Thursday, March 24, 2011

Russia Exploiting Obama's Eagerness For Missile Defense Treaty To Obtain Advanced US Technology



It just gets better and better with Obama, doesn't it?

Bestselling author and national defense expert Bill Gertz's column in the Washington Times tells the whole story of how Russia is using the Obama administration’s eagerness to conclude a missile defense deal as leverage to obtain advanced U.S. missile defense technology.

What the Russians are after is a defense technology cooperation agreement that will get them access to America's advanced hit-to-kill missile defense system, the key technology for our most current strategic long-range and tactical short-range defense systems.That's why they made a sudden U-turn in opposing US missile Defense systems.

The Russians love the idea of a 'swap' because they have have very little to throw into the mix except its strategic anti-missile interceptors around Moscow are armed with nuclear warheads — a system that is years behind Hit-to-Kill technology-wise and a likely target in future arms reduction talks based on Obama's START treaty anyway:

,
The notion that Moscow will share sensor data also is doubtful. Missile defense experts say Russia’s key radar are designed and deployed to detect U.S. submarine-launched missiles and are not useful in detecting Iranian missile launches, the main goal of the administration’s European-based missile defense plan.

Moscow also has problems getting U.S. technology because current law limits the transfer of technology under U.S. anti-proliferation law, specifically related to Iran, that bars Russia's government from access to U.S. high-tech exports based on its past and ongoing arms proliferation to Iran.

The Obama administration is loosening export controls as part of a major reform effort, and administration arms-control officials, including Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, are hoping the reforms will make it easier to reach her long-sought goal of concluding a missile defense or defense technology deal with Moscow.

“It’s the perfect storm: loosened export controls, reset with Russia and arms control fever by the administration,” said one official concerned about the pending Russian technology cooperation.

The Pentagon is said to be lukewarm at best over missile defense cooperation because of concerns the technology will be used to counter U.S. systems or sold covertly to U.S. adversaries.

Ms. Tauscher did not respond to emails seeking comment, and her spokesman, Jonathan E. Kaplan, declined to comment.

Ms. Tauscher, undersecretary of state for international security, told a conference Monday that talks with Russia on missile defense cooperation were progressing but that a final agreement was not assured.

According to the U.S. officials, Russians close to the government stated in recent talks that their main interest in any U.S. deal is getting access to military technology generally and missile-defense know how specifically.

The interest in U.S. technology followed a sharp turnaround in Moscow policy several months ago, when the Russians said they were no longer opposed to U.S. missile defenses. The Russian military hopes its engagement and a missile defense agreement will lead to obtaining strategic hit-to-kill missile technology.

Hit-to-kill involves ultra-high-speed, non-explosive guided warheads that destroy targets such as missile warheads in flight — by slamming into them.


Un-freaking-believable. And Prez Zero's supporters have the nerve call Sarah Palin stupid? I guarantee you she's a lot smarter than this.

At this point, the Republicans could run Daffy Duck in 2012 and I'd probably vote for him over Obama. Seriously.



please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Libya: NATO To Take Over


The Coalition of the Unwilling has finally hammered out an agreement. NATO is expected to take over command of the war after 48 hours.

There is apparently going to be what was referred to as a 'two-tiered structure', giving NATo command and control of military operations, which include an arms embargo, no-fly zone and "civilian protection".

The second structure is based on NATO's International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan, and will partner NATO and non-NATO countries, including the Arab League and African Union, to "steer" strategy.

What thet translates into in plain English is that Britain, France and especially the US will supply almost all of the hardware and personnel and assume almost all of the cost while the UN and the Arab League get a voice and a veto on any strategy.

It's unclear whether US forces will now be under foreign command,but I would think it's likely.

There's a compound word for this situation of which the first part is cluster, but I will let my readers draw their own conclusions. This is gong to be war by committee.

The deal was brokered by the Brits after France and Turkey's interaction degenerated into threats and name-calling. The French were adamantly opposed to giving NATO control, and in return the Turks accused them of being "crusaders" plotting to grab Libya's oil.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister came up with this gem:

"I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in that direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on."

The Brits have also changed their minds, and are now saying that the coalition will not stray beyond the UN resolution by personally targeting Muammar Khaddaffi.

"It is very important we don't go beyond that in any way," he said.

So..how are they planning on ending this again?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

In Honor Of The Approaching Date - The Official IRS Pencil Sharpener




Courtesy of Joshua's Army member Louie Louie!


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Johannesburg University Cuts It Nose To Spite Its Face

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4423089761_4bc9be074c.jpg

Johannesburg University in South Africa announced yesterday that it was cutting ties with Israel's Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel.

