MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day




How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…





RAF-tornados

Britain Joins Air Strikes Against ISIL

British Members of Parliament have given the go ahead for the U.K. to join America and its allies in bombing strikes against ISIL. The Royal Air Force already has six Tornado aircraft poised to strike designated targets within Iraq, and airstrikes are expected to begin within the next few days. The Tornados have been stationed in Cyprus for six weeks, in anticipation of authorization to act. Reports say an RAF C-130 was recently spotted at an air base just outside Limassol. The government has also authorized sending British military advisors to assist in training the Iraqi army and identify bombing targets.
At 524 to 43, the vote was overwhelming. Britain, like the United States, is war weary, and there is a significant anti-war sentiment. However, the recent beheading by ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State) of a British aid worker has galvanized public opinion in favor of taking action. In arguing for the strikes, Prime Minister David Cameron said, “This is about psychopathic terrorists who are trying to kill us. Like it or not they have already declared war on us.”
The U.K. is also home to a large Islamic community, and both non-Muslim and Muslim citizens fear the radicalization of vulnerable youth. That fear was realized in 2005, when four home grown terrorists set three subway bombs. During those attacks, fifty-two people were killed and over 700 wounded.
The motion specifically prohibits ground troops in combat. It also prohibits any bombing of Syria in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution on legalizing such action. The Iraqi government has requested assistance from other countries in fighting ISIL within its borders. In light of its civil war, the situation in Syria is considerably more complex.
“That this House condemns the barbaric acts of ISIL against the peoples of Iraq including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis this is causing;
“Recognises the clear threat ISIL poses to the territorial integrity of Iraq and the request from the Government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK Government for such support;
“Further recognises the threat ISIL poses to wider international security and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and its murder of a British hostage;
“Acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the Government of Iraq including countries throughout the Middle East;
“Further acknowledges the request of the Government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat ISIL poses to Iraq and its citizens and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq;
“Notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament;
“Accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with allies, in supporting the Government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against ISIL in Iraq;
“Notes that Her Majesty’s Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;
“And offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.”

Barack Obama

Obama: Mistrust of police corrodes America

WASHINGTON (AP)

The widespread mistrust of law enforcement that was exposed by the fatal police shooting of an unarmed black man in Missouri exists in too many other communities and is having a corrosive effect on the nation, particularly on its children, President Barack Obama says. He blames the feeling of wariness on persistent racial disparities in the administration of justice.
Obama said these misgivings only serve to harm communities that are most in need of effective law enforcement.
"It makes folks who are victimized by crime and need strong policing reluctant to go to the police because they may not trust them," he said Saturday night in an address at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual awards dinner.
"And the worst part of it is it scars the hearts of our children," Obama said, adding that it leads some youngsters to unnecessarily fear people who do not look like them and others to constantly feel under suspicion no matter what they do.
"That is not the society we want," he said. "It's not the society that our children deserve."
Obama addressed the Aug. 9 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown carefully but firmly, saying his death and the raw emotion it produced had reawakened the country to the fact that "a gulf of mistrust" exists between residents and police in too many communities.
The shooting sparked days of violent protests and racial unrest in the predominantly black St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. The police officer who shot Brown was white.
"Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness," said Obama, who has spoken of enduring similar treatment as a younger man.
He said significant racial disparities remain in the enforcement of law, from drug sentencing to application of the death penalty, and that a majority of Americans think the justice system treats people of different races unequally.
Obama opened his remarks by praising Attorney General Eric Holder as a great friend and faithful public servant.
The president announced Holder's resignation this week after nearly six years as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Holder attended the dinner and received a standing ovation. He will stay on the job until the Senate confirms a successor.
"We will miss him badly," Obama said.
Holder visited Ferguson after the shooting to help ease tensions, and the Justice Department is investigating whether Brown's civil rights were violated.
There was more gun violence Saturday night in Ferguson when a police officer investigating suspicious activity at a closed community center was shot in the arm. The wounded officer is expected to survive and the police were looking for two suspects early Sunday.
Authorities said they didn't believe the shooting was related to demonstrations that were taking place at about the same time to protest the killing of Brown.
At the dinner, Obama also announced the addition of a "community challenge" to My Brother's Keeper, a public-private partnership he launched earlier this year to help improve the lives of young minority men. Communities across the U.S. will be challenged to adopt strategies to help all young people succeed from the cradle through college and to a career.
Obama said government cannot play the primary role in the lives of children but it "can bring folks together" to make a difference for them.
Helping girls of color deal with inequality is also important, he said, and part of the continuing mission of the White House Council on Women and Girls. The effort has involved his wife, Michelle, the mother of their 13- and 16-year-old daughters.
Obama noted that black girls are more likely than their white peers to be suspended, jailed and physically harassed, and that black women struggle daily with "biases that perpetuate oppressive standards for how they're supposed to look and how they're supposed to act."
"I've got a vested interest in making sure that our daughters have the same opportunities as boys do," he said.
COMMUNIST 'RECIPE' FOR U.S. REVEALED

Former baker stirs up secrets corrupting America from within.
Trevor Loudon used to get up at 2 a.m. each morning to bake dozens of loaves of bread.

But today, the former baker from Christchurch, New Zealand, is up early to catch communists at work, and the “secret recipes” he’s discovered have already shaken up American politics, exposing politicians, activists and former President Obama advisor Van Jones.
Loudon’s investigative work began after watching the rise of communism in his home country of New Zealand. Worried the same thing might happen in the U.S., he asked a former communist to explain how it happened.
That confidant, Loudon told WND, revealed the big secret of the Marxists is that they make small gains by infiltrating institutions that have political influence ¬– like churches, labor unions and universities – and spread their “yeast” from there. In time, the communists within rise up to infiltrate and control the much larger, mainstream political parties and institutions.
In the United States, Loudon told WND, communists have been following the recipe perfectly, including cooking up a White House candidate.
“I was researching the U.S. Democrats and Communist political parties in 2007, and that’s where I discovered the ties between Barack Obama and the Hawaii Communist Party’s Frank Marshall Davis,” Loudon said.
“I could see that Obama was destined for greatness,” he continued, “so I did a year’s research on Obama (and his Communist Party connections), and I found a bunch of connections. I started to put it up on my website and my blogs, and that’s when I exposed Van Jones, the communist green job czar.”
WND asked Loudon why he, a New Zealander, even cares what happens to America.
Loudon, the former vice president of the ACT Party, the New Zealand version of the Libertarian Party, explained, “If America goes down, every country goes down. Russia, China and Iran are expanding. America is retreating. If this continues, the bad guys will carve up the planet amongst themselves. There is nowhere to run.”
Loudon’s work has exposed Jones, union bosses and former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, but Loudon warns the recipe never begins at the top.
“You’ve got to realize that communists have been infiltrating the Christian Churches in America for 100 years,” Loudon said. “They have instituted ‘liberation theology’ (Christian Marxism), and they have done the same thing in the Middle East to Islam.”
Loudon told WND that in the 1970s Yuri Andropov, the head of the Soviet KGB, had a meeting with the Romanian head of the KGB and they made a plan to send 4,000 Marxists to the Islamic world with one purpose: to stir up hatred against the US and Israel.
“Islam became a battering ram against the West,” Loudon continued. “Now, that doesn’t mean that every Islamic terrorist understands that, just like every union member doesn’t understand that unions have been taken over by the Marxists, just like every Democrat doesn’t realize that their party has been taken over.”
“The communists,” Loudon said, “will work with the radical gay movement, they’ll work with the feminist movement, the Chicano movement, Buddhists, Hindu, they will infiltrate whatever it takes to get power.”
The former baker even disclosed the Republican Party is not above reproach in its ties to Marxism: “The GOP has been infiltrated to some degree, but because the Marxists have so effectively infiltrated the unions, and the unions are so overwhelmingly Democrat, less Republicans are infected by Marxism today. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., was a hard core, leftist, anti-American. [Jacob] Javitz, the former senator from New York, also had his roots in the Communist Party, for example.”
“I’d say in the Republican Party, you have one third progressives, one third go-alongs-to-get-alongs and one third constitutionalists and patriots,” Loudon said. “The real battle in this country is which faction is going to win? If the progressives win, we’re done. If the real, hardcore conservatives like Ted Cruz, [Trey] Gowdy, [Rand] Paul, [Louie] Gohmert, [Jim] Bridenstein come to ascendance, then this country has a chance of fighting back.”
Loudon further said anyone else who appreciates their First Amendment rights – even liberals, atheists and other groups that might be typically sympathetic to socialist policy – had best be warned of the inherent tyranny associated with the communist agenda.
“Even from a purely secular point of view, this is a battle between good and evil,” Loudon said. “It really comes down to [the writings of John] Milton [ironically, born on Bread Street in London, England] This comes down to the reason Satan left heaven. To Satan, it was better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. This is the motivation of the communists. They want power. They want to rule. They don’t give a d— what this earth turns into as long as they are running things.”
And if freedom falls to communist rule in America, Loudon warned, the rest of the world may fall as well.
“The only reason communism is still soft in some countries is because you still have [American] freedom left,” Loudon asserted. “If there was universal communism, you would have North Korea over the entire planet. There would be no checks, no balances, nowhere for people to run, there would be hardcore Leninism, absolute tyranny and the revolution would consume its own.”
He also said that even the powerful are deluded if they think communism will protect them.
“These people who get into the communist movement do not understand that,” Loudon said. “Everybody is equally trapped in this horrible situation in North Korea now. Even the top people in the North Korean government are still trapped by the system. You would have that worldwide. Nobody wins. Everybody loses. And evil rules.”

LOUISIANA TEA PARTY KICKS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WHERE IT HURTS
EDITOR -- BILL CASSIDY, LOUISIANA, TEA PARTY

If there’s one thing those in the Tea Party will not tolerate, it’s the constant derision they take from the establishment and the constant pressure to cave in to the demands of “political correctness.”
Case in point…
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) recently made a remark about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that many in both the Republican and Democrats quickly denounced.
Now, while it should go with without saying, Reid is one of the most detached and most deranged lawmakers in the U.S. Congress. So Cassidy’s remarks about how the Senate Majority Leader runs the US Senate like a “plantation” probably aren’t all that far off the mark.
Fortunately, the Tea Party of Louisiana (TPoL) was quick to back up Cassidy. Spokesman Barry Hugghins came to his defense and said:
[The TPoL] “is NOT ‘fully on board’ with anyone’s ‘politically-correct scolding of Cassidy,’ and condemns such statements as ‘giving aid and comfort’ those who would destroy our Constitution and the American way of life.
We haven’t always agreed with Bill Cassidy, but we’re proud of him standing up in this instance and ‘telling it like it is,’ and we are in complete support of his ‘plantation’ remarks.”
“Those calling for ‘civility’ when dealing with a demagogue like Senator Reid, and those critical of the bold candor shown by Congressman Cassidy in ‘calling Senator Reid out,’ exhibit a level of naivety rivaling that of Neville Chamberlin’s foolish appeasement of Adolf Hitler,” said Hugghins.
“Such misguided defenders are as dangerous as the evil they defend, because they are enablers to the architects of our nation’s destruction.”
“Our nation is in peril, and TPoL is grateful for Congressman Cassidy and his bold opposition to those, like Senator Reid and Senator Mary Landrieu, who would, by their ill-conceived plans, destroy our freedoms and cast us all back into serfdom.
TPoL urges the defeat of anyone who defends or supports Senator Harry Reid.”
This is exactly the kind of fortitude the Republicans should be showing against the Democrats, but continually fall short of doing.
The nation has been victimized by Reid over the past several years and it takes someone with gall to be able to stand up and call out the evil in the world as Cassidy has done.
While the TPoL has not endorsed Cassidy, nor any Tea Party Candidate, they were quick to come to Cassidy’s defense after Col. Rob Maness said the remarks were “over-the-top, out-of-bounds ignorance.”
The truth is, such opinion was probably not formed out of ignorance.
However, that isn’t to say politicians don’t keep us in the dark.

Barack Obama’s Brother Reveals SHOCKING SECRETS About the President


Watch (above) as Mark Obama Ndesandjo, President Barack Obama’s half brother is interviewed by Fox News’ Sean Hannity. He agreed to the interview to promote his new book ‘Cultures: My Odyssey of Self-Discovery,’ which covers the intense encounters with Barack over the years. In the explosive book, he also offers painful details about the domestic abuse from their late father, and explains Barack’s strong affinity for African culture.
Their father, who died in a car crash in 1982 at age 46, was mostly an absent figure in their lives. Ndesandjo takes issue with many stories told in Barack’s 1995 autobiography, ‘Dreams from My Father.” Once such issue involves a quote wrongly attributed to Ndesandjo’s mother:
“It’s a correction. A lot of the stuff that Barack wrote is wrong in that book and I can understand that because to me for him the book was a tool for fashioning an identity and he was using composites,” Ndesandjo said.
“I wanted to bring it up because first of all I wanted the record to be straight. I wanted to tell my own story, not let people tell it for me,” he said.
The book also recalls alcohol-fueled beatings his father gave his mother. He even recounts one incident in which his father held a knife to his mother’s throat because she took out a restraining order in the courts against him.
However, throughout his conversation with Hannity, it seems clear that Ndesandjo knows more about Barack than he’s willing to admit. For how open he is about past-family pain, he is cautiously guarded about just what he thinks about Barack. Why do you think that is? Please leave us a comment and let us know.

Mr. President, how is it NOT Islam?

By Kevin McCullough, OneNewsNow.com

How do you tie together all of the major terrorist events on American soil since 9/11? Simple: you study the woven web behind the Moore, Oklahoma, beheader Alton Nolen.
He converted to Islam in prison and sat under the influence of Imam Suhaib Webb. Webb was connected to the greater Islamic Society of Oklahoma. Webb also had associations with the mosque where the Boston Marathon bombers frequented. Worst of all, Suhaib Webb was a confidant of Amwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind of the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11/01. The killer utilized the techniques of ISIS. And the Obama administration immediately labels it "workplace violence."
I know the authorities are having a hard time accurately describing what happened in Moore, but let's break some things down:
This attack occurred after Nolen converted to Islam.
This attack occurred after sitting under an Islamic imam's teaching.
This attack followed the rejection of Islamic conversion of co-workers.
This attack followed an argument about Islam that got him fired.
This attack followed an argument governing Islamic practice.
This attack followed Nolen's intolerance towards anyone's disagreement concerning the stoning of women (an inherently Islamic practice -- as neither Jews nor Christians practice such).
This attack followed the rationale of the Islamic State. (Convert, Flee or Die.)
This attack utilized the same methodologies as the Islamic State -- beheading.
This attack -- like 9/11 and Boston -- was immediately praised -- even by Muslims in the U.S.
This attack -- like the Ft. Hood massacre -- was labeled an incident of workplace violence, even when like Ft. Hood "Allah Akbar" was invoked by the evil doer. (The famous invocation of Islam.)
The first, most immediate, reports about the incident claimed the Islamic Society of Oklahoma was publicly expressing -- not remorse for the victim's families, or sorrow for the actions of one of their own.
Nope, the first statement from domestic Muslims discussed fears of violent reprisals.
Which is rich, huh?
The evil one comes from their midst, but they are afraid they won't be treated well?
We continue to be told by the administration that we are not at war with radical Islam. The president inaccurately continues to say that be headings, violence, dominance, rape, and murder are not the actions of Islam.
The problem we face, however, is that our enemy believes they are practicing Islam to its most serious degree. And even if the entire global population of Islam is added up and the radical components of it only consist of 2-3 percent, that still leaves a few million radicals that will continue to come after the infidels and lop off their heads.
Now that the CIA and the military alert us to the idea that ISIS fighters who had been born in the USA have returned from their battles... Now that the Rochester police arrested the ISIS member in upstate New York... Now that ISIS has set up operations in Ciudad Juarez (across only a river from El Paso Texas...) Now that an ISIS-styled beheading took the life of a young man in New Jersey... And now that a Muslim in the heartland carried out an Islamic State-style execution on the inferior female infidels in his office... What is it about this activity BEING Islam that we don't get?
The American people KNOW it is Islam. We know Islam teaches these things, and we know that there are millions of radicalized Muslims ready to attack.
It has taken our military's weapons to thwart Islamic terror overseas. In Moore, Oklahoma it took a private gun owner to put down the evil.
What will it take for our president?

99428429

Poll after poll shows GOP gaining momentum in key Senate races



A series of electoral forecasting models are predicting that the likelihood of Republicans winning enough seats to take the Senate this fall is growing. Prognosticators have credited momentum in GOP races in Alaska, Colorado and Iowa as the driving force behind the trend.
Real Clear Politics (RCP) last week reported that Alaska GOP Senate candidate Dan Sullivan holds a 4.7-point lead over Democrat Mark Begich. The RCP finding was calculated by averaging results from Rasmussen, Public Policy Polling and CBS/NYT/YouGov, which, respectively, show Sullivan leading by 5, 3 and 6 points.
In Colorado, Republican Cory Gardener currently holds a narrower lead over Democrat Mark Udall, with an RCP average of 0.8 points. That’s based on USA Today/Suffolk, Quinnipiac, Denver Post/ SurveyUSA and Rasmussen polling showing the GOP candidate leading by 1, 8, 4 and 2 points, respectively.
RCP reports that Iowa Republican Joni Ernst leads Democrat Bruce Braley by an average of 2.2 points. Both Rasmussen and Fox News are reporting a tie in polling results for the two, while the Des Moines Register and Quinnipiac both award Ernst a lead of 6 points. A CNN/Opinion Research poll is the outlier among the data set, reporting that Braley currently holds a 1-point lead.
Numbers on the three races reported by The Washington Post’s Election Lab give even more favor to the GOP contenders. According to The Post, there is a 68 percent chance that Sullivan will take the seat for the GOP in Alaska, a 66 percent chance Republicans will celebrate a Gardener victory in Colorado and an 83 percent chance that Ernst will become a GOP senator from Iowa.
According to the Washington Post’s overall assessment, the GOP could pick up a total of seven Senate seats in the forthcoming midterms, putting them one seat over the required 51 spots for majority control of the upper Congressional chamber.


Captain Pronoun: How the Third Person Takes the Fall


Captain Pronoun: How the Third Person Takes the Fall

To the politician looking to shade the truth and evade responsibility, there is no greater superhero than Captain Pronoun. You wouldn’t believe how much can be obfuscated simply by shifting the number and person of a narrative’s dramatis personae.
For example, on “60 Minutes” Sunday night, President Obama gave us a demonstration of how much can be accomplished by that indispensable man, the third person. Pressed on whether he was asleep at the wheel during the rise of the Islamic State—which he obviously was—Obama replied: “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” Yes, that’s right. They.
Obama might be foolish enough to let a radical terrorist group re-establish itself in a power vacuum in Iraq and Syria, but he wouldn’t be so foolish as to use the first personal singular or plural—”I” or “we”—to acknowledge his own responsibility. No, he’ll use the third person singular, “he” (i.e., James Clapper), and third personal plural, “they” (the intelligence community). That third person is an awfully useful fellow, always there to take the fall when mistakes were made.
(It should be noted that the actual third people in this case called BS, pointing to all the warnings Obama ignored.)
In other settings, it is more useful to switch from the second or third person back to the first. If I describe something that I think the government should do to you, you might become worried, offended, even outraged. So it’s much better to describe it as something I want done to me, which has the additional advantage of making me seem like quite a magnanimous fellow, willing to make the necessary sacrifices for the public good. That’s why President Obama likes to talk about raising taxes for “people like me” when he presents his latest proposal for raising taxes on you.
It’s also why Ezekiel Emanuel writes an article on “Why I hope to Die at 75.” The first person pronoun is not justified. None of the considerations he talks about—for example, the possibility of being slowed down and disabled in old age—are in any way specific to his own situation. He is not projecting the state of his own mind and body 18 years in the future, because he has no idea what that will be. He’s talking about the human condition in general, and his observations apply to everyone. So he’s really saying that he hopes you die at 75. Which is a little disconcerting when you realize this is the man who just redesigned our health care system.
Principles are universal, so they ought to make just as much sense if you substitute out one pronoun for another. What’s good for me should be good for you and for them, and vice versa. But note how rarely political arguments translate well—how much worse “I hope to die at 75″ sounds when it’s not just about Zeke Emanuel any more.
All of this can be very clarifying, if clarity is what you’re striving for.
But for the politician, the goal is usually to deny and deflect, to switch out the specific for the vaguely general, or to make a universal pronouncement seem safely narrow and specific.
And if that’s what you’re going for—well, it looks like a job for Captain Pronoun.

What One Mother Did to Destroy Common Core (IMAGE)


The Common Core education program is an insult to the intelligence of students, as well as their parents. That an entire top-down educational system would be put in place to propagandize and confuse our children is abhorrent.
One mother wasn’t going to sit back any longer and let Common Core ruin her child’s life, or her own, for that matter. So when her child brought home one of the ridiculous math assignments from her child’s school, she gave the school and her child’s teacher an earful.
Take a look…
CommonCoreDumb
Fortunately for this mother and many like her, states across the country have slowly been turning their backs on the Common Core curriculum. Louisiana is the most recent of nine states to block Common Core from their public institutions of learning.
G’ day…

Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day




How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…






CAREY: 'SEMPER LATTE' NO TRIVIAL MATTER



This week our Commander-in-Chief gave the orders to significantly step up our military actions against ISIS. While the President stresses that he is minimizing American loss of life by not putting boots on the ground, anytime the men and women in our military are engaging with the enemy their lives are at risk. I know; I served in combat in our Navy. I know firsthand the sacrifices our brave men and women make to protect our freedoms, and I know the tradition and solemnity of the salute, both given and returned.
And that’s why I was so offended with President Obama’s disrespectful treatment of the military’s oldest sign of respect, the salute, when he half saluted two Marines with a latte in his hand as he was disembarking from Marine One earlier this week. And the White House press office is so clueless about what the military is all about, that they promoted this video on the White House website!
The left wants you to believe those upset by the President’s discourtesy are just being petty, but let me explain to you and the left why that totally misses the point.
The salute is not just some nicety the military uses as a replacement for “Hey Joe.”  It is the oldest and most distinctive of military traditions, dating back centuries.  It is the very first military act members of the military learn in boot camp.  And there are clear rules for both giving and returning the salute.  A clear tradition is that the senior will return the salute with the same crispness as it was given to him or her.  In looking at the video, the Marines appeared to have snapped perfectly executed salutes.  And I didn’t see cups of coffee in their saluting hands.
There is a tradition of members of the military saluting the President as he is their Commander-in-Chief.  Before President Reagan, many Presidents did not return salutes.  Even President Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, did not always return salutes as President.  But President Reagan started it as a sign of respect to the military and to “finish” the give and return process of the salute.  He understandably felt a little uncomfortable leaving the giver of the salute “hanging”, wondering when he should drop the salute.  So, after consulting with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, President Reagan started returning salutes to both return the respect given and to let the giver of the salute know when he could drop his salute.  Every President since has continued the tradition.
President Obama would be on pretty firm tradition in NOT returning the salute.  But if he’s going to return it, return it correctly.  And returning it with a cup of joe in his hand is exceptionally disrespectful of the tradition of saluting, the military members that saluted him, and the world of traditions that drive so much of military culture.  Looking at the video, the President’s salute comes off as dismissive, an afterthought, an annoyance.
So, during the week the President sent our troops into combat, our President publicly dismissed our military with a lackadaisical salute. Taken alone, I might overlook it.  But given this is the same Administration that continues to send pink slips to Army officers leading men and women in combat in Afghanistan, forces disabled veterans to wait until death to see a Veterans Affairs doctor, and publicly dismisses the private recommendations of his military leaders on how to prosecute wars, it’s starting to look like this President, and his Administration either don’t understand the military or just don’t care.  Either way, the men and women of our Armed Services deserve better than a callous salute that looks more like a nuisance or an afterthought than the returned respect of the Commander-in-Chief.
Bob Carey is the Military & Veterans Outreach Director at the Republican National Committee.




TV studio with camera and lights

Sunday Shows: Lawmakers call for vote on ISIS response, Obama passes the buck


Guests on Sunday’s political television shows focused largely on the ongoing U.S. mission to weaken Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria and President Barack Obama’s evolving strategy in the region.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) joined ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, warning that the U.S. may have “no choice” but to send ground troops to Iraq and Syria to destroy the ISIS terror network.
“At the end of the day, I think it’s gonna take more than air strikes to drive them outta there,” he said. “At some point somebody’s boots have to be on the ground.”
Boehner acknowledged that the president has staunchly opposed the idea of sending in troops, but noted that the U.S. should do whatever it takes to finish the job of defeating ISIS.
“If I were the president, I probably wouldn’t have talked about what I wouldn’t do. And maybe we can get enough of these forces trained and get ‘em on the battlefield. But somebody’s boots have to be there,” Boehner said.
The House Speaker added that, given ISIS’s stated mission, the U.S. has no choice but defeating the group.
“These are barbarians. They intend to kill us. And if we don’t destroy them first, we’re gonna pay the price,” he said.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (Conn.) also weighed in on the current U.S. response to the ISIS threat and the possibility of an expanding war during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Murphy lamented that the U.S. lacks a “realistic political strategy” to dismantle ISIS without a full-scale military conflict unraveling in Syria.
“What we know is you ultimately can’t defeat ISIS with a military strategy alone, you need a realistic political strategy and I just don’t think we have that today in Syria right now,” he said.
The Democrat said that the White House’s plan to rely on Syrian rebels to beat ISIS is likely to fail.
“Ultimately, I don’t think we have a partner in the Free Syrian Army, who ultimately can win that fight militarily, so I worry you get sucked into a long-term conflict,” Murphy said.
The lawmaker said that, because there may be a necessary expansion of U.S. military force, the White House should seek explicit permission from Congress to use the military in Syria.
“That’s the check of a war without end is a Congress speaking for the American people that can put an end date on an authorization for military force or put a limitation so you can’t use ground troops,” Murphy said.
Murphy’s suggestions echo the opinion of fellow Senate Democrat Tim Kaine (Va.), who called Sunday for Congress to go back into session for a vote on whether the U.S. should declare war against ISIS.
“We’re not supposed to start a war without Congress,” Kaine, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
The Virginia Democrat has sponsored legislation that would, with limitations on executive power, formally authorize the White House’s ISIS strategy.
“I include a sunset where the president would have to come back and keep Congress informed to extend the mission beyond a year, a limitation on ground forces, repeal of the 2002 Iraq authorization so we don’t have dueling authorizations out there, and a careful definition of who the target is,” he said.
Republican Senator John Barrasso (Wyoming) also called for Congressional authorization for military action against ISIS Sunday.
“The president has an obligation to call us back to start this debate,” Barrasso told Fox News, noting that Britain’s prime minister recently held a vote in Parliament on military action against ISIS.
“The decision to go to war was to be made by the people closest to the ground, the elected officials, to make those decisions,” Barrasso added. “I think that the public deserves it, they should be demanding it.”
President Barack Obama appeared in a “60 Minutes” interview which aired Sunday night to defend his ISIS strategy and blame intelligence failures for what the public has largely viewed as a delayed and mismanaged response to the terror threat.
“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Obama said.
Meanwhile, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that Obama is currently dealing with the consequences of his previous foreign policy failures.
“We are quite late at addressing the problem and there are people who will agree that had we addressed the issue of how do we empower the more moderate opposition to [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad two years ago, ISIS might never have taken off,” Chertoff said in an interview with The Hill.

Fact-Checking Feinstein On The Assault Weapons Ban


Gun rights groups have long criticized the ban, and Feinstein’s defense of it.


In the ten years since the federal assault weapons ban expired, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has kept trying to renew the law, which she authored. In a press release this month honoring the 20th anniversary of the ban, she wrote, “The evidence is clear: the ban worked.”
But gun violence experts say the exact opposite. “There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives,” Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook and Kristin Goss wrote in their book “The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know.”
A definitive study of the 1994 law – which prohibited the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic guns with “military-style features” such pistol grips or bayonet mounts as well as magazines holding more than ten rounds – found no evidence that it had reduced overall gun crime or made shootings less lethal. “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” the Department of Justice-funded study concluded in 2004. “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
As we recently reported, key gun control groups say they are no longer making an assault weapons ban a priority because they think focusing on other policies, including universal background checks, are a more effective way to save lives. The Center for American Progress released a report earlier this month suggesting ways to regulate assault weapons without banning them.
Feinstein introduced an updated version of the assault weapons ban last year, in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which the shooter used a type of rifle that had been targeted by the ban. She told her Senate colleagues to “show some guts” when they voted on it in April. The measure failed, 40 to 60. The push to improve background checks also failed, but attracted more support.
The key statistic that Feinstein cited in her recent press release — that the ban “was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal”— was rejected by researchers a decade ago.
Feinstein attributed the statistic to an initial Department of Justice-funded study of the first few years of the ban, published in 1997.
But one of the authors of that study, Dr. Christopher Koper, a criminologist from George Mason University, told ProPublica that number was just a “tentative conclusion.”  Koper was also the principal investigator on the 2004 study that, as he put it, “kind of overruled, based on new evidence, what the preliminary report had been in 1997.”
Feinstein’s spokesman, Tom Mentzer, contested the idea that the 2004 study invalidated the 1997 statistic that Feinstein has continued to cite. But Koper said he and the other researchers in 2004 had not re-done the specific analysis that resulted in the 6.7 percent estimate because the calculation had been based on an assumption that turned out to be false. In the 1997 study, Koper said, he and the other researchers had assumed that the ban had successfully decreased the use of large-capacity magazines. What they later found was that despite the ban, the use of large-capacity magazines in crime had actually stayed steady or risen.
“The weight of evidence that was gathered and analyzed across the two reports suggested that initial drop in the gun murder rate must have been due to other factors besides the assault weapons ban,” Koper said.
Cook, the Duke public policy expert, told ProPublica that the “weak results” of the 1994 ban “should not be interpreted to mean that in general bans don’t work.”
He said Feinstein’s updated version of the ban, which she proposed in 2013 and is more restrictive, might be more effective. An American assault weapons ban might also have an impact on drug and gang-related violence in Mexico, he said.
“Around 30,000 Americans are killed with guns each year; one-third of those are murders,” Feinstein said in a statement to ProPublica. “Obviously there’s no single solution, which is why I support a wide range of policy proposals to bring sense to our firearms laws. I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle—and the data back this up.” (See Feinstein’s full statement below.)
Gun rights groups have long criticized the ban, and Feinstein’s defense of it.
“Gun rights organizations, Second Amendment people, always take Dianne Feinstein with the whole shaker full of salt,” said Dave Workman, the communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. ”She’s been a perennial gun-banner.”
“One would think the lesson learned from banning alcohol, marijuana, and many other drugs and items [is that] it never works for anyone intent on obtaining any of these items,” Jerry Henry, the executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, told ProPublica. “All it does is put it in the background and helps establish a flourishing black market.”
The National Rifle Association did not respond to a request for comment.
Full Feinstein statement:
“Around 30,000 Americans are killed with guns each year; one-third of those are murders. Obviously there’s no single solution, which is why I support a wide range of policy proposals to bring sense to our firearms laws. We need to expand background checks, strengthen gun trafficking laws and make sure domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill and other dangerous people cannot access guns.
“I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle—and the data back this up. These weapons were designed for the military and have one purpose: to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. They are the weapon of choice for grievance killers, gang members and juveniles, and they shouldn’t be on the streets.
“A 2004 Justice Department study found clear evidence that the ban on manufacture and transfer of assault weapons reduced their use in crimes. The percentage of assault weapons traced as part of criminal investigations dropped 70 percent between 1993 and 2002, and many police departments reported increases in the use of assault weapons after the ban expired. In less than a decade, the ban was already drying up supply. The study suggested the law would have been even more effective if it had banned weapons already in circulation and if it had continued past its 10-year duration. Unfortunately those limits were part of the compromise that had to be struck to pass the ban into law.
“Let me be clear: Assault weapons allow criminals to fire more shots, wound and kill more individuals and inflict greater damage. The research supports that. A ban on assault weapons was never meant to stop all gun crimes, it was meant to help stop the most deadly mass shootings. That’s why it needs to be a part of the discussion, or rampages like Sandy Hook will continue to happen.”

In Your Face, Liberals

The Gallup organization has released a new poll that shows Republicans taking a 23-point lead over Democrats when asked who they thought was better able to protect them from possible terrorism.
The poll asked, “Which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats?”
55% of Americans chose the GOP, while only 32% chose the Democrat Party.
The 23% gap represents the widest margin in history since Gallup began asking the question in 2002. The results prove that most Americans simply don’t believe the Democrat Party is capable of defending American freedom.
Screen Shot 2014-09-12 at 5.29.15 PM

Islam Comes to Moore, Oklahoma
By Alan Caruba
It took the gruesome videos of two American journalists being beheaded by a masked Islamic State (ISIS) butcher, followed since then by more victims, to finally wake Americans to the threat that they face from Islam, but the beheading of a Moore, Oklahoma victim by a man who had been trying to get his co-workers to convert to Islam that brought the threat to the homeland.
The memory of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon have long since begun to fade, but Islam has returned to page one with a display of the violence that is the heart and soul of a cult based on the life and teachings of Muhammad.
Don’t call it a religion. And surely do not call it the “religion of peace.” There was nothing peaceful about Islam from its earliest days when the citizens of Mecca came to the conclusion that Muhammad and his followers were a threat to them. That was 1,400 years ago.
If it were in my power, I would require every American to read “It’s All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet” by F.W. Burleigh ($`6.95, Zenga Books).
Instead, I will only highly recommend it as the best way to understand the man who literally invented a so-called religion based on his own pathologies and then, through terror, ensured it spread to the entirety of Arabia in his lifetime.
As the author notes in its introduction, the biography is based almost entirely on the original literature of Islam as well as early biographies, histories, and collections of traditions. Twenty thousand pages of material were given line-by-line scrutiny “because what is written about him in the original literature is disturbing.”
“More than two-thirds of the canonical biographical materials have to do with the violence he used to spread his religion.”  It was a short step from Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet who later called himself the messenger of Allah, to Alton Nolen, the Muslim convert who is alleged to have beheaded a former co-worker.
What is little known about Muhammad is that he suffered from epileptic fits throughout his life and had had a troubled youth that would have unhinged anyone. A fortunate marriage at age 24 took him out of a life of low status and poverty. His wife was twenty years his senior, a woman of wealth. Though a grave concern in an era when the fits were seen as demon possession, Muhammad began to interpret them as the voices of Allah and his angels, particularly Gabriel.
“It was during this period of emotional and intellectual upheaval that his overcharged brain, wracked by doubts and suffering, came to his rescue in the form of a series of spectacular hallucinatory experiences that convinced him he was unique and had been singled out by God for a special purpose. This took place in A.D. 610 when Muhammad was forty years old.”
“His belief became unshakable and later became content of much of the Koran and his later ruthless behavior as pillage, rape, the enslavement of men, women, and children, and other atrocities he perpetrated—make such a belief beyond ludicrous.”
“It was sufficient for Muhammad to think something for it to become the truth. He was convinced that whatever came into his head came from Allah.” For ages insane asylums have been filled with such people.
As Muhammad drew followers to himself and to the exacting rituals he created for Islam, he enriched himself and them with acts of banditry, attacking caravans and then attacking tribes, particularly Jewish ones, to build a mountain of stolen wealth. Burleigh notes that the Koran has a chapter “entitled ‘The Spoils of War’” that “transformed Muhammad’s religion into an organized-crime enterprise for its approval of plunder.”  He told his believers “Enjoy what you take in war” for it is “lawful and good.”
Again, it is a short step from his era to the present one in which believers have united to create the Islamic State (ISIS) by war and to begin to steal the wealth of Syria from the sale of its oil on the black market. Imposing themselves on a large area of Iraq, ISIS is simply an extension of al Qaeda and al Qaeda is an expression of Muhammad’s demand that Islam become the sole religion of the world, exacting a subjugation tax from any who would not convert.
Burleigh concludes his book saying “Muhammad was a diseased genius, an epileptic psychopath with a clever tongue who believed God talked to him, a toxic mixture that transformed him over time into a mass murderer and a despot pushing a delusional religion.”
It should surprise no one that he “divided the world into lands conquered and lands yet to be conquered, into lands that submitted to his delusions about himself and lands yet to submit to his delusions.”
Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam was in decline, but the discovery of oil in the Middle East provided the funding to spread its message. That message, dependent on violence and terror has created such a problem in the Middle East that Islamic nations there are joining in the effort to defeat ISIS.
Burleigh asks “Who will defend you against the encroachment of what Muhammad created and the very real threat that it could eventually destroy all that you cherish?” He does not recommend the man who said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”  That man is President Barack Hussein Obama.
And now you know why the murders committed by Major Nidal Hasan in 2009, killing his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or the murder in Oklahoma were both deemed “workplace violence” by law enforcement authorities reluctant to challenge the White House to the reality that both were inspired and approved by Islam.
G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier





Blog Archive

issues