Ann Coulter was not very impressed with the slate of Republican presidential candidates at Wednesday night’s CNN debate but she reserved her harshest criticism to attack candidates who she argued mentioned Israel in response to a question about America’s future:
Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: "What will AMERICA look like after you are president."
How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
This ought to be good.
ReplyDeleteThe entire debate was a GOP establishment and GOP insider Hugh Hewitt’s panic and charade to knock off Trump.
ReplyDeleteA Drudge Poll FWIW:
ReplyDelete**DRUDGE POLL** WHO WON THE 2ND REPUBLICAN DEBATE ’16?
TRUMP 60.77% (267,351 votes)
FIORINA 15.95% (70,171 votes)
CRUZ 5.25% (23,094 votes)
RUBIO 5.13% (22,558 votes)
PAUL 4.45% (19,570 votes)
CARSON 3.86% (16,994 votes)
CHRISTIE 1.15% (5,066 votes)
BUSH 1.14% (5,018 votes)
KASICH 1.09% (4,786 votes)
WALKER 0.69% (3,034 votes)
HUCKABEE 0.52% (2,283 votes)
Coulter is an insult and an embarrassment to that cross she always wears so prominently displayed on he chest.
ReplyDeleteher chest
ReplyDeleteYou got to admit, you must admit, the Republican race is fascinating to watch -
ReplyDelete“I hope they attack me,” Trump said recently to a reporter from the Wall Street Journal, “because everybody who attacks me is doomed.”
:) heh
Can Trump be killed? The history of past nomination fights suggest he can be. The untraditional front-runners of the summer silly season have always swiftly fallen to the back of the pack—or out of the race altogether—in the fall. But we are in uncharted territory now, with a canny celebrity front-runner who combines an unprecedented and nearly unlimited access to both social and traditional media with a completely sui generis gift for attack and counterpunch politics. The three-month whirlwind since he entered the race demonstrates that of all Trump’s extraordinary talents, master of kill-or-be-killed might be his most decisive—and the single most important factor in determining whom the Republican Party nominates for president next year.
Trump’s rivals used to believe he would kill himself within weeks of entering the race. Then they believed that the press would kill him off before Labor Day. Now, many of them privately answer the question “Can Trump be killed?” by saying, quietly and with a combination of frustration, wonder and doubt: I hope so.
Long, excellent interesting article about The Donald and his wild instinctive ways.....
Kryptonite
Can Donald Trump Be Stopped?
Sep 15, 2015 2:00 AM PDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-15/can-donald-trump-be-stopped-
The Republicans were pandering to their donors, not the voters. Coulter certainly does not represent the view of the donors, but worse news for the Republicans, neither do most of the voters.
ReplyDeleteYou are obsessed with Jews and Israel.
ReplyDeleteTrue to form.
You may delete me now, truth makes you squirmy.
Ann Coulter wants Jews "to be perfected"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME
Jews would be great if they became Christian and became perfected...
Paranoid much? I watched the debate. Coulter's critique was on the Republican's obsession and gratuitous remarks.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion,
Fioriana did great. She was poised and it is evident she has been doing her homework. She sounded more knowledgeable than most on the dais. Stood up to Trump well. Good speaker. She probably helped herself. Didn’t see her first debate but she looked great tonight.
However, she was the first to make the obligatory reference to Israel. Worse, she indicated her first call as president would be to and about Israel. That being said, she did make the comment within the context of the question asked and didn’t just pull it out of her ass like some of these guys do. Perhaps, it is just instinctual with the GOP to think of a foreign country before they think of their own.
Here, is her answer. [Starts at 0:20]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZLV8y7oYNQ
Despite my criticism, if you listen to her full answer, you will see she offers a legitimate and forceful opinion even if I disagree with some points.
.
.
DeleteThe others…
Carson sounded good but I don't think he really moved the needle tonight. At least, he sounded like he has been doing some homework.
Trump? He looked a little tired. Same bluster but I'm kinda tired of "I, it, they...are going to be...Great...Beautiful...the Best"
Marco Rubio is a great speaker. Spoke in generalities but did so pretty well especially on foreign policy. How he did on the issues for the GOP base is hard for me to say. Many of my positions don’t match those of his base.
Bush? He had some ups and down. Looked more aggressive, but I don't think he will be moving up based on the performance.
Kasich? He didn't do as well without the home field advantage but he was pretty solid. I like that he seems like a moderate but I'm not sure he will be around after the first few primaries. We shall see.
Huckabee? A religious nut job. Even when he makes a good point he does it in such a way as to turn me (and I suspect much of the electorate) off.
Cruz? Cruz remained Cruz. Those who were going to vote for him probably still will. Kind of falls into the same category as Huckabee.
Walker? He did better tonight but I don't think he moved the needle much.
Christie? As a candidate, he did better this time. But I think his time passed some time ago.
Paul? Same as Walker, he had some moments but I don't think he bought any more support.
All in all, they all looked like they upped their game some from the last debate. Not surprising.
.
.
DeleteOn my comment,
All in all, they all looked like they upped their game some from the last debate. Not surprising.
I should say with the exception of Trump. I think he may lose a little ground to some of the opponents based on their performances tonight. IMO, his response when Fiorina bitch-slapped him on his 'face comment' was condescending and self-serving. I don't think it helped him and if I am anything like the typical voter it probably hurt him (not that I take him all that seriously as anything but a symbol of voter discontent).
.
Regardless of your or others opinion, Israel is a valued ally to America and is supported as such by the majority of American citizens,
DeleteEven Obama, who I cannot stand and has done much damage to Israel claims to be supportive of the Jewish state.
.
DeleteOpened the Coultier video above for a while, Man, that lady needs to start on a high calorie diet. She looks emaciated, worse than I remember her.
.
.
ReplyDeleteA Solution to America's F-35 Nightmare: Why Not Build More F-22s?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-americas-f-35-nightmare-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858
Build more F-22's? Likely not.
There were only 187 Raptors built but it's difficult to keep them repaired. Why?
But while many within the Air Force would dearly love to see the Raptor back in production, it is not likely to happen. The first problem is that while Lockheed and the Air Force supposedly made every effort to carefully squirrel away the tooling and instructions for building the F-22, problems have emerged when maintenance crews have attempted to pull the equipment in order to repair damaged jets.
One recently retired Air Force official with direct knowledge about the service’s efforts to repair two damaged Raptors said that they faced severe difficulties with retrieving the correct tooling. In one example, Air Force maintainers needed to build a particular component from scratch to replace a severely damaged part for an F-22. The crews went into the Conex boxes where the tooling and instructions to build the part were allegedly stored, but to their considerable surprise and aggravation, the container was empty. The same pattern repeated itself several times—and as of the last time the source checked–the issue remains unresolved. The bottom line is that even if the Air Force wanted to, it may not be physically possible to restart the line—at least not without a huge additional investment in time and money.
Lordy, what's new?
My first thought is that those missing parts and instructions are sitting in some lab in China.
.
.
ReplyDeleteGovernment shutdown?
Conventional Washington wisdom suggests that if Congress forces another shutdown this fall, Republicans will lose politically and Democrats will somehow win. I believe that analysis is half right. If there is another government shutdown, Democrats may experience a few days of relatively decent commentary from the usual suspects in the media, but in today’s political environment, they won’t really be “winning” anything. Why? Because there is a sense among voters that everyone in Washington is to blame. Most voters think that “they” are all dithering, that “they” are all corrupt, that “they” are all indifferent and ineffective and so on. I have bad news for the liberal media and the Democrats: The “they” that independent voters in particular rail against includes both the Republicans and the Democrats. In fact, most voters see anyone who is — or has been — in Washington as part of the problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/09/16/the-insiders-who-wins-in-a-government-shutdown/
My opinion? Who gives a toot if the government shuts down? If it shuts down, the effect on everyday Americans will be negligible.
.
Israel is a valued ally to America
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of valued allies:
UK
Canada
Australia
Poland
New Zealand
France
Netherlands
Danemark
Phillipines
Japan
Laos
What do they have in common?
Israel?
What has Israel ever done for the US that establishes her as a valuable ally?
Good luck. Calling Israel a valued ally is a slap at our real valued allies.
Nonsense, but you really don't want an answer.
DeleteYou are so steeped in your hatred nothing will matter.
But you are at odds with the President of America and pretty much the vast majority of American people.
DeleteDeuce you have de-evolved into a real gem of a person.
DeleteI pity you.
.
DeleteLaos?
:o)
.
That is about the tenth time you are incapable of answering a simple question, a pitiful performance.
DeleteYou make the assertion that Israel is a valuable ally, an asset, defend your assertion with dates and facts. You can’t because of a simple fact. Israel is not a valuable ally. Ask the same question about any of the countries posted and there are answers, defendable answers.
I have asserted that Israel is an extreme liability to the US. Israel has cost the US trillions. Israel is a political liability. israel is a military liability.
EXAMPLE: In the first Gulf War, 25% of all us aircraft in the air were there to keep Israel out of the conflict. Israel is a continuous irritant to any politicians having responsibilities in the ME and security services or military that have to work around them.
The political liability is that every time the US comes to the defense of Israeli policies, the thanks the US gets from Israel is more of the same or worse.
Care to name the US presidents that had to take a stick in the eye over another “Israeli in your face" settlement in Palestinian territories? That should be easy.
You are a slimy whiney twerp, a loudmouth bigot, bad at an intelligent argument, bereft of any logical comprehension and an emotional immature pest. Get lost
Wow, tell us how you really feel Deuce.
DeleteThe issue of Israel as a valuable ally is easy and has been explained numerous times.
If you refuse to listen? That's your issue.
As for intellectual arguments?
Is that what you do by deleting post after post of mine?
When you are losing an argument? You delete the posts.
LOL
Sorry Senior Deuce, with or without me?
You have Israel and Jews on the mind, 24/7
but you get real itchy when we call you out…
LOL
There is no arguing with you. You are not rational. You hate Jews and Israel, you demean Judaism and ridicule anyone that stands for Zionism.
You are who your friends are..
You and Hamas, Iran the Mullahs, Hezbollah are all your peeps.
That says it all…
Is Ben Carson running for Vice President? Should he be?
ReplyDeleteCan a ticket with Ben Carson on board lose?
My hunch is: yes, yes,
and no.
.
DeleteI think all of them with the exception Trump and likely Bush would take the VP job if it came to that and they were offered it.
.
.
DeleteThe GOP has plenty of VP candidates. Presidential? Not so much.
Fiorina would make a good VP. She likely wouldn't be an embarrassment and as a women could bring a lot to the ticket. Rubio as VP would likely solidify the GOP base. Carson probably wouldn't hurt the ticket.
As for president, Kasich (so far) looks moderate and sensible on most of the issues but I doubt he will make it past the primaries.
It would be tough to vote for any of the others without considering who the Dems have as candidate. If Hillary is it, the choice becomes easier.
.
.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Drudge Poll noted above, it shows the intellectual level of the Drudge voters.
.
Electing Obama showed the intellectual level of American voters in 2008 & 2012
DeleteYES !!!!
Delete:););):)
The first time around was ..... perhaps.... forgivable......the second time around confirmation that this country is not a.....er, ...always........hmmm......not always a thoughtful country
If we elect Hillary we are confirmed idiots....same with electing Biden.....or Sanders.....Jim Webb looks the only exception......and he appears dead in the water.....
I believe that any ticket with Carson on it would pull enough African Americans away from the Dems that it couldn't lose.
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way: If the Carson for V.P. ticket pulls 30% of the 17 Million black votes, that leaves the Dems with a "Net" of 40%, or a little less than 7 Million black votes (vs. the expected 15.5 Million.)
A shortfall of 8 to 8 1/2 Million black votes? No way the Dems can make it up. game, set, match.
Go, Ben !!!!
DeleteAlso, I think you are right.
DeleteHey ! Look at THIS !
ReplyDeleteMichigan (MRG): Carson 24, Trump 22, Bush 8, Huckabee 6, Rubio 4............... Drudge
That's a Michigan Republican Primary Poll....WOW !
New Zealand
ReplyDeleteI recently wrote about my Wife’s experience while serving at a hospital in Tanzania with a 24 year old New Zealander. The girl was well versed in anti-American propaganda and felt compelled to heap abuse on my Wife. The Wife is quite capable of defending herself, but she lacks my background knowledge of American foreign policy and world history. During our brief phone call, I provided her with some basic facts to combat the Kiwi’s propaganda regurgitations. Afterward I decided to dig deeper into the youngster’s bigotry and did some research into New Zealand’s attitudes towards Americans. What I found changed my mind about wanting to visit the place anytime soon.
Part of New Zealand’s anti-American bigotry is no doubt due to size. New Zealand has four million people – roughly the same number of Americans who eat in their sleep or believe they’ve been abducted by aliens. Living in a tiny nation may make one cheer any victory over comparative giant – even in such a yawner sport as yachting. However New Zealand shares similar history and culture to the United States. It is a former British colony with an established democracy and similar religious background, with more Protestants than Catholics, and more Buddhists than Jews and Muslims. New Zealand has spent most of its time since independence under European-style socialist governments. However over the past decade it has become a strong advocate for free trade, especially in closed agricultural markets.
Yet Only 29% of New Zealanders had a positive view of the United States in 2004. That puts it on par with Pakistan at 30% and below Russia (43%) and China (42%). So much for the idea that shared cultural ties can bind people together.
Great ally…
It’s True – Kiwis Don’t Really Like Americans
Its True – Kiwis dont really like Americans.
We generally don’t like or trust Americans. Sad but true. Sorry. If you are an American, make sure you know other Americans that you plan on socialising with when you come out to NZ. Otherwise unfortunately, as many of you are finding out, you are likely to remain socially isolated. Out of all the English speaking world, Kiwis dislike Americans the most (probably unfairly).
Finally an ALLY we can dock our ship at..
Decades-Old Nuclear Standoff Finally Ends ... With New Zealand
A little-known, but longtime nuclear standoff ended this week when U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted a 26-year-old ban that kept New Zealand naval ships from docking at U.S. bases.
As the L.A. Times reports, the ban stems from New Zealand's nuclear-free policy that forbid U.S. warships carrying nuclear weapons or using nuclear power into the nation's ports.
The ban resurfaced earlier this year when ships from New Zealand were denied permission to dock at Pearl Harbor during a large international naval exercise.
YEP a 26 year ban on American ships.
Now that's an ally/
:):):):):):):)
DeleteThe old saying is true, with allies like that you don't need no enemies.....
hahahaha
Good one, WiO
It was New Zealand, IIRC, that busted up the old Anzus alliance.
DeleteDeuce has a perpetual anger about the USS Liberty and Israel.
DeleteBut he lists Japan as an ally?
If japan can kill over 106,207 and wound over 248,316 what are the criteria that deuce judges by?
They do have some world class, and I do mean world class, fly fishing in New Zealand.
DeleteWe ought to protect the place, treaty or no, from the Chinese for that reason alone.
This is an axiom generally accepted among the Idaho geo-political elites.
DeleteWell, the Republicans got their little wee-wees whacked again. Janet Yellen has decided that the economy doesn't need any slowing, thank you,
ReplyDeleteand, not only didn't raise rates, but demurred with a very dovish statement.
This should insure that the recovery, such as it is, will continue through the 2016 election.
DeleteThe Democratic economic geniuses have had nearly eight years now and the needle ain't moved yet.......
DeleteI am looking to the future and gearing up emotionally for the coming big battle "Home in the Dome" between the mighty Idaho Vandals and Wofford.
DeleteTheir are priorities in life, ya know.
Please don't attach your idiot, hayseed comments to my posts.
DeleteThis is probably our best shot at a win this season.
DeleteFuck off, Rufus.
DeleteYou world class moron.
DeleteI'm in a wonderful mood. I'll get what I want from the City, my Niece is getting her Ph.D, the air is clear, my hip don't hurt, the dems are going down, Hillary is in deep do-do.....
Deletegalopn2Thu Sep 17, 02:25:00 PM EDT
DeleteWell, the Republicans got their little wee-wees whacked again. Janet Yellen has decided that the economy doesn't need any slowing, thank you,
and, not only didn't raise rates, but demurred with a very dovish statement.
Reply
Replies
galopn2Thu Sep 17, 02:27:00 PM EDT
This should insure that the recovery, such as it is, will continue through the 2016 election.
So The FED is going to play politics some more...
And how is that responsible?
How much does the FED print?
Rufus don't care...
Rufus don't care if the FED is trying to help the Democrats win another election by creating a false economy based on Quantitative Easing...
Don't attach your idiot comments to my posts.
DeleteOh, and, btw, moron, There has been no Quantitative Easing since October, 2014.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8a5cb030-4b38-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#ixzz3m2yYOCZX
DeleteInvestors believe that the recent market ructions have almost killed off the chances of a Federal Reserve interest rate increase next month, but some big-name industry figures are going even further, predicting that the central bank’s next move will be to restart quantitative easing.
Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary, and Ray Dalio, head of the world’s biggest hedge fund manager, this week indicated that the US central bank should consider restarting its “quantitative easing” programme to counter deflationary dangers and ameliorate tensions on financial markets. In an opinion piece in the Financial Times, Mr Summers wrote that raising rates in the near future would be a “serious error”, but later went further and suggested on Twitter that the Fed should even consider another bond buying programme.
The FED plays with interest rates for political purposes
It suppresses the real costs of debt to the US government
In effect giving the US government free money.
That might be too advanced for you
So The FED is going to play politics some more...
DeleteAnd how is that responsible?
How much does the FED print?
Rufus don't care...
Rufus don't care if the FED is trying to help the Democrats win another election by creating a false economy based on Quantitative Easing...
SO LET'S BE STRAIGHT.
The fed is jinxing the system with printing over 3.5 trillion dollars in QE1, 2, 3, AND Infinity Now plays games with interest rates some more.
ALL FOR POLITICS
Ann Coulter Not Impressed With GOP Likuds Force
ReplyDeleteJust to mention to our high respected host...
Blatant anti-Semitic terms do not prove your case that you only dislike Israel and not the Jews.
To quote Ann's words:
Ann Coulter ✔@AnnCoulter
How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
Once again proves that the veneer of hatred towards the Jews and Israel is not issue based but rather a racial issue.
Deuce, your blog, your POV, your hatred of Jews on display 24/7/365.
Maybe you should seek professional help?
.
ReplyDeleteYellen craps out again. We have been at a zero rate for years and Yellen is still coming up with new excuses for not beginning the drawn out process of normalizing rates. Now, it's weakness in China and EMs and the 'possible' effects on US GDP.
Crazy.
.
keepin' the house of cards standing ain't easy...
DeleteThe Phillie Fed release, today, informed that sales, employment, new orders, and damned near anything else that mattered was up very strongly.
ReplyDeleteExcept, Prices Received were Down 5%!
Consumer Prices are FLAT Year over Year. Flat, as in ZERO.
ReplyDeleteIf you take out Services, Consumer Prices are DOWN, YOY.
Why would anyone raise rates in a tepid economy with Zero Inflation.
DeleteAnother way of saying this is "when you are just one tick away from Deflation."
I like low interest rates.
DeleteI farmed through the Carter years when rates were 20% or more.
Try that.
I like low interest rates.
.
DeleteFrankly, whether the FED raised rates today or not is really not a big deal to me. My real complaint with the FED has always been with their QE programs that went on for way too long. Raising or not raising interest rates is different from printing free money.
My comment above was directed at the continuing evolution of the FED's perceived mandate under both Bernanke and now Yellen. While the emphasis today was on China and the EM troubles, she also mentioned the effect on the financial markets. Yellen is so tied to her supply-side trickle down philosophy she is concerned with anything that might affect the market.
The FED's duel mandate, as given to it by Congress, is to maintain long-term growth to support the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. Under Benanke, the mandate was unilaterally expanded to support the stock market under the assumption a strong stock market will trickle down and create jobs. Now, Yellen is concerned not only about the US economy but about foreign markets because of the effect they will have on our markets.
All of this might be forgiven if the Fed was actually doing any good; however, by the end of 2011 the FED was out of bullets when it came to the US economy and growth. The only thing it could still affect was the stock market. While key to getting us out of the crisis we were in 2008/2009, currently Fed policies are doing little to help with growth or jobs.
As to the interest rate hike or lack of one today, a quarter percent rate increase off a zero base is a nit. In terms of the broad economy, it amounts to nothing. A quarter of a percent interest change probably wouldn’t have even affected the market much as the rate is already built into market valuations. The FED has been threatening us with an interest rate hike since the first quarter, if anything leading to the volatility we have seen in the markets because of the uncertainty the threat has generated. If there was a change in the markets due to a rate hike, even if it was initially large, it would be short lived.
As for the foreign markets, the US is isolated to a degree from what goes on in those markets since total US exports only represent about 13% of our economy with China’s share of that at 6%.
.
.
DeleteWhat I don't know and what I suspect the FED doesn't know for sure either is the effect a rate hike would have on EMs. Higher interest rates and a stronger dollar would help foreign exporting countries in one sense by giving them a competitive advantage; however, I am sure many of these countries have been borrowing in dollars because of the low interest rate. It's not clear to me what a rate hike would have on them.
Domestically, companies have been refinancing about a $1 trillion a year for the past 4 years anticipating higher rates were coming. A rapid rise in rates would be a killer but you can't put them off forever.
.
The U.S. campaign to create a new ground force to fight the Islamic State appears to be a flop.
ReplyDeleteThe program, designed to train some fifteen thousand Syrians in the course of three years—at a cost of five hundred million dollars—has only a handful of fighters in Syria. “We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd J. Austin III told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. Austin heads Central Command, which runs U.S. military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, a position made famous by former General David Petraeus. Austin conceded that the rebel program is “off to a slow start.”
“That’s a joke,” Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Republican, responded.
“This certainly isn’t ‘Charlie Wilson’s War,’ ” Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told me after he testified, at a separate hearing, for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Wilson was the Texas congressman who helped to mobilize covert funds to arm and train more than a hundred thousand Afghan rebels to successfully oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. (Tom Hanks portrayed Wilson in the 2007 movie.)
Exactly a year ago, President Obama announced a new “comprehensive and sustained” strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State, which became known as Operation Inherent Resolve. In Syria, the operation centered on a train-and-equip program for rebels in a “New Syrian Force” to fight on the ground, complemented by American air strikes on ISIS weaponry, facilities, and leaders, and by a social-media campaign to counter ISIS propaganda.
A U.S.-led coalition has now carried out more than twenty-five hundred air strikes on Syria, according to Central Command data, and another four thousand in Iraq. But U.S. officials acknowledge that air power cannot alone destroy ISIS. The cost of all U.S. military operations against the Islamic State—in both countries—has reached about four billion dollars, or more than ten million dollars a day, the Pentagon said last month. The New Syrian Force, meanwhile, barely exists—and has done nothing.
“So we’re counting on our fingers and toes at this point—when we had envisioned fifty-four hundred by the end of the year,” Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Republican, said, referring to the rebel fighters. She seemed astounded. “It’s time for a new plan.”
The Pentagon claims some success in halting the pace of the blitz that took the world by surprise in June, 2014. ISIS has since been forced into defensive combat. Central Command now hopes to “capitalize on lessons learned” about how to deploy its new rebel allies, Austin told the committee.
But both Democrats and Republicans expressed distress about the U.S. program. “I’ve been a member of the committee for nearly thirty years, and I’ve never heard testimony like this—never,” John McCain said. “Basically, General, what you’re telling us is that everything’s fine, as we see hundreds of thousands of refugees leave and flood Europe, as we’re seeing now two hundred and fifty thousand Syrians slaughtered.”
...“This certainly isn’t ‘Charlie Wilson’s War,’ ” Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told me after he testified, at a separate hearing, for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Delete(Right , Charlie Wilson’s War was a rip-roaring success)
But both Democrats and Republicans expressed distress about the U.S. program. “I’ve been a member of the committee for nearly thirty years, and I’ve never heard testimony like this—never,” John McCain said. “Basically, General, what you’re telling us is that everything’s fine, as we see hundreds of thousands of refugees leave and flood Europe, as we’re seeing now two hundred and fifty thousand Syrians slaughtered.”
DeleteIn the past year, McCain noted, the Islamic State has also expanded globally, with operations or alliances in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, and Somalia. “One year into this campaign, it seems impossible to assert that ISIL is losing and that we are winning,” he said.
The hearing took place amid reports that a whistle-blower within Central Command filed a formal complaint this summer charging senior officers with skewing intelligence data to portray false progress. The Islamic State still holds roughly a third of both Syria and Iraq. Last week, General Martin Dempsey, the retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the war against the Islamic State is “tactically stalemated,” with no dramatic gains on either side.
The rebel training program has been troubled from the start. Recruiting has been hard, as has vetting for past political and family connections. U.S. plans have been clumsy. The recruits, who trained in Turkey, were not always reliable or fully committed. A number of them left without completing the course. In July, shortly after returning to Syria, many of the program’s fifty-four graduates were killed or captured by an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Others simply fled, leaving only the handful in the fight. Another class that is currently training has just more than a hundred new recruits, the Pentagon policy chief Christine Wormuth told the Senate hearing.
The failure reflects a pervasive flaw in U.S. efforts across the Middle East and South Asia—many involving U.S. Central Command—to create friendly forces to fight its causes on the ground. For many Syrians, the U.S.-trained rebels are perceived as little more than guns-for-hire, Robert Ford, the former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, told me. “American mercenaries, that’s what I’d call them. They’re trained by Americans. They’re paid by Americans. They’re supposed to fight for American goals—which are out of synch with local priorities.”
The mandate of Operation Inherent Resolve is to confront the Islamic State, but the Syrian opposition wants, first and foremost, to oust President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces are far deadlier. In the first six months of this year, they killed more than six times the numbers of Syrians killed by the Islamic State, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a monitoring group based in Britain.
“In Syria specifically, there’s no convergence on who the enemy is,” Fred Hof, a former State Department Syria specialist in the Obama Administration, told me. “There’s a general tendency to come up with ideas that may sound good in an inter-agency meeting, that check every box, and that scratch everybody’s itch, but then have no bearing to what’s going on on the ground.” Hof left the government out of frustration in 2012 and is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “As a rule, you can’t create a foreign army to carry out your own mission,” he said.
The Bush Administration faced a similar problem when it tried to create the Free Iraqi Forces before its 2003 invasion. Congress allocated ninety-five million dollars for a training program by U.S. troops at Camp Freedom, in Hungary. The Iraqi opposition, led by Ahmed Chalabi, pledged to recruit thousands of exiles. In the end, it mustered about ninety-five men.
DeleteSome U.S. officials nicknamed it the “million-dollar-a-man army,” and acknowledged that it would probably be insignificant in the war against Saddam Hussein. In one class of twenty-one recruits, many had paunches and gray hairs in their mustaches; the average age was forty-two.
The United States failed on a much bigger scale in rebuilding the Iraqi military after Saddam’s ouster. In 2004, Petraeus boasted of U.S. progress in recreating the Iraqi Army from scratch to confront extremists. “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq,” he wrote in the Washington Post. But that army disintegrated overnight after the Islamic State invaded, in 2014.
“We witnessed the collapse of the Iraqi security forces, in which the United States invested twenty-five billion dollars over an eight-to-ten-year period,” Katulis said. Billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. military equipment was abandoned on the battlefield and became instrumental to subsequent ISIS military gains. “Now we’re back to square one,” Katulis added. “And the same thing has happened with the Afghan Army, and rebuilding it in fits and starts.” (Similar programs, to train the Vietnamese military, in the seventies, and the Lebanese Army, in the eighties, also failed. The United States was forced to hurriedly withdraw its forces from both countries.) “Much of our debate on the Middle East, about what tools will be effective, has failed,” Katulis said. “We have not produced sustainable solutions.”
All this comes at a time when Syria’s future borders, and viability, are at stake. Under the pressure of its multifaceted war, the country, widely considered to be the strategic center of the Middle East, has all but disintegrated. Eighty per cent of Syrians now live in poverty. Life expectancy has plummeted by twenty years. Unemployment is nearly sixty per cent. Syria’s economic infrastructure and institutions have been “obliterated,” the Syrian Center for Policy Research reported earlier this year.
The humanitarian crisis is the gravest since the Second World War. Seven million Syrians have been displaced from their homes and their sources of income inside the country, according to the United Nations. More than four million refugees have fled Syria altogether, straining resources in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. And now, with some three hundred and fifty thousand refugees fleeing to the West, the Syrian crisis has become Europe’s crisis, too.
SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY NEWSLETTER: THE BEST OF THE NEW YORKER EVERY DAY.
LET’S READ THIS PART AGAIN S L O W L Y:
Delete“We witnessed the collapse of the Iraqi security forces, in which the United States invested twenty-five billion dollars over an eight-to-ten-year period,” Katulis said. Billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. military equipment was abandoned on the battlefield and became instrumental to subsequent ISIS military gains. “Now we’re back to square one,” Katulis added. “And the same thing has happened with the Afghan Army, and rebuilding it in fits and starts.” (Similar programs, to train the Vietnamese military, in the seventies, and the Lebanese Army, in the eighties, also failed.
OOrah!
DeleteWhat the fuck? And there is a call in Washington for more of the same?
DeleteLet me remind everyone that we were in our teens when Washington under Kennedy and then Johnson and then Nixon got us into another absurd losing war and since that time, 50 Years later- repeat - 50 Years later, we have gone from one absurd losing war to another.
The difference is that it is getting worse. We no longer have the self correcting mechanism of a civilian army. We have contract mercenaries and professional mercenaries under a professional officer corps devoted and sworn not you or me or the people, but to the power brokers in Washington and their paymasters. Before the Vietnam War ended, US servicemen were being killed in the ME at the hands of the Israelis and after that at the behest of the Neocons doing what they thought was in the interest of the Israelis. It certainly was never in US interests.
Ann Coulter may have been unartful in her bewilderment about our potential leaders making fealty pledges to their Israeli paymasters but she was not inaccurate. The billionaire 1% of the 2% of the US population is playing the tune and US politicians do the dance to the tune calling for another disastrous US war in the ME.
The result:
The humanitarian crisis is the gravest since the Second World War. Seven million Syrians have been displaced from their homes and their sources of income inside the country, according to the United Nations. More than four million refugees have fled Syria altogether, straining resources in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. And now, with some three hundred and fifty thousand refugees fleeing to the West, the Syrian crisis has become Europe’s crisis, too.
Ann Coulter is not the problem.
DeleteNo Iran is.
DeleteIran has caused the syrians to flee.
Iran and Assad
Max Planck Confirms Birds Fall in Love -
ReplyDeleteWell of course they do. Every teenager knows that, Shakespeare knew it,
and Roethke too.......but now Max Planck has confirmed it !!!!
:):):)
Study: Birds Fall In Love, Reproduce More When They Do
September 16, 2015 3:12 PM
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The term “lovebird” has a new meaning.
A recent study reveals that birds can fall in love.
According to Nature World Report, Malika Ihle and her team of researchers
from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany found that birds
that ended up choosing their own mates had 37 percent more offspring than
those that were paired up.
The researchers used 160 zebra finches for the study, allowing 20 females
to choose freely among 20 males. After the birds paired off, half were
left alone while the other have were broken up and paired with other
“broken up” birds.
They found that birds that paired up on their own had higher reproduction
rates than the ones paired up by researchers. The study also revealed that
the birds who chose their own mates had a better chick mortality
rate......
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/16/study-birds-fall-in-love-reproduce-more-when-they-do/
Only Moslems might resist such wonderful things.....what with their four wives shit, women in burkas, stoning for "bad" behavior, and their motto "We love death more than you love life"
This is not the winged way of all others....
Aahhhhh......the wonderful aroma of roasted toasted Hillary in the morning -
ReplyDeleteSeptember 17, 2015
State Department stonewalling key documents that could trash Hillary's email defense and send her to jail
By Thomas Lifson
Hillary Clinton could be in big trouble if she signed two key documents relating to classified information and U.S. government ownership of official communications. If she did sign them, her public line of defense will lie in tatters, and she could be criminally prosecuted. If she didn’t sign them, then her access to classified information was illegal.
Unsurprisingly, the State Department that has shamelessly been covering for her is stonewalling the Senate Judiciary Committee that has requested them and (of course) media requests for information. Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller has the story. The two documents are:
The “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” — Special Form 312 — [which] requires incoming government officials to acknowledge that classified information can be either “marked” or “unmarked” as such. (snip)
“As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526,” SF-312 reads.
Oops! Hillary’s public defense has been built on the phony distinction between “marked” and “unmarked” classified information. If she signed the SF 312, she obviously has been peddling a phony line. And if she hasn’t signed it, she was not entitled to access to classified information (which makes her unable to have functioned as secretary of state)...............
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/state_department_stonewalling_key_documents_that_could_trash_hillarys_email_defense_and_send_her_to_jail.html
Hmmmm....Hmmmph I love that smell.....!
.
ReplyDeleteEarlier this summer, tit-for-tat violence between the Turkish government and the country's Kurdish minority began undermining years of peace negotiations. With clashes now intensify, Turkey is in danger of descending into outright civil war.
There are two reasons for the current escalation. The first is the loss by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) of its absolute majority in recent parliamentary elections. Then, on July 20, a suicide bomber blew himself up in Suruc, near the Syrian border. The attack, attributed to the Islamic State (IS), killed 32 people, overwhelmingly young, pro-Kurdish activists.
Shortly thereafter, members of the banned PKK killed two police officers in Ceylanpinar, 200 kilometers (124 miles) to the east, in "retaliation for the massacre in Suruc." Two days later, Turkish fighter jets began flying air raids, officially against "all terrorists who are our enemies," as the government put it. As it turns out, the air force did fly a few raids against Islamic State in northern Syria --but it flew considerably more against PKK positions in northern Iraq.
Since then, the war between the Turkish state and the PKK has flared up again, and nothing remains of the peace process that took place over the past two years. Over 100 soldiers and police officers have been killed in attacks; the PKK described these murders, conducted through remotely detonated bombs, as "self-defense." And at the same time, according to Erdogan, 2,000 PKK fighters have since been killed by Turkish security forces, along with a number of civilians. The situation is so heated that conciliatory voices are being ignored. Those who began the violence haven't played a role in the situation in a while -- and now there is little more than provocations and recriminations from both sides.
Last week, Erdogan declared "all that" wouldn't be happening if one party -- by which he means the AKP -- had 400 representatives in parliament. That would give him the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution in order to introduce a presidential system that would further concentrate power around Erdogan...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/turkish-kurdish-violence-edges-turkey-closer-to-civil-war-a-1053044.html
.
.
ReplyDeleteBecause the AKP government, which has been in power for over a decade, failed to build a coalition after the June 7 vote, new elections are slated to take place on Nov. 1. The failure shattered Erdogan's dreams of a presidential system. The reason for Erdogan's setback was mostly the HDP, which as the first pro-Kurdish party, managed to pass the 10 percent hurdle and enter the Turkish parliament. Leading AKP politicians blamed the party for the loss of their parliamentary majority.
Critics argue that Erdogan then consciously pushed the country into chaos in order to portray himself as a strong leader. He is risking a civil war, they claim, in order to win the Nov. 1 elections. And some, especially Kurds, believe he also wanted to take revenge on the HDP. "AKP has purposely allowed the coalition negotiations to fail and wants to criminalize us, the HDP, by labeling us as terrorists, by seeking trials against individual members and pushing us closer to the PKK," says the party's co-leader, Selahattin Demirtas. "The AKP is provoking a civil war in order to take revenge for losing its majority."
On Sept. 8, ultranationalists stormed HDP offices around the country and set the buildings on fire. In Ankara, an HDP employee tweeted: "Our headquarters are being attacked. The police are not doing their job." In Istanbul, anti-Kurdish youths marched through the streets with torches and yelled: "We don't want a military operation, we want a massacre!" In hundreds of locations the next day, honking cars with waving Turkish flags drove through the streets and celebrated the violence. In many places, Kurds preferred to leave their businesses closed. They were scenes reminiscent of the pogrom night in September 1955, when Istanbul's Greek minority was expelled. ..
.
Temple Mount violence escalates
ReplyDeleteThere’s been a lively debate in Israel over the past year as to whether the country is on the verge of a third intifada. There are great arguments for and against. The debate intensifies whenever violence erupts, and dies down when things return to a state of relative normalcy. And while this argument is underway, circumstances dictate the reaction. Each intifada was different (the first was one of rocks and knives, while the second involved suicide bombers), and there can be no doubt about the current reality. These are not normal times.
What has been happening in Jerusalem over the past year and spreading to other places every so often is a type of intifada, even if it hasn't been described or defined as such. Nevertheless, it is alive and kicking, and no one seems to have any control over it — not Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, not Israel and not even Hamas, which is investing its best efforts in fanning the flames.
On the evening of Sept. 13, as the Jewish New Year was getting underway, Alexander Levlovich, 64, died in Jerusalem when his car was battered by a volley of rocks in the south of the city. The stone throwers, who came from the Palestinian village of Sur Baher, attacked many other cars driving along the road connecting their village to the Jewish neighborhood of Armon HaNetziv. As the rocks started raining down on him, Levlovich lost control of his vehicle, crashed into an electrical pole and was killed. Two young family members in the car with him were injured.
The phenomenon of stone throwing and Molotov cocktails, which has been growing in the greater Jerusalem area, is the less pressing problem, at least as far as Israel is concerned. As has already been reported in Al-Monitor, the center of all the tension and the source of all the incidents is the Temple Mount. It is the most potentially volatile powder keg in the Middle East, if not the entire world.
On Sunday morning, an Israeli police force burst into the Temple Mount compound. They were responding to intelligence reports that young Palestinians were conspiring to attack Jews visiting the site during the holiday. The night before, security forces found a pipe bomb being smuggled into the Temple Mount and arrested several young Palestinians on suspicion of conspiring to commit violence. The arrest led to clashes on the Temple Mount between Palestinians pouring out of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Israeli police, who were subjected to a barrage of rocks and fireworks. In the end, the mosque was closed, and hundreds of Jewish visitors were allowed to visit the Temple Mount.
Accounts of the incident spread quickly throughout Jerusalem. The familiar call of “Come save Al-Aqsa!” echoed across the Old City and the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. The alleyways of the Old City turned violent throughout the entire Jewish New Year holiday, with Palestinians attacking rabbinical college students on their way to the Western Wall and police officers on patrol.
{…}
{...}
DeleteAccording to Palestinian accounts, more than 60 people were injured over the course of those two turbulent days. Rioting expanded to almost all the neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including Isawiya, Silwan, the Shuafat refugee camp, Kalandia and Ras al-Amud, among others. The bottom line is that East Jerusalem is burning. The flames may be low, at least for now. So far, the weapons of choice are rocks and Molotov cocktails, and there are random stabbings. Still, if we have learned anything from living in this region it is that even a small fire can quickly become a major conflagration.
The main problem faced by both sides is an utter lack of hope. The first intifada contributed to the fall of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s government in 1992. A later reaction to the violence was the Oslo Accord of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He realized how dangerous the status quo was to Israel and decided to do something about it. The second intifada forced Israel to launch Operation Defensive Shield and build the separation fence. Eventually, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon disengaged from the Gaza Strip and evacuated four settlements in northern Samaria as a gesture to the Palestinians, who responded with even more terrorism and violence. There were several attempts to reach an agreement since then. There was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, later Minister Tzipi Livni and even later, US Secretary of State John Kerry and special envoy Martin Indyk. Nevertheless, the conflict has proved that even incessant dedication to the cause coupled with an impressive dose of determination is not enough. The dam has yet to be breached.
What are people supposed to do now? There is currently no diplomatic process, and the chances of there being one in the foreseeable future are rather slim. It is true that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in London and Italy that he is ready to renew direct talks with Abbas immediately, but there isn’t a single person in Europe who believes that he is sincere. Concerned about a potential wave of anti-Israel boycotts and sanctions now brewing in Europe, Netanyahu is trying to wrap himself in a cloak of fictitious negotiations. While it is true that he went a respectable and even unprecedented distance in the negotiations conducted by the Americans in 2013-14, Netanyahu received no credit for that. The reason is that everything he did was kept under wraps to allow him plausible deniability and a chance to issue a public rejection of any concessions that he may have made as soon as the negotiations blew up. But now he attempts, unsuccessfully, to renew his international credit line.
Abbas is also caught in a trap. He has no diplomatic solution on the horizon, Hamas is pressuring him from Gaza and the international community has lost interest in his problems. Today, they are much more concerned about events in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, and especially by the refugee crisis in Europe. Abbas is now considering resigning, or declaring that the Oslo Accord is canceled, or doing nothing and going with the flow. He doesn’t have many other options.
{...}
Delete{...}
Faced with these problems, the Israeli government is trying to cover the growing cancer with Band-Aids. Recently, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon signed an order banning the Palestinian “Mourabitoun” and “Mourabitat” groups operating on the Temple Mount and declaring them “unlawful organizations.” These are separate groups of men and women who position themselves in the Temple Mount mosques throughout the entire day. Their job is to start screaming, rioting and breaking into violence whenever Jewish visitors ascend to the site. At least that is how it looks to Israelis. According to the Palestinians, they are “defending the Temple Mount.”
On the eve of the holiday, Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan proposed that judges not be promoted if they offer light sentences to Palestinian stone throwers. Erdan is furious about the relatively light sentences that Israeli courts currently impose on Palestinians, particularly younger Palestinians, caught throwing stones at Israelis. “Stones kill. That has long been proved, and is proved each time anew,” said Erdan. Nevertheless, he immediately came under severe criticism by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Miriam Naor, who said that his proposal was harmful to democracy.
And what does Netanyahu say? He has already called two emergency meetings in his office over the past few days. One was the night of Sept. 15, as soon as the holiday came to an end. For now, at least, Netanyahu has rejected Erdan’s proposal. “We will use all necessary means to fight against those who throw stones, firebombs, pipe bombs and fireworks in order to attack civilians and police,” said the prime minister. “On the eve of the holiday it was again proven that throwing stones can kill. Such actions will be met with very sharp punitive and preventive responses,” Netanyahu promised.
At the discussion over which he presided, it was decided to adopt an even more severe approach in a number of specific areas. Possible measures included reassessing orders for opening fire, setting minimum sentences for the aforementioned offenses and imposing steep fines on both any minors involved and their parents.
Netanyahu’s response seems especially stern and portentous, at least on the surface. Nevertheless, anyone familiar with the situation knows that it has all been said before. Each one of these measures has been already examined, considered or implemented on the ground. They offer no solution. They will not change the reality we face. Israel and the Palestinians are stuck together in the same powder keg, and as of now, at least, no one has any cold water to keep the encroaching flames in check. What people do have is oil and gasoline — and plenty of it.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/temple-mount-jewish-new-year-stone-throwing-east-jerusalem.html#ixzz3m3rGomhi
.
NO JUSTICE. NO PEACE.
DeleteSo it shall always be.
WRONGO, infidel.
DeleteYou are misquoting your Koran.
NO PEACE UNTIL ALL THE JEWS CHRISTIANS AND FOLKS LIKE YOU ARE DEAD
Correct, Those that throw firebombs?
DeleteShould get shot. Justice served.
Deuce aint a Christian anymore.
DeleteHe hates Christianity and Judaism, but what he doesn't understand? That the Muslims still view him as a crusader Dhimmi
SNAP: Man Accused Of Beheading Mother With 4-Foot Sword...
ReplyDeleteStopped Taking Meds After Reading About Negative Side Effects.............Drudge
Let this be a Warning to you all...........
Delete
ReplyDeleteChief rabbis warn public against pro-Israel Christian event
Rabbis David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef issue a public letter urging Jews to stay from the annual conference of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, referring to the event as 'a spiritual danger.'
Kobi Nachshoni
Published: 09.18.15, 00:30 / Israel Jewish Scene
Two weeks before the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Israel’s chief rabbis are warning against "Christian missionary activities" during the holiday events.
Rabbis David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef issued a public statement Wednesday, urging the Jewish public to stay away from the annual conference of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ), which they referred to as “a spiritual danger."
“We have been informed that people engaged in missionary activities on behalf of the Christian Embassy in Israel are organizing a major conference during the holiday of Sukkot, as part of the goals of this organization - to get Jews to leave the religion of Israel and take them under the wings of Christianity," the rabbis write.
Sources close to the chief rabbis say the letter was issued following appeals received from citizens.
The letter further warns of "those people" who "see it as their mission to convert all the residents of the world and turn them into Christians, and mainly members of the Jewish people. This is a serious matter which contradicts the foundations of our faith, and we must therefore condemn it and warn the public."
They conclude the public letter by calling on "the Jewish public in the Holy Land not to take part in this conference," clarifying that "although it is possible that the conference organizers are friends of the State of Israel, the event is spiritually dangerous and undermines the State's Jewish identity."
The ICEJ has been holding its annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration during the holiday of Sukkot for the past four decades. As part of the event, thousands of Christians arrive from around the world to express their support for Israel and pray for it.
He's just trying to warn the folks about the Ann Coulters of the world.
DeleteIn your wonderland of Iran were you would rather your daughter to grow up rather than in Israel anyone proselytizing on behalf of Christianity would simply be shot.
DeleteProblem solved.
Deuce, still obsessed about Israel?
DeleteDont live there.
Here's an excellent article on the Iran 'deal' - you are getting screwed, America -
ReplyDeleteSeptember 18, 2015
Invoking the 'Nuclear Option' Against the Iranian Nuke Deal
By Richard M. Schum
Last week, the Congress began debate on President Obama’s nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many questions have been raised about the wisdom of the deal, including the lack of verifiability of the inspection regime, the release of over $150 billion that will help fund its ongoing terrorist activities, the secret codicils that the United States is not privy to, the lifting of sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program, and the bellicose words of Iran’s supreme leader, who has continued to openly reject the terms of the deal as the president moves forward with its implementation.
As expected, Mr. Obama has sought to demonize opponents of his deal, framing the issue as a choice between the agreement and going to war. This type of straw man argument has been employed by the White House many times in support of its positions, and is as contrived as it is ridiculous. Recognizing that the alternative to a bad deal isn’t war, but rather a better deal, most Republicans and some Democrats have expressed serious reservations and gone on record as opposing the deal. Given the sizable and bipartisan nature of the dissent, it would seem that the president would stand little chance of the getting the deal approved the Congress. Indeed, the Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate, and even non-treaty agreements require both House and Senate majorities for passage.
Enter the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, introduced by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), and supported overwhelmingly by both parties. It provides for a formal review period of up to 60 days and a vote on a resolution of disapproval that would derail portions of the Iran deal, if passed. However, this resolution would be subject to a presidential veto, requiring House and Senate supermajorities to stop the deal -- or only 34 Democratic Senators to effectively approve it -- thereby perverting the Constitutional process established by the Founders to serve as a check on the president which requires such agreements to be affirmatively approved by the Congress. While this clearly advances the president’s goal, why would congressional opponents ever agree to undermine their role in the debate?
Some have argued that congressional approval is not required -- that the president already has the authority to make the deal with Iran, and that the Corker bill provided the only chance to stop the deal. If true, why would Mr. Obama agree to legislation that would prevent him from making a deal that he already had the authority to make? Clearly, he believed it conferred some benefit, whether legal or political, or he wouldn’t have signed it into law. And considering the unlikelihood of garnishing enough votes to override a presidential veto, what did opponents hope to gain by agreeing to an extraconstitutional process that actually rewards the president’s lawlessness? Finally, even if a veto were overridden, does anyone expect Mr. Obama to be deterred from implementing as much of his Iran deal as he can get away with, given his record of acting unilaterally and unlawfully on a host of other policy initiatives?
DeleteWhatever the political calculus, the Corker process, while criticized by many conservatives, curiously has been accepted as a fait accompli -- that the Congress must find the votes to reject the Iran deal, not approve it. As such, it has reframed the entire debate and obfuscated the illegitimacy of the process. Notwithstanding Corker, the treaty-making and legislative functions of Congress are not transferable and cannot be delegated under our constitution. Accordingly, the Congress cannot relinquish its power to enact treaties or international agreements to the president in favor of a legislative veto of an executive deal.
By any objective standard, the substantive provisions of the Iran deal constitute a proposed treaty under the Constitution that requires the advice and consent of the United States Senate in the form of a two-thirds supermajority to become law. While the White House insists that it is an executive agreement, the terms and conditions of the deal itself reflect otherwise. First, it is a binding agreement with foreign powers that commits the United States to take certain actions at odds with current law over a minimum of ten years, long past Mr. Obama’s tenure. Second, that Mr. Obama submitted the deal to the United Nations Security Council for review and subsequent approval -- a questionable move absent congressional approval to begin with -- establishes it as both a treaty under international law and within the scope of the Article II treaty clause, as arms control agreements historically have been construed. Finally, there is the matter of the associated costs of implementation and enforcement, which are estimated to be more than $157 million over 15 years by the International Atomic Energy Commission. Reportedly, the United States has committed itself to paying a portion of this cost, though no such expenditures have been, nor likely will be, appropriated by the Congress. While the powers vested in the president are many, it is clear that Mr. Obama cannot legitimately implement this deal through national security waivers and executive orders without the affirmative consent of the Congress along with enabling legislation. The absence of supermajority vetoes as an imprimatur just doesn’t meet constitutional muster.
That being said, we can expect Mr. Obama to proceed by executive fiat, no matter what the constitution requires. The list of illegal actions taken by this president is as long as it is unsettling. To him, the ends always justifies the means in pursuit of his agenda. Only this time, it means allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. So the Congress must act to challenge the legitimacy of the process. The stakes couldn’t be higher -- a stable Middle East without the ongoing threat of terrorism and nuclear conflict fostered by Iran cannot be achieved with this deal. Indeed, it will further destabilize the region.
DeleteAccording to every media report and pundit, the political battle is over, now that 41 Democratic senators have pledged to vote with the president either to block a resolution of disapproval or sustain his veto. However, if Republican leaders are willing to show some spine and stop playing into Mr. Obama’s hand, a stalemate is still possible. If the process set out by Corker is not faithful to the Constitution, it should be disregarded. Instead, the Congress should formally declare by concurrent resolution the president’s Iran deal to be a proposed treaty -- a legislative determination that would not be subject to a presidential veto -- and proceed to its consideration (and defeat) in the Senate. This move would remove the veil of legitimacy conferred by the Corker process, and could bolster efforts to stop various provisions of the deal through legal challenges, like the releasing of funds to Iran despite standing and potential claims against it to compensate the victims of its reign of terror.
While such a resolution would surely garner enough support in the House to pass by a simple majority, Democrats in the Senate would filibuster its consideration, requiring the Republican leadership to either invoke cloture (if seven Democrats are willing to break with the president) or amend the Senate rules pertaining to the consideration of treaties. Less than two years ago, Senate Democrats embraced the ‘nuclear option’ when they ended filibusters on presidential nominations, arguing that representative majorities, not a partisan minorities, should determine outcomes. With the security of the United States, Israel, and the entire Middle East at stake, why should arms control agreements be provided any less deference? Indeed, because the Founders understood that agreements with broad support provide for greater stability and accountability in international affairs -- something Mr. Obama apparently does not -- they required a supermajority of elected Senators to consent to treaties negotiated by the president. This rule change would simply require this time-honored wisdom and practice to be followed.
Over the past seven years, Mr. Obama has made it clear that his desire to transform this nation takes priority over deference to our values and traditions, the rule of law, the will of the people, and even our national security. Instead of resisting this effort, the Corker bill actually provides political and legal cover for an arms control deal that is ill-advised and a process that is constitutionally deficient. In a failed attempt to remain relevant in the face of a lawless president, the Congress negotiated away its rightful role in approving international agreements. Now it must act to reclaim it. The critical question is not whether the president will concede, but rather do those who oppose this deal, or the perversion of the process used to adopt it, have the courage to take a stand against yet another act of constitutional malfeasance. It’s about time for Republican leaders remind the president that congressional elections matter, too.
Richard M. Schum is a policy analyst, educator, researcher, and consultant. He can be reached at rschum@outlook.com.
" The critical question is not whether the president will concede, but rather do those who oppose this deal, or the perversion of the process used to adopt it, have the courage to take a stand against yet another act of constitutional malfeasance."
DeleteAnd the answer is, almost certainly, no.
Deuce ☂Fri Sep 18, 05:41:00 AM EDT
ReplyDeleteNO JUSTICE. NO PEACE.
So it shall always be.
850,000 Jews and millions of their descendants have been ethnically cleansed from the 899/900th of the arab conquered middle east.
What would be justice for them?
While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: “The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”17
Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to recognize Muhammad as their Prophet, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled. In 627, Muhammad’s followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.18
The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. “They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God’s signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors” (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).
Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. In the ninth century, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.
What is justice for the Jews?
Should they behave like the Palestinians and other Arabs?
DeleteNo....
I remember the days of Operation Wetback. They swept through downtown Los Angeles, too -
ReplyDeleteSeptember 18, 2015
'Operation Wetback' deported 1 million illegals with only 750 agents
By Ed Straker
Jeb Bush says it will cost "hundreds of billions of dollars" to deport illegal aliens. President Eisenhower, however, deported a million alone in the space of a year, and with only 750 deportation agents, in an operation with a name we would never use today: Operation Wetback.
Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught... Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Wikipedia says over 1,000,000 were detained and deported. If only 750 agents were able to get rid of a million or more illegals (either by direct arrest or by self-deportation), by the same logic, 7,500 agents should be able to get rid of 10 million illegals. Seventy-five hundred agents won't cost "hundreds of billions of dollars." I'd be surprised if the entire operation cost more than a billion dollars, counting costs of detention and transportation.
But Jeb says it will cost hundreds of billions. He just doesn't want to try. Neither does any of the politicians. But in reality, it would be quite easy to do, and cheap. I am distressed that in a race full of so-called conservatives, only Donald Trump is calling for deportation of illegals, and he is the only one who emphasizes, truthfully, how easy it is to do, especially if E-Verify is mandatory and welfare benefits are cut off. I wish the other "real" conservatives would stand up and do the same.
The only change I would make is the name of the operation. I do not like "Wetback." I do like "Operation Reciprocated Love."
This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.
And I always liked Ike.
Still have an "I Like Ike" button from my Aunt.
Ike would have kept us out of Vietnam, too.
"Never get in a land war in Asia"
DeletePurple Shovel
ReplyDeletehttp://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/the-secret-arms-deal-behind-americas-syria-fiasco#.ogYDvJaPPE
A top Russian human rights body says it has been contacted by Russian soldiers who fear being sent to fight in Syria.
ReplyDeleteThe presidential Human Rights Council told BBC Russian that it was seeking an explanation from the Russian military.
Officers reportedly told some soldiers that they would be sent to fight "in a hot country". Russia has sent military hardware to Syrian government forces.
Separately, a top Russian security official said nearly 2,400 Russians had joined Islamic State (IS) fighters.
So Russia is now going to fight Russian ISIS members ….
LOL
THE GOP IS OBSESSED WITH ISRAEL
ReplyDeleteAs Ann Coulter observed, the Republicans have loyalty issues. They are so called US lawmakers, but their obsession for all things Israeli over US interests was stopped today by the Democrats:
Democratic lawmakers in the US Senate have blocked a Republican attempt to sabotage the Iran nuclear agreement by linking it to Israel, PressTV reported.
On Thursday, 45 senators voted against an amendment from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that would have prevented President Barack Obama from lifting sanctions on Iran until the Islamic Republic recognizes the Israeli regime.
McConnell’s proposal, Iran would have to publicly recognize Israel’s right to exist, a demand which was made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Sixty votes were needed to approve the measure in the 100-member chamber.
Netanyahu has said that a final nuclear agreement with Iran must include a "clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist."
President Obama, however, has announced that recognition of Israel cannot be a part of the nuclear deal with Iran, saying requiring Tehran to recognize Israel is a "fundamental misjudgment".
Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, Thursday is the final day for the Republican-controlled Congress to disapprove of the nuclear deal.
On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked a resolution against Iran agreement for a second time in a week.
As was expected, the Republicans failed once again to gather the 60 votes needed for the resolution of disapproval.
This means the legislation aimed at sabotaging the historic agreement is essentially dead, and that the deal will now take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the Obama administration.
It appears that Senate Democrats have finally succeeded to frustrate all Republican efforts to sink the Vienna accord in Congress and now the nuclear pact — negotiated by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — will begin taking effect next month.
NETANYAHU ISSUES ORDERS TO GOP LIKUDS FORCE:
ReplyDeleteMcConnell’s proposal, Iran would have to publicly recognize Israel’s right to exist, a demand which was made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...Netanyahu has said that a final nuclear agreement with Iran must include a “clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.”
The US President, the America-First, President Obama, however, has announced that recognition of Israel cannot be a part of the nuclear deal with Iran, saying requiring Tehran to recognize Israel is a “fundamental misjudgment”.
Our Strategic Liability continues meddling in policies detrimental to the interests of American citizens, unencumbered with conflicted loyalties.
ReplyDeleteYou just don't like the idea that Israel has a right to exist.
DeleteYou are in the distinct minority among American citizens on this issue.
"U.S.-trained military officer leads coup in Burkina Faso
ReplyDeleteDAKAR, Senegal — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Sep. 17, 2015 3:20PM EDT
When the Pentagon organized its annual counterterrorism training exercises in West Africa, one of the most prominent beneficiaries was a powerful Burkina Faso military officer named Gilbert Diendéré, who said he wanted to learn how to “work together more effectively in fighting terrorism.”
Today, the general has a new job: putsch leader. For the second time in three years, a U.S.-trained military officer has led a coup against a democratic government in West Africa, raising new questions about whether Western support for African armies can inadvertently threaten democracy.
Gen. Diendéré, the long-time spymaster and chief military aide to Burkina Faso’s former authoritarian president, Blaise Compaoré, is the head of a military junta called the National Council for Democracy, which announced that it had seized power on Thursday morning, a day after soldiers burst into a cabinet meeting and arrested the interim president and prime minister.
In a similar move in Mali in 2012, a military coup was led by U.S.-trained army captain Amadou Sanogo, who had graduated from a Pentagon counterterrorism program. The $500-million training program, which Canada also assists, is an ambitious high-profile effort to fight the growing terrorism threat in West Africa, but even U.S. commanders have admitted that it was badly flawed.
Gen. Carter Ham, former chief of the U.S. military command for Africa, criticized the U.S. training program for focusing too much on tactics and equipment, while neglecting the crucial values of democracy. “We didn’t spend, probably, the requisite time focusing on values, ethics and military ethos,” he said in a 2013 speech. “When you put on the uniform of your nation, then you accept the responsibility to defend and protect that nation, to abide by the legitimate civilian authority.”
Gen. Ham acknowledged that the Mali coup was led by a graduate of the U.S. counterterrorism program, and he called this “very worrisome for us.”
He added: “Did we miss the signs that this was happening? And was there anything that we did in our training that could have been done differently, perhaps, and have caused a different outcome?” The answer, he said, was “a little bit of both.”
The Pentagon may be asking similar questions in the aftermath of the coup in Burkina Faso, which took place less than a month before the scheduled date of elections that were meant to restore democracy.
..."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/us-trained-military-officer-leads-coup-in-burkina-faso/article26396729/
Import Prices - Y/Y change July -10.4 % August -11.4 %
ReplyDeleteExactly what part of importing 12%, Year, Deflation should make the Fed anxious to raise rates?
export/import prices
DeleteThen, there's this:
DeletePPI-FD - Y/Y change July -0.8 % August -0.8 %
The Pope is pissed, and rightly so, and I hope he drops out -
ReplyDeleteVatican objects to White House invitation list for papal visit
posted at 12:41 pm on September 18, 2015 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook
2K
2K SHARES
At practically the same time that Barack Obama has decided that the US has to shut its eyes to dissenters in Cuba suffering under the yoke of oppression by the Castros, he plans to offer a lesson in dissent to Pope Francis. Obama has extended invitations for the pontiff’s first state visit to transgender activists, a gay Episcopal bishop, and the leader of a group of nuns that want changes to Catholic teachings on abortion and euthanasia. Needless to say, the Vatican is not pleased with this attempt to lecture Francis on catechesis, as longtime Vaticanista Francis X. Rocca reports for the Wall Street Journal:
On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at theObama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.
According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See worries that any photos of the pope with these guests at the White House welcoming ceremony next Wednesday could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.
The tension exemplifies concerns among conservative Catholics, including many bishops, that the White House will use the pope’s visit to play down its differences with church leaders on such contentious issues as same-sex marriage and the contraception mandate in the health care law.
I’m curious. When the Saudis visited the White House this month, did Obama invite women’s-rights activists to dinner with them? Did Obama invite Ayaan Hirsi Ali to discuss the need for reform in Islam? No? Which entity has more need for openness, inclusiveness, and tolerance?
Michael Brandon Dougherty is outraged:
Putting dissenters up front for an state event with the Pope is like staging a #BLM event and inviting only Cosby, Sowell, and McWhorter.
— Michael B Dougherty (@michaelbd) September 18, 2015
It's a deliberate attempt to say what "kind" of Catholic you find acceptable.
— Michael B Dougherty (@michaelbd) September 18, 2015
That is very clearly what the White House wants to do, and the Vatican knows it. It’s also a deliberate insult to Pope Francis and to Catholics in the US. Nor is it a question of balance, either:
DeleteThe presence of these figures is especially irritating, the Vatican official said, because it isn’t yet clear if the White House has invited any representatives of the U.S. anti-abortion movement, traditionally a high-priority cause for the U.S. bishops.
Don’t hold your breath. Francis plans to steer clear of dissidents in Cuba, a shameful decision probably made at least in part in deference to the political risk Obama took in normalizing relations and working to lift the embargo. In repayment, the White House wants to deliberately embarrass the Pope by sticking a thumb in his eye, and by sticking their noses into Catholic doctrine and teachings.
Josh Earnest tried waving off the problem by claiming that there will be lots of people on hand for Francis’ visit:
The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment on the Vatican’s reaction to the ceremony’s guest list. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Thursday he was unaware of the names of individuals on the guest list, but cautioned against drawing any conclusions on specific guests “because there will be 15,000 other people there too.”
This is, to put it frankly, complete crap. Those invitations didn’t come from The Random Catholic Generator. They went out to score points off Pope Francis, and came to light late enough that Francis may not have much choice but to put up with it. No one at the White House is “trying to avoid” it being political — they are going way out of their way to politicize this to pander to their progressive base. It’s an insult, and one that really should have the Vatican consider changing their itinerary to stick to the churches and repay the insult from Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/18/vatican-objects-to-white-house-invitation-list-for-papal-visit/
Deuce's continual use of his silly and grotesque GOP Likuds Force mantra is not serving him well.
ReplyDeleteHalf the country is composed of Republicans so he is pissing all the Republicans off.
Around 70% of the country is pro-Israel so he is pissing all these people off.
It is a losing mantra.
But I hope no one tells him, as he is just harming his own 'cause'.
More guests at The White House -
ReplyDeleteBlackLivesMatter Goes to the White House
Obama rolls out the red carpet for a racist, pro-cop-killing movement.
September 18, 2015
Matthew Vadum
The Obama White House rolled out the red carpet this week for leaders of the racist revolutionary Black Lives Matter movement, providing yet more confirmation that the Obama administration supports its members' increasingly violent activism.
News of the meeting comes after a Southern police chief was given the boot for posting a note critical of Black Lives Matter and of President Obama's incessant race-baiting.
Black Lives Matter is animated not only by anti-white racism but by a hatred of normal American values, including law and order. Its members denounce the U.S. for imagined institutional racism and discrimination against African-Americans. Members idolize convicted, unrepentant cop-killers Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu Jamal, both of whom are black, and have declared "war" on law enforcement. Its members openly call for police officers to be assassinated.
Black Lives Matter activist Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks, a 25-year-old black man, murdered 31-year-old white Kentucky State Trooper Joseph Cameron Ponder last Sunday night. Johnson-Shanks apparently committed suicide-by-cop when troopers caught up with him the next morning. The convicted felon pointed a gun at police and they shot him in self-defense.
The White House love fest Wednesday came after several high-profile attacks on law enforcement across America.
Activists enjoyed an audience with President Obama. Brittany Packnett, a highly influential Black Lives Matter leader, told reporters that Obama personally supports the movement that has inspired violence against police officers and spurred civil unrest.
“He offered us a lot of encouragement with his background as a community organizer, and told us that even incremental changes were progress,” she told reporters following the event. “He didn’t want us to get discouraged. He said, ‘Keep speaking truth to power.’”
President Obama’s senior adviser from Chicagoland, Valerie Jarrett, also met with the activists during the visit.............
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260161/blacklivesmatter-goes-white-house-matthew-vadum
Post-Debate Poll: Trump Increases Lead; Fiorina Leaps, Carson Sinks
ReplyDelete5
breitbart-2016-primary-post-image-trump-fiorina-carson-640x480
by John Nolte18 Sep 20151986
A Morning Consult poll, released Friday, surveyed 504 registered voters who watched Wednesday’s Republican primary debate and has only good news for Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina. While the poll’s sample size is small (with a 4.4% margin of error), the poll’s trend is worth noting.
In this same poll, prior to Wednesday night’s debate, Trump sat at 33% support. Dr. Ben Carson sat in second place with 17% support. Today Trump enjoys 36% support. Carson is still in second place but with just 12% support.
Trump’s lead increased from +16 points to +24%. That’s an +8% jump.
With their shared status as outsiders, it appears as though Carson’s support went to Fiorina. Prior to the debate the former-Hewlett Packard CEO had just 3% support. She now sits in third place with 10%, only -2 points behind second place Carson.
Overall, the Republican Establishment is the Big Loser here. Non-politicians Trump, Carson and Fiorina command 58% of the vote, and that piece of the pie is only growing larger.
Rubio also enjoyed a boost from 2% to 9%. This puts the Florida Senator in 4th place. Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
96%
is in 5th place with 7% support. Everyone else is bunched up at 6% or below.
A plurality of 29% believe Fiorina won the debate. Trump came in 2nd with 24%. Carson came in 3rd with just 7%.
Fiorina’s favorability rating jumped from 37% to 56%. Her unfavorable sits at just 28%. Carson does best on this question with a 79% favorable rating. Trump comes in 2nd with 67%. Only 30% see Trump as unfavorable.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/post-debate-poll-trump-increases-lead-fiorina-leaps-carson-drops/
Late Breaking Sports Info Update -
ReplyDeleteIt's the Terriers, folks, the Wofford Terriers.......just heard it on the local sports channel.....
Now just who do you think is tougher, a bunch of VANDALS, or a bunch of whining whimpering Terriers, hmmmmm ?
Liberal arts college with 1,500 students, and Terriers for football........this is OUR BIG CHANCE......