Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

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

School Photographs
Don’t you love school photographs?  It must be wonderful to look back in years to come and recognize all your old classmates and the memories of all the fun times you had together.
Does anyone remember the name of the fourth from the left in the front row?

(File Photo)

House, Senate intel chiefs emphasize Islamic State risk

By Associated Press

Leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees on Sunday prodded President Barack Obama to take decisive action against what they say are growing threats from Islamic State militants on U.S. soil.

The lawmakers, one Republican and one Democratic, offered bipartisan pressure on the White House to turn back the hazard of Islamist fighters who have taken control of vast swaths of Syria and Iraq. Those militants now are looking toward the United States or Western Europe for their next targets, lawmakers said.
Without offering specifics on any threats or suggestions how to confront them, the lawmakers said Obama soon needs to develop a comprehensive strategy to crush the Islamic State fighters.
"His foreign policy is in absolute free-fall," said Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee.
In another TV interview, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate intelligence panel, said Obama is perhaps "too cautious" in his approach to combatting the Islamic State group.
"This is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous," Feinstein said. "And they'll kill with abandon."
The pair of lawmakers, who have access to some of the nation's most sensitive secrets and receive regular and detailed briefings from U.S. spy agencies, offered dire predictions of an attack on the United States or its European allies if the militants are not confronted.
"They have announced that they don't intend to stop," Feinstein said. "They have announced that they will come after us if they can, that they will, quote, 'spill our blood.'"
The threat, Rogers said, could include Americans who have trained with Islamic State fighters. He said there are hundreds of Islamic State-trained Americans who can return to the United States with their American passports.
"I'm very concerned because we don't know every single person that has an American passport that has gone and trained and learned how to fight," Rogers said.
Rogers said U.S. intelligence agencies were tracking the Americans who are known to have traveled to the region. Those people, he added, should be charged under existing laws that prohibit Americans from aiding terrorists.
An attack on a Western nation is the next goal for the group, Rogers said.
"ISIL would like to have a Western-style attack to continue this notion that they are the leading jihadist group in the world," Rogers said, using another name for the group.
The top Democrat on his intelligence panel, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, was more skeptical about an attack from Islamic State fighters in the United States. He said more needs to be known before judging whether they plan to commit terrorist acts here any time soon. Islamic State fighters are taking over territory and their priority for the moment seems to be to hold on to that land rather than export violence.
"It is extremely urgent, but you don't just rush in," he said.
It was a view shared by Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington state Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee: "We can't simply bomb first and ask questions later."
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged fast action and said Islamic State fighters "must be defeated, not contained," because they represent a direct threat to the U.S.
Added Homeland Security Committee member Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican: "The longer we wait, the more dangerous" the group becomes.
Feinstein said she has seen nothing that compares to the viciousness of the militants who have overrun large portions of Iraq, killed civilians and beheaded American journalist James Foley. The Islamic State group has financing, military structure and weapons unlike any other militants, she said.
Obama said Thursday that he did not yet have a strategy for dealing with the Islamic State group, a remark that brought criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. In an interview published early this year by The New Yorker magazine, the president appeared to minimize the Islamic State group by comparing it to a junior varsity basketball team. The White House later said he was speaking about a different threat posed by a range of extremists across the world.
Feinstein said she thought the basketball analogy was wrong — "I think it's a major varsity team" — but would not say whether she thought not having a strategy yet, as Obama acknowledged on Thursday, projected weakness from the White House.
"I think I've learned one thing about this president, and that is he's very cautious," she said. "Maybe in this instance, too cautious. I do know that the military, I know that the State Department, I know that others have been putting plans together. And so hopefully, those plans will coalesce into a strategy."
Feinstein spoke to NBC's "Meet the Press." Rogers appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Ruppersberger was on CNN's "State of the Union." McCain, Smith and King were interviewed on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Lieutenant Colonel Allen West calls President Obama an Islamist
Vicky Nissen
This week Lieutenant Colonel Allen West blogged that Obama is an Islamist supporter. He indicated the only plausible explanation for many actions taken by President Obama and his administration is that they are working counter to the security of the United States of America and named several instances of anti-American support, and Americans should consider this very seriously.
1. The unilateral release of five senior Taliban back to the enemy while the enemy is still fighting us.
2. Providing weapons of support to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government — F-16s and M1A1 Abrams tanks — but not to the Egyptian government after the Islamist group has been removed.
3. Negotiations with Qatar and Turkey, two Islamist-supporting countries.
4. Negotiations with Hamas, a terrorist group.
5. Returning sanction money, to the tune of billions of dollars, back to the theocratic regime led by Iran’s ayatollahs and allowing them to march on towards nuclear capability.
6. Obama’s evident support of Islamists in Libya.
If you would like to receive future articles, please click on SUBSCRIBE.
And then there is Benghazi. We can certainly look back at Benghazi and Obama’s lack of concern. In my article dated May 8, 2013 I wrote that on the morning of the attacks, Information Management Officer, Sean Smith, reported to security in Tripoli, indicating that around 6:40 a.m., one of the guards saw troubling activity. Near their main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from the compound, photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission. Even more troubling, the man was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission, and the car number was 322.
In Benghazi, Stevens’ meetings throughout the day were all held within the confines of the gated compound for security reasons with no problems. Fears started to escalate.
At approximately 6:30, Libyan time, 12:30 pm East Coast time, Ambassador Chris Steven’s team warned Washington that “a Libyan Militia was gathering weapons and gathering steam.”
Stevens’ last appointment was at 8 p.m., or 2 p.m. EST, and that meeting was with the Turkish Consul General Ali Akin Sait. More than likely they were talking about the current Libya shipment of weapons headed for Syria but docked in Turkey. The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. If these weapons were used to defeat Assad, what guarantee is there that they would eventually be used against the United States?
Around the same time as Stevens’ meeting with Ali, according to the AP, which would be 2 p.m. EST, neighbors near the compound in Libya described activists who installed checkpoints around the compound. According to neighbors, these checkpoints were manned by bearded jihadists with trucks equipped with heavy machine guns, and flashing the logo of al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia. The activists sealed off the streets leading to the compound. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses. Neighbors said that no one could get in or out.
The meeting with the Turkish Consul General Ali Akin Sait ended around 8:30 pm and, afterwards, Stevens escorted the Consul General to the main gate chatting briefly with the guards. All was quiet at the compound. There were no protests or problems, and Stevens was relieved. The heat of the summer day had cooled somewhat, and the Ambassador decided to go to bed after a long, trying day. Also in the residence was Sean Smith and 4 agents, all armed with nothing more than pistols. There was another agent a nearby tactical information center also armed with a pistol.
Suddenly, the Libyan security forces, that were protecting the Ambassador and the compound, quickly fled around 9:40. Within a minute, a well-armed mob, some with foreign accents, broke through the main gate. Neighbors describe the scene as “150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants. They indicated that the trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi.
What about Ali? The Turkish Consul General had to go through the blockade of jihadists as he left the vicinity of the ‘consulate.’ Did the Turk call Stevens to warn him of the impending danger? Apparently not! There is no trace of phone call. Moreover, how could the Turk himself have walked through the blockade unless he was protected?
It was well planned. Heavily armed gangs of men charged towards the barracks and immediately torched it. Some were carrying AlQaeda flags. After torching the barracks, others lit the embassy cars. They were yelling and running throughout the compound.
Upon hearing the gun shots and yelling, a diplomatic security agent in the tactical operations center of the compound immediately activated the diplomatic danger notification system through a Flash call, which alerted (1.) the nearby 17th February brigade, (2.) the embassy in Tripoli and (3.) the diplomatic security command center in Washington.
A flash call is a digital point to point message, like an Instant Message. According to military protocol, a message would be sent directly to the 3 locations sited above. When received in the situation room of the Whitehouse, someone immediately transmits it to an Obama aide who WALKS the information immediately to POTUS and verifies delivery. It doesn't matter where the POTUS is; he always has an aide with him. This wasn’t just an attack, there was a missing Ambassador who has a priority 4-stars rank and is representing the President in Libya. Obama knew about the attack immediately.
Charlene Lamb at the State department also received the call and was able to watch the attacks in real time. Immediately, a Quick Reaction Force was deployed from the embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi. Glen Doherty, a former Navy Seal, was on his way from Tripoli by helicopter.
In the Benghazi compound, Special Agent David Uben quickly ran to get Stevens from his bedroom and brought Stevens and Sean Smith into the Safe Room. They made sure the gate was locked so no one could enter. They stayed quiet amid the chaos.
By this time, the Libyan security, the Embassy in Tripoli, the state department and the President knew of the attack.
Uben communicates with others in the compound to make sure they understand the situation. He radios the others in the compound that they are fine. Other agents throughout the compound try to gather weapons and body armor to fight the attackers but are forced back into the second residence by the fighters.
The Whitehouse Situation Room and the State Department watched in real time.
The Islamic fighters ransacked the main residence and then ran to the locked gate of the safe room. They looked inside; it’s dark, and they can’t see anything. The three men inside hold their breaths and watch the attackers from the darkness of the safe room. The attackers are unable to open the gate. Agent Uben has a gun trained on them and ready to shoot if necessary.
The fighters, unable to crack open the gate, decide to go outside, pour diesel fuel around the perimeter of the building and light it on fire. Fire and smoke engulfs the main residence, and dark smoke pours into the safe room with the three men waiting to be rescued.
The Whitehouse situation room and the State Department watched the chaos in real time. At no time did the President issue a CBA, or Cross Border Authority giving the OK for our military to rescue the Ambassador and others. By ignoring the situation, the President allowed the Islamists to win.
West goes on to say, “Sorry, but I can only explain this one way: Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamist in his foreign policy perspectives and supports their cause. You can go back and listen to his 2009 speech in Cairo, where Muslim Brotherhood associates were seated front and center.”


Radical Islam expert Brigitte Gabriel says ISIS is capable of anything from shopping-mall shooting sprees to nuclear attacks in the U.S. and believes the best way to ward off calamity is for Americans to wake up their elected officials and demand they “throw political correctness in the garbage can” and confront the radical threat as it truly exists.
She also revealed the one common link motivating the worst terrorists in the world today: the words of the Quran.
Gabriel was a victim of terrorism in her native Lebanon. She is founder and president of and is author of numerous books, including “They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.” She said the danger to the U.S. posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is significant but the threat is nothing new.
“We know that radical Islamists have been trying to attack the United States,” she said. “It doesn’t matter what organization they identify with, whether it’s al-Qaida or ISIS or whatever name du jour that’s exciting and dominating the news. Since President Obama became president, we have arrested on American soil 226 home-grown terrorists. And that was before ISIS.”
She does acknowledge a significant difference with ISIS: the deep pockets of the terrorist army. Gabriel said those kind of resources can finance a whole lot of trouble for the U.S. and other Western nations.
“ISIS has their hands on biological weapons. They have captured the oil fields. They have their hands on nuclear material. And they certainly have the money to be able to buy the technology to put missiles together with nukes on top of them or be able to smuggle something into our country. We cannot afford to let our president, even though he is blind to the issue, to let the issue go ignored,” said Gabriel, who added that ISIS can strike a devastating psychological blow to Americans with far less complicated plots.
“It doesn’t take a mega-attack. All they need is a few crazies to strap bombs to their bodies and walk into malls in different states across the United States. That would literally strike terror in the hearts of Americans,” she said.
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Brigitte Gabriel:
The Obama administration and many other public officials and organizations are taking great pains to insist ISIS does not speak for Islam or any other religion. Gabriel Islam and radicalism are seamlessly intertwined throughout the past 1,400 years.
“They are basing their actions on the words of the Quran,” she explained. “What IS is doing right now is no different than what Prophet Muhammad himself did.”
Gabriel added, “They are using scriptures from the Quran. For example, Quran 8:12 talks about striking fear into the hearts of disbelievers. Therefore, they cut off their fingers and toes because they disobeyed Allah. So what ISIS is doing is no different than what any other group or devout followers of the Quran will do.”
She said the U.S. has seen the rise of numerous radical Muslim groups just since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Gabriel pointed to mass executions and stonings in Afghan soccer arenas by the Taliban, the al-Qaida beheading of Daniel Pearl, the terrorist beheadings of Nick Berg and 35 other people in just one year in Iraq and the horrific murders, rapes, abductions and church burnings carried out by Boko Haram in Nigeria.
“When you look at these different groups across the world, whether they are Al Shabab in Somalia, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, or Lashkar-e-Taiba in India, or Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon or al-Qaida, the name doesn’t matter,” she said. “They all are operating out of the same manual, sharing the same ideology and the same goal.”
They_must_be_stoppedSpeaking of Hamas, Gabriel said the recently announced cease-fire in Gaza is nothing but a chance for the terrorists to regroup and eventually pose a greater threat than before.
“Israel has got to decapitate Hamas and destroy its infrastructure,” she said. “Otherwise, Hamas is going to come back stronger than ever. It may take them a year, two years, three years. They’re going to come back, and we’re going to see the same thing.”
Act for America is hosting its annual security conference in Washington, a three-day event beginning on Sept. 11. Gabriel said elected officials need to understand the gravity of the terrorist threat facing our country and the urgency with which it must be confronted. However, she said it’s up to the American people to make sure Washington takes notice and takes decisive action.
“The American public must come together and put pressure on our elected officials to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs and start speaking the truth about the threats we are facing,” Gabriel said. “(We need to) remind our elected officials as to the importance of securing the United States, securing American lives, protecting American cities and doing what is right to fight evil.”
Part of that, she said, is working to thwart the rise of home-grown terrorists. She said rudderless young people are especially attracted to the cause.
“What we’re suffering in the West today is the lack of structure in the family, the lack of guidance. Many families are broken. Young people feel disenfranchised,” Gabriel said. “What Islam offers is a way to tell you how to live your life, down to the simple things and to how many times you can wash your hands and how many times to pray and everything to that detail. That’s what they’re attracted to.
“A lot of people are also resentful of America. A lot of the youth are very easily drawn to very attractive recruitment videos on the Internet,” said Gabriel, noting that ISIS is even recruiting people most would consider the least likely to join its cause.
She said, “Right now ISIS is focused on recruiting women on the Internet, offering them safety and security and stability and a home life if they would come and marry a jihadist and take care of a jihadist’s needs.”
Charlie Verde sent us the following great commentary.

Imagining President Reagan’s Response to the ISIS Threat

Instead of merely criticizing President Barack Obama's lack of an effective national security policy, it might be helpful to imagine the speech President Ronald Reagan might have given in response to the videotaped beheading of American journalist James Foley.
There are many things a great power can do if it has leadership.
August 29, 2014
Speaking at Point Mugu Naval Base, near the Reagan Ranch where he is vacationing, President Ronald Reagan addressed the nation on the beheading of James Foley and the threats from the Islamic State (also known as ISIS).
This was also the site of his address to the nation after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 with an American congressman aboard.
Text of Reagan Address
My fellow Americans:
We have all been saddened and outraged by the vicious videotape of Islamic State terrorists beheading an American journalist. Our hearts go out to James Foley's family.
However, anger and sympathy are not solutions.
We, the American people, must come together in a righteous determination to defend freedom and civilization from barbarism, savagery, and terrorism.
We must calmly, methodically, and with the same grim determination we brought to winning World War II, implement strategies that eliminate the growing worldwide threat of radical Islamists prepared to kill us as individuals and our values as a civilization.
Some will suggest this exaggerates the threat from the Islamic State. Let me remind them of some hard facts.
There are now an estimated 12,000 terrorists from over 50 countries in the Islamic State-controlled parts of Iraq and Syria. Britain estimates that more than 500 British citizens have joined the Islamic State. Our government estimates that more than 100 Americans are now engaged in enemy activities.
When we remember the death and destruction 19 terrorists achieved on 9/11, we have to take very seriously the threat from more than 12,000 terrorists.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has warned that the Islamic State "has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated."
He has expanded on the danger, saying their vision of a fundamentalist caliphate could "fundamentally alter the face of the Middle East and create a security environment that would certainly threaten us in many ways."
Furthermore, General Dempsey has warned that the Islamic State cannot be defeated only in Iraq. He asserted: "Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no."
In fact, the very existence of terrorists from over 50 countries means we must be thinking in terms of a global campaign to eradicate the virus of Islamic extremism and the spirit of terrorism and barbarism that it is fostering. This is fully as grave a threat to our survival as was Nazism or Communism. With appropriate strategies and consistent policies executed energetically, we can defeat and eliminate the Islamic State and its various allied factions.
The Islamic State and its worldwide terrorist allies have become the focus of evil in the modern world.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned that we must take the Islamic State seriously when he reported "they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we have seen." He went on to assert that "they marry ideology and a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess."
That is the scale of the opponent we must defeat.
Yet defeating terrorists and blackmailers is nothing new in American history.
In the very first years of the new American Republic, in May 1791, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson sent Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, a letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco, stating that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever."
Jefferson hated war and loved peace. He also understood that there were times when vicious opponents give peace-loving people no choice but to engage in a just war. As president he sent the Navy and the Marine Corps to the shores of Tripoli to reject blackmail, defeat piracy, and establish that even a young America could project power in defense of principle and its citizens.
We were saddened but not surprised by the barbaric video of the killing of James Foley. Back in January we noted that the Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, gave a speech in which he warned America: "Soon we'll be in direct confrontation, so watch out for us, for we are with you, watching." Islamic State spokesmen have promised to raise their black flag over the White House.
Because I take very seriously the security of the United States and believe that my highest obligation as president is to protect America, I responded to this direct challenge with a series of quiet steps.
We moved intelligence assets and began monitoring potential Islamic State targets throughout Iraq and Syria.
We began re-establishing ties with both the Sunni tribes in Western Iraq and the Kurdish allies with whom America has worked for decades.
We created an anti-ISIS intelligence network working with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
We informed the weak, chaotic government in Baghdad that defeating the Islamic State is a higher priority than Iraqi political maneuvering, and we reserved the right to arm, train, and coordinate with any effective group prepared to help defeat the Islamic State.
We moved strategic assets including B-1 and B-2 bombers into position to be prepared to respond decisively to any ISIS outrage.
In response to the deliberately vicious killing of James Foley, we began hitting Islamic State targets in both Syria and Iraq. In the last hour over 200 targets have been hit.
The air campaign in coordination with Kurdish and Sunni Arab ground forces will continue until the Islamic State disintegrates and is incapable of holding territory.
The 12,000 terrorists from over 50 countries should understand as of this date that they can surrender or we will hunt them down. Terrorists who videotape beheadings operate outside the rule of law and in the tradition of eliminating piracy they will be dealt with as outlaws.
We will coordinate with Britain, Egypt, Jordan, and every willing partner to develop a strategy and a set of operating principles for the destruction of extremist terrorism.
When Congress returns I will work directly with its leaders in a bipartisan effort to establish rules for protecting America and defeating this growing cancer of barbarism.
With the bipartisan help of Congress and our allies we will pursue our campaign to destroy the Islamic State with the four principles I outlined immediately after the bombing in Beirut: We will have a clear plan to win. We will develop overwhelming forces among the combined civilized world. We will report to you regularly and work every day to keep the support of the American people for the campaign to destroy terrorism. We will define clearly who the enemy is and they will have no sanctuaries.
In confronting an evil that seeks to kill us and destroy our civilization, our goal must be complete and decisive victory.
The Foley family needs your prayers in this difficult time.
America and the forces of freedom need your prayers in this daunting campaign.
Together, civilization will prevail and barbarism will return to the dustbin of history.
Thank you and good night.
On the other hand...what did your current so-called leader say?



G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Monday, September 01, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

Happy Labor Day

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

Catholic Eye-opener... Got this from a Methodist friend...

