Only Three More Days

Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information... 

I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information...

I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law...

Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter. 

SF312

Obama's commutation of Manning's sentence and pardon of Cartwright is an insult to anyone who bothered to keep their word. 

As the English would say: Feck Off!

The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.  Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.  Senior U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner exchange.  The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  The $400 million was paid in foreign currency because any transaction with Iran in U.S. dollars is illegal under U.S. law.  The Obama administration has refused to disclose how it paid any of the $1.7 billion, despite congressional queries, outside of saying that it wasn’t paid in dollars. Full article @ The WSJ

So, here is the key question and it has nothing to do with the release of the hostages:

31 U.S.C. 1301 was enacted in 1809, this statute is one of the cornerstones of congressional control over the Federal purse. Because money cannot be paid from the Treasury except under an appropriation, and because an appropriation must be derived from an act of Congress, it is for Congress to determine the purposes for which an appropriation may be used. Simply stated, 31 U.S.C. 1301(a) says “that public funds may be used only for the purpose or purposes for which they were appropriated”. It prohibits charging authorized items to the wrong appropriation, and unauthorized items to any appropriation. 

SO WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

Mr. Kerry and the State and Treasury departments sought the cooperation of the Swiss and Dutch governments. Ultimately, the Obama administration transferred the equivalent of $400 million to their central banks. It was then converted into other currencies, stacked onto the wooden pallets and sent to Iran on board a cargo plane. 


SO WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

Revolutionary Guard commanders boasted at the time that the Americans had succumbed to Iranian pressure. “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies,” said Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi, commander of the Guard’s Basij militia, on state media. 

SO WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?
 
Kerry described today's payment of the 35-year-old miltary purchase fund as a "fair settlement", Iran will receive the balance of USD 400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly USD 1.3 billion compromise on the interest," he said.

SO WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

I'd say $400 million would be a fair settlement for our embassy in Tehran, for the captivity of 52 Americans for 444 days. 

If it were me you'd get your 400 million one Tomahawk at a time, that would be 252 of them, well, 251.5  keep the change. Honestly I'd like to send you the entire $1.7 billion your asking for.

I hope you like today's musical selection, I dug it out of the archives since the last time we had an American president get sodomized by the Iranians this badly Jimmy Carter was in office.

I Call BS on this one folks.

Of all the theatrical political showboating I've ever seen this really takes the cake...

What was it? Salt? Lemon Juice? Or Tabasco you rubbed on your fingers beforehand?

Talk about blatant logical fallacies, this is easily the clearest case of argumentum ad passiones I've ever seen.  For those of you not familiar with the term this is a logical fallacy in which the manipulation of listener's emotion is used to win an argument often in the absence of factual evidence.  One could also make the case that it is also an argumentum ad misericordiam in which the speaker attempts to elicit pity or sympathy.

Wake up folks... there is nothing here in any way related to facts, logic, or intellect here.  

Now I am not an opponent of mandatory background checks for all gun sales, I live in a state that has that requirement, what I am opposed to is rule by executive fiat directly contrary to the acts of the legislature that the president even cites in defense of his own argument:

He cited in the aftermath of Sandy Hook a "compromise common sense bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check" and he cited the failure of the legislature to pass the bill.  They voted on the bill mind you, it simply did not have the votes to pass.  Sorry Mr President, that's democracy in action... what you just did is despotism in action, contrary to the expressed will of the elected representatives of the people. "The bill before congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately too many Senators failed theirs".

What does he mean "too many Senators failed theirs"?  He means that the elected representatives of the people voted contrary to his desire.  Well Mr. President, THAT IS DEMOCRACY! It is not your job nor within your power to act contrary to the will of the people, it is up to the people to elect different representatives if the actions of the legislature don't represent THEIR will!

As I said, I support mandatory background checks for all guns sales and would support laws similar to the Colorado law. which can be found HERE. Basically it states that all gun transfers except among specific immediate family members require a background check obtained at any licensed gun dealer for a fee not to exceed ten dollars.  The problem, and it is not a Democrat problem or a Republican problem it is an executive problem, is with the abuse of executive power to execute policy contrary to the expressed will of the legislature after due consideration.  These executive actions mirror legislation voted down in congress and our democracy, republic, and individual freedoms are worse for it, not by the actions in this specific case, but by the mere action itself.

Meanwhile, I'm considering purchasing this and naming it after our esteemed President.

Yeah, I know... it's a Taurus, but I do like the design.

The people have voted and continue to vote, respect their wishes.
 

"Rtc" by Jeff Dege - http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif#/media/File:Rtc.gif

 
If the map doesn't work you can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Pity this never made it into production:

Obama Vs McKinley

Do you Care?

And why Denali (Proper spelling: Deenaalee)?  That's only one name of nine given by different tribes of local Athabaskan people? Why not Dheenadheet? Or perhaps Dghelay Ka'a? Denali is great if you're Koyukon, perhaps not so hot if you're Holikachuk or Ahtna. 

According to the Alaska Native Language Center there are only 2,300 Koyukon in Alaska, far fewer in number than the school children who will undoubtedly fail future geography tests on the subject. All in all, according to the native language center there are a whopping 5,235 Athabaskan speakers in all of Alaska, so keep that in mind when Obama talks of "many Alaskan natives".  

Me, I could really care less but it is comforting to know that our President doesn't have far more serious issues on his plate that would be distracting him from this pressing subject.

So when are we renaming Pike's Peak "Heey-Otoyoo"?

Do we have a Strategy Now?

Photo: USMC

Last year President Obama said:

President Obama said Thursday that "we don't have a strategy yet" when it comes to removing the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the Middle East. CBS

My question is do we have a strategy now?  What is it? and What is it accomplishing?  Apparently given the fall of Ramadi  Sunday, very little.

Now I'm not picking on our President... It's an honest question.  What is our strategy in regards to ISIS?  Now I've heard said that it is to "systematically degrade ISIS/ISIL", not to nitpick but that's a goal, not a strategy.  "Degrade and Defeat"? Again not a strategy but a goal.

Please feel free to enlighten me if you think me wrong, but I haven't seen anything coming out of the government that even hints at a coherent strategy for defeating ISIS.  I'm apparently not the only one, back in February CNN asked Where's Obama's ISIS strategy?

US News says that the Public Doubts Obama's ISIS Strategy.  I'll go one further and say I doubt he has one.

The first question to ask is do we care?  Do we care if Syria and/or Iraq or a majority of their territories fall to ISIS?

The next question if the answer to the question above is yes, is well what are we going to do about it?

Tell Me Lies

The "Gruber Doctrine"

“lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” the “basic exploitation of the lack of . . . understanding of the American voter” is “really, really critical” for enacting your preferred policies". Jonathan Gruber

Obama's Deceptions on Iran and Cuba  Washington Post

The President's Op-Ed

Just the other day (Feb 17th) on the eve of the Islamic Terrorism Conference the President published an Op-Ed column in the LA Times. We'll address a few points here, but feel free to read the article and chime in on anything you want about it.

The United States has made significant gains against terrorism.

Well that's an interesting perspective since it seems to be more out of control than ever as indicated in his following paragraphs:

The al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen actively plots against us. Since 9/11, terrorists have murdered U.S. citizens overseas, including in the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Here in the United States, Americans have been killed at Ft. Hood and during the Boston Marathon. In Syria and Iraq, the terrorist group we call ISIL has slaughtered innocent civilians and murdered hostages, including Americans, and has spread its barbarism to Libya with the murder of Egyptian Christians. In recent months, we've seen deadly attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, Paris and Copenhagen.  Elsewhere, the Pakistan Taliban massacred more than 100 schoolchildren and their teachers. From Somalia, al-Shabaab has launched attacks across East Africa. In Nigeria and neighboring countries, Boko Haram kills and kidnaps men, women and children.

If the current state of affairs are "significant gains", I'd hate to see what losing looks like.  I'd also like to ask why if the President recognizes (as indicated by its inclusion here) the Fort Hood shootings as terrorism why the DoD continues to categorize it as "workplace violence", a categorization that has allowed Nidal Hasan to continue to draw ($278,000 since Nov 5, 2009... and that figure is almost two years old) salary and denies benefits to the victims of the shooting. Snopes

Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.

Islamqa  run by Muhammad Al-Munajjid who at least Al Jazeera identifies as "one of the respected scholars of the Salafist movement" (page three of Al Jazeera link) has this to say about democracy:

Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is. Undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of shirk, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. Islamqa

There are of course additional supporting and opposing viewpoints with the Islamic world.  The President goes on to talk about pluralism:

Finally — with al Qaeda and ISIL peddling the lie that the United States is at war with Islam — all of us have a role to play by upholding the pluralistic values that define us as Americans. 

Of course the falsehood in that statement is the naive belief that Jihadists or Salafists (not all Muslims) accept pluralism.  The Islamic views on pluralism is as divergent as its views on democracy depending on what particular sect one belongs to.  Given the Sunni ISIS treatment of Shia, I don't think you can expect to see pluralism out of them any time soon.  From Libya to Nigeria to Pakistan, Indonesia to the Philippines I dispute anyone that asserts that a lack of tolerance and pluralism is strictly an Arabic problem within Islam.

With this week's summit, we'll show once more that — unlike terrorists who only offer misery and death — it is our free societies and diverse communities that offer the true path to opportunity, justice and dignity. 

Obama's position reminds me of a friend of mine that used to joke that after he retired he was going to start an Amish Internet Dating Site.  So I have to ask, what makes him think they want what he's peddling? 

Isn't it Ironic?

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” ~Barrack Obama

A random terrorist walks down a random street, wanders into a random deli, and shoots four people at random. Isn't it ironic that that the terrorist was Islamic, the deli was Kosher, and the shoppers were Jews? Imagine that, the four people shot in a Kosher deli were Jews... what are the odds of that happening?

Next thing you'll be telling me is that of the fifteen to twenty million people randomly imprisoned by the Nazi's from 1938-1945 that of the eleven million people that were randomly killed, six million were coincidentally Jewish and five million just happened to be homosexuals, communists, Roma, Poles, Soviets, mentally or physically disabled, or just downright undesireable.

TELEPROMPTER

DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT! 

*And before someone (FT) corrects me on the use of the word ironic, no it isn't ironic any more than the shooting at the kosher deli was random. ;)

Striving in the way of God.

"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," the president said.

Well Mr. President, if you want to talk about the Crusades, why stop there?



633 - The Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia (Iraq). 

635 - The Muslim conquest of Damascus.

637 - The Muslim conquest of Syria. 

638 - The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.

639 - The Muslim conquest of Armenia.

639 - The Muslim conquest of Egypt.  

641 - The Fall of Alexandria.

642 - The Muslim conquest of Persia.

651 - The Muslim conquest of North Africa.

654 - The Muslim conquest of Cyprus.

674 - The First Muslim siege of Constantinople.

691 - The Dome of the Rock is built.

711 - The Muslim conquest of Sindh (Pakistan).

711 - Muslim invasion of the Caucasus.

713 - The Muslim conquest of the lower Indus Valley (India).

717 - The Second Muslim siege of  Constantinople.

718 - The Muslim conquest of Hispania.  

719 - The Muslim conquest of Septimania (Coastal France).

734 - The Muslim conquest of Provence (France).

736 - The Muslim conquest of Georgia.

751 - The Muslim conquest of Transoxiana (Turkestan). 

809 - The Muslim conquest of Sardinia.

820 - The Muslim conquest of Crete.

827 - The Muslim conquest of southern Italy.

827 - The Muslim invasion of Sicily.

831 - The Muslim conquest of Palermo.

870 - The Muslim conquest of Afghanistan 

902 - The Muslim conquest of Sicily.


1060 - The Muslim conquest of Anatolia (Turkey)

1096 - THE FIRST CRUSADE

From its founding to the modern age Islam has been spread at the point of a sword.  The first crusade was the first organized pan-European response under the auspices of the Vatican to a four century old Muslim invasion. So Mr. President, as the saying goes ...and the high horse you rode in on.


 

Do we have a Middle East Strategy?

“we’re partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America.” Barrack Obama - State of the Union

Since 2012, the United States has tried to build a “partnership” against al-Qaeda with President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, training selected Yemeni counterterrorism units and providing close to $1 billion in aid. Mr. Hadi, in turn, has allowed the CIA and Pentagon to use drone strikes to directly target militants deemed to be plotting against the United States. Washington Post

Two days after the State of the Union Address Yemen fell to Iranian sponsored Houthi rebels.

So I ask again, do we have a Middle East strategy?

King Barry

Allen Ramsay: George III

Powers George III would be envious of

 

 If you think back to that tussle we had with England over arbitrary and capricious government you might be surprised to find that...

Not even the King of England at the time of the American Revolution had the authority to suspend laws unilaterally, the Law Library of Congress expert wrote in a memorandum to the Senate committee tasked with responding to President Obama’s recent executive orders on the enforcement of immigration law.

One hundred years before the American Revolution, another British king had “attempted to suspend a number of laws,” contributing to the onset of the Glorious Revolution in England, a senior foreign-law specialist at the Law Library writes in the memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “King George III,” the specialist goes on to remind the committee, “was thus unable to enact or repeal any laws unilaterally without the involvement of Parliament.” 

National Review - Joel Gehrke

The Wonderful World of Infotainment

What's more important?
The Biggest Loser

Reality TV

 

Or the Biggest Loser

of a midterm election since Harry Truman

Seriously though,
What's more important than 
what the President has to say?
 

Grey's Anatomy,

The Big Bang Theory,

The Biggest Loser,

and

Bones

Who is planning to show the Presidents Address on Immigration tonight?  Univision and Telemundo.

“In 2006, Bush gave a 17 minute speech that was televised by all three networks that was about deploying 6000 national guard troops to the border. Obama is making a 10 minute speech that will have a vastly greater impact on the issue. And none of the networks are doing it. We can’t believe they were aggrieved that we announced this on Facebook,” a senior administration official told POLITICO. 

Western Hero would like to point out to the Big 4 broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) that in accordance with the Radio Act of 1927 the spectrum belongs to the public and licensees have no property rights to use it.  The issuance of broadcast licenses is via comparative hearings held by the FCC, the intended outcome of which is that "the most qualified user will be granted use of the spectrum to best serve the public interest".  Seriously, do the Big 4 really think that The Biggest Loser better serves the public interest than coverage of a presidential address on immigration that polls consistently rank as one of the top 5 problems facing the nation today.

 

Meanwhile in an entirely unrelated coincidence: French lawmakers get a new procedure to remove their president for "breach of their duties that is clearly incompatible with the exercise of their mandate".  The Local

 Vive la République!

He said what?

 

Executive action on immigration would amount to violating our laws and would be “very difficult to defend legally.

“If we start broadening that (DREAM), then essentially, I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally, So that’s not an option.”

“The problem is, is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

“The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws,”

New York Times

Let Me Apologize in Advance

So, What hat goes with this outfit?

 

All I can say is at least he looks better
 than Bush in a Dress

There is a tradition at the APEC conference that the host nation chooses the attire and has been known to be referred to as the silly shirt summit. At the 2011 APEC summit in Honolulu President Obama relented, and did not make world leaders appear in Hawaiian shirts although they were all gifted with them, a decision I'm sure right now he's regretting.

WSJ APEC FASHION

The Thrill is Gone

Photo: David Shankbone

The thrill up his leg is apparently gone...


“The people, if you look at the polling, their problem is illegal immigration,” he said. “He says, ‘I’m going to fix the problem.’ He doesn’t mean he’s gonna stop illegal immigration. He’s not going to do anything to stop illegal hiring, which is the magnet for illegal immigration, really. He’s going to basically say, ‘I’m going to deal with them by giving them green cards.’”

National Review

No Force On Earth Can Stop Us

NOT EVEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

President Obama gave this message to immigration activists at a dinner last night.  

 

"That's the promise of America then and that's the promise of America now. People who love this country can change it. America isn't Congress."

 

Actually Mr. President you're right, America is a continent, the United States however is represented by the congress of the people assembled.  For a constitutional law scholar, you are either a complete and utter idiot... or you just don't care, and the underlying message in your speech is repugnant to the principles of a democratic republic.

The Takeaway...

I'm bombing the Khorasan Group in Syria because frankly, I'd look like an idiot bombing al-Qaeda.  It wouldn't fit the narrative.

Which if you recall from previous speeches was:

"al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead." 

"We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda."

“al Qaeda has been weakened"

“al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.”

"today, al Qaeda is on its heels"

Yes, apparently al Qaeda is on its heels in Syria planning to blow up American and European subways.

The Khorasan Group IS al-Qaeda

Did he really say that?

“I was not here in the run-up to Iraq in 2003,” he told a group of visitors who met with him in the White House before his televised speech to the nation, according to several people who were in the meeting. “It would have been fascinating to see the momentum and how it builds.” NYT

Yeah, fascinating.

What's fascinating is how inept he comes across when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him, speaks volumes.

I just threw up in my mouth, a bit.

I was reading an article about Saturday Night Live in the Hollywood Reporter and came across this from James Downey, a producer-writer for the show:

If I had to describe Obama as a comedy project, I would say, "Degree of difficulty, 10 point 10." It's like being a rock climber looking up at a thousand-foot-high face of solid obsidian, polished and oiled. There's not a single thing to grab onto — certainly not a flaw or hook that you can caricature.

Need I say he couldn't get more obsequious, unctuous, or oleaginous if he was on his knees with his mouth open.

FORE!

Photo: 10 Downing St.

An American journalist is beheaded by ISIS and the British PM cancels his vacation...

What more can I say?

So, David, may I call you David? What are you doing in 2016?