WHY THE OLIGARCHS AND THE PENTAGON COULD NOT WAIT TO GET RID OF THE CIVILIAN ARMY AND REPLACE THEM WITH MERCENARIES
USAF - Viet Nam - 1966 - 1967
Ia Drang Valley - This is not a movie - Major battle erupts in the Ia Drang Valley - Nov 14, 1965
Bombing that heavy growth jungle certainly does look futile.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end a few of the troops had taken to tossing a grenade at some disliked officer.
Well I'll be blessed, that old disgusting arsehole James Carville has a Republican wife -
ReplyDelete2016
Clinton forces see 3 possible GOP opponents
Trump, Rubio and Cruz are the focus of preparations by super PACs and operatives.
By Annie Karni
12/08/15 05:17 AM EST
Longtime Clinton ally James Carville — who remains a close confidant of Bill Clinton’s — said he’s actually put his money where his mouth is, placing a bet on Cruz on the website PredictIt.com.
“I’ve been on Cruz since Day One,” said Carville, who said the Texas senator first came on his radar after his wife, Republican strategist Mary Matalin, hosted a fundraiser for Cruz about a year ago at their home. “I saw the people that were there, people I’d never seen before ... I was fascinated. I saw that these were not typical political people. He’s smart, he has a message and he’s positioned himself just right in this race.” That means putting up a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses, and then cleaning up after the New Hampshire primary, when the race heads down South.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-trump-rubio-cruz-216516#ixzz3tst2lqLO
Jeb! has burned through $50 million of his $100 million campaign treasure trove, and it hasn't bought him a vote yet.
A Vote for Hillary is a Vote for Huma !!
ReplyDeleteHuma for President 2016 !!
Two things:
ReplyDeleteThe First Air Cav. was one of the lowest morale, totally fubar outfits in all of VN.
Don't believe everything a well-edited video promotes. The country/climate was that bad/ the troops really weren't.
Oh, 3 things: The round-eye talent really Was that bad. :)
I agree with you however, the clip gives historical insight into why the Pentagon prefers a mercenary army over a citizen army.
ReplyDeleteMERCENARIES PAYING MERCENARIES
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON — The Pentagon has begun paying modest stipends to the Syrian moderates it hopes to field in the fight against Islamic State militants, the military confirmed Monday.
Training of the first group of about 90 fighters began last month. They will be paid stipends of $250 to $400 per month, depending on their skills, performance and leadership, said Navy Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. Preparing the recruits for battle is expected to take several months.
The Pentagon expects to have 3,000 fighters trained by year's end, Smith said. The goal for 12 months is 5,400. She declined to say how many are currently being trained.
"For operational security, we will not announce when coalition-trained Syrian opposition forces enter into Syria," she said.
The training program — branded "critical" by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter — was delayed by several months because finding and vetting fighters who will adhere to laws of war and pledge to conduct themselves properly has proved difficult. Training is taking place in countries that neighbor Syria, including Jordan.
About 6,000 Syrians have volunteered for the training program, more than 4,000 of them awaiting to be vetted, Smith said. Recruiting continues.
The effort to field competent, trained forces in Iraq to battle militants from the Islamic State, known as ISIL and ISIS, has also been slow. ISIL swept through northern Iraq and large portions of eastern Syria last summer, seizing key cities. Iraqi forces have succeeded in taking back some of them, including Tikrit, but were chased without a fight from Ramadi last month.
I read, a few months back, that the Golden Brigade, supposedly one of Iraq's very best units, hadn't been paid in (at that time) 4 months.
DeleteThe government, and senior officer corps are, undoubtably, some of the most worthless would-be human beings to ever waste oxygen. That said, Obama's strategy will eventually work, but to say the progress will be agonizingly slow is understatement bordering on expert.
There were about 50,000 ‘security contractors’ in Iraq, working for private companies growing rich on the back of US policy. These guys are killers and scumbags. I see them in Central America. Who hires them? Who leads them? Who gets rich from them?
ReplyDeleteThe truth? The same ex US military “professionals”, the “thank you for service" motherfuckers that Americans love to drool over.
These guys would turn on other Americans in the time it takes to make a heart beat stop. Up against them, our Second Amendment Minutemen would fold and scatter even faster.
WE really have become a public of the pathetic.
ReplyDeleteMost of us are okay. We just spend too much time watching television. :)
DeleteBtw, that asshole in San Bernardino started talking about doing a shoot'em-up back in 2012; that's about 2 years before anyone ever heard of ISIS.
ReplyDeletegood night. :)
It really does have a lot of similarities to the Spanish Civil War. Great powers into it - USA and Russia in Syria, Russia and Germany in Spain - testing out of weapons - an unbelievable number of subgroups - a religious dimension, Shia v Sunni, in Spain the Catholics v the atheistic dialectical materialists - both really brutal - people coming in on their own from abroad for both sides in the Spanish Civil War, people pouring in from abroad for ISIS- people coming in from Iran and Lebanon for the 'government'......
ReplyDeleteThe Spanish Civil War however ended relatively quickly.
This goes on and on with no end in sight.
ReplyDeleteWhile we fight over Trump, France closes 3 mosques, finds hundreds of weapons
posted at 2:41 pm on December 9, 2015 by Jazz Shaw
The French have adopted what is clearly a no-nonsense attitude toward radical Islamist terrorism since the Paris attacks and they’re not taking their foot off the gas. As the United States continues to debate over “tone” and how to balance religious liberty and tolerance against domestic security, Francois Hollande’s forces have “cut a few corners” on those subjects and just begun shutting down mosques. At least three of the Muslim houses of worship have been closed already and law enforcement has found a trove of disturbing items among the haul. (Speisa)
Police investigating the Paris terror attacks have shut down three mosques in a series of raids to close the net on Islamic extremists, the Express reports.
Police in France also arrested the owner of a revolver found during Wednesday’s raid, France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.
Security officials found jihadist documents at the mosque where yesterday’s raids took place.
They have placed nine people under house arrest. Another 22 have been banned from leaving the country Mr Cazeneuve said.
In additon to the mosques, the French have kicked in the doors on 2,235 homes and taken 232 people into custody or placed them on house arrest. More than three hundred weapons were discovered at the mosques. Tom Porter at the International Business Times reports that the trove included 7.62mm ammunition, Kalashnikov rifles and terrorist propaganda videos. And they’re only just getting started. (See edit below)
Hassan El Alaoui, one of France’s chief imams, told Al Jazeera that French authorities were likely to close down more than 100 mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks.
“According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licences, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech,” he said.
Takfiris are those who accuse fellow Muslims who do not share their hard-line interpretation of the faith of apostasy, and is often used as a pejorative term.
Reports like this likely present a rather awkward challenge for observers in America who are used to a large number of rights which the government isn’t supposed to violate. It’s easy to cheer for the French rooting out that many terrorists and their supporters and removing their ability to launch attacks, but the methods being employed will probably give many Americans pause. First of all, simply having a weapon of any sort is tantamount to a conviction there, so the idea of badgering “law abiding gun owners” is sort of an unknown concept in Paris. And with our First Amendment rights, the idea of armed, uniformed men kicking in the doors of churches of any type and hauling the congregants out to a wagon makes us recoil.
But now even some of their own Imams are estimating that more than 150 more mosques may be closed. France really isn’t all that big… how many mosques do they have? To be fair to the French, though, what else are they supposed to do? They’re physically much closer to the home turf of several terrorists groups and thanks to the EU’s open border policies it’s far easier for the bad guys to move around. They’re dealing with an infestation and it needs to be stamped out. The methods probably appear harsh, but they’re doing what they need to do in order to survive.
Exit question: how will all of Europe’s leaders who screamed about Donald Trump suggesting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration react to this news?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/09/while-we-fight-over-trump-france-closes-3-mosques-finds-hundreds-of-weapons/
Anyone that wants to live under the French system is welcome to move there.
DeleteThe French surrendered Indo-China (that's Vietnam "Draft Dodger")to the Japanese.
