Friday, November 20, 2015

Hillary can’t run from the messes she — and Obama — made

NY Post ^ | 19 November 2015 | Michael Goodwin 

As his first secretary of state, she was part of the team that botched the wars in Iraq and Syria and helped birth the Islamic terrorism now rattling the world. The slaughter in Paris and fresh threats against America make it urgent that she erase her fingerprints from the calamity. That's impossible, so she settled for putting some daylight between herself and Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Hitler-Era Brown Shirts Took Over Hunter College

Frontpagemagazine ^ | November 20, 2015 | Phyllis Chesler 

Following the blueprint of how Hitler's brown shirts worked on Germans.

Reprinted from
For the first time in the 21st century and on the American campus, legitimate economic grievances, specific to New York City, specific to the United States, have been tied to Zionism.
Led by a screaming woman in hijab and a man, assisted by the usual outside agitators, students screamed themselves hoarse at Hunter College, a branch of City University of New York not far from where I live just a few days ago.
"Zionism out of CUNY!" "Zionists out of CUNY!" "Intifada, Intifada" was chanted, screamed, roared, over and over again. You may see it here and here.
Their demands for pay parity for adjunct professors is just and long overdue. Their demands for "tuition-free education, the cancellation of all student debt, a minimum wage of $15.00 for campus workers" is, perhaps, more idealistic as well as economically challenging.
However, their demands for "an end to racial and economic segregation in education, racialized college-acceptance practices, work program requirements for students on public assistance, and an end to the rapid gentrification and privatization of public school property" verges on the surreal and smacks of Occupy Wall Street and the Ferguson riots.
The next demand is obscene.
"We demand CUNY divests from Israel, companies that maintain Zionist occupation, private prisons, and prison labor...the Zionist administration invests in Israeli companies, companies that support the Israeli occupation, hosts birthright programs and study abroad programs in occupied Palestine, and reproduces settler-colonial ideology throughout CUNY through Zionist content of education. While CUNY aims to produce the next generation of professional Zionists, SJP (Student for Justice in Palestine) aims to change the university to fight for all people's liberation."

What's Israel got to do with these domestic campus issues? Absolutely nothing--but in the mind of these Muslim Brotherhood indoctrinated students it has come to symbolize every conceivable injustice, both real and imagined; it has come to justify the stabbing, bombing, and car-ramming of Jewish civilians everywhere, especially but not exclusively in Israel or, as we saw on Friday in Paris, against Israelis--and the anti-Israel boycotts undertaken by the EU and by American academic organizations.
I have long referred to CUNY as the Communist University of New York because both the faculty and administration lean far left. If there is indoctrination going on, that indoctrination is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine; it is certainly not pro-Israel and anti-Palestine. But these paranoid ravings, this scapegoating of Jews, Zionists, and Israel for the very crimes being committed by Arab terrorists and their supporters, which include large chunks of the American professoriate, is what the new totalitarianism sounds like.
If there is intimidation, bullying and Blood Libels on campus it is anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism, not Islamophobia or anti-Arab-a-phobia, and it is coming from the Muslim-Brotherhood inspired Left; from Islamic-inspired and Christian liberation theology inspired Jew-hatred among angry African-Americans; from the anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic behaviors of the world's political leaders; and from the silence of our own professoriate--a silence which amounts to complicity as well as to cowardice.
This "million student march" throughout all of CUNY was endorsed by the NYC Students for Justice in Palestine, a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization outlawed in Egypt; by their cells at Hunter College, the College of Staten Island (where I taught for nearly 30 years), John Jay College (where I taught for a semester), by the Law School at CUNY, and by St. Joseph's College and Pace College.
The Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Student Association must be stopped. They are supported by a terrorist organization and should not be allowed on an American campus. They are not a "club." They are Brown-shirts on the move.
Students who have been taught that is it permissible to shout speakers down, interrupt and heckle them, force out distinguished academics, compel payment for outside non-academic rabble rousers, feel empowered by totalitarian Group Think, conduct angry rallies like this one at Hunter College are no better than Hitler-era Brown-shirts. They are not behaving like college students.
They should be emphatically condemned by the administration, and either expelled or de-programmed, whatever works

Left-Wing Arguments for Taking Syrian "Refugees" are Stupid

Renew America ^ | Nov 20, 2015 | Tim Dunkin 

The battle of the refugees continues in Washington, DC. With 33 state governors (at the time of this writing) refusing to take in any additional refugees, Pres__ent Obama (D-ISIS) has been absolutely flipping his wig, petulantly calling his opponents names while attempting to berate the governors into reversing their decisions. The radical Left has not been negligent to back him up, either. The past couple of days have seen them advance a number of arguments against rejection of the refugees – ranging from the simply wrong to the outright laughable. I'd like to address some of these arguments below.
The most sophisticated argument they have been employing is to rely upon the powers granted to the President to grant entry to refugees under the Refugee Act of 1980. The Act, which revised provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1968 and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, delegates to the President the power to grant entry to 10,000 refugees a year, plus additional though unspecified numbers of refugees on an emergency basis. It is unlikely that this act would survive a challenge on its substance in the courts, considering that the courts have typically a dim view of laws which grant the executive broad and ill-defined power to decide what a law means (as opposed to broad powers to merely execute the law as specifically directed by Congress when it crafted the law). Likewise, the act is unconstitutional due to its blurriness on separation of powers (and hence, rightly nullified by the states in toto). Nevertheless, this is the closest thing to a "slam dunk" that the Left can get on this issue.
Problem is, it's not at all apparent that the vast bulk of the "refugees" actually qualify as refugees under this law. The Refugee Act specified that refugees eligible for resettlement had to demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin on the basis of a verifiable or well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or because of political opinion. For the Muslim refugees, not a single one of these provisions is met.
Let's go through the list. Are they in danger on the basis of race? Nope. These refugees are all Levantine Arabs, basically racially identical to everyone else in Syria. What about religion? Again, no. The Muslim refugees are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim, a group which makes up 75% of the population of Syria, which puts them in the large and non-persecuted majority. Indeed, the Muslim "refugees" are the same sect as ISIS itself. Neither have Sunni Muslims been persecuted by the Alawite/secular regime of Assad.
How about nationality? If they're all Syrians, then they certainly aren't being "persecuted" by their own nation. Neither is there any particular "social group" to which they belong that has been singled out. Lastly, nobody has adduced any discernible political opinions that would single these "refugees" out for detrimental treatment in Syria. They can't even really be said to be "stateless" or dispossessed from their own country, since ISIS only controls about 1/3 of the land area of Syria, and there are regions far away from these to which these "refugees" could easily travel and find shelter.
So essentially, the Muslim "refugees" don't seem to fulfill even a single provision of the Act.
What's ironic is that there ARE "refugees" from this region who DO fulfill the religious and nationality provisions, such as Christians, Yazidis, Ba'hai, Jews, and other persecuted minorities from Syria and Iraq, people who genuinely ARE fleeing almost certain death or enslavement at the hands of ISIS. Yet, Obama has been extremely reticent about granting many of these groups asylum in America. So we see the strange situation where Obama is driving full steam ahead to bring in thousands of "refugees" who don't even meet the basic qualifications of our law, yet is turning away thousands who most definitely do.
The second argument that the Left has worked itself into a tizzy about is the one that says that efforts by Ted Cruz and others to exclude Muslim refugees from entry represent a "religious test" which is unconstitutional. Of course, we should keep in mind that the "religious test" prohibition in the Constitution (Article VI) applies only to holding public office. It doesn't apply to anything else. Indeed, in many cases, for the provisions introduced into our laws on refugees by the Refugee Act to be enforceable, we MUST apply a religious test when it requires determining whether a member of a persecuted religious minority qualifies for refugee status. The very law that left-wingers appeal to in their first argument above ends up completely refuting this second argument.
Next, left-wingers have taken to arguing that it is un-American and against our traditional welcoming of immigrants and refugees for us to refuse entry to this specific set of "refugees." But I would challenge these left-wingers to find a single, solitary instance in American history where we have voluntarily allowed in large numbers of empirically demonstrable and historically proven hostile foreigners. You won't find it. While we've opened our ports to those in genuine need or who wanted to come here to make a new life for themselves, we've never just thrown the doors open for people who have been openly hostile and who have declared their willingness to subvert our society and way of life in favor of replacing it with an alien and hostile culture such as Islam. We've never just opened the gates for people who hate us and want to destroy us.
Look to Europe's mistakes. They threw the doors open to these "refugees," and what did they get? They got a rape jihad, with hundreds of German and Scandinavian women being raped, abused, and even murdered by "refugees" so far. They've gotten riots. They've gotten vandalism and crime. They've gotten open declarations that the "refugees" are going to take over Europe and Islamize it. They've gotten religious triumphalism. And now, as Paris made clear, and as other incidents are continuing to do, they've gotten outright terrorism.
And that's what the left-wingers want to bring here. It has already been established beyond a doubt that at least two of the Paris attackers entered Europe after being processed through Greece as "refugees." Here in America, we've already seen al-Qaeda terrorists who have been caught here after they entered via the refugee program. We've arrested several ISIS members who were plotting attacks and who entered as refugees. Most recently, one refugee who had just been resettled in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, disappeared earlier this week, only to be found in Washington DC today. Even outside the official channels of the refugee resettlement program, we just saw five Syrian "refugees" with fake passports and refugee papers from Europe arrested by Honduras as they tried to travel to the US. Another eight Syrians were caught trying to illegally cross our border into Texas at Laredo.
Clearly, even the "refugees" who aren't actively bombing or shooting anyone yet are still bad news – and there's no historical precedent for America to be foolish enough to take them in.
The next argument is a classic one for the Left – how can we be so heartless as to turn away poor, helpless women and children? Think of all the poor widows and the three-year old orphans that Obama was jibber-jabbering about today!
Problem is, it's all a racket. Have you ever wondered why in those pictures of the "refugees" your see from Europe, nearly all of them are military aged males? It's because nearly all of them are military aged males. Indeed, the demographics are so lopsided that the Syrian women are wondering why all their "men" are leaving them behind to face the dangers of war and genocide and going to a cushy life in Europe. So the large majority of these "refugees" are men, not women and children. Men who, as we have seen above, have generally made a roaring nuisance out of themselves. There's no reason to think that the true numbers of those coming here will be any different.
Then there's this argument – turning away the Syrian "refugees' is just like when America turned away Jewish refugees trying to escape Nazi Germany. Really? The problem for this argument is that there's really no comparison between the at all. To begin with, the Jews were actual refugees – while the Muslim Syrians, at least, don't even qualify for that label. Further, the Jews did not go around raping, stealing, vandalizing, defacing churches, and declaring their intention to conquer their potential host countries in the name of their religion, as the Syrian "refugees" have been doing. If left-wingers can't figure out the difference between the two, and why refusing to take the Jews was a terrible tragedy while refusing to take the Syrians is simply sound public policy, then they aren't competent to even be having this discussion with the rest of America.
Lastly, there's this little argument which I actually hadn't heard used yet until I saw it in an email from a particularly...incompetent...left-winger who emails me every so often. I have since seen it used in a couple of other places. It goes as follows: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were refugees, so if you support turning away the Syrian "refugees," then you hate Jesus and can't be a "real" Christian.
Well...Joseph never raped anyone in his host country of Egypt. Jesus didn't steal from his hosts. Mary didn't vandalize any synagogues or temples while there were there. I doubt the officials in Roman Egypt had any cause to reasonably suspect that the Holy Family might flip out one day and go all Jihad Johnny on them. Argument fail.
In summation, while we see that the Left has managed to throw together quite a number of arguments in favor of accepting the Syrian "refugees," not a single one is actually a good argument. None of them hold any water. All of them are some combination of illogical, untenable, and/or ignorant. There is simply no reason why anybody should find them to be a reason for not supporting the governors and the members of Congress who are trying to prevent a likely national catastrophe from being caused by Trojan Horse terrorists sneaking in with the rest of a larger and quite radicalizable military-aged male population who hates us.

Obamacare’s Bait and Switch Has Left Consumers Scrambling in 2016

Yahoo News ^ | 19 November 2015 | Edward Morrissey 

The New York Times reported this weekend, even the words “affordable” and “care” have turned out to be untrue as well. The sharp rise in premiums has garnered the most headlines in the first three open-enrollment seasons of Obamacare, but equally if not more pernicious has been the increase in deductibles. As Eric Pianin explained for The Fiscal Times on Monday, deductibles have increased an average of 11 percent on Bronze level plans for 2016, intended to be the most affordable of all options, and now average over $5700. For Silver level, deductibles rose 6 percent and now average over $3100.
Consumers have to pay both the premium and then thousands of dollars for care out of their own pocket before insurance takes effect.
When the media focused on skyrocketing premiums (rightly so, considering the large serial increases for health insurance on the individual exchanges since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act) its advocates defended the system by pointing out that many on the exchanges qualified for subsidies to absorb the costs. For instance, Obama himself promised, “Most Americans will find an option that costs less than $75 a month,” and HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell claimed that 80 percent of Americans would pay no more than $100 in premiums after the subsidies.
Those claims may be true, but those subsidies don’t just fall out of the trees; they come from higher taxes on providers and manufacturers, and eventually out of the pockets of consumers, as do all business taxes. However, that defense doesn’t work on deductibles, which insurance companies were forced to raise when the state and federal governments tried to squeeze premium increases for the exploding demand down to a dull roar.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

41 years. $3 billion. Inside the Clinton Donor Network

Washington Post ^ | November 19, 2015 | By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger, Anu Narayanswamy 

LITTLE ROCK — Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.
The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments in support of their political or philanthropic endeavors — a list that includes top patrons such as Steven Spielberg and George Soros, as well as lesser-known backers who have given smaller amounts dozens of times. Not included in the count are an untold number of small donors whose names are not identified in campaign finance reports but together have given millions to the Clintons over the years.
The majority of the money — $2 billion — has gone to the Clinton Foundation, one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe. A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who is among the wealthy foreign donors who have given tens of millions. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

FBI CONFIRMS: 6 Men from Pakistan, Afghanistan Busted Entering Arizona from Mexico!

Breitbart ^ | 19 Nov 2015 | Bob Price and Brandon Darby

UPDATE: After the publication of this article, a local NBC affiliate contacted the FBI for confirmation. The FBI confirmed that the six men were apprehended after illegally entering the United States in Arizona.

Original article:

A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.

The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.

The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.

Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.

On Wednesday evening, Breitbart Texas disclosed a report by other federal agents claiming that 8 Syrian illegal aliens were captured while attempting to enter the United States in the Laredo Sector. The Department of Homeland Security has now confirmed our exclusive report.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Wanted: An American Churchill

US Defense Watch ^ | November 19, 2015 | Ray Starmann 

ISIS is on a rampage of terror across the globe. They currently control an area the size of Indiana in the Middle East. In Europe, they have sleeper cells across the continent, ready to be activated with just a text message. The maestros of wickedness are here in the US and are attempting to infiltrate more people across our borders. Yesterday, eight Syrians were picked up by the Border Patrol in Laredo, Texas. In Washington, DC, a BOLO (Be on the Lookout) report has been issued for four Middle Eastern bearded men who were scoping out the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, President Obama is doing everything he can to roll out the Welcome Wagon for 100,000 Syrian refugees that you simply cannot vet, no matter what the federal government says.
The free world is in peril. We are at war. ISIS knows it. The Parisians know it. Time Magazine knows it too. The recent headline on their current issue is titled, “World War ISIS.”
The free world is waiting for the US to lead. Unfortunately, the leader of the free world is out to lunch.
President Obama is asleep at the wheel and simply doesn’t want to face the facts about ISIS. He’s also sympathetic to Islam. The nation is in jeopardy and we have no one at the helm.
Even if Obama had the will and the intestinal fortitude to hit ISIS, the US military is so weakened by budget cuts, equipment shortages and political correctness that we would be fighting ISIS with one arm in a sling.
We need a strong leader, a decisive, tough, no-nonsense, common sense President; someone who can rally the country behind them and lead us to victory. What America needs is another Churchill.
Which one of the Presidential candidates could be America’s Winston Churchill? Could any of them even come close?
Here is a list; starting with the WORST possible choice as the American Churchill, to the BEST:
Comrade Bernie Sanders – The poor man’s Doctor Zhivago, Sanders went to Moscow for his honeymoon in the 1960’s. That ought to be enough to make him the worst possible choice as the American Churchill. Who knew that bad food, KGB repression and freezing temperatures could be an aphrodisiac? Sanders strategy to fight ISIS is even worse than Obama’s, if that’s even possible. When asked about ISIS, Sanders mutters unintelligible platitudes about forming a global coalition and not being racist; cautions against sending our kids overseas and rattles on about GOP Islamophobia. N.B. Anyone who calls the troops “our kids” is probably a leftist.
Hillary – Her campaign motto is “Vote for Me, Because I Deserve It!” The probable Democratic Party nominee for President is currently being investigated by the FBI for multiple national security violations, while serving as Secretary of State. I have no doubt that Hillary will skate by any kind of indictment, with a triple axel jump of more obstruction and lies.
She has the passion of a 25 pound bag of cement and a robotic delivery that makes me wonder if she’s really just a hologram being broadcast from a hangar in the Nevada desert. A chameleon by nature, she will say anything to get elected…because she deserves it! Today, Hillary was talking tough about ISIS, saying we needed to destroy them, not defeat them. Undoubtedly, she’s been reading US Defense Watch.
But, her Thatcher-esque speech was cut short by a turn back to the dark side of Democratic Party appeasement and political correctness. She stated that Islam isn’t our enemy. Radical Islam isn’t the problem. This isn’t a clash of civilizations. She has to understand that these attacks are done in the name of Islam. The suicide bombers aren’t yelling, “I like Ike” when they blow themselves to the gates of hell.
Graham, Kasich and Huckabee – The Three Stooges simply have no chance to win and will most likely drop out of the race within weeks. But, they are good men, who would serve as excellent leaders if called upon to do so.
Rand Paul – A champion of libertarian ideals, like his father, Rand is just too much of an isolationist to successfully lead the free world’s fight against ISIS.
Jeb – A cross between Norman Bates’ mother and my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Buescher, Jeb doesn’t seem to possess the killer instinct to be the American Churchill. Jeb, like Mitt, is a little too nice, a little too PC, a little too naïve, to blow ISIS off the face of the earth. He reminds me of the guy you make small talk with, while in the buffet line at the country club. “Hey, Jeb, you up for some Round Robin tennis?” “Absolutely, just need to get my racquet out of the Volvo.” Still, he remains in the race and will be there for a while because mummy and daddy and his backers have put up a lot of cash to keep him there.
Ben Carson – Zzzzzzzzz. There is no doubt that Ben Carson is a phenomenal doctor and a very intelligent man. But, he lacks two things needed to become the American Churchill. He doesn’t possess a deep knowledge of world affairs and has no experience at all in that arena. He’s also a little too mellow. Maybe still waters run deep in Carson’s case, but should America take the chance in this dangerous hour?
Rubio – Marco Rubio has a lot of experience and is certainly a smart guy. But, he appears immature at times. In World War II his brains and drive would have gotten him stars. But, once the war was over he would have been demoted back to major. Rubio could be the American Churchill, but not for a few more years.
Christie – With a body built by Tony Soprano and the mind of Michael Corleone, Chris Christie would be a decent American Churchill. He’s a former federal prosecutor and would certainly be a competent leader of the free world. Christie has just one problem. He can’t win.
Carly – Carly Fiorina is a tough, smart woman who possesses the can do attitude and I believe, a certain amount of ruthlessness to be the American Churchill. Her only flaws are a lack of a sense of humor. She needs to watch some old JFK press conferences and crack a smile. She’s also wired tighter than an ISIS suicide belt. Even Churchill would unwind with a cigar and a brandy. Nevertheless, I think Fiorina would be a pretty good president.
Cruz – “Count Chocula” Cruz is the runner up as the American Churchill. Cruz is only a year older than Rubio, but he appears to be much more mature and worldly. Cruz is a brilliant man who is also a great speaker. His knowledge of foreign affairs is extensive. He is the runner up only because his extremely conservative views may alienate him from voters in certain parts of the country. Cruz’s strategy to fight ISIS is simple. We win. They lose.
Trump – Donald Trump is the GOP candidate who can win the presidency and become the American Churchill. He has the dynamic personality and the leadership abilities to rally the free world against ISIS. Trump is the man on the outside looking in. He isn’t bound by lobbyist donations or a closed minded Washington Beltway mindset. His ideas are fresh and this is what America needs. Unlike Churchill, Trump has no military or government background, so he would need advisers who were not only knowledgeable, but who weren’t lackeys. When asked what his strategy is to fight ISIS, Trump has responded, “I would bomb the hell out of them.”
We are in a clash of civilizations. We are in a fight for survival against evil, murdering zealots who wish to bring everyone back to the Stone Age. If the free world wishes to survive, it must destroy Islamic terrorism. To do that, America needs a Churchill.

U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes!

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 11/20/15 | Adam Kredo 

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
When asked to address Royce’s statement, a Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.
“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”
“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” the official said. “Despite U.S. strikes being the most precise in the history of warfare, conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where ISIL hides certainly presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, our pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against ISIL is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”
Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.
“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”
“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”
However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”
This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.
“Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”
And the same goes for Russians, he said, adding, “They don’t care at all about civilians.”
The French have been selecting their own targets since beginning to launch strikes on the Islamic State earlier this week, according to a second Pentagon source who spoke to the Free Beacon earlier this week about the strikes.
France dropped at least 20 bombs on key Islamic State targets within two days after the terror attacks in Paris that killed 129. French strikes have killed at least 33 Islamic State militants in the past several days.
In the case of the initial French strikes, the “targets were nominated by the French whose strikes against them were supported by the coalition” fighting the Islamic State, the official explained.
Any coalition member can nominate a potential target.
“Once a target is validated, great care is taken—from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements—to minimize the risk of collateral damage, particularly any potential harm to non-combatants,” the official said.
Since the beginning of the year, more than 22,000 munitions were dropped on Islamic State targets during more than 8,000 sorties, according to information provided to the Free Beacon by the Defense Department.
Some experts questioned whether the administration is handing off portions of the battle to other nations.
“The French airstrikes have been billed as a significant uptick in the battle against the Islamic State, Preliminary data indicate that this is not the case,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism expert at the U.S. Treasury Department. “It appears that the U.S. is simply allowing France to strike many of the targets that would usually be reserved for the U.S. and some of its coalition allies. In other words, this appears to be a redistribution of daily targets in the ongoing campaign, and not a significant change.”
These strikes have forced the Islamic State to evacuate at least 20 to 25 percent of the territories it held one year ago in both Iraq and Syria, according to the Pentagon.
Attacks have focused on the Islamic State’s “staging areas, fighting position, and key leaders,” as well as its “oil distribution chain,” according to the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, a poll released Thursday found that at least 70 percent of American support an expanded fight against the Islamic State, including sending U.S. troops to the region.

GOP Establishment Super-PAC “New Day for America” (NDfA) Declares War On Donald Trump… ^ | 11/19/15 | Sundance 

OK folks, we knew it was coming – We knew the GOPe would eventually unleash the Republican "Mississippi Strategy" to attack Donald Trump, and it appears they have announced their intents using the NDfA Super-PAC as their vehicle.
Game ON !
Take Notice all ye of NDfA association – we will identify you, your businesses, your business interests, etc. and we will outline your attachments. You may have money, but there are more of us than you. To quote a prior adversary:
…"The one thing I will tell you is you don’t want those damn Tree House people up your ass!"…
Angry Wolverine(Via Politico) John Kasich has attacked Donald Trump relentlessly in debates and now his super PAC is planning to invest $2.5 million in the most aggressive takedown of the poll leader yet — on behalf of an increasingly anxious GOP establishment.
The attack, according to a blueprint shared with POLITICO, will play out over the next two months on radio, TV, mail and online in New Hampshire. Strategists with the pro-Kasich group, called New Day for America, say the budget for the anti-Trump campaign is likely to grow.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Free Healthcare!

Teach your kids



The Salute!








In matters...






Not Muslim?


A Reminder!

The Cure!





New Hire?










The Clown


You were saying?


What I won't do!


Gender Card


Cry Babies!


Your money




Common sense




Ted's Car