Report: Obama to Take Unilateral Action on Immigration One Week After Midterm Elections?

We’ve been talking about this inevitability for weeks now, so the only ‘newsy’ item in this Buzzfeed story is the alleged timeline, which the White House is disputing.  President Obama has every intention of expanding his DREAM Act-style power grab to millions of adults who entered the country illegally — he just knows that doing so before voters go to the polls would further endanger a bunch of Democrats up for re-election.  Solution: Don’t rethink the unpopular idea; delay it until the opportunity for an electoral backlash passes.  That political Rubicon looms in 34 days.  If reporter Adrian Carrasquillo’s sources are correct, Obama will drop his decision on the country less than a week later:

A source tells BuzzFeed News a much-anticipated speech at the Congressional Hispanic Institute Gala by the president will tell Latinos to wait 40 more days until after the election on long-awaited executive actions on immigration.  President Obama will reaffirm his promise of administrative actions to slow record deportations before the end of the year during a high-profile speech to Latinos and Hispanic officials on Thursday, BuzzFeed News has learned. His speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) gala — his first there since 2011 — comes as activists have expressed anger and frustration over repeated delays on executive actions. Obama will tell Latinos in attendance that he understands their frustration but will also call on them to stick with him and wait 40 more days, until after the election, according to a source who viewed the president’s prepared remarks.

In an update to the story, “a White House official told BuzzFeed News that the president’s remarks do not include a reference to waiting ’40 days.’”  So the precise time frame remains hazy, even if the president’s cynical game is crystal clear. Obama’s wink-and-nod act won’t stop a group of ‘amnesty now’ protesters from picketing the event, but Congressional Democrats must be awfully grateful for the temporary reprieve.  The president’s explanation for the postponement is insulting:  “What I’m saying is that I’m going to act because it’s the right thing for the country. But it’s going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration,” he said in early September, abandoning a previous pledge to pull the trigger by summer’s end.  The idea that the American people will ‘get the facts’ during a noisy election season is laughable.  Obama’s fig leaf is transparent.  In reality, the White House ran a cost-benefit analysis through its overworked political calculation machine and determined that far fewer votes would be jeopardized by aggravating a handful of lefty activists than by announcing Obama’s policy weeks before a national election.  So a key element of the base will have to wait.  They’ll get their way, of course, just not immediately.  There are ordinary Americans to fool in the interim, and that takes priority.

Meanwhile, the unaccompanied minor border crisis stands unresolved.  Though the flow of children across the southern border has abated somewhat, tens of thousands of these kids remain in temporary housing.  The House of Representatives passed legislation to deal with the complex problem; Harry Reid’s Senate has failed to act.  It is an objective fact that Obama’s 2012 pre-election ‘amnesty’ gambit for a subset of illegal immigrants brought into the country as children (which was much more politically palatable) contributed heavily to the subsequent crisis.  Causes, effects, etc.  What is likely to happen if the ‘temporary deportation relief’ regime is extended to an untold number of illegal immigrant adults?  A bigger, more powerful magnet.  The Washington Post reported in July that the administration was made aware of the growing border issues two years ago, but dismissed it as a “local issue.”  The American people strongly oppose Obama’s plan, with fewer than one-quarter of respondents to a September IBD/TIPP poll endorsing the president “sidestep[ping] Congress and act[ing] on his own using executive orders”  Hence the delay.  I’m on the record as a supporter of immigration reform, but the White House’s calculated maneuvering is disgraceful.  This is terrible, harmful policy, deliberately detonated after Americans have their say in early November.  Oh, and enacting it by executive fiat is beyond Barack Obama’s legitimate Constitutional authority, according to…Barack Obama:

Obama may have undermined his case because he has insisted time and again that he’s the president, not the king, and “can’t just make the laws up by myself.” In a 2012 interview with Telemundo, Obama defended his decision to defer deportations for children but said he couldn’t go any bigger. “If we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option,” he said then.

But wait, he placed similar constraints on himself vis-a-vis the DREAM action, then shed those shackles when he decided it was within his political interests to do so.  Royal prerogatives, and such. It’s good to be King.  I’ll leave you with this:

An official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that about 70 percent of immigrant families the Obama administration had released into the U.S. never showed up weeks later for follow up appointments. The ICE official made the disclosure in a confidential meeting at its Washington headquarters with immigration advocates participating in a federal working group on detention and enforcement policies. The Associated Press obtained an audio recording of Wednesday’s meeting and separately interviewed participants.

As Allahpundit noted last week, the administration has been withholding this relevant information from the public for months now.  Instead, they’re leaking it to activists behind closed doors – assuring them that the federal government isn’t really taking the whole “enforcement” thing terribly seriously while spinning the opposite tale to the public at large.  These people are the veritable definition of bad faith actors, which is why I’m increasingly sympathetic to conservatives who refuse to give one inch on this issue, certainly at this juncture.  This administration simply cannot be trusted.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Obama Sits Down With 60 Minutes, Blames Everyone But Self For Burning World

Last night President Obama sat down for an interview on 60 Minutes where he discussed everything from ISIS to the economy.


President Obama shifted blame for the failure to combat ISIS sooner to the intelligence community, saying agencies tasked with threat assessment dropped the ball. Blaming the broad “intelligence community” is one of President Obama’s go-to tactics for evading responsibility on foreign policy disasters. He took no responsibility for the rise of ISIS as a result of his own decisions solely based on the political promises he made to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq and blamed former Prime Minister Nouri-Al Maliki for the failure to uphold the new democracy. Further, President Obama stressed that the current war against ISIS isn’t about the United States, but the international community as a whole.

“This is not America against ISIL. This is America leading the international community to assist a country with whom we have a security partnership,” Obama said.

On the economy:

President Obama argued that the country is much better off economically, but people just don’t realize it because wages “aren’t going up.”  (Seriously?) [TS]

“We’ve had the longest run of uninterrupted private sector job growth in our history. We have seen deficits cut by more than half,” (If you count low paying part time jobs) [TS] Obama said, adding the question “Ronald Reagan used to ask the question ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ In this case, are you better off than you were six and the answer is the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office.” (Unless you count a record and growing National Debt~Real unemployment close to 12%~Millions of Americans losing their Health Care~Russia~China~Iraq~Syria and of course ISIS) [TS]

“Do you think people feel it?” Steve Kroft asked.

“They don’t feel it and the reason they don’t feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up. There’s solutions to that. If we raise the minimum wage, if we make sure women are getting paid the same as men for doing the same work, if we are rebuilding our infrastructure, if we’re doing more to invest in job training so people are able to get the jobs that are out there right now.” (If If If If, If he would do his job as President and Commander in Chief AND follow the Constitution America would not be where we are today. Its always easier to blame someone else for his failures than accept responsibility for his poor judgement.) [TS]

Yes, raising the minimum wage will solve all of our problems and by the way, the White House is still paying women less than men. Further, Obama somehow hasn’t realized yet that job training programs are worthless if there aren’t jobs available to people being trained. Obama’s statement about private sector job growth just isn’t true. Job growth isn’t keeping up with population growth and millions of people have completely dropped out of the labor force.


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Cruz wins Values Voter straw poll again, Biden finishes ahead of Christie


Sen. Ted Cruz has for the second straight year won the Family Research Council Action’s 2014 Values Voter Summit Straw Poll.

The first-term senator on Saturday received 25 percent of the votes, ahead of Dr. Ben Carson (20 percent) and former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee (12 percent.)

“I’m optimistic because I’m convinced God isn’t done with America yet,” Cruz, R-Texas, said during a speech Friday at the summit.

Former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum finished fourth. And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Republicans, tied for fifth.

Carson, an Independent, won the vice presidential straw poll with 22 percent of the vote. Cruz, a Tea Party favorite, finished second with nearly 14 percent of the vote, and Jindal came in third with roughly 11 percent.

“Values Voter straw poll reveals that the path forward for the GOP to engage Republican-leaning voters is to put forward true conservative candidates” said Tony Perkins, president of the 31-year-old conservative Christian and lobbying group.

Only those who attended the summit in Washington were eligible to vote. And roughly 2,000 people had registered to attend the event, the group said.

Florida GOP. Sen. Marco Rubio finished 6th, 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney finished 8th, Democratic Vice President Biden finished 18th, New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie finished No. 19 and presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton finished No. 23 out of 25, according to the group.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Ted Cruz: Morning in America Awaits if Republicans Don’t Abandon Conservative Values

At the Values Voter Summit on Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a potential 2016 presidential candidate, emphatically told conservatives that they will only reverse the damage that radical Democrats have done to the country if they do not run away from their values in a country that is still right of center.

Cruz believes morning in America will await if Republicans unashamedly embrace their values. He has said that when Republicans like Ronald Reagan do, they win. And when Republicans try to be softer versions of Democrats, they lose, because values voters stay home.

“There are people in Washington who say Republicans have to abandon values,” he said of liberal Republicans who want to appeal to the mainstream press. “Our values are who we are. Our values are why we’re here. Our values are fundamentally American.”

Chief among those values, according to Cruz, is religious liberty. He said “America begins with the fundamental premise of religious liberty” as the rights of citizens “come from mighty God” and not from government, so they cannot be taken away. He spoke about the “victory for religious liberty” in the Hobby Lobby case and said America “remains a center-right country built on Judeo-Christian values” that values and cherishes its Constitutional liberties.

“And anyone who tells you differently is lying to you,” he said.

Cruz depicted how the left has moved more away from the American mainstream, saying “the modern Democrat Party has become an extreme, radical party.” Cruz denounced the federal government for “suing the Little Sisters of the Poor to force Catholic nuns to pay for abortion-inducing drugs” and said, “we ought to invite Hillary Clinton to spend a day debating the Little Sisters of the Poor” on the side of the federal government.

“As for me, I’ll stand with the nuns,” Cruz said. “If you’re suing nuns, you’ve done something really wrong.”

He mentioned that when Democrats introduced legislation in the Senate to repeal the protections of religious liberty in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not one Democrat stood for religious freedom. He said even though the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) stood against a Constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections in the First Amendment, zero Democrats stood with the late Kennedy this year in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) Senate. He joked that when his father turned on C-SPAN and saw him making a speech on the Senate floor with a picture of Kennedy, he thought Cruz had gone “native” in D.C.

“If you want to defend the First Amendment, our free speech, our religious liberty, vote Harry Reid out,” Cruz said to a rousing standing ovation.”

In contrast, Cruz said that what conservatives stand for are more mainstream in these “dangerous, extreme, radical times” in which Americans are more pessimistic about the future. Cruz said that it is un-American for so many Americans to think their children will not do better than they have.

“We offer a choice, not an echo,” Cruz said, echoing Reagan, of how to appeal to more Americans.

In order to win, Cruz said that conservatives must paint in ‘bold colors” and not “pale pastels.” 

“We stand for life. We stand for marriage. We stand for Israel,” he continued. “We bring back jobs and opportunities and unleash small businesses to make it easier for people to achieve the American dream.”

And when conservatives win, Cruz said conservatives should not relent.

“In 2017, with a Republican president in the White House, we’re going to sign legislation repealing every word of Obamacare,” he said.

That’s not all Cruz wanted to get rid of.

“Abolish the IRS,” he thunderously said. “Repeal Common Core.” 

Cruz also revealed a story about his parents that highlighted the importance faith has had in his life.

“Neither of my parents were people of faith. Neither of them had a relationship with Christ. Both of my parents drank far too much. Both of them had serious problems with alcohol,” Cruz said. “And when I was three-years old, my father decided he didn’t want to be married anymore. And he didn’t want a three-year-old son. So he got on a plane and left Calgary and flew back to Texas. And he left us.”

Cruz said his father’s colleague asked his father to attend a Baptist Church, and his father accepted the invitation and “gave his life to Jesus.” He soon “bought an airplane ticket and flew back to Calgary to rejoin my mother and to rejoin his son.”

“So when anyone asks is faith real, is a relationship with Jesus real, I can tell you if it were not for my father giving his life to Christ, I would have been raised by a single mother without having my dad in the home, Cruz said, saying that in “utter darkness hope remains.” 

He also discussed Saeed Abedini, the jailed pastor who has been converting Iranian prison guards to Christianity. He spoke at length about Mariam Ibrahim, who refused to renounce Jesus Christ even though she was sentenced to death for marrying a Christian man; Andrew Tahmooressi, the American marine jailed in Mexico; Leopoldo Lopez in Venezuela; Kenneth Bae in North Korea; and Alan Gross in Cuba.

Cruz pivoted to American exceptionalism and how precious the country’s freedoms and liberties, especially religious liberty, are in a more dangerous world. He said from the Revolutionary War to the Cold War, in which America prevailed without firing a bullet, Americans have experienced God’s providential blessings, and that is why he is still optimistic about America’s future.

“I’m convinced God isn’t done with America yet,” Cruz said. “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.”


Posted in News | Leave a comment

FBI probing suspect’s recent conversion to Islam in Oklahoma beheading

Editors Note: And so it begins, radicalized Muslim pursuing Jihad in America by be-heading a former female employee. This is just the start of similar atrocities unless an example is made of this animal. If Obama’s brand of justice is employed all it will do is embolden other radicals to do the same thing. Eric Holder can’t be replaced soon enough with his overtly racist beliefs hopefully with someone who would treat the office with the dignity it deserves. Knowing Obama it is expected he will try appointing another racist to continue to divide America along racial lines. 2016 can’t come soon enough to rid the country of the worst President in American history. [TS]

FBI officials are investigating a beheading at an Oklahoma food distribution center after co-workers said the suspect tried to convert them to Islam after his own recent conversion.

The suspect, Alton Nolen, 30, was recently fired from Vaughan Foods in Moore prior to Thursday’s attack. Moore Police Department Sgt. Jeremy Lewis told KFOR that Nolen drove to the front of the business and struck a vehicle before walking inside. He then attacked Colleen Hufford, 54, stabbing her several times before severing her head. He also stabbed another woman, 43-year-old Traci Johnson, at the plant.

Lewis said Mark Vaughan, the company’s chief operating officer and a reserve county deputy, shot Nolen as he was stabbing Johnson, who remains hospitalized in stable condition Friday.

“He’s a hero in this situation,” Lewis told the station. “It could have gotten a lot worse.”

Nolen was apparently attacking employees at random, authorities said. The motive for the attack is unclear, but FBI officials confirmed to Fox News that they were assisting the Moore Police Department in investigating Nolen’s background and whether his recent conversion to Islam was somehow linked to the crime.

The police department issued a statement saying, “After conducting interviews with Nolen’s co-workers, information was obtained that he recently started trying to convert several employees to the Muslim religion. Due to the manner of death and the initial statements of co-workers and other initial information, the Moore Police Department requested the assistance of the FBI in conducting a background investigation on Nolan.”

Nolen, according to state corrections records, was convicted in January 2011 of multiple felony drug offenses, assault and battery on a police officer and escape from detention. He was released from prison in March 2013.

Saad Mohammad, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, told that leaders of the society’s mosque are taking security precautions to protect Muslims who gather there from any potential retaliatory violence.

Mohammad said any anti-Muslim sentiments local residents might have could be heightened due to the beheadings and violence overseas by Islamic State militants.

“They have this ISIS thing on their minds and now this guy has brought it to America,” Mohammad told the website.

Lewis said he does not yet know what charges will be filed against Nolen, adding that police are waiting until he’s conscious to arrest him. Authorities said he had no prior connection to either woman.

Moore Police Department officials have released 911 calls from the incident, reports. During the recording, a caller tells an operator that a person is attacking someone in the building. Several gunshots can be heard in the background at the end of the call.

A Vaughan spokeswoman said the company was “shocked and deeply saddened” by the attack.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Back to War: ‘Sustained’ ISIS fight stirs questions over US commitment

Editors Note: Obama committed Americas military not for crippling or destroying ISIS but because of Americas top generals coming out and saying his strategy was wrong and would fail. With an approval rating of his handling ISIS in Syria at a miserable 27% Obama was compelled to do something. The 5 Arab nations that helped in the air strikes played a very limited roll and only in the 3rd phase of the strikes. By doing so they have declared open war against their Sunni brothers that will now turn ISIS and the other terrorist organizations against them and have invited attacks in their own country. What their actions will be after Obama abandons them is hard to say but being left holding the bag after Obama stops the air strikes will cost them dearly. The only real concern Obama has for anyone or anything is his legacy and he will do whatever it takes to save it. The hornets nest has been stirred and unless Obama follows through with destroying every last one of them the world in now in greater danger than before the air strikes began. [TS]

The launch of U.S. airstrikes in Syria marks the beginning of what military officials are calling a “sustained campaign” against the Islamic State — a new war in the Middle East that immediately poses complex challenges for the Obama administration and Congress.

Some already see the war against the Islamic State, or ISIS, as an engagement that could last years, and could fall to President Obama’s successor to finish.

“The fact is, Islamic terrorism is out to destroy us … and the war is only going to end when they are defeated,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News, suggesting the “war” was never over in the first place. “And this may well go on for a number of years. In fact, in many ways it’s been going on for 20 years.” 

In Capitol Hill hearings and press briefings last week, in advance of the Syria strikes, the American public got their first full glimpse of the questions raised by the expanded intervention.

Among them:

How much will it cost?

How will ground troops be used, and how many will be required?

Does Congress need to formally approve the expanded mission?

The latter question is resurfacing in the wake of Monday’s airstrikes. While some influential lawmakers have backed the administration’s claim that it does not need congressional approval, a mix of Democrats and Republicans say otherwise.

Critics say the administration is relying in part on a faulty argument that the 2001 authorization to use military force still applies. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on Tuesday called for House Speaker John Boehner to bring members back to debate and vote on a new authorization.

On Twitter, he cautioned against “Iraq War 2.0.” 

Van Hollen said in a statement that Congress should “revise” that measure to support the “targeted actions underway” while including provisions to prevent “the deployment of American ground forces that would drag us into another Iraq War.” 

Despite concerns about the possibility of “mission creep” in Iraq and Syria, so far, the president appears to have a majority of Congress on his side. Congressional leaders voiced support following the military operation in Syria, which involved five Arab allies. And before Congress recessed last week, it approved a measure authorizing a mission to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels.

But Congress has the power of the purse strings and, if public opinion turns, could use its leverage as the cost of the mission rises.

So far, the White House has not provided an estimate of what the war could ultimately cost.

One budget expert told Roll Call the cost of the operation could hit $1.5 billion a month.

A Pentagon spokesman recently estimated that Iraq operations alone were costing about $7.5 million per day.

The costs, though, depend not only on the scope of airstrikes but also ground operations.

The Army’s top officer warned last week that it will become increasingly difficult to launch precision airstrikes against Islamic State militants hiding among the population in Iraq.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that in order for the U.S. to maintain the precision of the strikes, Iraqi or other ground troops may be needed to better direct the strikes.

Odierno said the U.S. will determine over time whether any additional ground support is needed. U.S. leaders have ruled out fighting a ground war in Iraq, but they’ve left the door open for specialized troops to embed with and advise Iraqi units.

Asked if the current total of about 1,600 troops will be the maximum, Odierno said he thought that number was a good start.

“I don’t think there’s a rush to have lots of people in there right now,” he said. But he added that since the fight could go on for several years, adjustments to the numbers would be made if needed.

It’s also unclear how planning for the anti-ISIS operation intersects with planning for the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

President-elect of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, says he’ll sign a bilateral security agreement that sets the parameters for 9,800 U.S. troops to stay in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends Dec. 31.

The mission in Iraq and Syria, though, could put pressure on the U.S. military to focus on that fight. Hawkish lawmakers have renewed concerns that budget tightening is putting additional strain on the Armed Forces at a critical time – some are even discussing rolling back the so-called sequester cuts.

The Army is meanwhile in the process of cutting down its active-duty force strength by tens of thousands of soldiers.

Asked whether those targets might be reconsidered in light of the developments in the Middle East, an Army spokesman told it was still bound to levels set by Congress, which have not changed.

“The Army must meet its mission requirements with the number of personnel that Congress authorizes for the Army,” the spokesman said.


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

The Hillary Letters: Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed

Lee Balterman / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images

Hillary Clinton_Reuters_660.jpg

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.

Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.

But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.

A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”

“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.

The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.

Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.

“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.

In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.

She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.

She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.

“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.

“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.



Posted in News | Leave a comment

‘Snowball’s Chance In Hell Of Succeeding’

Retired Head Of Marine Corps: Obama’s ISIS Strategy Doesn’t Have ‘A Snowball’s Chance In Hell Of Succeeding’

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks with Commandant of the Marine Corps General James T. Conway at the Marines Corps Evening Parade at the Marine Barracks in Washington

Editors Note: From the beginning Obama has ignored the advise from his top military officials. On every occasion that he has been given a strategy he has doe the opposite or reduced and requests personnel or material. General after General have come out against the actions Obama has stated he will employ. It is a failed strategy before it was ever announced. Telling the enemy what you won’t do is inviting that enemy to exploit it. A coalition of Nations is hardy possible when the heads of those Nations do not trust Obama to carry through his promises. The threat of  ISIS engaging in a terrorist attack in America is magnified with the situation on Americas southern border with Mexico that Obama refuses to address. Retired Lt. Col Ralph Peters nailed it when he said ” Obama is  Terrified Little Man in a Great Big Job He Can’t Do. [TS]

The man who was the top Marine general from 2006 until his retirement in 2010 says President Barack Obama’s strategy to defeat the terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is doomed to fail.

