"I Lived. I Died. Now Mind Your Own Business." — that's how I want my tombstone to read.
What do I have to hide? Everything! Which is to say, every thing you demand to know from me is something I don't want to tell you.
Privacy is the single most effective means of preserving freedom against an encroaching state. Privacy rests on the assumption that — in the absence of specific evidence of wrongdoing — an individual has a right to shut his front door and tell other people (including the government) to mind their own damned business. This is a presumption of innocence. It is also the bedrock of civil society.
The act of slamming your front door expresses the key distinction between the private and public spheres. The private sphere consists of the areas of life in which an individual exercises authority and into which the government or other uninvited parties cannot properly intrude; traditionally, the home or family is offered as a prime example of the private sphere. Thus, historically, privacy has stood as a bulwark between the individual and government, between freedom and social control.
No wonder privacy is under vicious and sustained attack.
Totalitarianism requires total information, and today's government is intent on achieving the complete identification of everyone, like taking an inventory of belongings to be taxed and controlled: national ID, biometrics, "your papers please!"
At every juncture, it seems, we are being asked to fill out a form, to answer invasive questions, to submit our bags for a search, to shut up or speak out on command, and to raise our arms to be wanded while we're at it.
In his book Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, James C. Scott commented on the role played by one form of inventory — census data — in the rise of the modern state:
If we imagine a state that has no reliable means of enumerating and locating its population, gauging its wealth, and mapping its land, resources, and settlements, we are imagining a state whose interventions in that society are necessarily crude.
Acquiring data not only facilitated "a more finely tuned system of taxation and conscription" but also allowed the state to intervene effectively throughout society. The more data, the more effective the intervention.
To facilitate its effectiveness, however, the state needs to eliminate competition and then command a monopoly on the production of acceptable ID. After all, ID not only serves as a tool of social engineering; it also has valid functions that a free market would address in a flash (and it would do so more efficiently). ID provides authentication for inheritances and property titles; it certifies people as being skilled, in thoracic surgery for example; and it documents authorization such as a rights of access to buildings or bank accounts.
The state does not necessarily outlaw such competition, but it flexes its ID-monopoly muscle in several ways. For example, it enforces "forgery" laws: the current penalty for passport or visa fraud is ten years for a first offense if not tied to terrorism or drug trafficking. But the most powerful weapon for enforcing this monopoly is that the government has made state-issued ID into a de facto condition for functioning well in daily life. In essence, the state and its documentation have become the only way for a person to "prove" his or her identity and, thus, to access vital (even nongovernmental) services.
The "unidentified" cannot board a plane or train, nor drive a car. They cannot open a bank account, cash a check, take a job, attend school, get married, rent a video (let alone an apartment), or buy a house. The unidentified are second-class citizens to whom the government closes off much of life and almost all opportunity to advance. Meanwhile, the "identified" are vulnerable to having their bank accounts frozen, access to healthcare denied, credit cards canceled, wages garnished, records subpoenaed; and they are subject to a myriad of other invasions that come from the government knowing exactly where and how to find them.
Those who resist being inventoried present a problem for the state. The first line of attack is to accuse them of being "suspicious" — that is, of having criminal or shameful reasons for refusing to answer questions.
"If you have nothing to hide …" the remark begins; and it always ends with a demand for compliance. Invoking privacy has gone from being the exercise of a right to an indication of guilt.
This is a sleight of hand by which privacy is redefined as "concealment" or "secrecy"; of course, it is neither. As well as enabling freedom, privacy is part of a healthy, self-reflecting life.
Consider one example: Since childhood I've kept a diary into which I pour my hopes, my doubts, my disappointments and desires. When I read them, I can still viscerally feel who I was at ten years old, and this makes me understand who I am today. I don't share these diaries, not because I am ashamed of them, but because they are personal. They are for me alone, for my eyes, my reflection — and not for anyone else.
Everyone has areas of utter privacy to protect. Some people wear lockets containing photos of deceased relatives; others daydream about a forbidden love; still other people lock the door while luxuriating in a hot bubble bath; or, perhaps, they write a love letter that is meant for one other set of eyes only. These acts are a line drawn between the private and public sphere; they constitute a boundary over which no other human being can rightfully cross without invitation.
If a neighbor reads letters in your mailbox or takes a minute to copy down deposits in your bankbook, you would feel violated and enraged. What is wrong for your neighbor to do is also wrong for the government to do, because there is only one standard of morality. Slam the door on the face of anyone who says differently.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Is farmland the next bubble?
Hedge funds are investment vehicles that offer “inflation protected performance.” Assets in these funds have now reached a record $2.02 trillion. And hedge fund managers have been gobbling up acres and acres of American farmland.
The New York Observer reports that “Kansas and Nebraska reported farmland prices 20 percent above the previous year's levels and are on pace to double values in four years.”
So will farmland be the next big asset bubble? The Kansas City Fed president seems to think so:
“The purchase of farmland both in America and abroad by outside investors has increased-so much so that in February, Thomas Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, warned against the violent possibilities of a farmland bubble, telling the Senate Agriculture Committee that ‘distortions in financial markets’ will catch the U.S. by surprise again.”
The thought of yet another bubble bursting in the fragile American economy is scary. Even scarier is what’s driving these investment bankers into Green Acres:
“This is happening in part because investors see their play as a hedge against hyperinflation. While the rest of the world uses the current calculation of the Consumer Price Index as a proxy for the cost of goods, some farmland investors are using a different equation, one from 1980. These investors assert inflation should be calculated the way it was before the Boskin Commission's 1996 reworking of the CPI formula, in which case, it would be much, much higher. … something closer to 6 or 7 percent on an annual basis.”
If investors are already pushing up the price of prime farmland to hedge against the possibility of hyperinflation, will sharply higher food prices be far behind?
Sponsored Link: Take a look at your 1099-Dividends form for 2010... How much interest did you collect this year? Incredibly, we’ve found a unique way to potentially boost that amount by as much as 5-20 times... This free video explains little-known program.
The New York Observer reports that “Kansas and Nebraska reported farmland prices 20 percent above the previous year's levels and are on pace to double values in four years.”
So will farmland be the next big asset bubble? The Kansas City Fed president seems to think so:
“The purchase of farmland both in America and abroad by outside investors has increased-so much so that in February, Thomas Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, warned against the violent possibilities of a farmland bubble, telling the Senate Agriculture Committee that ‘distortions in financial markets’ will catch the U.S. by surprise again.”
The thought of yet another bubble bursting in the fragile American economy is scary. Even scarier is what’s driving these investment bankers into Green Acres:
“This is happening in part because investors see their play as a hedge against hyperinflation. While the rest of the world uses the current calculation of the Consumer Price Index as a proxy for the cost of goods, some farmland investors are using a different equation, one from 1980. These investors assert inflation should be calculated the way it was before the Boskin Commission's 1996 reworking of the CPI formula, in which case, it would be much, much higher. … something closer to 6 or 7 percent on an annual basis.”
If investors are already pushing up the price of prime farmland to hedge against the possibility of hyperinflation, will sharply higher food prices be far behind?
Sponsored Link: Take a look at your 1099-Dividends form for 2010... How much interest did you collect this year? Incredibly, we’ve found a unique way to potentially boost that amount by as much as 5-20 times... This free video explains little-known program.
Media Shielded Voters from Obama's Israel Intentions
When President Barack Obama publicly endorsed the Palestinian view of Israel's future this week, he took many Americans, including many of his Jewish-American supporters, by surprise. Had the media been doing their job, he would not have surprised anyone.
In April 2008, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times wrote a lengthy article titled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama." The article pulled some of its information from a video shot at a 2003 farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian booster and a de facto spokesman for the PLO during his Beirut years. Khalidi, who had spent several years at the University of Chicago, was leaving for New York.
Domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended the dinner as well. This would make sense. Khalidi begins the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to the guy who lived -- and edited -- in their neighborhood. "First, chronologically and in other ways," writes Khalidi, "comes Bill Ayers." Unlike the calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.
At the dinner, Obama thanked Khalidi and his wife for the many meals they had shared chez Khalidi and for reminding Obama of "my own blind spots and my own biases." Obama hoped that "we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table [...] [but around] this entire world."
Wallsten acknowledged that during this "celebration of Palestinian culture," some of the guests made hostile comments about Israel. One recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism with the implicit threat that Israel "will never see a day of peace." Another compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden. If worse had been said, or if Obama had applauded these comments, the world beyond the LA Times newsroom would not be allowed to know.
The Times, which endorsed Obama for president, steadfastly refused to share the videotape despite the demand by the McCain camp and others to release it. This was, of course, one of many clues to Obama's character that the media either suppressed or refused to seek.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan blew Goldfarb off. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she responded. The Times would add no details beyond what had appeared in Wallsten's April article. Obama, after all, had many affluent Jewish supporters in the Los Angeles area. Why worry them with a little anti-Israel rabble-rousing?
Sponsored Link: Could this Kill the Republican Party? A wealthy U.S. businessman believes a single event will soon spell the end of the major political parties in America as we know them. If true, this event will change our nation overnight. Watch the free video at link
In April 2008, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times wrote a lengthy article titled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama." The article pulled some of its information from a video shot at a 2003 farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian booster and a de facto spokesman for the PLO during his Beirut years. Khalidi, who had spent several years at the University of Chicago, was leaving for New York.
Domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended the dinner as well. This would make sense. Khalidi begins the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to the guy who lived -- and edited -- in their neighborhood. "First, chronologically and in other ways," writes Khalidi, "comes Bill Ayers." Unlike the calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.
At the dinner, Obama thanked Khalidi and his wife for the many meals they had shared chez Khalidi and for reminding Obama of "my own blind spots and my own biases." Obama hoped that "we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table [...] [but around] this entire world."
Wallsten acknowledged that during this "celebration of Palestinian culture," some of the guests made hostile comments about Israel. One recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism with the implicit threat that Israel "will never see a day of peace." Another compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden. If worse had been said, or if Obama had applauded these comments, the world beyond the LA Times newsroom would not be allowed to know.
The Times, which endorsed Obama for president, steadfastly refused to share the videotape despite the demand by the McCain camp and others to release it. This was, of course, one of many clues to Obama's character that the media either suppressed or refused to seek.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan blew Goldfarb off. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she responded. The Times would add no details beyond what had appeared in Wallsten's April article. Obama, after all, had many affluent Jewish supporters in the Los Angeles area. Why worry them with a little anti-Israel rabble-rousing?
Sponsored Link: Could this Kill the Republican Party? A wealthy U.S. businessman believes a single event will soon spell the end of the major political parties in America as we know them. If true, this event will change our nation overnight. Watch the free video at link
Suffolk University poll – Guess who's most trusted political news source?
One would think that either CNN or the dinosaur alphabet network would be considered the “most trusted name in news.” Fox News has been slammed on each one of these other pitiful networks, that claim they are not biased, the most trusted name in political news. The leftist Suffolk University conducted the poll which is bad news yet again for left wing biased media hacks. Well not only is this bad news for the far left thugs in this country, but also for the pitiful news “networks” that claim they are the leaders. The poll wasn’t even close either. By a 10 point margin, Fox News beats CNN (Client Nine Network). The only dinosaur alphabet network to even reach double figures was NBC at 10%. ABC (all Barack Channel) and cBS (See Bullsh*t) only received 6% of the vote each.
FOX News – 28%
CNN – 18%
Undecided -12%
NBC – 10%
Other -10%
MSNBC — 7%
ABC — 6%
CBS — 6%
C-SPAN — 3%
FOX News – 28%
CNN – 18%
Undecided -12%
NBC – 10%
Other -10%
MSNBC — 7%
ABC — 6%
CBS — 6%
C-SPAN — 3%
Allen West Reads Obama the Riot Act on Israel
Since he apparently won't run for president in 2012, I say we make Allen West the Speaker of the House. After all, he's not a crybaby, nor is he a really lousy negotiator like our current version.
Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.
Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.
America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: 'Who will now lead in Egypt?' and 'Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?'
President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
It sounds like Rep. Allen West (R-FL) knows what really happened in the Middle East.
Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.
Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.
America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: 'Who will now lead in Egypt?' and 'Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?'
President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
It sounds like Rep. Allen West (R-FL) knows what really happened in the Middle East.
Recent College Grads Sour On Obama, Trending GOP
The Daily Caller:
A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.
Read the whole thing @ http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/20/recent-college-grads-sour-on-obama-surveys-say/#ixzz1Mxq8MUal
A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.
Read the whole thing @ http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/20/recent-college-grads-sour-on-obama-surveys-say/#ixzz1Mxq8MUal
McDonalds CEO: The Clown Stays!!
McDonalds CEO: The Clown Stays, Food Nazis!
Okay, he didn’t quite put it that way, but that’s how I heard it:
The 48-year-old, red-haired mascot has come under fire from health-care professionals and consumer groups who, in recent days, have asked the fast-food chain to retire Ronald McDonald. But McDonald’s Chief Executive Officer Jim Skinner staunchly defended the clown at the company’s annual meeting on Thursday, saying, “Ronald McDonald is going nowhere.”
Shareholders seemed to agree, voting down a proposal to require the hamburger giant to tally the financial impact of defending its children’s meals. Just 6% of shareholders voted in favor of the resolution.
McDonalds has been sued, they’ve been lobbied to remove toys from Happy Meals because that makes them pedophiles or something, and now this.
Can you imagine sitting around all day not only worrying about what somebody else is eating, but making a concerted effort to tell everybody what to eat and control what restaurants sell and how they sell it?
It just occurred to me that this is the first time I’ve come to the defense of a clown since once admonishing myself for calling Al Gore fat (I loathe ad hominem attacks).
**Written by Doug Powers
Okay, he didn’t quite put it that way, but that’s how I heard it:
The 48-year-old, red-haired mascot has come under fire from health-care professionals and consumer groups who, in recent days, have asked the fast-food chain to retire Ronald McDonald. But McDonald’s Chief Executive Officer Jim Skinner staunchly defended the clown at the company’s annual meeting on Thursday, saying, “Ronald McDonald is going nowhere.”
Shareholders seemed to agree, voting down a proposal to require the hamburger giant to tally the financial impact of defending its children’s meals. Just 6% of shareholders voted in favor of the resolution.
McDonalds has been sued, they’ve been lobbied to remove toys from Happy Meals because that makes them pedophiles or something, and now this.
Can you imagine sitting around all day not only worrying about what somebody else is eating, but making a concerted effort to tell everybody what to eat and control what restaurants sell and how they sell it?
It just occurred to me that this is the first time I’ve come to the defense of a clown since once admonishing myself for calling Al Gore fat (I loathe ad hominem attacks).
**Written by Doug Powers
Nearly 3 Million Paid Hours Spent By Federal Employees on Union Activity
A new OPM report details over $120 million paid towards federal employees performing union work
The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finally released its FY2009 report laying out the tremendous cost incurred by federal employees dealing with union issues on the clock- nearly 3 million hours and over $120 million. For some background, federal employees are designated, under their current collective bargaining agreement with the government, “official time” during which they are allowed to participate in union activities.
After looking into the numbers, it is clear why the Obama Administration might have wanted to hide the data:
Hours of paid union activity in FY2009 totaled 2,991,378- a 3.37% increase from FY2008.
Total costs to the Federal government for on-the-job union work grew by $9 million to $129,100,798.
Over 75% of time reported was spent on “General Labor-Management” issues, as opposed to bargaining or dispute resolution.
The total “Hours Per Employee” (HPE) rate, which “indicates the average number of official time hours expended per bargaining unit employee” was 2.58 hours.
Just for fun, the agency with the highest HPE rate- 11.57- was our old friend the National Labor Relations Board, which has apparently found a new way to waste taxpayer money. This may explain their unnecessary desire for more funding.
This time and money serves as a direct handout to public sector labor unions, allowing them to piggyback free labor off the United States taxpayers. This fact is even readily admitted by OPM in their report!
“There are fewer incentives for Federal employees to join and pay union dues than there are for private sector and many state and local government employees…This voluntary membership in Federal sector unions results in considerable reliance by unions on the volunteer work of bargaining unit employees, rather than paid union business agents, to represent the union in representational matters such as collective bargaining and grievances”
Note that OPM is using this statement as justification for the “official time” rules. Because there are fewer federal sector union members than at other levels, the government ought to make life a little easier by providing free work, according to the report. Free to the union, that is; expensive to the taxpayer.
Although the numbers show the financial cost of taxpayer funded union organizing, what raw data cannot show is the accountability shattered by the way in which it seems to have been deliberately delayed and buried by the Administration. Because this report covers data from FY 2009, it would typically have been released in March, 2010. OPM repeatedly skirted both Congressional and public inquiries for over a year before quietly releasing the data without as much as a mention on their website. This sort of action dramatically undercuts any claims about running a “transparent” and “open” government.
Although the report has made its way out of OPM, it still remains mysteriously missing from the agency’s website. Rep. Phil Gingrey [R-LA] was one Member of Congress who repeatedly had his requests for the report’s release stonewalled by OPM. To tackle this issue, Rep. Gingrey earlier this year re-introduced the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2011, H.R. 122. Back when the legislation was first introduced in 2009, the Alliance for Worker Freedom released this letter in support of its passage. This vital legislation would forbid federal employees from performing any and all union activity while on official time, ending the practice of wasting taxpayer money on what should be union funded work. Hopefully, the release of this startling new report will renew focus on Rep. Gingrey’s legislation, ensuring its swift passage and a greater commitment to transparency on the part of OPM in the future.
The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finally released its FY2009 report laying out the tremendous cost incurred by federal employees dealing with union issues on the clock- nearly 3 million hours and over $120 million. For some background, federal employees are designated, under their current collective bargaining agreement with the government, “official time” during which they are allowed to participate in union activities.
After looking into the numbers, it is clear why the Obama Administration might have wanted to hide the data:
Hours of paid union activity in FY2009 totaled 2,991,378- a 3.37% increase from FY2008.
Total costs to the Federal government for on-the-job union work grew by $9 million to $129,100,798.
Over 75% of time reported was spent on “General Labor-Management” issues, as opposed to bargaining or dispute resolution.
The total “Hours Per Employee” (HPE) rate, which “indicates the average number of official time hours expended per bargaining unit employee” was 2.58 hours.
Just for fun, the agency with the highest HPE rate- 11.57- was our old friend the National Labor Relations Board, which has apparently found a new way to waste taxpayer money. This may explain their unnecessary desire for more funding.
This time and money serves as a direct handout to public sector labor unions, allowing them to piggyback free labor off the United States taxpayers. This fact is even readily admitted by OPM in their report!
“There are fewer incentives for Federal employees to join and pay union dues than there are for private sector and many state and local government employees…This voluntary membership in Federal sector unions results in considerable reliance by unions on the volunteer work of bargaining unit employees, rather than paid union business agents, to represent the union in representational matters such as collective bargaining and grievances”
Note that OPM is using this statement as justification for the “official time” rules. Because there are fewer federal sector union members than at other levels, the government ought to make life a little easier by providing free work, according to the report. Free to the union, that is; expensive to the taxpayer.
Although the numbers show the financial cost of taxpayer funded union organizing, what raw data cannot show is the accountability shattered by the way in which it seems to have been deliberately delayed and buried by the Administration. Because this report covers data from FY 2009, it would typically have been released in March, 2010. OPM repeatedly skirted both Congressional and public inquiries for over a year before quietly releasing the data without as much as a mention on their website. This sort of action dramatically undercuts any claims about running a “transparent” and “open” government.
Although the report has made its way out of OPM, it still remains mysteriously missing from the agency’s website. Rep. Phil Gingrey [R-LA] was one Member of Congress who repeatedly had his requests for the report’s release stonewalled by OPM. To tackle this issue, Rep. Gingrey earlier this year re-introduced the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2011, H.R. 122. Back when the legislation was first introduced in 2009, the Alliance for Worker Freedom released this letter in support of its passage. This vital legislation would forbid federal employees from performing any and all union activity while on official time, ending the practice of wasting taxpayer money on what should be union funded work. Hopefully, the release of this startling new report will renew focus on Rep. Gingrey’s legislation, ensuring its swift passage and a greater commitment to transparency on the part of OPM in the future.
Obama First POTUS To Defy 'War Powers'
President Obama’s Libya Intervention Hits 60-Day Legal Limit
By JAKE TAPPER and DEVIN DWYER
May 20, 2011
The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there’s little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed.
Actually, as we noted last week, the White House has proudly announced that they were simply going to ignore the War Powers law. They said they might try to find a "plausible theory" to get around the law.
But it’s clear now that they can’t even be bothered to do that. Even though the New York Times offered them several helpful suggestions.
Exactly two months ago, Obama notified Congress of his unilateral decision to engage in "limited military action" to help defend the Libyan people from attacks by their leader, Moammar Gadhafi.
But under federal law — the War Powers Resolution of 1973 — Obama is only allowed to keep U.S. forces engaged in hostilities for 60 days, unless Congress declares war, authorizes funding for the effort or extends the deadline.
Congress has not enacted legislation authorizing military involvement in Libya, and the White House has not made a public effort to comply with the rule.
Experts say this is the first time an American president has defied the War Powers Resolution’s deadline for participation in combat operations without any concurrent steps by Congress to fund or otherwise authorize the role.
And yet nobody is even bothering to report this. Apart from Mr. Tapper and CNN. Apparently this is not newsworthy according to the AP or the New York Times or the Washington Post.
While every administration since 1973 and some lawmakers have questioned the constitutionality of the resolution’s infringement on executive power, it has not been successfully challenged in court and remains the law of the land…
We should know by now that Mr. Obama is not particularly concerned about following "the law of the land."
With the House of Representatives on recess and Obama headed to Europe next week, many observers don’t see a speedy resolution to the issue and expressed disappointment at the impasse…
Congress is in recess even though have surpassed the debt limit, and according to the Democrat Party, we are facing a financial Armageddon? (In any case, you really have to wonder how can Congress cause so much damn trouble when they are always on vacation.)
Forty percent of Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in Libya, and among those, 65 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation so far, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last month…
Forget the polls. Where is Code Pink? Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where is the media outrage at this out of control warmonger in the White House?
Even that ‘cowboy’ war criminal George Bush never went to war without Congressional approval.
By JAKE TAPPER and DEVIN DWYER
May 20, 2011
The legal license President Obama used to justify U.S. military intervention in Libya expires today, and there’s little sign the White House is working quickly to get it renewed.
Actually, as we noted last week, the White House has proudly announced that they were simply going to ignore the War Powers law. They said they might try to find a "plausible theory" to get around the law.
But it’s clear now that they can’t even be bothered to do that. Even though the New York Times offered them several helpful suggestions.
Exactly two months ago, Obama notified Congress of his unilateral decision to engage in "limited military action" to help defend the Libyan people from attacks by their leader, Moammar Gadhafi.
But under federal law — the War Powers Resolution of 1973 — Obama is only allowed to keep U.S. forces engaged in hostilities for 60 days, unless Congress declares war, authorizes funding for the effort or extends the deadline.
Congress has not enacted legislation authorizing military involvement in Libya, and the White House has not made a public effort to comply with the rule.
Experts say this is the first time an American president has defied the War Powers Resolution’s deadline for participation in combat operations without any concurrent steps by Congress to fund or otherwise authorize the role.
And yet nobody is even bothering to report this. Apart from Mr. Tapper and CNN. Apparently this is not newsworthy according to the AP or the New York Times or the Washington Post.
While every administration since 1973 and some lawmakers have questioned the constitutionality of the resolution’s infringement on executive power, it has not been successfully challenged in court and remains the law of the land…
We should know by now that Mr. Obama is not particularly concerned about following "the law of the land."
With the House of Representatives on recess and Obama headed to Europe next week, many observers don’t see a speedy resolution to the issue and expressed disappointment at the impasse…
Congress is in recess even though have surpassed the debt limit, and according to the Democrat Party, we are facing a financial Armageddon? (In any case, you really have to wonder how can Congress cause so much damn trouble when they are always on vacation.)
Forty percent of Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in Libya, and among those, 65 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation so far, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last month…
Forget the polls. Where is Code Pink? Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where is the media outrage at this out of control warmonger in the White House?
Even that ‘cowboy’ war criminal George Bush never went to war without Congressional approval.
Netanyahu destroys and embarrasses Obama on live TV of '67 border demand
Obama got owned and destroyed on live television when Bibi Netanyahu destroyed Obama’s 1967 Israel border demand. Netanyahu did it in a diplomatic way of course. Republicans could learn a lot from Bibi: Excerpt from speech......
“We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. … For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities — the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible” Also available in nifty video from at link!!
“We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. … For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities — the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible” Also available in nifty video from at link!!
"South Park" Jihadi Was '08 Obama Volunteer
By God he even looks like an Obama volunteer!!!
Radicalized wannabe later decided Koran barred vote
MAY 20--The radicalized knucklehead convicted of threatening the lives of the “South Park” creators signed up as a volunteer for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, but by the time Election Day arrived he had concluded it would be a violation of Islamic law to vote in the U.S. election, according to court records.
Wannabe jihadi Zachary Chesser, 21, was sentenced earlier this year to 25 years in federal prison following his guilty plea to making the “South Park” threats as well as providing material support to terrorists (in this case the Somali guerilla group Al-Shabaab).
Chesser, pictured in the mug shot at right, has cooperated with FBI agents and helped prosecutors building a case against Jessie Curtis Morton, with whom Chesser operated the extremist Revolution Muslim web site. Morton was named last week in a felony criminal complaint charging him with threatening the lives of Matt Stone and Trey Parker over a “South Park” episode that included the Prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit.
In U.S. District Court filings, Chesser’s lawyer and family members described him as a passionate young man whose interests pinballed from subject to subject (sports, Japanese anime, break dancing, heavy metal, Buddhism, Islam) and often turned on a dime. His attorney reported that despite Chesser’s “increasing devotion to a rigid form of Islam,” he “volunteered to campaign in the 2008 presidential election.” However, “by the time the election came on November 4, 2008, Mr. Chesser had become convinced it would be a violation of Islamic law to vote.”
In a character letter, Chesser’s stepmother recalled him “ranting about how the Koran says he can’t support Obama even though he had signed up to help with the campaign."
Chesser apologized in a “Statement of Responsibility” for the “harm and pain I have caused,” noting that he was “ashamed and bewildered that I was capable of doing it.” Chesser added that, “I have always been a pacificist” and “The jihadi ideology I was drawn into was contrary to everything I had grown up thinking and believing.”
Before this revelation, Chesser--now imprisoned at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois--viewed the “South Park” controversy as an opportunity to further disseminate radical messages. In fact, in a wiretapped April 2010 conversation with Morton, Chesser reported that the term “Revolution Muslim” was then the “68th most searched term on Google,” according to the Morton criminal complaint. (3 pages including original police documents at link)
Radicalized wannabe later decided Koran barred vote
MAY 20--The radicalized knucklehead convicted of threatening the lives of the “South Park” creators signed up as a volunteer for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, but by the time Election Day arrived he had concluded it would be a violation of Islamic law to vote in the U.S. election, according to court records.
Wannabe jihadi Zachary Chesser, 21, was sentenced earlier this year to 25 years in federal prison following his guilty plea to making the “South Park” threats as well as providing material support to terrorists (in this case the Somali guerilla group Al-Shabaab).
Chesser, pictured in the mug shot at right, has cooperated with FBI agents and helped prosecutors building a case against Jessie Curtis Morton, with whom Chesser operated the extremist Revolution Muslim web site. Morton was named last week in a felony criminal complaint charging him with threatening the lives of Matt Stone and Trey Parker over a “South Park” episode that included the Prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit.
In U.S. District Court filings, Chesser’s lawyer and family members described him as a passionate young man whose interests pinballed from subject to subject (sports, Japanese anime, break dancing, heavy metal, Buddhism, Islam) and often turned on a dime. His attorney reported that despite Chesser’s “increasing devotion to a rigid form of Islam,” he “volunteered to campaign in the 2008 presidential election.” However, “by the time the election came on November 4, 2008, Mr. Chesser had become convinced it would be a violation of Islamic law to vote.”
In a character letter, Chesser’s stepmother recalled him “ranting about how the Koran says he can’t support Obama even though he had signed up to help with the campaign."
Chesser apologized in a “Statement of Responsibility” for the “harm and pain I have caused,” noting that he was “ashamed and bewildered that I was capable of doing it.” Chesser added that, “I have always been a pacificist” and “The jihadi ideology I was drawn into was contrary to everything I had grown up thinking and believing.”
Before this revelation, Chesser--now imprisoned at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois--viewed the “South Park” controversy as an opportunity to further disseminate radical messages. In fact, in a wiretapped April 2010 conversation with Morton, Chesser reported that the term “Revolution Muslim” was then the “68th most searched term on Google,” according to the Morton criminal complaint. (3 pages including original police documents at link)
DOJ & DHS EXPOSED!
Watch this video instructing law enforcement how to obey sharia law in the USA!
via Counter Contempt
“The First Three to Five Seconds” was initially developed by the Department of Justice, and it’s now used by both the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to train all of their law enforcement personnel. “The First Three to Five Seconds” is described on the DHS website as a film that “introduces law enforcement officers to basic principles of the Arab American and Muslim American cultures.” However, the DHS description hardly does this instructional film justice.
To begin with, there is the outright pro-Islam propaganda. Naturally, all religions see their tenets and customs in a positive light. But it’s not the job of the United States government, in a taxpayer-funded film, to produce religious propaganda which claims that one particular religion’s tenets and customs somehow make that faith “closer to God.”
“The First Three to Five Seconds” opens with the Muslim call to prayer. The narrator proclaims, “In order to keep a strong connection with God, Islam prescribes that believers pray five times a day.” The narration continues, instructing law enforcement officers:
“If you visit a mosque, be aware that there are separate entrances to the prayer sections for females and males as an extension of modesty. To keep their minds on the worship of God, men and women pray in separate sections.”
Muslims might believe that praying five times a day strengthens their connection to God, they might believe that it is immodest for men and women to enter a mosque together, and they might believe that segregating men and women keeps their minds on the worship of God…but that’s opinion, not fact.
Some would argue that Islamic gender segregation is due to an intense, virulent, and pervasive anti-female bias within the faith – something negative, not positive. Yet “The First Three to Five Seconds” uses taxpayer money to promote a positive view of Muslim gender segregation. If a law enforcement agency wishes to instruct its officers in how Muslims pray, fine. Lay out the facts; leave the value judgments out.
Interestingly, the line about Muslims’ “strong connection to God,” while clearly spoken in the film, is absent in the DHS transcript.
Where “The First Three to Five Seconds” hits absolute rock bottom is in its instructions to law enforcement officers, should they have to visit a Muslim home during the course of an investigation. Startlingly, the film tells officers not to enter a Muslim home if there is an adult female occupant who is not in the presence of a Muslim male! The film provides a dramatization in which a male officer knocks on the door of a home. An adult female in a hijab answers meekly, informing the policeman that her husband is not home, so she cannot speak to the officer or allow him inside. The narrator says, “This might seem suspicious,” but, he reassures the viewers, it is indeed “inappropriate” to enter a Muslim house in a situation like that. The officer is shown turning around and leaving.
The narrator states that no officer should enter a Muslim home if they are the opposite sex of the person who is home alone, meaning that a female officer should not enter a home, in the course of a police investigation, if the sole occupant is a Muslim male.
