Monday, June 23, 2014
This particular show had to be the most decadent, vile and filthy entertainment ever broadcast over the public airways. Where are the censors? Where is the common sense? It is obvious that the writers are on some type of a mission. They are hell bent on changing the value system of our society from traditional Judeo-Christian to something out of a freak show.
I did some checking and discovered that NBC is owned by General Electric Corporation. It's time for the folks at GE to take control of their subsidiary.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
They think he is incompetent and full of hot air. They fear they made a bad deal.
It’s not me, it’s you. That is the message the South Dakota College Republicans have for President Obama in a new video released last week, set to the song “Say Something” by A Great Big World.
The video depicts millennials “breaking up” with Obama like teenagers would break up with their significant others – his Facebook page is unfollowed, his pictures torn up, his text messages ignored.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Below is what I think is the most accurate description of the problem. There is hardly a mention of this invasion in the mainstream media. Why would that be?
A surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America crossing the border illegally into Texas has so overwhelmed the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley that officials have transported more than 750 children since last week to Border Patrol facilities in Arizona — with plans to bring hundreds more, if necessary.
Calling the situation "a humanitarian crisis," President Barack Obama has sent federal officials scrambling to ramp up temporary housing in three other states for about 3,000 more migrant children.
Reports suggest Monday that at least 1,100 immigrant children are being held by the U.S. Border Patrol in Nogales, and more are expected as children continue to cross the Mexican border in Texas.
Here are the key questions and answers about what is happening and why:
How many unaccompanied children are crossing?
According to Customs and Border Protection, in the past eight months, agents have apprehended about 47,000 unaccompanied minors who crossed the border into the U.S. illegally from Mexico.
The CBP estimates that apprehensions of minors this year may reach 90,000.
Almost three-fourths of the children apprehended are from Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador. And 33,470 of them entered through the Rio Grande Valley Sector, which this year surpassed the Tucson Sector as the busiest for illegal crossings. Overall, Border Patrol apprehensions of undocumented migrants are still running at less than half of the rate of 2000-06, when they typically exceeded 1million a year.
Why are so many children crossing now?
Gang violence in El Salvador and in urban areas of Guatemala has escalated dramatically in recent months since a weak truce among rival gangs has evaporated, said Elizabeth G. Kennedy, a Fulbright scholar reached Monday in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador.
"Half of them are fleeing for their lives," she said.
Kennedy, investigating the causes of child migration, has interviewed more than 400 child migrants. For many, Kennedy said, "their decision is: Do I face possible death in migrating or sure death in staying?"
The gang violence "particularly affects youths," said Alison Ramirez, who works on a U.S.-funded violence-prevention project in El Salvador and who frequently visits Honduras and Guatemala.
"The gangs are in schools, neighborhoods. They're everywhere," she said. "Even if the kids don't want to be a part of it, they get caught up in the crossfire, extorted, threatened."
"The violence is one of the drivers in Honduras," said David Scott FitzGerald, associate director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies in California. "Just looking at the homicide rate, it has tripled in the last decade. It's the highest in the world for a country not at war."
Children from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador aren't just fleeing to the United States. Increasing numbers have been seeking asylum in Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua and Belize, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Kennedy and Ramirez agreed that most children who flee to the United States do so because they have family members here.
The family ties are a key factor, too, said Cecilia Menjivar, a sociologist at Arizona State University who has researched migration from Central America for more than 16years.
"Immigration laws have as much to do with the crisis as the conditions back home," she said.
She said that because of civil war and post-conflict violence, Hondurans have been able to seek asylum and be granted temporary protected status since 1998. Salvadorans have been able to gain temporary protected status since an arthquake in 2001.
That status doesn't allow holders to gain permanent residency, but they are allowed to work.
"A lot of people who have that status have children they haven't seen in a long time," Menjivar said. "That means they may be encouraging their family members to take the dangerous journey north even as children are motivated to flee violence or seek better economic opportunities."
Why are they being sent to Arizona?
Capacity. For most of the past decade, the Tucson Sector has been the busiest in the country for illegal border crossings, Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame said.
As a result, the sector "has gotten a lot of resources in terms of agents, infrastructure and technology," he said. "And we have two big processing facilities, in Nogales and Tucson."
It's important to note that the unaccompanied children being sent to Arizona won't stay here indefinitely. In a telephone conference Monday, White House officials agreed to discuss what the administration is doing so long as they were identified only as "senior administration officials."
They said the goal — not yet being met — is to process each minor within 72hours either to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings or to the Health and Human Services Department to be reunited with family members or placed in foster homes pending deportation proceedings.
The Nogales, Ariz., holding facility received mattresses and four portable showers over the weekend. The Border Patrol didn't respond by deadline to questions about whether additional showers and other supplies had been delivered Monday.
Can't the Border Patrol just stop them?
The short answer: No. While the U.S. government has spent more than $126billion over the past nine years on border security and enforcement, much of the fencing and infrastructure was built in California, Arizona and western Texas, which were the major crossing areas over the past decade.
The Border Patrol has been moving increasing numbers of agents into the Rio Grande Valley Sector, but vast stretches of the river are easy to cross, and there is extensive vegetation along the banks that makes it easy to hide both before and after crossing.
What is the Obama administration doing about the children?
Senior administration officials said Monday that they had been preparing for increased numbers of unaccompanied children but that the numbers have been much greater than they expected.
Officials said they have been in daily contact with the governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and carrying out public-information campaigns in those countries to warn people of the dangers children face and that they are not eligible for any kind of residency or protected status under any potential immigration-reform measure.
The administration last week named a team, led by W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to coordinate with Homeland Security on how to handle the massive influx of unaccompanied minors.
Federal officials said they are working to improve the conditions in the Nogales processing facility. As of Monday, they had also readied facilities to temporarily house up to 1,767 children at military bases in California and Texas, and they were preparing additional temporary housing at Fort Sill, Okla.
Depending on how many minors Border Patrol agents continue to apprehend in Texas, more children may be sent to Arizona, officials said.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Continue reading the main story
The borders of the modern Middle East are in large part a legacy of World War One. They were established by the colonial powers after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
Those borders could now be in peril for two main reasons - the continuing fighting and fragmentation of Syria and the ISIS assault in Iraq Unless the military gains of ISIS can be reversed, the Iraqi state is in peril as never before. The dual crises in Syria and Iraq combine to offer the possibility of a "state" encompassing eastern Syria and western Iraq where the jihadists of ISIS hold sway.
This would have huge implications for the region and beyond. Iraq has to a large extent staggered from crisis to crisis, so what went wrong?1. 'Original sin'
For some, Iraq's problems begin at the creation, with the founding of the modern Iraqi state itself. Britain, as the colonial power, established a Hashemite kingdom that took little account of other communities like the Shia or the Kurds - a theme that was to recur throughout Iraq's turbulent history.
The monarchy was eventually overturned by a military coup similar to the secular, nationalist and modernising forces that propelled the Nasser regime to power in Egypt.
It is this edifice that was eventually headed by Saddam Hussein whose Sunni-dominated regime dealt harshly with Shia and Kurdish sentiment.
Western support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War only seemed to consolidate his brutal regime.2. Operation Iraqi Freedom
The Baathist state was destroyed by the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein was deposed and ultimately tried and executed by the new Iraqi government. Iraq's military was largely dismantled and a new security force created.
The war which some US neoconservatives saw as an explicit attempt to bring democracy to the region, established new political arrangements, which while seeking to unite all communities, effectively produced a state dominated by the Shia majority.
Many had actually wondered if Iraq could actually hold together as a unitary state, not least because the Kurds in the north had been able to carve out a significant degree of autonomy for themselves.3. US pull-out
Despite initial plans to keep some forces in Iraq to assist the local army, no agreement could be reached between Baghdad and Washington, and the last US troops pulled out in December 2011 leaving security in the hands of the often less-than-effective Iraqi military.
The US had chalked up some significant successes in courting Sunni groups to help fight al-Qaeda-linked jihadist terrorism. Without the Americans these arrangements quickly broke down.
Sunnis found themselves increasingly the victims of the Shia-dominated government's security forces.
Indeed, the heavy-handedness of Iraqi forces may have effectively acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS.4. Sectarianism in the new Iraq
The great paradox of the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein is that by destroying Iraq as a regional player they accelerated and facilitated the rise of Iran. Tehran saw the Shia in Iraq as its allies in a wider regional struggle.
Maybe emboldened by support from Iran, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Shia triumphalism antagonised many Sunnis worsening the security situation on the ground.5. Economic and social failure
Sectarianism and the Sunni-Shia divide is seen by many commentators in a kind of chicken and egg situation.
Is it the sectarian differences in themselves that are the problem or is it that the Iraqi state's social and economic failure prompted more bitter divisions?
Iraqis - despite their country's oil wealth - are generally poor and levels of corruption in the country are very high.6. Regional context
Nothing that happens in the Middle east occurs in a vacuum. Iraqis, while fixated inevitably on their own problems, have watched as the currents of the Arab Spring have come and gone; the almost circular political transformation in Egypt; and of course crucially the upheavals in neighbouring Syria. The jihadist surge there has inevitably had implications across the border in Iraq.
Backing for extreme Sunni fighters from the Gulf States has also facilitated the emergence and consolidation of groups like ISIS with a broader regional agenda.
And while direct collusion between Syria's Assad regime and the jihadists is hard to prove, there have been consistent reports that the Damascus government's military has paid far less attention to such groups while concentrating its fire on more moderate Western-backed fighters. This has given ISIS room to establish its own administrative structures in the areas it controls.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
TERRORIST PROSECUTOR TO DISCUSS IMPEACHMENT NEXT THURSDAY IN CHICAGO
By Nancy Thorner -
Those who watch the Fox News Channel know that author/analyst Andrew McCarthy appears from time to time on the Fox evening lineup of political commentary shows. Last week, he appeared as a guest on the very popular show, The Kelly File, hosted by Megan Kelly. As a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense for Democracies and a columnist for the National Review Andrew was previously the Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, involved with trials of several international terrorists. Most famously, he was the lead prosecutor in the trial against Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and 11 other terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
As a nationally acclaimed author, McCarthy has written several books on national security, specifically the threat of radical Islam in America. His books include, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America and Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.
Next Thursday, McCarthy will visit The Heartland Institute from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at its Chicago location, One South Wacker Drive, Suite #2740, to discuss his newest book, Faithless Execution: Building a Political Case for Obama's Impeachment.
Although Impeachment is rare in American history, and for a good reason, it is the ultimate remedy against abuse of executive power. Politically convulsive in nature, the Framers understood impeachment to be a necessary protection if the rule of law is to be maintained.
But what are impeachable offenses? There is widespread confusion among the American people about the answer to this question.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution lists treason and bribery, along with “other high crimes and misdemeanors as the standard for impeachment.
Despite what “crimes” and “misdemeanors” connote, the concept has precious little to do with violations of a penal code. Rather, it is about betrayal of the political trust reposed in the president to execute the laws faithfully and “preserve, protect and defend” our constitutional system, as his oath of office requires. Recognized by the Founders in providing for the impeachment of an errant executive was that the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is rampant among those who govern.
As addressed by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, notions of oath, honor and trust were more demanding of public officials than the black and white prohibitions of criminal law which might not even be considered criminal if committed by a civilian.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."
In Faithless Execution, McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds a case, assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overarching offense: the president’s willful violation of his solemn oath to execute the laws faithfully. The “fundamental transformation” he promised involves concentrating power into his own hands by flouting law — statutes, judicial rulings, the Constitution itself — and essentially daring the other branches of government to stop him. McCarthy contends that our elected representative are duty-bound to take up the dare. It is a truth that we ignore at our peril.
How might Andrew McCarthy deal with these topics?
- Is making the case for impeachment the same as moving forward with impeachment?
- What is needed to go forward with impeachment?
- Would pursuing impeachment hurt Republicans?
- How does the case for Barack Obama's impeachment compare to the campaigns to impeach Nixon and Clinton?
- How impeachment becomes a political and not a legal remedy.
- What McCarthy thinks of GOP fecklessness in face of Obama's lawlessness?
Hear these issues and more discussed by signing up now! Space is limited.
Location: The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive, #2740
When: Thursday, June 12, from 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Cost: $15.00 lunch; $35.00 lunch with a copy of
Faithless Execution: Building the Political
Case of Obama's Impeachment
Case of Obama's Impeachment