I don’t think the president’s plan has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding,” retired Marine General James Conway, who served as the 34th Commandant of the Marine Corps during the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration, said at the Maverick PAC Conference in Washington, D.C. Friday, according to a source in attendance. 

Maverick PAC has described itself as a super PAC ”dedicated to inspiring the next-generation of conservatives, electing a new generation of conservative leaders, and sharing common goals and interests that will help shape the future of America.”

The source said Conway’s major concern was that the U.S. did not have a force on the ground in Syria it could rely on, like the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq. Though the Obama administration believes it can support what it says are moderate rebel forces in Syria to aid in the fight against ISIS, many critics warn that there may be no truly moderate force in the country of any significant strength. (RELATED: Expert Who Traveled With Syrian Rebels Says So-Called “Moderates” Are Muslim Brotherhood-Style Islamists)

The Commandant of the Marine Corps also serves as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the 2003 Iraq War, Conway led the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

Obama’s strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS has come under fire in recent days for other reasons as well, especially for preemptively taking off the table the possibility of using American combat troops to achieve the mission.

“You just don’t take anything off the table up front, which it appears the administration has tried to do,” retired Gen. James Mattis, who served as head of Central Command from 2010 until his retirement in 2013, told the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

“Specifically, if this threat to our nation is determined to be as significant as I believe it is, we may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American ‘boots on the ground,’” he added. “If a brigade of our paratroopers or a battalion landing team of our Marines would strengthen our allies at a key juncture and create havoc/humiliation for our adversaries, then we should do what is necessary with our forces that exist for that very purpose.”



Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Military Leaders Increasingly at Odds With Obama Over ISIS Strategy

Obama’s strategy on how to combat ISIS is confusing at best, but one thing is clear: the battle brewing between Obama and America’s top generals about how to move forward against the terror army.

Earlier this week during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey said there is potential he will recommend ground troops should the coalition with Arab countries against ISIS fail.

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true but if it fails to be true and if there are threats to the United States then I of course would go back to the President and make a recommendation that we include the use of U.S. military ground forces. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Dempsey said.

The next day, President Obama gave a speech in Florida at U.S. Central Command and stressed, “I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq.” Obama has repeatedly insisted ground troops will not be used against ISIS.

Regardless, the line of generals and other high ranking military officials expressing skepticism over President Obama’s plan and strategy is quickly getting longer.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis:

“Half‐hearted or tentative efforts, or air strikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foe’s credibility, reinforcing his recruiting efforts which are already strong. I do not necessarily advocate American ground forces at this point, but we should never reassure our enemy that our commander‐in‐chief would not commit them at the time and place of his choosing. When we act it should be unequivocal, designed to end the fight as swiftly as possible. While no one is more reluctant to see us again in combat than those of us who have signed letters to the next of kin of our fallen, if something is worth fighting for we must bring full strength to bear.”

General Loyd Austin:

President Obama had been given advice on how to handle the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but did not act on it, according to a new report from Real Clear Defense.Obama was preparing his strategy when he rejected the “best military advice” of Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command.

General Ray Odierno:

Airstrikes have halted the advance of the Islamic State, also known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL, General Odierno, now the Army chief of staff, told journalists from four news organizations, including The New York Times, in what aides said were his first public comments on the current situation in Iraq. Ultimately, though, “you’ve got to have ground forces that are capable of going in and rooting them out,” he said, referring to the Islamic extremists.

The airstrikes “will not be the end all and be all solution in Iraq,” he said. Similarly, he added, the jihadis cannot be allowed to have a safe haven across the border in Syria.

Lt. Col. Oliver North:

“In my military mind what you have is Operation Enduring Confusion. You have a President who cannot make up his mind about what he wants.” 

“I’ve spent my whole life hanging around the U.S. military. I’ve been on plenty of times with you from Iraq and other places. I’ve spent my life with these young guys. I’m waiting for the general or admiral who will stand up on his hind feet and say this is mission impossible. Given the constraints that you’ve [Obama] given we cannot accomplish the objective you have set. It is impossible to do.”

“Somebody has to tell the truth…Some general or admiral at the Pentagon or somewhere else in Central Command has got to stand up and say, ‘The mission we’ve been given we can do but we can’t with the constraints you’ve places upon us.’”


And then there’s this:


The current situation in Iraq is a direct result of President Obama choosing politics over the advice of his generals. Even with the threat of ISIS, things haven’t changed.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

‘Incredibly serious’: Cover-up claims in spotlight ahead of Benghazi hearing

Allegations that Hillary Clinton allies may have tried to shield the former secretary of State in the wake of the Benghazi terror attack are coming to the forefront ahead of the first public hearing of the special congressional committee probing the attack and its aftermath.

Speaking with Fox News, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the select committee, on Tuesday made clear he eventually plans to call former acting CIA director Mike Morell to testify – alleging the former boss “intentionally scrubbed” the so-called talking points that were the basis for the administration’s flawed public narrative about the attack.

Gowdy made clear he would question Morell on why he allegedly removed information damaging to Clinton’s State Department. (Morell now works for Clinton’s former spokesman, Philippe Reines.)

Gowdy also responded to new and separate allegations from a former State Department official that Clinton confidants hid politically damaging files from the supposedly independent board probing the attack. Gowdy called the allegations “incredibly serious,” but stressed that they are only allegations at this stage.

It is unclear how deeply the hearing on Wednesday might delve into the actions of any of these officials. The topic for the hearing, set for 10 a.m. ET, is the implementation of the recommendations from the independent board, known as the Accountability Review Board.

Among those set to testify are Greg Starr, the department’s assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security, and Mark Sullivan and Todd Keil, members of the Independent Panel on Best Practices, created to review the accountability board’s efforts.Morell is not part of Wednesday’s hearing.

But the hearing, following weeks of private interviews and investigation, marks the first public airing of the committee’s work.

Gowdy, speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, continued to raise questions about the administration’s claims that murky intelligence initially led them to conclude, wrongly, the attack grew out of a demonstration on the ground over an anti-Islam film. Gowdy said there is “overwhelming” evidence of pre-meditation and “overwhelming” evidence of pre-planning in the 2012 attack, in which four Americans were killed.

Morell was involved in editing the so-called talking points on the attack, and Republicans have long questioned his role. But Morell said in a statement to Fox News earlier this year that “neither the Agency, the analysts, nor I cooked the books in any way.”

A CIA spokesman also told Fox News earlier this year that the talking points were originally written for Congress’ purposes and were never meant to be “definitive.”

Gowdy also hinted Tuesday that he will call National Security Adviser Susan Rice and any others with direct knowledge of the administration’s initial statements about the attack.

Meanwhile, Gowdy did not comment in detail on the allegations that Clinton confidants hid politically damaging documents from the ARB.

The account from Raymond Maxwell, former head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA),was first published in The Daily Signal. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, confirmed to on Monday that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year about the attacks and their aftermath.

Chaffetz said that Maxwell claimed Clinton’s chief of staff and deputy chief of staff were overseeing the document operation, which allegedly took place on a weekend in a basement office of the State Department.

“What they were looking for is anything that made them look bad. That’s the way it was described to us,” Chaffetz said.

According to Chaffetz’ account of his interview with Maxwell, as well as the Daily Signal report, Maxwell said those scrubbing the documents were looking for information that would cast Clinton and senior leaders in a “bad light.”

Chaffetz said such documents were said to be removed, so that Congress and the Accountability Review Board would not see them.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach denied the allegations in a written statement.

“That allegation is totally without merit. It doesn’t remotely reflect the way the ARB actually obtained information,” he said in an email. He explained that an “all-points bulletin”-type request went out department-wide instructing “full and prompt cooperation” for anyone contacted by the ARB, and urging anyone with “relevant information” to contact the board.

“The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information,” he said.

On Tuesday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the House oversight committee, said Maxwell was interviewed by their committee and never talked about this.

Maxwell was one of four State Department officials disciplined in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack. He was put on administrative leave, and has spoken out before about how he felt he was scapegoated.

Maxwell was eventually cleared, but retired last year.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Benghazi Whistleblower: We Were Ordered to Withhold Documents from Review Board

Ahead of the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s first public hearing tomorrow, former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson is out with a significant new report centered around new claims from a former State Department official. Raymond Maxwell — whom you may recall as one of the lower-level employees disciplined, then reinstated, in the wake of the Benghazi firestorm — says he was ordered to cull damaging documents from a file of evidence being handed over to the State Department’s ‘independent’ Accountability Review Board (ARB):

A former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya…According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C….Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” … When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment. “She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers. “I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ” A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says, in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.

According to Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who interviewed Maxwell for the Select Committee, one of those “high-ranking State Department officials” was Cheryl Mills — Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff:

Mills famously castigated Gregory Hicks, murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens’ second in command in Libya, for cooperating with Congressional investigators.  The ARB supposedly undertook a “fiercely independent” investigation with “unfettered access” into the facts surrounding the Benghazi massacre.  Based on Maxwell’s accusation of explicit whitewashing and meddling, the ARB’s inquiry would appear to be anything but “unfettered.”  The panel has faced challenges to its credibility in the past, including questions over whether it was stacked by the probe’s subjects, and the admission of a lead investigator that he’d engaged in some behind-the-scenes collusion with Mills:

The House Oversight Committee report suggests there may be a conflict of interest in having the ARB rely so heavily on the State Department that it’s investigating for staff and resources. For example, Under Secretary Kennedy supervised the selection of the Benghazi ARB staff; and the State Department appointed four of the five members of the Board. Further, Mullen acknowledged giving Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, “a head’s up” prior to her interview with deputy assistant secretary for international programs Charlene Lamb. Mullen said: “I thought [Lamb's] appearance could be a very difficult appearance for the State Department.”

That would be the same Under Secretary [Patrick Kennedy] who has been identified as one of the officials directly responsible for denying requests for an increased on-the-ground security presence in Libya leading up to the deadly terrorist raid. Secretary Clinton, for her part, was never interviewed by the ARB.  A subsequent Senate report on Benghazi was much more critical of the State Department’s role in the ‘preventable’ attacks, and scolded Sec. Clinton’s department for “unnecessarily hamper[ing] the committee’s review.”  Internal email exchanges have also revealed private efforts by top-level State Department officials to scrub relevant details from Susan Rice’s inaccurate talking points, very clearly for the purposes of political damage control.  Additional emails that were initially withheld from investigators directly contradicted previous administration assertions, producing frantic, risible spin from the White House.  Mr. Maxwell’s allegations add a new layer to the emerging picture of a Benghazi cover up.  If and when he offers public testimony, Democrats will almost certainly accuse Maxwell of being a liar with an axe to grind.  What they can’t accuse him of is Republican partisanship:

Maxwell, 58, strongly supported President Barack Obama and personally contributed to his presidential campaign. But post-Benghazi, he has soured on both Obama and Clinton, saying he had nothing to do with security and was sacrificed as a scapegoat while higher-up officials directly responsible escaped discipline.

Insinuating that an African-American Obama donor was somehow part of some GOP conspiracy will be a tough sell. Then again, I must say that this quote from Maxwell rings a bit too ‘perfect:’

Several weeks after he was placed on leave with no formal accusations, Maxwell made an appointment to address his status with a State Department ombudsman. “She told me, ‘You are taking this all too personally, Raymond. It is not about you,’ ” Maxwell recalls. “I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.’

Was the 2016 bit his inference, or is he claiming that this woman spelled out a cartoonishly political calculus to a furious employee who felt he was being unfairly scapegoated? C’mon. We’ll know soon enough: “I’m 100 percent confident the Benghazi Select Committee is going to dive deep on that issue,” Chaffetz says.  Stay tuned.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Ex-official claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents in secret session

A former State Department official has told lawmakers that Hillary Clinton allies privately removed politically damaging documents before turning over files to the supposedly independent board investigating the Benghazi terror attack.

The account from Raymond Maxwell, former head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), was first published in The Daily Signal. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, confirmed to on Monday that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year about the attacks and their aftermath.

Chaffetz said that Maxwell claimed Clinton’s chief of staff and deputy chief of staff were overseeing the document operation, which allegedly took place on a weekend in a basement office of the State Department.

“What they were looking for is anything that made them look bad. That’s the way it was described to us,” Chaffetz said.

According to Chaffetz’ account of his interview with Maxwell, as well as the Daily Signal report by Sharyl Attkisson, Maxwell said those scrubbing the documents were looking for information that would cast Clinton and senior leaders in a “bad light.” 

Chaffetz said such documents were said to be removed, so that Congress and the Accountability Review Board — the board probing security lapses as well as the attack’s aftermath — would not see them.

Chaffetz described Maxwell’s account as “consistent” all this time. The congressman said he is speaking publicly about Maxwell’s allegations because Maxwell himself has gone public with them.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach denied the allegations in a statement to

“That allegation is totally without merit. It doesn’t remotely reflect the way the ARB actually obtained information,” he said in an email. He explained that an “all-points bulletin”-type request went out department-wide instructing “full and prompt cooperation” for anyone contacted by the ARB, and urging anyone with “relevant information” to contact the board.

“So individuals with information were reaching out proactively to the Board. And, the ARB was also directly engaged with individuals and the Department’s bureaus and offices to request information and pull on whichever threads it chose to. The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information,” Gerlach said. He further noted that the leaders of the ARB have claimed they had unfettered access to information and people.

Maxwell was one of four State Department officials disciplined in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, in which four Americans were killed. He was put on administrative leave, and has spoken out before about how he felt he was scapegoated.

Maxwell was eventually cleared, but retired last year.

According to The Daily Signal report, Maxwell walked in on the weekend session on a Sunday afternoon after hearing about it. He reportedly claims he saw stacks of documents when he arrived as well as an office director who worked for him — but who hadn’t told him about the assignment.

Maxwell reportedly claimed she told him they were instructed to go through the stacks and pull out items that could put anybody in the NEA “front office” or seventh floor — where the secretary’s office is — in a “bad light.” 

Maxwell said he “didn’t feel good about it” and left a short time later.

Chaffetz said that he was told then-Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan were there and overseeing the operation.

“For Hillary Clinton’s personal chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to be making a concerted effort to hide documents, make sure that the Accountability Review Board and Congress did not see those documents is unbelievable and absolutely wrong,” Chaffetz said.

Requests for comment to representatives for Clinton, Sullivan and Mills have not yet been returned.

The new allegations have surfaced as the House select committee on Benghazi prepares to hold its first open hearing on Wednesday.

Scheduled to testify are Greg Starr, the department’s assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security, and Mark Sullivan and Todd Keil, members of the Independent Panel on Best Practices, created to review the accountability board’s efforts.

The board was led by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen, who have already testified before Congress and are expected to be called before the select committee.

Maxwell told Attkisson that the ARB probe was “at best, a shoddily executed attempt at damage control.” 


Posted in News | Leave a comment

The Sentinel of Liberty……ISIS or ISIL

The Sentinel of Liberty

old north church

                     The Voice of Freedom and Warning
                                                       ISIS or ISIL
What is the difference and why does Obama now use ISIL instead of ISIS
ISIS is the term the terrorists originally used to describe the area in Syria and Iraq that they have taken over by force, they have now also adopted the name Islamic State to use in referring to their newly conquered land. Those two terms were universally used around the world and by Obama himself until he changed and started referring to them as ISIL. Who you may wonder is it of any real importance what they are called? After reading this explanation you may change your mind. ISIS stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria where as ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. The key difference between the two is the substitution of the word Syria with the word Levant and why this change is so important. A study of the word Levant and its meaning to Muslims will help clear up any confusion.

Levant is a word to describe a land bridge between the countries of Turkey and Egypt as shown in the map below.


It includes part of Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and ISRAEL and is part of the larger and more ancient Fertile Cresent. Modern Islamists wish to restore this ancient land bridge with one important caveat; Israel is not part of it. By using the work Levant instead of Syria, Obama is sending a signal to all Muslims that he doesn’t think Israel has a legitimate claim to the land. It is a subtle inference that most non Muslims simply overlook but Muslims worldwide recognize this subtlety or nuance as Obama’s and therefore Americas belief that Israel does not have the legitimate right to the land they now occupy. Recent events between Israel and Palestine especially in reference to Hamas have shown that Obama has favored both the Palestinians and Hamas over Israel. Obama has also been a big supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood with 6 of his appointees being tied to the Muslim Brotherhood,
Arif Alikhan – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mohammed Elibiary – Homeland Security Adviser.
Rashad Hussain – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Salam al-Marayati – Obama Adviser, founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director.
Imam Mohamed Magid – Obama’s Sharia Czar, Islamic Society of North America.
Eboo Patel – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.
Obama also supported the ouster of Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak who had a Treaty Agreement with Israel and replacing him with Mohamed Morsi who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also supported the ouster of Libya’s Muammar Gadffi who was hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood. It can clearly be seen that two items are important to Obama and those are his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and his hatred of Israel.

Obama’s new usage of ISIL has serious connotations for the Muslims of the world and is a veiled signal to them that he is sympathetic to their cause. You may disagree with these observations but the facts are clear if you look for them. With the open threats against America by ISIS and the sadistic beheading of (2) American journalists it is also clear that ISIS must be totally destroyed but where is the Commander in Chief. He has stated he has no Strategy when it comes to attacking ISIS’s base of operations in Syria and has only allowed air strikes against ISIS because of intense political pressure from both the republicans and the democrats. Democrats seem to support a stronger response mainly because of the upcoming November midterm elections.

With the anniversary of 9-11-01 rapidly approaching and ISIS being allowed to run rampant throughout both Syria and Iraq coupled with the southern border debacle America has entered into a very dangerous time. Will Obama’s open support of the Muslim Brotherhood and inaction concerning ISIS and our southern border controversy allow for a terrorist attack to take place on the 9-11-01 anniversary is an open question at this point but we will all know that answer soon. Is the use of ISIL instead of ISIS a signal to the terrorists or is it just a harmless change of terminology, you be the judge.

Watch for the next Sentinel Alert coming soon.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

PROPHETIC WORDS: Bush predicted terror, death and chaos of Iraq pullout

Bush in 2007 delivered eerily accurate warning about Iraq unrest

Editors Note: America is facing the greatest Terrorist threat in history because of Obama’s failed Foreign Policy and his utter incompetence and complete failure as Commander in Chief. President Bush’s warnings have been born out in their entirety. Obama’s address last night was nothing but his attempt to obfusate Americas position and response to the ISIS threat. In essence his “Strategy” is to tread water and leave the mess he has created to the next President to clean up. The legacy he has been so worried about will now be that of a totally failed Presidency and deservedly so. [TS]

A prophetic warning from then-President George W. Bush before he left office about what would happen if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq too soon is getting new attention in light of the Islamic State’s gains, as each of his predictions appears to be coming true.

Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen says all these predictions have come true.

“Every single thing that President Bush said there in that statement is happening today,” he told Fox News.

To Bush’s first warning, the Islamic State terror group is effectively the successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq – and they’ve overrun several major cities in Iraq’s north while claiming broad swaths of territory in Syria. Further, the group has been behind mass killings of Iraqi civilians as well as the recent execution by beheading of two American journalists.

The Obama administration has warned that the group’s violence threatens to approach genocide levels.

Though President Obama says combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, American troops are nevertheless returning in some capacity. The president on Wednesday announced an expanded airstrike campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria, and is sending hundreds more U.S. military personnel into Iraq.

Some lawmakers and analysts say this could have been avoided if the Obama administration had left a residual force in Iraq, or at least had responded sooner to ISIS’ gains in northern Iraq over the past year.

Bush, before he left office, signed an agreement setting the stage for U.S. troops to withdraw by December 2011.

Obama, though, was urged by military advisers to keep thousands of service members after that deadline to help the shaky Iraqi government. But when Washington and Baghdad were unable to reach a renewed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces in the country, the Obama administration withdrew virtually all troops at the end of 2011.

“We needed to leave a stabilizing force behind, and we didn’t.  And of course, we know the rest is history,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News.


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Officials: ISIS Terrorists Talked of Infiltrating US Via Mexico

Islamic State Terrorists Talked of Entering US Via Mexico

Islamic State extremists have discussed infiltrating the U.S. through its southern border with Mexico, a U.S. official said.

Francis Taylor, under secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Department of Homeland Security, told a Senate committee today that the Sunni militants have been tracked discussing the idea on social-media sites such as Twitter Inc.

“There have been Twitter and social-media exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe speaking about that as a possibility,” Taylor said in response to a question from Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. Islamic State is also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS.

Referring to the 1,933-mile (3,110-kilometer) boundary with Mexico, Taylor said he was “satisfied that we have the intelligence and the capability at our border that would prevent that activity.”

Taylor’s comments before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee came hours before President Barack Obama was to outline in a speech plans to expand the U.S. offensive against Islamic State. Steps under consideration include blocking foreign fighters from entering Syria and Iraq, delivering more aid to moderate factions among Syrian rebels, and expanding air strikes to Islamic State targets in Syria.