We in the US chose a different path than those surrender monkeys.
The US will continue to be the "Shining City on the Hill" despite "Draft Dodger" Peterson's wishes.
As perhaps one of the leading US activists against the employment of Mercenaries by the US military, I know something about what makes someone a Merc.
ReplyDeleteA true Mercenary has no ties of loyalty to any party to the fight, whether through tribe or tongue or territory. A Mercenary is loyal only to Mammon.
Brian Scott
That is interesting. The Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893 states than an “individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.”
ReplyDeleteAre you this Brian Scott?
ReplyDeleteBrian X. Scott (“plaintiff”) protests Request for Proposal No. W91GXZ-07-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers - Gulf Region Division, for Reconstruction Security Support Services in Iraq (the “Solicitation”), issued

January 19, 2007. Plaintiff “does not seek any money as damages,” and “does not ask the court to issue an injunction prior to rendering of a final decision,” but, rather, requests a ruling that “the Agency acted in contravention of US Law.” Compl. filed Apr. 3, 2007, ¶¶ 2, 3, 19. Plaintiff further requests that “the Court . . . order the Agency to reverse its illegal action . . . [and, if] services are still required to resolicit for those services.” Id. ¶ 20.
The Solicitation is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract for the provision of continued operation of Reconstruction Operations Centers, personal security services to and from project worksites, guard force services for facilities and personnel, Reconstruction Liaison Teams, a Vetting Program for local hiring, and Anti-Terrorist Force Protection Services. AR 518. The minimum guaranteed amount under the contract is $3 million, and the maximum amount is not to exceed $475 million for the base-option periods. AR 68. Following release of the solicitation, four amendments were issued on February 15, 2007; February 21, 2007; February 24, 2007; and March 13, 2007. AR 218, 221, 506, 626. The closing date for submission of proposals, as amended, was March 3, 2007. AR 220. Plaintiff did not submit a proposal in response to the Solicitation.
Plaintiff filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) on March 2, 2007, one day prior to the closing date for submission of proposals, challenging the Solicitation by levying the same protests as he makes in this action. He sought from the GAO a directive to the Department of the Army to modify the Solicitation in order to comply with the requirements of the Anti-Pinkerton Act. The GAO issued Decision B-299524 on March 6, 2007, dismissing his protest, taking the position that, “[w]e have previously considered similar protests by Mr. Scott of solicitations for protective services in Iraq, and have concluded that the services are not precluded by the Anti-Pinkerton Act.” Brian X. Scott, b-299524, Mar. 6, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ __ (citing Brian X. Scott, B-298370, B-298490, Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 125).
So you are against mercenaries because you lost a court case on a contract?
ReplyDeleteDirect economic interest
The focus of defendant’s argument is that plaintiff has not established that he is an “interested party” because he cannot show that he has a “substantial chance of being awarded this contract, even absent the allegedly illegal provisions in the [Solicitation].” Def.’s Br. filed June 4, 2007, at 7 (redacted). Defendant relies on Myers in support of the statement that “[d]irect economic interest is deemed to be affected only where the protestor establishes that it had a ‘substantial chance’ of securing the award absent a prejudicial defect in the process.” Id. (citing Myers, 275 F.3d at 1370). Even if those services that are objected to by plaintiff were eliminated from the Solicitation, defendant asserts that plaintiff still would be unable to perform the remaining requirements of the contract due to his financial status and lack of demonstrated experience. Defendant relies upon plaintiff’s affidavit dated April 19, 2007, which “described his financial and manpower resources and his previous Government contracting experience.” Def.’s Br. filed June 4, 2007, at 8 (redacted); see Affidavit of Brian X. Scott, Apr. 19, 2007, at 4-9.
You wanted to be a mercenary but couldn’t get the contract? Alright then.
ReplyDelete:):):)
DeleteExcellent work, Deuce !!
Extremely impressive !!
MORE ON THIS IN THE NEXT POST:
ReplyDeleteIraq Downplays Dispute, But Militias Threaten to Confront Turkish Forces
Badr Brigade: Troops ‘Will Pay Dearly Because of Turkish Arrogance’
by Jason Ditz, December 09, 2015
Iraq has approached the UN Security Council and NATO over last Friday’s incursion of Turkish troops into the Nineveh Province, but officials tried to downplay the dispute, saying they believe bilateral talks with Turkey will ultimately resolve the situation.
Shi’ite militias backing the Iraqi government don’t seem to be on the same page, however, with some threatening direct attacks on the Turkish troops, and the largest, the Badr Brigade, vowing the unwelcome forces “will pay dearly because of Turkish arrogance.”
In practice, the Shi’ite militias are nowhere near the Turkish troops, so near-term clashes are unlikely, but it does reflect an atmosphere of growing mistrust between the two sides in the ISIS battle, not to mention the struggles by the central government to get pre-approval over military deployments into Iraq.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan insists that the troops were approved by the Iraqi government back in 2014, though the Iraqi government denies this. Several hundred new troops arrived Friday, which began the dispute, though troops were already in Nineveh on a training operation before this.
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/12/09/iraq-downplays-dispute-but-militias-threaten-to-confront-turkish-forces/
The Iraq/Turkish dispute IS NOT between to sides of the battle against the Daesh.
DeleteThat is pure malarkey.
The Turkish government and its agents have been assisting the Daesh, supplying them with safe passage through Turkey, profiting from the oil smuggled out of Syria, shooting down aircraft providing air support to the anti-Daesh forces in Syria.
Turkey is not on the side that is fighting the Islamic State.
I added a video on the first major battle between regulars of the US Army and the NVA in the Ia Drang Valley - Nov 14, 1965
ReplyDeleteInspired by Rufus!
Delete
DeleteThe Battle of Ia Drang Valley was the first major battle between regular U.S. and People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) troops. The two-part battle occurred at landing zones X-Ray and Albany in Ia Drang Valley, Central Highlands of South Vietnam. Despite heavy casualties on both sides, both claimed the battle was a victory. The battle was considered essential as it set the blueprint for tactics for both sides. American troops continued to reply on air mobility and artillery fire, while the Viet Cong learned that by quickly engaging their combat forces close to the enemy, they could neutralize American advantages.
-- Summary from thevietnamwar.info
But what if The Donald is already circumcised ? What then ?
ReplyDeleteJihad Watch
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts
Video: Knife-brandishing Muslim threatens Donald Trump: “I will circumcise you!”
December 9, 2015 6:55 pm By Robert Spencer 90 Comments
This video is certain to convince ol’ Trump that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that he should, as Bah Ebou demands, show some more “respect.” Or else.
If Trump is circumcised, will he change his mind about Muslim immigration?
VIDEO
Warning: strong language, high emotions, and a certain paucity of calm, rational argumentation.
Video thanks to Tea Partyer.
Jihad Watch
DeleteExposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts
‘Sandboxing’ Islam Revisited: How to Protect America from Jihad Terrorism
December 9, 2015 10:56 am By Ralph Sidway 24 Comments
Donald Trump’s recent call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” is not a new or original idea. Senator Rand Paul put forth a similar policy recommendation way back in July, following the Chattanooga jihad attack, and again in November called for a halt to “all immigrants, visitors and students” from countries with “large jihadist movements” from entering the United States.
In the wake of the San Bernardino jihad massacre, Mr. Paul and his fellow senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz have amped up this message, calling for a halt on immigration from nations with “active terrorist networks,” and a “moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence,” respectively.
Significantly, this is along the lines of proposals drafted by The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) following the Boston Marathon jihad bombing and mass murder in 2013.
These candidates and all elected officials with eyes to see need to work hard to “make the case” for these steps, which may sound drastic to some, and hate-filled and bigoted to those on the Left.
The below article I wrote back in August is a modest effort to “make the case.” By using visual concepts like “sandboxing,” and enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), America can protect herself from jihad attacks, and reverse seven years of willful blindness in the face of Islamic terrorism.
When I start hearing “sandboxing” and FARA being discussed by Republican presidential candidates, I’ll feel greatly encouraged. As I conclude below,
It is time to “sandbox” Islam in America, and use decisive, legal means to counter its threat to our freedoms and our way of life.
‘Sandboxing’ Islam: How to Protect America from Jihad Terrorism,” by Ralph Sidway, Jihad Watch, August 21, 2015:
Enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) can give us the legal and tactical edge in countering the threat from Islamic supremacism.
Background
DeleteIt should be obvious for anyone with eyes to see that Islam — its scriptures, the example of Muhammad, its doctrines, and its overall ideology — is behind the spread of most terrorism and unrest in the world today.
From the Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram, al-Nusra and al-Shabaab, to slightly older groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to lesser known jihadi organizations throughout Central Asia, India, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Rim, and China, a survey of terrorist attacks reveals Muslim involvement throughout the entire world.
Here in the United States, we are seeing a dramatic rise in Muslim “lone wolf” jihad terrorist attacks (and, as some have described them, “known wolves”). Further, from all points of the compass, we are seeing literally tens of thousands of Muslims flocking to the Middle East to join the Islamic State caliphate and support the jihad with their very lives.
The scenario gets worse. Some analysts argue that we are seriously underestimating the numbers of Western Muslims joining the Islamic State.
Here at home, we have a “full blown insurgency.” The FBI has already arrested seventy IS-inspired Muslim terrorists, and has active investigations of IS-inspired jihad plots in all 56 of its field offices. NewsMax reports “the government’s terrorist watch list carries 700,000 to a million names.”
The Challenge: Jihad-Linked Mosques
This is all indisputable fact. The threat is real and growing. Even worse, the threat is specifically from devout, observant Muslims who attend mosque. Behind every lone-or-known-wolf jihadi and every Islamic State recruit there is a mosque where they are receiving instruction in Islam.
That should give us pause, as four separate studies in recent years show that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach, preach or advocate for jihad and the imposition of sharia law in America.
Confirming these mosque studies are proven links between mosques and terrorists. For example, one of the two Mississippi Muslims recently arrested for trying to join the Islamic State is the son of the imam at the local mosque. Many terror-linked mosques have spawned multiple jihadis. The Phoenix mosque attended by the Garland TX jihadis is notorious for having two other members in federal prison on terrorism-related convictions. Perhaps most infamous is the Islamic Society of Boston, which was attended not only by the Boston Marathon Bombers, but by numerous other jihad-terror-linked Muslims. The list goes on and on.
For many people, especially in our political class and certainly among the 2016 field of presidential candidates, there seems to be no solution to this national security nightmare of terror-linked mosques and known wolf jihadis. To date, there is no coherent, principle-based policy to address Islamic terrorism in the United States.
DeleteThe Solution: ‘Sandboxing’ Islam in America
This is where I believe the simple analogy of “Sandboxing” can help us.
You’ve probably heard the term, even if you’re not a computer geek. One tech source offers this definition:
A “sandbox” is a play area for young children: it is supposed to be safe for them (they cannot hurt themselves) and safe from them (it is sand, they cannot break it). In the context of IT security, “sandboxing” means isolating some piece of software in such a way that whatever it does, it will not spread havoc elsewhere.
If we think of America as being, ideally, a safe and free place for its citizens, within which we should be able to live, work, play, and, as the ubiquitous bumper sticker says, “Coexist,” then when it comes to Islam and Muslims, we need a solution analogous to the IT security process of “sandboxing.” We need to isolate malicious jihadi forces, “in such a way that whatever they do, they will not spread havoc elsewhere.”
What would “sandboxing” look like when it comes to Muslims in America? In practice, it could include the following policies:
A moratorium — a complete freeze — on Muslim immigration. Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul expressed a similar policy concept following the Chattanooga jihad murders of five US servicemen, proposing a halt to immigration from Muslim countries with known jihad activity. Going one step further, Franklin Graham wrote at the same time that “We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled.”
All mosques must be classified and treated as “agents of foreign power,” in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a U.S. law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938.
The law presciently allows for application in gray areas such as Islam presents, as it states that any entity with a “political or quasi-political capacity” disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate “evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.” [Source]
Islam certainly thinks and behaves like a foreign power, is guided in America by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis and other foreign Islamic groups, and has a definite political dimension. (See also here.)
DeleteAny and all mosques associated with Muslim terrorists must be investigated, and if found to be advancing jihad doctrine, sharia law, and Islamic supremacism over the United States, they should be prosecuted and closed, in accordance with the FARA act referenced above.
Stop all foreign funding of mosques, whether by FARA, new legislation, or executive power. We already know that Saudi Arabia is providing extensive funding to advance its extremist Wahhabi strain of Islam worldwide, including of mosques in America, as is Turkey. There already exist covert lobbying groups for Muslim nations, including Iran.
These are just some starting points to aid in getting this conversation going. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has an 18-point platform with similar policy proposals which may be considered as well.
We must have hope that, just as illegal immigration has become a major issue in the presidential race, so also we may be successful in elevating public awareness of the clear and present danger from Islam and Muslim jihad terrorists. This is a generational if not century-long struggle ahead of us, and should resonate with voters.
The concept of “sandboxing” is, I believe, the most helpful image in making our case to not only the American people, but also to the political elite and the 2016 candidates.
We must publicly challenge the Republican presidential candidates to take the initiative, and to fearlessly raise the issue of Islam up to the same level as Immigration. We must demand of them to be bold and daring when it comes to defeating jihad. The defense of our nation, our freedoms, and the lives of our fellow citizens and men-and-women in uniform should be paramount for whoever would be Commander-in-Chief. This issue will be topmost on that person’s desk in the Oval Office from Day One. Better to tackle it now with a strong and visionary policy, than to be knocked back on our heels by a surprise attack in 2017.
Now is the time to put misbehaving Muslims and their terror-linked-mosques on time-out. Islam is at war with us. More and more Muslims are heeding the summons from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, taking up arms against us in this war, and killing American citizens right here at home. Denying the reality and threat of Islamic jihad is not a valid policy, it is civilizational suicide.
It is time to “sandbox” Islam in America, and use decisive, legal means to counter its threat to our freedoms and our way of life.
_______
Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.
Some people say that barring muslims from entering the USA would be unconstitutional.
DeleteI really doubt it.
Similar events have occurred in the past.
What would be unconstitutional is if an American citizen moslem left the country and then was not allowed back into the country.
Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, your understanding of the US Constitution is less than juvenile.
DeleteYou told us that Mr Obama was not eligible to be President, due to YOUR understanding of the meaning of "natural born". You not only were wrong about that, you've been wrong about most legal issues.
The truth is on the record, yours is despicable.
Enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
DeleteYes the agents of Israel should all register with the Federals.
As should any agent of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, France, England, Germany, Sweden and other countries with large Islamic populations should all register.
But they don't.
Isalm is neither a country, nor foreign, as applies in the Enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
There is no "principle" in Islam.
Sorry, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, once again the very foundation of the idea you are promoting is nonexistent. You have no idea what the law is.
http://www.fara.gov/
Deletefrom Facing Islam Blog - An Orthodox Christian take on things
ReplyDeleteFriday, December 4, 2015
Russia – a Game Changer for Global Christianity
"Russia derives its spiritual strength after the Cold War from a mighty revival of the Orthodox Christian faith while the West is abandoning its Christian identity. The East and the West have switched roles as Christian superpower and defender of the Christian faith."
by Iben Thranholm, RT, November 10, 2015
Syrian Christians, father and daughter, visiting their house abandoned during the military action in the center of Homs. © RIA Novosti
At no time in history has the persecution of Christians been as intense and widespread as it is at the moment. There is a global war on Christians, which has escalated in scale and intensity since the US invasion of Iraq.
After the deliberate destruction of nation states and government structures all over the Middle East, Islamist groups have seized the opportunity to wage war on and persecute Christians.
American journalist and poet Eliza Griswold has written extensively in the New York Times about how the US invasion has caused hundreds of thousands to flee in Iraq. “Since 2003, we’ve lost priests, bishops and more than 60 churches were bombed,” Bashar Warda, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Erbil said.
...the USA, supposedly ‘God’s Own Country’, created hell on earth for Christians all over the Middle East and then turned a blind eye to beheadings, rape of children and unspeakable atrocities.
With the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians began to leave Iraq in large numbers, and the population shrank to less than 500,000 today from as many as 1.5 million in 2003.
With the Arab Spring things only went from bad to worse. ISIS’ success in Iraq has inspired similar groups in other continents, most notably Africa, where the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood commit numerous atrocities against Christians, as do Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab in Somalia.
Not only has the USA, supposedly ‘God’s Own Country’, created hell on earth for Christians all over the Middle East and then turned a blind eye to beheadings, rape of children and unspeakable atrocities. America appears to be deaf, dumb and blind to the problem, and that is obviously bad enough. But in addition to this, Western foreign policy has failed miserably. It has failed by underestimating the significance of religious faith in the countries subjected to Western intervention. The West’s most egregious foreign policy error is the assumption that the Western secular model, which demands clear separation between organized religion and politics, may be imposed on the rest of the world, irrespective of cultural or religious background...........
http://facingislam.blogspot.com/2015/12/russia-game-changer-for-global.html#more
ISIS Destroys Last Bridge As Iraqi Troops Close In On Ramadi
ReplyDeleteThe spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad said the destruction of the bridge may prove to be a tactical mistake for the militant group.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Besieged Islamic State militants in the Iraqi city of Ramadi destroyed a lock on the Euphrates River that served as a bridge as government forces on Wednesday sought to cement their gains around the militant-held city west of Baghdad.
Since Iraq's military launched its push on Ramadi earlier this month, the militants had destroyed all other bridges leading into the city, both on the Euphrates and its tributary, the Warar River.
Iraqi Maj Gen. Ismail al-Mahlawi, the head of military operations in the western Anbar province, said the lock destroyed Wednesday was the last remaining bridge from the city center to the northwest.
"Daesh forces trying to stop our progress bombed the last bridge which connects the city center," he said, referring to IS by its Arabic language acronym.
The locks' destruction leaves some 300 IS fighters trapped in the center of the city, he added.
Col. Steven Warren, the spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad, said the destruction of the bridge may prove to be a tactical mistake for IS.
"What they've also done now is they've really cut themselves off," he said. "So the fighters left on the north side of the river can't retreat and the fighters on the south side of the river can't send reinforcements."
Muhannad Haimour, the spokesman for the Anbar governor's office, said he received reports from residents still inside Ramadi that IS was also destroying buildings and radio towers.
"We've seen this before; they tend to blow up not just bridges, but a lot of infrastructure inside the city," Haimour said.
Haimour added that according to reports he received, about two months ago IS fighters began moving their families out of Ramadi and toward the town of Hit northwest of Ramadi. That, he said is when he believes the tide began to turn against the IS group in the Anbar provincial capital.
A key factor that changed the sluggish pace of the battle for Ramadi, Haimour said, was a decision by the central government in Baghdad to arm Sunni tribal fighters from the Ramadi area to fight against IS.
"They didn't feel like they had enough support from the coalition and the central government, but all of that changed a few months ago," Haimour said. Now, there are 8,500 members from Anbar mobilized, trained, armed and receiving salaries.
IS captured Ramadi in May and though the government immediately announced a counter-offensive, progress in retaking the Sunni heartland of Anbar has been slow. Iraqi forces, backed by U.S.-led airstrikes, pushed intoRamadi earlier this week, capturing a military complex north of the city and a neighborhood on its outskirts.
Huffington Post
SOUTHWEST ASIA, December 10, 2015 — U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
ReplyDeleteOfficials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Strikes in Syria
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted three strikes in Syria:
-- Near Raqqah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and wounded an ISIL fighter.
-- Near Ayn Isa, one strike destroyed an ISIL mortar system.
-- Near Kobani, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL building.
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 20 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Huwayjah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and wounded two ISIL fighters.
-- Near Qaim, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Fallujah, one strike destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Kisik, three strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL checkpoint.
-- Near Qayyarah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL boats, five ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL weapons caches, and four ISIL command and control nodes.
-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL heavy machine guns, an ISIL fighting position, and two ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL vehicle.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.
Hillary Clinton’s most repugnant lie
ReplyDeleteBy Post Editorial Board
December 9, 2015 | 8:53pm
Hillary Clinton’s most repugnant lie
Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22. Photo: Getty
Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.
Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.
George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”
She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”
At least four family members disagree.
Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then “she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’ ”
Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is “absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.” Smith’s uncle backs her up.
Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”
“What she knew” refers to Clinton’s words to daughter Chelsea the night of the assault and the next day to Egypt’s prime minister, which made it plain the secretary of state knew full well that a terror group had long planned the attack.
The lie’s even in her words at the Sept. 14 ceremony: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Just why the administration united around this lie is another editorial. The disgrace here is Clinton’s refusal to admit her role — even pushing the fib to “comfort” the bereaved.
Stiff as the competition is, this has to count as her lowest-down, dirtiest lie of all.
http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/
Doesn't ISIS have only about 1,000 or less fighters in Ramadi ? Think that is what I read. It seems surprising that they can hold on in the face of overwhelming numbers on the other side. The Iraqi government troops must be totally inept ? I realize it's hard to get fighters out of a city, but still.....
ReplyDeleteThe bombing does seem to have stymied the advance of ISIS. They seem to be playing mostly defense now.
I'm starting to think Trump may win the Republican nomination. Most Republicans think, sanely enough, it's a good idea to keep suicide bombers out of the country.
ReplyDeleteCBS News December 10, 2015, 7:00 AM
Poll: Donald Trump back on top, with Ted Cruz climbing into second
By Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, Sarah Dutton and Fred Backus
The Republican Race
Thirty-five percent of Republican primary voters support Trump, up 13 points since October, and his highest level of support in CBS News polling. Ted Cruz (16 percent) has moved into second place, while Ben Carson, who led the October poll, has dropped to third.
Play Video
Republicans react to Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims
Marco Rubio is in fourth place with 9 percent. Jeb Bush is getting the backing of just 3 percent of Republican primary voters nationwide, his lowest percentage to date in CBS News polling. Carly Fiorina's support has also dropped; she is at just 1 percent now.
Donald Trump heads to Israel in December
Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before Trump made statements concerning a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Trump voters continue to be more firm in their support. Fifty-one percent of his backers say their minds are made up about him, compared to just a quarter of voters who support a candidate other than Trump.
Trump leads among both men and women. He has more than a 20-point lead among non-college graduates (and a smaller lead among those with a college degree).
But Cruz has made inroads with evangelicals. Carson led with this group in October, but now Cruz and Trump are running neck and neck among them; the two candidates are also close among very conservative Republicans.
The Democratic Race
DeleteHillary Clinton continues to lead Bernie Sanders by 20 points: she receives 52 percent of Democratic primary voters' support, while Sanders gets 32 percent. Just 2 percent support Martin O'Malley.
Play Video
Clinton on why she wants to be president
Clinton leads among many voter groups - men, women, liberals, moderates, non-whites and voters over age 45. But Sanders performs better with voters under 45 and independents.
Hillary Clinton details plan to fight ISIS
As the first nominating contests grow closer, Clinton's supporters are firmer in their choice (58 percent) than Bernie Sanders' supporters (47 percent).
Voter Enthusiasm
Most registered voters nationwide are paying attention to the presidential campaign and about two-thirds are at least somewhat enthusiastic about voting in 2016, but there is a partisan enthusiasm gap: Republican primary voters are more enthusiastic about voting than those who plan to vote in a Democratic primary.........
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-top-ted-cruz-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/
CBS News December 10, 2015, 7:00 AM
Poll: Donald Trump back on top, with Ted Cruz climbing into second
Shares Tweets Stumble Email
More +
By Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, Sarah Dutton and Fred Backus
The Republican Race
Thirty-five percent of Republican primary voters support Trump, up 13 points since October, and his highest level of support in CBS News polling. Ted Cruz (16 percent) has moved into second place, while Ben Carson, who led the October poll, has dropped to third.
Play Video
Republicans react to Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims
Marco Rubio is in fourth place with 9 percent. Jeb Bush is getting the backing of just 3 percent of Republican primary voters nationwide, his lowest percentage to date in CBS News polling. Carly Fiorina's support has also dropped; she is at just 1 percent now.
Donald Trump heads to Israel in December
Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before Trump made statements concerning a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Trump voters continue to be more firm in their support. Fifty-one percent of his backers say their minds are made up about him, compared to just a quarter of voters who support a candidate other than Trump.
Trump leads among both men and women. He has more than a 20-point lead among non-college graduates (and a smaller lead among those with a college degree).
But Cruz has made inroads with evangelicals. Carson led with this group in October, but now Cruz and Trump are running neck and neck among them; the two candidates are also close among very conservative Republicans.
The Democratic Race
Hillary Clinton continues to lead Bernie Sanders by 20 points: she receives 52 percent of Democratic primary voters' support, while Sanders gets 32 percent. Just 2 percent support Martin O'Malley.
Play Video
Clinton on why she wants to be president
Clinton leads among many voter groups - men, women, liberals, moderates, non-whites and voters over age 45. But Sanders performs better with voters under 45 and independents.
Hillary Clinton details plan to fight ISIS
As the first nominating contests grow closer, Clinton's supporters are firmer in their choice (58 percent) than Bernie Sanders' supporters (47 percent).
Voter Enthusiasm
Most registered voters nationwide are paying attention to the presidential campaign and about two-thirds are at least somewhat enthusiastic about voting in 2016, but there is a partisan enthusiasm gap: Republican primary voters are more enthusiastic about voting than those who plan to vote in a Democratic primary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-top-ted-cruz-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/
Jrb's! $100 million campaign fund hasn't helped him much. He's at 3%. Without it though he might well be at zero.
Carly, this is unfortunate, is at 1%.
Life isn't fair.
sorry for double quote
DeleteRobert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, why are you not regaling us with the fact that Mr Cruz does not fit your definition of a "natural born' US citizen?
DeleteHave your views concerning the US Constitution shifted in the past eight years?
Fox News poll: Trump’s support in South Carolina rose overnight after calling for a ban on Muslims
ReplyDeleteposted at 11:21 am on December 10, 2015 by Allahpundit
Between this and that Bloomberg survey yesterday, are we done with “this isn’t who we are as a party” pronouncements now? Or will it take another poll or two?
The poll, released Wednesday, was conducted Saturday through Tuesday evenings. Trump made provocative remarks Monday about barring Muslims from entering the United States.
It looks like his comments help him in South Carolina. Support for Trump increased eight points after his statement — from 30 percent the first two nights vs. 38 percent the last two nights. The shift is within the margin of sampling error.
Republican pollster Daron Shaw says, “There are enough people in the last two nights of the sample to question the widespread assumption that Trump’s comments will hurt him among GOP primary voters.”
Frank Luntz conducted a focus group last night in D.C. of 29 people who are either supporting Trump, used to support him, or are considering it. When asked about the ban, 17 of the 29 backed it. This is interesting, though, and familiar:
Several pushed back on the question to say that Trump has only proposed this as a temporary, short-term measure. Several cited the same dubious evidence that Trump does to argue that up to a quarter of Muslims around the world are radicalized.
In other words, some Trump fans cheered him for his initial hardline position (keep the Muslims out!) while others focused on him later saying that the ban would be temporary and possibly short (he’s only keeping them out for a little while!). Just last night, as the focus group was happening, Trump continued the walkback by telling Don Lemon of CNN that the ban “could go quickly.” That’s the “step four” in Trump’s rhetorical game-playing that I wrote about on Tuesday. Trump doesn’t lose fans when he tosses these rhetorical grenades, not because all of his fans are with him 100 percent but because he always adds some moderating detail after the fact to give the moderates in his coalition a way to continue to justify their support for him to themselves. Jonah Goldberg described his strategy this way:
Trump says something indefensible, half-baked, or otherwise ridiculous. He then walks it back slightly or — as he did with taking-in Syrian refugees — entirely. His defenders take the revised version of what he said at face value, add in a serious point or two that Trump has not actually made, and then make it sound like his critics are the unreasonable ones.
DeleteRight. It’s the same M.O. as immigration: We’re sending all the illegals home (hardline!) except we’re also letting all of the good ones back in (not so hardline!). All I’d add to Goldberg is that the segment of Trump’s fans who like the hardline idea as-is and the segment who’ll tolerate it once he’s watered it down a bit aren’t completely separate. I think there’s some chunk of Trump fans who like him enough that they’ll spin for him both ways. If you criticize him for pushing a hardline idea, they’ll argue that you’re forgetting the part where he modified it. And then, if you keep pushing and claim that the modified bit makes no sense, they’ll fall back to, “Well, so what? The hardline idea is pretty good, frankly.” If a ban on all Muslims from entering the U.S. could be lifted quickly, as Trump hinted to CNN, then it makes no sense. Nothing’s going to be achieved in a few weeks or months on counterterrorism that would suddenly make it “safe” again to lift that ban. The fact that he’s emphasizing that it might be temporary is proof that it’s a political pander, not something that he thinks would improve security. To which Trump’s fans might say, “Okay, so make the ban permanent.” That’s a more serious policy proposal, but that’s the unvarnished hardline position — beyond what even Trump has suggested. And given how he imagines the plan would work in practice, that would achieve next to nothing too.
Anyway. According to Dave Weigel, who watched Luntz’s Q&A with the group, support for Trump among the people there strengthened over the course of three hours even though Luntz focused heavily on things Trump has said that he’s taken heat for — the Muslim ban, mocking that disabled reporter, dismissing McCain as a war hero because he got captured, and so forth. Not only does excoriating him not work, it backfires. But then, we already knew that.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/10/fox-news-poll-trumps-support-in-south-carolina-rose-overnight-after-calling-for-a-ban-on-muslims/
Hot Air as a whole doesn't really like Trump all that much.
Mr Trump, he is just another RINO.
DeleteReal Republicans, they elected Mr Nixon, Mr Reagan, Both father and son Bush.
DeleteRight wing RINOs did not vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney.
They stayed home.
If Mr Trump gets the Republican nomination the right wing RINOs will turn out, but the real Republicans will stay home.
Breaking good news:
ReplyDeleteEL CHAPO 'DECLARES WAR ON ISIS'......Drudge
heh
Iraqi security forces liberate the southern part of al-Malaab area south of Ramadi
ReplyDelete(Iraqinews.com) Anbar – A security source in Anbar province announced on Thursday, that the security forces have liberated the southern part of al-Malaab area south of Ramadi.
The source said in an interview for Iraqinews.com, “The security forces have been able today to liberate al-Aramil District which represents the southern part of al-Malaab area south of Ramadi.”
The source, who asked not to be named, added “ISIS elements suffered great losses during the operation.”
Iraqinews Ramadi
More "good news".
DeleteThat the Iraqi government has seen the wisdom of arming the local population in Anbar, a sign a forward progress.
Yeah, it's the only way they can possibly win. :)
DeleteMost of those local Sunni probably aren't all that crazy about the ISIS, but they don't like the Shia government worth a damn, either. They're not going to get involved for free.
DeleteThey are poor, though, and can be hired.
ReplyDeleteLONE PROFITABLE OBAMACARE CO-OP NOW LOSING MILLIONS.....Drudge
O'bumbleCare is collapsing.
Oh, for Christ's fucking sake; there are over 100 insurers writing Obamacare policies.
DeleteAnd, so far this season, they've signed up a Million NEW policyholders (in addition to all the re-ups.)
DeleteTime to write the obituary on O'bumbleCare -
DeleteHome
Archives
Ed Morrissey Show
Newsletters
New CBO report: ObamaCare will reduce workforce by 2 million over next 10 years
posted at 5:21 pm on December 10, 2015 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook
33
33 SHARES
Say, remember when ObamaCare would boost the economy, make businesses competitive, and unleash a torrent of creativity? Good times, good times. This week, the CBO’s latest analysis of the economic impact of the Affordable Care Act predicts a net loss of labor equivalent to 2 million full-time jobs, in large part because the tax burden of working will disincentivize labor:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will make the labor supply, measured as the total compensation paid to workers, 0.86 percent smaller in 2025 than it would have been in the absence of that law, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Three-quarters of that decline will occur because of health insurance expansions, which raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor—for instance, by phasing out health insurance subsidies as people’s income rises—and thus reduce the amount of labor that workers choose to supply. The labor force is projected to be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller in 2025 under the ACA than it would have been otherwise. Those estimates were based mainly on CBO’s calculations of the effects of the law’s major components on marginal and average tax rates and on the agency’s analysis of research about the change in the labor supply resulting from a change in tax rates. For components of the law that were difficult to express in terms of changes in tax rates, CBO based its estimates on a review of the available literature about similar policy changes.
Naturally, Republicans and Democrats have much different takes on the CBO’s analysis:
“When the President’s health law hurts the labor force at the same time it increases healthcare premiums and taxes, it’s clear the law is not working for the American people,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah.).
“The CBO’s latest report confirms yet another broken promise and negative consequence stemming from Obamacare.”
The administration in the past has argued that the CBO figures also reflect new flexibility provided to workers through the healthcare law. It has also repeatedly disputed claims that the law is a “job killer” by pointing to the new jobs created with the millions of people who gained healthcare coverage.
From the month ObamaCare became law, “the private sector has added 13.7 million jobs over 69 straight months, the longest streak on record,” a White House spokeswoman said.
That streak started after a massive loss of jobs that extended all the way into Obama’s first year in office. It also represents a rather weak average of 199,000 jobs gained per month, while the normal increase in American population requires 150,000 a month just to keep up at the level of workforce participation when the Great Recession ended (64.7%). That rate has fallen by two full percentage points since, in part because of Baby Boomer retirement, but also in part because the economy did not experience the kind of dynamic growth in job creation that typically follows major recessions. The loss of that dynamism comes from the growth of regulatory disincentives like ObamaCare, as the CBO report points out.
DeleteFor that matter, remember when the Affordable Care Act was affordable? Neither do I, actually, but even the White House now admits that’s not true through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In my column for The Fiscal Times, I argue that this is a perfect moment for repeal:
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)published a study on Obamacare’s impact on costs and on reducing the numbers of uninsured–and it fails on both counts. The CBO estimated after the passage of Obamacare that the number of uninsured would drop 19 million by 2014 from a 2010 benchmark. Instead, it has only dropped 12.6 million. As Avik Roy points out at Forbes , the 2010 level of uninsured was artificially high due to the impact of the Great Recession. Using 2008 as a benchmark, the number of uninsured has dropped by only 6.7 million.
“In other words,” Roy writes, “all of the disruption, spending, taxation, and premium hikes in Obamacare has only reduced the percentage of U.S. residents without health insurance by 2.7 percent, from 13.9 percent to 11.1 percent: a remarkably small reduction, and far lower than what the law was supposed to achieve.” Furthermore, with enrollment vastly underperforming expectations over the first three years of the system, there will be little room for further improvement.
Finally, the cost curve has indeed been bent, but upwards, and CMS chalks it up to Obamacare. Health care spending rose 5 percent in 2014, well above the rate of inflation, and the fastest it had grown since 2007. Medicaid spending rose 11 percent, thanks to Obamacare’s expansions, but Medicare also rose 5.5 percent and spending in private insurance plans rose 4.4 percent as well. “The return to faster growth,” CMS concluded in its report, “was largely influenced by the coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act.”
Given all this, my conclusion is to pull the plug on ObamaCare’s life support:
Obamacare has depressed job growth, costs are escalating at a higher rate, barely a dent has been made in the numbers of uninsured, and insurers are either exiting the markets or failing altogether. Under any other circumstances, a program that failed on its promises so badly would have all sides moving quickly to repeal it and work on a replacement.
Don’t hold your breath.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/10/new-cbo-report-obamacare-will-reduce-workforce-by-2-million-over-next-10-years/
Avik Roy has gone totally batshit bonkers.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteReligion
Why We Can’t Defeat ISIS
If ISIS is going to be defeated, Muslims themselves must do it.
John Daniel Davidson
By John Daniel Davidson
December 10, 2015
The mass shooting in San Bernardino last week should have confirmed what many Americans still refuse to accept: we can’t defeat ISIS.
That doesn’t mean we couldn’t destroy ISIS as an organization. A modest deployment of troops and materiel in Syria and Iraq would be sufficient. President Obama, in his determination to secure a legacy as the president who got us out of Iraq, refuses to do this. But it could be done.
That still wouldn’t solve the real problem, which isn’t ISIS’s territory but its ideology. ISIS would give way to another group, perhaps a resurgent al-Qaeda or maybe something worse. From the many-headed hydra of Islamic extremism would come a new threat, aimed at the West and at moderate Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, and we would once again be debating whether to deploy troops abroad.
The violent interpretation of Islam that animates groups like ISIS—and individual Muslims like Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters—is not going away simply because we defeat ISIS on the battlefield, or proclaim, as Obama did Sunday night, that it “does not speak for Islam.” Our president is no more qualified to decide which Muslim groups espouse a correct interpretation of Islam than is our Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Sunday called members of ISIS “apostates.”
No. American political leaders, like pundits, are not in a position to weigh the doctrinal merits of ISIS. If ISIS is going to be defeated, Muslims themselves must do it—not just with bullets and bombs, but with a version of their faith that rejects political Islam and jihadist violence once and for all.
Many Muslims Aren’t Moderate
That won’t be easy, because the virtue of radical Islam, and ISIS, is disputed among Muslims across the world. True, the vast majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims might reject Islamic supremacist ideology of the kind ISIS preaches, but there are tens of millions (perhaps far more) who embrace some version of it.
More than 70 percent of those polled, in a country with more than 175 million Muslims, were unwilling to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.
One recent poll from Pew illustrated the enormity of the challenge facing moderates. The poll asked Muslims in eleven countries with significant Muslim populations their opinion of ISIS. While majorities in every country except Pakistan had an unfavorable view of the group, a significant portion of respondents expressed favor (Turkey, 8 percent; Malaysia, 11 percent; Nigeria, 14 percent). Turkey, a country of nearly 75 million, is 98.6 percent Muslim, which means about 6 million Muslims in Turkey have a favorable view of ISIS.
In Pakistan, which is 96.4 percent Muslim, the results were even more shocking. Nine percent expressed a favorable view of ISIS, while 62 percent responded, “don’t know.” That means more than 70 percent of those polled, in a country with more than 175 million Muslims, were unwilling to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.
These poll numbers fit with a 2013 Pew poll of Muslim attitudes on a range of issues. In Egypt, 29 percent agreed that suicide bombing in defense of Islam is “often/sometimes justified.” That share represents more than 23 million people.
Islam Is Not a Monolithic Religion
DeleteObama claims ISIS does not speak for Islam, but no one body or institution speaks for Islam. Muslims do not have the equivalent of a Catholic Pope or a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to settle doctrinal disputes.
Malik and Farook were not ‘self-radicalized,’ they were radicalized by specific Islamic doctrines that are compelling to millions of Muslims worldwide.
But it’s hard to believe the president when you hear about men like Maulana Abdul Aziz, chief cleric of Islamabad’s Red Mosque. Last December, Aziz, who has no direct connection to the leadership of ISIS, made it clear that he and his followers respect ISIS and that “we support the organization which wants to implement the Islamic system.”
As it happens, authorities now believe Tashfeen Malik had some connection to Aziz’s mosque in her native Pakistan, where last November students at Jamia Hafsa, the mosque’s female seminary, released a video declaring their support for ISIS and asking Pakistani militants to join up with the group. On December 2, around the time of the attack, Malik posted a similar message on Facebook declaring her allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
All of which to say: Malik and Farook were not “self-radicalized,” they were radicalized by a specific Islamic doctrines that are compelling to millions of Muslims worldwide. The struggle against ISIS is therefore much more than a question of military tactics. It’s a question of ideas, of what the best version of Islam is, or is going to be in the future.
Certain ideas about Islam, after all, led Farook and Malik to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition, amass the tools and wherewithal to build pipe bombs, legally purchase semiautomatic rifles, leave behind their infant daughter, and launch an attack on unarmed Americans at a holiday office party. Those ideas can’t be dismissed lightly by political leaders with an agenda; they’re stronger than politics because they strike at the heart of how a person understands the world, God, and the purpose of his life.
Right Now, Muslim Leaders Aren’t Standing Up
DeleteAlas, moderate Muslim leaders in America don’t appear to be up for engaging in a war of ideas about their faith. Almost immediately after the attack in San Bernardino, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in the greater Los Angeles area, expressed bafflement about the shooters’ possible motives, surmising it could be anything from a workplace grievance to mental illness to some kind of “twisted ideology.”
If moderate Muslims hope to discredit the ‘twisted ideology’ of ISIS among their fellow Muslims, they’ll need to start talking openly about the doctrines and worldview that accompanies it.
He didn’t mention that perhaps Farook and his wife—along with the Pakistani cleric Aziz, Michigan-based cleric Ahmad Musa Jibril, and dozens of Saudi Arabian clerics—support ISIS and believe its version of political Islam is correct. But if moderate Muslims hope to discredit the “twisted ideology” of ISIS among their fellow Muslims, they’ll need to start talking openly about the doctrines and worldview that accompanies it.
They will have to explain, to other Muslims and to a candid world, why political Islam and its various strains of apocalyptic teachings are a thing of the past. They will have to articulate what Islam’s future should be. This will be a generational, global struggle among Muslims—and it won’t be accomplished during the tenure of any one American president.
One might compare what faces Islam today to what Christianity faced in the fourth century in the form of Arianism, a teaching that denied the full divinity of Christ and held that Jesus was not God by nature but a creature susceptible to change. By denying the Trinity and positing a rational relationship between the Father and the Son, Arianism had a certain political appeal for a string of Roman emperors who were more concerned with preserving the unity of the church—and therefore the empire—than with theological distinctions about the nature of Christ.
It would take centuries to purge Christianity of the Arian heresy. At one point, it officially dominated the Roman Empire. But in the end, Trinitarian theology prevailed, in part because Christian leaders knew the Arian teaching that Christ was merely an exalted creature would ultimately destroy the gospel. The opponents of Arianism, in other words, knew they were fighting for the very soul of their religion.
So too with Muslims today. ISIS isn’t just fighting for territory, it’s fighting for Islam’s future. If moderate Muslims have a different and better vision for their religion, they’d better start fighting back.
John is a writer in Austin, Texas.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/10/why-we-cant-defeat-isis/
Always kinda liked Arian outlook myself.
All the above are good reason for not letting Moslems in our wonderful country.
You never know if they are going to blow you up, or not.
At the minimum they will be calling for Sharia Law to replace our Constitution.
The two are immiscible as an old contributor here used to say.
I would think Rufus at least would agree with this outlook, as he has said all religions should be outlawed.
Rufus and Bob leading the way to a sane immigration policy ?
DeleteIt would appear to be true !
;)
Trump vindicated yet once again!! He was correct in saying many moslems, not just Eight, as one of our perpetually stressed out wayward city contributors has claimed, were celebrating out in the open after 9/11 in the USA. Now The Donald is right about no go areas in Europe. I've known this for years as I've followed the deteriorating situation in Sweden.
ReplyDelete**********
December 10, 2015
Trump vindicated: London police do fear for their lives entering Muslim enclaves
By Carol Brown
Historically, dhimmitude has been second-class citizen status imposed on non-believers by Muslims. But now we are witnessing an unprecedented phenomenon whereby Westerners willingly embrace dhimmitude. Muslims don’t have to force it on them. Westerners willingly sign up.
Go figure.
There are countless examples of voluntary dhimmitude around the world. This blog post is about places in the U.K. where policing has become dysfunctional, if it exists at all, as sharia law is allowed to take hold. The post also touches upon the U.K.’s potential ban of Donald Trump.
Breitbart reports on the current state of policing in and around London, where one police officer stated: “When I was a teenage lad in [B]urnley there were no go white areas. This IS the case still nationally… including London where you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working.” This same officer also said, “Islamification has and is occurring. You have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working.”
And he’s not the only one.
The Daily Mail reports that a policeman said that he and his colleagues are fearful they will be targets of terror attacks and that they’ve received “dire warning” from their superiors not to wear their uniforms, “even in their cars.”
But they are not the only two reporting on the collapse of police authority in certain regions of the country. The Daily Mail reports on another police officer who said “there are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission.”
Another police officer stated that if an officer “were attacked in one of these neighborhoods, it would be written off,” noting that “even if one of us did get killed or dragged off in a van, it would just be reported as a ‘one-off incident’ and no reason to change the ‘British style of policing.’”
Another officer who resigned this year said he resigned because he couldn’t take the climate anymore and confirmed what several officers spoke of regarding the directive not to wear their uniform while on duty for fear of being attacked. The order came from Scotland Yard and has been rationalized not as a policy founded on fear, but as one based on risk reduction or “damage limitation.”
When the police must hide their identity (or when those in command think they should), something has gone dreadfully wrong.
Still more officers have spoken out and shared their stories. One said their vehicles are attacked, with break lines cut along with other damage while another officer summed up the situation as follows: “I am reluctant to name the communities in question but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves. There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own. They just have their own form of community justice.”
DeleteAnd on it goes.
Most recently, this madness has expressed itself in a petition to ban Donald Trump from the U.K. for his comment that there are areas of London that are “so radicalized, the police are afraid for their lives.” The Daily Mail reports:
No matter that the statement appears to be true, the momentum is building in the UK to ban Trump as Brits stand tall against “hate speech.”
Seven people every second are signing a government petition to ban Donald Trump from Britain for “hate speech” after the tycoon's claims that police in London “fear for their lives” because some communities are so radicalised.
David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn, Nicola Sturgeon, Boris Johnson and even Scotland Yard issued strongly-worded condemnation of the outspoken businessman after he claimed: “We have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that police are afraid for their own lives.”
Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London said Mr Trump was speaking “utter nonsense” and openly mocked the American, adding: “The only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”
The Daily Mail also reports that most signatures are from London, Edinburgh, and Bristol; that the petition now has more than a quarter of a million signatures; and that it will be considered for debate in Parliament. Sharia law is taking hold across the U.K. as thousands upon thousands of colonizers from Islamic lands invade, and Parliament might debate whether or not Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the country. New world order priorities have taken hold.
In contrast, some police officers have come out in support of Trump’s comments, with one stating: “In this instance he [Trump] isn’t wrong. Our political leaders are best either ill-informed or simply being disingenuous. He’s pointed out something that is plainly obvious, something which I think we aren’t as a nation willing to own up to – do you think a US Police Department would ban officers from wearing their uniforms under jackets etc due to FEAR of their cops being killed by extremists?”
As for the Brits’ puffed out, self-righteous pride about banning “hate speech,” they are doing a bang-up job targeting the wrong people. As imams across the country incite violence, the U.K. has banned people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Michael Savage. The once Great Britain can no longer discern friend from foe, defenders of freedom from those who wish to destroy their nation.
The truth has become unrecognizable to the ever growing volunteer dhimmi class, who “stand tall” against their own survival.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/trump_vindicated_london_police_emdoem_fear_for_their_lives_entering_muslim_enclaves.html
****************
Our stressed out eastern USA city dweller mentioned above has also spoken well of 'alternative Sharia courts' for Moslems in the USA, if you can believe that.
But, it is true.
This gentleman needs to take a 'time out', relax, and think about things.
The cease-fire, in the Waer district of Homs, allowed more than 700 people to leave a rebel-held area that the government has surrounded, but also allowed many rebels to remain and keep their weapons until the government releases detainees, according to Yacoub El Hillo, the top United Nations humanitarian official in Syria.
ReplyDelete...
“This should be taken as an opportunity to show that the state cares about its people,” Mr. Hillo added, “and not repeat what we have seen.”
Still, the prospect of a peace deal is frail at best, and it rests on several parallel diplomatic tracks bearing fruit. For one thing, rebel groups must agree on just who would sit at the opposition table when, and if, United Nations peace talks convene in January.
I think not even Jesus could make these people sit down, shut up, and eat together.
ReplyDeleteDid galopin2 aka Rufus vote for a taqiyya talking moslem and not even know it ?
ReplyDeleteSee answer below -
December 10, 2015
Why Does Obama Call ISIS 'ISIL'?
By Amil Imani
Many who closely follow the dueling Islamic terror narratives emanating from the White House are mystified by Mr. Obama's inability (or deliberate unwillingness) to utter the phrase "Islamic terrorists." Many are curious, too, about why he refuses to call ISIS "ISIS," steadfastly insisting instead that everybody in his administration call the terror group "ISIL." What's the difference, and why is it important? The agendas behind each diverge widely. In fact, the variance between the two is elephantine in scale.
ISIS stands for the "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria," a terror group controlling a large swath of both Iraq and Syria in which the terrorists claim to have established a "caliphate," a state in which Islamic sharia law is imposed upon all living in the area, anyone who fails to adhere to strict Muslim guidelines has his head removed. Obama's contrary assertions aside, ISIS is by no means contained. In fact, the savage group (which prefers to be called the "Islamic State" or "IS") has metastasized on maps like immense pools of blood covering the ancient borders that once divided parts of Syria and Iraq.
ISIL, Obama's preference, stands for the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." According to glaphyridae.com, "[t]he Levant in its geographical sense comprises the following political entities: the west part of Syria, Lebanon, west part of Jordan, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Israel and Sinai (Egypt)." Other sources claim that it also encompasses parts of Turkey. All of these states embrace Islam, with one very notable exception: Israel, our only "blood brother" ally in the region that all Islamic terrorists want gone, violently and forever.
That Obama uses ISIL in discussing the terrorists is extremely telling and chilling. To those of us who keep our fingers on the pulse of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the distinctions separating ISIS and ISIL are by no means meager. It's readily apparent that Obama considers both Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, thorns in each of his sides. Since 2009, his atrociously dismissive treatment of Netanyahu has been highly embarrassing, shocking, and outrageous, especially to those of us who cherish our relationship with the Jewish state.
Israel has proven itself a tried and true friend since its return to its ancient homeland in 1948. Despite some disagreements between the U.S. and the Jewish state, no previous president has shown such a hideous and blatant disregard for Israel's head of state as has Obama. Nor has any previous president ever considered (to our knowledge) or suggested in a way bordering on insistence that Israel relinquish the land it now controls by contracting to its pre-1967 borders. Obama wants just that. Why? For Israel, a return to those boundaries would be suicidal, shrinking the country to a width of a very svelte nine miles and making it essentially indefensible.
Besides Israel, Jordan and the Kurds in Northern Iraq have been stalwart friends and allies. Jordan is one of the 65 countries Obama claims are actively "engaged" in taking ISIS/ISIL out. In reality, roughly 60 nations in that vaporous coalition are contributing little or nothing to the cause but allowing their country's names to appear on a meaningless list.
One exception, Jordan's King Abdullah II, is an eager participant in the war on ISIS. He traveled to Washington to ask Obama for more weapons so Jordan could better defend itself and play a larger role in the regional fight. In like manner, the Kurds, who constitute one of the fiercest fighting forces in the region, have been enormously supportive of the U.S., but they are fighting ISIS with guns from WWII. They too have requested contemporary weaponry. The plaintive requests from both have been ignored. Why were they rebuffed?
DeleteSome very suggestive hints can be snipped from the speeches Obama has given, especially in Muslim countries during his humiliating "Apology (we prefer 'Apostasy') Tour." This was where Obama fondly reminisced about his Muslim roots in Indonesia, where he and his mother moved with the latter's second husband, Lolo Soetero, who adopted Obama and renamed him "Barry Soetero." An examination of Barry's Indonesian school record (a form ubiquitous on the web) lists his "Citizenship" as "Indonesian," a country that did not allow dual citizenship when Soetero (Obama) lived in Indonesia, which means Barry had to have relinquished his U.S. passport. Finally, and significantly, his "Religion" is listed as "Islam."
When he became president, as he traveled through Muslim lands, he spoke wistfully of Islam. During multiple speeches he said "the holy Quran teaches" so many times we lost count, and he claimed that the Muslim call to prayer at dawn was "the prettiest sound on earth."
He was amazingly quick to support the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Arab Spring by encouraging the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and endorsing Mohamed Morsi as the new Egyptian leader. Morsi was a high-ranking member of the Brotherhood, an insidious, duplicitous organization seeking to foment widespread adoption of sharia law and surreptitiously funnel funds to Islamic terror groups.
Taken together, all of this gets us closer to understanding why Obama refuses to call Islamic terrorists what they are. His use of ISIL could be a strong indication that he supports re-establishing Muslim rule and sharia law throughout the Levant, and good riddance to Israel.
The somewhat murky and contradictory understanding of which religious tenets Obama truly follows has caused some thorny questions to arise.
DeleteIf he was a Muslim, when did he turn his back on Islam (his biological father's and stepfather's faith) and become a Christian? The answer may lie in a story appearing at the Washington Times website and at the Daily Caller.
The Washington Times reports, "Several people who know Barack Obama well perceive him as Muslim. Most remarkably, his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, has stated: 'My whole family was Muslim.' Her whole family, obviously includes her half-brother, Barack." The same article highlights some doubts about Obama's "Christian" conversion. His spiritual adviser, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, was asked about how he helped Obama renounce Islam. Stunningly, however, Wright claims he's not sure Obama actually did convert from Islam. That, of course, is not proof he isn't a Christian, but it certainly raises eyebrows.
Edward Klein, who authored The Amateur, a book about Obama, told the Daily Caller that he interviewed Wright (and has him quoted on tape), who told Klein that he (Wright) "made it comfortable" for Obama to accept Christianity without having to renounce his "Islamic background."
We believe it's time to stop whispering about what much of the nation is thinking, but we leave it up to you to decide why Obama calls ISIS ISIL, why he can't bring himself to call Islamic terrorists what they are, and why he acts in a manner that supports Islam over Christianity at every opportunity.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_does_obama_call_isis_isil.html#ixzz3tzAcwkYP
Answer: Yes, galopin2 aka Rufus voted for a taqiyya talking moslem.
Deceased Dale had this figured out from before Obama's first election.
Which is quite the irony, as galopin2/Rufus wants to outlaw the moslems and all the other religions too.
DeleteWe need to do something....raise the voting age to 70 years old, perhaps.
.
ReplyDeleteSo, finally, why did the Turks go into northern Iraq? It seems pretty clear that Erdoğan, whose policy has failed in Syria, is trying to be relevant again. “Erdoğan wants to be part of whatever happens in Mosul, and putting troops there guarantees that,’’ a senior Iraqi official told me.
Is it going to work? Maybe. But the danger, increasingly, is that with so many major countries jockeying for power in Syria and Iraq events will spin out of control. The Russian cruise missiles flying over northern Iraq are just one example. Several have already crashed in northwestern Iran; just wait until that happens in Iraq.
Turkish troops in Iraq; Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah fighters in Syria: the Middle East is a very busy place. The longer the war goes on in Syria, the greater the risk that it turns into something much worse...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-are-turkish-troops-doing-in-northern-iraq
.