Another Despicable LIE By Joe Biden…..The Death Of His Wife and Daughter

Reblogged from The Waking Giant

“Let me tell you a little story,” Mr. Biden told the crowd at the University of Iowa. “I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly — and I never pursued it — drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries.”

A false accusation of a crime such as killing somebody while driving drunk is of course automatically libel or slander, but Mr. Biden waited until Mr. Dunn had died of natural causes to make this accusation.

TRUTH:

We must say up front that we sympathize with Vice President Biden for the loss of his wife and infant daughter in a 1972 car crash.  It is, however, unfortunate that Biden himself lacks the common decency not to misuse and pervert the memory of his spouse and child for political gain, and not to misuse the resources of the U.S. Senate to inflict pain on an innocent family for the same reason.

As reported by Inside Edition, a police investigation of the accident showed that Mrs. Biden pulled into an intersection after she failed to notice an oncoming tractor trailer, which apparently had the right of way.  The truck’s driver, Curtis Dunn, put his own life at risk in an effort to avoid the collision; he twisted the wheel so hard that he overturned his vehicle.  Delaware Online adds emphatically that neither driver had consumed alcohol. 

Senator Biden, as reported by the New York Times, nonetheless chose to publicly and falsely accuse Mr. Dunn of killing Biden’s wife and child while driving drunk.

What a guy!

Biden to Voter in 1987: ‘I Think I Probably Have a Much Higher IQ Than You Do’ (Video)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the following video, taken at an April 3, 1987 campaign stop in Claremont, New Hampshire, Biden can be seen sparring with a voter who questioned his academic credentials. Biden responded, “I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship — the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.” Biden went on to claim that he graduated in the top half of his law school. Problem is, none of that is true.

 

 

The New York Times reported in 1987:

In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: “I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inaccurate.” … Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse “on half scholarship based on financial need.” In his statement today, Mr. Biden did not directly dispute this, but said he received a scholarship from the Syracuse University College of Law “based in part on academics” as well as a grant from the Higher Education Scholarship Fund of the state of Delaware. He said the law school “arranged for my first year’s room and board by placing me as an assistant resident adviser in the undergraduate school.”

In addition to the above video, Biden also had to fight off multiple accusations of plagiarism, both in his speeches and his academic work, throughout the campaign. He eventually withdrew from the 1988 Democratic primary on September 23, 1987, without receiving a single vote.

And to think this man is only a heartbeat away from being President……

 

Obama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has Come Undone

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

By Daniel Greenfield:

The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the moment when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time ago. What these attacks actually represent is the moment when the compliant media were no longer able to continue hiding that failure in bottom drawers and back pages.

The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from Iraq, and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer make the news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s disaster in Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while completely failing to defeat the Taliban.

Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or extreme, refused to help him cover his ass. Attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre assertions from the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished and Karzai will be ready to take over security in a few years.

And then the Islamists did something that the media just couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most devastating and public of which took place on September 11, were accompanied by Islamist black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.

The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of coordination required to launch such a broad series of attacks and what the attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict from stray attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of entire regions.

Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be dividing their attention between reporting on the carnage without any context and putting out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking political advantage of the disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt Romney was politicizing the conflict were absurd, especially coming after the New York Times ran an editorial on September 11 attacking George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day and after five years of Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide bombing in Iraq.

While American embassies burned, the media were determined to go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had covered for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had begun and which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi consulate. And they are still covering for him, but the conflict has moved beyond the point where it can be relegated to the back pages of the daily papers.

Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of the same inept appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power. Instead the Islamists seized on his weakness and trumpeted it to the world to humiliate him and the country that he had been temporarily placed in charge of.

If Obama had really understood Muslims, the way that he claimed he did during the election, then he would have known that this was coming all along. The way of the desert raid is to catch the enemy at his weakest and most vulnerable, and to humiliate him for that weakness in the eyes of his peers. In the honor-shame culture of Islam, there is only room for honor or shame. Obama tried to cover his shame and retain his honor and his enemies tore that façade of honor away from him and left only shame.

Read more at Front Page

 

New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct — Obama Is Lousy CEO (But World Class Narcissist)

Either you loved Clint Eastwood’s speech or you didn’t, but one thing you cannot argue is his belief that if someone is doing a lousy job you need to let him go.  Sports teams do it, businesses do it, even some educational institutions do it.  Now the voters need to fire the inept and unqualified.  I don’t care how likeable someone is or how smart they (think they) are, if they are failing they must go.  However, I don’t think our Narcissist in Chief will acknowledge his failures – he hates to lose – and he will not go down without a nasty fight.  I think the following article is a great insight into the world of our man-child president.

By Rich Karlgaard via Forbes

A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.

Read more at Forbes.

Obama’s spectacular failure – The Jihadists still want to kill us!

By Caroline Glick via Townhall

Two weeks ago, in an unofficial inauguration ceremony at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi took off his mask of moderation. Before a crowd of scores of thousands, Mursi pledged to work for the release from US federal prison of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.

According to The New York Times’ account of his speech, Mursi said, “I see signs [being held by members of the crowd] for Omar Abdel-Rahman and detainees’ pictures. It is my duty and I will make all efforts to have them free, including Omar Abdel-Rahman.”

Otherwise known as the blind sheikh, Abdel Rahman was the mastermind of the jihadist cell in New Jersey that perpetrated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His cell also murdered Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York in 1990. They plotted the assassination of then-president Hosni Mubarak. They intended to bomb New York landmarks including the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the UN headquarters.

Rahman was the leader of Gama’a al-Islamia – the Islamic Group, responsible, among other things for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. A renowned Sunni religious authority, Rahman wrote the fatwa, or Islamic ruling, permitting Sadat’s murder in retribution for his signing the peace treaty with Israel. The Islamic group is listed by the State Department as a specially designated terrorist organization.

After his conviction in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Abdel-Rahman issued another fatwa calling for jihad against the US. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Osama bin Laden cited Abdel-Rahman’s fatwa as the religious justification for them.

By calling for Abdel-Rahman’s release, Mursi has aligned himself and his government with the US’s worst enemies. By calling for Abdel-Rahman’s release during his unofficial inauguration ceremony, Mursi signaled that he cares more about winning the acclaim of the most violent, America-hating jihadists in the world than with cultivating good relations with America.

And in response to Mursi’s supreme act of unfriendliness, US President Barack Obama invited Mursi to visit him at the White House.

Mursi is not the only Abdel Rahman supporter to enjoy the warm hospitality of the White House.

His personal terror organization has also been the recipient of administration largesse. Despite the fact that federal law makes it a felony to assist members of specially designated terrorist organizations, last month the State Department invited group member Hani Nour Eldin, a newly elected member of the Islamist-dominated Egyptian parliament, to visit the US and meet with senior US officials at the White House and the State Department, as part of a delegation of Egyptian parliamentarians.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refused to provide any explanation for the administration’s decision to break federal law in order to host Eldin in Washington. Nuland simply claimed, “We have an interest in engaging a broad cross-section of Egyptians who are seeking to peacefully shape Egypt’s future. The goal of this delegation… was to have consultations both with think tanks but also with government folks, with a broad spectrum representing all the colors of Egyptian politics.”

MURSI IS not the only Arab leader who embraces terrorists only to be embraced by the US government. In a seemingly unrelated matter, this week it was reported that in an attempt to satisfy the Obama administration’s urgent desire to renew negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, and to satisfy the Palestinians’ insatiable desire to celebrate terrorists, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered to release 124 Palestinian terrorist murderers from Israeli prisons in exchange for a meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas.

Alas, Abbas refused. He didn’t think Netanyahu’s offer was generous enough.

And how did the Obama administration respond to Abbas’s demand for the mass release of terrorists and his continued refusal to resume negotiations with Israel?

By attacking Israel.

The proximate cause of the Obama administration’s most recent assault on Israel is the publication of the legal opinion of a panel of expert Israeli jurists regarding the legality of Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Netanyahu commissioned the panel, led by retired Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy, to investigate the international legal status of these towns and villages and to provide the government with guidance relating to future construction of Israeli communities beyond the armistice lines.

The committee’s findings, published this week, concluded that under international law, these communities are completely legal.

There is nothing remotely revolutionary about this finding. This has been Israel’s position since 1967, and arguably since 1922.

The international legal basis for the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 was the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. That document gave the Jewish people the legal right to sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, as well as all the land Israel took control over during the 1948- 49 War of Independence.

Not only did the Mandate give the Jewish people the legal right to the areas, it enjoined the British Mandatory authorities to “facilitate… close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

So not only was Jewish settlement not prohibited. It was required.

Although this has been Israel’s position all along, Netanyahu apparently felt the need to have its legitimacy renewed in light of the all-out assault against Israel’s legal rights led by the Palestinians, and joined enthusiastically by the Obama administration.

In a previous attempt to appease Obama’s rapacious appetite for Israeli concessions, Netanyahu temporarily abrogated Israel’s legal rights by banning Jews from exercising their property rights in Judea and Samaria for 10 months in 2010. All the legal opinion published this week does is restate what Israel’s position has always been.

Whereas the Obama administration opted to embrace Mursi even as he embraces Abdel-Rahman, the Obama administration vociferously condemned Israel for having the nerve to ask a panel of senior jurists to opine about its rights. In a press briefing, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell banged the rhetorical hammer.

As he put it, “The US position on settlements is clear. Obviously, we’ve seen the reports that an Israeli government-appointed panel has recommended legalizing dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.”

In short then, for the Obama administration, it is all well and fine for the newly elected president of what was until two years ago the US’s most important Arab ally to embrace a terror mastermind indirectly responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It is okay to invite members of jihadist terror groups to come to Washington and meet with senior US officials in a US taxpayer- funded trip. It is even okay for the head of a would-be-state that the US is trying to create to embrace every single Palestinian terrorist, including those who have murdered Americans. But for Israel’s elected government to ask an expert panel to determine whether Israel is acting in accordance with international law in permitting Jews to live on land the Palestinians insist must be Jew-free is an affront.

THE DISPARITY between the administration’s treatment of the Mursi government on the one hand and the Netanyahu government on the other places the nature of its Middle East policy in stark relief.

Obama came into office with a theory on which he based his Middle East policy. His theory was that jihadists hate America because the US supports Israel. By placing what Obama referred to as “daylight” between the US and Israel, he believed he would convince the jihadists to put aside their hatred of America.

Obama has implemented this policy for three and a half years. And its record of spectacular failure is unbroken.

Obama’s failure is exposed in all its dangerous consequence by a simple fact. Since he entered office, the Americans have dispensed with far fewer jihadists than they have empowered.

Since January 2009, the Muslim world has become vastly more radicalized. No Islamist government in power in 2009 has been overthrown. But several key states – first and foremost Egypt – that were led by pro-Western, US-allied governments when Obama entered office are now ruled by Islamists.

It is true that the election results in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and elsewhere are not Obama’s fault. But they still expose the wrongness of his policy. Obama’s policy of putting daylight between the US and Israel, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against US allies like Mubarak, involves being bad to America’s friends and good to America’s enemies. This policy cannot help but strengthen your enemies against yourself and your friends.

Rather than contend with the bitter consequences of his policy, Obama and his surrogates have opted to simply deny the dangerous reality he has engendered through his actions. Even worse they have come up with explanations for maintaining this policy despite its flagrant failure.

Nowhere was this effort more obvious than in a made-to-order New York Times analysis this week titled, “As Islamists gain influence, Washington reassesses who its friends are.”

The analysis embraces the notion that it is possible and reasonable to appease the likes of Mursi and his America-hating jihadist supporters and coalition partners. It quotes Michele Dunne from the Atlantic Council who claimed that on the one hand, if the Muslim Brotherhood and its radical comrades are allowed to take over Egypt, their entry into mainstream politics should reduce the terrorism threat. On the other hand, she warned, “If Islamist groups like the Brotherhood lose faith in democracy, that’s when there could be dire consequences.”

