Sunday, January 24, 2016

Guns Don't Kill People. The Obama Administration Kills People.

Wounded American Warrior ^ | January 24, 2016 | Benny Huang 

"I'm really good at killing people," Barack Obama once allegedly said. The origin of the quote is the 2013 book "Double Down" by veteran political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, who cite unnamed Obama aides as their source. The two reporters have journalistic credits even a liberal would respect--The New Yorker, The Economist, and MSNBC, to name a few.
Some people choose not to give the quote credence because its source is anonymous and it wasn't caught on tape. Skepticism surrounding anonymous quotes is of course understandable though I surmise that most doubters have political motives. People who are still high on Hope and Changeâ„¢ will surely guffaw at the suggestion that their man would say such a callous thing.
Take it or leave it, I don't care. It's a true statement even if he never said it.
Though the Obama aides say that he was speaking of drone warfare when he bragged about his death-dealing, his prowess in the field of killing people is hardly limited to Hellfire missiles. Take, for example, the recent discovery of a Fast & Furious-linked .50 caliber rifle at the criminal hideout of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, who was arrested in Mexico on January 8th. The rifle, which was capable of shooting down a helicopter, found its way into the drug lord's hands through a still opaque program that allowed American guns to cross the border into Mexico with the full knowledge of the Department of Justice. Federal officials have not precluded the possibility that other weapons found at El Chapo's hideout will be traced back to the ill-conceived Operation Fast & Furious. It's good to know that our DOJ is playing a role, even if only through willful negligence, in arming the most notorious narco-gangster since Pablo Escobar.
When I first read about El Chapo's .50 caliber rifle I was immediately reminded of Mr. Obama's unilateral gun control executive orders and the associated town hall meetings which were designed to leave the false impression that he sought the American people's input. The hypocrisy of it all was stunning. A man who armed El Chapo shouldn't have a say in American citizens' second amendment rights. We're not the problem. He is. This is a man who stated "I do not believe people should be able to own guns" and praised Australia as the model for gun laws. Australia does not permit private citizens to own guns so I must conclude that Obama supports an outright ban. He is not just tweaking the system a little to make sure that underworld figures don't get guns. To the contrary, he's facilitating the transaction. On the other hand, he wants your gun--even if you're a model citizen.
Unfortunately, some of those guns decided to come back across the border. A Fast & Furious gun was used to murder US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010. Terry was engaged in a firefight with drug traffickers. El Chapo's men? Perhaps. In 2014, two Muslim men drove from Phoenix to Garland, Texas, to shoot up a "Draw Mohammed" contest. The men were stopped in their tracks by armed Texas lawmen before they could kill anyone, thank goodness. When the dust settled it was determined that one of their weapons was a Fast & Furious gun.
As a consequence of Obama's and Holder's gunwalking operation, our government has armed Muslim terrorists, cop killers, and the biggest drug lord in the world. Pretty good at killing people? Don't be modest, Mr. President. You're the best.
But Obama's guns aren't just found in Mexico or in the border states. They can also be found across the Middle East and North Africa. During the 2011 war that overthrew Libyan dictator Kadafi, the Obama Administration secretly approved arms shipments from Qatar to various militant groups. After green-lighting the shipments, the Administration was shocked--shocked!--to learn that some of the weapons had wound up in the hands of Islamist fighters. From a New York Times article by James Risen et al.: "The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar's plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were 'more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam' than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official."
These groups must have been even more stridently Islamist than the Muslim Brotherhood which the administration considered to be a moderate player in the Arab Spring. They were surely on par with al-Qaeda which I think the Obama Administration still considers extreme though that might change before the week's end. Considering the fact that most of the anti-Kadafi groups were some flavor of Islamist, it stretches credulity to think that the Obama Administration was just naïve. Or were they? In some minimally plausible scenario, the Obama Administration might have been criminally stupid. But I doubt it. In any case, the bulk of Libya's revolutionary foot soldiers were undisciplined teenaged boys in pickup trucks. Arming them and then hoping for the best was a predictable foreign policy disaster.
The funny thing about guns is that once they are handed out like participation trophies they cannot so easily be recalled. Where are those guns today? No one knows. They might have been used to kill four Americans in Benghazi a year after the coup concluded. Just speculation? I'm sure Obama's defenders would say that though it should be remembered that the guys who overran our consulate made a getaway because they won. No one was able to check the serial numbers on their guns so the mystery remains unsolved. But is it so difficult to believe that some of those guns supplied with US approval might have found their way into the hands of the terrorists who attacked our consulate? I say no.
Once loose, these guns grew legs and crossed borders. According to the same New York Times article: "Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said."
Super! According to Glen Johnson of the Los Angeles Times in an article about the Malinese rebels: "Since the beginning of last year's insurgency against longtime Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, weapons have streamed out of Libya, looted from depots and sold on the black market. Difficult to track and impossible to quantify, they move in many directions."
Let's not forget Syria. Some of the Qatari guns ended up there as well and that doesn't include those weapons provided directly by the US government. In 2013, NBC News reported that the US was providing moderate Syrian fighters with $2.5 million per month, rations, radios, and would soon be providing them with weapons as well. Even if this army was "moderate" as its leaders claimed, and I doubt that it was, their weapons proved difficult to control.
Another failed Obama initiative that nonetheless introduced more weapons into Syria was the CIA-sponsored program for training mercenaries. Many of the guerillas--sixty in all, trained at the obscene cost of $500 million--quickly disappeared once in enemy territory with the military hardware provided to them by our government. Desertion is a possibility. ISIS captured or killed many others and likely still has their weapons.
Barack Obama really is adept at killing people. He's killed a lot of people "by accident," I suppose, though all of his accidents were easily foreseen and easily avoidable. He nonetheless lectures the rest of us about our guns.