The two universities had been scheduled to do a study together on water purification, exploration and irrigation, something BGU is well known for, located as it is in the Negev.

The two institutions have been collaborating since 1987.

The official reason given was that UJ had not been able to find a Palestinian university willing to cooperate with the Israeli University...odd when you consider that UJ's vice chancellor Adam Habib was well aware that all Palestinian universities boycott Israel, the country that built them as a matter of policy.

"All the Palestinian universities said they would not be party to such an agreement because they felt academic freedom was not prioritized by Israeli universities," Habib said, adding that the Israeli university collaborates with the IDF.

That's right...the 'Palestinians' refuse to participate, so that means ties with Israel have to be cut. Apparently Muslim solidarity with the 'Palestinians' tops finding clean water!

Habib, by the way, is an anti-American radical who was barred from entering the United States in 2006 because of his ties to terrorism. Needless to say, the ban was lifted by the Obama Administration in the same ruling that allowed Islamist Tariq Ramadan into the US.

There's some unintentional humor going on here.

Ben Gurion University is a bastion of the Israeli Left, and has come under considerable fire lately because of anti-Israel speeches and articles by some of its faculty. The idea of them being boycotted for being too tied to the IDF and 'Zionists' is an absolute hoot.

Also the idea of BGU being snubbed by a third rate university ( UJ isn't even ranked among universities until you get below the 5,000 mark while BGU is ranked in the top 250 universities world wide) is quite humorous in and of itself.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

(Video) Trump On The View: “I want Obama to show the birth certificate.”



Donald Trump did an appearance on The View and in the midst of his 'discusson' with the Harpies this came out at about 2:08 - “I want him to show the birth certificate.”

Even more interesting, the predominantly Left wing studio audience applauded.

These days, most ordinary American know that you can't get a driver's license, register for school,or get hired for most jobs without providing a copy of your birth certificate...and yet, the man we hired as president has never shown his, except for a thrown together short form.

The Governor of Hawaii, Left wing loon and Obama ally Neil Abercrombie publicly swore that he was going to release it 'to shut the birthers up' - then had to admit he couldn't find it and has kept notably silent since then.

Not only is his birth certificate a mystery, but President Obama's school transcripts and records were all sealed by Obama, at considerable trouble and expense.

As Trump says, there's something on there Obama doesn't want the American public to know.And I think most people sense that.

As Kevin Dujann over at Hillbuzz speculated, it might simply be that it exists under the name Barry Soetoro, Obama's new legal name after his step father Lolo Soetoro legally adopted him, in accordance with Hawaii law.

If true, that would make every bill and executive order he signed under Barack Obama, his 'stage name' illegal and void.

Or it might be that there's no accompanying physician's affidavit or signature, merely a statement from the Dunhams that Obama was born at home..which in view of certain other facts like his mothers subsequent travel schedule could lead to additional doubts about exactly when ans where Obama was born.

It might even list someone different as Obama's father, perhaps communist,pornographer and child molester Frank Marshall Davis, to whom Obama bears a striking resemblance. That would tear apart the entire 'Dreams of My Father' mythos.

Eventually, we're going to find out.

( Hat Tip, Da Tech Guy via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Video: Qu'ran Burning In Florida



Pastor Terry Jones finally held the Qu'ran Bar-B-Cue yesterday at his Florida church that he originally planned for the anniversary of 9/11.

I personally am against this sort of thing for one reason - it's essentially unkind.

But I note that in the last decade there have been numerous Bibles, Torah scrolls, churches, synagogues and Buddhist and Hindu shrines destroyed by Muslims in the name of Islam, as well as thousands of non-Muslims slaughtered...all without a word of complaint or condemnation from most of the Muslim world.

Next to that, the burning of a single Qu'ran seems a small payback, although I hardly expect Muslims to see it that way.

Tolerance and intolerance are mirrors,in that they create their own reflections.

Just something to think about.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

I'd Love To See The Mechanics Of This Poll


CNN, the Ghost Network no one watches has a new poll out under the headline 'Most Americans 'okay' with a mosque in their community'.

The tag line is a blurb to a series some reporter named Soledad O'Brien is doing that ' chronicles the dramatic fight over the construction of a mosque in the heart of the Bible belt.'

That would most likely be the construction of a number of huge mega-mosques in Central Tennessee that far outstrip the number of Muslims in the area. And the justifiable controversy has arisen ( which you can read about at the link) because of the Muslim Brotherhood ties of people involved in the proposed Islamic Center Of Murfreesboro, the murky sources of funding, the process by which permits were issued and the zoning considerations.

The poll claims that 69 percent of Americans would be "okay" with a mosque in their area while 28 percent would not, but goes on to say that the percentage dips toonly 46% when they're polling what they condescendingly characterize as 'rural southerners' ('get a load of this trailer trash Fred..she has all her teeth and she's wearing shoes!').

They go on to quote the ACLU about hate crimes against Muslims and cite a statistic that 46 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of American Muslims today.

And then, at the very bottom, there's this, a quote from their own pollster, Keating Holland:

"When it comes to attitudes towards the Islamic faith, American opinions haven't changed much. In 2002, 28 percent of all Americans had a favorable view of Islam and 33 percent feel that way today."


Now that's definitely the bum note in this sweet chord of diversity..the poll claims that 69% of Americans are OK with a mosque in their neighborhood and 46% have a favorable view of American Muslims..but below the fold, at the bottom of the article their pollster says only 33% have a favorable view of Islam?



Two and two aren't making four here, are they? I'd love to know whom they asked, how they filtered their results, whether they oversampled certain groups and exactly what questions were asked.

Although I have a feeling I know the answers already.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Al-Reuters: Bus Bombing 'A "Terrorist" Attack - Israel's Term For A Palestinian Strike'

Yes, that's how al-Reuters referred to yesterday's bus bombing in Jerusalem:

Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.


Those wacky Jooos...imagine them calling a bus bombing a 'terrorist attack'! What could they be thinking? It's a 'Palestinian strike', and the Israelis had it coming to them anyway.

I wonder if al-Reuters refers to the London Tube bombings in 2007 as a transportation tie up.

NewSpeak seems to be having a banner day today. According to the Obama Administration spokesmouths, we're not at war in Libya. No, it's 'kinetic military action.'

Beyond disturbing.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A New Watcher's Council Feature - Head To Head!


Today, we introduced a brand new WoW feature...Head To Head!

Each week members of the Council and/or guest debaters will challenge each other in a no-holds-barred cage match discussing the issues making the headlines today.

This week's matchup pits Greg from Rhymes With Right against Council Alumnus Soccer Dad, as they examine the question:Should articles of impeachment be drawn up over President Obama's extension of presidential war powers?

GREG:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. -- Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

The exercise of the impeachment power by the House of Representatives is not something to be undertaken lightly. And yet, the words of "constitutional scholar", "statesman", and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Hussein Obama carry special weight as we consider the decision to commit US forces to military action in Libya over the past weekend. They speak to a situation in which a president might exceed the authority delegated to him under the US Constitution in such a manner as to constitute a violation of his oath of office and, in the words of the constitution, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" which amount to a n impeachable offense.

Let's examine the reality of the current Libyan engagement. The United States has not been attacked by Libya, nor is there any discernible threat of attack against the United States during the four weeks since Obama made a nebulous "declaration of emergency" over the Libyan situation made via an executive order. Indeed, the grounds for the attack is to protect Libyan civilians from their own government, which while laudable does not constitute any sort of defense of American security. There has been no authorization of this use of force by either house of Congress, and Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that there has been no meaningful consultation of Congressional leadership or communication as to the intended level of commitment or its goals. Indeed, Obama has declared his authority for the use of force to be not the US Constitution, not a Congressional authorization to use the war-making power of the US military, but a United Nations resolution.

Frankly, this situation is virtually without precedent in American history in its disregard of the constitutional limits on the war-making power. In taking this course of action, Barack Obama is guilty of the very offenses of which he and his fellow Democrats accused George W. Bush since the early days of US involvement in Iraq. Some adversarial proceeding is needed to determine if the authority of the president is as small and circumscribed as laid out by Barack Obama in 2007, or whether the new Obama Doctrine (the UN, not Congress, authorizes US military action) is within the bounds of presidential war-making authority.

And herein lies the rub -- the third branch of government is uniquely incompetent to judge this matter. When Bill Clinton committed US troops in Kosovo, the DC Circuit Court (Campbell v. Clinton)noted the incompetence of the judiciary to adjudicate such matters. Indeed, it is questionable whether any plaintiff would have standing to make such a challenge. This puts the matter straight into the realm of nonjusticiable political questions. How then can such questions be resolved in an adversarial setting? Only through the process of impeachment by the House of Representatives with a trial by the Senate. The decision to remove Barack Hussein Obama -- or to not remove him -- for violating his presidential oath by exceeding the constitutional limits of the war-making power will serve to delineate the extent of that power. The use of this process is therefore in order -- and I believe that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has a ready-made template for the articles of impeachment for exceeding those limits (see Articles VII and VIII) on file in his office on Capitol Hill. For the good of the nation and protection of the Constitution, let the process begin.



SOCCER DAD: "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." saying sometimes attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson

Among the checks and balances provided for our government in the constitution is the removal from office of the President by means of impeachment. Impeachment - a process by which charges are drawn up by Congress and, if approved, submitted to the Senate for trial - is a powerful political tool. But because its nature is not strictly criminal, but political too. Thus conviction requires a two thirds majority of the Senate to remove a President from office. Clearly the founders felt that impeachment was necessary, but with a necessary constraint. A Congress choosing to impeach a President needed to convince a supermajority of the Senate of his guilt. Without this constraint, impeachment could become a political weapon.

In late 1998 an independent counsel found that President Clinton had perjured himself and referred his investigation to the House of Representatives. In December the House voted to refer the matter to the Senate for impeachment. Instead of being appalled at the President's misbehavior, Democrats rallied around him, with Vice President Gore declaring that impeachment was "... a great disservice to a man I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest Presidents." And though it was self serving for Dick Gephardt to claim, "Chairman Henry Hyde once called impeachment, the ultimate weapon, and said that, for it to succeed, ultimately it has to be bipartisan," he was correct. Republicans needed to have a bipartisan agreement on the seriousness of President Clinton's behavior and they didn't.

The issue now is the same. If the Democrats rallied behind an obvious lawbreaker like Clinton are they likely to abandon President Obama? And no, Democrats won't concede the obvious - that President Obama abused his authority in a way that President Bush didn't. Democrats (and their media allies) have accepted the "Bush lied" doctrine. So yes some Democrats supported the war against Iraq, but it was because these poor souls were willfully misled.

In short, the Republicans have no chance of removing President Obama from office. To impeach him will serve to strengthen him and the Democrats at a time when they are reeling, just like the unsuccessful attempt to remove Clinton derailed the Republican revolution twelve years ago.

GREG:Is impeachment a process that is every bit as political as it is judicial? Let me be the first to concede that point. And yet, it is precisely because the impeachment process is political that it becomes the ideal process for dealing with a question that the courts themselves are loath to adjudicate -- that of the extent of the war-making powers of the man or woman who holds the office of President of the United States. Because the answer to the question is placed squarely in the hands of one of our political branches (the Legislative Branch) regarding the limits of the power of the other (the Executive Branch), the fact that political as well as judicial considerations will enter into the picture is perfectly appropriate.

And ultimately this is a good thing.

The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, when all was said and done, was properly handled by both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives properly raised the question of Clinton's perjury, while the Senate determined that his guilt of the offense (which even many of those voting not to remove him from office conceded), was insufficient grounds to remove him. This ultimately established the precedent that personal misconduct that does not implicate the constitutional balance of powers is not sufficient grounds to remove a sitting president -- especially due to the fact that there remains the possibility of criminal charges for that misconduct. Indeed, one of Clinton's final acts as president was to strike a deal with the independent counsel in order to stave off the possibility of his indictment and trial for that personal misconduct. While Richard Nixon resigned prior to impeachment, it seems clear that his acceptance of a pardon from Gerald Ford weeks later established the same working precedent.

I'd argue that the impeachment of Barack Obama would be more akin to the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson over the Tenure of Office Act. That battle, properly viewed, is one that helped establish the balance of power between the Executive and legislative branches with regard to the right of the President to select his senior Executive Branch officials free from constraints beyond those set by the Constitution itself. This was acknowledged some four decades later by the Supreme Court in another, unrelated case -- one which, had the US Senate removed Johnson from office, would have doubtless been decided differently based upon the impeachment precedent. While Johnson was not removed by the US Senate, he was by no means strengthened during his remaining days in office. Indeed, he was explicitly snubbed by his successor, Ulysses S. Grant, and not even invited to his successor's inauguration.

Would Democrats vote to remove Obama from office over his Libyan War? That is hard to say -- but I think they might. We have already seen a number of Democrats condemn Obama over it. If they truly believe that he has exceeded his constitutional authority -- a clear case of malfeasance in office -- then it becomes possible that Senate Democrats will vote to remove even a president of their own party -- who in this case will be replaced by a man who they viewed as a senior statesman among their number for over three decades, Joe Biden. What's more, if they vote against his removal, they effectively establish a congressionally endorsed precedent that will establish that the President, as commander-in-chief, has war-making powers that are unfettered and which exclude the Congress from effective involvement in the decision to go to war. I do not believe that the Legislative Branch will vote to emasculate itself. Yet if Obama is not removed -- and I am by no means saying that it is a foregone conclusion that he should be -- said decision also has the effect of ratifying the military actions of every president since Kennedy. The partisan impact of seeking the proceedings -- which party is strengthened or weakened by the invocation of this process -- must be viewed as secondary to the greater question of the balance of powers within our national government.

SOCCER DAD:After I chose to challenge your thesis, I had some hesitations. From your writing it is clear that you have an understanding of constitutional issues that I cannot approach. I could never analyze a hypothetical impeachment of President Obama and conclude that it closely matches the issues of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. I can't challenge your conclusions, I don't have the knowledge to do so.

However you argue that the issue at hand is the separation of powers. If I understand you correctly, President Obama has overstepped the bounds of his office in an unprecedented fashion and must be called to account. However, if going to war without authorization from Congress is an impeachable offense, there were grounds in the past, for impeaching ... President Clinton, who, I just learned (or was reminded) did not get authorization from Congress before bombing Serbia. I suspect that President Clinton wasn't impeached for that because Presidents often extend the reaches of their power as they deem expedient. President Obama's decision to join in attacking Qaddafi, isn't particularly exceptional.

What is clear is that President Obama is being extremely hypocritical. And while that is political behavior, impeachment is too strong a political weapon to be used in this case and is likely to be ineffective, if not counterproductive. Using op-ed pages and Sunday morning talk shows to emphasize the President's hypocrisy is the appropriate response and more likely to convince the electorate of his dissimulation.

Read the rest here..


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

An Open Letter To The Leader Of The Free World

My good pal Robert Avrech over at Seraphic Secrets has a scrumptious post with some excellent common sense advice on Libya, addressed to the current leader of the free world..President Sarkozy of France:


Nicolas-Sarkozy.JPG

Dear President Sarkozy:
Thanks so much for stepping into the power vacuum created by President Obama in regard to the current unrest in Libya.

Look, I'll be honest, I've made a lot of snarky cracks about France, and dreck French movies over the past few years, but I sense that you are a different kind of French leader, one who is acutely aware of the dangers posed by the transnational Islamists and the Muslim majorities who, through their silence, have abdicated power and influence—code for terror and intimidation—to the jihadists. {...}

Well look, I'm just a dopey Hollywood screenwriter but let me offer my advice on this war, because G-d knows, you're not going to get anything worthwhile from our Community Disorganizer in Chief, who is busy busting moves in Brazil, urging them to drill for oil, while blocking domestic oil exploration.

A clearly defined mission in war is a must and here's what—excuse the pun—to shoot for:

1. Kill Muammar. Forget all the nonsense about bringing him to justice at some world court in Luxemburg or Lichtenstein or whatever third-rate country hosts this farce. Just kill the SOB, wrap the corpse in a pig hide and download the video to You Tube.

2. Ditto for the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

3. After that bit of business, hand over power to whatever provisional government steps forward and then—

4. Get the hell out of Dodge. Because you are intervening on behalf of a murky group of tribes who hate each other almost as much as they hate Muammar K., and the chances of sorting out who's on first is one of those impenetrable cultural dilemmas that westerners are simply unable to decode.

5. And because the Libyans, like Arab Muslims everywhere, will almost certainly opt for another murderous regime, probably the Muslim Brotherhood or an equally homicidal Islamist gang who will proceed to blame Israel/Jooz for, well, everything, and then loot the national treasury.


Gotta go read the whole thing. And as a reward, some extra special eye candy awaits you at the end of the article.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Libyan 'Coalition' Falling Apart

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2883128876_356597b74b.jpg



Who's in charge? And in charge of doing what? Nobody seems to know.

Amid squabbling by the 'allies' only six planes are aloft in th eno fly zone over Libya at any one time, which is enough to enforce a no fly zone over Benghazi - just.Monday, only a dozen Tomahawk missiles were fired – and only at Qaddafi's coastal compounds, a far cry from what happened over the weekend. Part of the reason is that the Brits are reportedly out of missiles!

The reaL problems started after a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday, which still hasn't decided whether NATO should run the operation to enforce the U.N.-mandated no-fly zone.

Germany, who abstained from voting on the UN resolution has abruptly pulled its ships and AWACS surveillance operations personnel out of the operation.

Italy said today that unless NATO heads the operation, they will take back control of the airbases the 'coalition' is using. meanwhile, the French are arguing against making Libya a NATO operation and are saying that the coalition led by Britain, the United States and France should retain political control of the mission, while the Turks, who initially opposed NATO being any part of the Libyan war now want severe limits to any NATO involvement.

As for the Arab states, the only Arab country that has sent anything is Qatar, which deployed a total of 4 planes. And those planes, based in Italy, have orders only to operate up to the point where the Libyan coast is visible, and not an inch further.If Italy follows through on its threat to take back use of its air bases, those planes will undoubtedly head back to Qatar.

Meanwhile the U.S. and Britain are at odds after the U.K. government claimed Khaddaffi is a legitimate target for assassination.

According to the Brits, assassinating the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as per the U.N. resolution.

But U.S. SecDef Robert Gates would have no part of that , saying it would be 'unwise' to target Khaddaffi but that the campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

When asked today what the outcome of all this is, Gates replied that there were many possible outcomes and that it would be unwise to predict one...not the most decisive reply! And truthfully, I don't think he knows. Neither, perhaps, does US Africa commander Gen. Carter Ham, who announced from his base in Germany that ousting Khaddaffi was were not part of "our mission" and that the Security Council resolution addressed only 'protection of civilians' and not support for the rebels. The puzzle of how you do one without doing the other is not something the general seems overly curious about.

And President Barack Obama? Well, the president cut short his spring break vacay and returned to Washington earlier than he had planned. He apparently either isn't aware of the discord between what Der Speigel wittily dubbed 'The Coalition of the Unwilling' or simply figures things will iron themselves out somehow. He said on Monday that the US would cease control of operations against Khaddaffi's forces within days, letting NATO take over.In his news conference in El Salvador yesterday he said he had "absolutely no doubt" that control could be shifted from the U.S. to other coalition members within days.

"When this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone," the president said earlier at a news conference. "It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily enforcing the arms embargo. That's precisely what the other nations are going to do."

"The exit strategy will be executed this week in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment."

And again, he reiterated that the US would not send ground troops into Libya.

"We'll still be in a support role, we'll still be providing jamming, and intelligence and other assets that are unique to us, but this is an international effort that's designed to accomplish the goals that were set out in the Security Council resolution," Obama said.

Since neither France nor Britain has the military resources to lead the coalition, you have to wonder what's in Obama's mind.

Did he merely want to establish this as a precedent for the future, as I wrote earlier? Or has he simply written this wag the dog effort off as a failed idea and wants to move on?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Senate Dems To Hold 'Islamophobia ' Committee Hearing


Apparently the word went out to DC from some well-connected Muslim Brotherhood fronts.

The Senate Democrats are holding hearings of their own to counter Rep. Peter King's hearings in the House Homeland Security Committee investigating radical Islam in America.

The subject if the Senate hearings? Islamophobia and violations of Muslim Civil rights.

The hearings will be chaired by Senator Dick Durbin ( D-IL) and will be the first ones held by the Judiciary Committee's new subcommittee on civil rights and human rights, which Democrats created this year.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, announced the subcommittee hearing Tuesday,claiming there has been a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year that demands closer attention.

“Our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion for all Americans,” Durbin said. “During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter’s commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.”

One curious factoid...according to the latest FBI statistics available, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for only 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded in 2009, versus the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish.

One would think the Senators on a human rights committee would be much more interested in dealing with the overall clear majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in America, but perhaps some animals are more equal than others in their eyes.

I don't have figures for what percentage of the anti-Jewish hate crimes were committed by Muslims,but it would certainly be interesting to find out.

Although somehow, I have a feeling that the numbers are significant enough so that Senator Durbin and his friends would rather not be confronted with that information.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

ObamaCare One Year Later: Americans Still Hate It, And Cost Estimates Have Jumped



The most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, only 37 percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when the last major polling took place. And remember, this is CNN, where democrats are oversampled to the tune of at least 10-15%, as you can tell by their futile attempts to spin this in Zero's favor.

Not only that, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, the estimated cost of ObamaCare has jumped 8.6%, and based on the research I did at the time, the CBO's estimate is still low. A big f@#!in' deal indeed, as Joe Biden would say.

ObamaCare is going to be repealed..either by the Supreme Court, or by Congress once the Republicans take the Senate in 2012.

Epic fail.

( via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Liz Taylor, RIP



Elizabeth Taylor passed away today at the age of 79,of congestive heart failure.

She was admitted to the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles 'for monitoring' last month.

Taylor's son, Michael Wilding, said in a statement: 'We will always be inspired by her enduring contribution to our world.

'My Mother was an extraordinary woman who lived life to the fullest, with great passion, humour, and love.

He added: 'Though her loss is devastating to those of us who held her so close and so dear, we will always be inspired by her enduring contribution to our world.

'Her remarkable body of work in film, her ongoing success as a businesswoman, and her brave and relentless advocacy in the fight against HIV/AIDS, all make us all incredibly proud of what she accomplished. We know, quite simply, that the world is a better place for Mum having lived in it.

'Her legacy will never fade, her spirit will always be with us, and her love will live forever in our hearts.'

She earned four Oscar nominations- for Raintree County, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Suddenly, Last Summer - finally winning at her fourth attempt with film Butterfield 8. She later got a second Oscar in 1967 for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?.

Like a certain English king, she was married 8 times, to 7 different husbands (She married Richard Burton twice).

In addition to her children, she is survived by ten grandchildren and four great-grandchildren.

So long Liz. RIP.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Jerusalem Bombing Update

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf0ASrhXFAPgZZ2VHaJkS-4KrAc_zxZVdL1305En91aEGImmmEdJEj51eO72MUREVQ6PobF8o2JOC3w-1IQi_VERcKK93Fg691LQAw-9FcdeXX6-qS6de_cnoFtuDjPiKxtGgm5g/s400/JCC+Bus+3.jpg

The official toll of this morning's bombing in Jerusalem is 31 wounded, three critically.

Contrary to previous reports, this was not a suicide bomber. The bomb was placed in a bag near one of the most popular bus terminals in Israel and exploded while a local kiosk owner was on the phone with police reporting it. The bomb was approximately 4 pounds (1-2 Kilos) and filled with shrapnel...to maximize civilian casualties.

There are reports that witnesses were able to identify the one specific man who left the bag and police were searching for him.

Israel's Channel 10 is reporting that the Shin Bet believe the terrorist probably came from Hebron.

Today, as Israel's Southern Command anticipated, Palestinian Grad missiles imported by Hamas from Iran struck Beersheba and Ashdod, wounding a resident and prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to threaten lengthy "exchanges of blows" with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

"No country would be prepared to absorb protracted missile fire on its cities and civilians, and of course the State of Israel is not prepared to," Netanyahu said in parliament.

The Israelis might just be better off taking on Hamas now full on while the 'international community' is entangled with Libya.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the missile attacks, but nothing happens in Gaza without Hamas' OK..and ultimately, that's who would have allocated the missiles to Islamic Jihad.

The missile attacks and the bus terminal bombing follows a barrage from Hamas of more than two dozen mortar shells and rockets over the weekend.

They have obviously received orders from Iran to rev up their attacks on Israel.

The UN Security Council went into session immediately and has voted on a resolution authorizing all steps necessary to protect Israeli civilians. (/sarcasm off).

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Breaking: Bus Bombing In Jerusalem

A homicide bomber just blew up a bus in front of the Binyanei Ha Uma (Jerusalem Convention Center). 30 people are reported wounded.

Southern Command has placed South at highest alert level. Rocket attacks are expected.

Police suspect a second bomber is walking around the area.

Police are checking all parked cars for additional bombs.

more later.


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Could Obama Be Impeached Over Libya? Let's Ask Joe Biden..



I love the smell of Dem hypocrisy in the morning...

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Watcher's Council Nominations - Libyan Tango 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.

Council News:

This week, Restoring Honor Starts Here, The Grouch, Maggie's Notebook and Capitalist Preservation took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.

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 e-mail me a link at rmill2k@msn.com with the subject heading ‘Honorable mention’ no later than Monday 6PM PST 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!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Head To Head: Should Articles Of Impeachment Be Drawn Up On Obama ?


The Watcher's Council has a brand new WoW feature...Head To Head!

Each week members of the Council and/or guest debaters will challenge each other in a no-holds-barred cage match discussing the issues making the headlines today.

This week's matchup pits Greg from Rhymes With Right against Council Alumnus Soccer Dad, as they examine the question:Should articles of impeachment be drawn up over President Obama's extension of presidential war powers?

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. -- Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

The exercise of the impeachment power by the House of Representatives is not something to be undertaken lightly. And yet, the words of "constitutional scholar", "statesman", and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Hussein Obama carry special weight as we consider the decision to commit US forces to military action in Libya over the past weekend. They speak to a situation in which a president might exceed the authority delegated to him under the US Constitution in such a manner as to constitute a violation of his oath of office and, in the words of the constitution, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" which amount to a n impeachable offense.

Let's examine the reality of the current Libyan engagement. The United States has not been attacked by Libya, nor is there any discernible threat of attack against the United States during the four weeks since Obama made a nebulous "declaration of emergency" over the Libyan situation made via an executive order. Indeed, the grounds for the attack is to protect Libyan civilians from their own government, which while laudable does not constitute any sort of defense of American security. There has been no authorization of this use of force by either house of Congress, and Speaker John Boehner has made it clear that there has been no meaningful consultation of Congressional leadership or communication as to the intended level of commitment or its goals. Indeed, Obama has declared his authority for the use of force to be not the US Constitution, not a Congressional authorization to use the war-making power of the US military, but a United Nations resolution.

Frankly, this situation is virtually without precedent in American history in its disregard of the constitutional limits on the war-making power. In taking this course of action, Barack Obama is guilty of the very offenses of which he and his fellow Democrats accused George W. Bush since the early days of US involvement in Iraq. Some adversarial proceeding is needed to determine if the authority of the president is as small and circumscribed as laid out by Barack Obama in 2007, or whether the new Obama Doctrine (the UN, not Congress, authorizes US military action) is within the bounds of presidential war-making authority.

And herein lies the rub -- the third branch of government is uniquely incompetent to judge this matter. When Bill Clinton committed US troops in Kosovo, the DC Circuit Court (Campbell v. Clinton)noted the incompetence of the judiciary to adjudicate such matters. Indeed, it is questionable whether any plaintiff would have standing to make such a challenge. This puts the matter straight into the realm of nonjusticiable political questions. How then can such questions be resolved in an adversarial setting? Only through the process of impeachment by the House of Representatives with a trial by the Senate. The decision to remove Barack Hussein Obama -- or to not remove him -- for violating his presidential oath by exceeding the constitutional limits of the war-making power will serve to delineate the extent of that power. The use of this process is therefore in order -- and I believe that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has a ready-made template for the articles of impeachment for exceeding those limits (see Articles VII and VIII) on file in his office on Capitol Hill. For the good of the nation and protection of the Constitution, let the process begin.



SOCCER DAD: "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." saying sometimes attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson

Among the checks and balances provided for our government in the constitution is the removal from office of the President by means of impeachment. Impeachment - a process by which charges are drawn up by Congress and, if approved, submitted to the Senate for trial - is a powerful political tool. But because its nature is not strictly criminal, but political too. Thus conviction requires a two thirds majority of the Senate to remove a President from office. Clearly the founders felt that impeachment was necessary, but with a necessary constraint. A Congress choosing to impeach a President needed to convince a supermajority of the Senate of his guilt. Without this constraint, impeachment could become a political weapon.

In late 1998 an independent counsel found that President Clinton had perjured himself and referred his investigation to the House of Representatives. In December the House voted to refer the matter to the Senate for impeachment. Instead of being appalled at the President's misbehavior, Democrats rallied around him, with Vice President Gore declaring that impeachment was "... a great disservice to a man I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest Presidents." And though it was self serving for Dick Gephardt to claim, "Chairman Henry Hyde once called impeachment, the ultimate weapon, and said that, for it to succeed, ultimately it has to be bipartisan," he was correct. Republicans needed to have a bipartisan agreement on the seriousness of President Clinton's behavior and they didn't.

The issue now is the same. If the Democrats rallied behind an obvious lawbreaker like Clinton are they likely to abandon President Obama? And no, Democrats won't concede the obvious - that President Obama abused his authority in a way that President Bush didn't. Democrats (and their media allies) have accepted the "Bush lied" doctrine. So yes some Democrats supported the war against Iraq, but it was because these poor souls were willfully misled.

In short, the Republicans have no chance of removing President Obama from office. To impeach him will serve to strengthen him and the Democrats at a time when they are reeling, just like the unsuccessful attempt to remove Clinton derailed the Republican revolution twelve years ago.


Read the rest here!




please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

NYT's New $40 M Paywall Can be Defeated With 4 Lines Of Code!

As you may be aware, Pravda-on-the-Hudson is going to a paywall system designed to get people who read it to pay a fairly steep fee for the privilege - $15 to $35 a month, depending on the package.

They reportedly spent up to $40 million dollars designing this sophisticated paywall, which allows 'casual readers' up to 20 articles a month for free, which the Times justifies by figuring they'll look at the advertising.

I personally consider this the dying gasp of an icon of the dinosaur media, and as far as I'm concerned,it can't come too soon and I hope it's fairly painful.I read considerably less than 20 articles a month,and that's mainly to point out Pravda-on-the-Hudson's latest journalistic atrocity.

However, there may be some of you whom actually can't live without the wit and wisdom of Modo, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Nick Cristoff and the rest of the Treason Times crew.And there's certainly no reason you should have to pay any more for it than it's worth.

Fortunately, some techies have discovered to their amusment that the Time's $40 million paywall system can be defeated with just four lines of javascript code. And while the Times may be able to fix this particular hole ( and I say may, because fixing it might result in problems with the various search engines like Google), the silly thing is so poorly designed that right clicking on the Paywall notice and choosing “Inspect Element” gives rise to all sorts of possibilities.

And if that's too difficult, apparently a Canadian techie named David Hayes has just released NYTClean, a bookmarklet that, in one click, tears down the Times’ paywall on any article you fancy.

Always glad to help.


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!