In other words, the analysis argues that the US should respond to the ascent of its enemies by pretending its enemies are its friends.

Aside from its jaw-dropping irresponsibility, this bit of intellectual sophistry requires a complete denial of reality. The Taliban were in power in Afghanistan in 2001. Their political power didn’t stop them from cooperating with al-Qaida. Hamas has been in charge of Gaza since 2007. That hasn’t stopped it from carrying out terrorism against Israel. The mullahs have been in charge of Iran from 33 years. That hasn’t stopped them from serving as the largest terrorism sponsors in the world. Hezbollah has been involved in mainstream politics in Lebanon since 2000 and it has remained one of the most active terrorist organizations in the world.

And so on and so forth.

Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration happily cooperated with the precursors of al-Qaida in America’s covert war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It never occurred to the Americans then that the same people working with them to overthrow the Soviets would one day follow the lead of the blind sheikh and attack America.

Unlike the mujahadin in Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood has never fought a common foe with the Americans. The US is supporting it for nothing – while seeking to win its support by turning on America’s most stable allies.

Can there be any doubt that this policy will end badly?

Read more here.

Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security

Ronald Kessler via Newsmax 

English: A March 2009 meeting of the United St... News reports on Tuesday disclosed that the FBI is probing the leaking of information about a classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, but a close look at recent developments uncovers a broad and disturbing pattern of leaks of some of the nation’s most guarded secrets by the Obama administration.

John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, set the tone a year ago when he went on national television immediately after the killing of Osama bin Laden and gave a highly detailed account of the top-secret operation.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates, for one, was shocked.

“Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation,” Gates said, adding that the level of disclosures and blabbing violates an agreement reached in the White House Situation Room on May 8, 2011, to keep details of the raid private.

“That lasted about 15 hours,” Gates said with chagrin.

Then came disclosures that directly revealed secrets helpful to the enemy, that could endanger lives, and undermine trust by other countries and potential informants in U.S. intelligence operations.

Soon after the bin Laden raid, word began leaking to the press that a Pakistani doctor had helped the CIA operation.

In fact, Dr. Shakil Afridi reportedly provided critical intelligence on the location and identify of the al-Qaida leader. He had set up a fake vaccination program to obtain DNA during a visit by bin Laden.

Following the leaks, Afridi was arrested and on May 23 he was sentenced to 33 years in prison on a charge of conspiring against the state.

“The blame has been placed on my brother because of America,” Shakil’s brother Jamil told Fox News.

The protection of secret sources of the United States is not only good sense, it is vital for continuing operations and getting new sources that could improve our security and prevent the loss of American lives. But who will trust us if we leak sensitive information?

And critics of the Obama administration point to a pattern of leaks over a long period:

  • On May 9, The Associated Press reported that a CIA asset from Saudi Arabia had infiltrated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and thwarted a planned “underwear bomb” attack on an airplane bound for America. As a result of that disclosure, the asset had to be extracted and brought to the United States, possibly precluding opportunities for obtaining future inside information from within the terrorist group.
  • On May 29, The New York Times ran a detailed account of how President Obama directs U.S. drone attacks based on a classified “kill list” of terror suspects. The story rightly credited Obama with killing top al-Qaida leaders. Sen. John McCain has charged that the kill list leak was politically motivated.
  • On June 1, The New York Times ran a story revealing an alleged U.S. covert action program called Olympic Games, designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear program with computer virus attacks utilizing first the Stuxnet computer worm and later the Duqu malware. Thanks to the Times article, which cited U.S. government sources, details of the previously unknown operations are now public, including how the programs were supposed to operate and the involvement of Israeli intelligence. Up to that point, the possibility that the U.S. or Israel was behind the cyberattacks on Iran’s computers was pure speculation. In effect, the Times story provided Iran with a roadmap on U.S. efforts to defeat its nuclear bomb efforts.
  • Another front-page New York Times article in 2011 disclosed that the Obama administration had agreed to sell to Israel bunker-buster bombs capable of destroying buried targets, including suspected nuclear weapons sites in Iran.

