06/30/16

Who’s Behind the Bloodbath in Turkey?

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Turkey

Apologists for Vladimir Putin, including his propaganda channel Russia Today (RT), have been telling us for months that Turkey has been facilitating and even funding the global Islamic terrorist group ISIS. But the carnage at the Istanbul, Turkey, airport, apparently carried out by ISIS, demonstrates this is a big lie. ISIS is doing Russia’s dirty work in targeting the only Muslim and Middle Eastern country that is a member of NATO.

This would not have been the first time that ISIS had attacked Turkey. In fact, a suicide bomber who struck a busy tourist area in central Istanbul on Saturday, March 19 was also an ISIS terrorist.

But there’s also the possibility that the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist organization also known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, was behind the attack. The PKK has killed thousands of people in Turkey, and has bombed or attacked the country’s tourism industry, hospitals and businesses.

Incredibly, in a scandal that could turn into another Benghazi, it has been confirmed that President Obama’s administration is arming the Democratic Union Party (PYD)—a branch of the PKK—supposedly to fight ISIS. But the PYD’s increasing consolidation of power in northern Syria could pose a military threat to Turkey.

Turkey, a long-time NATO member, is caught in the middle between ISIS and the PKK, while Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan says Obama’s support for the PYD is helping to create a “sea of blood” in the region.

In addition to sponsoring International Coalition military attacks on ISIS from its own Incirlik Airbase, Turkey is the only Muslim country that belongs to NATO. Since the days of the old Soviet Union, Russia has hated NATO and has wanted to see it abolished. During the Cold War, American nuclear weapons were deployed in Turkey to counter the Soviet/Russian threat.

The timing of this terrorist attack was significant. The NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government in Warsaw, Poland is scheduled to begin on July 8.

If it turns out that another terrorist group carried out the attack, such as the PKK, that would not be surprising either. Turkish President Erdogan has directly accused Russia of providing anti-aircraft weaponry and rockets to the PKK. “At this moment, terrorists are using anti-aircraft guns and missiles supplied by Russia,” Erdogan recently said. “The separatist terrorist organization is equipped with these weapons. They have been transferred to them via Syria and Iraq.” These charges followed revelations that the PKK used a Russian-made shoulder-launched missile to down a Turkish helicopter.

Retired Turkish diplomat Murat Bilhan, who served in Moscow, noted, “The PKK had an office in Russia and from time to time it received assistance and support from Russia in the 1990s; Russia never considered PKK as a terrorist organization.”

Indeed, the PKK was another one of the “liberation movements” started by the old Soviet intelligence service, the KGB.

Turkish commentator Burhanettin Duran noted that Obama’s support for the PYD “continues to strain ties between Turkey and the United States.” He added, “A recent visit to Kobani by U.S. special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS (DAESH), Brett McGurk, where he accepted gifts from a former PKK member who now serves in the PYD leadership, took the crisis to the next level…To make matters worse, State Department spokesman John Kirby stated at least twice that the United States would continue working with the PYD, which the U.S. does not consider to be a terrorist group.” He went on to say that McGurk offered “to protect Turkey against the PKK,” but that he “came out in favor of strengthening the PYD’s armed People’s Protection Units (YPG) even after President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an openly asked the administration to choose between Turkey and the PYD.”

The New York Times has been slow to acknowledge the scandal that is developing with another Obama administration policy in the Middle East. However, the paper did run astory in February that Turkish President Erdogan “called into question the American commitment to fighting terrorist groups in Syria and cited Washington’s failure to recognize a Syrian Kurdish rebel group as a terrorist organization.” That group was the PYD. “Are you on our side or the side of the terrorist PYD and PKK organizations?” Erdogan asked.

At the State Department’s daily press briefing on February 8, spokesman John Kirby said, “…we don’t, as you know, recognize the PYD as a terrorist organization. We recognize that the Turks do, and I understand that. Even the best of friends aren’t going to agree on everything.”

During testimony before a Senate panel, Obama’s Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said “yes” when asked by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whether the PYD and its militia force, the YPG, were aligned with the PKK. The Reuters news agency noted that Graham had said, “We are arming people inside of Syria who are aligned with a terrorist group: That is the finding of the Turkish government.”

Isn’t that a variation of the pro-terrorist policy that led to the Benghazi massacre?


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

04/25/15

Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch Confirmed As Attorney General After Republican Betrayal

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton


Getty Images

The Republican Party is becoming more and more detached from their conservative base. They seem to vote against anything the conservatives want and do all they can to enable our Marxist president. As Andrew McCarthy put it, “Voting to confirm an attorney general who won’t uphold the Constitution isn’t a way to inspire confidence among conservatives.”

Last Thursday, Karl Rove couldn’t wait to announce that, “The dysfunctional Congress finally appears to be working again as the Founders intended.” Really? Because this isn’t the way I perceive the Founders having intended it at all. They would have impeached and removed a sitting president who acted like a monarch. Then to validate Rove’s proclamation, the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed as attorney general Loretta Lynch who blatantly supports the systematic non-enforcement of federal law. Ms. Lynch also supports President Obama’s boldly unconstitutional usurpations of legislative authority, including Congress’ power to set the terms of lawful presence by aliens in our country. Ted Cruz SLAMMED the Republican majority in the Senate for allowing the Lynch nomination:

On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Ted Cruz SLAMMED the new Senate Republican majority for refusing to block Loretta Lynch’s nomination to attorney general. He said that the Republican majority could continue to block the nomination if they wanted to and it’s something he’s urged them to do because of her admissions to run the DOJ in a lawless fashion just like Eric Holder.

He pointed out that more than a few voters are asking what is the difference between a Republican and Democratic Senate majority when someone promising the exact same lawlessness as Holder will be allowed to get confirmed. He says that’s something each Republican will have to explain to their constituents.

He also adds that not a single Republican can vote for such a nomination and be consistent with their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

Unfortunately, Loretta Lynch was just confirmed. Sigh.

Here is a small sampling of Loretta Lynch’s answers at her confirmation hearing:

Q: Will you defend Obama’s illegal Executive Amnesty?
A: Lynch thinks the Administration’s contrived legal justification is reasonable. She sees nothing wrong with the President’s decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations that are explicitly barred by federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here illegally.

Q: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here as a citizen – or a person who entered the country unlawfully?
A: Lynch believes that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, she would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

Q: Concerning the limits of prosecutorial discretion… the dubious theory that President Obama has put forward to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty; where do you stand?
A: Lynch would give no limits to that theory.

Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25%?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to exempt the state of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor and environmental law?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American without probable cause?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church’s or a synagogue’s choice of their own pastor or rabbi?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Do you believe the federal government can employ a drone to kill a US citizen on American soil if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat?
A: She refused to answer.

Q: Would you be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views? An investigator that was at a minimum, not a major Obama donor?
A: She refused to answer.

Our ‘functional Congress’ confirmed Loretta Lynch as our new attorney general, replacing Eric Holder, possibly the most lawless, racist and fascist AG this nation has ever seen. Lynch testified brazenly that she endorses and intends to facilitate the president’s lawlessness and constitutional violations. Having heard her testimony during the confirmation hearings, 10 Republican senators decided to vote for Lynch. Remember, the position of attorney general exists to ensure that the laws are enforced and the Constitution is preserved; and… each senator has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. This should have been a no-brainer. Yet, Republicans sided with the Marxist Leftists and Lynch was confirmed. The ten Republicans who voted for confirmation were: Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell. The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch.

Mitch McConnell bald-facedly lied in October. While he was wooing conservatives for the upcoming midterm election, he stated that any nominee that was going to replace Eric Holder as “the nation’s highest law-enforcement official” must, “as a condition of his or her confirmation,” avoid “at all costs” Holder’s penchant for putting “political and ideological commitments ahead of the rule of law” — including as it “relates to the president’s acting unilaterally on immigration or anything else.” He fibbed big time and betrayed conservatives nationwide. It was his wheeling and dealing that led to the deal that was struck with Harry Reid and that cinched Lynch’s confirmation.

Here’s Mitch McConnell’s deal: If Democrats agree to stop blocking a human trafficking bill over some boilerplate language regarding abortion funding — a position that made them look unreasonable — Republicans, with all the leverage imaginable, will help confirm another attorney general nominee who will rubber stamp the president’s many overreaches. So, you see in the end, the Republicans voted for the continuation of the abuse of Executive power. It’s really just that simple. The reasons given for supporting Lynch included that she was a black woman and the best so far to come out the Obama White House – those are two breathtakingly horrible reasons for Lynch to be confirmed. It’s absolutely shameful politicking.

If you didn’t think Mitch McConnell was a lying, conniving Progressive before… you should now. Once the November election was won and behind him, McConnell went to work behind the scenes to whip up support for Loretta Lynch. He wielded his power from the shadows and strong-armed others into supporting her. By voting for her confirmation, he summarily flipped off any conservative who had been foolish enough to believe his campaign rhetoric. Suckers.

But it is even worse than that. From Andrew McCarthy:

That doesn’t begin to quantify the perfidy, though. In order to get Lynch to the finish line, McConnell first had to break conservative opposition to allowing a final vote for her nomination. The majority leader thus twisted enough arms that 20 Republicans voted to end debate. This guaranteed that Lynch would not only get a final vote but would, in the end, prevail — Senators Hatch, Graham, Flake, Collins, and Kirk having already announced their intention to join all 46 Democrats in getting Lynch to the magic confirmation number of 51.

So, in addition to the aforementioned ten Republicans who said “aye” on the final vote to make Lynch attorney general, there are ten others who conspired in the GOP’s now routine parliamentary deception: Vote in favor of ending debate, knowing that this will give Democrats ultimate victory, but cast a meaningless vote against the Democrats in the final tally in order to pose as staunch Obama opponents when schmoozing the saps back home. These ten — John Thune (S.D.), John Cornyn (Texas), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Col.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — are just as willfully complicit in Lynch’s confirmation and her imminent execution of Obama’s lawlessness.

This is not a Senate back to regular order. It is a disgrace, one that leads to the farce’s final act: On Monday, Loretta Lynch will ceremoniously take the oath to uphold the Constitution she has already told us she will undermine.

This is not about immigration, amnesty, health care, and the full spectrum of tough issues on which reasonable minds can differ. It is about the collapse of fundamental assumptions on which the rule of law rests. When solemn oaths are empty words, when missions such as “law enforcement” become self-parody, public contempt for Washington intensifies — in particular, on the political right, which wants to preserve the good society and constitutional order the rule of law sustains.

Mitch McConnell and the other Progressive RINOs are responsible for destroying mainstream America’s faith in their government and the rule of law. Our contempt and disgust for those in DC is now complete. The last time out for a presidential election, millions of Republicans were so disillusioned that they stayed home rather than voting. Obama won a second term that way. It appears that the Republican Party is intent on losing the next presidential race as well… they obviously don’t give a flying crap about their base. Ask yourself this… would McConnell be doing anything differently if he were Obama’s insider in the Senate?

Mike Lee had this to say:

“I voted against her because even though I walked into her confirmation process with an open mind, hoping and even expecting to like her, I couldn’t vote for her because she refused to answer any of my questions about prosecutorial discretion and its limits,” Sen. Mike Lee, whose grilling gave Lynch the most trouble, told The Federalist. “Even as I made the questions more and more obvious, and gave her hypotheticals which I thought made the question clearer, she refused to answer. It’s not because she doesn’t have the capacity, it’s because she had concluded that she wanted to share as little information as possible and, apparently, she responded well to coaching. I found that troubling.”

Lee had offered a hypothetical scenario wherein a governor wanted to raise the speed limit from 55 miles per-hour to 75 but could not convince the legislature. Could that governor decide to unilaterally instruct his highway patrol to not enforce the speed limit? Could he issue permits to drivers who wanted to exceed the limits established by statute? “I thought that was a pretty reasonable hypothetical,” Lee explained. She refused [to] discuss the scenario.

And from TheBlaze:

Much of the GOP’s opposition to Lynch was due to her support for Obama’s executive action on immigration. During her confirmation hearing, Lynch said she believes Obama’s plan was consistent with the Constitution, drawing outrage from Republicans who have said it’s an end-run around Congress.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the most vocal Republican against Obama’s plan, said the Senate shouldn’t confirm Lynch to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer given her support for what he has called an illegal move by Obama.

“The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and congressional authority,” he said Thursday. “No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.”

Obstructionist and evasive doesn’t quite do Loretta Lynch justice here. In my opinion, she is an anti-Constitutionalist and certainly a Liberal Progressive. I am convinced that Lynch is not only a racist, she will be just as bad or worse than Eric Holder and you can thank, in large part, Mitch McConnell and the Progressive Republicans for it. She also has a very special enthusiasm for civil asset forfeiture that she will up the stakes on across the nation. The fact that she is black and a woman should have nothing to do with her confirmation – her adherence and stances on the law and the Constitution should be all that counts. We are definitely at a Constitutional tipping point and Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch may very well be the Progressive straw that broke the Republic’s back.

04/3/15

Left Rejects Idea of Payback as the Motive for Menendez Indictment

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Chris Matthews can nearly always be counted on to come to the defense of President Barack Obama. On Wednesday night’s “Hardball” show on MSNBC, they cut to Senator Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) first public comments following his indictment earlier in the day for corruption charges. He stepped down from his ranking position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and defiantly announced that he was innocent, that he plans to fight the charges, and fully expects vindication.

Then, Matthews brought on correspondent Steve Kornacki, who said “his people” say that Menendez is stepping down because “he didn’t want to put anyone in the Democratic caucus in an uncomfortable position. But beyond that, I have to tell you, talking to the Menendez camp tonight, I would say they feel very confident that this is something they can beat in a court of law.” He said the Menendez camp is accusing the Justice Department of “misconduct,” and having “bungled” the case.

Kornacki then added, “They’re going to allow the suggestion, they’re certainly going to encourage it. I don’t think they’ll say it themselves, but they want the suggestion out there very much that Menendez is being targeted by the DOJ [Department of Justice], right now, the Obama administration’s DOJ because of his opposition to the administration on Iran. And you certainly have a number of Republicans out there like Mark Kirk (IL), Lindsey Graham (SC), who are suggesting that the Menendez people want that out there.”

Hearing that, Matthews pushed back, suggesting that the timeline for that interpretation didn’t make sense. He said that Menendez had been under investigation for a long time. Matthews was trying to dismiss the idea that this was yet another example of Obama’s vindictiveness. Matthews then added, as he was going to a break, “With the indictment late today of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez on federal corruption charges, wait till you hear the latest right-wing conspiracy theory. It’s that the charges were brought as payback for bucking the White House on Iran.”

Matthews then devoted a panel discussion to piling on Menendez, and virtually finding him guilty. No question, the charges are very serious, and the investigation has been going on for years. But Menendez is innocent until proven guilty of a crime. It’s the timing of the indictment that arouses such suspicion.

Matthews showed a montage of conservative talk-show hosts and politicians who suggested, as did Menendez, that this was political payback. One of the panelists on the “Hardball” segment, April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Network, was confident that President Obama would never have been involved with something like that. She said the timing was “coincidental.” However, “One thing we know for sure,” she said, “the White House is not in collusion with this, because the President is not supposed to know anything about any investigation. So this investigation is independent of anything to do with the White House.”

If that doesn’t assure you, nothing will. I guess Obama found out about the Menendez indictment along with everyone else when it was reported in the media. Just like he did with the IRS scandal, Operation Fast & Furious, the Veterans Affairs scandal, and the fact that Hillary Clinton did all of her State Department email business on a private server.

Again, as Kornacki pointed out, it was Menendez, a liberal Democrat, who is also saying this about the Obama Justice Department. Actually, Menendez has crossed the President on more than just Iran. There are also his criticisms of Obama’s policies toward Cuba, North Korea and Menendez’s strong support for Israel that may have been the final straws for Obama’s Justice Department to decide to indict the senator at this time.

Coincidence? Well, Menendez is a primary sponsor of two bills this year that are waiting in the wings to see how the negotiations in Switzerland work out  that would supposedly halt Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The bills, if they became law, would increase sanctions on Iran if a deal isn’t reached, and demand that Congress approve any deal reached by the parties to the negotiations. One bill is the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, with Senator Kirk as the other lead sponsor.

And the other one is with Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). It would, as described by Politico, “allow Congress to approve or reject any nuclear agreement that President Barack Obama reaches with Iran.” Politico added that it “would be a stern rebuke to the president,” and cited a letter released last month in which Obama’s “Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told Corker that moving on his Iran legislation would ‘potentially prevent any deal from succeeding.’”

While apparently the parties to the negotiations have agreed today on a “framework” to keep negotiating to try to work out an actual agreement by the end of June, the timing of this sidelining of the leading Democratic Senate voice skeptical of the President’s apparent pursuit of a deal at any price appears more than coincidental. It appears very purposeful. But don’t tell that to Chris Matthews. Remember, this is the President who urged Latino voters to “punish our enemies and reward our friends.” Maybe that explains Sen. Menendez’s indictment, as well as the decision this week to not prosecute former IRS executive Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress.