The New Crime Wave 💥

America is getting less safe by the day. According to a new Wall Street Journal analysis, murders are up by nearly 25% this year. This crisis isn’t contained in just a handful of cities — it’s happening across the nation. The Journal found that homicide is rising by double-digit percentages in at least 36 of America’s largest cities. The usual suspects are on the list, like Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia. But so are cities like Omaha and Phoenix. Austin has seen homicides rise by a staggering 64%. Amidst the pandemic, murders “are up because violent criminals have been emboldened by the sidelining of police, courts, schools, churches and an array of other social institutions,” as the Journal puts it. This crisis deserves far more attention — and action — from policymakers. Crime begets crime, and if this new wave isn’t stopped, it will claim even more lives and spread even farther. If our elected leaders won’t keep us safe, then the American people need to hold them accountable. → Read more: Homicide spike hits most large U.S. cities (Wall Street Journal) → Read more: Feds send agents into three U.S. cities for Operation Legend (New York Post)

2016 Election: Hillary is still not sure!

2016 Election: Hillary is still not sure!

Hillary wondering out loud “I'm still trying to figure out how I lost the election. I thought we had the thing bought and paid for!”

• ·       Was it the Russian Uranium Deal?
• ·       Was it Wikileaks?
• ·       Was it Podesta’s Emails?
• ·       Was it Comey?
• ·       Was it having a sexual predator as a husband?
• ·       Was it Huma Abedin’s sexual predator husband Anthony Weiner?
• ·       Was it because the Clinton Foundation ripped off Haiti?
• ·       Was it subpoena violations?
• ·       Was it the congressional testimony lies?
• ·       Was it the corrupt Clinton Foundation?
• ·       Was it the Benghazi fiasco?
• ·       Was it pay for play?
• ·       Was it being recorded laughing when I got a child rapist off when I was an attorney?
• ·       Was it the Travel Gate scandal?
• ·       Was it the Whitewater scandal?
• ·       Was it the Cattle Gate scandal?
• ·       Was it the Trooper-Gate scandal?
• ·       Was it the $15 million for Chelsea's apartment bought with Clinton Foundation money?
• ·       Or my husband's interference with Loretta Lynch & the investigation?
• ·       Or when I happily accepted the stolen debate questions given to me by CNN?
• ·       Or my own secret server in my house and my disdain for classified information?
• ·       Deleting 30,000 emails after I was told not to?
• ·       Or having my cell phones and computers destroyed with hammers and Bleach-bit?
• ·        Was it the Seth Rich murder?
• ·       Was it the Vince Foster murder?
• ·       Was it the Gennifer Flowers assault & settlement?
• ·       Was it the $800,000 Paula Jones settlement?
• ·       Was it calling half the United States deplorable?
• ·       Was it my underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders?
• ·       Was it Bill's impeachment?
• ·       Was it the lie I told about being under sniper fire in Bosnia?
• ·       Was it the $10 million I received for the pardon of Marc Rich?
• ·       Or the $6 BILLION lost while I was in charge of the State Dept.?
• ·       Or was it because I’m perceived as a hateful, lying, power-hungry, overly ambitious, greedy, and nasty person?

A Legal Examination of Hillary’s Email Debacle

A Legal Examination of Hillary’s Email Debacle

Ronald J. Sievert, a 25-year veteran of the Department of Justice, teaches national security and international law at the George H.W. Bush School of Government at Texas A&M University and the University Of Texas School Of Law. So his explanation of the legal trouble Hillary Clinton faces carries some weight:

Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her much unprotected server was not "marked as classified" or "classified at the time."

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word "classified." The focus is on "information respecting the national defense" that potentially "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone "entrusted with ... any document ... or information relating to the national defense ... through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody." A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.

The courts have held repeatedly that "national defense information" includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of "national defense information" in the first place.


Naturally, the Leftmedia completely ignores all of this, choosing instead to circle the wagons as if this whole episode were a mere political inconvenience for the inevitable Democrat nominee. Worse, Sievert predicts there will be no indictment from the DOJ, both because it's run by Democrats and because the department just doesn't take the tough political cases due to an "institutional fear of losing." Time will tell.

The Betrayal Papers Have Been Out for Weeks… and the Press Says Nothing

The Betrayal Papers Have Been Out for Weeks… and the Press Says Nothing

The United States of America, primarily through the political left and Democrat Party, has been virtually colonized by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Also known by their Arabic name, Ikhwan, they are a totalitarian, terrorist Islamic group that seeks our destruction because we are a free people.

We witness the Muslim Brotherhood's planned destruction of America in many areas of contemporary life. A purposefully weak economy fails to produce the capitalist dynamism that has defined America for generations, and many millions remain unemployed.  Abroad, the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of American foreign policy instigated and backed the failed "Arab Spring," which may ultimately result in Iranian domination of the Middle East.  We feel their suffocating effects on our democracy every day, as our freedoms, traditions, opportunities, and rule of law slip away.  The people suffer as prices continue to rise and the public sinks into a bottomless pit of debt.

The hostile, conquered government in Washington strangles our liberty each time Obama, like a self-crowned emperor, passes new regulatory laws without Congress. 

Each of these trends is related to the predominant problem in America today: the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to a place of eminence in American government – the Executive, the Presidency.  The People's office, established by Article II of the Constitution, is now either occupied by a Muslim Brother in Barack Hussein Obama, or a man who happens to go along with their every policy at every turn.

To understand the nature and evil of the Muslim Brotherhood, recall their intimate involvement with Hitler's Nazi war machine and Holocaust.  This genocidal syndicate has birthed virtually all major Islamic terrorist groups and their various offshoots.  Financially, they have the backing of the Qatar, whose ruling Al-Thani family is likely the world's richest family.

Within the United States, Muslim Brotherhood fingerprints are on the administration's biggest scandals: IRS targeting of conservative groups, eavesdropping on the press, the scrubbing of counterterrorism material of the words "Islam" and "Muslim," NYC police murders in December 2014, Benghazi, and more.

In Syria and Iraq, to the extent that these countries still distinctly exist and are not viewed as part of an emerging Islamic caliphate, the Muslim Brotherhood is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS and the entire Arab Spring.  The Obama-backed project to replace strongmen in the region (e.g. Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad) is such a failure that Libya today is in a state of anarchy, occupied by ISIS's bloodthirsty armies, who are training to invade Europe.

Paralyzed by Inaction and Complicity

The U.S. Congress refuses to act.  They are in denial, and paid well to be so.  Lobbyists and government perks keep them fat, happy, and stupid.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a regional headquarters in Doha, Qatar, home of the Brotherhood's spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  Indeed, some of America's most respected companies do business with Al-Thani family, who last year pledged $1 billion to the terrorist government, including Hamas, in Gaza.  Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution are also in this sand-swept desert oasis of revolutionary Islam, along with many other top-tier universities and think tanks. 

So far has the establishment, in particular the Obama administration and the progressive left, merged with the global Muslim Brotherhood, that Harvard University and Northwestern University are actually helping build an Islamic sharia law school in Qatar – a country which has been aptly nicknamed an "ATM for Terrorists."

There are enough hard, verifiable facts available on Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of Washington, D.C. that there is no need to stretch the truth.  Qatar's associations with the nation's capital and the players who run it are alone enough to fill a volume, or two. 

So why doesn't the Press report just the facts?  

What is the reason for such an incredible failure by the press to inform the American people of the dire state of their government under Barack Obama? There are several.

Many advisors to Obama are married into the media, or have worked in media themselves prior to joining the administration.  Both Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice have familial connections with powerful executive in (what was once known as) the free press.  Four times more journalists identify as liberal compared to conservative. Evidently, with the case of Brian Williams coming to light, some in the media don't care about the truth and would rather make up bald-faced lies. 

Yet the biases above don't fully explain the conspicuous silence of the mainstream press on the Muslim Brotherhood.  For it is no longer bias or loyalty that sway the press, but fear.

The Obama administration has proved that it will stonewall, punish, illegally wiretap, and in general make life difficult for inquisitive members of the press.  Case in point, Sharyl Attkisson, who refused go along with the official lies regarding Benghazi.  Her documented harassment by the administration sends the intended message, and most spineless editors and producers listen: shut up and report what we say, or else!

Overseas, an aggressive Russia is looking to reassert the power it had under the Czars and the Soviets.  Civil unrest in Ukraine has resulted in a war that threatens Russia's economic security.  Simultaneously, Russian-allied Syria, on the Mediterranean, is under attack by U.S.-backed terrorists, who are referred to by the administration and parroting media as "moderates" (that, according to Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper).

When it comes to the genocide and cultural annihilation of Middle Eastern Christians and other minorities, the word is in Washington is mum.

Today's parallels with the 1930s are hard to miss.  In an ominous signal of what may come, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called all European Jews to Israel. All signs point to the conclusion that a much broader war is on the horizon unless something big changes, and fast.  And because our allies have very little trust in us, as we continue to back a genocidal Islamic movement, the country finds itself with few international friends and in considerable danger.

If we want to change our future, it behooves us to face reality, no matter what it is.  The Muslim Brotherhood is not going to disappear on its own – they are too entrenched.  One potential first step would be to formally designate that the Muslim Brotherhood and all affiliated groups are terrorist entities.  This has already been done in Egypt, Russia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.  It is most definitely not "Islamophobic."

Following the designation, patriotic law enforcement must conduct a thorough investigation of all levels of government, and prosecute all guilty parties according to the Constitution.

Most urgently, the people must demand action! Before too much more time passes, before it is too late.

What does the does demanding action look like?  It is you, your friends and their friends calling, emailing and sending letters as never before to the representatives in Washington D.C.  If the people of this country to not get into action, we will be deserving of the horror that is coming to America!

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Hillary is a hoarder.  So is Bill.  So if she actually removed everything from her server, she had to be convinced that it would be more dangerous to keep the emails than to ride through a scandal, no matter how rough.

This scandal isn't about Hillary's privacy, it's about her self-preservation.  So here's what would make her do it:

1.  The emails contained damaging information about Benghazi that conflicted with her testimony and statements.

2.  The emails -- and those of her closest aides -- showed her improper use of her position to benefit the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Teneo, and herself.

3.  If she gave the Benghazi Committee electronic access to the emails, they could easily determine whether any had been edited or altered.  It would have been extremely difficult to delete just some of the information in the emails.  If she tried to doctor them, the system would likely show when it was last edited.  Any edits after she left the State Department would be highly suspicious and the earlier versions could probably be retrieved anyway.  So, it would be much easier to give out only hard copies, which can be easily doctored without detection and which would be difficult to search electronically.

4.  The emails would show the improper coordination with the Clinton Global Initiative and U.S. corporations.  Huma Abedin worked for the State Department as Clinton's right hand person, Teneo, and the Clinton Global Initiative all at once.  She used one of Hillary's private email accounts on Hillary's server.  Were her emails deleted too?

5.  The emails would show just how many of her political cronies she brought into the State Department.

6.  She wanted to hide any policy disagreements with Obama.

7.  She wanted to hide any knowledge of and role in the NSA spying on foreign leaders.

8.  She wanted to conceal efforts to topple pro-democracy regime in Honduras and restore a would- be dictator.

9.  She wanted to hide efforts to arm Syrian rebels.

10.  She wanted to hide her push to keep Egypt President Mubarek in office.

11.  The emails would show her back channel Benghazi "intelligence" briefings from Sidney Blumenthal and any responses, and...

12.  Conceal her role in postponing signing the UN Arms Control Treaty until after the 2012 election, and...  

13.  Conceal her opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and...  

14.  Hide her comments critical of Israel in the settlement controversy, and... 

15.  Conceal her position on troop surge for Afghanistan, and... 

16.  Hide her support for accommodation with China despite its well documented human rights abuses, and...

17.  Conceal her comments on the DEA Fast and Furious program and its impact on US-Mexican relations, and... 

 
18.  Hide what we were doing in Benghazi in the first place, and...

19.  Conceal the possible role disgraced former NSA advisor -- and Hillary pal -- Sandy Berger played in advising her, and finally...

20.  Because she's Hillary Clinton and she doesn't have to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

Given the highly suspicious timing of the mass deletions -- about two years after she left the State Department -- the only inference that can be drawn about why she dumped the documents is that she was HIDING a lot.  There's just no way to conclude otherwise.  It's typical Hillary.  Do we need four more years of her messes?

Is this willful blindness or just ignorance?

Dear Fellow American,

As Obama huddles in closed door meetings this week with Muslim American leaders and his Administration lies about secret meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood, one has to wonder if Obama really has his eyes targeted on the real problem facing our nation. In the face of mounting Islamic terror, is this willful blindness or just ignorance. Either way, we are in great danger.

You know that the jihad has reached America's shores. Many potential attacks have been thwarted. But some have not. Little Rock, Fort Hood, the World Trade Centers, the Boston Marathon bombing; the list of terror incidents keeps growing. It may be a slow motion war, but it is here. Our president doesn't believe it is happening.

It is a chilling fact that many of those who will lead the next attack on America have grown up and gone to school here. But they have never really become a part of our country because they have spent years getting religious instruction in one of the thousands of radical mosques that have sprung up across our nation. That's what really frightens me. Our government is standing idly by while the terrorists who want to destroy it are manufactured day in day out in the radical mosques that teach the destruction of America.

This is no secret. FBI reports and eyewitness accounts have made it clear that a large number of the mosques in the United States urge their congregations to wage jihad against the infidels (us) and impose Sharia Law first on all Muslims and then on all Americans.

This is sedition, not religion!

Sharia Law is not only barbaric--justifying murder and the oppression of women and annihilation of other religions--but also incompatible with the United States Constitution. One cannot be a strict adherent of Sharia Law and still swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, we allow Sharia to be advanced on a daily basis in hundreds of mosques across America.

Three major studies in the last 10 years have all found the same results. Over 75% of the 2,000 mosques in America are 'radicalized.' And what does radicalized mean?

• That of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and only 19% had no violent texts at all.
• That in 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.
• That mosques, which are Sharia adherent, were more likely to feature violent texts than their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts and that leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violent texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques.

Freedom of religion does not include the right to openly preach the destruction of the U.S. Constitution or violent jihad. Mosques that preach godliness and tolerance must be protected; but those that preach hatred and violence must be revealed for what they are--threats to our national security.

So why do I tell you about these centers of hatred in our midst?
The radicalized young Muslims who hear this message of sharia and anti American hatred day after day are acts of terror waiting to happen.

From the Left; After response to report, will we torture again?

From the Left; After response to report, will we torture again?

Ramblings from E.J. Dionne with comments

WASHINGTON – Can we now say with confidence that our government will not use torture again and that Americans in the future will rise up to prevent it from doing so? In light of the reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, I fear that we can’t.

It was not torture and under the right circumstances we should use "Enhance Interrogation Techniques".

Sen. Dianne Feinstein persisted in releasing the document in the face of opposition from the CIA and attacks by some of her colleagues because she felt a moral calling. The 81-yearold California Democrat believed she had an obligation to leave behind a sturdy ethical roadblock to the use of extreme brutality in pursuit of information – even information seen as potentially saving American lives.

She succeeded in producing propaganda put together by a small group of staffers with an ax to grind.  It is a lie to call purposeful propaganda a "moral calling".

“There are those who will seize upon the report and say ‘see what the Americans did,’ and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or incite more violence,” she said on the Senate floor. “We can’t prevent that. But history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say ‘never again.’” Yet what might have been a moment of national reflection immediately turned into what everything becomes these days: a carnival of partisanship. Making the truth public, Feinstein’s critics argued, could endanger our nation.

The truth was not made public.  How can the release of an obscure video inflame the Middle East while this so called "Report" does nothing?  Hypocrisy at its worst and with not regard for consequences.

“She will have to live with the consequences,” Sen. Richard Burr, RN. C., who becomes chair of the Intelligence Committee next year, said darkly.

A moving exception was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has denounced torture in season and out. His biography as a prisoner of war has been a standing rebuke to those who choose to play down the consequences of these techniques for our own men and women in uniform. He dismissed the idea that the report itself would be responsible for new attacks on Americans. “Violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world,” he said.

There is NO moral equivalency to what the CIA did and what was done by other countries in the past.  McCain's reaction is that of one individual.  He cannot speak any further.

The real objection to the release of the report, McCain argued, was that it calls into question the claims by defenders of these techniques that they produced vital information. “We gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer,” he said. “Too much.”

Not true.  The claim we gained nothing of consequence has been rebutted successfully by those that were directly involved.  No one bleed, no bones were broken and only 3 were water boarded.

One would like to think that this is now a consensual view, and it is the formal position of our government.

A typical left wing conclusion.  Nothing has become consensual.  All the activities were conducted with grave oversight and pre-approval.

But the pushback against Feinstein makes clear that many involved in “the program,” as they so delicately call this departure from our own norms, would do it all over again.

This is delusional.  Feinstein is being rebuked not simply getting push back.  There is nothing delicate about trashing this countries CIA.

John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director and deputy director, joined with five other former CIA directors and deputy directors in a Wall Street Journal piece that denounced the Senate report as “a poorly done and partisan attack.”

Thank God, they had the courage to do such.  It might disturb E.J. while bringing sanity to the discussion.

But condemning the report as “partisan” is a way of evading its implications. If the issue is partisan, why did President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, defend the agency by declaring that “EITs” – that would be enhanced interrogation techniques – “did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives”?

Brennan did so because the report was "partisan" - E.J. has lost his critical thinking ability.

What’s striking here is the bipartisan unity among intelligence officials.

NOT

My friend and Washington Post colleague Michael Gerson saw partisanship in the committee’s focus on the CIA interrogations that took place under President George W. Bush, but not on the drone program, which Obama has embraced and expanded.

Not one Republican voted for this in committee.  One must wonder what the heck E.J. is saying.  Obama's drone program is killing innocent people including American citizens!?!

But legitimate questions about drones do not discredit either this legitimate inquiry into the use of torture or the obligation that Feinstein and her fellow committee Democrats felt to bear witness.

Notice E.J. left out the FACT that NO CIA official was deposed or testified before the committee.  Operatives have been interviewed since that make the report simply a biased attack.  Feinstein and other Democrats knew and agreed with the EIT's since 2002.  A matter of record.

Defenders of the CIA make a point that should unsettle all of us because it’s true: In the wake of 9/11, the country was so scared that it tolerated or at least entertained a variety of extreme steps to protect our security, including torture. By November of 2001, there was already a public debate about the legitimacy of torture, even if brave voices pushed back in those dark times.

The whole of the intelligence committee were involved, lawyers were involved and the President was involved.  Actions were carefully evaluated in the specific to determine what would be done.  Propaganda is an attempt to rewrite the history of the period without meaningful debate which the Democrats avoided.  Remember.  They only performed a selective document review and did not speak to anyone!

Feinstein, McCain and their allies are hoping they can draw a line now that can strengthen such voices in the future. I wish that the response to their efforts inspired more certainty that their line will hold.

From Merriam Webster: pro·pa·gan·da

 noun \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\ : ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

Obama's List of Most Disrespectful Insults to the Military

Obama's List of Most Disrespectful Insults to the Military

by Dave Jolly

A lot has been written lately about Barack Obama’s ‘latte salute’ to his Marine guards. There has also been a lot written about his disrespect for the military and for America in general ever since he illegally assumed the highest office in the land. (Don’t know if you’ve noticed but for the past couple of months, I refuse to recognize him as president and will use other terms to denote his ill-gotten position. Yes the office of President deserves respect, but Obama so disrespects the office himself that I refuse to show any respect to him or the office as long as he holds it.)

Reading through many of the ways Obama has insulted or disrespected the military reminded me of when Bill Clinton was president. Both Bill and Hillary constantly treated their military guards as nothing more than hired servants to be walked on. I know a former Marine who was assigned duty with the Clintons and with George W. Bush and he told me the Clinton’s were very rude, harsh and unfriendly to him and his fellow Marines. He said they treated all military people with obvious disdain. If you remember, it was Clinton that started closing a number of military bases in the US, including one in my home area of Arizona that drastically hurt the local economy.

On the flip side, both George W. and First Lady Laura always treated them with the utmost respect. They both often talked with him and his fellow Marines and let them know how grateful they were for their service and protection. My friend told me that he would have taken a bullet without any hesitation for either of the Bushes but would have tripped or stepped aside when it came to the Clintons.

From what I read and hear, it seems that this is a basic difference between Democratic and Republican presidents and Obama is no different. If you need proof of Obama’s disrespect for the military that goes beyond his recent latte salute, here is a list of the top 30 most disrespectful insults Obama has made to the military, as compiled by Robert Moon of Examiner.com:

“30) Looking past all his civilian aides to order a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head like a butler for an entire speech at the Rose Garden, in violation of military regulations.

29) Forcing race-baiting class warfare propaganda, extreme PC "sensitivity" measures, and Gay Pride Month on soldiers.

28) Taking credit for the success of the surge he opposed in Iraq.

27) Taking credit for the success of the interrogation policies he opposed that located Osama bin Laden.

26) Skipping the funeral of the highest-ranking officer to be killed on foreign soil in over 40 years (Major-General Harold J. Greene), to play golf.

25) Smearing veterans as potential domestic terrorists.

24) Trying to make wounded veterans cover their own medical treatment through private health insurance plans, which would inevitably end up increasing their out-of-pocket costs.

23) Blaming our troops for the Taliban attacking them...for everything from objecting to pedophilia and advocating women's rights, to not wearing latex gloves while handling Korans and walking in front of Muslims while they are praying.

22) Rushing in to misrepresent the Ft. Hood massacre that killed 13 soldiers (one whom was pregnant) as mere "workplace violence."

21) Giving captured terrorists at Gitmo (who are drenched in soldiers' blood) a $750,000 soccer field, cable TV, entertainment, classes in painting, etc., while stripping away benefits for soldiers at every turn.
20) Ordering federal agencies to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible for the American people, which ended up cutting tuition assistance for soldiers and increasing other college costs for the Armed Forces across the board.

19) Denying veterans from all over the country access to the WWII Memorial in Washington over a staged government shutdown while allowing illegal immigrants to hold a political rally on closed federal grounds.

18) Cutting military health care benefits and pensions while increasing spending on unionized federal bureaucrats (Obama voters).

17) Ignoring a former Marine frivolously imprisoned in Mexico on trumped up weapons charges.

16) Using soldiers to help a terror-sponsoring dictator fight off outraged civilian protesters.

15) Purging the military of oath-keeping constitutionalists.

14) Imposing draconian cuts to the things we are actually supposed to be spending tax dollars on under the Constitution (like the military), while exploding spending on things the Federal Government has no authority to even be involved in, like Obama's trillion-dollar health care takeover.

13) Silencing and criminalizing Christianity in the military.

12) Banning time-proven interrogation techniques and insisting on treating foreign terrorists as mere common criminals to be tried in American courts, as civilians.

11) Suppressing military votes.

10) Imposing ludicrous rules of engagement on our troops that have needlessly gotten many soldiers killed.

9) Appeasing our enemies, backing down after drawing "red lines" in the sand, betraying our allies, and dismantling our missile defenses...all of which needlessly endangers our troops.

8) Cutting troops down to pre-WWII levels, and then allowing illegal immigrants into the military.

7) Allowing veterans to die on secret waiting lists at VA hospitals all over the country, after being warned about the manipulated numbers and obscene delays in care (welcome to 'universal health care') back in 2008.

6) Abandoning three decorated veterans and a U.S. ambassador to be dragged through the streets and tortured to death by bloodthirsty Islamic savages in Benghazi, and then falsely blaming it on Americans having the right to disagree with Islam in public.

5) Releasing numerous terrorists back onto the streets so they could return and attack our soldiers, including one who ended up becoming the leader of ISIS.

4) Releasing five major terrorist leaders to appease the Taliban into releasing one America-hating deserter.

3) Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq while handing Afghanistan back to the Islamic fundamentalists who facilitated 9/11 (the Taliban).

2) Openly funding and arming Islamic terrorists.

1) Endlessly trampling the Constitution that soldiers are sworn to defend and attacking the rights they fight, bleed, and die to protect.”

Thank you Robert Moon for compiling this list for us. When read through this list, it’s obvious that Barack Obama has no business to be Commander-in-Chief of our military. He should be charged with dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders (US Constitution and Congress) and treason (as defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution). If not shot for his crimes against the military, nation and American people, Barack Obama should be imprisoned, the key thrown away and door welded shut!

A Return to Jihadistan Requires Purpose

A Return to Jihadistan Requires Purpose

We are at war -- the Long War. We have been at war with ISIL in its previous manifestations for over a decade. Since at least Aug. 8, we have returned to war. We can't rely on an official declaration of war from Congress -- one hasn't been passed since FDR denounced the "day which will live in infamy." Yet American pilots are already climbing into their birds, streaking across the sky and making bomb-mash of ISIL in northern Iraq. In other words, there are combat boots in Iraq.
The goal: "Degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIL. It's hard to imagine how Barack Obama plans on degrading a group of 30,000-something radical Muslims, but one thing is clear: Destroying means their blood will irrigate the sands of Iraq. That's justice.

The first act of the Long War was violent and deliberate. On 9/11, George W. Bush sat in Air Force One when he told Vice President Dick Cheney, "We're going to take care of this. When we find out who did this, they're not going to like me as president. Somebody's going to pay."

Unfortunately, the second act is now in the hands of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president who tried what he could to artificially keep the peace. In the end, even he is using military force.

And that means we've entered an even more dangerous time for our nation. Obama isn't thinking of what we are fighting for, and so, he doesn't have a strategy for victory or how to return to peace.

We have seen the fruit of this kind of asymmetric war against radical Islam. From the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), out grew secret kill lists, drones, an intelligence apparatus spying on its own citizens, and, tangentially, police militarization such as that on display in Ferguson, Missouri. Under the guise of greater security, we now have less Liberty.

Osama bin Laden is dead, but the war brought with it hell. Young men who won glory in Iraq returned to the states and could not sleep. Others drank themselves sick. Still others decided life wasn’t worth living. “War is an ugly thing," John Stuart Mill said, "but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse."

This is why we need a clear purpose in fighting ISIL. What are we fighting for? Where do our morals lie as we take up arms against ISIL? Is the trade-off worth it?
Obama's actions over the last few weeks indicate he values peace and cooperation, though above all else is politics.

Worrisome, too, is his morality. Obama acted on ISIL only when he had a supposed consensus from the world's nations, as if what is good and moral in the world is decided by the majority. But there actually isn't consensus -- and no real "coalition."

Even Obama's generals broke rank to oppose his soft war against ISIL because they believe America needs to respond with conviction -- boots on the ground if need be. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, told the Senate, "If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president."

Gen. Ray Odierno, Army Chief of Staff, has told at least four news outlets the Army may need to return to Iraq. He told The New York Times, “You’ve got to have ground forces that are capable of going in and rooting [ISIL] out. [Airstrikes] will not be the end all and be all solution in Iraq.”

In response, Obama waged political war against his own generals. At MacDill Air Force Base, Obama publicly overruled his generals, saying, "I want to be clear: The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and won't have a combat mission. As your commander in chief, I won't commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq."

A nation loses war if it unnecessarily limits itself in such a way. Obama's former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. will not be successful if they wage this war from afar, using allies in the region as puppets. “And I think that by continuing to repeat that [the U.S. won’t put boots on the ground], the president, in effect, traps himself.”

This is a conversation happening at the high, executive level of government. One man decides the direction of the nation, quickly, with little public rationale for acting.

Obama sends Americans over Iraq in bombing runs, never legally committing to the eradication of ISIL, but instead recycling the AUMF passed after 9/11. He also cites the AUMF that took Bush into Iraq, even though Obama has always opposed it.

Congress has taken up the question of what to do about ISIL. The House quickly passed a resolution to train the Free Syrian Army 273 to 156, but there was little debate, only a quick vote by members with eyes on Election Day.

The legal justifications for Obama to go to war are arguably stale. Politically, there's no question: Congress must pass a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or better yet, declare war, because the nation needs a clear purpose.