Mexican Cartels

Taylor said the security of the U.S.’s southwest border remains a high concern for his department, and that Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has ordered “a comprehensive southern border security strategy that will include national security risks.”

U.S. intelligence officials said they are skeptical that Mexican drug cartels would let jihadists use their turf or delivery routes to attack the U.S. The cartels know that terrorist attackers coming through areas they control would almost certainly bring massive retaliation and a militarized border that would threaten their lucrative narcotics-smuggling operations, said two officials, who requested anonymity to discuss classified intelligence assessments.

Officials testifying before the committee said that Islamic State currently poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests in Iraq and within the region. At the moment, the group’s ability to develop significant, large-scale attacks diminishes with distance from Syria and Iraq, said Nicholas Rasmussen, deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Not Immediate

“We do not assess right now they have the capability to mount an effective large-scale attack on the United States,” Rasmussen said.

Islamic State’s sweep across Iraq and a campaign of terror that has included the beheading of two U.S. journalists have galvanized fears among Americans of a rising terrorist threat and stirred demands from lawmakers that Obama articulate a plan for dealing with the issue.

Sixty-five percent of Americans back bombing strikes against the extremists in Syria, more than double the level of support from a year ago, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released yesterday.

Islamic State members have surfaced in Europe — specifically in a shooting that killed four people at a Jewish museum in Brussels and through arrests in Paris — “a clear indication of ISIL’s ambition to operate outside the Middle East,” Rasmussen said. If the group is left to grow, that threat will only increase, he said.

‘Apostate’ Governments

“Left unchecked, ISIL poses a threat to all governments it considers apostate,” Rasmussen said, adding that the group’s targets would include governments in Europe, the U.S., Africa and the Middle East.

Lawmakers concentrated on the threat posed by foreign fighters who join Islamic State, either Americans or Europeans who wouldn’t need a visa to enter the United States.

Johnson, speaking in New York today, said that about 12,000 foreigners are estimated to have traveled to Syria to fight over the past three years. The FBI has arrested some people who have tried to travel from the U.S. to Syria to join the fight.

In response to threats from overseas, Johnson said the U.S. has increased aviation security in 25 airports abroad since early July, adding screening of both passengers and carry-on luggage.

Rasmussen estimated that “over 100 persons from a wide variety of backgrounds have attempted to travel to the region” from the U.S. to fight alongside extremist groups active in Iraq and Syria.

‘Looking to Join’

Many go “simply looking to join the fight” and engage with extremist elements, not necessarily searching to join Islamic State in particular, Rasmussen said. “Where they end up actually affiliating plays out over time,” he said.

Rasmussen said the estimate of 100 people included individuals who show intent to travel but haven’t left the U.S. as well as those who remain there, those who have been killed and those who have returned.

One wild card will be U.S. citizens who may be radicalized through the Internet and decide to take up arms here, Rasmussen said.

“We can’t account for homegrown terrorists,” Rasmussen said, “people who might self-affiliate.”

This “lone-wolf” phenomenon “is the hardest terrorist threat to detect, and the one I worry about the most,” he said, citing the Boston Marathon bombers.

‘Aggressive’ Sharing

If there is any good news, Rasmussen said, it is the “aggressive information-sharing with all of our partners who have the same problem.” This has given the U.S. and Europe “a significant leg up” in attempts “to disrupt travel when these individuals attempt to leave Iraq,” he said.

Gathering data on Islamic State and other extremists groups has become more difficult since disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, Rasmussen said, as intelligence agencies have seen terrorists change their methods and means of communication to avoid detection.

Those changes “frustrate our counterterrorism efforts,” he said. “We cannot connect the dots if we cannot collect the dots.”


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack, US security team members claim


Editors Note: The Fox News interview by Bret Baier with 3 of the operators who were on the ground and involved in the attack in Benghazi was riveting in its revelations of what actually happened the night of the attack. A huge cover up had been underway by the White House and the State Department since the attack happened. All the official denials of the “Stand Down Order” have been totally shattered and such an order started higher than the CIA station chief in Tripoli. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have colluded to cover up the facts of that night and the failure of Obama’s administration to properly provide the needed support and back up that was so desperately needed that night. Both are guilty of at the least dereliction of duty but specifically lying to Congress and the American people. Help was intentionally and officially denied for reasons yet made clear but the investigation continues, could it be that Ambassador Stevens was ordered to funnel arms to terrorists front groups as has been suggested? It is very possible that this revelation by these 3 hero’s is the “Smoking Gun” that we have been waiting for and Obama’s house of cards will start to now collapse. Justice is long over do for those brave men who died and were wounded, may it come quickly. [TS]

A U.S. security team in Benghazi was held back from immediately responding to the attack on the American diplomatic mission on orders of the top CIA officer there, three of those involved told Fox News’ Bret Baier.

Their account gives a dramatic new turn to what the Obama administration and its allies would like to dismiss as an “old story” – the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Speaking out publicly for the first time, the three were security operators at the secret CIA annex in Benghazi – in effect, the first-responders to any attack on the diplomatic compound. Their first-hand account will be told in a Fox News special, airing Friday night at 10 p.m. (EDT).

Based on the new book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi” by Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team, the special sets aside the political spin that has freighted the Benghazi issue for the last two years, presenting a vivid, compelling narrative of events from the perspective of the men who wore the “boots on the ground.” 

The security contractors — Kris (“Tanto”) Paronto,  Mark (“Oz”) Geist, and John (“Tig”) Tiegen — spoke exclusively, and at length, to Fox News about what they saw and did that night. Baier, Fox News’ Chief Political Anchor, asked them about one of the most controversial questions arising from the events in Benghazi: Was help delayed?

Word of the attack on the diplomatic compound reached the CIA annex just after 9:30 p.m. Within five minutes, the security team at the annex was geared up for battle, and ready to move to the compound, a mile away.

“Five minutes, we’re ready,” said Paronto, a former Army Ranger. “It was thumbs up, thumbs up, we’re ready to go.”

But the team was held back. According to the security operators, they were delayed from responding to the attack by the top CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to only as “Bob.”

“It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta– we need to get over there, we’re losing the initiative,’” said Tiegen. “And Bob just looks straight at me and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.’”

“We’re starting to get calls from the State Department guys saying, ‘Hey, we’re taking fire, we need you guys here, we need help,’” said Paronto.

After a delay of nearly 30 minutes, the security team headed to the besieged consulate without orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for armed air support, which never came.

Now, looking back, the security team said they believed that if they had not been delayed for nearly half an hour, or if the air support had come, things might have turned out differently.

“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said. Tiegen concurred.

“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” he added.

In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official insisted that,  “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

Baier put that assertion directly to the operators.

“You use the words ‘stand down,’” Baier noted. “A number of people now, including the House Intelligence Committee  insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the compound…so what do you say to that?”

“No, it happened,” said Tiegen.

“It happened on the ground– all I can talk about is what happened on that ground that night,” added Paronto. “To us. To myself, twice, and to– to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were told to wait, stand– and stand down.  We were delayed three times.”

In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official did allow that the security team was delayed from responding while the CIA’s top officer in Benghazi tried to rally local support.

In the special, Baier also asks about the infamous YouTube video that was blamed for the violence in Benghazi.

Paronto laughed at the suggestion that the video played any role in the events of that night, saying he did not even know of the video until he was out of Libya and on his way home. “I didn’t know about the video ‘till I got to Germany,” he said. “(I had) no idea about any video, no. No, sir.”


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Frank Wolf to Introduce Bill Authorizing Military Action Against ISIS

Though President Barack Obama hasn’t consulted America’s legislative branch on what to do about the ISIS threat, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)—a national security hawk from Virginia—is stepping forward himself to introduce legislation that would congressionally authorize military action against ISIS and other terror threats in the region.



“It isn’t enough for the Congress to just say the administration isn’t doing enough then not participate,” Wolf told Breitbart News in a phone interview. He continued:

The Congress has the ability to declare war under the Constitution. I think the Congress has to be involved in this. I think you also almost have to do what President [George H.W.] Bush did with regard to Desert Storm. If you put together a coalition of regional powers—they had the Saudis, even Syria was involved. You had all the countries out in the region involved. You had all of NATO involved—Americans cannot do this alone. We need to bring in all of this regional power.



Wolf’s bill, which he will introduce when Congress returns from recess next week, would—according to Wolf’s office—authorize U.S. military force against “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda and its affiliates, like al Nusra, Ansar al Sharia, al Shabaab and Boko Haram, while encouraging close coordination with NATO and regional allies on any action.”



Wolf, in his interview with Breitbart News about the forthcoming bill, said he’s puzzled that the president at first did not have any strategy yet to deal with ISIS, and that now the president thinks ISIS can be a “manageable problem.”



“I don’t know what the word ‘manageable’ means,” Wolf said. “I saw the comment. How do you ‘manage’ it? They have spread now from Syria to the suburbs of Baghdad. They have Mosul. You have 140 Americans, at least, with American passports who have gone over there to fight with them. We have never had this happen before. 9/11 were mainly Saudis and some other nations.”



Wolf said the threat to the United States is “very, very big.”



“Keep in mind, 170 people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon, and there were early warnings before 9/11, but people did not take them seriously,” Wolf said, mentioning the Bremer Commission, which legislation he sponsored created. That commission produced a report in 2000 that warned of a looming al Qaeda threat—but Wolf said that “nobody paid any attention to it.” A year later, of course, terrorists hijacked four planes, crashing two into the Twin Towers in New York City, one into the Pentagon, and the other crashed in a Pennsylvania field.



ISIS, Wolf said, is more organized and powerful than even al Qaeda was. He went on:



These guys have American passports and the ability to fly back in the country just like you or me. Also, the British are there—500 or more British citizens.There are French citizens there, citizens from Scandinavia there. Also you have the weakened southern border. Why would you think they would not try to break the southern border? The Congress has to participate in this—and they have to stop people from this country from going over there, and when they come back they have to prosecute them. There was that guy who was from Vero Beach who went over there, came back here, and then went back and was involved in a suicide bombing.



The weaponry that ISIS has is very sophisticated, too, Wolf said, adding:



I saw reports that they actually have Blackhawk helicopters—I don’t know if they can fly them but they have them. said. They have weapons, Humvees, armored personnel carriers that they all took when the Iraqi military fled. They are well-armed, well-trained. They have a lot of money, are well-committed—and are a direct threat to the nation, so we have to act before something bad happens. I don’t want to be in a predicting mood, but we have to act before something bad happens.


Ultimately, no matter what the Obama administration does—if it does, indeed, act—Wolf said that “it’s important for the Congress to the debate it and it’s important for the Congress to vote.” That said, there has been no effort by the administration to reach out to him, and he’s unaware if the administration has even reached out to any members of Congress over the ISIS threat.



“They may have reached out to other members, but they haven’t reached out to me,” Wolf said. “I can’t speak for the administration.”


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Lawmakers tell Obama ‘we must go after ISIS’ after new video surfaces

Congressional lawmakers urged the Obama administration to crank up the offensive against the Islamic State after another video surfaced purporting to show the graphic execution of an American journalist.

Two weeks after American James Foley was beheaded by his Islamic State captors, a video emerged Tuesday afternoon claiming to show freelance journalist Steven Sotloff being executed in the same way.

The White House and State Department said intelligence officials are working quickly to determine the video’s authenticity. If it is genuine, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, “We are sickened by this brutal act.”

But U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle urged tough and swift action in response.

“Let there be no doubt, we must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop this group that’s intent on barbaric cruelty,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said in a statement.

Nelson added that he plans on filing legislation next week that would give President Obama authority to order airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

Sotloff had been held since last year by Islamic State militants. As before, the executioner in the video claimed the act was a message to the United States in response to airstrikes.

“I am back Obama, and I am back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State,” the person in the video said.

The administration, while launching another humanitarian mission in northern Iraq in recent days and sustaining a campaign of airstrikes around the Mosul Dam and elsewhere, continues to deliberate over the next steps – and whether to expand airstrikes across the border into Syria, where the Islamic State has a stronghold.

The president, drawing criticism from some GOP lawmakers, acknowledged last week that his team does not have a strategy yet for confronting ISIS in Syria.

With the president en route to Europe for meetings with allies and a NATO summit, it’s unclear whether the latest video might change, or accelerate, the administration’s planning.

Without commenting specifically on whether the U.S. military should go into Syria, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said Tuesday that the U.S. needs to be “acting urgently” to arm the Kurds in northern Iraq and target the Islamic State with drone strikes.

“Sadly, ISIS is bringing this barbarity across the region – beheading and crucifying those who don’t share their dark ideology,” he said. “The threat from this group seems to grow by the day.”

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., a member of the House intelligence committee, also said in a statement that “we cannot afford to allow these terrorists to continue their march.”

Asked Tuesday about the terror group, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said the U.S. “absolutely” has a strategy for the Middle East and a “clear” mission in Iraq.

“We are there to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces as they take the fight to ISIL.  We are there to provide humanitarian assistance where and when we can,” he said.

Psaki said the U.S. wants to see the group “destroyed” but it won’t be “an overnight effort.”

Analysts and others, though, said some elements of the approach will have to change.

Former U.N. ambassador Bill Richardson, speaking with Fox News, called for a “kitchen sink approach” and – like in Iraq years ago – a “coalition of the willing” to increase training, military aid and airstrikes.

Michael O’Hanlon, with the Brookings Institution, said the Obama administration made the right decision to launch airstrikes in northern Iraq, but said more might be needed.

He urged the government to consider sending up to several thousand special forces and “mentor teams” into Iraq to help the Iraqi army in its fight against the Islamic State.

And he suggested the latest brutal act might spur more countries in the region to align with Baghdad and Washington.

“I think this will shake some sense into countries that wanted to have it both ways up until now,” he told Fox News.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US Border

AUGUST 29, 2014

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.  Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.


Posted in Editorial, News | Leave a comment

Obama AWOL Again – On Energy Terrorism

Four news stories in four days sum up the Obama presidency and help explain why the world and U.S. economy are in such a mess. President Obama just returned from his two-week beach and golf vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. It took him a month from the time special forces located journalist James Foley to approve a rescue mission – by which time Foley had been moved (and was subsequently beheaded).

Mr. Obama may pursue a sweeping international climate change deal that bypasses Congress. But on dealing with ISIS terrorist butchers months after they swept through Iraq, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

President Obama has ordered limited air strikes to “contain” (but not defeat) Islamic State terrorists who have shot, crucified and beheaded thousands of men, women and children in Iraq and Syria. However, he still has no plans for protecting the United States from the energy terrorism that jihadists are planning.

The president’s failure to “connect the dots,” to see and prepare for potentially devastating attacks on U.S. and global citizens and energy supplies, is an inexcusable threat to our security. Preparations for massive energy terrorist attacks around the world are increasingly open and obvious. Now that Mr. Obama is back in the White House for a few days, hopefully to deal with real crises literally exploding around the world (from the Middle East to Afghanistan to Nigeria and beyond), let me connect some dots for him.

With Iraqi and other oil fields in jihadist hands, petroleum has become the mother’s milk of Islamic terrorism. Along with drug trafficking and bank robbery, it provides financing to arm, feed, train and pay terrorists on a massive scale that makes Leonardo DiCaprio’s Blood Diamond loot look like child’s play.

Islamic State butchers are raking in an estimated $2 million or more every day by selling oil on the black market, from wells they have seized in Iraq and Syria. “This could fetch them more than $730 million a year, enough to sustain operations beyond Iraq,” Iraq Energy Institute Director Luay al-Khatteeb told CNN in late August. More captured Syrian oil fields could raise ISIS oil revenue to $1.2 billion a year, says Theodore Karasik, research director at the think tank INEGMA in Dubai.

ISIS conquest of Iraqi Kurdistan’s Kirkuk area could boost the terrorists’ oil production from 30,000 barrels a day now to as much as 1 million barrels a day: $20 billion/year, if they can sell their oil at (say) a below-market $55 per barrel to countries that are naïve, support terror or ignore human rights.

That could buy unfathomable terrorism – on levels portended by a laptop computer that moderate Syrian forces found in an ISIS hideout. Amid some 34,000 files, it includes manuals on car theft, disguises and bomb making, documents on how to develop biological weapons and “weaponize” bubonic plague, and a radical Muslim cleric’s fatwa justifying weapons of mass destruction, “even if it wipes them and their descendants off the face of the Earth.” With laboratories in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria now in ISIS hands, these neo-SS lunatics could well turn their caliphate dreams into Western World nightmares.

Even just a few such attacks would shut down commerce, the way 9/11 and the DC sniper did.

Should the Islamic State somehow conquer the rest of Iraq and other Arab and Muslim lands, it could also cause major oil price increases that would cripple economies worldwide. By then vastly wealthier than Genghis Khan, such an empowered Islamic State could even decide to impose an oil embargo on the U.S. and other nations – as Arab oil exporters did for six months in 1973 and 1974, with devastating effects.

Other terrorist groups are fighting to control oil and natural gas supplies elsewhere. And Qatar – whose oil and gas have made it the richest country in the world, on a per capita basis – is acting as the terrorists’ ATM, bankrolling their activities, while playing the “good-guy” host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

So what can America do to prepare? First, recognize the threat and develop a strategy – not just to “contain” ISIS, but to eliminate them. Mr. Obama has already missed golden opportunities, but we have the necessary capabilities. He needs to use them, and find some leadership skills to rally and recruit allies.

Second, secure our southern border. A friendly border control agent chatted me up ten days ago about the $10 poster I was bringing back from Canada. His attentiveness to the Quebec-NY border was gratifying. But meanwhile thousands are still streaming across our Mexican border, with minimal safeguards, despite reports of Korans, prayer rugs and English-Arabic dictionaries being found on these “immigrant” trails. (As to offending Hispanics, they don’t want to get blown up or murdered with bubonic plague, either.)

Third, develop more U.S. oil and natural gas – and persuade Europe to start fracking. The United States consumed 18.6 million barrels of oil a day in 2013, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says. Better vehicle fuel mileage, other energy conservation efforts and the Obama economy have reduced oil imports from 12.6 million barrels per day in 2005 to 7.5 million this year. And though America’s oil (and natural gas) production continues to climb, we still import about one-third of our oil.

Reducing foreign oil dependence can be accomplished via continued energy conservation, switching to natural gas for many applications, burning more coal to generate electricity for hybrid and electric cars, and brewing more ethanol and biodiesel (while ignoring their food, economic and environmental costs). But these will barely make a dent, compared to more drilling and fracking on onshore and offshore federal, state and private lands – plus buying more from our stable neighbor and longtime ally, Canada.

Unfortunately, President Obama has thus far been loath to do any of this. Yes, domestic oil and gas production has risen under his watch. However, the increase has come from state and private lands, while production has fallen significantly on lands under federal government control.

President Obama and many Democrats in Congress and state governments continue to oppose drilling for oil off our East and West Coasts, and in Alaska and our Western states. They oppose construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which could safely transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada (plus Montana and North Dakota oil) to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, thereby reducing risks of more rail accidents. Many of these same Democrats also oppose hydraulic fracturing, which could greatly increase U.S. oil and gas production for many decades to come.

Tapping into our nation’s vast oil and natural gas supplies would even allow us to export some oil, natural gas and refined products. That would help our allies and trading partners become less dependent on terror-sponsoring oil producers and Russian “oiligarch” blackmailers – until they can get their act together on fracking. Such sales would also reduce our trade deficit and create badly needed American jobs.

History shows that even today’s friendly oil producers can become tomorrow’s adversaries. We were importing 554,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran, at the peak in 1978, before Islamic extremists took the country over and held our diplomats hostage. Our imports from Persia have been zero ever since.

Too many “environmentalists” reflexively oppose all oil and natural gas production, all the time. They refuse to admit that we cannot slash our reliance on these two fuels from 64% today to zero in a few years – and cannot bring new oil and gas supplies online in just a few years, in the midst of a crisis.

Khalid A. Al-Falih, CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil producing company, recently told an energy conference in Norway that even without terrorist threats the world will need to produce 40 million more barrels of oil a day within the next 20 years – just to replace what we are depleting. Finding enough to supply billions of people striving to rise up out of abject poverty will take far more than that.

Instead of waiting for an energy 9/11 to hit, President Obama and members of Congress are duty-bound to act now on all these steps, and more, to protect America’s national security. They must stop ignoring the imminent and growing threats of energy and energy-funded terrorism that America and the world face – before we run out of time to prepare for and prevent the potential onslaughts.

The president, Secretary of State John Kerry, EPA and too many politicians are focused on overblown dangers from climate change. They need to wake up to the terrorist train that is raging toward us.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Obama under fire for admitting no ‘strategy yet’ for ISIS in Syria

Editors Note: President Obama in his press conference demonstrated to the entire world that he is detached from the realities of the danger ISIS poses not only to the Middle East but to the entire world and the United States. His idiotic statement that “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” was so outrageous it is almost beyond comprehension. It shows his blatant disinterest and total misunderstanding of this worldwide threat that should be one of his immediate concerns. But it seems that fundraising and attending a media wedding are more important.

Today British Prime Minister David Cameron’s news conference was the complete opposite of Obama’s feeble attempt and Cameron made no excuses like Obama has made and blamed ISIS’s rise on the Iraq war. Cameron took immediate steps to raise Britons alert level to Severe while Obama did not even mention it. The British Prime Minister is doing his job to protect his country and the President of the United States is off fundraising. Is it any wonder ISIS is ignoring any threat from America or that Putin is openly invading Ukraine and China flagrantly exerting itself  in the Far East? They all perceive Obama as the weak and disconnected leader he is and will take maximum advantage of this until Obama finally leaves office. The Free World is looking for leadership from America and is finding none what so ever. Obama is a failure not only domestically but also in dealing with foreign affairs and his inaction has pushed the entire world into a very dangerous situation that is by his own hand and not the fault of George W. Bush. The world needs strong American leadership and America is now without a strong leader. [TS] 

President Obama is facing intense criticism for admitting Thursday “we don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with Islamic State militants in Syria, despite warnings from top military advisers and others that the group must be confronted on that side of the border.

The president made the comment during a briefing with reporters in which he overtly played down the prospect of any imminent military action in Syria. He tried to temper speculation that he was about to roll out a “full scale” strategy, one that might expand the current, limited airstrike campaign in northern Iraq.

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said.

As the White House later clarified, he was talking specifically about a military strategy for Syria. But Republican critics pointed out that the ISIS presence in Syria has been festering for a long time, and is only growing in strength.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the toughest critics in Congress of the administration’s Middle East policies, tweeted the president’s quote with a reminder: “#ISIS is largest, richest terrorist group in history & 192,000 dead in #Syria.” 

Karl Rove, Fox News analyst and former George W. Bush administration adviser, said he was “appalled” by the president’s comment.

“He was warned about the role that ISIS was playing inside Syria, and he has had all that time to develop a strategy about what to do about ISIS in Syria and he still doesn’t,” Rove told Fox News.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., at an event in California Thursday night, said the U.S. needs a “strategy to finish them off.” 

“Not to contain them … but to fundamentally finish them off. And I don’t think the president sees this moment for what it is,” he said.

Obama said Thursday that military leaders are presenting him with a “range of options” for addressing the Islamic State. The administration is clear that they have a strategy for Iraq — which, for now, involves limited airstrikes and humanitarian missions — and are working on one for Syria.

Following a late afternoon meeting of the National Security Council, the White House put out a statement saying they discussed “our comprehensive strategy to counter the threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria.” 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest also tweeted, amid criticism of the president’s comment: “In his remarks today, POTUS was explicit — as he has been in the past — about the comprehensive strategy we’ll use to confront ISIL threat.” 

On Fox News, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, criticized the “strategy” the administration has taken so far.

“He did say we don’t have a strategy, but he followed that up by saying the strategy is to nip it in the bud. Well, unfortunately, it’s not in a bud, it’s full-blossom,” Gohmert said.

Obama intimated during his remarks that the administration would not push forward with any comprehensive plan before Congress returns from August recess early next month and has a chance to weigh in.

But just last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said the terror group would need to be addressed in Syria if it is to be defeated.

And on Wednesday, Obama’s own press secretary suggested a strategy similar to the one in Iraq was being devised for Syria.

“Well, I think the elements of that strategy would not be entirely dissimilar from the elements of the strategy that we’re pursuing in Iraq,” Earnest said, when asked about what might happen in Syria.

As the president puts a damper on speculation that military action in Syria is imminent, he indicated that for the time being, the U.S. will continue to conduct airstrikes in northern Iraq and humanitarian missions, while working politically and diplomatically to “cobble together” a coalition for whatever the long-term strategy is.

To that end, he said he is sending Secretary of State John Kerry to the region to build a “coalition” to confront the threat.

The president said, once a strategy is formed, there “will be a military aspect to that” and might be a role for an “international coalition” providing air support.

But he was vague on the question of what to do in Syria. Amid speculation over whether the U.S. would ever partner with Bashar Assad to fight ISIS on that side of the border, Obama reiterated his view that “Assad’s lost legitimacy.”

He said the U.S. would continue to support the “moderate opposition” in the country, giving people a choice other than just Assad or ISIS.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, after Obama’s remarks, urged the president to develop a “regional strategy” for the Islamic State and present it to Congress and the American people.

“If the President is prepared to engage Congress with a strategic plan to protect the U.S. and our allies from ISIL, I believe he will have significant congressional support,” he said. “But don’t forget, the threat from ISIL is real and it’s growing — and it is time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response.”


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Obama Crafting Legal Rationale for Sweeping Legalization Action

Obama Crafting Legal Rationale for Sweeping Legalization Action

The White House is crafting a blame-it-on-Congress legal justification to back up President Barack Obama’s impending executive actions on immigration.

Facing an expect onslaught of opposition, the administration plans to argue that Congress failed to provide enough resources to fully enforce U.S. laws, thereby ceding wide latitude to White House to prioritize deportations of the 11.5 million people who are in the country illegally, administration officials and legal experts said. But Republicans, too, are exploring their legal options for stopping Obama from what they’ve deemed egregious presidential overreaching.

A self-imposed, end-of-summer deadline to act on immigration is rapidly approaching. While Obama has yet to receive the formal recommendations he’s requested from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, administration officials said the president is intimately familiar with the universe of options and won’t spend much time deliberating once Johnson delivers his recommendations.

After resisting calls to act alone in hopes Congress would pass a comprehensive immigration fix, Obama in June bowed to immigration activists and said that “if Congress will not do their job, at least we can do ours.” The most sweeping, controversial step under consideration involves halting deportation for millions, a major expansion of a 2012 Obama program that deferred prosecutions for those brought here illegally as children.

Roughly half a million have benefited from that program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.

But while prosecutors are routinely expected to use their discretion on a case-by-case basis, such blanket exempting of entire categories of people has never been done on the scale of what Obama is considering — potentially involving many millions of people if he extends relief to parents of DACA children, close relatives of U.S. citizens or immigrants with clean criminal records.

“The question is how broadly can the president extend the categories and still stay on the side of spectrum of ensuring the laws are faithfully executed?” said Cristina Rodriguez, who left the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2013 to teach at Yale Law School.

Other options under consideration, such as changes to how green cards are distributed and counted, might be less controversial because of the support they enjoy from the business community and other influential groups. But Derrick Morgan, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama will still face staunch opposition as long as he attempts an end run around Congress.

Obama’s goal had been to announce his decision around Labor Day, before leaving on a trip next week to Estonia and Wales. But a host of national security crises have pushed the announcement back, likely until after Obama returns, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to comment by name and demanded anonymity.

Obama’s actions will almost surely be challenged in court.

“Any potential executive action the president takes will be rooted in a solid legal foundation,” White House spokesman Shawn Turner said.

What’s more, Obama may have undermined his case because he has insisted time and again that he’s the president, not the king, and “can’t just make the laws up by myself.” In a 2012 interview with Telemundo, Obama defended his decision to defer deportations for children but said he couldn’t go any bigger.

“If we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option,” he said then.

Republicans are already hinting that they’ll consider legal action to thwart what they’ve denounced as a violation of the separation of powers. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a conference call this month with GOP House members, accused Obama of “threatening to rewrite our immigration laws unilaterally.”

“If the president fails to faithfully execute the laws of our country, we will hold him accountable,” Boehner said, according to an individual who participated in the call.

The House already has passed legislation to block Obama from expanding DACA and, through its power of the purse, could attempt to cut off the funds that would be needed to implement the expansion. House Republicans could also consider widening or amending their existing lawsuit against Obama over his health care law, a case that both parties have suggested could be a prelude to impeachment proceedings.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Blueprint for water ‘control’? Pol says EPA made secret maps for new regulatory push

A top House Republican is charging that the Environmental Protection Agency secretly drafted highly detailed maps of U.S. waterways to set the stage for a controversial plan to expand regulatory power over streams and wetlands, a claim the EPA strongly denies.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, released those maps on Wednesday, while firing off a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy voicing concerns over why they were created in the first place.

“These maps show the EPA’s plan: to control a huge amount of private property across the country. Given the astonishing picture they paint, I understand the EPA’s desire to minimize the importance of these maps,” he wrote, in the letter obtained by

But an EPA spokeswoman said the maps, from the U.S. Geological Survey and Fish and Wildlife Service, “do not show jurisdictional waters” — in other words, they do not show which waters are subject to EPA control.

Decisions over whether the EPA has authority over “particular waters,” Liz Purchia said, are almost always made in response to requests. She told the maps in question would have to involve ground surveys to actually reflect the proposed rule, which she called “prohibitively expensive.”

At issue is a proposal that Smith and fellow Republicans, as well as farmers and other groups, say could endanger private property rights by giving the EPA a say over temporary waterways like seasonal streams, under the Clean Water Act. That the agency had highly detailed maps drawn up has raised suspicion about their purpose.

“While the Agency marches forward with a rule that could fundamentally re-define Americans’ private property rights, the EPA kept these maps hidden,” Smith wrote in his letter. “Serious questions remain regarding the EPA’s underlying motivations for creating such highly detailed maps.” 

He added: “The EPA’s job is to regulate. The maps must have been created with this purpose in mind.” 

The high-resolution maps of each state depict a dense and veiny web of intertwining waterways. They’re color-coded to distinguish everything from canals and ditches to reservoirs to marshes to various types of streams. The maps show permanent streams, but also those that contain water for only part of the year.

The EPA denied the maps were drawn to chart areas subject to the Clean Water Act. The agency said they were only drawn to identify the “extent and location” of waterways and other details.

In two letters to Smith, in late July and early August, EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner explained the documents were originally prepared in 2005, and updated last year with data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

“EPA is not aware of maps prepared by any agency, including the EPA, of waters that are currently jurisdictional under the CWA or that would be jurisdictional under the proposed rule,” she wrote, adding that the maps would have to be even more detailed to be used for that purpose.

But the map details would appear to dovetail with the type of waterways the agency is looking at regulating.

Since last year, the EPA has floated new rules that would define what kinds of waterways fall under its jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act already gives the EPA the ability to regulate “U.S. waters,” but Supreme Court rulings have left the specifics unclear when it comes to waters that flow only part of the year.

To address that, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers want to define that authority — and are eyeing waterways deemed to have some significant connection to major rivers, lakes and other systems.

The EPA claims this does not expand its authority, and only clarifies it.

But detractors claim this is an opening for the EPA to claim authority over countless waterways, including streams that only show up during heavy rainfall. Critics warn this could create more red tape for property owners and businesses if they happen to have even small streams on their land.

A House science committee aide called the EPA maps “eye-opening” for those following the process.

“These are not everyday, run-of-the-mill maps — these are highly detailed,” the aide told, adding that the agency had not previously disclosed the documents for public comment.

The committee only learned about the maps after hearing from the U.S. Geological Survey that the EPA was having them drawn up.  Lawmakers subsequently asked then-EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe about them at a hearing last month, and he agreed to release them.

Smith, in his letter, also questioned why the agency used taxpayer money to create the maps. He asked the agency to provide all documents related to its contract for the maps, turn over any other previously undisclosed maps, and extend the comment period for at least another two months.

Under the current plan, the comment period is projected to close on Oct. 20.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

If Obama’s Bombing of Libya Was Legal, His Bombing of Syria Would Be Too

Editors Note: Obama is being dragged kicking and screaming to take action against ISIS. It has been clear during his entire time as President so far that taking action against any terrorists organization is not on his agenda. In the Middle East he has used rhetoric only and not any action of significance. He has laid claim to and bragged about getting Osama BinLaden as if he was the one who planned and executed the action that finally delivered justice to Americas number one enemy. He did give a grudgingly nod to the actual raid but was pushed into the decision by his military commanders. The only thing he did was give the ok but he had absolutely nothing to do with the actual planning of the raid.

Obama has made a total shambles of American influence around the world and especially in the Middle East by setting Red Lines that he never intended to enforce. ISIS has no fear what so ever of America led by a President who is frozen into the position of inaction and noninterference. Russia and China are expanding their control for the same reason and becoming bolder every day.

An executive order will most likely be given concerning Amnesty to the objection of not only the republicans but also a growing number of  fearful democrats facing ever dismal chances for reelection. Obama in his quest for total amnesty takes precedent over any concerns about his fellow democrats losing an election because his agenda is him only concern and focus. The resulting backlash from such an action may well come as a huge surprise when the American people show their outrage as more and more calls for his impeachment grow both in number and intensity. Look for any executive orders concerning amnesty to come before the November midterm elections. [TS]

President Obama has already ordered reconnaissance flights over Syria and is currently deliberating whether or not to authorize military strikes on Islamic State bases in that country. But whatever Obama decides to do, do not expect him to wait for a vote in Congress authorizing his actions.

In 2013, as HotAir Noah Rothman notes, Obama promised he would seek a vote in Congress before bombing the Assad regime in Syria. But now, Rothman also notes, the White House is claiming they have no need to seek congressional approval before such a campaign.

Asked to explain the discrepancy yesterday, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest claimed bombing Syria in 2014 “was a different situation” than bombing Syria in 2013 and then noted that Obama did not seek permission from Congress when he approved the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011.

And it is true that Obama did not seek congressional approval to enter Pakistani airspace and kill bin Laden. But that short and small strike was perfectly in line with past presidential uses of executive war powers. From Townhall Magazine’s June 2014 issue:

Before launching Operation Odyssey Dawn against Libya on March 19, 2011, Obama secured authorization from both the Arab League and the United Nations. But at no point did he ever push for a debate, or vote, in the United States Congress.

Now it is true that presidents have taken military action without specific authorization from Congress in the past. In 1986, for example, President Reagan also bombed Libya. And in 1998, President Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan.

But those actions were both brief and limited responses to specific terrorist attacks on Americans. Reagan bombed Libya for a single day as punishment for their involvement in a bombing of American servicemen in Berlin. Clinton’s cruise missile attack was also limited to a single day and was in direct response to the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Obama’s attack on Libya, however, lasted seven months, one week, and five days. Countless Libyan military personnel were killed during the campaign, as well as more than 60 civilians according to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

But unlike Reagan and Clinton, who were responding to specific attacks on Americans, Obama acted without any provocation. Libya had not recently attacked America, and was not threatening to, when Obama started bombing the country.

There simply is no constitutional justification for Obama’s unilateral bombing of Libya. Which is why top lawyers at both the Pentagon and the Justice Department told Obama he had no legal right to attack Libya as broadly as he was planning without authorization from Congress.

But instead of deciding the issue democratically, Obama overruled his lawyers and ordered the DOJ to write a new legal memo justifying his decision.

If Obama can bomb Libya for over half a year, when that country presented no threat to the United States, then there is no stopping him from launching a similar, even larger, campaign against Syria as well.

And Obama’s expansive view of executive power does not end at the water’s edge. In 2011, Obama told Hispanic journalists at a White House roundtable, “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And there is a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and comprehensive immigration reform passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself I can just go and do these things.”

But just months later Obama did “just change the laws unilaterally” when he announced his June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA functionally turned the failed DREAM Act legislation into executive action reality.

Then in 2013, when amnesty activists pushed Obama to expand DACA, Obama insisted, “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws.”

But now, of course, Obama is, again, planning to do act unilaterally on immigration, this time granting temporary amnesty to as many as 8 million illegal immigrants.
Obama does not have to face the American people at the ballot box ever again. What political checks there are on his power are diminishing everyday and he seems increasingly to believe there are no legal limits to what he can do either.


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Obama Pressured to Take ISIS Fight Into Syria

Editors Note: America has now entered into a very dangerous time with the beheading of an American journalist. ISIS has declared open war against America and we have a President who is clueless in what to do. Obama’s foreign policy decisions have emboldened Americas enemies to a point they openly and brazenly show contempt and disdain. Russia’s Putin mocks Obama at every change from giving sanctuary to Edward Snowden to invading Ukraine. China flexes its muscles in the Pacific and just yesterday harassed an American Navy P-8 Poseidon Reconnaissance aircraft. North Korea continues to flaunt its missile tests and Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. ISIS has openly said they will attack Americas homeland and raise their flag above the WH.  In the past these threats could be taken with a grain of salt but this murderous army of radical terrorists have shown the absolutely do not fear America and will strike soon.

With the southern border in total disarray it is an open invitation for the terrorists to enter the country undiscovered with fighters and equipment and there is talk that they are in league with the Mexican Drug Cartels. September 11th 2014 is just 9 days away and poses a very attractive target date for an attack. What is Obama doing about it? Continuing his vacation and golf and ignoring the danger that threatens the American homeland.  America is leaderless and the world is taking advantage of it everywhere, America is in much greater danger than pre-9-1-11 because we now face a well trained, well financed and a 100% dedicated enemy that has show a total lack of humanity towards its victims and has openly announced it is coming. Where will be the Commander in Chief be when critical decisions need to be made? Perhaps Hole 1 at Andrews Air Force Base Golf Course. [TS]

Pressure is mounting on President Barack Obama to take the fight against the Islamic State into Syria, with top Republicans calling for the move on Friday after days of attacks on the militants in Iraq and the beheading of American journalist James Foley this week.

“I don’t see how we can defeat ISIS without going into Syria,” New York Rep. Peter King, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN. “I believe in massive airstrikes”.

“This is not about Syria. This is not about Iraq,” King added. “It’s about our national security. The president has the obligation, if he is serious about going after ISIS, to go into Syria”.
Florida Rep. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen later told CNN that “I believe that the president should do that”.

“He should have done it when he first announced it when he said Assad has crossed a red line in the use of chemical weapons,” she added, referring to Obama’s speech in June 2013 when it was confirmed that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used the arsenal against his own people. “In fact, they used chemical weapons twice and still we did not do what we said we would do.”

“It was a mistake for us not to act then,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “We cannot let this cancer grow.”

The GOP House members added to the rising calls for bombing ISIS in Syria after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said that it was critical to defeating the militants.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said at a news briefing on Thursday with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

The White House signaled on Friday that taking the fight against ISIS into Syria is an option, as Obama nears the end of his two-week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. The option gained more credence after ISIS posted its video this week showing Foley’s brutal execution and threats to kill a second American journalist, Steve Sotloff.

“We will do what’s necessary to protect Americans and see that justice is done for what we saw with the barbaric killing of Jim Foley,” White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said on Friday. “So we’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we’re not going to be restricted by borders.”

The U.S. has so far conducted slightly more than 90 airstrikes in Iraq to protect the Iraqi Yazidi religious minority and attack Islamic State positions around the Mosul Dam. Tens of thousands of Yazidis have fled their homelands since ISIS began seizing them last month.

The Pentagon said on Friday that U.S. warplanes made three more airstrikes against Islamic State targets near the Mosul Dam, including a machine gun position that was firing on Iraqi forces.

Extending the fight into Syria, however, would allow opportunities for disrupting the Islamic State’s supply lines.

Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain said this week that ISIS fighters have moved military equipment seized in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul into Syria and that they hold enclaves in Syrian territory that have been identified. The heavy artillery was left in Baghdad after the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in 2011.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a prospective 2016 presidential candidate, said on Friday that attacking ISIS supply lines, command and control centers, and economic assets inside Syria was “at the crux of the decision” for Obama.

The risk of “getting sucked into a new war” is outweighed, Rubio said, by the risk of inaction.

A move into Syria, even only with air strikes, would be a reversal for Obama. He stepped back from a threat to launch airstrikes in Syria a year ago in response to a chemical weapons attack by Assad.

Obama has many times rejected greater involvement in the three-year-old Syrian civil war over the past year out of concern about getting entangled in a conflict with no clear positive outcome for the United States.

But officials say the situation now is different because Islamic State militants represent a direct threat to Americans and American interests. Hagel said underscored the importance of preventing ISIS from regrouping — even partly into Syria — and launching renewed attacks.

The Islamic State is also known as ISIL.

“The president, the chairman and I are all very clear-eyed about the challenges ahead,” Hagel said. “We are pursuing a long-term strategy against ISIL because ISIL clearly poses a long-term threat. We should expect ISIL to regroup and stage new offenses.”

Not going into Syria, essentially, puts the U.S. “back to where you were,” said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who quit in February in disillusionment over Obama’s unwillingness to arm moderate Syrian rebels in their battle against Assad.

“I don’t see how you can contain the Islamic State over the medium term if you don’t address their base of operations in Syria,” he said.

U.S. Special Forces have already had one direct ground battle with Islamic State militants in Syria. That was during the nighttime helicopter mission during the July Fourth Weekend when two dozen Delta Force commandos sought to rescue Foley, Sotloff, and several other Americans.

A number of militants were killed in the firefight, the White House said this week — and one U.S. soldier was wounded. The hostages were not at the location.

More broadly, however, the U.S. strong consideration of going into Syria reflects a more serious approach to ISIS than six months ago, when Obama told New Yorker magazine that they were the “JV team.”

The term is short for “junior varsity” — meaning that they are not the best players on the field.

King slammed Obama for the reference in the CNN interview.

“The president was wrong when he called them ‘junior varsity.’ This was no secret in the intelligence community,” he said. “This was no secret — and the president seemed content in saying that al-Qaida was defeated and that, basically, this was all behind us”.

“I actually believe that, now, ISIS is more powerful now and more deadly than al-Qaida was on Sept. 11,” King said.



Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment