PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: FUBHO who wrote (484173)4/24/2012 12:01:16 AM
   of 658921
'The War on Terror Is Over'
9:29 PM, APR 23, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER

In the wake of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration is grappling with how to handle Islamists, radical adherents to Islam. Particularly, the issue has come to the fore in regards to Egypt, which, as Reuel Marc Gerecht notes, "is now certain" to elect "an Islamist" as its leaders the next time the Egyptian people go to the polls.

But some in the Obama administration are now seeing things differently.

"The war on terror is over," a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. "Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism."

This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that "It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists."

The National Journal explains:

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama's savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

For the president himself, this new thinking comes from a "realiz[ation that] he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively 'moderate' Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere."

This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," Bush said on November 6, 2001. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us--or not with us, but not quite against us.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: KLP4/24/2012 12:25:58 AM
   of 658921
The Democrats might as well hang a Sign at the Borders, saying "Terrorists Welcome to the USA---signed The Democrats" with this article....

Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

[WaPo] By Rosalind S. Helderman,

Monday, April 23, 5:01 PM

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, Schumer will hold a hearing Tuesday on the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will opponents of the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited but declined to attend.

The Obama administration sued to prevent implementation of the Arizona law — which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is in the country illegally — arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statute interferes with federal efforts.

In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed to deal with the illegal-immigration problem.

Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere.

The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to block the Arizona law.

But he has been working to improve his popularity with Hispanic voters, who according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll favor President Obama by more than 40 points.

Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act — which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children — and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.”

His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted.

Campaign officials have insisted that Romney meant only a provision requiring employers to use an electronic database to check the immigration status of potential employees. They have said recently that he believes states should be able to decide whether Arizona-style laws are appropriate.

A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power.

“It’s a calculated decision,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School who has been following the case. “It would keep focus on an issue, but in a way that may or may not be a winner for Democrats.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: KLP4/24/2012 12:33:21 AM
4 Recommendations   of 658921

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: KLP4/24/2012 12:41:07 AM
2 Recommendations   of 658921
The link below this article may be one folks here want to bookmark if you think as I do that we can NOT have open borders, with just anyone running in and out at will..... first this article...

Former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce to Testify before U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee April 24, 2012, on SB1070 April 23rd 2012 · 0 Comments

Author of Law Now Before the Supreme Court: “Instead of enforcing the law, the Obama administration does the opposite, by encouraging further law breaking.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that Judicial Watch client, former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. The hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2012, is entitled, “Examining the Constitutionality and Prudence of State and Local Governments Enforcing Illegal Immigration Law.”

Senator Pearce is the author and driving force behind Arizona’s illegal immigration law SB 1070, which affirms the legal and constitutional right of state and local governments to help enforce our nation’s illegal immigration laws. SB 1070 is now under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. The following are excerpts from Senator Pearce’s testimony that can be read in full here:

  • “…the illegal alien problem is a critical issue, not only in Arizona, but across the country. The adverse effects of illegal immigration ripple throughout our society. In addressing this problem, we must begin by remembering that we are a nation of laws. We must have the courage – the fortitude – to enforce, with compassion but without apology, those laws that protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our citizens from those who break our laws. SB1070, in full accordance with federal law, removes the political handcuffs from state and local law enforcement.
  • The invasion of illegal aliens we face today – convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers and even terrorists – pose one of the greatest threats to our nation in terms of political, economic and national security.
  • Yet, instead of enforcing the law, the Obama administration does the opposite, by encouraging further law breaking. Under federal law “Sanctuary Policies” plainly are illegal. But the Obama administration does not sue those cities that are openly in violation of federal law for having these illegal sanctuary policies. Instead, it chooses to sue Arizona for enforcing the law, protecting our citizens, protecting jobs for lawful residents, and protecting taxpayers and the citizens of this Republic in attempting to secure our borders.
On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of Senator Pearce regarding SB1070. The brief can be read in its entirety here. Judicial Watch filed a separate brief on behalf of State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI). The amicus curiae brief on behalf of SLLI was joined by 29 legislators from 20 states.

“We are proud to stand with former State Senator Pearce in support of the rule of law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration has failed to abide by its constitutional mandate to secure the border. As a result states are left to defend themselves against a flood of illegal aliens coming across our border. The SB 1070 law is both lawful and necessary to local law enforcement in order to protect American citizens and enforce our nation’s immigration laws. We hope and expect that the Supreme Court will uphold SB1070 and reaffirm the rule of law in immigration matters.”

Main link:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Sdgla who wrote (484169)4/24/2012 1:02:27 AM
From: KLP
1 Recommendation   of 658921
Michelle Malkin has plenty to say about Twitter and "If I wanted America to fail" video.......

