Daily Archives: January 22, 2016

01/22/16

North Idahoans Defeat Progressive Mayor’s ‘Refugee’ Resolution

By: Dan Lyman
Western Free Press

FullSizeRender_3

Last week, I published a piece detailing a conflict manifesting in my semi-rural community in North Idaho, with the understanding that our local issue is merely a microcosmic snapshot of analogous events taking place around much of the world, especially across the pond in Europe.

Ruthless globalists, war mongers, and political architects have systematically turned the Middle East and neighboring regions into the ultimate pit of despair, and like an ant colony smashed by a juvenile’s savage shoe, its inhabitants are pouring out in a historic mass exodus – all according to the overarching game plan. Indeed, the Western-backed Islamic State (ISIS) explicitlypromised to flood Europe with refugees and jihadists as part of their quest for worldwide domination. They weren’t just making empty threats.

Now, bleeding heart liberals and conniving progressives across the West have taken up the mantle to joyously welcome these ‘refugees’ to infiltrate our countries, cities, and villages, with little thought given to immediate safety and security issues, or the irreversible long-term cultural and financial ramifications of inviting colonization by non-assimilatory, Third World welfare dependents. They also don’t know (or care) that the majority of these ‘migrants’ are military-aged males, legions of whom are ready for war, rape, and pillaging.

In response to any and all who oppose this foolish moral preening, these same intellectual lightweights, in their collectivist frenzy to slough off any troublesome particles of rationality or self-preservation, are inclined to lean heavily on three all-purpose indictments from theirNewspeakian lexicon: Racism, Bigotry, and Intolerance. *YAWN*

IMG_4472

At a recent city council meeting, on his first night in office, our duplicitous mayor, Shelby Rognstad, put forth a resolution welcoming ‘Syrian refugees’ to our small town – while simultaneously accusing many of his constituents of being Nazis, Ku Klux Klanners, or supporters of FDR’s Japanese internment during World War II.

Of course, in the spirit of proper race-baiting, the mayor neglected to acknowledge the German and Italian internments of that time, or the cozy connection between radical Islam and the Nazis, but that’s a story for another day.

Thanks to scores of informed citizens and patriots drawing a hard line in the sand and passionately defending it, the mayor and city council were forced to table the resolution for further consideration at their next meeting, which was held this evening.

The two week period between meetings saw organization and collusion on both sides of the ball. The wheels of a motion to recall the mayor began to turn. The mayor and city council were bombarded by letters and emails of concern and outrage. A rally was held in nearby Bonners Ferry.

Local Democrat groups urged their supporters to show up to City Hall an hour before the second vote, to effectively box out the ‘intolerant’ folks – a move that was thwarted by those of us who packed the entrance 90 minutes ahead of time.

FullSizeRender

Despite numerous requests to hold the gathering at a higher-capacity facility, to enable all attendees to be present for the council meeting, taxpayers saw their representation capped off at the room limit of 130, while another 100 or so had the doors closed in their face.

FullSizeRender_1
As is customary, a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance preceded the agenda. And as is customary for Mr. Rognstad, he turned to Old Glory and placed his hands behind his back – a gesture for which an Air Force veteran rebuked him during the public forum.

FullSizeRender_2

The short period in which citizens were permitted to address the council yielded a telling insight into the personalities of some of the council members – and in what direction their moral compasses may point.

Local businesswoman, Anita Aurit, used her time to call attention to a statement councilwoman Deb Ruehle had made at the prior meeting, wherein she tearfully admonished the crowd, “Although you like to come up and yell at us – we care, that’s why we’re here. We volunteer. We don’t really get paid for this.”

Ms. Aurit consulted city budget figures, and pointed out that each council member is allocated $1,548 per month in benefits and salary. “You DO get paid for this, and I think it’s very disingenuous to make a comment like that,” she said.

Ms. Ruehle opted to address the dispute, and via a lengthy ‘sorry, not sorry,’ fauxpology, admitted, “We do receive health insurance for our position here, but we do not have any sort of salary which is spendable money.”

At this juncture, councilman Bob Camp interjected with the truth: “Clarification point: We DO get a monthly check for… a salary.” Oops.

Mayor Rognstad flashed his totalitarian underpinnings, chiding the audience, “Ladies and gentlemen, we’re not going to have hooting and hollering in here tonight. We’re going to keep a civil discussion. This isn’t a football game.” And was promptly met with, “Yeah, but it’s AMERICA.” Perhaps the mayor should spend some time in the Ukrainian parliament to toughen up.

The high point of the evening was reached when deliberations over the council’s resolution culminated in two members reading statements appealing for a ‘motion to withdraw.’ In response, the mayor recited his own pre-written admission of defeat, tucked his tail between his legs, and promptly called the meeting to adjournment. The room erupted in cheers and applause.

Chalk one up for the power of an vigilant, galvanized citizenry.

Video of the meeting can be found HERE.

01/22/16

Did Putin Strike in the Heart of Washington, D.C.?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

With the release of the British report into the role of the Russian government in the death of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, some attention is returning to how President Vladimir Putin murders his perceived enemies. Last November, in one of the most sensational cases, the Russian creator of the propaganda channel, Russia Today (RT), Mikhail Lesin, was found dead in a Washington D.C. hotel room.

Former FBI agent John Whiteside, who handled Russian espionage cases, told me in an interview that it wouldn’t surprise him if Putin had engineered the death of Lesin. “Putin is a KGB guy through and through,” he noted. Since the evidence implicates the Putin regime in the murder by poisoning of former KGB agent Litvinenko, Whiteside found it reasonable to assume that he could do the same in America. He said, “Could Putin reach out to the United States? Absolutely. I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute.”

The KGB is now called the FSB.

The speculation in the media is that Lesin was in Washington, D.C. to cooperate with the FBI, and expose corruption and other misdeeds by the Putin regime.

A one-time Putin ally, Lesin had served as Russia’s Minister for Communications and Mass Media from 1999 to 2004. He had also been Director-General of Gazprom Media Holding, Russia’s largest media group that includes television, radio, printing press, cinema production, advertising, movie theaters and Internet assets. Gazprom Media was owned by Gazprombank, the financial arm of the Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom.

Litvinenko, a former Russian intelligence agent, was targeted for death because he had blown the lid off one of the KGB’s most closely-guarded secrets—the Russian hand in global Islamic terrorism. Litvinenko revealed that al-Qaeda terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had been trained by the KGB and was an agent of the Russian security services. Litvinenko died in 2006 in London—where he had fled from the Russian regime—after being poisoned by a Russian official. A film, “Poisoned by Polonium,” examines how the highly radioactive substance Polonium was used to kill him.

Robert van Voren, Professor of Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas (Lithuania) and Ilia State University in Tbilisi (Georgia), has written an article on the poisoning of Russian journalists and political figures. When poisoning doesn’t work, the perceived political enemies of the Putin regime are usually shot and killed, such as the case with journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Van Voren notes that she was hospitalized after drinking tea on a Russian flight, but the toxin was never identified because the medical staff was instructed to destroy her blood tests. She survived, but in 2006 she was assassinated in the doorway of her Moscow apartment. Among other things, she had been investigating human rights violations in Russia and Putin’s war in Chechnya.

However, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump says he is not convinced that Putin murders journalists or political opponents.

Van Voren tells me an increasing number of people from Russia “are dying under rather suspicious circumstances,” noting that “Recently two top generals died at a relatively young age, even for Russian standards, one of them being the head of the GRU—the military intelligence service. Both had been involved in military operations in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and thus had detailed, inside knowledge of what happened and how.” The head of the GRU was Igor Sergun. His and other deaths are usually called “unexpected.”

“At the same time,” he adds, “I am very hesitant to ascribe everything that happens to opponents to the FSB [as the work of the Putin regime]. People do die or wind up in car accidents, and do have terminal illnesses or sudden deaths—even when Putin doesn’t like them.”

RT is carried in the U.S. by such giant media companies as Comcast and DISH Network, and uses Americans such as former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Michael T. Flynn in its propaganda broadcasts.

“Russia has reorganized and intensified its international propaganda machine so effectively over the past decade that some Western lawmakers and diplomats say Washington now is badly losing a global messaging war to the increasingly modernized blitz of anti-U.S. content from Moscow-backed news operations,”reported Guy Taylor of The Washington Times. “As of this year, RT claimed to be available to an audience of some 700 million across more than 100 nations, where viewers can soak in its Fox News-style 24-hour television content in English, Arabic and Spanish.”

But in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the channel is not carried in the U.S. with disclaimers identifying the material as foreign propaganda. Hence, it is disguised as real “news,” on the same level as privately-funded U.S. media properties, but with the benefit of foreign state funding.

RT immediately called Lesin’s death a “heart attack,” a dubious assertion. This claim came from the Russian embassy, which sent an official to identify him, before an autopsy was conducted.

The death followed revelations that he was under investigation by the Department of Justice, based on allegations that Lesin may have engaged in money laundering and corruption.

In a letter to the Justice Department, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) said that he understood that Lesin had “acquired multimillion dollar assets in Europe, including an estate reportedly purchased through a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, during his tenure as a Russian civil servant.” Wicker added, “I also understand that following his government service, Mr. Lesin moved his immediate family to Los Angeles, California, where he acquired multiple residences at a cost of over $28 million. That a Russian public servant could have amassed the considerable funds required to acquire and maintain these assets in Europe and the United States raises serious questions.”

Van Voren told me that the Lesin case is also “rather suspicious, and one has increasingly the feeling that Putin is getting rid of people who know too much.” He added, “It is not unusual behavior: being the Al Capone of a gangster state, he must be constantly worried about everything people know about him, his past and his corrupt businesses.”

01/22/16

Who has the power to do what at an Art. V Convention?

By Judi Caler

Article V, United States Constitution, says:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States [mode #1], or by Conventions in three fourths thereof [mode #2], as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”

So, there are two ways to propose Amendments to the Constitution:

1. Congress proposes them and sends them to the States for ratification or rejection; or

2. When 2/3 of the States apply for it, Congress calls a convention.

All our 27 existing amendments were proposed under the 1st method: Congress proposed them.

We have never had a convention under Article V.

So what’s the Truth? WHO has the power to do WHAT?

The Constitution grants only the following powers to four different bodies regarding an Article V convention:


But what are convention proponents telling State Legislators?

© Judi Caler

01/22/16

Fast and Furious Scandal Resurfaces—Media Ignore It

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The liberal media avoid reporting on President Obama’s many scandals at any cost, and Fast and Furious is no exception. Despite the media’s studied avoidance of these scandals, their impact continues. When Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents discovered that a weapon from Fast and Furious was found in Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s Mexican hideout, there was virtual silence from the mainstream media.

But U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling that President Obama cannot use executive privilege to prevent the release of records to Congress has the potential to breathe new life into this ongoing scandal. “Berman Jackson limited her order to information not covered by other protections and told the Justice Department to produce it by Feb. 2,” reports Bloomberg. The judge is an Obama appointee, and yet none of the network evening news shows found this story to be newsworthy. The only mention of it in The Washington Post was in an online blog, PowerPost, under the heading “Hot on the Right,” that linked to a Politico story. You see, it’s a story that only appeals to conservatives, so why bother to put a reporter on it?

Don’t expect reporters to suddenly start reporting on Fast and Furious’ ongoing death toll.

The weapon retrieved from El Chapo’s hideout was a .50 caliber capable of destroying a helicopter, according to Fox News. A weapon of this size could have, undoubtedly, led to many more lives lost. Yet this has received scant coverage.

Instead, the mainstream media are riveted by the discussion of President Obama’s executive orders. As we have recently reported, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the union, yet Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook were able tokill 14 people and wound many others in San Bernardino.

USA Today and other news organizations are particularly concerned with the background check backlog that has burgeoned since October 2015. “The enormous stakes are not always apparent, until the first reports of a new mass shooting echo across social media or cable television,” wrote Kevin Johnson for USA Today on January 20. He pointed to Dylann Roof’s Charleston Church shooting as an example of how faulty background checks could result in American deaths.

This is the height of hypocrisy. Mainstream media reporters are worried about the consequences of faulty background checks—but not the approximately 2,000 weapons sold through Fast and Furious.

During Fast and Furious, members of the ATF told gun sellers to look the other way during suspicious transactions. “A number of Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) gun dealers in the Phoenix area routinely contacted ATF when they noticed suspicious customers attempting purchases; for example, someone ordering large numbers of …’weapons of choice’ used by the Mexican drug cartels, and paying with large sums of cash brought in a paper bag,” reported Sharyl Attkisson when she was still at CBS. “But starting in fall 2009, instead of stopping the transactions or questioning the customers, ATF often encouraged select gun dealers to go ahead and complete suspicious sales.”

Attkisson received Accuracy in Media’s Reed Irvine Award for Investigative Journalism in 2012 for her excellent coverage of the Fast and Furious scandal, and for following leads where others shied away.

“ATF’s internal Public Affairs Talking Points show the agency was using Fast and Furious to help justify new gun control regulations—without telling the public that ATF was actually facilitating the delivery of weapons to Mexican drug cartels,” reported Attkisson on her website.

Those talking points, issued in January 2011, state that “These cases demonstrate the ongoing trafficking of firearms by Mexican [drug trafficking organizations] and other associated groups operating in Arizona and the need for reporting of multiple sales for certain types of rifles in order to ferret out those intent on providing firearms to these criminal groups.”

Not only have Fast and Furious guns resulted in hundreds of dead Mexicans, these weapons have also traveled back across the border and been used to attack or kill Americans, such as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The weapons have also been connected to an Islamic terror attack.

“…the scandal took on a new dimension with the revelation that Nadir Soofi, one of two Muslim terrorists killed attempting to murder attendees of a ‘Draw Muhammad’ cartoon contest held in Texas in May, had acquired one of the guns he owned as a result of the Fast and Furious operation,” reported John Fund for National Review last August. “This meant that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was in the position of indirectly selling Islamic terrorists one of the weapons they may have used in an attack on Americans on American soil.”

“See, this all occurred at a time when reining in out-of-control, unaccountable law-enforcement officials wasn’t a priority to the Left,” noted Jim Geraghty of National Review on January 20. “It is now, but, eh, sorry, you missed the news cycle.”

Obama’s gun control measures mean little if the administration has already let those who should never have received access to American guns simply walk away with everything.

Investor’s Business Daily summed it up this way:

But don’t expect the White House to suddenly become cooperative. Jackson gave the administration until Feb. 2 to turn over the documents, which happens to be Groundhog Day. And like the classic movie, the administration will likely repeat its foot-dragging efforts in the hope that it will be safely out of office before anyone really knows what happened and why.

Republicans in Congress and the public at large should demand that the administration come clean now, if for no other reason than to honor Brian Terry’s service.

The sad fact is that most of the media have been so dishonest that they refuse to acknowledge any scandal as being tied to President Obama or his administration. David Brooks, the supposed conservative at The New York Times, commented last year that President Obama had run “an amazingly scandal-free administration.” Sure. Maybe if you don’t count Fast & Furious, using the IRS for political purposes, Benghazi, Solyndra, the Veterans Administration deprivation of timely health care, resulting in many deaths, and the State Department mishandling of classified materials, just to name a few. And each of those has included stonewalling by the administration, lies and cover-ups.

01/22/16

GOP Congress Critters would rather watch the USA die than give up Power and extreme Wealth

By: Sher Zieve
Gulag Bound

With ongoing acts of patent lunacy—or the darker reason… collaboration—the Republican-controlled US Congress refuses to remove the cancer eating away at Washington D.C. just as the Democrats have done for decades. Instead, the aforementioned Congress seems to prefer the ultimate demise-for-lack-of-proper-care that will soon be the cause of death. One of the primary reasons used as an excuse is the now cliché false fear of being called a “racist” if they oppose the country’s enslavement of its citizens with replacement of illegal ones and totalitarian leftist policies. Note… at some point almost all politicians become leftists in order to enrich themselves and they begin to view their constituencies as “the great unwashed masses” who are beneath them. They, then, begin to use any inane excuse to draw curious eyes away from what they’re really doing. And, at some point it no longer matters on which side they pretend to be… because it’s the side that solely enriches them.

ryan-obama-unknownsourceAfter passing the “Omnibus” bill—which already includes all sorts of snakes and vermin, including, but not limited to fully funding Planned Parenthood, ObamaCare, and the resettlement of Syrians “refugees” and other thousands of assorted Muslims into our country—our replacements, Speaker of the House and Boehner clone Paul Ryan patted himself on the back for passing another bill in the House which eliminates ObamaCare and defunds Planned Parenthood. Do you remember when Paul Ryan said that he’d wait to pass the omnibus bill until after a new POTUS is elected… then passed it in the middle of the night ala Harry Reid and the rest of the Marxist Dems? I watched the video (see second Source below) and even Ryan seems to have difficulty not laughing (watch his facial expressions) when he states more of his own rather apparent lies.

As I’ve stated multiple times before, the USA is now under a one-party political system that has two heads which attempt to speak opposite messages in order to confuse and better control the proletariat. Our Republic was replaced quite some time ago. In the history of our country this has never been clearer than it is today. Our Founders—including John Adams and George Washington amongst others–warned us about a two-party political system.

Adams said,

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

…while Washington followed with (in part),

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

In my opinion, however, it is not necessarily a political party system that is to blame for our current enormous problems. Rather, it is an electorate that—long ago—left the running of the federal government to the “professional” politicians… so that it could grow unchecked in power, wealth (ours) and scope and eventually encompass and subjugate us all. It is also a citizenry, which in large part, turns up its collective nose and says “I don’t follow or get involved in politics” because it sounds worldly and urbane to do so or—perhaps more likely—because of laziness.

Gadsden-FlagGovernments built upon the concept of liberty, property ownership and the equality of pursuit of individual opportunity (to date only one comes to mind and that is the one now being summarily destroyed) cannot survive unless its citizenship becomes directly involved in its policy implementation. When American citizens did become involved in government, organizations such as Planned Parenthood abortuaries and a Bureau of Land Management gone rogue (and for all intents and purposes is now a mercenary institution reporting to the highest bidder) would not be allowed to exist. These—and other oppressive to the people that are now prevalent—would have been stopped in their tracks before their power became so great.

By now, most of us should be—and I believe are—fully awake to the clear and present dangers which face our country and us. More and more are becoming active. Keep it up, grow you numbers and we might actually be able—with courage and lots of work—be able to pull our country out of the Luciferian Left morass. I don’t, however, believe we can do it with the vast majority of those currently in power. Nothing less than a sea change is required.

We have our work cut out for us. One thing about which we must remain cognizant is the vetting of our own candidates. Vote for honesty in packaging of the candidate/candidates this time. If they are caught in a few or many lies… don’t vote for them. If they have supporters of Islam or other enemies of ours on their team… don’t vote for them. If they have voted one way in Congress and now say they support the opposite side in order to obtain a State’s primary vote… don’t vote for them. We don’t have any time left to support these sorts of candidate shenanigans. No more “business as usual” can be tolerated. Look at what we got the last time with a leftist media unwilling to vet their own candidate Obama.

An_Appeal_to_Heaven_Flag-250wAnother step—and I believe the most important if America USA is to survive in any form at all—is to rededicate this country to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to return to the principles upon which this country was founded. For those who graduated high school after the 1960s, those principles do not and never did include slavery or suppression. Remember that the “new” Obama-Principles do. We’ve done it in the past and we can do it again. It’s time to take our Stand against tyranny, folks and time to take our country back…now!

And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the Lord do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.
–Joshua 10:25

Sources:

Republicans Repeal Obamacare & Defund Planned Parenthood
at youtube.com (language alert)

Speaker Ryan Responds to President’s Veto of Obamacare Repeal
at youtube.com

Paul Ryan’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad omnibus bill
at hotair.com

Founding Fathers: Beware Two Party System
at ritholtz.com

01/22/16

Obama Continues Caving to Iran While Taking Credit for Diplomacy

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media cannot stand that the film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, in depicting the violence in Benghazi and the heroism of the Global Response Staff (GRS), has a straightforward common-sense message. Instead, reporters like Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post see fit to mock that heroism, and even suggest that President Obama’s latest appeasement to Iran deserves equal Hollywood fame.

“But, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry secured the release of American prisoners in Iran just hours after ‘13 Hours’ opened, the movie’s simplistic, shooting-good-talking-bad moral scheme began to ring impressively false,” arguesHornaday. “Maybe one day, State Department envoy Brett McGurk, who led the team that negotiated the release, will get his own big-screen blockbuster, even if it doesn’t feature prominent biceps, heavy ordnance and a careening SUV with its wheels on fire.”

A key message of 13 Hours, and the Benghazi scandal, is that the GRS’s gun-toting heroism wouldn’t have been necessary if President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hadn’t been derelict in their duty to secure the U.S. Special Mission Compound beforehand, or to provide military support to the Americans once the shooting started.

It has been President Obama’s disastrous policies that have put Americans in harm’s way abroad. It was also his recent decision to swap five American hostages in exchange for seven Iranians convicted of or charged with violating sanctions, as well as the removal of 14 Iranians from an Interpol watch list. Of course it is great that the Americans have been released, but at what price?

“As unbelievable as it will be for a lot of people, the two channels [the Iran agreement and prisoner swap] were really separate,” an unnamed U.S. officialtold Robin Wright of The New Yorker. Yet Iran released these hostages at this opportune time. Unbelievable is a good word for it.

The latest developments with Iran prove one thing: President Obama and Secretary Kerry have been right. Their diplomatic strategic patience brought us to the point where we could make such a great deal with Iran. “Iran gets back men who were assisting its military ambitions while we get innocents,” writes The Wall Street Journal. “This is similar to the lopsided prisoner swaps that Mr. Obama previously made with Cuba for Alan Gross and the Taliban for alleged deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.”

In addition to the exchange of prisoners for hostages, Iran will be receiving upwards of $55 billion (the figure cited by Secretary Kerry)—although The New York Times is reporting that the number is “roughly $100 billion,” and others say it is closer to $150 billion—of their previously frozen assets which have been unavailable to them, and which will now support whatever they choose to invest in. That will certainly include their continued support of jihadist and terrorist organizations across the globe.

The media continue to fail to report truthfully about the Iran deal. CNN’s anchor Wolf Blitzer is still peddling the falsehood that Iran and the P5+1 have a signed deal, and that, so far Iran, is living up to its end.

“Do they formally sit down around a table to sign some sort of document, some sort of international agreement?” asked Blitzer of correspondent Nic Robertson who was in Vienna, Austria on Saturday as the world was waiting for the official release of American hostages and Iranian frozen assets. “We know they did that several months ago when they announced the nuclear deal, but as far as implementation, is there some sort of diplomatic protocol we should anticipate?”

As we have repeatedly cited, there is no signed Iran deal, only a set of political obligations that Iran can interpret whatever way it wants. Is it possible that Blitzer and his producers are unaware of that? And there is no verification that Iran is living up to its end of the non-deal, other than the IAEA’s certification. By many accounts, those guarantees don’t count for much, as there are many locations off limits to inspectors. No one has seen the agreement between the IAEA and Iran—including President Obama or Secretary Kerry, to hear them tell it—and Iran has a history of deceit. In the end, they didn’t even have to account for the possible military dimensions (PMD) of their nuclear program.

Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy—formerly of the CIA and DIA—has put together an incredible list of Iran’s violations of both the spirit and the letter of this non-agreement in an article on the Fox News website, as well as the astonishing list of concessions the Obama administration made in order to claim that they got a deal that will halt Iran’s path toward nuclear weapons. For example, the fact that Iran shipped some of its enriched uranium to Russia, which was hailed by The New York Times as “one of the biggest achievements in his [Obama’s] foreign policy record…,” is another shell game. Actually, according to Fleitz, “this was a swap for an equivalent amount of uranium ore that can be converted into enriched uranium in a few months.”

Virtually every restriction in the “deal” is not what it claims to be.

Again, according to Fleitz:

How can Obama officials say this nuclear deal is a great diplomatic success?

The answer to these questions is this: because the Obama administration wanted a legacy nuclear agreement with Iran so badly they made any concession necessary to get one.

When Iranian officials refused to give up their uranium enrichment program, the U.S. said they could keep it.

When Iran balked on including restrictions on ballistic missile tests in the agreement, they were removed.

To get around Tehran’s refusal to answer questions about its past nuclear weapons work, this issue was moved into a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran.

And there’s much more that’s wrong with this deal. You should read Fleitz’s column in its entirety.

Again, Iran is able to take U.S. sailors and force them onto their knees at gunpoint, and force a sailor to apologize on camera for entering Iranian waters. And since they were released, an Iranian backed Shiite militia in Iraq has captured three American contractors. CBS News reported that the Obama administration had “hoped” that Iran would have shown restraint in having their militias kidnapping Americans, at least for a while.

How well did Iran treat our guys, besides forcing them at gunpoint to put their hands behind their heads? The administration has argued that the 10 sailors were treated well.

Maybe with our new relationship, the Iranians just asked our sailors politely to do this staged video, and they went along with it.

“It was a mistake. That was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” said one sailor in an Iranian video.

Secretary of State John Kerry actually thanked the Iranians for their proper treatment of our American sailors. Seriously. “I could not be and I know the President could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform,” said Secretary Kerry, according to the Hill. “I also want to thank the Iranian authorities for their cooperation and quick response.”

CNN has heralded this as part of “The Week That Changed U.S.-Iran Relations…”

Other presidents might have wanted to make an international issue about the capture of members of our military. But as President Obama likes to present in his frequent straw-man arguments, there are only two choices: place hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way, or be smart like him and avoid using force unless absolutely necessary. During his victory lap on Sunday, he said, “This is a good day, because, once again, we’re seeing what’s possible with strong American diplomacy,” adding, “We’ve achieved this historic progress through diplomacy, without resorting to another war in the Middle East.” It depends on what the definition of “progress” is.

Some experts in the field believe that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Iran has never acknowledged a military use for its enrichment and ballistic missile programs.

The U.S. finally did impose some sanctions “against 11 people and companies involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program,” according to USA Today. The Wall Street Journal called them “very limited sanctions.” “We will continue to enforce these sanctions vigorously,” said President Obama. “We are going to remain vigilant about it.”

But what is not stated—besides the fact that there is no signed deal, and no agreed upon terms—is that the sanctions regime has been largely a charade as well.

Before the recent sanctions relief, the U.S. could not sufficiently track Iranian oil tankers around the globe. As of March 2015, there were 51 Iranian oil tankers under U.S. sanctions, yet the U.S. government could not “establish under what flag at least 31 of these tankers are doing business,” wrote Claudia Rosett for The Wall street Journal last year.

“They can be identified by their unique seven-digit hull numbers, or IMO numbers, issued for the life of each ship,” wrote Rosett. “But a ship’s flag also is a vital identifier, one under which it signals its position, carries cargo and presents credentials to visit ports, buy insurance and pay fees.” Even in 2012, the U.S. granted exemptions to 11 nations importing Iranian oil, according to Bloomberg at the time.

“Iran has again shown the world that taking American hostages while Barack Obama is President can yield a diplomatic and military windfall,” states The Wall Street Journal.

While President Obama and most of the media tout diplomacy to deal with Iran’s misdeeds, and claim that America has a new relationship with this theocratic, totalitarian regime, more hostages will inevitably be taken. And more blood, sweat, and tears may be shed as a result of this administration’s disastrous policies.

The media must do their job and look critically at these issues, rather than assume the role of enabler for President Obama’s phony and dangerous legacy.

01/22/16

Your handy, dandy Trump vs. Cruz comparison chart!

Doug Ross @ Journal

Presented without comment for your consideration.

Simply click each policy or issue to read the back-story.

Policy or Issue Trump Cruz
In 2013, supported Amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Yes No
In 2000, supported an Assault Weapons Ban Yes No
In 2015, supported “touchback” Amnesty for every illegal alien in the U.S. Yes No
In 2000, supported Partial-Birth Abortion Yes No
In 2015, lied to gun media about his past support for an Assault Weapons Ban Yes No
Supports seizure of private property by the government using Eminent Domain (Kelo) Yes No
Supports Mitch McConnell’s habitual lies to constituents and fellow GOP Senators Yes No
Currently courting and being courted by GOP establishment Yes No
Currently supports crony capitalism: billions in taxpayer ethanol subsidies Yes No
In 2000, supported Extended Waiting Periods to Acquire Firearms Yes No
Amount of debt owed to bankers Many billions $1 million
Amount donated to the bogus Clinton “Foundation” $100,000 0
Endorsed by GOPe icon Bob Dole, who thought Ronald Reagan was “too fringe” Yes No
Number of bankruptcies declared by firms he led 4 0
Amount of debt defaulted on $4.7 billion $0.00
Number of times married 3 1
Number of “birther” conspiracy theories circulated 2 0
Praised/endorsed Communist for Mayor of New York Yes No
Spends virtually every waking moment on social media Yes No
Appears to shift his position on important issues literally overnight ? No
A guy so stable, sober and poised that you want his finger on the button ? Yep

As I’ve said repeatedly:

I would vote for Donald Trump over the Democrat nominee in the event he is the GOP candidate. Because I would vote for a Sesame Street character over the Democrat. But remember: you will get what you pay for.

01/22/16

The difference between Trump & Cruz summed up in two Tweets

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

Ted Cruz Defends

In the wake of Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz tweeted that “regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan.”

Trump, for his part, responded to Glenn Beck’s endorsement of Ted Cruz by calling Beck a “wacko” and “a sad answer to the @SarahPalinUSA endorsement that Cruz so desperately wanted.”

The difference between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz?

One is a statesman, and the other is a bully.

In case anyone cares, Donald Trump is also not a conservative. This author has stood up for Trump here, here & here.

No more.

01/22/16

VIDEO: Steve Deace calls out ‘conservative apologists’ for Donald Trump

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

Palin Trump

Popular talk show host Steve Deace wrote an eye-opening piece at the Conservative Review on Donald Trump’s not-so-conservative positions from the not-so-distant past.

Deace charges:

“Trump was a typical New York City liberal back in 1999, and he’s still a typical New York City liberal now. That’s why Trump’s campaign has empty platitudes instead of substance, and has to resort to the same smear tactics as the Left – because Trump can’t win a real debate on the issues.”

Calling out the “conservative apologists” for Trump, Deace explains that the famous 1999 interview (see below) with the late Tim Russert is not the only example of Trump’s (recent) progressive positions on issues such as abortion, religious liberty, the Iran Deal, Israel, amnesty, Supreme Court appointees, and more.

Deace sources every claim and presents a compelling case that Trump is willing to play both sides of the fence.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE.