Nunes Must Be Close

Devin Nunes (R-CA) must know – or be close to knowing – who from the Obama administration unmasked Trump team members from surveillance initiatives, as the left is going bat-shit crazy with his “loyalty” to Donald Trump. Never mind that a sitting administration, via the DOJ had to be spying on a political adversary. Never mind that someone had to authorize the unmasking of private citizens. Never mind the administration changed the rules for sharing data after the supremely corrupt Hillary Clinton was beaten by Trump.

Never mind that. The left’s focus on the process and the character Nunes speaks volumes: Nunes knows enough to scare the crap out of them.

Back to Basics

We’ve been absent from our website for some time, spending most of our time on Facebook. It’s time to come back to basics of posting here, to our own site, instead of relying on the transient feeds of social media. More updates coming soon.

“Can’t we just all get along?”

A friend of a friend on Facebook posted this plea for us to get along with the terrorists:

i know we are hurt, and angry, after the attacks in Paris, but please, let’s make sure that hatred does not win.

please stop aiming this rage at the people rushing to escape terrorism and war. saying we should now disallow refugees because terrorists exist is a thin veil of xenophobia and ignores the fact that the history of terrorism in our own country is vastly from within our own people.

please stop aiming this rage at others who are hurting, at our Black citizens fighting for their own lives, saying that the pain of our own oppressed is somehow not as important. this is a thin veil of racism.

please stop aiming this rage at religion. Christians blaming Islam for terrorism shows an ignorance of our own extremists who have killed in the name of God.

please stop aiming this rage at our President. those who think President Obama should have been speculating about who the killers were, long before we even had an understanding of what was happening, last night, shows a lack of understanding the necessary process of international relations and is a thin veil of Islamophobia and racism.

all of this broad placing of blame where it doesn’t belong ignores history, ignores reality, ignores the fact that when we rise up against tragedy by fanning the flames of our own hatred, instead of mustering up courage and love and compassion for those affected, shows that we all have an incredible capacity for hatred.

we all have capacity for hatred. we all, also, have an incredible capacity for love. please, let’s move together in the right direction: love.

We think it would be great to get along with everyone. Is asking to know whom one is inviting into one’s home asking too much? When there are people that want to kill you, you do not invite them into your home knowingly.

This is not about religion. The United States is a very tolerant nation of people. But those that hide their hatred for our country and way of life behind religion are not to be tolerated. The West did not name their “state” nor their combatants. Islamic State and jihadist are their terms, not ours.

And yes, Christians have committed crimes in the name of God. But they do not today. To assign crimes of generations ago as absolution for current attacks is absurdity.

President Obama should not speak of who committed the crimes in Paris before it was known. But when it is known (like Benghazi) he should speak up.

We think Americans are eager and willing to allow others to live peacefully – as long as those people do not pledge our destruction. Until then, American and the west will likely hold the terrorists and their accomplices accountable.

Hillary, Abortion and Your Faith

Speaking at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit, Hillary Clinton used euphemisms like “reproductive rights” and “reproductive health” — which of course, includes abortion — and said “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving “access” to women for “reproductive health care.”

Those deep-seated religious beliefs of yours need to be changed, at least according to Ms. Clinton.

Hillary, Supreme Court Justice?

HillaryClinton1Mike McCurry, the former White House press secretary for President Bill Clinton from 1995-1998, thinks Hillary Clinton would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. He writes, for Real Clear Politics:

What if a vacancy now appeared on our nation’s highest court? Given the bitterness and polarization that exists in Washington today, it is hard to imagine any nominee offered by Barack Obama having a less than tumultuous path to confirmation.

With one exception: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

realclearHillary Clinton would bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a keen intellectual perspective, a robust appetite for the legal give and take that makes good fodder for judicial decisions, and a personality that would fit well in the current court and help build consensus and respect for constitutional law — a subject she knows very well going all the way back through two impeachment discussions involving U.S. presidents. No doubt her memories of those times, painful and otherwise, would give her a perspective on the constitutional balance of powers that no other sitting justice could equal.

Hillary would bring “intellectual perspective” and “a robust appetite for the legal” while building “consensus and respect for constitutional law”? Is Mr. McCurry smoking some medical marijuana? Hillary is a pathological liar that has demonstrated that she’ll do anything to advance HER agenda.

…And would not she have a longer-term, more lasting impact on the direction of our country as a consensus-building Supreme Court justice than as a U.S. president trying to govern in the stultifying, sulfurous atmosphere of a divided Washington?

Haven’t we had enough of politicians that govern by fiat because they say the tiresome, cumbersome system set up by our Constitution is too slow?

…Hillary is probably the one person Barack Obama could nominate who would be confirmed in a nanosecond, hopefully because many senators would see her as superbly qualified jurist, but also because some no doubt would like to see a formidable presidential contender removed from the field.

Not only is Hillary über partisan and not a “superbly qualified jurist,” she is not a formidable presidential contender. Hell, the community organizer with limited qualifications whipped her. Any GOP candidate with conservative credentials would destroy her.

==

Read the full article here.

Obama On Presidential Fiat

Mr. Obama has an interesting perspective regarding separation of powers, Presidential fiat and future abuse when he sat down with ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos on ‘This Week’ 11/23/14.

In his own words:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it – he says I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.

OBAMA: Well, the truth of the matter is, George, that the reason that we have to do prosecutorial discretion in immigration is that we know we are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time. The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes, and when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating. We’re not going after millions and millions of people who everybody knows are here and were taking advantage of low wages as they’re mowing lawns or cleaning out bedpans, and looking the other way – but then you got politicians suddenly going out there saying, suggesting somehow that we should be deporting all of them. Everybody knows, including Republicans, that we’re not going to deport 11 million people.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument?

OBAMA: With respect to taxes? Absolutely not. But what is true – what is true today is we don’t audit every single person, but we still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law. And we have limited resources, we have to make sure that we prioritize those folks who are most dangerous and we should acknowledge what everybody has already acknowledged through their actions – and Congress acknowledges through their budget – which is we’re not in the business of deporting millions of people or breaking up families.

Interesting that Obama says “we still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law.” Yet, when millions don’t, i.e. illegally entering the country, he believes that those people should be given a pass.

Read the full transcript of the ABC ‘This Week’ interview here.

Watch the video of the interview, via Mediaite, here.

WSJ: House Report Finds No Attempt to Mislead Public Over Benghazi

So, how does the House Intelligence Committee explain the apology ad? Just curious.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

GOP-Led Panel Says Administration ‘Talking Points’ Were Flawed; Military, CIA Responded Properly

A House report on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, concludes that the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military responded properly and that Obama administration “talking points” were flawed, but didn’t find that administration officials attempted to mislead the public.

The two-year-long investigation by the Republican-led House intelligence committee is the latest congressional probe to examine the attacks, and its conclusions deflate allegations suggesting misconduct by the Obama administration.

Among other findings, the report concluded that a CIA response team hadn’t been ordered to “stand down” after an assault began on the U.S. compound, and didn’t delay a rescue operation.

The report also said there had been no intelligence failure prior to the attacks, and that intelligence on those who participated in the attacks “was and remains conflicting” concerning their identities, affiliations and motivations.

So, there was no misleading in the attempt to coverup the lack of security, or no attempt in covering up the cause of the attack?

Panel members said they have “endeavored to make the facts and conclusions within this report widely and publicly available so that the American public can separate the actual facts from the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations.”

The report by the House intelligence panel is unlikely to be the last word on the furor over Benghazi. A separate investigation by a House select committee is under way and members said Friday they have reviewed the House intelligence report.

The issue is certain to be raised in the 2016 presidential race if Democrat Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state in 2012, decides to run. GOP attacks over Benghazi have focused on Mrs. Clinton, as well as on Susan Rice , then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now the White House national security adviser.

Ms. Rice, appearing on television news programs a week after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, described the events in ways later found to be inaccurate.

The report Friday found that while public statements by Ms. Rice and other U.S. officials eventually were proven wrong, the inaccuracies stemmed from poor intelligence rather than manipulation of the information.

Rather than accusing Ms. Rice and the administration of deception, the panel said, “The early intelligence assessments and the administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate.”

Early intelligence indicated that the attacks evolved from a protest, the report said. Other available early intelligence—which turned out later to be correct—didn’t assert there had been a protest.

Nonetheless, the CIA initially assessed that the attacks grew out of a protest, the House report said. The CIA changed its initial assessment nearly a week after Ms. Rice appeared on Sunday shows to discuss the event, determining there had been no demonstration…

In a statement, Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), the committee chairman, and Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D., Md.), the senior Democrat, said the report stemmed from “thousands of hours” of investigation, including interviews with senior intelligence officials and security personnel and an extensive review of documents and intelligence assessments.

“Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes,” Messrs. Rogers and Ruppersberger said.

A bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report released in January sharply criticized American diplomats and intelligence officials, and found that the assault in Benghazi was “likely preventable” through improved security and intelligence operations.

Write to FELICIA SCHWARTZ

1 2 3  Scroll to top