“If I wanted America to fail” video goes viral, but Twitter suspends group’s account; Update: Account restored

By Michelle Malkin • April 23, 2012 08:34 PM
This weekend, a video produced by Free Market America went live on YouTube — and it is racking up nationwide hits. Deservedly so. The Earth Day-timed message is compelling and extremely relevant this campaign season. As the group writes: “The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism — it’s become an economic suicide pact. And we’re here to challenge it.” Watch:

[iframe height=315 src="" frameBorder=0 width=430 allowfullscreen][/iframe]

For some reason still unknown, Twitter suspended the group’s account. They’ve tried to get answers about the cause of the suspension. But no replies. Adam Bitely at NetRightDaily notes:

for some strange reason, Twitter silenced the official account for the new Americans for Limited Government project Free Market America. The account, @FreeMarket_US, went live a few days before Earth Day and was slowly picking up steam.

On Earth Day, the official website for Free Market America was launched and [its] Facebook and Twitter components started to come to life as well. The first video put out by Free Market America, “If I wanted America to fail”, got over 120,000 hits in less than 36 hours!

But you would never know that if you tried to follow the Twitter page–it was suspended by Twitter midway through the day on Earth Day!

After numerous attempts to contact Twitter and see what the story was behind the suspension, we still have received no reason why the account was suspended.

When it comes to using Twitter as a tool for promoting your political cause, you better hope that Twitter approves of your message or else you will be censored. So watch out, you could be next!

We would greatly appreciate if you could help our cause to figure out why Free Market America is being censored. Please Tweet the following message: “Why has @Twitter suspended @FreeMarket_US? #Censorship”

This is just bizarre. The Kill Zimmerman account was left untouched for weeks before finally being taken down.
What is Free Market America guilty of? Advocating free markets. Is that against Twitter terms of service?

I’ll update with any word from Twitter about the suspension. Hopefully, they’ll get back to ALG/Free Market America, resolve whatever issues caused the suspension, and get them back in the Twittersphere.


Update: More conservatives asking questions of Twitter.

Update: Results. After conservatives online kicked up a fuss tonight, Free Market America’s Twitter account has been restored. (The official explanation is that the account was the victim of an “automated spam filter.”)

Good for Free Market America.

It does pay to get on Twitter. Every voice counts. And yes, Twitter is a political battlespace. Get on it.


P.S. For those who blithely dismiss the possibility that political censorship on social media sites happens, wake up. I’ve been there, done that, fought that, and won.

And the only way to win is to speak up.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (483932)4/24/2012 1:09:18 AM
From: KLP
4 Recommendations   of 658921

Ya' Gotta love Glenn Reynolds: CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Video: Former Dem VP candidate goes on trial today. “Eight years ago, he ran on the Democratic ticket for the second-highest political office in the country. Four years ago, he vied for the nomination in a tough three-way race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Today, John Edwards begins another battle — to stay out of federal prison.”

According to an Obama spokesman, it’s not news. Of course not. He’s a Democrat. “Meanwhile, Edwards still lives ‘in a sprawling house on about 100 acres with two of his children, Emma Claire, 13, and Jack, 11.’ Their mother is dead. Their dad faces 30 years in prison for letting friends help him hide his adulterous affair from the public.” Nope. Not news.

Posted at 2:35 pm by Glenn Reynolds

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

From: SmoothSail4/24/2012 1:10:02 AM
1 Recommendation   of 658921
Hillary Clinton Playing Russian Roulette With The Russians

By Ken Blackwell
April 23, 2012

Secretary Hillary Clinton was at the Naval Academy recently. She went there to deliver a prestigious Forrestal Lecture. And she was well received by the 4,000 Midshipmen and hundreds of students attending the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference.

One Midshipman asked Sec. Clinton about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Hillary responded with poised professionalism. She crisply outlined all the steps that were taken and the vast, complex operations that had to come together in time and space to bring success. She tells the story well. And, interestingly, she gives no hint of envy that it was Barack Obama who got to make that critical call, not Hillary herself.

Well, good for Hillary! It would be unchivalrous of us to deny Madame Secretary credit for the most praiseworthy act of the Obama administration. Even better, she did not tell Pakistan. Recall the invertebrate Sec. of State Cyrus Vance. He reigned in protest from Jimmy Carter’s Cabinet in 1980--not because Carter failed to rescue our hostages in Iran, but because he tried!

Sec. Clinton was also asked about Russia’s unhelpfulness and Syria. She replied:

Part of the difficulty is the change in leadership that is occurring in Russia. Vladimir Putin will assume the presidency very soon, but he’s not president yet. It appears that Medvedev will be appointed prime minister. He’s putting together a government, but it’s not put together yet. So the Russians have a long-term relationship with the Assad family. They sell a lot of arms, continuing to do so, to the Assad regime. They use a port in Syria that has been made available to them for a number of years. So there are a lot of deep connections between Russia that go beyond whoever the leader is and Syria. So I think there will be a very rough couple of days in trying to determine whether we go to the Security Council seeking action knowing that Russia is still not on board but continuing to require them to have to either veto or abstain, and see what we can try to bring about because we’re not going to give up. We’re going to keep pushing for both humanitarian and strategic reasons.

It would be hard to imagine more errors in a single answer. Russia’s change of leadership? What change? Putin has been in charge since New Year’s Eve 2000. That has never been in doubt. The Obama administration made much—too much—of its closeness to Medvedev, even giving the appearance of disrespect to Putin in the process. That’s like cozying up to the monkey in the hopes of showing up the organ grinder.

This is the same Russia whose foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, Hillary famously gifted with a red “Re-set” button on their first meeting. That was to signal the new administration in Washington wouldn’t fuss about Russia’s 2008 aggression against the Republic of Georgia. Except that the Russian word for “Re-set” was spelled wrong. And the writing didn't even use the Russian Cyrillic alphabet!

Worse, the Obama administration abandoned missile defense for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. This was, we were told, to make Russia more amenable on such matters at the Iranian nuclear program. Since then, the Russians pocketed Mr. Obama’s concessions and have given us no help on Iran’s nukes. And on Syria, Iran’s puppet? Don’t even ask.

When the FBI collared ten Russian spies just days before an Obama-Medvedev “hamburger summit” in the U.S., the spies were all kicked out. They were allowed to go home to Russia with no harsh interrogation. They didn’t even get a TSA pat down. No wonder President Obama seemed not to notice that Dmitri Medvedev was eating his French fries.

Then, there was the quickie ratification of the deeply flawed START treaty. Sec. Clinton and Vice President Biden helped push that one-sided measure through a lame-duck U.S. Senate in December, 2010.

In every way imaginable, this administration has telegraphed - no, tweeted - its weakness to the Russians. Whatever else we know about Russians, we know they respect the vozhd. That’s the Russian word for “boss.” Based on our experience dealing with Russians—at the top and the bottom levels—they respect strength—constancy and firmness. Let’s see some of it.

Editor’s Note: Bob Morrison co-authored this column. Former Ambassador Ken Blackwell negotiated on human rights in Moscow with the Russians. He worked with Ronald Reagan’s top arms negotiator, Max Kampelman. Bob Morrison served as a Russian interpreter aboard a Coast Guard cutter. He dealt with the Soviets about fish.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: KLP4/24/2012 1:16:36 AM
2 Recommendations   of 658921
White House Spokesman Carney Says Keystone Would ‘Sacrifice American Sovereignty’
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, April 23, 2012, 12:17 PM
We’ve located the blockage.

Glenn McCoy

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Friday that approving the Keystone Pipeline would “sacrifice American sovereignty.”
Huh? reported, via Free Republic:

In a press conference on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to the recent new Keystone pipeline bill passed by Congress earlier this week, as the Washington Examiner reports:

“It would be preemptively sacrificing American sovereignty” to approve the pipeline, White Hosue [sic] Press Secretary Jay Carney said, because a route for the northern portion of the pipeline has not been established.

“The United States Congress — a very important body, takes American security and sovereignty very seriously, or should — is saying that we will, in advance — blind — approve a proposal for a pipeline, a proposal for which does not exist,” he also said.

The Keystone XL pipeline has undergone 3 years of review, but the State Department refused to grant a permit after pressure from environmentalists demanding the route through Nebraska be changed.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: unclewest who wrote (484157)4/24/2012 1:21:41 AM
From: Thehammer
2 Recommendations   of 658921
Can't watch that $%*&^$. makes me sick

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: SmoothSail who wrote (484180)4/24/2012 1:22:28 AM
From: KLP
3 Recommendations   of 658921

End Run.....
Sunday, April 22, 2012
End Run
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 4:53 PM
Mitt Romney changed up his media tactics this past week.

He gave an interview to's Larry O'Connor, another to National Review's Jim Geraghty, and one to me.

No doubt he gave even more, but these three are interesting not only because of what he said but because of the three of us ask questions the MSM don't ask and whether quickly or slowly the news from the interviews travels.

More interviews with key outlets like Powerline and Instapundit will hopefully follow as well as a regular cycle of talk show appearances. I also hope he sits down for longer conversations with folks like Arthur Brooks and John Podhoretz and has them taped and released. If the campaign provides plenty of opportunities to serious interviewers, the news cycle will be free of the inane and the stridently pro-Obama tilt of the usual suspects.

Romney is setting in place the methods by which MSM can be if not bypassed is at least contrasted with more traditional journalism. You read that right. Most of the MSM remains in their Obama-induced swoon, so new media is asking about gas prices, about the GSA and Fast and Furious, and about MSM bias. This last subject keeps the MSM from focusing on the president's vast record of failure, but Romney isn't accepting the neo-blackout imposed by Manhattan-Beltway media elites in search of a "war on women."

The next step is to facilitate the distribution of all his media availabilities to new and old media alike. The herd doesn't even know their subject is busy talking past them.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.