09/3/15
Ted Cruz

Pres Obama Secures Enough Votes To Block Efforts To Stop Iran Iran Deal – Ted Cruz – Cavuto

09/3/15
Israel

One Messy Affair

Arlene from Israel

I am referring, of course, to the whole business of the votes in Congress on the Iran deal.

Netanyahu has come out with a statement, echoing what I and others said yesterday, that things can still change, and we must keep fighting.

Those who oppose the deal have already achieved a major goal in publicizing its various faults and weaknesses – its dangers.  At this point, the majority of the American people understands those dangers and is opposed to the deal.

~~~~~~~~~~

As there seems some confusion, I want to clarify once again: there are two votes anticipated. The first on whether to accept the deal.  In that case, a simple majority of members of Congress suffices., as it will be couched in the negative: we do not accept.  And if that vote is taken, those opposed to the deal should hold sway – it should be rejected.

It is with regard to this vote that I wrote yesterday about the “moral majority” – the more reject the deal, the greater the moral and political impact.  Whatever happens subsequently, a majority of Congress will be on record as having declared against the deal.

Remember this, and use it: If Obama wins, it will not be because a majority of the Congress was with him.  It will be because of the games that have been played,  games that make it possible for Obama to win with a minority of the Congress voting with him.

For a better understanding of this, see Andrew McCarthy on the Corker Bill, which set the current process in place:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421349/congress-must-ditch-corker-bill-and-treat-iran-deal-either-treaty-or-proposed

~~~~~~~~~~

There is talk that the acceptance of the deal might never come to a vote – because a filibuster might be instituted: The rules of the Senate permit members to speak for indefinite lengths of time, thus preventing a vote from being called.  I say there is “talk” about this, but it is not at all clear that it will happen.  Senate rules require at least 2/3 of its members – or 60 Senators – to vote for cloture, to close debate.  Reversing the numbers, that means Obama would need 41 Senators to vote against cloture, so the filibuster could continue.  He does not have nearly that number now.

~~~~~~~~~~

If the deal is rejected by a vote of Congress, the president will veto it.  And this is where Mikulski’s declaration in support comes in: it means that – right now – the opposition does not have the necessary number to override the veto.

We will continue to work, in hopes of a change in this situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

It was my dear friend Sharmaine who advanced the most important suggestion in this regard, one I am remiss for not having mentioned sooner:

“…the timing for the vote is perfect after Rosh Hashana…We need to pray ….. For heavenly intervention on the vote!”

Amen on this.  Please!

~~~~~~~~~~

There have been a good many other suggestions as well that have been sent to me, broadly in line with the McCarthy piece from July, cited above. There are multiple suggestions that this deal is really a treaty, and illegal or unconstitutional as currently structured.  There is the suggestion (advanced in American Thinker by Skloroff and Bender) that the Senate must sue the executive, “triggering a confrontation between the judicial [Supreme Court] and the executive branches.”

I do not intend to consider these various thoughts – which have merit – in any detail, however.  This is because it is my perception that there are a good many wimps among the Republicans in the Senate. They failed the nation in the first place, when they agreed to the current configuration for voting, which puts the onus on those who are opposed to the deal, rather than the other way around.  And I simply do not believe that they are about to take on Obama in any seriously confrontational fashion.

In the exceedingly unlikely event that they would do so, it has to be because some Republicans of courage in the Senate have considered various legal ramifications and have decided to move forward.  It must come from within the Republican ranks of the Senate.  It SHOULD come from their ranks, but…

What I do see as a possibility is that a scheme may be devised by the Republicans that is less confrontational. but has the effect of at least partially blocking what Obama intends to advance.  For example, there may be a push for reinstatement of sanctions.

~~~~~~~~~~

I speak of Republican wimps, and I would like to use this opportunity to enlarge on this comment.  Many of us celebrated when Republicans gained control of the Congress. Today, many of us mourn the way in which that Republican majority has failed the nation.  I am not saying that there are no Republicans in Congress who have courage and integrity; I am saying the Republican majority bloc has not moved with determination and strength – in pursuit of a clear-eyed vision for the nation.

Just as there was unconscionable game-playing with regard to how the vote on the Iran deal would be structured, so have there been multiple other instances in which Obama has secured the upper hand when he should not have been permitted to.  Now I hear that the deal should have been a treaty, and that what Obama has done is not legal. But the Republicans agreed to it!  Just as they acquiesced in a dozen other instances in which the president has played fast and loose with the rules.

Is it that the president has the nation in his thrall?  Or that he plays such hardball that there is hesitation to move against him?  One matter is very clear: he plays the race card, which makes opponents uneasy about taking him on, lest they be charged with racism.

~~~~~~~~~~

What we see again and again is that the president has no compunction about dancing around the truth, and evading direct promises that have been made.  All politicians do this to some extent, but he is an all time master.  We’ve seen this with “absolute” assurances he offered on the Iran deal, which have turned out to be no assurances at all.  Yet somehow, he has managed to get away with it, when Congress should have called a halt.

Add to this the telling of bold-faced lies.  I mention this here because only days ago, he did a webcast for the American Jewish community.  “We’re all pro-Israel,” he declared.  “We’re all family.”

Can anyone really believe this, after seeing that he agreed to a situation for Iran that will increase terrorism against Israel by Iran’s proxies?

“Nothing in this agreement prevents us from continuing to push back forcefully against terrorist activity,” he offered reassuringly.

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/LIVE-STREAMING-Obama-gives-special-Iran-deal-address-to-North-American-Jews-413590

Right… give Iran access to increased numbers of conventional weapons and huge sums of money, all of which will serve to bolster Iran’s terror proxies such as Hezbollah, and then provide assurance that there will be action against terrorism.

I am not sure how he says all of this with a straight face.  But he does, and manages without eliciting wholesale outrage.  I have not read of anyone who asked him, “What do you take me for, a fool?”

This tells me that America is in a very bad place.

09/3/15
Child1

Child Molestation: Cornerstone of Islam, But Not in My Neighborhood

Child1

Child Molestation is a tough topic to discuss on the radio.

Listen as veteran talk show host John McCulloch interviews freelance author Dave Gibson and they discuss the chilling aspects of Gibson’s recent article Child Molestation: Cornerstone of Islam.

Child molestation is not only widespread throughout the Muslim world, but is completely accepted as a standard practice by Muslim men…

Several so-called “moderate Muslim” countries have no minimum age for girls to marry…Yemeni clerics agreed that puberty begins at the age of nine, therefore that is when husbands should begin having sex with their child brides…

Child2

Considering the fact that President Obama is bringing scores of so-called ‘refugees’ here from Islamic nations, it is a likely assumption that we can expect to see a rise in the number of child sexual assaults where these ‘refugees’ are relocated. 

Q: Who decides “where these refugees are located?”

A: Obama and the Refugee Resettlement Industry “secretly plant” tens of thousands of Muslim men into our neighborhoods.

We have stringent laws protecting children from child molesters in every state. This makes it inconceivable that we would allow a single child molester to be “secretly planted” in one of our communities as part of Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform the country that he despises.

A man who can take a nine year-old bride in his country could now be secretly living down the street from my nine year-old grandchild.

– No Way!

That’s what the Chaldeans, Iraqi Christian refugees from Muslim persecution, are proclaiming as they, along with their neighbors, protest the construction of yet another mosque in Sterling Heights, MI, a community that has welcomed them and helped them to assimilate and become self-sufficient.

Child3

One Chaldean speaker … warned that the Muslims will do to America “what they did in Iraq.”

This is not…“Islamophobia,”… the Chaldean speaker speaks from experience.

What can we do?

Don’t let our Supreme Leader decide…

Barack Obama

where to plant the next wave of refugees including child molesters!

Make sure YOU get to decide. Sign the Petition.

No Refugee Resettlement without Local OK.

Then make it go VIRAL!

Watch the “Pockets of Resistance” grow on the interactive map.

09/2/15
Blood Moon

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Blood Moon Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Interesting times indeed…

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:

Don Surber has published his second book, part of his series ‘Exceptional Americans – The Capitalists.’ Like the first one, it’s a series of short essays on amazing Americans, many you will never have heard of, but they changed the way we live. And it’s a perfect antidote for sheep-like baa baa-ing of the ‘socialism is good’ crowd. Available at Create Space and at Amazon and on Kindle by Labor Day. Highly recommended.

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

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!

09/2/15
AIPAC

Huffington Post Attack on Admiral Lyons is Based on Willful Ignorance

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Too often members of the mainstream media are content to marginalize those with whom they disagree, and mock experts as dark conspiracy theorists rather than rebutting their points. When the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) held its first conference exposing the Benghazi scandal, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank followed this derogatory playbook to the letter.

Now, it seems, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein is also content to emulate Milbank’s distortions, and to simply mock that which he knows little about. His August 18 column, “AIPAC Chose A Peculiar Admiral For Its Memo Against The Iran Deal,” calls esteemed CCB member Admiral James “Ace” Lyons a figure who “hasn’t operated at the heights of political power,” and casts it as “peculiar” that Admiral Lyons’ name would be listed among other national heavyweights.

Lyons is a retired four-star admiral who was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which at that time was the largest single military command in the world. “As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.” He also served as the senior military representative to the United Nations, and is far from a babe in the woods when it comes to navigating the politics of power. Following the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, the first military person that then-CIA Director William Casey sent for was Ace Lyons. Admiral Lyons was clearly a major player at the highest levels of government.

But facts don’t matter to Stein—he has a phony narrative to sell. “Instead, he [Admiral Lyons] has spent his time peddling dark conspiracy theories that probably explain why he doesn’t support the deal with Iran,” writes Stein.

“In particular, Lyons is of the firm belief that the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he argues. “Elsewhere, he said the Muslim Brotherhood has ‘carte blanche entry into the White House’ and in effect has ‘become an effective cabinet member.’”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has provided a detailed analysis of several members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who are official advisors to the White House or various agencies within the Executive branch. The question for Stein, and for the public in general, is whether or not we should care about the influence of the MB on this and other administrations.

Stein must not be aware that earlier this year President Barack Obama invited a number of radical Muslim leaders to the White House to discuss “‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ and banning Muslim terrorist profiling by federal law enforcement,”according to Investor’s Business Daily. The IBD editorial board wrote about several of those visitors:

  • “Imam Mohamed Magid, who preaches at a fundamentalist Northern Virginia mosque that has listed a number of trustees and major donors whose offices and homes were raided after 9/11 by federal agents on suspicion of funding terrorists.”
  • “Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group that remains on the Justice Department’s list of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators.”
  • “Hoda Hawa, national policy adviser of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which was founded by known members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement.”

MPAC’s “leadership praised Hezbollah and Islamist leaders like [Hassan] al-Banna in the 1990s, opposed the designations of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups in 2003, and promoted the [Muslim] Brotherhood as a moderate force and potential U.S. ally in 2010,” wrote Ryan Mauro for The Clarion Project in 2013.

“It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals,” reportedBreitbart last February. “Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS ‘caliph’ Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: ‘Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.’”

President Obama has been unduly influenced by this radical group during both terms in office. “And I remind you that as [President Obama] was giving that [2009 Cairo] speech, two very important things that people forget about it,” saidjournalist Ken Timmerman at our Benghazi conference last year. “First of all, he was in Cairo, Cairo University, and there was an important person who was not even invited—not just not there, but wasn’t even invited.”

That person was then-Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. “And sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving this speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group, although tolerated by the Mubarak regime,” continued Timmerman.

As the CCB Interim Report exposed, “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.”

“With allegiances like these, Lyons seems to think, it’s no wonder Obama struck such a bad deal [with Iran]—indeed, it’s a shock he pursued any concessions at all,” writes Stein.

As we have reported, it was President Obama—not Iran—who made concession after concession as part of the flawed Iran deal. This disastrous arrangement will guarantee that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

It is Admiral Lyons’ historical memory that shines a light on the danger of President Obama’s decision to give in to this totalitarian regime’s demands.

Lyons explained at last year’s conference how the U.S. had plans to take out the Islamic Amal, the “forerunner to Hezbollah,” immediately after the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing.

“We had the photographs. We were going to make it look like a plowed cornfield in Kansas. We had the planes loaded,” said Admiral Lyons, then Deputy Chief for Naval Operations.

“And, at the meeting they go around the table, they brief [Ronald] Reagan, and it gets to [Caspar] Weinberger and he says, ‘I think there are Lebanese army troops in those barracks,’” said Admiral Lyons. “And okay, lo and behold, come back, and no, there are no Lebanese army troops in those barracks. But this time, and I get this direct from Bud McFarlane, who is the National Security Advisor, Weinberger starts waving his arms and so forth: ‘We’re going to lose all our Arab friends if we go ahead with this strike.’”

“We never got the orders to strike,” said Admiral Lyons. “And of course, what was the message? The message became Osama bin Laden’s rallying cry: ‘The Americans can’t suffer casualties. They will cut and run.’”

President Obama recently excused the concession to let Iran enrich uranium during an August 9 appearance on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. “And we did not have the support of that position among our global allies who have been so critical in maintaining sanctions and applying the pressure that was necessary to get Iran to the table,” Obama said. Apparently that was the same reason for all of the other concessions as well. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute notedthat “Obama and Kerry crossed off every one of their own red lines” in pursuit of this deal..

Like Weinberger, Obama is clearly more concerned about his international legitimacy, and legacy, than standing up to Iran. His continuing support for the Muslim Brotherhood agenda also undermines our national security.

This could serve as a “teachable moment.” Should the Muslim Brotherhood be viewed as some benign, moderate organization? Or instead as the organization that spawned Al Qaeda and other significant terrorist organizations?

Each and every candidate from both parties should be asked whether he or she believes the United States government should receive counsel from the Muslim Brotherhood or entertain their influence. And that is especially true for Hillary Clinton, whose top aide and confidant, the controversial Huma Abedin, has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

09/1/15
Politico

China and Russia are Waging War on America

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In a typically cynical article, “GOP presidential candidates have a new country to bash: the People’s Republic of China,” Politico complains about “China-bashing” by various Republican candidates. The story by Nahal Toosi carries the headline, “The Republicans’ Red Scare,” but only mentions one time that China is a “communist-led state.”

Politico uses the term “red scare” to suggest that the problem is being greatly exaggerated.

If there is any doubt about the “red” in Red China, consider the Chinese Constitution, which declares, “The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Sabotage of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.”

Mao Zedong, considered by many the greatest mass murderer in history, ispictured on the Chinese currency.

After Politico went to press with its defense of Beijing, the Los Angeles Timesreported that “Foreign spy services, especially in China and Russia, are aggressively aggregating and cross-indexing hacked U.S. computer databases—including security clearance applications, airline records and medical insurance forms—to identify U.S. intelligence officers and agents, U.S. officials said.” The Times added, “At least one clandestine network of American engineers and scientists who provide technical assistance to U.S. undercover operatives and agents overseas has been compromised as a result, according to two U.S. officials.”

Politico reported that criticism of China “might lead Chinese leaders to cozy up to another world power instead, like Russia (another favorite GOP boogeyman), the former ambassador said.”

This former ambassador is Jon Huntsman, the “moderate” Republican who served as Obama’s Ambassador to China. He ran for president in 2012, dropped out, and threw his “support” behind Mitt Romney, who lost a race he should have won.

Later in the article, Politico refers to China’s “alleged” cyberattacks.

“U.S. officials have not publicly blamed Beijing for the theft of the OPM and the Anthem files, but privately say both hacks were traced to the Chinese government,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “The officials say China’s state security officials tapped criminal hackers to steal the files, and then gave them to private Chinese software companies to help analyze and link the information together. That kept the government’s direct fingerprints off the heist and the data aggregation that followed. In a similar fashion, officials say, Russia’s powerful Federal Security Service, or FSB, has close connections to programmers and criminal hacking rings in Russia and has used them in a relentless series of cyberattacks.”

Why is there such a determination by a well-read publication like Politico to play down threats from China and Russia? This article is a case study in Republican-bashing. Politico is trying to warn Republicans running for president not to follow Donald Trump’s lead in focusing on how foreign countries are taking advantage of the United States.

The article by Nahal Toosi says that “…while scapegoating Beijing and its questionable economic policies may seem like an appealing campaign tactic, China specialists—including many in the GOP—warn that Republicans run the risk of looking ignorant about U.S.-Chinese ties.”

The ignorance comes from those in politics and the media who play down the nature of the communist regime.

The author goes on to warn against “bullying” or “isolating” the world’s “most populous country.”

“To be fair,” she writes, “China gives White House hopefuls lots of material for a tough-guy routine. Beijing’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea, its suspected role in cyberattacks on the U.S. and its dismal human rights record are just a few areas already seized upon by Republicans (and some Democrats) for criticism. China’s currency policies have long frustrated the United States in particular, and its increased military spending has led to wariness around the world.”

Notice how “alleged” cyberattacks have become “suspected.”

But in order to “be fair” to Republicans, she grudgingly admits some “questionable” Chinese policies that give the GOP candidates enough material to appear “tough.”

This is a despicable whitewash of a communist regime that is clearly waging war on the U.S.

“Potential enemies of the United States have claimed that they have the ability to crash our markets and our former head of NSA acknowledged that they do have that capability,” notes Kevin Freeman, author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It can Happen Again.He notes that the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed by more than 1,000 points at the open on August 24 “after China accused us of crashing their market.” He says that China has published a book, Unrestricted Warfare, calling a stock market crash a “new-era weapon.”

Instead of holding the Obama Administration accountable for safeguarding our national security information, Politico attacks Republicans for being too critical of China.

Later in the article, Politico quotes some comments about why we have to take the time to understand that the rulers in Beijing will realize this is just campaign rhetoric. “Top U.S.-watchers in Beijing are pretty savvy,” says Melanie Hart, identified as “director for China policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.” It turns out she “worked on Qualcomm’s China business development team, where she provided technology market and regulatory analysis to guide Qualcomm operations in Greater China. She has worked as a China advisor for The Scowcroft Group, Albright Stonebridge Group, and the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.”

In other words, part of her career has been devoted to facilitating U.S. investment in China. She went to China in June to work on U.S.-China cooperation on “climate change” matters. She has a vested interest in making the communists look non-threatening.

Meanwhile, last January, a Russian spy ring was uncovered in New York City whose purpose in part was to “collect economic intelligence” and recruit New York City residents as intelligence sources. One of the targets of the economic intelligence gathering, a Justice Department press release said, was the New York Stock Exchange. The actual complaint filed against the Russians went into more detail, as they are shown discussing how to obtain information about the “destabilization” of U.S. financial markets.

So despite the wisdom conveyed by Jon Huntsman about forcing China into the arms of Russia, it looks like Russia and China are already working very well together.

Nevertheless, the first state visit by President Xi Jinping of China to the United States will take place in September.

Look for another Politico article about GOP “obstructionists” getting in the way of our blossoming relationship with the butchers of Beijing.

08/30/15
Ralph Peters

Dozens Of Retired U.S. Generals Back Iran Nuclear Deal

08/30/15
Admiral James Lyons

Admiral James Lyons on Iran Nuke Deal [Video]

Accuracy in Media

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi member Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.) appeared on The Daily Ledger show on the One America News Network earlier this week to discuss the Iran nuclear deal and its potential disastrous consequences for the United States.

“This [Iran] deal goes back to when President Obama was candidate Obama, about the time June 4 of 2008, at which time he opened up a secret communication channel to the Ayatollah regime in Tehran,” said Admiral Lyons on The Daily Ledger. Obama’s message to the Ayatollahs was that Iran would get a better deal under his presidency than under then-President George W. Bush, he said.

Lyons argued on The Daily Ledger that this “borders on treason.”

“Let me tell you, this deal is a total sellout,” he said. “But of course for Secretary [John] Kerry… he has no problem with this since this is the second time he has sold out his country.”

The Iranian deal does not prevent a nuclear Iran. What President Obama’s deal has done is “start a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region in the world,” said Lyons.

The deal also opens America up to an electromagnetic pulse attack, a method the Iranian military has considered using to destroy the United States.

Admiral Lyons also condemned Obama for not undermining Iran’s conventional weapons capability as part of the deal. “Even Jimmy Carter recognized that our position in the Persian Gulf was a vital interest to the United States,” he said.

Admiral Lyons was one of the speakers at the powerful Stop Iran Rally in New York’s Times Square last month, which drew a crowd of 12,000 people. He delivered passionate remarks alongside other CCB Members who have voiced their opposition to the deal. You can view their comments here.

You can watch Admiral Lyons’ full segment on The Daily Ledger here:

08/29/15
Wild Bill

Israel and the USA

08/29/15
Hillary Clinton

You know who’s not #ReadyForHillary? The thousands who’ve died fleeing the Libya she destroyed

Doug Ross @ Journal

Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea as the death toll of those who drowned fleeing her destabilized Libya approaches 2,500.

Rescue workers counted dozens of victims Friday from the increasingly desperate tide of humanity sweeping into Europe fleeing war, oppression and poverty. Austrian police said 71 people likely suffocated in an airless truck and authorities estimated 200 people drowned off the Libyan coast when two overloaded boats bound for Europe capsized…

…The International Office of Migration has recorded 2,432 deaths linked to Mediterranean crossings this year, but countless more have vanished beneath the waves out of sight of rescuers. The official count was set to rise Friday as authorities counted the dead from three shipwrecks off the Libyan coast.

Two ships went down on Thursday alone off the western Libyan city of Zuwara. Hussein Asheini of Libya’s Red Crescent, said at least 105 bodies had been recovered, adding: “a coast guard team is still diving in and checking inside to see if there’s anyone else.”

Say, Doug, isn’t it unfair to pin these deaths on Hillary?

Well, let’s put it this way. Hillary was eager to take credit for destabilizing Libya when Muammar Gaddafi was executed in 2011:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews.

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).

The reporter asked if Qaddafi’s death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people.

Now, as the mouthpiece of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy known as The New Yorker reported earlier this month, Hillary’s masterwork has resulted in the rise of ISIS in Libya:

The wars in Syria and Iraq continue to dominate international headlines, but a growing stream of news offers reminders that Libya is in a state of meltdown. In Cairo on Sunday, John Kerry said he had discussed the need for “increased border cooperation” along Egypt’s long, mostly unguarded Libyan border. Tunisia has begun building a security wall along its own hundred-and-four-mile-long border with Libya.

For months, ISIS has been trumpeting its abduction and execution of African Christians in Libya. In February, a slick, ghoulish video showed twenty-one Egyptian hostages in orange jumpsuits being led along a beach by black-masked executioners, who forced them to kneel and then cut off their heads. In April, another video appeared, showing the execution of twenty-nine Ethiopians in Libya. Gunmen who trained with ISIS in Libya were involved in the murder of twenty foreign tourists, at a Tunis museum in March, and thirty-eight more tourists, most of them British, at a seaside resort in Tunisia in June. These attacks focused attention on the fact that Libya, a vast, oil-rich, underpopulated country with a long southern-Mediterranean coastline, has become part of the self-proclaimed ISIS caliphate.

In a parallel phenomenon, armed trafficking gangs in Libya are driving most of Africa’s illegal immigration across the Mediterranean to Europe. As many as a hundred and seventy thousand are thought to have made the crossing last year, with thousands dying en route. Unprecedented numbers are continuing to cross this year, taking advantage of the chaos in Libya.

Hillary’s email exploits are getting the headlines, and deservedly so for actions that would have sent a lesser mortal to prison long ago, but no one is discussing her complicity in crimes against humanity.

One other odd point: I don’t hear the word “chickenhawk” bandied about when these Democrat politicians bloviate about “their” military achievements. I wonder why that is?

Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.