1 Mexican peso is now worth 5 cents

cnn money ^ | 1-22-2016 | Heather Long 

Investors are dumping emerging market stocks and currencies as they flee to assets that appear safer like U.S. government bonds.
"It's not just the peso. The [Russian] ruble hit a record low this week. The [South African] rand last week. It's a broad based sell-off in emerging markets," says Win Thin, global head of emerging markets strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman.
But the Mexican peso has been hit the hardest of them all in 2016.
The problem for Mexico is that it's one of the easiest emerging market currency to trade. So investors have been selling it as a proxy for emerging markets overall. "It's a 'risk off.' People are selling anything that looks risky," says Thin.
Mexico is also suffering from the dramatic crash in oil prices. Crude oil plays a large role in the Mexican economy, accounting for 11% of exports. As oil fell to its lowest level since 2003 on Wednesday, traders soured even more on the Mexico's currency.
Mexican leaders have been trying to stop the pain. Mexico's central bank has been intervening in the market by selling dollars and telling anyone who will listen that it believes the peso is oversold.
"My sense is the peso will return from the levels it is right now," Mexico's central bank Governor Agustin Carstens told Bloomberg this week in Davos.
Mexico's economy was one of the best performers in all of Latin and South America last year. Despite all the headwinds, it still grew 2.3%.
The final fear factor driving the peso down is the U.S. Federal Reserve.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why I’m Rooting for Ted Cruz to Win Iowa and New Hampshire

The Nation ^ | January 22, 2016 | Leslie Savan 

I'll put it out there-I'm rooting for Ted Cruz to win Iowa and New Hampshire and anywhere else he can do damage to Trump before the Joe McCarthy lookalike self-immolates in a bonfire of biofuel, birth certificates, and Goldman Sachs loans.

Cruz, the only GOP candidate to come close to Trump in the polls, is in a bad way. Sarah Palin may have endorsed Trump in gibberish, but popular Iowa Governor Terry Branstad denounced Cruz for opposing ethanol subsidies in plain Iowa greedlish, and constitutional lawyers are raising serious questions about whether the Canadian-born senator is eligible to become president. And now, in a kind of SwiftChurching, accusations are flying that Cruz is a "phony" Christian.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Getting a Pass on Dems' Turn Left to Socialism

Real Clear Politics ^ | Jamnuary 24,2016 | Sale a Zito 

She was burned once before by being the second most liberal Democrat in a presidential race – when she ran against Barack Obama in 2008 – and she isn't going to let that happen again.
Meanwhile, the national media allows her to get away with such a strategy by not asking what separates her from Sanders.
Where are the newspaper columns suggesting that Bernie is dragging Hillary to the left? There aren't any. No one is forcing Clinton to take a more moderate stance because, if she has to pitch as far left as Sanders does to win the nomination, then Democrats certainly will not win the general election with a candidate who campaigned to be more socialist than the socialist.
Which leads to an underlying question that is rarely discussed: Have Democrats gone so far left that socialism really is their prevailing view? Is that what is being hidden from the public, by not forcing Clinton to express her true worldview instead of the far-left pitch that Sanders embodies?
Certainly the press and pundits are glossing over the possibility that the party's base has embraced the notions that it is OK to be complacent, that government should run everything in our lives, that safe zones are OK to suppress free speech and that government's giant safety-net beats individual creativity or responsibility as incentives to achieve success.
Both political parties are realigning and allowing their furthest wings to drive the clown cars.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary on FBI Investigation: ‘I Can’t Control What the Republicans and Their Allies Do’ ^ 

Hillary on FBI Investigation: 'I Can't Control What the Republicans and Their Allies Do' Katherine Timpf
Hillary Clinton says she “not concerned” about the FBI investigation into her handling of highly classified material “because I know what the facts are.” Appearing this morning on Meet the Press, Clinton blamed Republicans for the latest reports her server contained material beyond top secret.
“I never sent or received any material marked ‘classified,’ I cannot control what the Republicans leak and what they are contending,” Clinton said.
She then echoed her campaign manager, Brian Fallon, who said the intelligence community’s inspector general is conspiring with Republicans to bring down her campaign:
And I thought it was interesting, Chuck, you’ll as a political observer understand why, back a couple months ago Kevin McCarthy spilled the beans that the Benghazi investigation was all about bringing me down, something that I suspected but I went ahead, testified for 11 hours, answered all their questions and even they admitted there was nothing new. Now, Senator Grassley shows up at a Trump rally yesterday in Iowa. He’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who has — and his staff have been behind and pushing a lot of these stories, and announces he’s there for the simple reason, to defeat me. I can’t control what the Republicans are doing. But I know what the facts are and I will just keep putting them out there. This is something that I think is very clear about what happened and I know it will be over and resolved at some point but I can’t control what the Republicans and their allies do, but I think it’s important for voters to know what are they doing.

Former AG: It’s time to charge Hillary!

Hot ^ | January 23, 2016 | ED MORRISEY 

Hey kids, what time is it?* According to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, it’s time for Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice to do their jobs and charge Hillary Clinton with mishandling classified information — at the least. Nodding to the expansion of the FBI’s probe into areas of corruption, Mukasey argued in Friday’s Wall Street Journal that the 1300-plus pieces of evidence already on hand more than justifies initial charges — and cites David Petraeus as a precedent:
No criminality can be charged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with any of this absent proof that she had what the law regards as a guilty state of mind--a standard that may differ from one statute to another, depending on what criminal act is charged.
Yet--from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge--it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.
This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information.
Actually, under 18 USC 793, prosecutors don’t necessarily need to show a “guilty state of mind” (or mens rea) for a conviction, or even show that information had previously been classified. It would be easier to get a conviction if they could show both, but nothing in this statute requiresinformation to have been classified — only that its exposure would do damage to national security. Subsection (f) only requires “gross negligence,” not malice of purpose. Mukasey more than makes a case for gross negligence in the second paragraph of the excerpt.
But prior to this excerpt, Mukasey’s already made a pretty good case for mens rea, or at least eliminated the argument that Grandma Clinton thought comms security involved wiping things with cloths:
Further, Mrs. Clinton's own memoir, "Hard Choices" (2014), apparently written at a time when she wished to stress how delicate were the secrets she knew, and how carefully she handled them, reports that she "often received warnings from Department security officials to leave our [BlackBerrys], laptops--anything that communicated with the outside world--on the plane with their batteries removed to prevent foreign intelligence services from compromising them.
"Even in friendly settings we conducted business under strict security precautions, taking care where and how we read secret material and used our technology," Mrs. Clinton tells readers. She even read classified material "inside an opaque tent in a hotel room. In less well-equipped settings, we were told to improvise by reading sensitive material with a blanket over our head."
Try to square this with the 1,300-plus transmissions of classified information through an unsecured, home-brew server. The same woman who bragged about her adept compliance with classified access under unusual circumstances also forced her aides to send information based on Top Secret/Compartmented programs through an e-mail server located at one time in a bathroom in an unsecured and unauthorized location. Note too that Mukasey and the WSJ published this before news broke that the Inspector General informed Congress that at least one e-mail involved extremely sensitive human intelligence classified at the SCI/HCS level — information that conceivably get intelligence sources killed if exposed. Hillary knew full well about the need to secure this information, but she wanted to evade legitimate Congressional oversight more than she wanted to comply with the law. And that is a case for criminal intent, even if prosecutors don’t actually have to make one.
The question isn’t just why charges haven’t already been filed against Hillary Clinton. It’s also why no charges have been filed with the expanding universe of people who were aware of this system and yet did nothing to alert authorities to its use, people such as Stephen Mull, who warned Huma Abedin of the issue in 2011. There are a number of legitimate targets for prosecution. And it’s time that the Department of Justice began lining them up.
* – This opening is nothing more than a naked bid to get into James Taranto’s BotW column on Monday. Also, for those of you who are too young to recall, it’s the opening of The Howdy Doody Show.



Cruz’s plan to beat Clinton: Tell the truth!

The Hill ^ | January 23, 2016 | Bradford Richardson 

Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz says he hates the conventional wisdom that the only way for a conservative to win a general election is to run as a "Democrat-lite."
"How do we win?" Cruz asked voters at an Exeter, N.H., rally earlier this week, according to the Associated Press.
"Washington consultants always say 'the way you win is you run to the middle.' You run to the mushy middle, you blur the distinctions," he added. "Every time we do that, we lose."
The Texas senator said he prefers his approach, which he characterized as "telling the truth with a smile."
"That's how we win - with a clear contrast," he said.
Cruz pointed to the failed candidacies of Bob Dole, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Mitt Romney, who were all perceived to be moderates in the party, to support his position.
"What they did didn't work," he said. "We've got to do something different."