This is nothing more than the U.S. government advocating gender discrimination, pure and simple. Sharia may demand the segregation of the sexes, but U.S. law forbids preventing someone from doing their job solely on account of their gender.
This is the Justice Department violating U.S. law. Think about it; the DOJ and the DHS are telling law enforcement officers that they may NOT carry out an investigation if doing so requires them to be in a house alone with a Muslim of the opposite sex. This is not only an insult to law enforcement…it’s a grotesque negation of core American (and Western) values.
…It should be noted that “The First Three to Five Seconds” was produced during the Bush Administration…
Counter Contempt has much more commentary, read it all, but ends with this:
“The First Three to Five Seconds” can be viewed in full below. Or, to view it on the DHS website, click here. On the DHS site, the film is split into two parts. The first part slams the U.S. for “negative stereotypes” of Muslims in the media. It also covers issues involving the Sikh community. All of the material covered in this article is in part two.
After the viewing, the DHS will present you with a questionnaire, to find out if you have properly absorbed the message of the film. You’ll then be asked to submit the completed form to the DHS. As your tax money paid for the film, by all means, feel free to let them know what you thought of it (but be mindful that the Obama Administration is fond of collecting “enemy” emails).
via Counter Contempt
“The First Three to Five Seconds” was initially developed by the Department of Justice, and it’s now used by both the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to train all of their law enforcement personnel. “The First Three to Five Seconds” is described on the DHS website as a film that “introduces law enforcement officers to basic principles of the Arab American and Muslim American cultures.” However, the DHS description hardly does this instructional film justice.
To begin with, there is the outright pro-Islam propaganda. Naturally, all religions see their tenets and customs in a positive light. But it’s not the job of the United States government, in a taxpayer-funded film, to produce religious propaganda which claims that one particular religion’s tenets and customs somehow make that faith “closer to God.”
“The First Three to Five Seconds” opens with the Muslim call to prayer. The narrator proclaims, “In order to keep a strong connection with God, Islam prescribes that believers pray five times a day.” The narration continues, instructing law enforcement officers:
“If you visit a mosque, be aware that there are separate entrances to the prayer sections for females and males as an extension of modesty. To keep their minds on the worship of God, men and women pray in separate sections.”
Muslims might believe that praying five times a day strengthens their connection to God, they might believe that it is immodest for men and women to enter a mosque together, and they might believe that segregating men and women keeps their minds on the worship of God…but that’s opinion, not fact.
Some would argue that Islamic gender segregation is due to an intense, virulent, and pervasive anti-female bias within the faith – something negative, not positive. Yet “The First Three to Five Seconds” uses taxpayer money to promote a positive view of Muslim gender segregation. If a law enforcement agency wishes to instruct its officers in how Muslims pray, fine. Lay out the facts; leave the value judgments out.
Interestingly, the line about Muslims’ “strong connection to God,” while clearly spoken in the film, is absent in the DHS transcript.
Where “The First Three to Five Seconds” hits absolute rock bottom is in its instructions to law enforcement officers, should they have to visit a Muslim home during the course of an investigation. Startlingly, the film tells officers not to enter a Muslim home if there is an adult female occupant who is not in the presence of a Muslim male! The film provides a dramatization in which a male officer knocks on the door of a home. An adult female in a hijab answers meekly, informing the policeman that her husband is not home, so she cannot speak to the officer or allow him inside. The narrator says, “This might seem suspicious,” but, he reassures the viewers, it is indeed “inappropriate” to enter a Muslim house in a situation like that. The officer is shown turning around and leaving.
The narrator states that no officer should enter a Muslim home if they are the opposite sex of the person who is home alone, meaning that a female officer should not enter a home, in the course of a police investigation, if the sole occupant is a Muslim male.
This is nothing more than the U.S. government advocating gender discrimination, pure and simple. Sharia may demand the segregation of the sexes, but U.S. law forbids preventing someone from doing their job solely on account of their gender.
This is the Justice Department violating U.S. law. Think about it; the DOJ and the DHS are telling law enforcement officers that they may NOT carry out an investigation if doing so requires them to be in a house alone with a Muslim of the opposite sex. This is not only an insult to law enforcement…it’s a grotesque negation of core American (and Western) values.
…It should be noted that “The First Three to Five Seconds” was produced during the Bush Administration…
Counter Contempt has much more commentary, read it all, but ends with this:
“The First Three to Five Seconds” can be viewed in full below. Or, to view it on the DHS website, click here. On the DHS site, the film is split into two parts. The first part slams the U.S. for “negative stereotypes” of Muslims in the media. It also covers issues involving the Sikh community. All of the material covered in this article is in part two.
After the viewing, the DHS will present you with a questionnaire, to find out if you have properly absorbed the message of the film. You’ll then be asked to submit the completed form to the DHS. As your tax money paid for the film, by all means, feel free to let them know what you thought of it (but be mindful that the Obama Administration is fond of collecting “enemy” emails).
Iranian Children's TV Show Depicts U.S. Using Bin Laden to Carry Out 9/11
Transcript: Presenter (Saeed): "Children, these days you've been hearing, time and again, about the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Al-Qaeda group. How was Osama bin Laden created? From where did Al-Qaeda emerge?
"To explain it to you, let me say that Mr. bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1957. About 30 years ago, the USSR invaded Afghanistan and waged a war against it. As you know, the USSR was an adversary of America. America wanted to fight them, but not directly. Therefore, they brought Mr. bin Laden from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, and helped him to establish a group called Al-Qaeda. He received financial aid and military equipment and training from the U.S. All the documents are available."
Child portraying the Americans: "Okay, Mr. bin Laden? No problem?"
Bin Laden: "It's okay, but I have very little money."
Child portraying the Americans: "Don't worry. Money is no object."
Bin Laden: "Well done. In your honor, I will shoot a partridge now."
Bin Laden shoots down two birds.
Child portraying the Americans: "All these birds?!"
Bin Laden: "They are very tasty."
Presenter (Saeed): "Did you see? That's how it was. After the war between the USSR and Afghanistan ended, nobody heard of bin Laden or his group for a long time. There was silence about them, but [Al-Qaeda] maintained its ties with America behind the scenes, so that when conditions were ripe for America, it would use this group again. This is how it was until September 11, 2001, with regard to which documents are available as well."
Child portraying pilot: "Oh, Mr. bin Laden."
Bin Laden: "Go, pilot. Go, pilot. Don't worry."
Child portraying pilot: "Yes, yes."
Bin Laden: "Don't worry. What an airplane!"
Child portraying pilot: "Where to? Where to?"
Bin Laden: "Turn left. To the left. Up, up, go forward. That's right."
Child portraying pilot: "Watch out, the tower!"
Bin Laden: "Why doesn't the flight attendant bring us tea or something?"
Child portraying pilot: "Okay."
Bin Laden: "Go on. I'm protecting you. I'm right behind you."
Child portraying pilot: "Mr. bin Laden, there's a tower."
Bin Laden: "Right, right. Look, it's the next street. That's the one. Fly to the middle of the tower."
Child portraying pilot: "That one?"
Bin Laden: "Wait a second. I think I left my pajamas behind."
Child portraying pilot: "I can't stay like this for long."
Bin Laden: "Stay here. Saeed will go with you. I have to go and get my pajamas. Go straight to the middle of the tower. Saeed, you go with him, so he won't be alone."
Child portraying pilot: "Saeed, close the door. It's too late. Make a run for it."
Presenter (Saeed): "Me? In that thing? Are you mad? Go by yourself. Did you see? He went by himself."
Bin Laden's voice: "Brother, fly into the middle of the tower."
9/11 footage showing plane crashing into tower.
Presenter (Saeed): "What a strange thing. The coward got out." […]
(Excerpts from an Iranian children's show on Osama bin Laden and 9/11. The show aired on Iranian Channel 2 on May 13, 2011) ----- Video at link
"To explain it to you, let me say that Mr. bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1957. About 30 years ago, the USSR invaded Afghanistan and waged a war against it. As you know, the USSR was an adversary of America. America wanted to fight them, but not directly. Therefore, they brought Mr. bin Laden from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, and helped him to establish a group called Al-Qaeda. He received financial aid and military equipment and training from the U.S. All the documents are available."
Child portraying the Americans: "Okay, Mr. bin Laden? No problem?"
Bin Laden: "It's okay, but I have very little money."
Child portraying the Americans: "Don't worry. Money is no object."
Bin Laden: "Well done. In your honor, I will shoot a partridge now."
Bin Laden shoots down two birds.
Child portraying the Americans: "All these birds?!"
Bin Laden: "They are very tasty."
Presenter (Saeed): "Did you see? That's how it was. After the war between the USSR and Afghanistan ended, nobody heard of bin Laden or his group for a long time. There was silence about them, but [Al-Qaeda] maintained its ties with America behind the scenes, so that when conditions were ripe for America, it would use this group again. This is how it was until September 11, 2001, with regard to which documents are available as well."
Child portraying pilot: "Oh, Mr. bin Laden."
Bin Laden: "Go, pilot. Go, pilot. Don't worry."
Child portraying pilot: "Yes, yes."
Bin Laden: "Don't worry. What an airplane!"
Child portraying pilot: "Where to? Where to?"
Bin Laden: "Turn left. To the left. Up, up, go forward. That's right."
Child portraying pilot: "Watch out, the tower!"
Bin Laden: "Why doesn't the flight attendant bring us tea or something?"
Child portraying pilot: "Okay."
Bin Laden: "Go on. I'm protecting you. I'm right behind you."
Child portraying pilot: "Mr. bin Laden, there's a tower."
Bin Laden: "Right, right. Look, it's the next street. That's the one. Fly to the middle of the tower."
Child portraying pilot: "That one?"
Bin Laden: "Wait a second. I think I left my pajamas behind."
Child portraying pilot: "I can't stay like this for long."
Bin Laden: "Stay here. Saeed will go with you. I have to go and get my pajamas. Go straight to the middle of the tower. Saeed, you go with him, so he won't be alone."
Child portraying pilot: "Saeed, close the door. It's too late. Make a run for it."
Presenter (Saeed): "Me? In that thing? Are you mad? Go by yourself. Did you see? He went by himself."
Bin Laden's voice: "Brother, fly into the middle of the tower."
9/11 footage showing plane crashing into tower.
Presenter (Saeed): "What a strange thing. The coward got out." […]
(Excerpts from an Iranian children's show on Osama bin Laden and 9/11. The show aired on Iranian Channel 2 on May 13, 2011) ----- Video at link
DHS Continuing Attempts to Impose Backdoor Amnesty for Illegals
President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security are at it again, trying to manipulate the system to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Yesterday, Judicial Watch launched an investigation into possible collusion between US Citizenship and Imigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas and House Judiciary Committee staffer David Shahoulian.
As President Tom Fitton wrote yesterday in Big Government, Judicial Watch has reason to believe that Mayorkas and Shahoulian have conspired to pursue "administrative alternatives" to grant blanket amnesty, without any permission from Congress.
As a former immigration attorney, Shahoulian has gone on the record with his support of an open border policy. How far is he willing to go in pursuit of such a policy? Judicial Watch hopes to answer that question soon.
To see our full FOIA request into this matter, further instruction at link
As President Tom Fitton wrote yesterday in Big Government, Judicial Watch has reason to believe that Mayorkas and Shahoulian have conspired to pursue "administrative alternatives" to grant blanket amnesty, without any permission from Congress.
As a former immigration attorney, Shahoulian has gone on the record with his support of an open border policy. How far is he willing to go in pursuit of such a policy? Judicial Watch hopes to answer that question soon.
To see our full FOIA request into this matter, further instruction at link
DropFox Hits The Ground … and Stays There
On May 16th the Soros-funded Media Matters’ newest venture, DropFox.com, set out to replicate what Media Matters thinks was a successful campaign against Glenn Beck. You see, after finally admitting they’ve been at war with Fox News since their inception, they are seeking to take credit for all of the internal decisions made at Fox News. There’s an apparent institutional amnesia afflicting the executives at the media “watchdog” and their recent failure to get Fox’s Bill Sammons fired has clearly gone down the memory hole. The failure of their alleged “former Fox insider” story hasn’t seemed to prevented them from banging their collective heads against that impenetrable wall called “ratings.”
So while the Senior Fellows and Junior Fellows / interns continue to monitor Fox News 24 hours a day and poorly transcribe the shows and edit clips to manufacture evidence of “misinformation” – if they even bother to do that – Angelo Carusone (@Drop_Fox) gets to waste rich progressives’ money on the other angle: targeting companies who advertise on Fox News – with smears (Via Mediaite.)
The effort by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters to convince half a dozen leading national advertisers to pull their dollars from the Fox News Channel got a high-profile snub Thursday when Orbitz, the travel company, not only declined to participate, but fired back at Media Matters, calling the “Drop Fox” campaign a “smear effort.”
Ouch. Not exactly a great first impression there, Angelo. To add some salt to the wound, Orbitz (and other DropFox targets) aren’t what one would consider “right wingers.” (Via Hollywood Reporter.)
There are six other companies DropFox has set its sights on: Netflix, Best Western, Priceline, Delta Airlines, Ocean Spray and Southwest Airlines. All of them advertise on Fox News, but not in order to make any sort of perceivable political point.In the case of Netflix, in fact, CEO Reed Hastings has been a large donor to Democrats, so he’s presumably on the same political side as Media Matters and its DropFox offshoot. Likewise, the Orbitz Political Action Committee made just two large donations last year, both to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat.
That’s going to leave a mark.
In the same article, Orbitz didn’t just call DropFox a “smear campaign”, they took it a step further and smacked Media Matters as a whole:
“This is a political organization that has been funded pretty extensively to go after one network, and we aren’t going to engage in that fight,” Orbitz spokesman Brian Hoyt said.He’s right. Media Matters isn’t a media watchdog, it’s a political organization. One that for some reason is tax-exempt as an educational institution but violates that charter on a daily basis.
Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert didn’t take kindly to Orbitz telling his organization to stop whining. He took to Twitter and in a snit, totally misrepresented what the Orbitz spokesman said:
For context, here’s what Orbitz actually said:
“We have a strict policy of tolerance and non-discrimination, and that means we don’t favor one political side over another. Tolerance is a two-way street,” he said. “We’re going to advertise on conservative TV stations, liberal TV stations and — if there are any out there — unbiased news broadcasts.”
Let’s keep Eric’s editorializing in mind next time he claims to be debunking “right wing misinformation.”
Kudos to Orbitz for not buckling to astroturf pressure. Let’s hope the rest of the DropFox targets follow their lead.
So while the Senior Fellows and Junior Fellows / interns continue to monitor Fox News 24 hours a day and poorly transcribe the shows and edit clips to manufacture evidence of “misinformation” – if they even bother to do that – Angelo Carusone (@Drop_Fox) gets to waste rich progressives’ money on the other angle: targeting companies who advertise on Fox News – with smears (Via Mediaite.)
The effort by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters to convince half a dozen leading national advertisers to pull their dollars from the Fox News Channel got a high-profile snub Thursday when Orbitz, the travel company, not only declined to participate, but fired back at Media Matters, calling the “Drop Fox” campaign a “smear effort.”
Ouch. Not exactly a great first impression there, Angelo. To add some salt to the wound, Orbitz (and other DropFox targets) aren’t what one would consider “right wingers.” (Via Hollywood Reporter.)
There are six other companies DropFox has set its sights on: Netflix, Best Western, Priceline, Delta Airlines, Ocean Spray and Southwest Airlines. All of them advertise on Fox News, but not in order to make any sort of perceivable political point.In the case of Netflix, in fact, CEO Reed Hastings has been a large donor to Democrats, so he’s presumably on the same political side as Media Matters and its DropFox offshoot. Likewise, the Orbitz Political Action Committee made just two large donations last year, both to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat.
That’s going to leave a mark.
In the same article, Orbitz didn’t just call DropFox a “smear campaign”, they took it a step further and smacked Media Matters as a whole:
“This is a political organization that has been funded pretty extensively to go after one network, and we aren’t going to engage in that fight,” Orbitz spokesman Brian Hoyt said.He’s right. Media Matters isn’t a media watchdog, it’s a political organization. One that for some reason is tax-exempt as an educational institution but violates that charter on a daily basis.
Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert didn’t take kindly to Orbitz telling his organization to stop whining. He took to Twitter and in a snit, totally misrepresented what the Orbitz spokesman said:
For context, here’s what Orbitz actually said:
“We have a strict policy of tolerance and non-discrimination, and that means we don’t favor one political side over another. Tolerance is a two-way street,” he said. “We’re going to advertise on conservative TV stations, liberal TV stations and — if there are any out there — unbiased news broadcasts.”
Let’s keep Eric’s editorializing in mind next time he claims to be debunking “right wing misinformation.”
Kudos to Orbitz for not buckling to astroturf pressure. Let’s hope the rest of the DropFox targets follow their lead.
Borderline Treachery
Obama proposes leaving Israel indefensible.
Would that the president of the United States were as worried about Arizona’s border as he is about “Palestine’s.”
There was less fanfare about this latest Obama oration on the future of the Middle East, staged at Foggy Bottom, than there was about his 2009 Cairo speech. It was, however, every bit as delusional, and twice as treacherous.
As for the delusional, “Arab Spring” devotees are thrilled that the president has morphed into his predecessor on the Democracy Project — the enterprise in which future generations of American taxpayers go deeper into hock as our tapped-out government borrows more Chinese billions in order to stimulate the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the few shovel-ready projects President Obama has managed to find (and as a union, the Brothers make the SEIU look like the Jaycees). There is cruel irony in the Arab Spring hallucination, though, evidenced by this bit of rhetorical flourish: “Through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in six years.”
Would that the president of the United States were as worried about Arizona’s border as he is about “Palestine’s.”
There was less fanfare about this latest Obama oration on the future of the Middle East, staged at Foggy Bottom, than there was about his 2009 Cairo speech. It was, however, every bit as delusional, and twice as treacherous.
As for the delusional, “Arab Spring” devotees are thrilled that the president has morphed into his predecessor on the Democracy Project — the enterprise in which future generations of American taxpayers go deeper into hock as our tapped-out government borrows more Chinese billions in order to stimulate the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the few shovel-ready projects President Obama has managed to find (and as a union, the Brothers make the SEIU look like the Jaycees). There is cruel irony in the Arab Spring hallucination, though, evidenced by this bit of rhetorical flourish: “Through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in six years.”
When Obama Became Bush (on Iraq)
Let’s all take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
Readers will recall that Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy was built on his opposition to the Iraq war, and when he was in the U.S. Senate, he demanded that America end its involvement there, even though doing so would have led to an epic American defeat. Iraq was a “dangerous distraction,” Obama said, and he clearly believed it was destined to end badly.
As I documented in this essay for COMMENTARY, in late 2006 Obama argued for a “phased withdrawal” from Iraq. “We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve,” he predicted.
On January 10, 2007, when President Bush announced his administration’s change in strategy in Iraq, popularly dubbed the “surge,” Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” Later in the same month, he summed up in these words his impression of the hearings on the new strategy held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “What was striking to me, in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near-unanimity that the President’s strategy will not work.”
On February 10, 2007, in announcing his presidential candidacy, Obama declared he had a plan “that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.”
In May 2007, Obama voted in the Senate against funding for combat operations. And in September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops “immediately.” “Not in six months or one year—now.”
Iraq, it was commonly said, was riven by sectarian differences that could never be overcome. Democracy could never take root in its hard, unforgiving soil. And even if it could, it would be uprooted by anti-democratic forces within the country.
By the time Obama became president, the Iraq war had turned around so dramatically that it was obvious even to him. Obama wisely decided against a precipitous withdrawal of American forces; he instead decided to abide by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) his predecessor had negotiated. Nevertheless, Obama continued to denigrate what had been achieved in Iraq, repeatedly pointing to it as an American foreign policy failure, and in the process, misrepresenting the facts. For example, in his much ballyhooed Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, Obama said, “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”
That statement was false. In the aftermath of deposing Saddam’s regime it was Iraqis – in the face of threats of violence from al Qaeda and home-grown insurgents – who went to the polls and, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of the American military and our diplomatic corps, began the long, hard work of creating the only functioning Arab democracy. All of which brings us to President Obama’s speech yesterday, where he said this:
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
In just a few years, then, Iraq has, for Barack Obama, gone from a strategic disaster to something of a model for the region. His words sound very much like those of President Bush, who told the United Nations in 2003, “Iraq as a dictatorship has great power to destabilize the Middle East. Iraq as a democracy will have great power to inspire the Middle East.”
The fact that Barack Obama is now (belatedly) embracing the views of his predecessor is something to be grateful for. To have a liberal, Democratic president declare that Iraq shows “the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy” and is “poised to play a key role in the region” is a very good thing for our country and the wider Middle East. And it will help to heal the divisions caused by the war.
But even in this moment of unity it is worth considering, even for a moment, the fact that if Barack Obama had had his way, Iraq would still be an enemy of America, led by a barbaric dictator with a fondness for war and for genocide. And if Obama’s counsel had been heeded after the war began, the surge would have been stopped and Iraq would now be convulsed by civil war, America would have left in defeat and disgrace, and al Qaeda—in the form of al Qaeda in Iraq—would have attained its greatest victory ever.
Obama will never in a thousand years be able to bring himself to credit George W. Bush for deposing Saddam, for challenging the pathologies within the Arab world, and for putting in place a new military strategy that led to a dramatic turn in fortunes of war. No matter; history has a way of taking care of such things.
In any event, the Iraq war was not, as people like Joe Klein repeatedly insisted, “probably the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.” It was instead, in the words of the great Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami, “a foreigner’s gift.” It was a gift bequeathed to the Iraqis at a great cost to America. But it looks to be a gift that has been received and one that we can hope will, over time, help tame the furies of the Arab world. So sayeth Barack Obama.
Readers will recall that Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy was built on his opposition to the Iraq war, and when he was in the U.S. Senate, he demanded that America end its involvement there, even though doing so would have led to an epic American defeat. Iraq was a “dangerous distraction,” Obama said, and he clearly believed it was destined to end badly.
As I documented in this essay for COMMENTARY, in late 2006 Obama argued for a “phased withdrawal” from Iraq. “We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve,” he predicted.
On January 10, 2007, when President Bush announced his administration’s change in strategy in Iraq, popularly dubbed the “surge,” Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” Later in the same month, he summed up in these words his impression of the hearings on the new strategy held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “What was striking to me, in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near-unanimity that the President’s strategy will not work.”
On February 10, 2007, in announcing his presidential candidacy, Obama declared he had a plan “that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.”
In May 2007, Obama voted in the Senate against funding for combat operations. And in September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops “immediately.” “Not in six months or one year—now.”
Iraq, it was commonly said, was riven by sectarian differences that could never be overcome. Democracy could never take root in its hard, unforgiving soil. And even if it could, it would be uprooted by anti-democratic forces within the country.
By the time Obama became president, the Iraq war had turned around so dramatically that it was obvious even to him. Obama wisely decided against a precipitous withdrawal of American forces; he instead decided to abide by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) his predecessor had negotiated. Nevertheless, Obama continued to denigrate what had been achieved in Iraq, repeatedly pointing to it as an American foreign policy failure, and in the process, misrepresenting the facts. For example, in his much ballyhooed Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, Obama said, “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”
That statement was false. In the aftermath of deposing Saddam’s regime it was Iraqis – in the face of threats of violence from al Qaeda and home-grown insurgents – who went to the polls and, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of the American military and our diplomatic corps, began the long, hard work of creating the only functioning Arab democracy. All of which brings us to President Obama’s speech yesterday, where he said this:
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
In just a few years, then, Iraq has, for Barack Obama, gone from a strategic disaster to something of a model for the region. His words sound very much like those of President Bush, who told the United Nations in 2003, “Iraq as a dictatorship has great power to destabilize the Middle East. Iraq as a democracy will have great power to inspire the Middle East.”
The fact that Barack Obama is now (belatedly) embracing the views of his predecessor is something to be grateful for. To have a liberal, Democratic president declare that Iraq shows “the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy” and is “poised to play a key role in the region” is a very good thing for our country and the wider Middle East. And it will help to heal the divisions caused by the war.
But even in this moment of unity it is worth considering, even for a moment, the fact that if Barack Obama had had his way, Iraq would still be an enemy of America, led by a barbaric dictator with a fondness for war and for genocide. And if Obama’s counsel had been heeded after the war began, the surge would have been stopped and Iraq would now be convulsed by civil war, America would have left in defeat and disgrace, and al Qaeda—in the form of al Qaeda in Iraq—would have attained its greatest victory ever.
Obama will never in a thousand years be able to bring himself to credit George W. Bush for deposing Saddam, for challenging the pathologies within the Arab world, and for putting in place a new military strategy that led to a dramatic turn in fortunes of war. No matter; history has a way of taking care of such things.
In any event, the Iraq war was not, as people like Joe Klein repeatedly insisted, “probably the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.” It was instead, in the words of the great Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami, “a foreigner’s gift.” It was a gift bequeathed to the Iraqis at a great cost to America. But it looks to be a gift that has been received and one that we can hope will, over time, help tame the furies of the Arab world. So sayeth Barack Obama.
The Muslim World Smells Blood
Check out this article in the well circulated Arab News. Clearly the Muslim world thinks America has abandoned Israel and that she is on the ropes. Here they are demanding that Obama enforce his final solution for Israel, "the rogue regime." Rife with filthy lies: "Israel continues to get away with murder." The Muslims smell blood and understand that Obama is working for them. They want action.
Let actions speak... Arab News (hat tip Rut)
So what’s it going to be: Israeli chutzpah or Barack Obama’s audacity of hope?
Predictably, Israel’s Netanyahu has lost no time in trashing President Barack Obama’s call for a “viable Palestine” along the 1967 borders. The Israeli PM has virtually rubbed Obama’s nose in, dismissing the borders that existed between Israel and its Arab neighbors before the war in 1967 as “indefensible.”
Well, nothing new here. The more things change around it, the more they remain the same for the ever-irrepressible and intransigent State of Israel. No matter who is in charge, Israeli’s obstinacy remains constant. Interestingly, Netanyahu’s rejection of the reasonable appeal from Israel’s most trusted ally comes hours before his high-profile US visit.
The Israeli leader can certainly count on a red carpet welcome and a firm handshake at the White House and endless, almost obsequious applause at the joint session of Congress that he is scheduled to address. And after all this adulation and glorification, a smug Netanyahu will go home once again, having successfully shrugged off Obama’s diffident attempts to introduce a semblance of balance in US engagement with the Middle East.
And, of course, the status quo will continue with the Palestinians forever stuck in the hell that is their existence and their plight radicalizing generations of Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, the yawning gulf between the West and Arab-Islamic world on account of Israel will further expand as the US fights disastrous, trillion-dollar wars in Muslim lands.
It doesn’t have to end this way. Obama’s State Department speech on Thursday has been widely welcomed around the world, although skepticism and open derision greeted it in the Middle East, the region that matters the most. Which is hardly surprising. After all, all those fine speeches by this US leader — or by his numerous predecessors for that matter — haven’t led us anywhere.
Israel continues to get away with murder, even as it refuses to give up the Palestinian and Arab lands it has occupied after every successive war of aggression. For seven decades, the world has watched in helplessness or indifference as an indigenous people are imprisoned and tormented in their own land. And the credit for this affairs goes to the West, especially its leader. Things wouldn’t have come this far without America’s blind and unquestioning support to Israel and its apathy to Israeli crimes against Palestinian people. Again, things on this front will change only if the US is serious and willing to deliver on its peace rhetoric and makes Israel fall in line.
There is only one and simple way of judging Obama’s sincerity and commitment to peace in the Middle East: action. It is time to qualify and follow up all that grandiloquence with real and concrete results on the ground. After all, the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
Israel’s intransigence using its powerful friends in high places and fabled clout in the US establishment to have its way is unsurprising. The question is, how the US leadership deals with the obstinacy of its so-called ally and friend. We cannot believe that the reigning superpower is incapable of asserting itself vis-à-vis a rogue regime that survives on its aid and constant protection, if it puts its mind to it. It’s about time the world community put its foot down and tell Israel: Enough is enough and it’s time to behave. So what’s it going to be? Israel’s chutzpah or Obama’s audacity of hope?
Let actions speak... Arab News (hat tip Rut)
So what’s it going to be: Israeli chutzpah or Barack Obama’s audacity of hope?
Predictably, Israel’s Netanyahu has lost no time in trashing President Barack Obama’s call for a “viable Palestine” along the 1967 borders. The Israeli PM has virtually rubbed Obama’s nose in, dismissing the borders that existed between Israel and its Arab neighbors before the war in 1967 as “indefensible.”
Well, nothing new here. The more things change around it, the more they remain the same for the ever-irrepressible and intransigent State of Israel. No matter who is in charge, Israeli’s obstinacy remains constant. Interestingly, Netanyahu’s rejection of the reasonable appeal from Israel’s most trusted ally comes hours before his high-profile US visit.
The Israeli leader can certainly count on a red carpet welcome and a firm handshake at the White House and endless, almost obsequious applause at the joint session of Congress that he is scheduled to address. And after all this adulation and glorification, a smug Netanyahu will go home once again, having successfully shrugged off Obama’s diffident attempts to introduce a semblance of balance in US engagement with the Middle East.
And, of course, the status quo will continue with the Palestinians forever stuck in the hell that is their existence and their plight radicalizing generations of Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, the yawning gulf between the West and Arab-Islamic world on account of Israel will further expand as the US fights disastrous, trillion-dollar wars in Muslim lands.
It doesn’t have to end this way. Obama’s State Department speech on Thursday has been widely welcomed around the world, although skepticism and open derision greeted it in the Middle East, the region that matters the most. Which is hardly surprising. After all, all those fine speeches by this US leader — or by his numerous predecessors for that matter — haven’t led us anywhere.
Israel continues to get away with murder, even as it refuses to give up the Palestinian and Arab lands it has occupied after every successive war of aggression. For seven decades, the world has watched in helplessness or indifference as an indigenous people are imprisoned and tormented in their own land. And the credit for this affairs goes to the West, especially its leader. Things wouldn’t have come this far without America’s blind and unquestioning support to Israel and its apathy to Israeli crimes against Palestinian people. Again, things on this front will change only if the US is serious and willing to deliver on its peace rhetoric and makes Israel fall in line.
There is only one and simple way of judging Obama’s sincerity and commitment to peace in the Middle East: action. It is time to qualify and follow up all that grandiloquence with real and concrete results on the ground. After all, the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
Israel’s intransigence using its powerful friends in high places and fabled clout in the US establishment to have its way is unsurprising. The question is, how the US leadership deals with the obstinacy of its so-called ally and friend. We cannot believe that the reigning superpower is incapable of asserting itself vis-à-vis a rogue regime that survives on its aid and constant protection, if it puts its mind to it. It’s about time the world community put its foot down and tell Israel: Enough is enough and it’s time to behave. So what’s it going to be? Israel’s chutzpah or Obama’s audacity of hope?
Gene Simmons Rocks Obama's World Over His Anti-Israel Policy
Yesterday, Barack Obama told American ally Israel to give Old Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and the most sacred sites of Christianity, to the Hamas-Fatah terror alliance. In an interview with CNBC’s Jane Wells, rock n’ roll singer Gene Simmons slammed President Barack Obama on his proposal to weaken Israel in support of the Hamas-Fatah alliance.
“How about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border?… He has no f**king idea what the world is like.” (Video at link)
“How about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border?… He has no f**king idea what the world is like.” (Video at link)
Obama and the shadow socialist group behind Egypt's fall?
A 13 page .pdf, fact based editorial. Here you will find droves of information hidden by the mainstream media outlets. A must read for those with a gut feeling our way of life is in jeopardy. Truly a 5-Star Read! (Link is located behind title)
Pedophyle Ring Awaits Freedom
DALLAS — Paperwork is now all that stands in the way of freedom for six adults accused of participating in what prosecutors say was a sordid small-town East Texas swinger's club where children as young as 5 were forced to perform sex.
The three men and three women pleaded guilty Thursday to charges of injury to a child in an unexpected end to a three-year criminal investigation into the so-called Mineola Swinger's Club. Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham said the six will be released on time served as soon as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice completes their processing — possibly as early as Friday for some of them.
Patrick "Booger Red" Kelly, Shauntel Mayo and Jamie Pittman had previously been sentenced to life in prison — Kelly for aggravated sexual assault of a child, Mayo and Pittman for organized criminal activity. Pittman and Kelly had their convictions overturned on appeal; Mayo's sentence was modified but the conviction was upheld. Only Dennis Pittman, who is appealing his life sentence, did not reach a deal.
Smith County prosecutors last year had vowed to retry the two defendants whose appeals were held up by a three-judge panel, which called the court record in one of the convictions "rife with error." Instead, they and four others pleaded guilty to third-degree felony injury to a child and waived their rights to trial and appeal.
Bingham said he still believes all the defendants deserve life in prison but offered the plea bargain for the sake of the children who were victimized.
"This is just real simple," he said. "These kids have gone into a court of law four times. They have testified to these horrific acts, endured the trauma of having to testify, and I'm not willing to put them through this again."
Authorities alleged Kelly helped set up a "kindergarten" where the young children learned to dance provocatively. To help them perform, prosecutors said the children were given Vicodin-like drugs the adults passed off as "silly pills."
Bingham said the children, who now range in age from 10 to 13, have had this "hanging over their heads" since 2004 with indictments three years later. The children could potentially have testified as many as seven more times in additional trials, he said.
"Whatever time they have to be a child they need to have it," Bingham said.
He stressed that he was not hiding from anything. Even the cases that were reversed were done so only "on procedural matters," Bingham said. "The evidence was clearly sufficient to establish their guilt."
That was why the six people were willing to admit their guilt Thursday, which came as a relief to the children's foster parents, he said.
However, defense attorney Tina Brumbelow still insisted that all were really innocent.
"If you've kept somebody locked up for five years, of course they'll plea to something that's not true just to get off," said Brumbelow, who represented Kelly in the initial trial. "I think that they tried to convict an innocent man and several innocent people."
Another of Kelly's attorneys, Greg Waldron of Longview, said his client is ready to get on with his life after being behind bars for nearly four years.
The plea deal was "one of those bargains that's hard not to take," considering the more serious charges Kelly was facing, Waldron said.
"The state and the victims didn't want to go through multiple trials," Waldron said. "The children didn't want to testify repeatedly, and on our end our client was ready to go home. My job is to reunite my client with his family, and that's what I did."
Jamie Pittman's attorney, Jim Huggler of Tyler, said his client had instructed him not to comment. Shauntel Mayo's attorney, Rex Thompson of Tyler, also declined to comment.
Also pleading guilty were Sheila Darlene Sones, Rebecca Pittman and Jimmy Sones.
Mineola is a town of about 5,300 residents about 85 miles east of Dallas.
___
Associated Press writers Linda Stewart Ball and Danny Robbins in Dallas and Paul J. Weber in San Antonio contributed to this report.
The three men and three women pleaded guilty Thursday to charges of injury to a child in an unexpected end to a three-year criminal investigation into the so-called Mineola Swinger's Club. Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham said the six will be released on time served as soon as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice completes their processing — possibly as early as Friday for some of them.
Patrick "Booger Red" Kelly, Shauntel Mayo and Jamie Pittman had previously been sentenced to life in prison — Kelly for aggravated sexual assault of a child, Mayo and Pittman for organized criminal activity. Pittman and Kelly had their convictions overturned on appeal; Mayo's sentence was modified but the conviction was upheld. Only Dennis Pittman, who is appealing his life sentence, did not reach a deal.
Smith County prosecutors last year had vowed to retry the two defendants whose appeals were held up by a three-judge panel, which called the court record in one of the convictions "rife with error." Instead, they and four others pleaded guilty to third-degree felony injury to a child and waived their rights to trial and appeal.
Bingham said he still believes all the defendants deserve life in prison but offered the plea bargain for the sake of the children who were victimized.
"This is just real simple," he said. "These kids have gone into a court of law four times. They have testified to these horrific acts, endured the trauma of having to testify, and I'm not willing to put them through this again."
Authorities alleged Kelly helped set up a "kindergarten" where the young children learned to dance provocatively. To help them perform, prosecutors said the children were given Vicodin-like drugs the adults passed off as "silly pills."
Bingham said the children, who now range in age from 10 to 13, have had this "hanging over their heads" since 2004 with indictments three years later. The children could potentially have testified as many as seven more times in additional trials, he said.
"Whatever time they have to be a child they need to have it," Bingham said.
He stressed that he was not hiding from anything. Even the cases that were reversed were done so only "on procedural matters," Bingham said. "The evidence was clearly sufficient to establish their guilt."
That was why the six people were willing to admit their guilt Thursday, which came as a relief to the children's foster parents, he said.
However, defense attorney Tina Brumbelow still insisted that all were really innocent.
"If you've kept somebody locked up for five years, of course they'll plea to something that's not true just to get off," said Brumbelow, who represented Kelly in the initial trial. "I think that they tried to convict an innocent man and several innocent people."
Another of Kelly's attorneys, Greg Waldron of Longview, said his client is ready to get on with his life after being behind bars for nearly four years.
The plea deal was "one of those bargains that's hard not to take," considering the more serious charges Kelly was facing, Waldron said.
"The state and the victims didn't want to go through multiple trials," Waldron said. "The children didn't want to testify repeatedly, and on our end our client was ready to go home. My job is to reunite my client with his family, and that's what I did."
Jamie Pittman's attorney, Jim Huggler of Tyler, said his client had instructed him not to comment. Shauntel Mayo's attorney, Rex Thompson of Tyler, also declined to comment.
Also pleading guilty were Sheila Darlene Sones, Rebecca Pittman and Jimmy Sones.
Mineola is a town of about 5,300 residents about 85 miles east of Dallas.
___
Associated Press writers Linda Stewart Ball and Danny Robbins in Dallas and Paul J. Weber in San Antonio contributed to this report.
Obama pardons 8 criminals
3 years probation and 500 hours of community service for 50 kilos of weed? WTF?
The six men and two women who were pardoned, according to the White House:
• Randy Eugene Dyer — Burien, Wash.
Offense: Conspiracy to import marijuana (hashish), 21 U.S.C. § 963; conspiracy to remove baggage from the custody and control of the U.S. Customs Service and convey false information concerning an attempt to damage a civil aircraft, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Sentence: June 19, 1975; Western District of Washington; five years in prison and two years of special parole (special parole term subsequently vacated).
• Danny Alonzo Levitz — Angola, Ind.
Offense: Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Sentence: Aug. 18, 1980; Northern District of Indiana; two years of probation, $400 fine.
• Michael Ray Neal — Palm Coast, Fla.
Offense: Manufacture, assembly, modification and distribution of equipment for unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, 47U.S.C. § 605(e)(4).
Sentence: May 31, 1991, as amended June 2, 1992; Eastern District of Virginia; six months in prison, three years of supervised release conditioned on six months of home confinement, $2,500 fine.
• Edwin Alan North — Wolcottville, Ind.
Offense: Transfer of a firearm without payment of transfer tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e).
Sentence: Aug. 18, 1980; Northern District of Indiana; six months of unsupervised probation.
• Allen Edward Peratt Sr. — Sioux Falls, S.D.
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
Sentence: July 23, 1990, as amended May 29, 1991; District of South Dakota; 30 months in prison, five years of supervised release.
• Christine Marie Rossiter — Lincoln, Neb.
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
Sentence: Oct. 7, 1992; District of Nebraska; three years of probation conditioned on performance of 500 hours of community service.
• Patricia Ann Weinzatl — Prentice, Wis.
Offense: Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).
Sentence: Aug. 15, 2001; Western District of Wisconsin; three years of probation, $5,000 fine.
• Bobby Gerald Wilson — Summerton, S.C.
Offense: Aiding and abetting the possession and sale of illegal American alligator hides (Lacey Act), 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(1)(B) and 18U.S.C. § 2.
Sentence: Dec. 19, 1985, as amended May 13, 1986; Southern District of Georgia; three and one-half months in prison, five years of probation conditioned on performance of 300 hours of community service.
The six men and two women who were pardoned, according to the White House:
• Randy Eugene Dyer — Burien, Wash.
Offense: Conspiracy to import marijuana (hashish), 21 U.S.C. § 963; conspiracy to remove baggage from the custody and control of the U.S. Customs Service and convey false information concerning an attempt to damage a civil aircraft, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Sentence: June 19, 1975; Western District of Washington; five years in prison and two years of special parole (special parole term subsequently vacated).
• Danny Alonzo Levitz — Angola, Ind.
Offense: Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Sentence: Aug. 18, 1980; Northern District of Indiana; two years of probation, $400 fine.
• Michael Ray Neal — Palm Coast, Fla.
Offense: Manufacture, assembly, modification and distribution of equipment for unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, 47U.S.C. § 605(e)(4).
Sentence: May 31, 1991, as amended June 2, 1992; Eastern District of Virginia; six months in prison, three years of supervised release conditioned on six months of home confinement, $2,500 fine.
• Edwin Alan North — Wolcottville, Ind.
Offense: Transfer of a firearm without payment of transfer tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e).
Sentence: Aug. 18, 1980; Northern District of Indiana; six months of unsupervised probation.
• Allen Edward Peratt Sr. — Sioux Falls, S.D.
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
Sentence: July 23, 1990, as amended May 29, 1991; District of South Dakota; 30 months in prison, five years of supervised release.
• Christine Marie Rossiter — Lincoln, Neb.
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
Sentence: Oct. 7, 1992; District of Nebraska; three years of probation conditioned on performance of 500 hours of community service.
• Patricia Ann Weinzatl — Prentice, Wis.
Offense: Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3).
Sentence: Aug. 15, 2001; Western District of Wisconsin; three years of probation, $5,000 fine.
• Bobby Gerald Wilson — Summerton, S.C.
Offense: Aiding and abetting the possession and sale of illegal American alligator hides (Lacey Act), 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(1)(B) and 18U.S.C. § 2.
Sentence: Dec. 19, 1985, as amended May 13, 1986; Southern District of Georgia; three and one-half months in prison, five years of probation conditioned on performance of 300 hours of community service.
Obama Self-Central!!!!
Uses "I" 35 times in 19 minute speech!
Complete Transcript below:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 20, 2011
Remarks by the President, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and DNI Director James Clapper to the Intelligence Community at CIA Headquarters
CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia
2:55 P.M. EDT
DIRECTOR CLAPPER: Mr. President, Director Panetta, and members of the intelligence community, both those who are here and those connected electronically: Recently, I received an email from a former student of mine at Georgetown who lost his wife at the World Trade Center. He wanted to thank those responsible for the takedown of Osama bin Laden. It represented closure for him.
And in a sense, this dramatic event represents a measure of closure as well for the intelligence community. It was an historic milestone in a relentless campaign which continues on.
Those heartfelt thanks of my student deservedly go to many. To the men and women in the intelligence community who contributed directly -- notably, from CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, and NCTC -- and many others from intelligence organizations who contributed indirectly, taken together a magnificent example of teamwork and intelligence integration.
But most assuredly, thanks must go to the President, our Commander-in-Chief -- (applause) -- for making perhaps the most courageous decision I’ve witnessed in almost 48 years in intelligence. He made this decision based on very compelling, but largely circumstantial intelligence.
And, sir, we are all grateful to you for your faith and trust in us. We’re honored by your visit and by your speaking to the intelligence community. And I think it most appropriate that you do so here at the heart of American intelligence, in the presence of the stars on the wall. We remember as well, across the community, those who sacrificed their lives on and since 9/11.
It’s now my great honor and privilege and pleasure to introduce Leon Panetta, who himself played a crucial role in this operation. (Applause.)
Leon, you’ve been a superb Director of CIA, a great partner and a wonderful friend. My thanks to you and the men and women of this magnificent agency.
Leon. (Applause.)
DIRECTOR PANETTA: Thank you. Thank you, Jim. For all of us here at the CIA, it is a privilege and a pleasure to have our intelligence community family here with us, to have all of our military partners with us, and I also want to thank the White House staff, particularly those involved in the national security element, to be with us today. We welcome all of you.
And I think it’s fair to say that we’ve never had a closer, more effective working relationship, both within our community and across the national security sector of our government. We thank all of you -- all of you -- for the team effort that was involved in the operation to go after bin Laden. It would not have happened without your full cooperation.
Jim Clapper deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in bringing the intelligence community together. And I want to thank you, Jim, for everything you’ve done. (Applause.)
Mr. President, on behalf of everyone here at the CIA, we are truly honored and very proud to have you here. I can’t tell you how much it means to all of us to have you here, to mark one of the greatest intelligence operations in our history. And it’s one that had so many of our officers working day and night for so many years.
Throughout that time, some of our officers made the ultimate sacrifice. Last year we lost seven men and women to a terrorist suicide bomber at Khost Base in Afghanistan. Their stars are now on this wall behind me -- along with those who gave their lives in this fight. Their devotion, their skill, and the inspiration that we take from their sacrifice helped make this day possible.
Tracking down the most infamous terrorist of our time required the very best tradecraft and the very best technology. But it also demanded the very best of our people -- the highest level of creativity, dedication, teamwork, analysis, and just sheer, dogged determination to never give up when the trail went cold. Those are basic American qualities and they are reflected in our country’s intelligence officers and in our war fighters -- the team that really carried out this mission.
But it also required one other essential American quality -- the courage to take risks, the kind of risks that you have to take on if you want to succeed. And Mr. President, joining with Jim, all of us in the intelligence community deeply thank you for the gutsy decision you made to follow the intelligence, to conduct this operation, and to bring bin Laden to justice. (Applause.)
We are grateful to have a Commander-in-Chief who was willing to put great trust in our work. And in return, as we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we commit to you that we will continue to do everything in our power to fulfill your mission of defeating al Qaeda and their militant allies. We will do whatever it takes to protect this country and to keep it safe.
This has been a long and tough fight, and it’s not over. But as we have just proven, it’s a fight that we’re going to win -- for you, Mr. President, and for the American people.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce the President of the United States. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you very much, everybody. Well, thank you, Leon, and thank you, Jim.
When I chose Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA, I said he was going to be a strong advocate for this agency and would strengthen your capabilities to meet the threats of our time. And when I chose Jim Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, I charged him with making sure that our intelligence community works as one integrated team. That’s exactly what these two leaders have done, along with all of you.
So, Jim and Leon, thank you for your remarkable leadership, not just in recent weeks, but during the entirety of your tenure. You have done a great job. (Applause.)
This is my third visit here to Langley as President, and each of these visits has marked another milestone in our mission to protect the American people and keep our country safe.
On my first visit, just months after taking office, I stood here and I said that this agency and our entire intelligence community is fundamental to America’s national security. I said that I believed that your best days were still to come and I pledged that you would have my full support to carry out your critical work.
Soon after that visit, I called Leon into the Oval Office and I directed him to make the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden the top priority in our war to defeat al Qaeda. And he came back here, and you guys, who had already been working so hard on this issue, redoubled your efforts. And that was true all across the intelligence community.
My second visit, a year later, came under more somber circumstances. We gathered to pay tribute to seven American patriots who gave their lives in this fight at a remote post in Afghanistan. As has already been mentioned, their stars now grace this memorial wall. And through our grief and our tears, we resolved that their sacrifice would be our summons to carry on their work, to complete this mission, to win this war.
Today I’ve returned just to say thank you, on behalf of all Americans and people around the world, because you carried on. You stayed focused on your mission. You honored the memory of your fallen colleagues. And in helping to locate and take down Osama bin Laden, you made it possible for us to achieve the most significant victory yet in our war to defeat al Qaeda.
I just met with some of the outstanding leaders and teams from across the community who worked so long and so hard to make that raid a success. And I’m pleased today that we’re joined by representatives from all of our intelligence agencies, and that folks are watching this live back at all of those agencies, because this truly was a team effort. That’s not always the case in Washington. (Laughter.) But all of you work together every single day.
This is one of the few times when all these leaders and organizations have the occasion to appear together publicly. And so I thank all of you for coming -- because I think it’s so important for the American people to see all of you here today.
Part of the challenge of intelligence work is, by necessity, your work has to remain secret. I know that carries a heavy burden. You’re often the first ones to get the blame when things go wrong, and you’re always the last ones to get the credit when things go right. So when things do go right -- and they do more often than the world will ever know -- we ought to celebrate your success.
That’s why I came here. I wanted every single one of you to know, whether you work at the CIA or across the community, at every step of our effort to take out bin Laden, the work you did and the quality of the intelligence that you provided made the critical difference -- to me, to our team on those helicopters, to our nation.
After I directed that getting bin Laden be the priority, you hunkered down even more, building on years of painstaking work; pulling together, in some cases, the slenderest of intelligence streams, running those threads to ground until you found that courier and you tracked him to that compound. And when I was briefed last summer, you had built the strongest intelligence case against -- in terms of where bin Laden was since Tora Bora.
In the months that followed, including all those meetings in the Situation Room, we did what sound intelligence demands: We pushed for more collection. We pushed for more evidence. We questioned our assumptions. You strengthened your analysis. You didn’t bite your tongue and try to spin the ball, but you gave it to me straight each and every time.
And we did something really remarkable in Washington -- we kept it a secret. (Laughter and applause.) That’s how it should be.
Of course, when the time came to actually make the decision, we didn’t know for sure that bin Laden was there. The evidence was circumstantial and the risks, especially to the lives of our special operations forces, were huge. And I knew that the consequences of failure could be enormous. But I made the decision that I did because I had absolute confidence in the skill of our military personnel and I had confidence in you. I put my bet on you. And now the whole world knows that that faith in you was justified.
So just as impressive as what you did was how you did it. It was a tribute to your perseverance, your relentless focus and determination over many years. For the fight against al Qaeda did not begin on 9/11. Among you are veterans who’ve been pursuing these murderers for many years, even before they attacked our embassies in Africa and struck the Cole in Yemen. Among you are young men and women for whom 9/11 was a call to service. This fight has defined your generation. And on this wall are stars honoring all your colleagues and friends, more than a dozen who have given their lives in the fight against al Qaeda and its violent allies.
As the years wore on, others began to think that this terrorist might never be brought to justice. But you never quit. You never gave up. You pulled together across this agency and across the community.
No one piece of information and no one agency made this possible. You did it together -- CIA, National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, everyone at ODNI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Folks across the country, civilian and military, so many of you here today.
And that’s exactly how our intelligence community is supposed to work, using every capability -- human, technical -- collecting, analyzing, sharing, integrating intelligence, and then acting on it.
That’s what made this one of the greatest intelligence successes in American history, and that’s why intelligence professionals are going to study and be inspired by your achievement for generations to come.
Now, make no mistake -- this is not over. Because we not only took out the symbol and operational leader of al Qaeda, we walked off with his files -- (laughter) -- the largest treasure trove of intelligence ever seized from a terrorist leader. Many of you now are working around the clock; you didn’t have much time to celebrate. We’ve got to analyze and evaluate and exploit this mountain of intelligence.
So today, every terrorist in the al Qaeda network should be watching their back, because we’re going to review every video, we are going to examine every photo, we’re going to read every one of those millions of pages, we’re going to pursue every lead. We are going to go wherever it takes us. We’re going to finish the job. We are going to defeat al Qaeda.
Even as we stay focused on this mission, we need you to stay nimble and flexible to meet the full range of threats to our security, from plots against our homeland to nations seeking weapons of mass destruction to transnational threats such as cyber criminals and narcotraffickers.
So I’m going to keep relying on you -- for your intelligence, the analysis that comes across my desk every single day. And 300-plus Americans are counting on you to stay a step ahead of our adversaries and to keep our country safe.
I have never been more proud or more confident in you than I am today -- not just because this extraordinary success, but because it reminds us of who we are as a people and as a nation. You reminded us that when we Americans set our mind to something, when we are focused and when we are working together, when we’re not worried about who’s getting the credit and when we stay true to our values, even if it takes years, there is nothing we cannot do.
That’s why I still believe in what I said my first visit here two years ago: Your greatest days are still to come. And if any of you doubt what this means, I wish I could have taken some of you on the trip I made to New York City, where we laid a wreath at Ground Zero, and I had a chance to meet firefighters who had lost an entire shift; police officers who had lost their comrades; a young woman, 14 years old, who had written to me because her last memory of her father was talking to him on the phone while her mother wept beside her, right before they watched the tower go down.
And she and other members of families of 9/11 victims talked about what this meant. It meant that their suffering had not been forgotten, and that the American community stands with them, that we stand with each other.
So most of you will never get headlines for the work that you do. You won’t get ticker-tape parades. But as you go about your work with incredible diligence and dedication every single day, I hope all of you understand how important it is, how grateful I am, and that you have the thanks of a grateful nation.
God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 3:14 P.M. EDT
Complete Transcript below:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 20, 2011
Remarks by the President, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and DNI Director James Clapper to the Intelligence Community at CIA Headquarters
CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia
2:55 P.M. EDT
DIRECTOR CLAPPER: Mr. President, Director Panetta, and members of the intelligence community, both those who are here and those connected electronically: Recently, I received an email from a former student of mine at Georgetown who lost his wife at the World Trade Center. He wanted to thank those responsible for the takedown of Osama bin Laden. It represented closure for him.
And in a sense, this dramatic event represents a measure of closure as well for the intelligence community. It was an historic milestone in a relentless campaign which continues on.
Those heartfelt thanks of my student deservedly go to many. To the men and women in the intelligence community who contributed directly -- notably, from CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, and NCTC -- and many others from intelligence organizations who contributed indirectly, taken together a magnificent example of teamwork and intelligence integration.
But most assuredly, thanks must go to the President, our Commander-in-Chief -- (applause) -- for making perhaps the most courageous decision I’ve witnessed in almost 48 years in intelligence. He made this decision based on very compelling, but largely circumstantial intelligence.
And, sir, we are all grateful to you for your faith and trust in us. We’re honored by your visit and by your speaking to the intelligence community. And I think it most appropriate that you do so here at the heart of American intelligence, in the presence of the stars on the wall. We remember as well, across the community, those who sacrificed their lives on and since 9/11.
It’s now my great honor and privilege and pleasure to introduce Leon Panetta, who himself played a crucial role in this operation. (Applause.)
Leon, you’ve been a superb Director of CIA, a great partner and a wonderful friend. My thanks to you and the men and women of this magnificent agency.
Leon. (Applause.)
DIRECTOR PANETTA: Thank you. Thank you, Jim. For all of us here at the CIA, it is a privilege and a pleasure to have our intelligence community family here with us, to have all of our military partners with us, and I also want to thank the White House staff, particularly those involved in the national security element, to be with us today. We welcome all of you.
And I think it’s fair to say that we’ve never had a closer, more effective working relationship, both within our community and across the national security sector of our government. We thank all of you -- all of you -- for the team effort that was involved in the operation to go after bin Laden. It would not have happened without your full cooperation.
Jim Clapper deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in bringing the intelligence community together. And I want to thank you, Jim, for everything you’ve done. (Applause.)
Mr. President, on behalf of everyone here at the CIA, we are truly honored and very proud to have you here. I can’t tell you how much it means to all of us to have you here, to mark one of the greatest intelligence operations in our history. And it’s one that had so many of our officers working day and night for so many years.
Throughout that time, some of our officers made the ultimate sacrifice. Last year we lost seven men and women to a terrorist suicide bomber at Khost Base in Afghanistan. Their stars are now on this wall behind me -- along with those who gave their lives in this fight. Their devotion, their skill, and the inspiration that we take from their sacrifice helped make this day possible.
Tracking down the most infamous terrorist of our time required the very best tradecraft and the very best technology. But it also demanded the very best of our people -- the highest level of creativity, dedication, teamwork, analysis, and just sheer, dogged determination to never give up when the trail went cold. Those are basic American qualities and they are reflected in our country’s intelligence officers and in our war fighters -- the team that really carried out this mission.
But it also required one other essential American quality -- the courage to take risks, the kind of risks that you have to take on if you want to succeed. And Mr. President, joining with Jim, all of us in the intelligence community deeply thank you for the gutsy decision you made to follow the intelligence, to conduct this operation, and to bring bin Laden to justice. (Applause.)
We are grateful to have a Commander-in-Chief who was willing to put great trust in our work. And in return, as we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we commit to you that we will continue to do everything in our power to fulfill your mission of defeating al Qaeda and their militant allies. We will do whatever it takes to protect this country and to keep it safe.
This has been a long and tough fight, and it’s not over. But as we have just proven, it’s a fight that we’re going to win -- for you, Mr. President, and for the American people.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce the President of the United States. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you very much, everybody. Well, thank you, Leon, and thank you, Jim.
When I chose Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA, I said he was going to be a strong advocate for this agency and would strengthen your capabilities to meet the threats of our time. And when I chose Jim Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, I charged him with making sure that our intelligence community works as one integrated team. That’s exactly what these two leaders have done, along with all of you.
So, Jim and Leon, thank you for your remarkable leadership, not just in recent weeks, but during the entirety of your tenure. You have done a great job. (Applause.)
This is my third visit here to Langley as President, and each of these visits has marked another milestone in our mission to protect the American people and keep our country safe.
On my first visit, just months after taking office, I stood here and I said that this agency and our entire intelligence community is fundamental to America’s national security. I said that I believed that your best days were still to come and I pledged that you would have my full support to carry out your critical work.
Soon after that visit, I called Leon into the Oval Office and I directed him to make the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden the top priority in our war to defeat al Qaeda. And he came back here, and you guys, who had already been working so hard on this issue, redoubled your efforts. And that was true all across the intelligence community.
My second visit, a year later, came under more somber circumstances. We gathered to pay tribute to seven American patriots who gave their lives in this fight at a remote post in Afghanistan. As has already been mentioned, their stars now grace this memorial wall. And through our grief and our tears, we resolved that their sacrifice would be our summons to carry on their work, to complete this mission, to win this war.
Today I’ve returned just to say thank you, on behalf of all Americans and people around the world, because you carried on. You stayed focused on your mission. You honored the memory of your fallen colleagues. And in helping to locate and take down Osama bin Laden, you made it possible for us to achieve the most significant victory yet in our war to defeat al Qaeda.
I just met with some of the outstanding leaders and teams from across the community who worked so long and so hard to make that raid a success. And I’m pleased today that we’re joined by representatives from all of our intelligence agencies, and that folks are watching this live back at all of those agencies, because this truly was a team effort. That’s not always the case in Washington. (Laughter.) But all of you work together every single day.
This is one of the few times when all these leaders and organizations have the occasion to appear together publicly. And so I thank all of you for coming -- because I think it’s so important for the American people to see all of you here today.
Part of the challenge of intelligence work is, by necessity, your work has to remain secret. I know that carries a heavy burden. You’re often the first ones to get the blame when things go wrong, and you’re always the last ones to get the credit when things go right. So when things do go right -- and they do more often than the world will ever know -- we ought to celebrate your success.
That’s why I came here. I wanted every single one of you to know, whether you work at the CIA or across the community, at every step of our effort to take out bin Laden, the work you did and the quality of the intelligence that you provided made the critical difference -- to me, to our team on those helicopters, to our nation.
After I directed that getting bin Laden be the priority, you hunkered down even more, building on years of painstaking work; pulling together, in some cases, the slenderest of intelligence streams, running those threads to ground until you found that courier and you tracked him to that compound. And when I was briefed last summer, you had built the strongest intelligence case against -- in terms of where bin Laden was since Tora Bora.
In the months that followed, including all those meetings in the Situation Room, we did what sound intelligence demands: We pushed for more collection. We pushed for more evidence. We questioned our assumptions. You strengthened your analysis. You didn’t bite your tongue and try to spin the ball, but you gave it to me straight each and every time.
And we did something really remarkable in Washington -- we kept it a secret. (Laughter and applause.) That’s how it should be.
Of course, when the time came to actually make the decision, we didn’t know for sure that bin Laden was there. The evidence was circumstantial and the risks, especially to the lives of our special operations forces, were huge. And I knew that the consequences of failure could be enormous. But I made the decision that I did because I had absolute confidence in the skill of our military personnel and I had confidence in you. I put my bet on you. And now the whole world knows that that faith in you was justified.
So just as impressive as what you did was how you did it. It was a tribute to your perseverance, your relentless focus and determination over many years. For the fight against al Qaeda did not begin on 9/11. Among you are veterans who’ve been pursuing these murderers for many years, even before they attacked our embassies in Africa and struck the Cole in Yemen. Among you are young men and women for whom 9/11 was a call to service. This fight has defined your generation. And on this wall are stars honoring all your colleagues and friends, more than a dozen who have given their lives in the fight against al Qaeda and its violent allies.
As the years wore on, others began to think that this terrorist might never be brought to justice. But you never quit. You never gave up. You pulled together across this agency and across the community.
No one piece of information and no one agency made this possible. You did it together -- CIA, National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, everyone at ODNI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Folks across the country, civilian and military, so many of you here today.
And that’s exactly how our intelligence community is supposed to work, using every capability -- human, technical -- collecting, analyzing, sharing, integrating intelligence, and then acting on it.
That’s what made this one of the greatest intelligence successes in American history, and that’s why intelligence professionals are going to study and be inspired by your achievement for generations to come.
Now, make no mistake -- this is not over. Because we not only took out the symbol and operational leader of al Qaeda, we walked off with his files -- (laughter) -- the largest treasure trove of intelligence ever seized from a terrorist leader. Many of you now are working around the clock; you didn’t have much time to celebrate. We’ve got to analyze and evaluate and exploit this mountain of intelligence.
So today, every terrorist in the al Qaeda network should be watching their back, because we’re going to review every video, we are going to examine every photo, we’re going to read every one of those millions of pages, we’re going to pursue every lead. We are going to go wherever it takes us. We’re going to finish the job. We are going to defeat al Qaeda.
Even as we stay focused on this mission, we need you to stay nimble and flexible to meet the full range of threats to our security, from plots against our homeland to nations seeking weapons of mass destruction to transnational threats such as cyber criminals and narcotraffickers.
So I’m going to keep relying on you -- for your intelligence, the analysis that comes across my desk every single day. And 300-plus Americans are counting on you to stay a step ahead of our adversaries and to keep our country safe.
I have never been more proud or more confident in you than I am today -- not just because this extraordinary success, but because it reminds us of who we are as a people and as a nation. You reminded us that when we Americans set our mind to something, when we are focused and when we are working together, when we’re not worried about who’s getting the credit and when we stay true to our values, even if it takes years, there is nothing we cannot do.
That’s why I still believe in what I said my first visit here two years ago: Your greatest days are still to come. And if any of you doubt what this means, I wish I could have taken some of you on the trip I made to New York City, where we laid a wreath at Ground Zero, and I had a chance to meet firefighters who had lost an entire shift; police officers who had lost their comrades; a young woman, 14 years old, who had written to me because her last memory of her father was talking to him on the phone while her mother wept beside her, right before they watched the tower go down.
And she and other members of families of 9/11 victims talked about what this meant. It meant that their suffering had not been forgotten, and that the American community stands with them, that we stand with each other.
So most of you will never get headlines for the work that you do. You won’t get ticker-tape parades. But as you go about your work with incredible diligence and dedication every single day, I hope all of you understand how important it is, how grateful I am, and that you have the thanks of a grateful nation.
God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 3:14 P.M. EDT
Obama's Reinterpretation of War Powers
White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization
In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.
“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”
“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”
The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”
Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.”
-Jake Tapper
In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.
“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”
“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”
The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”
Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.”
-Jake Tapper
Friday, May 20, 2011
ZOA Condemns Obama Call For A Hamas/Fatah Terror State Based On Indefensible '67 Lines
Endangers Israel and Mideast Stability
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States, strongly condemned President Obama’s Mideast speech given today promoting and supporting the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran terrorist state on the Auschwitz 1967 indefensible armistice lines. This state would almost surely become a Hamas/Iran terror state threatening Israel and further destabilizing the Mideast. President Obama has dealt Israel a severe diplomatic blow, which harms all those who care about peace and fighting terrorism.
President Obama is either extraordinarily naïve or extraordinarily hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, despite his claims of commitment to Israel’s security. One cannot claim to care about a neighbor’s young children while renting out rooms to child predators.
It is breath-taking, shocking and frightening that at a time when the Nazi-like terrorist group Hamas (a proxy of Iran), whose charter calls for the murder of every Jew (Article 7) and Israel’s destruction (Article 12), merges with Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah, forming a unity government, Obama can now call for a PA state and on the ’67 indefensible lines yet. Obama was recently given a Noble Peace Prize; he should now receive the Nobel War Prize for increasing the likelihood of a Mideast war and endangering Israel’s very existence.
After the Hamas-Fatah signing ceremony this month in Cairo Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said Hamas would never recognize Israel’s right to exist and never abandon liberating all of Palestine.
Hamas Minister Fathi Hamad said, “the Jews have become abhorred and loathed outcasts…whenever we achieve something against the Jews, the world applauds us…hatred for Jews is on the rise…people who hate the Jews…will support us.”
President Obama is now supporting a racist, Jew-hating Hamas/Fatah state.
And it gets even uglier and more frightening.
Yunis al Astal, a member of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Parliament said on Hamas al Aqsa TV (May 11, 2011), “the Jews being brought to Palestine is a divine plan that gives the Arabs the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang…the Jews are more dangerous than all of the world’s lethal birds of prey, dangerous reptiles and lethal bacteria combined.”
And Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah is hardly comforting. Abbas said, “we will not ask Hamas to recognize Israel,” and refuses to change the Fatah Charter calling for terrorism and Israel’s destruction. This week he publicly praised those who attacked Israel, from Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza – as well as those who participated in violent demonstrations saying “their blood was not spilled in vain” and that “they died for the Palestinian people’s rights and freedom.”
Abbas promotes the speeches of hateful clerics appointed by the PA justifying suicide bombings and Jew-killing. PA posters glorify suicide bombers. We see official full day programs honoring terrorists, calling them devoted brothers and heroes. We have seen the PA president and prime minister visit terrorists or the homes of suicide bombers’ families, mourning and praising them. We recently saw the Fatah Conference named in honor of Amin Al-Hindi, mastermind of the Munich Olympics terrorist operation.
We have even seen the PA honor Muhammad Fadlallah, responsible in the Hizballah bombing that claimed the lives of 242 U.S. servicemen in 1982. How can Obama support a state whose regime glorifies killers of Americans and Israelis?
We see PA programs and hear PA videos extolling terrorism. We witness scores of schools, streets and sports teams named after terrorists. We have even seen U.S. aid money used to pave a street named after Saddam Hussein. We see PA laws requiring a death sentence for anyone selling land to a Jew. We see a Fatah emblem that drapes all of Israel in a keffiyah next to a rifle and Yasser Arafat.
We have not seen any PA maps, official stationery or school atlases that even show Israel within any borders. We have not seen the PA acknowledge the Jewish religious and historical claim to the land, to Jerusalem, or even to the Western Wall, the holiest of Judaism’s sites. To the contrary, we have seen these repeatedly denied by high PA officials. We have not seen terrorist groups outlawed, as required under the Oslo agreements.
Both Hamas and Fatah have vehemently protested a proposal by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) to include a small unit on the Holocaust as part of the human right curriculum in its schools in the West Bank and Gaza.
Both Fatah and Hamas said the proposal to teach students about the Holocaust was a “provocative act”, with Fatah expressing its opposition to teaching the “enemy’s false claims and lies.”
Hamas alleged it would amount to a “cultural crime” and would pave the way for normalization of ties with Israel, saying: “they [UNRWA] want us to accept the tales and lies to win sympathy.”
And only two days ago in the New York Times Abbas published an Op-Ed filled with vicious anti-Israel lies, where he explicitly proclaimed that a Palestinian state will be formed not to have peace with Israel but to more effectively continue the war against Israel. He wrote “Palestine’s admission to the U.N. would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal mater, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.”
Polls show that 90% of Palestinians under 25 and 75% over 25 don’t accept Israel’s existence. Only 13% of Palestinians support educating Palestinian children for peace. Another poll informs us that 85% of Palestinians don’t want peace if it means compromise on borders or settlements or Jerusalem or the Israel-destroying ‘right of return.’ This very month a PEW poll shows 68% of Palestinians support suicide bombing. This terrifying incitement works.
Jewish settlements that encompass only 5% of the West Bank are not the problem. There were no Jewish communities in the West Bank before 1967, yet there was no peace or acceptance of Israel. We do not believe that peace can be built by creating a Palestinian state that is Jew-free. We have therefore been deeply concerned to hear Mr. Abbas and his officials say on more than one occasion that not even one Jew will be permitted to live in a Palestinian state.
The ZOA is also deeply concerned that most Christians have been driven from Bethlehem because their lives have been made miserable under PA rule. Christians in Gaza have also fled rather than live under Hamas. A PA united with Hamas, with this record behind it, indicate that establishing a Palestinian state at this time would likely create a terrorist state, further destabilizing the Middle East.
Yet President Obama mindlessly and shockingly ignores all this vile hatred, vile actions, and continuing threats. The last thing the world needs, Mr. Obama, is another Islamist terrorist state.
As Israeli MK Avi Dichter, former Israeli Minister of Security, wrote on May 13 in the Washington Times, “A primary goal of Hamas is to rebuild the West Bank terrorist network that Israeli security services have dismantled over the past decade. Hamas particularly desires this territory because of its proximity to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and other Israeli cities.
“Under the new Palestinian unity government, Hamas will have ease in implementing its West Bank desires. The group will infuse Judea and Samaria with a jihadist culture reminiscent of the Second Intifada, in which hundreds of Israelis were murdered and thousands wounded.
“Israel must prevent this at all costs.
“Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, we have not received quiet but rather thousands of rockets and mortars fired into our civilian towns. If Hamas is allowed to expand into the West Bank, it will create another terrorist base – this time bordering Jerusalem and Israel’s central Tel Aviv region.”
As Congressman Allen West (R-FL) of Florida said today, “Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
“America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority – which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
“It’s time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
“President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security – the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
ZOA President Morton A. Klein said, “President Obama’s speech simply rewards terrorism and the PA refusal to negotiate until they receive everything upfront.
“This unprecedented move and blunder will not make the Palestinians any more supportive of Israel, any less inclined to violence against Israel, and any less inclined to work for Israel’s destruction, and any less hostile to the West.
“President Obama has severely harmed Israel’s interests and America’s interests.
“Today, we are ashamed of and frightened by America’s policy regarding Israel. The ZOA prediction several years ago that President Obama will become the most hostile president to Israel ever, has come true.
“Helen Thomas, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abuneimah, J Street, and George Soros, and every anti-Semite in America, are surely thrilled by this speech. “All those who love peace, justice, and Israel – are not.”
We urge friends of Israel and enemies of Islamist terrorism to contact your Members of Congress to fight against Obama’s anti-Israel policy.
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States, strongly condemned President Obama’s Mideast speech given today promoting and supporting the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran terrorist state on the Auschwitz 1967 indefensible armistice lines. This state would almost surely become a Hamas/Iran terror state threatening Israel and further destabilizing the Mideast. President Obama has dealt Israel a severe diplomatic blow, which harms all those who care about peace and fighting terrorism.
President Obama is either extraordinarily naïve or extraordinarily hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, despite his claims of commitment to Israel’s security. One cannot claim to care about a neighbor’s young children while renting out rooms to child predators.
It is breath-taking, shocking and frightening that at a time when the Nazi-like terrorist group Hamas (a proxy of Iran), whose charter calls for the murder of every Jew (Article 7) and Israel’s destruction (Article 12), merges with Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah, forming a unity government, Obama can now call for a PA state and on the ’67 indefensible lines yet. Obama was recently given a Noble Peace Prize; he should now receive the Nobel War Prize for increasing the likelihood of a Mideast war and endangering Israel’s very existence.
After the Hamas-Fatah signing ceremony this month in Cairo Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said Hamas would never recognize Israel’s right to exist and never abandon liberating all of Palestine.
Hamas Minister Fathi Hamad said, “the Jews have become abhorred and loathed outcasts…whenever we achieve something against the Jews, the world applauds us…hatred for Jews is on the rise…people who hate the Jews…will support us.”
President Obama is now supporting a racist, Jew-hating Hamas/Fatah state.
And it gets even uglier and more frightening.
Yunis al Astal, a member of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Parliament said on Hamas al Aqsa TV (May 11, 2011), “the Jews being brought to Palestine is a divine plan that gives the Arabs the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang…the Jews are more dangerous than all of the world’s lethal birds of prey, dangerous reptiles and lethal bacteria combined.”
And Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah is hardly comforting. Abbas said, “we will not ask Hamas to recognize Israel,” and refuses to change the Fatah Charter calling for terrorism and Israel’s destruction. This week he publicly praised those who attacked Israel, from Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza – as well as those who participated in violent demonstrations saying “their blood was not spilled in vain” and that “they died for the Palestinian people’s rights and freedom.”
Abbas promotes the speeches of hateful clerics appointed by the PA justifying suicide bombings and Jew-killing. PA posters glorify suicide bombers. We see official full day programs honoring terrorists, calling them devoted brothers and heroes. We have seen the PA president and prime minister visit terrorists or the homes of suicide bombers’ families, mourning and praising them. We recently saw the Fatah Conference named in honor of Amin Al-Hindi, mastermind of the Munich Olympics terrorist operation.
We have even seen the PA honor Muhammad Fadlallah, responsible in the Hizballah bombing that claimed the lives of 242 U.S. servicemen in 1982. How can Obama support a state whose regime glorifies killers of Americans and Israelis?
We see PA programs and hear PA videos extolling terrorism. We witness scores of schools, streets and sports teams named after terrorists. We have even seen U.S. aid money used to pave a street named after Saddam Hussein. We see PA laws requiring a death sentence for anyone selling land to a Jew. We see a Fatah emblem that drapes all of Israel in a keffiyah next to a rifle and Yasser Arafat.
We have not seen any PA maps, official stationery or school atlases that even show Israel within any borders. We have not seen the PA acknowledge the Jewish religious and historical claim to the land, to Jerusalem, or even to the Western Wall, the holiest of Judaism’s sites. To the contrary, we have seen these repeatedly denied by high PA officials. We have not seen terrorist groups outlawed, as required under the Oslo agreements.
Both Hamas and Fatah have vehemently protested a proposal by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) to include a small unit on the Holocaust as part of the human right curriculum in its schools in the West Bank and Gaza.
Both Fatah and Hamas said the proposal to teach students about the Holocaust was a “provocative act”, with Fatah expressing its opposition to teaching the “enemy’s false claims and lies.”
Hamas alleged it would amount to a “cultural crime” and would pave the way for normalization of ties with Israel, saying: “they [UNRWA] want us to accept the tales and lies to win sympathy.”
And only two days ago in the New York Times Abbas published an Op-Ed filled with vicious anti-Israel lies, where he explicitly proclaimed that a Palestinian state will be formed not to have peace with Israel but to more effectively continue the war against Israel. He wrote “Palestine’s admission to the U.N. would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal mater, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.”
Polls show that 90% of Palestinians under 25 and 75% over 25 don’t accept Israel’s existence. Only 13% of Palestinians support educating Palestinian children for peace. Another poll informs us that 85% of Palestinians don’t want peace if it means compromise on borders or settlements or Jerusalem or the Israel-destroying ‘right of return.’ This very month a PEW poll shows 68% of Palestinians support suicide bombing. This terrifying incitement works.
Jewish settlements that encompass only 5% of the West Bank are not the problem. There were no Jewish communities in the West Bank before 1967, yet there was no peace or acceptance of Israel. We do not believe that peace can be built by creating a Palestinian state that is Jew-free. We have therefore been deeply concerned to hear Mr. Abbas and his officials say on more than one occasion that not even one Jew will be permitted to live in a Palestinian state.
The ZOA is also deeply concerned that most Christians have been driven from Bethlehem because their lives have been made miserable under PA rule. Christians in Gaza have also fled rather than live under Hamas. A PA united with Hamas, with this record behind it, indicate that establishing a Palestinian state at this time would likely create a terrorist state, further destabilizing the Middle East.
Yet President Obama mindlessly and shockingly ignores all this vile hatred, vile actions, and continuing threats. The last thing the world needs, Mr. Obama, is another Islamist terrorist state.
As Israeli MK Avi Dichter, former Israeli Minister of Security, wrote on May 13 in the Washington Times, “A primary goal of Hamas is to rebuild the West Bank terrorist network that Israeli security services have dismantled over the past decade. Hamas particularly desires this territory because of its proximity to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and other Israeli cities.
“Under the new Palestinian unity government, Hamas will have ease in implementing its West Bank desires. The group will infuse Judea and Samaria with a jihadist culture reminiscent of the Second Intifada, in which hundreds of Israelis were murdered and thousands wounded.
“Israel must prevent this at all costs.
“Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, we have not received quiet but rather thousands of rockets and mortars fired into our civilian towns. If Hamas is allowed to expand into the West Bank, it will create another terrorist base – this time bordering Jerusalem and Israel’s central Tel Aviv region.”
As Congressman Allen West (R-FL) of Florida said today, “Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
“America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority – which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
“It’s time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
“President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security – the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
ZOA President Morton A. Klein said, “President Obama’s speech simply rewards terrorism and the PA refusal to negotiate until they receive everything upfront.
“This unprecedented move and blunder will not make the Palestinians any more supportive of Israel, any less inclined to violence against Israel, and any less inclined to work for Israel’s destruction, and any less hostile to the West.
“President Obama has severely harmed Israel’s interests and America’s interests.
“Today, we are ashamed of and frightened by America’s policy regarding Israel. The ZOA prediction several years ago that President Obama will become the most hostile president to Israel ever, has come true.
“Helen Thomas, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abuneimah, J Street, and George Soros, and every anti-Semite in America, are surely thrilled by this speech. “All those who love peace, justice, and Israel – are not.”
We urge friends of Israel and enemies of Islamist terrorism to contact your Members of Congress to fight against Obama’s anti-Israel policy.
Gingrich Will Star In Democrats' Anti-Ryan Medicare Attacks
By the time they're done with him, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich will look like a leading Democratic spokesman as the party moves quickly to harness his attacks on Republican plans to change Medicare. According to party sources, they plan to use Gingrich's assault on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan in a bid to knock down every Republican who voted for it.
[Check out editorial cartoons about the 2012 GOP presidential field.]
"By calling Paul Ryan's budget 'radical' and 'right-wing social engineering,' Newt merely echoed criticisms millions of Americans across the political spectrum have voiced at house Republicans' budget for weeks now," says Ryan Rudominer, a Democratic consultant and former spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "So while Gingrich may now have as good a chance as me of winning the Republican nomination, those of us on the left can at least be thankful that he made Paul Ryan's 'radical' budget to gut Medicare and provide billions in tax breaks for big oil companies the new litmus test in the Republican Party," adds Rudominer.
Groups like DCCC, the Democratic National Committee and the House Majority PAC are looking at ways to use ads and Internet campaigns to warn voters that the Ryan plan the GOP favors is so bad that even conservative Gingrich, the former House speaker, hates it.
The DNC, for example, has put a video on YouTube that suggests he backed away from his attack on Ryan's plan because supporting Ryan's Medicare reform is a GOP "litmus test." [Read: Democrats Play Offense With Medicare in NY 26]
Others are looking to use his words against Republican House members.
The House Majority PAC, for example, ran ads during Easter Recess assailing lawmakers who voted for the Ryan budget, charging that they would "essentially end Medicare." The ads were effective, but many Democrats were struggling to find a new way to hit the GOP when Gingrich's comments landed in their lap.
Said a Democratic strategist: "Democrats have already been painting Republicans as a bunch of extremists hell bent on killing Medicare. The only challenge now for Democratic ad makers is figuring out whether to be more thankful for Speaker Gingrich's rare moment of candor in which he slammed Paul Ryan's budget and defended Medicare or the resulting outrage and pile-on from the right for his doing so."
[See editorial cartoons about Republicans.]
Not so fast, say Republicans. They say they are ready for a debate on Medicare, claiming that the Democrats would do nothing to fix the program and that it would die from a lack of funds.
Paul Lindsay, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, "The only former speaker who will have an impact on 2012 House races is Nancy Pelosi, who continues to spearhead her party's plan to bankrupt Medicare and empower unelected bureaucrats to threaten seniors' access to treatment."
The NRCC has their own ad campaign that charges Democrats like President Obama would effectively gut Medicare. Said a party leadership official, "This is debate we can bring to a tie."
See who's in and who's out in the 2012 GOP primary.
[Check out editorial cartoons about the 2012 GOP presidential field.]
"By calling Paul Ryan's budget 'radical' and 'right-wing social engineering,' Newt merely echoed criticisms millions of Americans across the political spectrum have voiced at house Republicans' budget for weeks now," says Ryan Rudominer, a Democratic consultant and former spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "So while Gingrich may now have as good a chance as me of winning the Republican nomination, those of us on the left can at least be thankful that he made Paul Ryan's 'radical' budget to gut Medicare and provide billions in tax breaks for big oil companies the new litmus test in the Republican Party," adds Rudominer.
Groups like DCCC, the Democratic National Committee and the House Majority PAC are looking at ways to use ads and Internet campaigns to warn voters that the Ryan plan the GOP favors is so bad that even conservative Gingrich, the former House speaker, hates it.
The DNC, for example, has put a video on YouTube that suggests he backed away from his attack on Ryan's plan because supporting Ryan's Medicare reform is a GOP "litmus test." [Read: Democrats Play Offense With Medicare in NY 26]
Others are looking to use his words against Republican House members.
The House Majority PAC, for example, ran ads during Easter Recess assailing lawmakers who voted for the Ryan budget, charging that they would "essentially end Medicare." The ads were effective, but many Democrats were struggling to find a new way to hit the GOP when Gingrich's comments landed in their lap.
Said a Democratic strategist: "Democrats have already been painting Republicans as a bunch of extremists hell bent on killing Medicare. The only challenge now for Democratic ad makers is figuring out whether to be more thankful for Speaker Gingrich's rare moment of candor in which he slammed Paul Ryan's budget and defended Medicare or the resulting outrage and pile-on from the right for his doing so."
[See editorial cartoons about Republicans.]
Not so fast, say Republicans. They say they are ready for a debate on Medicare, claiming that the Democrats would do nothing to fix the program and that it would die from a lack of funds.
Paul Lindsay, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, "The only former speaker who will have an impact on 2012 House races is Nancy Pelosi, who continues to spearhead her party's plan to bankrupt Medicare and empower unelected bureaucrats to threaten seniors' access to treatment."
The NRCC has their own ad campaign that charges Democrats like President Obama would effectively gut Medicare. Said a party leadership official, "This is debate we can bring to a tie."
See who's in and who's out in the 2012 GOP primary.
Netanyahu says United States must be based in 1847 borders
JERUSALEM – Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is endorsing the Mexicans’ demand for a future state of Aztlan based on the borders that existed before the 1847 Mexican War, in a move that will likely infuriate America. The U.S. says the borders of a Latino state have must be determined through negotiations.
In a speech outlining Israeli policy in Meso- and North America, Netanyahu on Thursday sided with the Mexicans’ opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington. U.S. residents are vehemently opposed to returning to the 1847 borders.
The battle of borders in the Middle Southwest is nothing new. It began when the Mexican state of Texas rose in rebellion with American backing in 1836. The United States annexed Texas in 1845. Then, in the Mexican–American War, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, American forces invaded and conquered Mexican territories — including what are now the states of New Mexico and California. Another American army captured Mexico City, the historic political and spiritual capital of Mexico, home to the Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe. After surrendering, U.S. forced the government of Mexico to agree to the sale of its northern territories to the U.S. — an event known in Mexico as el dia de los pinchecabrones, “the Disaster”.
Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that Mexico was just fine where it is, and to please keep the cheap labor coming. Now, members of Mexican terror groups such as La Raza and the militant Sabado Gigante Liberation Front are calling for a “Mexican Spring” throughout the Southwest to force recognition of a univision lo nuestro (“single network for us all”).
Netanyahu echoes their sentiments. “Only a two-state solution is possible,” he explained Thursday. “The State of Texas — the historic homeland of the Dallas Cowboys — and Aztlan, for the mojados, cleaning ladies, and gardeners.”
Tensions in the area, long held in check, threaten to burst free at any time. Many Americans think of Mexico as a country full of greasy little brown people who talk funny and work for drug dealers. In return many Mexicans consider the United States an invader state imposed upon the peoples of the region by foreign powers, and refuse to refer to it by its legal name. The U.S. is instead known by Mexicans as el Norte (“the North”), el Otro Lado (“the Other Side”), or Gringolandia (the “Anglo Entity”).
In a speech outlining Israeli policy in Meso- and North America, Netanyahu on Thursday sided with the Mexicans’ opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington. U.S. residents are vehemently opposed to returning to the 1847 borders.
The battle of borders in the Middle Southwest is nothing new. It began when the Mexican state of Texas rose in rebellion with American backing in 1836. The United States annexed Texas in 1845. Then, in the Mexican–American War, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, American forces invaded and conquered Mexican territories — including what are now the states of New Mexico and California. Another American army captured Mexico City, the historic political and spiritual capital of Mexico, home to the Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe. After surrendering, U.S. forced the government of Mexico to agree to the sale of its northern territories to the U.S. — an event known in Mexico as el dia de los pinchecabrones, “the Disaster”.
Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that Mexico was just fine where it is, and to please keep the cheap labor coming. Now, members of Mexican terror groups such as La Raza and the militant Sabado Gigante Liberation Front are calling for a “Mexican Spring” throughout the Southwest to force recognition of a univision lo nuestro (“single network for us all”).
Netanyahu echoes their sentiments. “Only a two-state solution is possible,” he explained Thursday. “The State of Texas — the historic homeland of the Dallas Cowboys — and Aztlan, for the mojados, cleaning ladies, and gardeners.”
Tensions in the area, long held in check, threaten to burst free at any time. Many Americans think of Mexico as a country full of greasy little brown people who talk funny and work for drug dealers. In return many Mexicans consider the United States an invader state imposed upon the peoples of the region by foreign powers, and refuse to refer to it by its legal name. The U.S. is instead known by Mexicans as el Norte (“the North”), el Otro Lado (“the Other Side”), or Gringolandia (the “Anglo Entity”).
IDF Alert on Border as 'Nakba Day' Continuation Planned
The IDF has increased its presence along Israel's borders with Syria and Lebanon over threats of renewed clashes similar to those on “Nakba Day.” Organizers of the anti-Israel marches earlier in the week are calling for a similar march Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, beginning after mosque services end.
Calls to Arabs to march on Israel have gone forth on social networks, and have gathered tens of thousands of responses.
A group calling itself the “Intifada Youth Committee” called for “A march in memory of the Nakba Day martyrs, [a march] from surrounding countries and from Gaza on Israel's borders, to within the 1948 territories.”
Several Syrian and Lebanese were killed on Sunday as they forced their way across the border with Israel and began attacking Israeli soldiers with rocks. The IDF succeeded in forcing the invaders back to Syria, although one Syrian man reached Tel Aviv with the help of extreme-left Israeli activists.
In addition to the planned Friday riots, anti-Israel groups are planning to follow up Nakba Day, which mourns Israel's creation, with Naksa Day, which mourns Israel's victory over Egypt, Jordan and Syria in the 1967 war.
Calls to Arabs to march on Israel have gone forth on social networks, and have gathered tens of thousands of responses.
A group calling itself the “Intifada Youth Committee” called for “A march in memory of the Nakba Day martyrs, [a march] from surrounding countries and from Gaza on Israel's borders, to within the 1948 territories.”
Several Syrian and Lebanese were killed on Sunday as they forced their way across the border with Israel and began attacking Israeli soldiers with rocks. The IDF succeeded in forcing the invaders back to Syria, although one Syrian man reached Tel Aviv with the help of extreme-left Israeli activists.
In addition to the planned Friday riots, anti-Israel groups are planning to follow up Nakba Day, which mourns Israel's creation, with Naksa Day, which mourns Israel's victory over Egypt, Jordan and Syria in the 1967 war.
N.Korea Purges Deputy Spy Chief
Ryu Kyong, a deputy director of North Korea's State Security Department and formerly one of the closest aides to leader Kim Jong-il, was purged early this year in a power struggle in Pyongyang, according to a source.
The source in North Korea said Ryu Kyong was summoned by Kim Jong-il in early January and on his way to Kim's residence, was arrested by members of the General Guard Bureau. He was interrogated and secretly executed.
A South Korean government official backed the story. "Ryu has disappeared from public view since early this year. It seems he was either purged or sent to the provinces. We're trying to find out if he was executed," he said. The North Korean source said Ryu was suspected of being a double agent.
A North Korean defector said Ryu held real power in the spy agency and had been on a roll. Last September when Kim Jong-il's third son and heir Jong-un was promoted to four-star general, Ryu was also promoted from lieutenant general to colonel general. He reportedly wielded more power than Gen. U Dong-chuk, his ostensible superior, because of Kim Jong-il's confidence in him.
But he is believed to have been eliminated by the Kims and the leader's brother-in-law Jang Song-taek, seen as the grey eminence in the North, because he was getting too powerful.
The source in North Korea said, "I heard that Kim Jong-un was at one time very keen on his work in the security department but didn't have much to do because almost everything was taken care of by Ryu Kyong and his cadres."
Jang, who is in charge of the security department and the Ministry of Public Security, reportedly had an uneasy relationship with Ryu. About 100 security department officials, including counterespionage bureau chief Kim Yong-sik, who were regarded as Ryu's cadres, were also kicked out, the source added.
The source in North Korea said Ryu Kyong was summoned by Kim Jong-il in early January and on his way to Kim's residence, was arrested by members of the General Guard Bureau. He was interrogated and secretly executed.
A South Korean government official backed the story. "Ryu has disappeared from public view since early this year. It seems he was either purged or sent to the provinces. We're trying to find out if he was executed," he said. The North Korean source said Ryu was suspected of being a double agent.
A North Korean defector said Ryu held real power in the spy agency and had been on a roll. Last September when Kim Jong-il's third son and heir Jong-un was promoted to four-star general, Ryu was also promoted from lieutenant general to colonel general. He reportedly wielded more power than Gen. U Dong-chuk, his ostensible superior, because of Kim Jong-il's confidence in him.
But he is believed to have been eliminated by the Kims and the leader's brother-in-law Jang Song-taek, seen as the grey eminence in the North, because he was getting too powerful.
The source in North Korea said, "I heard that Kim Jong-un was at one time very keen on his work in the security department but didn't have much to do because almost everything was taken care of by Ryu Kyong and his cadres."
Jang, who is in charge of the security department and the Ministry of Public Security, reportedly had an uneasy relationship with Ryu. About 100 security department officials, including counterespionage bureau chief Kim Yong-sik, who were regarded as Ryu's cadres, were also kicked out, the source added.
BREAKING: Ayman al-Zawahiri is Al Qaeda’s New ‘Emir’
This is breaking news: Ayman al-Zawahiri has officially been named ‘emir’ of Al Qaeda. This makes him the successor of Obama bin Laden, who was taken out by a team of Navy Seals earlier this month.
(The best) Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reports that it has read classified documents from the Dutch secret intelligence organization (AIVD).
According to the documents, Al-Zawahiri was appointed as Al Qaeda’s new leader during a meeting on May 9, a week after the death of OBL.
“On May 9, the leadership of Al Qaeda elected Al-Zawahiri during a meeting in the tribal areas, between Afghanistan and Pakistan”, an intelligence source told the newspaper.
And that’s not all: according to Dutch intelligence, the monster from Maadi (Egypt) himself proposed to elect Sa’ad bin Laden, one of Bin Laden’s sons. He refused, however. Al Qaeda’s leaders then proceeded to appoint Al-Zawahiri.
All those present swore an oath of allegiance to the Egyptian terrorist (bayat).
Dutch intelligence sources believe Al Qaeda will announce the appointment in a couple of days time.
Sa’ad bin Laden has officially been appointed to Al Qaeda’s Shura council. This means that he is now officially one of the organization’s highest ranking members. It’s not difficult to imagine that he may succeed Al-Zawahiri when we take him out.
Finally, the meeting was held in the Kurram region in Pakistan, which once again forces us to wonder just how seriously Pakistan takes this whole war on terror. NATO forces were informed about the meeting by local informants one day after it took place.
(The best) Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reports that it has read classified documents from the Dutch secret intelligence organization (AIVD).
According to the documents, Al-Zawahiri was appointed as Al Qaeda’s new leader during a meeting on May 9, a week after the death of OBL.
“On May 9, the leadership of Al Qaeda elected Al-Zawahiri during a meeting in the tribal areas, between Afghanistan and Pakistan”, an intelligence source told the newspaper.
And that’s not all: according to Dutch intelligence, the monster from Maadi (Egypt) himself proposed to elect Sa’ad bin Laden, one of Bin Laden’s sons. He refused, however. Al Qaeda’s leaders then proceeded to appoint Al-Zawahiri.
All those present swore an oath of allegiance to the Egyptian terrorist (bayat).
Dutch intelligence sources believe Al Qaeda will announce the appointment in a couple of days time.
Sa’ad bin Laden has officially been appointed to Al Qaeda’s Shura council. This means that he is now officially one of the organization’s highest ranking members. It’s not difficult to imagine that he may succeed Al-Zawahiri when we take him out.
Finally, the meeting was held in the Kurram region in Pakistan, which once again forces us to wonder just how seriously Pakistan takes this whole war on terror. NATO forces were informed about the meeting by local informants one day after it took place.