02/12/16
Dan Lyman

Connecting the Dots: Beyoncé, Cop Killers, Gun Control, and Panera Bread

By: Dan Lyman | Western Free Press

B22

Let’s blame Beyoncé and her anti-police bonanza at the Stupor Bowl for this bloody week. I’m okay with doing that. She poured gasoline on the fires of cop hatred for 112 million Americans to see, and just a few days later, two of Maryland’s finest were shot to death by a deranged murderer. In the last week alone, 11 officers have been shot, 6 of whom have died thus far.

Even CNN took notice of the particularly excessive carnage, but lacked the journalistic integrity to connect the dots between the NFL’s green-lighting of flagrant Black Panther exaltation, and the subsequent brutal assault on law enforcement across the nation.

“Gunfire claimed the lives of at least five on-duty officers in an unusually deadly week for U.S. law enforcement. In four days, five officers were killed in the line of duty in shootings around the country, more than doubling the number of officers who have died by gunfire so far this year.”

Continue reading

02/12/16
Office Space

Ted Cruz Campaign Scores With Peek Inside Hillary’s ‘Office Space’

Cruz goes after Clinton with ‘Office Space’ spoof

02/11/16
Ted Cruz

WATCH: Debunking anti-Cruz myths (video)

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Ted Cruz AG hearing

Ted Cruz grills Justice Department for targeting gun owners with ‘Operation Choke Point’ via TruthandAction.org

There are quite a few rumors floating around in social media about Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz.

Americans are used to the mainstream media lying about Ted Cruz (see here, here & here for just some examples.) But it is particularly painful when the lies come from supposed truth-tellers. The largest culprits starting and perpetuating anti-Cruz falsehoods are sundance of the Conservative Treehouse and Dianne Marshall of the Marshall Report. They blatantly lie, or tell cherry-picked half truths, which are promptly disseminated in social media by an army of bullies who are seemingly not interested in civil debate.

Why create false stories if the candidate is so bad?

The clearly coordinated effort is particularly disturbing because: 1.) it frankly smashes conventional wisdom that ad hominem baseless attacks are the tool of the left – not the principled right, and 2.) the social media bullies may serve to intimidate people from posting positive stories or opinions about Ted Cruz.

Here are some of the most persistent lies, myths and rumors about Ted Cruz:

Continue reading

02/11/16
Weasel Statuette of Shame

Our Weasel Of The Week!! – 02/11/16

The Watcher’s Council

Yes, it’s time to present this week’s Statuette of Shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the Statuette of Shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were particularly slimy and despicable, but only one of them could win… and the votes are in and we have our winner… the envelope please…

http://i0.wp.com/cmgajcbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ultra.png?resize=400%2C250
The Ultra-sensitive Baby Killing Warriors At NARAL!!

The Right Planet: My nominee for Weasel of the Week would have to be the far-left, militant pro-abortion group NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) for their epic intersectional meltdown on Twitter over a Doritos Super Bowl ad that featured a pregnant woman receiving an ultrasound. NARAL was severely “microaggressed” over the Dororitos commercial for deploying the ever-dreaded “antichoice” tactic of “humanizing fetuses.” Apparently human fetuses are too humany, or something.

Oh, but it didn’t end there, oh dear masses. The perpetually aggrieved social justice warriors at NARAL also took great umbrage over the blatant patriarchal oppression embedded in a Hyundai ad. Additionally, NARAL called out Snickers for their despicable “transphobic” objectification of women. Will the exploitation and oppression ever end?

*snickers*

Personally, I think NARAL needs to chillax and eat a Snickers. They’re delicious, and gender-neutral … not to mention nutty. Just like NARAL.

Nice Deb: I nominate NARAL for going on an unhinged Twitter rampage during the Super Bowl over the commercials.

During the big game yesterday, NARAL’s Twitter account “live-tweeted” reactions to the highly anticipated Super Bowl commercials, exposing themselves yet again to be the angry, humorless scolds we all know them to be. The pro-abortion outfit chastised advertisers over the most micro of “microaggressions” and their SJW followers on Twitter retweeted their complaints.

In their most absurd Tweet, they attacked Doritos for showing an Ultrasound image image of a baby.

The Doritos ad in question showed a father eating Doritos while his pregnant wife received an ultrasound. The baby reacts strongly to the Doritos whenever Dad gets close with a chip. At the end, the baby physically launches itself out of the womb to try to get Doritos.

NARAL denounced the Doritos ad for using the ” #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless, moms as uptight.”

That’s right, they were upset because Doritos had the presumption to characterize a human baby as… human.

These abortion fanatics are particularly soulless and ghoulish weasels – but weasels nonetheless.


Ahh… not that it matters, but I neither watch the Superbowl or eat Doritos, nor do I particularly care about either one. But what I do very much care about is the innate perversity of those who somehow managed to find a right to gay marriage in the US Constitution but were unable to find a right to life for a baby. Perhaps that’s because unlike NARAL or same sex activists, children still in the womb are unable to bribe politicians or vote.

Oddly, the same folks who vociferously insist that same sex marriage ‘doesn’t hurt anyone’ and that it’s simply a matter of free choice, get quite purple in the face when anyone suggests the same about a child in the womb waiting to be born. Or that trafficking in the body parts of these infants is something the government ought to be funding, which is another reason groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood become literally choking with rage when anyone has the temerity to suggest that a fetus, even one due to emerge from the womb in a matter of days is actually human. After all, these people have a living to make, even if it involves living off off the sale of other people’s bodies… also known in another context as the pimp’s rationale.

Our president, of course, takes this one step further and actually supports infanticide, a place too far for even NARAL to be willing to go.

Again, another confession. I am not someone who thinks abortion ought to be outlawed totally. Non-consensual sex happens, health issues can intervene and sometimes people make mistakes who simply haven’t the means or maturity to have a child at a given time in life. That’s why I’ve always liked the idea of the morning after pill, which prevents conception.

But that’s very different from making an industry, let alone a government funded industry, out of killing healthy babies, especially ones older than twenty weeks who have a fully developed nervous system and can experience the pain of what’s happening to them. If NARAL was actually composed of people who cared at all about human decency, they’d be complaining about that horrific situation instead of a stupid commercial.

Enjoy your Weasel, NARAL. It’s richly deserved.

Well, there it is.

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

02/11/16
Playing Trump

Playing Trump

02/11/16
MR1

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Kang And Kodos Edition

The Watcher’s Council

(Michael Ramirez/IBD)

For those who don’t get the reference in this week’s title:

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

This week, we introduce another fine member to the Watcher’s Council, Michael McDaniel of Stately McDaniel Manor! His stellar work has appeared in PJ Media and on the Second Amendment site Bearing Arms and we are both pleased and proud to have him on the team. Check out his debut Council article this week!

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions:

Non-Council Submissions:

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that! And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results…

02/11/16
Trevor Movie

#LoudonClear: Guest star Mike Rogers on state of New Hampshire

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Trevorrrrrr1

This week, Trevor & Sparky speak with Mike Rogers about the political atmosphere in New Hampshire. Angela from the TK Radio network also joins the show with some great insight about the NH political scene!

Listen here:

02/10/16
David Brooks

The Times’ David Brooks Misses Obama—and a Few Facts

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

David Brooks, The New York Times’ resident “conservative,” has once again gone all out to support President Obama, claiming that the misconduct of the current presidential campaigns has already made him “miss” the President’s “superior integrity” and poise. Brooks’ “strange sensation” that he is feeling seems reminiscent of the thrill up his leg for the President that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews once spoke of experiencing.

Brooks has been with the Times for over 12 years, and is also a political analyst for PBS. That would be more than enough left-wing influence to severely cloud anyone’s judgment, and clearly Brooks has not been immune.

The mainstream media refuse to throw away their rose-colored glasses when judging Obama because the reality of this President’s corruption and dishonesty contradicts the liberal narrative. To the contrary, if Brooks were to be believed, President Obama has demonstrated “basic care and respect for the dignity of others,” sound decision-making, “grace under pressure,” and “optimism.” And yes, just like former senior Obama advisor David Axelrod, Brooks argues that President Obama has been “remarkably scandal-free” when compared with prior presidencies.

The question of presidential legacy, however, revolves not around a president’s demeanor but rather his policy successes and failures, as well as his character. From the IRS scandal, to Fast & Furious, to Benghazi, and the mistreatment of veterans, there have, in reality, been a multitude of scandals under President Obama’s leadership. These scandals, and the ensuing cover-ups, have stained Obama’s reputation less publicly than in previous administrations not because of their minor importance, but rather because a corrupt media is willing to overlook massive amounts of evidence of malfeasance to benefit their allies in the Democratic Party.

“Perhaps, for the Obama administration, it’s proven easier to deny the media’s access to information that might reveal further scandals than to admit the truth about its own deep-seated corruption,” we wrote in 2015, when Brooks made a similar outrageous claim. The mainstream media continue to be more than content to leave stones unturned whenever it becomes clear that new evidence might harm Obama.

“If the Obama Administration is willfully giving guns to Mexican drug gangs, allows veterans to die waiting for health care, makes a concerted effort to stifle free speech while refusing to help the four Americans under assault from terrorists doesn’t merit the word scandal in David Brooks’ book then he demonstrates no capacity for reason,” argues Aaron Goldstein for The American Spectator, who also took note of this latest Brooks column.

During his ongoing war against journalists, President Obama has abused the Espionage Act while investigating administration leaks. “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered,” argued David Sanger of the Times. Maybe Brooks should consult with Sanger, or another Times colleague, James Risen, who said that the Obama administration has been “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

But for Brooks there can only be kind, wistful words about the end of an Obama presidency. “No, Obama has not been temperamentally perfect,” Brooks writes. “Too often he’s been disdainful, aloof, resentful and insular. But there is a tone of ugliness creeping across the world, as democracies retreat, as tribalism mounts, as suspiciousness and authoritarianism take center stage.”

By ugliness, Brooks obviously meant to snipe at Republican presidential candidates such as Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz (TX). In contrast to Trump, Brooks argues, President Obama combatted Islamophobia by making a “wonderful speech” at the Islamic Society of Baltimore.

“President Obama, meanwhile, went to a mosque, looked into people’s eyes and gave a wonderful speech reasserting their [Muslim’s] place as Americans,” writes Brooks.

Brooks writes opinion pieces, and he’s certainly entitled to his opinions, but he clearly didn’t do any background research on the mosque that Obama visited, nor the speech itself. “[Islamic Society of Baltimore] leaders have amassed a record of support for radical Islamic causes over the years, including endorsing the Chechen jihad and Palestinian suicide bombings,” reports the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). “Its former imam was active in a charity later linked to terror financing including Hamas, the Taliban, and for providing ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ to Osama bin Laden.”

Daniel Pipes, writing for IPT, accuses President Obama of excess optimism when it comes to Islamic terror. “…but what about the dark side, the unique and repeated role of mosques in parlaying totalitarian ideas and fomenting violence?” Pipes asks. “That goes unsaid in the president’s rose-colored presentation.”

In another interpretation of Obama’s mosque speech, Dennis Prager points to how the President championed the fact that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams each owned a copy of the Koran. What the President failed to mention, Pragerpoints out, was that these founders owned Korans in order to understand why Muslims were using their religion to justify enslaving Americans.

Clare Lopez pointed out numerous factual errors in Obama’s comments at the mosque, including the meaning of the word “Islam.”

In one instance, Brooks seeks to favorably compare Obama to Mrs. Clinton, alluding to her email scandal as a “vaguely shady shortcut” rather than the serious scandal with criminal implications at its heart.

Recent news reports, including from the Times, confirm that Mrs. Clinton sent or received over 1,300 emails containing classified information using her private server. One cannot also overlook that Mrs. Clinton was serving in the Obama administration at the time. EmailGate is, therefore, also an Obama scandal.According to the Times, there are “18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama” that the administration is refusing to make public.

For Brooks, Obama’s only missteps in terms of foreign policy have been because he has been “too cautious.” But according to another of Brooks’ colleagues at the times, Roger Cohen, Obama’s “caution” has been instrumental in a Syrian civil war that has resulted in 250,000 deaths, 4.5 million refugees, and 6.5 million people internally displaced. Speaking of Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, currently under siege by the Assad government, Cohen writes that the situation “is a result of the fecklessness and purposelessness over almost five years of the Obama administration.”

A Washington Post editorial, entitled “Mr. Obama stands by silently as Russia continues its onslaught in Syria,” argues that “the United States has paved the way for the ongoing military debacle.”

Obama has thrown caution to the wind with yet another debacle—the phony nuclear deal—one which will empower Iran to gain the bomb while ensuring that this totalitarian regime receives enough funding to continue to spread terror abroad. Yet MSNBC’s Steve Benen, while reflecting on Brooks’ “compelling case,” argues that “quite a few folks are likely to miss the president once he’s left the stage, for more reasons than one.”

The mainstream media continue to delude themselves into thinking that President Obama’s legacy will inspire admiration from both sides of the aisle once he leaves office. If enough journalists remain as detached from reality as Brooks, they might be proven right.

02/10/16
Iran

Iran, North Korea and the Cruz Letter

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

The Keys to Iran’s Missiles are in China and North Korea

Iran space navigation system to be launched.

TEHRAN, Feb. 10 (MNA) – National plan to improve navigation and positioning services will soon become operational with special features.

Iran’s very modern system of navigation and positioning system has been produced by Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) as the executive and with the support of Iran’s National Space Center as one of the subordinate units of the Science and Technology Department of the Presidential Office.

The system aims to provide advanced services to increase life quality of Iranian people and will soon become operational providing the whole country with the possibility to simultaneously exploit three highly-advanced global positioning systems called GPS, GLONAA as well as BeiDou.

Numerous valuable services offered by the system with centimeter accuracy include car navigation, crisis management, social services, mapping, identification of stationary and moving targets, precision farming, urban traffic control, tracking oil and gas pipelines, environmental services, advanced housing and urban development services, customs issues and smuggling prevention, accurate harness of fire, current and advanced insurance services, shipping services and ports, fine weather forecast.

The implementation of the navigation and positioning system will be carried out in three phases in 2016.

****

Sen. Cruz to President Obama: “Strategic Patience” Toward North Korea Isn’t Working

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent a letter to President Barack Obama that expresses grave concerns about the administration’s North Korea policy and outlines alternative policy actions to address North Korea’s illegal nuclear tests, strengthen U.S. national security and return greater stability to East Asia and the Korean Peninsula.

Cruz sent the letter today after announcing he will vote for the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2016 (H.R. 757), which would impose nuclear weapons-related sanctions on North Korea. The Senate is expected to pass the bill this evening.

“I write to express deep concern regarding [President Obama’s] policy of ‘strategic patience’ toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), particularly in light of their recent nuclear test and satellite launch that also served as a long-range ballistic missile test,” wrote Sen. Cruz. “Your administration has, for too long, hoped to achieve denuclearization through failed diplomacy and limited sanctions. The nuclear tests of May 2009, February 2013, and January 2016 suggest that ‘strategic patience’ with a country still officially at war with us is not working.”

Cruz’s letter to Obama lists five actions rooted in American strength that might actually modify the hostile and aggressive behavior of North Korea and its protectors:

1) Fully enforce U.S. laws. The U.S. needs to sharpen the choices for North Korea by raising the risk and cost for those who choose to violate laws and resolutions.

2) Stop protecting China. It is time to tell the truth about China: the PRC is not our partner in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Lax enforcement of U.S. laws have made China complacent in policing the illicit financing of regimes like North Korea and Iran, thus becoming complicit in their proliferation.

3) Rebuild the U.S. Navy. The U.S. must renew its commitment to force projection to protect our allies and deter our enemies.

4) Deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) unit to better protect U.S. troops and critical targets in South Korea. This system is more capable than any ballistic missile system that South Korea has or will have for decades. And if the U.S. is serious about defending South Korea, we must openly confront China’s support for North Korea.

5) Relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. North Korea’s cyber attack and accompanying threats of a “9/11-type attack” fulfill the legal definition of international terrorism – “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that…appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” (18 U.S. Code § 2331).  Removal from the list has resulted in no improvement in the behavior of the DPRK, and we should end the dangerous fiction that they are not engaged in international terrorist activities.

The full letter can be viewed here and below.

February 10, 2016
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to express deep concern regarding your policy of “strategic patience” toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), particularly in light of their recent nuclear test and satellite launch that also served as a long-range ballistic missile test. Your administration has, for too long, hoped to achieve denuclearization through failed diplomacy and limited sanctions. The nuclear tests of May 2009, February 2013, and January 2016 suggest that “strategic patience” with a country still officially at war with us is not working.

I would like to propose five alternative actions rooted in American strength that might actually modify the hostile and aggressive behavior of the DPRK and its protectors:

1. Fully enforce U.S. laws. In September 2015, Secretary Kerry warned of “severe consequences” if North Korea “refuses to live up to its international obligations.”[1] It is well past time to impose those consequences. History demonstrates that the United States is able to dictate the agenda when dealing with hostile regimes and improve global security through our leadership. Unilateral U.S. actions against Iran, combined with diplomatic pressure, led other nations to impose their own financial and regulatory measures against Tehran. Collectively, the international sanctions isolated Iran from the international banking system, targeted critical Iranian economic sectors, and forced countries to restrict purchases of Iranian oil and gas, Tehran’s largest export.

The United States should use its actions against Iran as a model for imposing the same severity of targeted financial measures against North Korea. Washington should no longer hold some sanctions in abeyance, to be rolled out after the next North Korean violation or provocation. There will be little change until North Korea feels the full impact of sanctions and China feels concern over the consequences of Pyongyang’s actions and its own obstructionism. The U.S. needs to sharpen the choices for North Korea by raising the risk and cost for those who choose to violate laws and resolutions. Actors who have thus far been willing to facilitate North Korea’s prohibited programs and illicit activities should not be exempt for political convenience. If Congress passes additional sanctions in the coming days, my hope is that, in addition to signing them into law, you would faithfully and consistently execute such targeted measures in a non-discriminant manner.

2. Stop protecting China. It is time to tell the truth about China: the PRC is not our partner in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Lax enforcement of U.S. laws have made China complacent in policing the illicit financing of regimes like North Korea and Iran, thus becoming complicit in their proliferation. China has enabled DPRK arms shipments to Iran to travel unimpeded through Chinese ports[2] and airspace.[3] It has facilitated the shipment of chemical reagents and protective suits from North Korea to Syria.[4] It has allowed transfer of arms-related material to Syria.[5]

Perhaps the most egregious act was the Chinese transfer of transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) to North Korea in 2011. Upon receipt of these vehicles, North Korea modified them with the ability to launch the KN-08, an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States from a road-mobile launch platform. This capability poses a nuanced challenge to our ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska and California. A subsequent report from the United Nations confirmed that Chinese entities were responsible for the sale of these vehicles.[6] On April 7, 2015, Admiral Bill Gortney, the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, confirmed that the KN-08 was operational. Because of China, North Korea has a modern mobile missile launcher that increases its ability to threaten Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California with a road-mobile nuclear strike.[7]

3. Rebuild the U.S. Navy.

The foundation of the United States’ ability to project power overseas is the aircraft carrier, and its supporting Carrier Strike Group. One would hope that your annual budget submission to Congress would reflect the centrality of the aircraft carrier to America’s defense of our national interests and our allies abroad, but sadly this is not the case. The USS Gerald Ford is over budget,[8] the second ship of the class remains behind schedule,[9] and our Navy has only 272 combatants.[10] The budget you submitted further exacerbates this problem by reducing shipbuilding funds an additional $1.75 billion, as our adversaries expand their presence at sea and increase aggressive rhetoric regarding territorial sea claims.

While Naval force projection has declined under your watch, Japan has invested heavily in its armed forces. Leading the effort to broaden the definition of “self-defense” and expand the military missions Japan would be willing to accept, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has prudently responded to the threat environment he faces in East Asia. In contrast to your administration, the Japanese government increased defense spending by 2.8% to $42 billion in 2015, which amounted to the largest defense budget in Japan’s history.[11] Your administration has celebrated our ally’s commitment to stability in the region, but I/we fear that your unwillingness to fully fund America’s military to meet its threats will render moot the courageous actions of our friend and ally Japan. The U.S. must renew its commitment to force projection to protect our allies and deter our enemies.

4. Deploy THAAD in South Korea. Last year, your administration approached Seoul with the prospect of deploying a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) unit to better protect U.S. troops and critical targets in South Korea. This system is more capable than any ballistic missile system that South Korea has or will have for decades. The THAAD deployment is wholly in line with China’s stated goal of preserving stability on the Korean peninsula and would not in any way constrain China’s military capabilities. Yet, the PRC reacted aggressively to this prospective deployment. In July 2014, President Xi Jinping warned President Park Geun-hye to “tread carefully”[12] regarding THAAD so it “won’t be a problem between South Korea and China.”[13] Beijing has issued similar warnings after Seoul began publicly discussing the need to improve its missile defenses after last month’s North Korean nuclear test.

I welcome recent progress this week in negotiations with South Korea on THAAD. However, I am concerned that you have not publicly condemned Xi Jinping for attempting to intimidate and blackmail a U.S. ally into rejecting our military assistance. It would be unfortunate if the climate agreement and progressing trade negotiations with the PRC were higher strategic priorities for the United States than standing up to the world’s largest communist state. If the U.S. is serious about defending South Korea, we must openly confront China’s support for North Korea. The U.S. should strongly push back against China’s opposition to THAAD by rebutting its false assertions that the system would impact Chinese security.

A good place to start would be disinviting them from Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) 2016. While speaking in Jakarta on March 20, 2013, you linked participation in these exercises with political engagement: “We have invited the Chinese to participate in the RIMPAC exercise which we host, and we are delighted that they have accepted.  We seek to strengthen and grow our military-to-military relationship with China, which matches and follows our growing political and economic relationship.”[14] Given China’s complicity in North Korea’s nuclear capability, stonewalling of missile defense in South Korea, and its aggressive actions in the South China Sea, I/we believe it is time for the United States to fundamentally reevaluate U.S.-China relations.

5. Relist North Korea as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. One need not look far for justification. North Korea’s cyber attack and accompanying threats of a “9/11-type attack” fulfill the legal definition of international terrorism – “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that…appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” (18 U.S. Code § 2331).  Removal from the list has resulted in no improvement in the behavior of the DPRK, and we should end the dangerous fiction that they are not engaged in international terrorist activities.

The regime in Pyongyang has not only issued explicit threats against American citizens, but there is also documented evidence that North Korea has shipped arms to Iran. Three intercepted vessels bound for Iran in July 2009 contained North Korean weapons that Western intelligence and Israeli intelligence officials and non-government experts believe were bound for Hezbollah and Hamas.[15] All three ships contained North Korean components for 122 mm Grad rockets and rocket launchers, 2,030 corresponding detonators, and related electric circuits and solid fuel propellant. As you know, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently fire these rockets into Israel. Yet your Administration continues to assert that North Korea is “not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.”[16]

Until such actions are taken, the North Korean threat will continue to metastasize. Their launch last Saturday is further evidence of the escalating danger the DPRK poses to the U.S. and our allies. America must once again lead from a position of strength, rekindling the fear of our enemies and restoring the trust of our friends.

Sincerely,

Ted Cruz

[1] Secretary Kerry, Press Availability With South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, September 16, 2015.

[2] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009),  United Nations, June 11, 2013 (p. 31),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_337.pdf.

[3] Ibid (pp. 33-34).

[4] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 14, 2012 (pp. 27-29),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/NKorea%20S%202012%20422.pdf.

[5] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009),  United Nations, June 11, 2013 (pp. 36-38),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_337.pdf.

[6] Report of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009),  United Nations, June 11, 2013 (pp. 26-28),http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_337.pdf.

[7] Bill Gertz, “Admiral: North Korea Can Hit U.S. With Long-Range Nuclear Missile,” Washington Free Beacon, October 12, 2015,http://freebeacon.com/national-security/admiral-north-korea-can-hit-u-s-with-long-range-nuclear-missile/.

[8] Christian Davenport, “New Gerald R. Ford carrier class, as predicted, called $13 billion ‘debacle,’” Stars and Stripes, October 1, 2015,http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/new-gerald-r-ford-carrier-class-as-predicted-called-13-billion-debacle-1.371389.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Status of the Navy, as of February 9, 2016,http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146.

[11] Ankit Panda, “Japan Approves Largest-Ever Defense Budget,” The Diplomat, January 14, 2015,http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/japan-approves-largest-ever-defense-budget/.

[12] Yonhap, “China’s Xi Asked Park to ‘Tread Carefully’ over U.S. Missile-Defense System,” August 26, 2014,http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2014/08/26/73/0301000000AEN20140826002100315F.html.

[13] Chang Se-jeong and Ser Myo-ja, “Xi Pressed Park on Thaad System,” Korea JoongAng Daily, February 6, 2015,http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3000595

[14] Ashton Carter, “The U.S. Defense Rebalance to Asia,” Remarks as prepared for delivery, April 8, 2013,http://archive.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1765.

[15] Manyin, Mark, “North Korea: Back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List?” CRS, January 21, 2015,http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43865?source=search&guid=738771c7105c426fac0c7ad3efa85187&index=4.

[16] “Country Reports on Terrorism 2012,” Department of State, May 30, 2013,http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209980.htm.

In the first phase, a total of 15 network stations and two data centers will be launched in Tehran as an experiment to collect accurate position information.

After the implementation of the first phase in Tehran, the second phase of the project will be implemented in major cities while the third phase the whole country will be covered by the system.

The hardware of the system is supposed to be available to users who will only be charged for a very low annual cost.

02/10/16
Obama Trump

Obama/Trump Back Russian Invasion of Syria

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Another foreign policy defeat for freedom-loving people is taking place in Syria. A United Nations report says an “extermination” campaign has been underway against the Syrian opposition to the Bashar al-Assad regime. Tens of thousands are now dying or fleeing Russian-backed aggression against the city of Aleppo. The attacks on civilians are getting some coverage on the evening news programs but haven’t become an issue in the presidential campaign or the debates. Instead, the big new issue is Donald Trump’s latest insult.

In contrast to the debate moderators, who generate ratings by provoking personal attacks among the candidates, correspondents and columnists are now covering what Roger Cohen of The New York Times is calling a “debacle” for U.S. foreign policy. Why is Obama, supposedly a friend of the world’s Muslims, silent? The inescapable conclusion is that President Obama has been collaborating with, rather than opposing, the Russian aggression. He has chosen the side of Russia and its allies over the Syrian people.

In a statement, the National Syrian Coalition appealed to the free world and international organizations “to act and put pressure on their governments in order to take immediate action to stop the crimes against humanity committed in Syria.” The group said, “Those around the world who can in any way shape or form make a difference have a moral responsibility to act now to stop the atrocities in Syria and put an end to this tragic chapter of world history.”

What we are seeing unfold in Syria are the consequences of a literal invasion by Russia, Iran and their surrogates. The idea that these foreign forces have been “invited” into the country is pure Russian propaganda. The Assad regime in Syria is a Russian client.

However, the Obama administration’s policy has been to try to negotiate with the invaders from a position of weakness. This has only encouraged the Russians and Iranians.

New York Times columnist Cohen writes, “The troubling thing is that the Putin policy on Syria has become hard to distinguish from the Obama policy.” He adds, “Putin policy is American policy because the United States has offered no serious alternative.”

Some may argue that this is just another misguided “failure” on Obama’s part. But as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has repeatedly pointed out, Obama knows what he’s doing.

Based on interviews with witnesses and survivors, and other documentary evidence, the United Nations says the Assad government “has committed the crimes against humanity of extermination, murder, rape or other forms of sexual violence, torture, imprisonment, enforced disappearance and other inhuman acts.”

That U.N. report doesn’t even cover what’s currently happening in Aleppo.

Washington Post correspondent Ishaan Tharoor writes, “The Assad regime advance was boosted by the support of Iran-backed militias on the ground as well as months of Russian aerial bombardment. Other powers, including the United States, have looked on with a degree of helplessness as Moscow’s intervention tilted the course of events on the Syrian battlefield strongly in the regime’s favor.”

That “helplessness” is a betrayal of those in Syria who wanted Assad to go and a democratic form of government established in his place. Recall that Obama had once called for Assad to go. He dropped that demand to appease the Russians and Iranians.

There is no other way to describe it: the Obama policy is to let the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah axis take over Syria. That is what the current battle for Aleppo is all about.

Times columnist Roger Cohen argues that “It is too late, as well as pure illusion, to expect significant change in Obama’s Syria policy.” But he proposes that Obama should at least increase the number of Syrian refugees taken in this year to 65,000, as opposed to his currently proposed 10,000. But letting in more refugees scares Americans who suspect that there will be terrorists among them.

Such a proposal plays into the hands of Donald Trump, who wants a moratorium on Muslim immigration, while supporting Russian aggression in Syria. “If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100 percent, and I can’t understand how anybody would be against it,” Trump said during the fourth Republican presidential debate.

As those who understood Russian strategy knew from the start, Putin’s policy has been to “knock the hell out” of the anti-Assad rebels, not ISIS. No wonder Putin called Trump “bright and talented.” The Russian president figures he would be able to manipulate a President Trump just as easily as he can have his way with Obama.

Yet it’s Trump who throws around the word “pussy” at Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of his opponents in the Republican presidential campaign.

Like Obama, Trump supports Putin’s military aggression in Syria. Unlike Obama, Trump wants to stop the additional refugees from coming in. So Trump looks like a tough guy with his anti-Muslim immigration policy, which is a consequence of his pro-Russian policy that generates the refugees in the first place. It is completely nonsensical.

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has proposed that Iran join Saudi Arabia and other Arab/Muslim countries in a coalition. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign released a statement from a group of former officials noting that Sanders’ recommendation that Iran should join with its adversary Saudi Arabia in a military coalition was “puzzling.”

Coverage of the entire campaign has been puzzling, as we are constantly being entertained by insults back and forth with Trump usually at the center of media attention. This time, it’s a vulgar insult from Trump about Cruz.

How about some coverage of the Obama administration’s complicity in the extermination campaign being carried out by Russia and Iran in Syria? And the complicity of those such as Donald Trump who have encouraged Putin’s aggression in Syria?