DHS is investigating a full .05% of millions of visa overstays

 Hotair ^ | 01/23/2016 | Jazz Shaw 

Earlier in the week we discussed the disturbing fact that not even half of “visitors” who come to the United States with a legally obtained visa actually leave when their allotted time is up. At the time I was wondering how many of these visa overstays actually have a warrant issued for them and, even more to the point, how many are actively investigated to see what they’re up to and tap them on the shoulder as Chris Christie once said. If you finished reading that article and found yourself guessing that the numbers might be depressingly low, give yourself a cookie. Turns out that DHS doesn’t have anywhere the resources required to track them all down and are currently investigating only a tiny fraction of them. (Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon)
The Department of Homeland Security is actively investigating just 3,000 of the 6 million individuals who have overstayed their visas and now reside in the United States illegally, according to disclosures made before Congress.
Craig Healthy, Homeland’s assistant director for national security investigations, admitted that there are just 3,000 active investigations, or .05 percent, into some six million aliens who have illegally overstayed their visas in the United States during the past 20 years.
Investigators have additionally "exhausted" 1,626 "leads" into these individuals, Healy disclosed under questioned by Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), a member of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee.
In some ways I almost hate to have these figures released in public because it just seems like an advertisement for anyone considering coming here illegally. Just apply for a tourist visa, show up, toss it in the trash and you’re on your way! But since it’s already been announced it’s too late to do anything about it now. This isn’t a blanket condemnation of the Department of Homeland Security, by the way. There’s obviously no way that they could track down that many visa overstays without adding the entire Chinese army to their ranks. Perhaps the problem here is that we’re simply far too free and easy handing out these visas in the first place.
On that front there may be some very small bit of relief on the way. As part of the horrendous spending bill compromise last year, the White House was forced to put some new visa waiver guidelines in place. As of this week, those changes are going into effect. (WaPo)
The Obama administration announced on Thursday that it has begun to implement restrictions to the visa waiver program Congress passed as part of the budget deal last month.
The restrictions prevent nationals of 38 countries who have either traveled to Iraq, Syria, Iran or Sudan since March 1, 2011, or those who hold citizenship from those countries, from coming to the United States under the program. The visa waiver program offers expedited electronic processing and short-term visa-free travel to tourists and business travelers.
Instead, dual nationals and travelers who have spent time in the listed countries will be required to go through the full vetting of the regular visa process, which includes an in-person interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate.
As I said, you don’t have to read very far into this to see that it’s a small change indeed. It’s not really even a reduction in the number of visas, but simply restrictions on how many people we’re allowing to come here from terrorist infested areas without bothering to get a visa in the first place. (And yes, the question you’re supposed to be asking is, wait… we were doing that?) But I suppose it’s better than nothing, so let’s give the White House credit for holding up their end of the deal.

Homosexuals can change!


Two books relate how grace and the power of the Holy Spirit can overcome same-sex attraction
Caleb Kaltenbach's new book, Messy Grace (WaterBrook Press, 2015), has a tantalizing subtitle: How a Pastor With Gay Parents Learned to Love Others Without Sacrificing Conviction. Kaltenbach states that "profound change is just as possible for a homosexual sin as it is for any other"-but it has to come through grace. Kaltenbach argues that Christians should emphasize a change of heart, and let that change then influence minds (and use of sex organs). It seems to me that churches should welcome but not affirm gays, so I found Kaltenbach's thinking useful.
I also found Denny Burk and Heath Lambert's argument in Transforming Homosexuality: What the Bible Says about Sexual Orientation and Change (P&R Publishing, 2015) helpful in debunking the myth that change is not possible for those struggling with same-sex attraction. The authors use Scripture to show how the same power that resurrected Jesus from the dead can lead to moral change. Just like Kaltenbach, Burk and Lambert believe, "This is just as true for same-sex attraction as it is for any other sin."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to... ^ | 23 Jan 2016 | Shepard Ambellas 

PRINCETON, Ore. - As it turns out there's a lot more to the story behind the Malheur Wildlife Refuge-a whole lot more-and this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
As you may or may not know, Intellihub reported on Jan. 4, that the Hammond's ranch and other ranch-lands surrounding the refuge sit atop a vast swath of precious metals, minerals, and uranium that's heavily desired by not only the federal government, but foreign entities as well.
However, at the time of the article's publication the federal government's full motive to seize the land was not yet known other than the fact that these elements do exist in the vicinity and are invaluable.
Now, after further investigation, more pieces of the puzzle have been put in place and you're not going to believe what characters are involved.
I'll give you a hint–one of them is currently being investigated by the FBI and is also running on the Democratic ticket in hopes of becoming the next President of the United States. That's right, you guessed it–none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton of the notorious Clinton crime family.
Hillary and her foundation are implicated in the dastardly scheme along with the Russian State Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, and a few dubious Canadian elite, which is where the news gets really bad.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Are Global Warmers Intellectually Challenged?

By reasonmclucus

If a person with normal intelligence enters a warm room with a fire in the fire place, he will say the fire is heating the room. A global warmer will say that the room is warm because carbon dioxide is trapping heat.
Before you say warmers couldn’t be that dumb consider that they make the same claim about earth’s temperature. If their calculations indicate earth is getting warmer, they ignore the fact that humans keep increasing the amount of heat they produce and claim that the increase must be because of minute increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Any average person knows that if you turn up the heat in a room it will get warmer unless someone opens a door or window to let in cooler air. It would be logical to think adding heat to the atmosphere, such as by increasing the number of vehicles producing hot exhaust gases, would raise air temperature. Simply increasing the number of people can raise temperatures because, except in desert and tropical areas, the human body usually has a higher temperature than the air.
Unfortunately the global warmers seem to lack the intelligence necessary to understand that adding heat can make a room or the atmosphere warmer. They believe carbon dioxide has a magical power to control the temperature of the air. If the temperature of the atmosphere goes up the only reason they can conceive of is an increase in carbon dioxide.
Some people have accused the warmers of using inflated temperatures. It doesn’t make any difference whether their temperature figures are accurate or not because the most logical explanation for a temperature increase is the increased heat produced by human activity.

Reasons Why Donald Trump Will Make the Best President Ever

Today' ^ | NA | Todays Info 

Why would Trump make the best president of all time?

He will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. He will bring back our jobs from China, from Japan, from Mexico.
Trump is not politically correct. He is not afraid to say what he thinks. If he has an issue with you, he will say it to your face. It would be nice to have a politician in office with that level of transparency.
Trump is undeniably a great negotiator, he knows how to navigate complex deals and convince a wide variety of industries, businesses, and investors to work with him to achieve goals.
He has emphasized beliefs in free enterprise and a strong military. He repeatedly highlights his ability to get things done, and understanding of finances
Trumps loyalty will only be to America and Americans, not any political party, special interest group or foreign entity. Like his slogan reads, Make America great again!
Trumps track record for financial success proves that he knows how to build a successful empire. With the U.S. trillions of dollars in debt, this is the sort of leader that might be able to turn it all around.
Trump has a confidence and is self-assured, Unlike other politicians who tend to be swayed by lobbyists and special interests.
No one will be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump.
Trump is planning to build a great wall on our southern border between the U.S. and Mexico, and will get Mexico pay for it!
Trump gets it. He believes in American exceptionalism, he is committed to education, an he demands high performance. After all, he has been know to fire anyone that does not meet his high standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TO All Voters

http://We Republicans Democrats and Liberal's would like to ring in 2016 by letting the World know that Donald J. ^ | unknown 

Trump did not steal your money.
Trump did not raise your taxes.
Trump did not quadruple the price of food.
Trump is not stirring a race war.
Trump did not leave any US soldiers in Benghazi to be slaughtered and desecrated by Muslims.
Trump did not send the US Navy to fight for Syrian Al-Qaeda.
Trump did not arm ISIS and systematically exterminate Christians throughout the Middle East.
Trump did not betray Israel.
Trump did not provide financing and technology to Irans nuclear weapons program.
Trump did not give our military secrets to China.
Trump did not remove our nuclear missile shield in Poland at the behest of Russia.
Trump did not shrivel our military, and betray our veterans.
Trump did not cripple our economy.
Trump did not increase our debt to 20 trillion dollars.
Trump did not ruin our credit, twice.
Trump did not double African American unemployment.
Trump did not increase welfare to a record level for eight years.
Trump did not sign a law making it legal to execute, and imprison Americans.
Trump did not set free all of terrorists in Guantanamo bay!!!