Charity Hospital run by the Sisters of Charity in New Orleans, along with the Upjohn company developed the plasma system in the 1930's that saved so many lives in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and in the middle east now.
During the Civil War most of the nurses were nuns. Even if you are not Catholic, this is eye opening:
When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no hospitals. Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital.
When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no schools. Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic Colleges and Universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic High Schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.
Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world.
The new Obama Health Mandate could end all this and the tax payers would have to make up the loss. Also, all Catholic adoption services will come to an end... a human disaster.
There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country.  It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president.
I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2014 and be united in replacing all Senators and Reps with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all Religions with perhaps the exception of Islam.
Mr. President, you said, "The USA is not a Christian Nation".  You are wrong - we are a Christian Nation founded on Judeo-Christian values allowing all religions in America to worship and practice freely....something that Islam will never do.
Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE IN America ....Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, know of a Muslim charity, ever seen Muslims shaking hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, or ever seen a Muslim Candy Striper volunteering in a hospital?
Have you ever seen a Muslim do much of anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?
Please circulate this to as many as possible. And remember the elections coming up in 2014 and 2016!

Bet you didn't see this on your local evening news ....

Well done to the Dutch Orchestra!

Dutch Orchestral Concert Staged Friday, 09 May, 2014!

Queen Beatrix of Holland attends an Orchestral Concert.

The Conductor, who happens to be Muslim, proceeds to give the Queen a lecture on the "beauty" of Islam.
Then the members of the Orchestra stage a walkout!
Great to see people with the courage of their convictions!

Now that took courage. Good for the people of Holland. Watch the walk out.

Are we Being Betrayed from Within by an Islamist in the White House

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  —Mark Twain
The Islamist Cometh
Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamo-fascist, akin to a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?  Let us pretend he is and see if it helps to explain his mystique.
During the 2008 primary season, Hamas was phone-banking for Obama.  Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama’s Taqiyya
Upholding the Oath of Office would be distasteful to an actual Islamist president.  Supporting the Constitution would mean going against the totalitarian, Islamo-fascist principles of theKoran.  Muslim’s are, however, allowed to lie to non-Muslims—this is called taqiyya.
Obama is a profoundly anti-Constitution president, telling Americans he does not respect their views, as represented in Congress.  “I have a pen, and I have a phone,” he says, threatening to make law by executive action.  In the style of a totalitarian caliph, Obama rejects representative government, exhorting Americans to submit to his will.  Islam means “submission.”
Harming the Military & Military Families
Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 soldiers.  Obama denied it was Muslim terror, categorizing it as “workplace violence.”  The re-designation deprived military families of the “terrorism benefits” they should have accrued.  This demoralization has punished military families who have fought against Islamism for a decade.
Obama punishes Christians in the military for making religious remarks.  Even a military chaplain did not escape censure for stating in a personal blog that “there are no atheists in foxholes.”  Christians risk discharge, if fellow soldiers report religious statements on- or, in some cases, off-duty.
Muslims are more easily promoted in the armed forces.  Submission to Obama, above the Constitution, is desired.  Those who have no problem firing on their fellow, non-Islamist, Americans are put on the fast track.
The US military is forced to fast during Ramadan.  Religious remarks that show Islamic preferences are not punished and sometimes are rewarded.
Obama’s Military Fecklessness
Obama is training 70,000 Taliban in American military methods, in Afghanistan.  Obama released the five most dangerous Taliban from Gitmo in exchange for an away-without-leave, Islamist traitor.  He helped only Muslims in this deal, and harmed America to boot.
Obama has fostered an environment in the Mid-East that has nurtured the birth of the Islamic State.  Obama released their Caliph Ibrahim from US custody in Camp Bucca, Iraq, back in the spring of 2009, when he went by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Obama continues only to stalemate IS.  He will not kill the cancer while it is still easily done.  An Islamist president would not wish to harm or restrain IS more than politically necessary.
Obama has sent Secretary of State Chuck Hagel to Qatar with an $11 billion-dollar weapons deal.  Qatar provides arms to Hamas.
Obama has held up arms shipments to Israel during their war with Hamas.  He has made statements condemning Israel.  He sympathizes with Hamas.
Betraying the Infidels
Obama is cutting the US army to pre-WWII levels and the navy to pre-WWI levels.  He has taken our nuclear missile defense from 5,500 to 1,550 without getting concessions from the Chinese or Russians.
Obama is helping our enemy, Iran, to get nuclear weapons by way of a sham treaty.  Iran, as an Islamist state, lies in its treaties.  Obama has declared Iran off-limits to attack, during the protracted negotiations.  An Islamist president would prefer to help an Islamist regime, rather than aid America—the Great Satan!
In a dangerous world of terror, Obama has canceled the Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs.  He has also opened the US border to terrorists, who are streaming across it.  An Islamist president would gladly jeopardize America.
Harms Against Israel
On April 2, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaked a report concerning Israel’s plan for a possible attack on Iran “in April, May, or June” of that year.  This leak—a first in the history of US-Israel relations—removed any element of surprise Israel might have had, and effectively canceled any potential Israeli strike, while allowing Iran additional time to prepare by further developing its nuclear weapons program.
In June, 2010, Obama leaked information that Israel might use Saudi airspace to fly a more direct route to Iran.  The Saudi-Israeli cooperation was revealed to the London Times, citing “US defense sources.”  An Islamist president would revel in helping a potentially nuclear Islamist state in this way.
The US Defense Department, on June 4, 2013, leaked more than 1,000 pages of details of an Israeli system whose success rests on being totally invisible to enemy eyes.  It was a great blow to the defense of Israel, because the Arrow 3 is designed to seek out and blow up Iranian Shihab 3 and other long-range missiles.  An Islamist president would leak this information, without qualms.
Also, Foreign Policy Magazine has reported—citing an anonymous American source in the Defense Department—that Israel had arranged to use an air base in Azerbaijan as a way to launch an air strike against Iran.  The Christian Science Monitor asked, “Did the U.S. just torpedo an Israeli deal for a base in Azerbaijan?” and began to wonder whether the U.S. was Israel’s “best friend” anymore—at least under this president.
Targeting Threats to Islam
Not only conservative and libertarian groups were targeted by the Obama IRS, Pro-Israel Jewish groups were also targeted.  Obama has said he considers the greatest enemies of the US to be conservatives!
Ultra-liberals have not compared conservatives to terrorists, before Obama.  Why would Obama say this?  Constitutional conservatives believe in an ideal that is an anathema to Islamists— individual liberty, as enshrined in the Constitution!  Pro-Israel Jews believe in the legitimacy of a safe haven for Jews—a Jewish state—something an Islamist president cannot countenance.
Predicting Obama
I have been predicting Obama’s actions for quite some time.  Some marvel at my accuracy.  My secret?  Plain and simple: I imagine Obama to be an Islamist.

Obama Does Have A Strategy, And It’s Awful

On Thursday, President Obama told the world he didn’t yet have a strategy for dealing with the Islamic Front in Syria. Although it’s never good to let an army who beheads your citizens and is hellbent on your destruction know you don’t know how to deal with them – yet, or otherwise – Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary “clarified” his comments the next day. We do have a plan, it turns out. And the plan is awful.
Before we dive into the new statements, let’s take a look back at some older ones.
Back in January, when talking about terrorism, President Obama told the New Yorker magazine, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”
The terrorist group making the biggest waves at the time was ISIS. Was the president referring to ISIS as part of a “jayvee team?” It went relatively unnoticed by the mainstream media then. But in the eight months since, ISIS has become the little jayvee team that could. It has taken over a landmass the size of Indiana – and growing. It has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions and amassed a fortune to fund its continued terror campaign.
But our posture toward this outfit has not changed.
When ISIS beheaded American journalists James Foley and posted the video on the Internet, the media remembered the quote and asked about it. Earnest went on to claim the president wasn’t talking about ISIS, just other groups, and that the White House always has taken the ISIS threat seriously.
That claim, on its face, would be insignificant, perhaps even believable, were it not for the president’s statement Thursday. If, as the White House now insists, it always has taken the threat seriously, how can it have no strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria, or anywhere, 8 months later?
Perhaps the political advisors in the White House have yet to calculate how to use this threat to influence the November elections or to at the very least blame Congress for it. But we already know the president has a phone – right next to his pen – and that the Pentagon has phones, too. If he has taken the threat of ISIS seriously for eight months, why has he not used his phone to call the Pentagon and ask the military to formulate some possible strategies for any number of scenarios?
It’s clear the White House has not been interested in the threat posed by ISIS, either abroad or here in the homeland, or else we wouldn’t still be without a plan.
Which brings us to the “clarification” on Friday.
Josh Earnest, appearing on Morning Joe, said, “We don't have plans in place right now for what we want to do and what we could do militarily in Syria. But when it comes to confronting ISIL, the president has made very clear we do have a comprehensive strategy for confronting that threat that is posed by ISIL. That begins with supporting Iraq’s political leaders as they form the kind of inclusive government that can unite the country to confront the threat that their country faces right now.”
First, there they go again using ISIL—Islamic State in the Levant—as opposed to ISIS, the Islamic State in Syria. This is to sow confusion and distract from the administration’s record in dealing with this crisis.
Second, so our strategy is dependent upon Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurds coming together, putting aside centuries of hatred, forming a drum circle and singing “Kumbaya”? Hmmm … why didn’t we think of that before? Wait, we did.
Earnest wasn’t done. “It includes beefing up our support to Iraqi and Kurdish security forces in the form of training and equipment to help them take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country.” This makes sense, but it would have made more sense before ISIS was the fully armed, disciplined and funded outfit it is now.
Earnest then added that the president has dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to the area to “engage” with the region’s leaders but wasn’t clear on the goal of that engagement beyond engagement for its own sake.
Plus, he threw in that we’re bombing them in Iraq at least, so there’s that.
See, we do have a strategy. It’s a muddled, rudderless, leaderless strategy with no clear directives or goals. But really, is that such a surprise?

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

In all the bad days that opponents of same-sex marriage have had lately, few compare with the one they had this past week in a courtroom in Chicago. Lawyers defending the bans in Wisconsin and Indiana were buried in an avalanche of skepticism and incredulity.
The judges demanded to know what worthy goals the prohibitions serve, and the attorneys had terrible trouble coming up with any. Perhaps the low point for their side came when one was asked why Wisconsin makes it so hard for same-sex couples to adopt and ventured to say, "I think tradition is one of the reasons."
At that, Judge Richard Posner did not slap his forehead and exclaim, "Of course! Why didn't we see that? Everything makes sense now!" Instead, he retorted: "How can tradition be a reason for anything?"
Many states, he noted, had a hallowed tradition of forbidding interracial marriage until 1967, when the Supreme Court said they couldn't. Posner couldn't see how entrenched practice, no matter how ancient, mattered in that case or this one. The argument, he said, amounted to: "We've been doing this stupid thing for a hundred years, a thousand years. We'll keep doing it because it's tradition."
His rebuff betrays a fatal problem for opponents of same-sex marriage. One of their central arguments is that we should limit marriage to male-female couples because that's been the norm in Western cultures for millennia. It's an argument deeply rooted in conservative political philosophy. But conservative political philosophy has never really had much influence in the United States, even among those who call themselves conservative.
In his 1953 book "The Conservative Mind," Russell Kirk expounded a view peculiar to the right. "Even the most intelligent of men cannot hope to understand all the secrets of traditional morals and social arrangements," he wrote, "but we may be sure that Providence, acting through the medium of human trial and error, has developed every hoary habit for some important purpose." It's not an argument often heard in our debates.
Americans do pay homage to our past by invoking the Declaration of Independence, the framers, the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and so on. But the idea that we should be afraid to make changes in our laws for fear of rending the organic fabric of society doesn't command much allegiance on either the left or the right.
Liberals have never made a fetish of obeisance to the past. They agree with the revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine that giving primacy to tradition unjustly places "the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living."
American conservatives largely share that premise. The New Deal has been in place for some 80 years, but conservatives don't believe in conserving that. Their feeling is it was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
None of this means Americans have no use for traditions. We have all sorts of favorites, from fireworks on the Fourth of July to football in autumn. But we feel entitled to alter and embellish them at our whim. The fireworks we see are bigger and better than the ones Americans saw a century ago. Football now starts in August and goes till February.
Marriage morphed repeatedly long before gays got it. Women acquired more rights, divorce became available to anyone who wanted it, and alimony grew less common. People of different races can now marry each other even in places where it was once cause for lynching.
Longstanding arrangements that make sense endure without controversy, and that's just the point: They make sense. Tradition and a good reason will win an argument, just as tradition and $2 will get you a ride on the bus. Americans don't keep doing things unless they serve our purposes, even if they suited our grandparents to a T.
The 20th-century Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. spoke for most of us: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."
The prevailing ethos in this country is that we are the masters of tradition, not the servants. We treasure the customs and practices passed down from our ancestors. And we change them anytime we want.

Saudi King Abdullah speaks before a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at his private residence in the Red Sea city of in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Friday, June 27, 2014. Kerry also talked with Syrian opposition leader President Ahmad al-Jarba. It was not immediately clear why al-Jarba, a Sunni, was in Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Brendan Smialowski, Pool)Saudi king: Islamic State will reach ‘Europe in a month and America in another month’

By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has a stark warning to America: The Islamic State’s terror will visit American shores in one month if it is not confronted in Syria and Iraq.

“If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,” the king said Saturday, Agence France Presse reported. His comments came while he was speaking at ceremony for new ambassadors.

“Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East. […] It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: ‘Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.’”

King Abdullah’s warning for the western world comes one day after a government watchdog reported that a federal bulletin released to law enforcement agencies has warned that the Islamic State group, also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS, has infiltrated Mexico’s city of Ciudad Juarez for an imminent attack on America.

“High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued,” the statement read, Judicial Watch reported Friday.

Earlier in the week, U.S. officials told The Blaze that a “significant increase” in chatter among terrorist groups has been observed in recent weeks.

Cruz: ‘Russian bear is encountering the Obama kitty cat’

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, blasted President Obama over his foreign policy with Russia on Saturday accusing him of being a weak “kitty cat.”
“The Russian bear is encountering the Obama kitty cat,” Mr. Cruz said to a standing-room only conservative crowd at the annual Americans for Prosperity summit in Dallas.
“The reason Putin feels no fear to march into his neighbors, the reason our allies up and down Europe are terrified of what happens next is because our president is leading from behind,” he added, riffing at the end off a phrase the administration has itself used to defend its foreign policy.
Mr. Cruz, widely seen as a possible top contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said that the U.S. should combat Russia economically by approving U.S. natural gas exports, which would dampen world gas prices and hit the Kremlin where it hurts, “in the cash register.”
Mr. Cruz was among a string of potential 2016 candidates at the summit who condemned the president for saying he did not have a strategy to combat Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq.
He quoted President Reagan who said his strategy going into battle was “we win and they lose.”
“It’s almost as if President Obama read that and got it backwards,” Mr. Cruz said and added, “We out to bomb [the Islamic State] back to the stone age.”

Uh Oh: Mary Landrieu Doesn't Own a Home in Louisiana

This is…not what embattled "Louisiana" Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu wanted to read in the Washington Post -- which, as it turns out, is her hometown paper:

In Washington, Sen. Mary Landrieu lives in a stately, $2.5 million brick manse she and her husband built on Capitol Hill. Here in Louisiana, however, the Democrat does not have a home of her own. She is registered to vote at a large bungalow in New Orleans that her parents have lived in for many decades, according to a Washington Post review of Landrieu’s federal financial disclosures and local property and voting records. On a statement of candidacy Landrieu filed with the Federal Election Commission in January, she listed her Capitol Hill home as her address.But when qualifying for the ballot in Louisiana last week, she listed the family’s raised-basement home here on South Prieur Street. The New Orleans house, which Landrieu claims as her primary residence, is a new flash point in one of the most closely contested Senate races in the country. Republicans are considering taking legal action to question Landrieu’s residency in the state, arguing that since winning her seat in 1996 she has become a creature of Washington. For Landrieu, there are hazardous parallels to other recent cases in which residency questions have dogged incumbents. Former senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) lost reelection in 2012 after reports that he stayed in hotels when he returned to Indiana, while Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) is drawing flack this year for not having a home of his own in Kansas and listing a donor’s house as his voting address.

Lugar was dumped by primary voters last cycle (before the GOP frittered away the seat he vacated), and Roberts is only leading by high single digits in the ruby red state of Kansas.  Landrieu is one of the most endangered Senate Democrats in the country, representing a state -- from afar -- that Barack Obama lost by 17 points in 2012.  Landrieu has gone 'full Beltway.'  She lives in her multimillion-dollar DC mansion (remember this tax-related flap?), not in the state she ostensibly serves.  The Senator claims that she lives at her parents' house when she's in town, but neighbors, including some of her supporters, aren't so sure:

“I don’t think she lives there,” said Fontaine Wells, 65, pointing at the Landrieu home. “She might come visit, but come on now — she lives in D.C. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her.” … Michael Fitzgerald, 61, has lived around the corner from the Landrieus for three decades. He said he sees Moon and Verna Landrieu regularly, as well as Mitch Landrieu, Mary’s younger brother and the city’s current mayor, who lives in a home he owns nearby.  “On Election Day, [Mary] is seen at our polling place accompanying her parents.” He added, “I have not seen her lately... She’s been in the Senate for — I’ve lost count — 16 years? 18 years?

Landrieu votes with Barack Obama 97 percent of the time, according toCongressional Quarterly.  The president and his signature legislative item, Obamacare, are hugely unpopular in Louisiana.  Landrieu cast the deciding vote for that law, attacking critics for "lying" about its now-evident effects.  At the time, she pledged to take '100 percent' responsibility for Obamacare's outcomes.  Like these ones.  Whether or not the incumbent Senator faces any serious eligibility issues remains to be seen, but the optics are bad.  The "out of touch" attacks will only intensify, especially in light of the recent revelation that Landrieu inappropriately used taxpayer dollars to fund private jet trips for campaign events.


The White House is weighing the option of moving on its own to cut tax benefits for companies who move their operations off of U.S. shores to conduct business.
The irony of it all, of course, is that these same companies are leaving the U.S. because they’re tired of paying high taxes.
As Obama and his team have termed it, they are helping to “support” a company’s allegiance to the U.S. through “economic patriotism.”
Though the Supreme Court recently ruled the White House was out of line and overextending its authority on many issues, that apparently doesn’t seem to be standing in the way of Obama’s plans to act without congressional approval.

Flip-flop: Americans, 4-1, now support military attack in Syria

BY PAUL BEDARD | AUGUST 31, 2014 | 1:11 PM

As he waffles on U.S. policy toward terrorists in Syria dubbed ISIS, President Obama is being handed rare American support for a military attack against the terrorists, according to a new poll.
In its latest survey, finds that the nation has done a 180 in just a year, and now supports military action by nearly four to one.
Some 63 percent of Americans back a Pentagon strike against the terrorists to 16 percent who don’t. A year ago, those numbers were reversed when Americans were asked about striking Syrian troops commanded by President Bashar Assad, with 60 percent opposing military action and 20 percent supporting it.
The flip-flop comes as television news is filled with stories of horrific murders of those captured by ISIS, and reports of American airstrikes against the militants.
It also comes as Obama fights with his national security team and Hill Democrats calling for action. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, today backed military action while on "Meet the Press."
The YouGov poll revealed a rare change of heart for Americans, many war-weary with the U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What’s more, the support for military action was spread among political opposites. Some 60 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans support military action against the terrorists.
Said the poll analysis:
The latest research from YouGov shows that attitudes towards the use of military force in Syria have changed significantly over the past year. In September 2013, when a deal to disarm Syria's chemical weapons was agreed, 62% of Americans opposed the use of military force while only 20% supported it. Today when asked whether they support the use of military force against ISIS militants in Syria, the situation is reversed. 63% of Americans now support the use of military force in Syria, compared to only 16% who oppose it...
Support for military action has increased significantly despite the fact that expectations of deeper US involvement remain the same. In research conducted at the beginning of September 2013 when the US was considering launching air strikes against Syria, 45% of Americans said that strikes would be the first step towards having US troops in Syria. 31% expected any potential campaign to be limited to air strikes. Today Americans still tend to expect any air strikes in Syria to lead to a US military presence, with 40% saying it would be a first step and 31% saying that action would be limited to air strikes.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at
G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive