell you that an old line, established publishing house like S & S doesn't make huge mistakes with advances like this. They research this stuff carefully and have a marketing analysis done by experienced hands before they get out the checkbook. For example, Mrs. Clinton's last ghost written memoir, 'Living History' which chronicled her White House years (for which, by the way, she never credited her ghost writer Barbara Feinman and even tried to renege on part of Ms. Feinman's $120,000 fee) only received an $8 million dollar advance and made a profit, but not an overwhelming one.And that sold double what 'Hard Choices' did in its first week.

Not only that, but S & S went to the trouble and expense of printing over one million copies and shipping them before all the retail orders or even the preorders online were even in.

Major publishers simply don't make mistakes like that, or they turn into former publishers.

So let's look at how this works in the real world, shall we? Let's say S & S makes a gross profit on the retail sales of this piece of self-serving package of horse manure of between $3 and $4 million. After they deduct the costs of the advance, advertising, shipping, printing and all the other associated costs, what they end up with is a loss for tax purposes of perhaps $12 million plus..that's fully tax deductible against their other profits.

Meanwhile Mrs. Clinton still has her $14 million advance thanks to Simon & Schuster's unprecedented 'miscalculation'....and a nice campaign contribution that skirts campaign finance laws completely, while S&S is almost completely reimbursed by the American taxpayer, that is, you and me.

That plus the $6 billion that mysteriously went missing and is unaccounted for from the State Department's budget while she was Secretary of State would make a nice start for a 2016 run.

 

What difference does it make, right?


Oh, and who owns Simon & Schuster? CBS, who are in turn owned by Viacom. Just a coincidence of course, but Viacom's Chairman of the Board is Sumner Redstone, a self-described 'liberal Democrat' and a major Democrat donor as are most of the members of Viacom's board....along with Phillipe Dauman, by far the biggest individual shareholder, with over 1,350,000 shares.

Just a coincidence. Of course.

Bombshell! Proof The IRS Is Lying About Lois Lerner's 'Lost' E-mails

 

As I reported previously, the IRS has refused to provide two years worth of formed IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner's e-mails with the excuse that her computer crashed.

How convenient! Who would have believed that our own IRS has absolutely no data backup system!

John Hinderaker at Powerline takes this apart even further, and has unearthed a bombshell at the very end that pretty much proves the IRS is lying through its teeth - again.

As Powerline points out, the IRS' own website reveals that their system of storing e-mail is ridiculously inadequate if they're actually telling the truth..which they may not be. We're expected to believe that no records were being kept prior to May of 2013 of all of the evidence on various cases, the decisions made and the actions taken by the IRS' employees.Prior to that, the IRS claims they were storing e-mails on tape which was erased and reused every six months to - wait for it - save taxpayers money. Since May of 2013, they say they now have a new policy of archiving all e-mails, but more about that below.

Of course, the IRS isn't claiming that the subpoenaed e-mails were recycled, remember. They're saying they were never archived at all because Lerner's computer crashed.And apparently, they want us to believe there was no success at all in any attempt to recover the lost data? With all the resources for doing so that the IRS must possess to deal with audits and attempts at fraud and concealing records?

Here's a little something that pretty much proves the IRS may not be telling the truth about this:

 

The IRS supplied this, the end of a supposed exchange of e-mails about the crash to congress as 'proof' Lerner's computer crashed.

First, note the date on this e-mail...July 19th, 2011. That's well before the supposed change in policy of May 2013 took place. So if what the IRS is telling us about their former methods is the truth, this e-mail should have been on those tapes that were 'recycled' and the IRS, if they're telling the truth shouldn't have been able to produce it..

That means that they are either lying about the recycling the e-mail tapes or that they manufactured this one and just backdated it, either of which constitutes lying to congress and obstruction of justice, which are felonies.Anyone else besides me think that they might have been instructed to do this this by someone higher up at the White House?

 

The other interesting point, as Hinderaker points out, is the wording of Lerner's e-mail:

It is remarkable that Lerner does not say: “Oh no! My hard drive crashed, and the IRS’s only copy of two years’ worth of my highly important work has been lost!” No: she is concerned about “my lost personal files,” because “there were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable.” That is a clearly stated and entirely reasonable concern, but it has nothing to do with losing the agency’s only record of two years of work. 

 

Puts a very different connotation on that 'crash', doesn't it?

Border Patrol Agents Handcuffed By New Use-Of-Force Restrictions

 


The surge of illegal aliens openly crossing the border has coincided with brand new use-of-force restrictions that not only keep them from doing what they're supposedly being paid to do but actually endanger them physically.

Agents are now mandated to avoid any situation where deadly force might come into play. "Examples include refraining from blocking moving vehicles' paths" or shooting at rock-throwers unless the agents can prove that they were in imminent danger. "Additionally, agents will be trained on how to carry and use lighter weapons, while also facing restrictions on taser use."

So if a coyote with a van full of sex slaves in the process of being trafficked across the border steps on the gas instead of stopping when ordered to, the Border Patrol has now been ordered to simply step aside and let them pass. And rest assured, whose whose intent is to cross our border illegally are well aware of the new restrictions.

Assaults on Border Patrol Agents by rock throwers on the Mexican side of the border are becoming increasingly common. The image, of course is of harmless kids committing mischief, but the reality (h/t, Breitbart) is that these assaults are far more serious than that:

 







Zack Taylor, Chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), told Breitbart Texas that agents must have a way to defend themselves against threatening immigrants armed with rocks.

"If you don't throw rocks at the border patrol agent, they're not going to shoot you," Taylor told Breitbart Texas. "If you threaten the life of the officer, you then put the officer in a position where he has to protect his life. What do people not understand about that?"

Aside from putting their lives and safety at risk, the new rules appear to be aimed at sending a message to Border patrol Agents from the Obama Administration: 'Don't take your job of apprehending
illegal aliens and protecting the border seriously. Sit back, get paid and enjoy the scenery.'

Kerry Signals That Joint Military Action With Iran In Iraq Is Imminent

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry today  left the door wide open on joint military action with Iran in Iraq and as much as said it's practically a done deal.

“We’re open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and ability of the government to reform,” Kerry said.

And military cooperation?

“At this moment, I think we need to go step-by-step and see what in fact might be a reality. But I would not rule out anything that would be constructive in providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the election process and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all the interests of Iraq,” he said. “We are open to any constructive process here that would minimize the violence.”

Yes, Iran and the Maliki's Iran-friendly government can certainly be counted on not to go tribal again.

Kerry, in fact, is already laying the ground for a 'go' on  air strikes and drone attacks that will be coordinated with Iran once the president finishes yet another golf holiday in Rancho Mirage.



Air strikes “are not the whole answer, but they may well be one of the options that are important to be able to stem the tide and stop the movement of people who are moving around in open convoys and trucks and terrorizing people,” Kerry said. “When you have people murdering, assassinating in these mass massacres, you have to stop that and you do what you need to do if you need to try to stop it from the air or otherwise.”

Of course, what Kerry isn't saying in so many words is that in order to do that, you have to coordinate those air strikes with the boots on the ground. Which means we'll be abandoning ISIS, whom the Obama Administration trained and armed to fight Syria's Basher Assad and moving over to the Shi'ite side with teammates like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, and Hezbollah, all of whom have lots of American blood on their hands..and incidentally, contributing to keeping Assad in power, chemical weapons and all.

In other words, what Kerry and President Obama are preparing to do is to have the U.S. pick sides in a sectarian civil war, something I seem to recall a certain Massachusetts Democrat senator and presidential candidate having an absolute hissy fit about back when President George W. Bush did it.

There's absolutely no reason for us to do so.Iraq, a made up country, is now merely reverting to it's natural divisions, and the Sunnis and Shi'ites will fight each other to a standstill, just as Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs did for 8 years back in the 1980's, weakening them both. That's definitely to our benefit, especially if Iran gets heavily involved. A war by Iran right now against ISIS and the Sunnis in Iraq with only Iran's minimal air power involved could last a long time without a decisive result for either side.

And the argument that Iraq will become 'a failed state' and a base for terrorist attacks on America? If you look around the region, most of what you see is failed states,. In fact, President Obama created one himself, in Libya.Any of these states can easily become a base for terrorist activity. And speaking of terrorist threats, the last time you checked was the Obama Regime really doing anything about Iran, a major state supporter of terrorism that was complicit in 9/11 and is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons?

If we're talking security risks to America, Iran is a far bigger clear and present danger than ISIS.Yet President Obama and his team are not only pretty much ignoring their illegal nuclear weapons program, they're actually talking about helping them secure a Shiite bloc to strengthen Iran's poisonous regime.

You literally couldn't make this stuff up.

 

Forum: Should The U.S. intervene in Iraq?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Should The U.S. intervene in Iraq?

The Independent Sentinel: The U.S. must intervene in Iraq in a significant way. ISIS or ISIL will eventually attack the U.S. and they will attack Israel. Of that, there is no doubt.

United States intelligence intercepted a letter in 2005 written from Al-Zawahiri to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter outlined a four-stage plan to expand the war in Iraq: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, and attack Israel –”because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Stage three is to attack us. The United States is in extreme and direct danger from ISIS.

They could have been stopped at the border if we had intervened in a timely manner or if we had a residual force in Iraq.

It's a very complicated matter. We are indirectly supporting these same people in Syria as they rampage through the country killing Christians - they are dispersed among the rebel forces and we are supplying them with arms and funds.

ISIS has joined up with moderate forces in Iraq. The moderates are people we would prefer not to alienate. They don't want Sharia law or an Islamic caliphate but they hate Maliki more. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

No matter what we do, we will be firing on people we claim to support, but the bottom line is that we can't let ISIS form an Islamic state.

Will President Obama do anything of any significance - unlikely. I hope I am proven wrong.

The Razor: Whenever a clear and present danger against our Republic materializes in that infernal sandpit, then yes we should intervene and crush it. But until that time arises, absolutely not.

 JoshuaPundit: No. Emphatically Hell No, with one possible exception.Send this guy:



Exactly what are we planning to accomplish there? The last time we got involved in Iraq, we took out a Sunni dictatorship that was the single counterpoint in the region to the Islamofacists in Iran and much to our allies in the region's dismay, we put in a Shi'ite dictatorship with major ties to Iran in its place. We allowed the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Iraq's Christians, sold out our only real allies in the region, the Kurds, and were finally able to extricate ourselves by bribing the Sunni chiefs in the Awakening Movement and lying to them about how Maliki was going to include them in his government as full and equal partners.

We lost over 4,400 U.S. troops there, spent at least a trillion dollars rebuilding their infrastructure, saved Iraq's oil wells for the Chinese and spent billions building them an army. We got absolutely nothing for it, not even simple gratitude. Anyone familiar with  the old saying about throwing good money after bad?

ISIS,whom President Obama and his team helped arm, fund and train is now facing off with Iranian forces. Are we now going to commit the U.S. military to fighting on the same side as Hezbollah, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. the Badr Force and Basher Assad to keep an Iranian ally in power? And if we're going there, are we going to aid these same forces in Syria as well to help Assad out? Anyone care to explain that pretzel logic to me?

What's most likely going to happen here is a stalemate, now that the Iranians have come in. Baghdad will be the dividing line, and the Shi'ites will hold on to the Baghdad to Basra corridor and the southern oilfields while ISIS puts together its Sunni mini-caliphate in southern Syria and the rest of Iraq and the Kurds carve of the Kurdish areas of northeastern Iraq and eastern Syria just across the border as the independent Kurdistan they always should have had. In other words, an artificial country that never should have been one is dividing along its natural lines.

The bloodshed and horror will last for months, just as it has in Syria and there's absolutely no reason for us to get involved, although President Obama might be stupid enough to aid Iran and the Shi'ite bloc by doing so.It would be a huge  mistake, just as it was sheer idiocy for Obama to go into Libya to save al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood from Khaddaffi, to champion the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to arm Islamists in Syria and to fund the terrorist alliance between Fatah and Hamas in 'Palestine'.

The last time the Sunnis and Shi'ites went to war in the Persian Gulf, there were a million casualties,  both sides were too busy to bother us and ended up substantially weakened.As the Dark Lord Dick Cheney wisely said, "it's a pity they can't both lose."

The majority of these countries are failed states, and most of them mean us no good. For that matter, there's a failed state just east of Afghanistan that we've bribed with billions of dollars. If the rationale is that we're going to knock off failed states with significant ties to Islamist terrorism just because, why not that one, which actually has an illegal nuclear weapons program already and has no love whatsoever for America? Obviously, playing that kind of  whack-a-mole is no strategy.

Our best bet (and hopefully this president will stumble into it through sheer incompetence) is to leave this strictly alone and let the two sides fight it out.

President Obama will not be able to do this at this point because no one in the region trusts him, but we would be far better off resetting our relationships with our allies in the region like Israel, Jordan and Egypt and synching their intel more with our own to monitor the situation.

Especially valuable (and again, President Obama would not be able to pull this off but we might try for it in the future) would be an alliance with the Kurds, who loved America because we protected them from Saddam during the no-fly-zone days and actually wanted us to put bases in their country until Bush 43 betrayed them. A strong independent Kurdistan would be a major U.S. asset, provided we could get win their trust again.

But another undeclared war with fuzzy objectives? No.


Liberty's Spirit: Should the US intervene in Iraq? In a review of the situation in Iraq you cannot look at it without looking at the Middle East as a whole. The effects of inaction in one sphere of the Moslem world has reverberations throughout the region.

The rise of ISIS can be directly connected to the Cairo speech that Obama gave shortly after coming to office. When he gave succor to the Moslem Brotherhood, Obama paved the way for the legitimization of radical Islamist organizations. By Obama turning his back on the consistent American allies in the Arab world (granted they were mostly tyrants and oligarchs) he let it be known throughout the region that the US would not step in to help its allies and that they in fact would support Islamists in their attempt to take over Arab governments. Without a history of democracy in the Arab world, the naive western support for the Arab Spring, which overthrew the longtime American allies, paved the way for the control by Islamists in the region. In truth, the Obama administration sees these Islamist groups as the true voice of the Arab people and an outgrowth of western imperialism and colonialism. In righting what the Obama administration sees as western domination of a third world people the Obama administration has facilitated the rise of the Islamo-fascists. I predicted everything that is happening now in the Middle East years ago, as well as outlining the ineptness of the Obama foreign policy worldwide.

Obama has botched everything about Iraq from the day he came into office. When Obama took office, there was a modicum of organization and the beginnings of a new Iraqi nation. However, Obama was so intent on leaving Iraq that he pulled our troops out without securing the gains made by our soldiers. Obama abandoned the people of Iraq to the duplicitous Maliki government and the evil that is Iran. He basically paved the way for a Shiite-Iran alliance which alienated the Sunni population in the country.

Then Obama's red-line in Syria was more of his machinations and complete inadequate understanding of the region. He allowed the Russians, who also join with Iran on the side of Assad, to come in and take over the "the good guy" position and lead the search for chemical weapons. (Of course, it has been proven to no thinking person's surprise, that Assad has not destroyed his weapons of mass destruction) Now, by the time Obama actually thought to do anything on the side of the opposition, ISIS was the formidable opposition to the Assad-Iran regime. At that point there was no way that it made any sense for the US to take the side against Assad. Obama had his way and decided to just let the Syrian civil war play out on its own.

ISIS as it gained strength in Syria decided to branch out and saw an opening into Iraq. That this is an on-going battle between Sunni and Shiite Islam is true. But there is more at stake right now for the entire world. You have ISIS, which is backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, versus the Shiite government of Maliki, which is backed by Iran. It is a power play for the control of the Moslem world and in the end control of the vast oil reserves in that region. (Meanwhile, the Obama administrations refusal to support oil and energy independence for the US in a logical manner, adds to our frightening dependence on this volatile region of the world).

That the US is reaching out to Iran for help to stop ISIS is not unforeseen. The Obama administration has been trying to normalize Iran since they came to office. They see Iran as a true player in Middle Eastern politics despite their human rights abuses and support for world wide terrorism. The Obama administration sees Iran as a needed ingredient to be a hedge against the State of Israel, who they see as the real impediment to any stabilization in the Middle East. The question is what exactly is the Obama administration giving Iran for their help in Iraq? Iran has already won the race toward a nuclear bomb, the issue is how else has the Obama administration endangered the entire world through their ineptness and ignorance when dealing with the Messianic cult that is in charge of Iran?

Yes, in many ways Obama is between a rock and a hard place. But it is one of his own making. Unfortunately his lack of ability to engender respect will lead to loosing the entire Middle East to any idea of democracy and freedom. Islamo-fascists are on the march, not only in the Middle East but in Europe, Asia and South America. They are coming here to the US, if their terror cells are not here already. They have promised that they will come after the US and the west. When people threaten your existence it is wise to listen. History no doubt, shows that Jimmy Carter by losing Iran facilitated the beginnings of the rise of Islamo-fascism. Meanwhile, history will show that Obama and his politically correct minions, caused a World War in the end so that we can preserve our own liberty and freedom.

Now as for what the US should do now? Whatever Obama does, it is too little too late. Bombing ISIS will only help the Iranian regime, but leaving ISIS will embolden Islamists. Arm twisting the Qataris and Saudis to pull their support for ISIS will not work. They have no fear of Obama and are terrified of Iran. Sadly, no matter who controls this region in the end it does not bode well for the future for anyone.

 The Glittering Eye: It's a tough call and I'm of mixed minds on it. Emotionally, I think we should since I think that under the circumstances which include invading their country and removing its government and not following through on post-withdrawal commitments we have a debt of honor. Rationally, I think we shouldn't if for no other reason than that I am predisposed against intervention.

What I really think should happen is a public discussion about our actual interests in Iraq and in the region with the intention of quantifying those interests as a method of producing a cost-benefit analysis.

As it is I think people are producing tactics without a strategy or objectives. Let's decide on the objectives first and then identify the tactics best-suited for accomplishing them.

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD:1st off, this ISIS gang is the Artist formerly known As al Qaeda. That alone is reason enough to rain destruction on them and any enablers, actualizers or sympathizers - the hurt feelings of Sunnis be danged.

44 says he's thinking it over

"The U.S. is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis."

A political plan for Iraq is vital. Everything the administration has said about the sectarianism and mis-governance of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is true. Assistance to Iraq must include strong conditions to press Maliki to change his approach - or leave office.

Yet the Iraqis need vigorous and intelligent American involvement right now to prevent a stalemate that will leave ISIS in control of much of northern Iraq. That is an unacceptable outcome

We face a simple choice: We can either rejoin our demoralized Iraqi partners in the fight against ISIS or we can watch as this Al Qaeda franchise solidifies its control over several million Iraqis and Syrians, completes its plundering of military bases and continues to build up, train and equip an honest-to-goodness military.

Rejoining the fight means immediately sending air support; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; air transportation; Special Operations forces; training teams; and more military equipment back into Iraq. It does not mean re-invading Iraq.

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.

In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required.

Friday 44 ruled out putting boots on the ground. He has consistently dismissed critics of his foreign policy as adventurers who want to invade everywhere Al Qaeda operates.

Cautiousness and deliberation are certainly warranted when contemplating re-entering a war, but delay risks allowing a key nation in the Middle East, one in which we've poured billions of dollars and thousands of lives, fall to violent Islamists.

The President no doubt has public opinion strongly on his side - especially since he has been leading the public to that side since before he first took office.

What are we to do as a country in which we have clear interests - preventing Al Qaeda from establishing a massive and wealthy safe-haven, stopping the evolution of a regional ethno-sectarian war, keeping Iran from establishing permanent forward military bases in Iraq - looks to be on the brink of falling to radical Islamists?

If the Iraqis cannot find a political solution quickly,is it better for the U.S. to allow all of this to happen? And are the odds of a political solution in Iraq increased or decreased by American inaction?

When America is passive in such cases, others fill the vacuum.

As we speak, the Iranians are trying to help the Iraqi Shi'a resist the ISIS advance. Reports indicate the deployment of hundreds of Qods Force troops to Iraq, and Tehran has threatened to conduct its own airstrikes in Iraq if militants come close to its border.

That advance will halt in any event once it reaches the Shi'a-dominated areas in and south of Baghdad.

Shi'a groups, including Moqtada al Sadr's militias, are already reforming in preparation for the full-scale sectarian war that is on its way.

Some may argue that we should align ourselves with Iran - that our interests and Tehran's coincide in Iraq. This is folly. The U.S. and Iran share a common concern about Al Qaeda, but our approaches to dealing with the problem are antithetical.

Turning the problem over to Iran is absolutely incompatible with the conditions for involving the U.S. at all that the President announced Friday. If we back Iran in Iraq, we're taking Iran's side against our Arab allies and aligning with the Shi'a against the Sunni. We should not be taking sides, particularly since Iran's approach is certain to lead to an expansion of sectarian war, providing a perennial recruiting masterpiece for Al Qaeda.

Relying on the Iraqis, with Iranian support, to beat back ISIS would have a predictable, almost inevitable, outcome: a transposition of the Syria conflict into Iraq - with Maliki in the role of Assad and ISIS playing, well, ISIS.

Under this scenario, Iraq would once again become another magnet for international jihadis, and the black-and-white ISIS banner will become the symbol not merely of Al Qaeda's most impressive military victory in history, but also of an actual Al Qaeda state.

Some would dispute this characterization, pointing to the vehement disagreements between ISIS and Ayman al Zawahiri, the head of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri, after all, partially expelled ISIS from the Al Qaeda movement.
Key to that disagreement is the argument about whether Al Qaeda affiliates should attempt to set up Islamic states now (ISIS says yes) or focus instead on the global jihad (Zawahiri's insistence). In fact, we should not be surprised if we soon hear claims that it is actually better for us that ISIS prevail in this competition, since it is "locally-focused."

Let us dispense with such sophistries at once. For all intents and purposes, ISIS is the Artist Formerly Known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Whatever disagreements may fester at the moment, it is and remains part of the global Al Qaeda movement. The group continues to draw would-be jihadis from around the world, including the U.S. and Canada, to fight and die in Syria and Iraq. And it is about to become the most powerful and successful Al Qaeda franchise ever.

There is no way that such a development will be anything but disastrous for the U.S., even leaving aside the calamity that will flow from the full-scale regional and sectarian war that may already be underway.

There is, in fact, no end in sight for this war now, especially if we allow Iraq to go down. A policy of retreat and abandonment remains as it has always been the fastest road to endless war.


Ask Marion: Absolutely… the United States must intervene in Iraq. Otherwise all our young men and women that fought their so honorably, were wounded there, and died there did so in vane. And let us not forget the trillions we invested there.

And there is also a much bigger price to come if we don’t. If we allow this all-slaughter to continue, regardless of what crazy Nancy Pelosi says, that is our fault because President Obama did not listen to his generals and experts on the ground about the withdrawal, the Islamic Caliphate will have begun there, and will spread throughout the Middle East, after which the attacks on Israel, the United States and any non-Muslim countries will be endless.

We need to be launching targeted drones and dropping missiles as well as giving what is left of their leadership guidance… but no boots on the ground!

And people in the know need to be calling the big-three media outlets… ABC, CBS and NBC and their local papers and demanding that this news be covered for the low-informed to see and understand.


Bookworm Room : I’m of many, many minds on this. Assuming that we want to end the bloodshed there, I would intervene only if we had a different (by which I really mean “better”) president. Things will not get better for America or for the Iraqis if we go in with an Obama led fighting force.

Obama doesn’t think in terms of victory or of the safety and well-being of American troops. He thinks in terms of political gamesmanship and the ugliness that is American military might. If he a new invasion, he’d piddle a few bombs here, order a few drones there, and watch a few hundred troops die somewhere else (then convening a panel to prove that the troops provoked their own demise). Then he’d declare we’d achieved some bean-counter’s goal and pull out.

Of course, if we had a better president, we wouldn’t be in this predicament in the first place. American wouldn’t be a paper tiger (or a paper clown). She’d be a world presence whose word meant something, and whose gravitas would keep at least some evil at bay.

And by better president, I do not mean another Dubya iteration. Dubya too never really understand that we’re fighting an enemy so evil it’s almost impossible to comprehend. Dubya thought in terms of a global calculus — bring democracy and we’ll have peace. It didn’t seem to occur to him that Islam and democracy do not coexist in the same temporal and spatial universe.

But really, should we intervene? Iran is now threatening to get involved, which takes me back to the glorious 1980s when Iran and Iraq were so busy killing each other, they had little time to kill anybody else.

Right now, Syria is an appalling blood bath. There are no good guys. Two armies of unspeakable evil are facing off against each other. The only innocents, and the only ones for whom I mourn, are the children and those helpless women — not the “black widows” or “martyred mamas” — who have been sucked into this morass through the sheer bad luck of being part of these toxic cultures.

The more the bad guys kill each other in Syria, the better for us. The same might hold true for Iraq. If it becomes another Shia/Sunni fight to the death, the only thing that I’ll mourn in addition to those poor women and children are the American troops who died, or who were wounded other otherwise suffered in a long war that might have been victorious if one president hadn’t done the “gentlemanly” thing and thrown it away to another president who did nothing at all.

  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?