The Bush administration had rebuffed Israeli requests for the bombs. But word of Obama’s sale to Israel came soon after Republican Bob Turner captured the U.S. House seat vacated by the resignation of scandal-marred Anthony Weiner in a Queens, N.Y., district with a large Jewish population.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch cited Turner’s election in a Newsmax column explaining why he had decided to back Obama for re-election in 2012. He referred to a New York Times article reporting that the United States had agreed to back Israel’s call for a return to negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions, saying the agreement was “affected” by Turner’s win, and stating that “the president should be praised” for “providing the Israeli military with bunker buster bombs” — a clear reference to the Times story about the bombs that had the effect of bucking up Jewish support for Obama.

The leaks — which have accelerated as Obama’s re-election efforts have stumbled — have provoked bipartisan outrage.

“In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities including specific details of sources and methods,” said a joint statement released by the top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

“The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable,” said the statement from Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. — the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee — and Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, D-Md. – the chair and ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

“These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future. Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.”

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Post that the leaking of vital secrets reflects an “amateur hour” style of management at the White House.

“It’s a pattern that goes back two years, starting with the Times Square bomber, where somebody in the federal government, probably the FBI, leaked his name before he was captured,” he said.

“They mentioned we had DNA, which is how the Pakistanis focused on the doctor they arrested.

“It puts our people at risk and gives information to the enemy. And it gives our allies a reason not to work with us because what they do might show up on the front page of The New York Times.”

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, directly accused the Obama administration of leaking sensitive intelligence information to make Obama look good.

“This is the most highly classified information and it has now been leaked by the administration at the highest levels of the White House. That’s not acceptable,” McCain said on CBS, referring to several of the recent stories.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney rejected McCain’s claims.

“This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations,” Carney told reporters.

“Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible.”

By inserting the phrase “for political gain,” Carney avoided denying outright that Obama had authorized the leaks. Obama could have authorized the disclosures without admitting to himself that his intent was to help him win re-election. In that case, since the president can declassify information, the disclosures would not technically be considered leaks — but they would be just as harmful.

The FBI has begun an investigation of at least two of the leaks. In addition to the probe of the cyberattacks against Iran, FBI Director Robert Mueller disclosed on May 16 that the bureau has launched an investigation into who leaked information about the al-Qaida “underwear bomber” plot to place an explosive device aboard a U.S.-bound airline flight.

Overlooked in most of the coverage is the role of the press. When Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA operative, the press turned the disclosure into a scandal and blamed the George W. Bush administration. Plame was technically undercover but not in any danger.

Yet The New York Times ran 521 stories suggesting it was wrong for the White House, and specifically Karl Rove, to divulge her name. Only 27 of the articles mentioned the person who actually leaked her name to columnist Robert Novak, former State Department official Richard Armitage, who ironically was critical of the Bush administration.

In contrast, the press now is silent on leaks that genuinely impair national security and whether the Obama White House is behind the disclosures. Nor are journalists examining the legitimacy of publishing such information in the first place.

It’s one thing to disclose classified information to expose an abuse — meaning an illegal act for political or otherwise improper purposes.

It’s another to disclose secrets for the sake of revealing secrets, when agencies are doing their jobs properly and when uncovering how they perform them prevents them from carrying out secret operations in the future.

The U.S. won World War II in part because America could intercept and decode German and Japanese military transmissions. That remained a secret until long after the war was over. Back then “loose lips sink ships” was the operative slogan.

If another major terrorist attacks occurs because foreign intelligence services and potential assets no longer want to risk cooperating with the CIA, papers like The New York Times will be the first to condemn the intelligence agencies for failing at their mission.

In their joint statement, the congressional leaders said they plan to “press the executive branch to take tangible and demonstrable steps to detect and deter intelligence leaks, and to fully, fairly, and impartially investigate the disclosures that have taken place.”

In particular, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, called for Capitol Hill hearings about the cyberattack leak.

“I am deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media, most recently regarding alleged cyber efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program,” Feinstein said.

“We plan to move legislation quickly, to include possible action in this year’s intelligence authorization act,” the lawmakers said. “We believe that significant changes are needed, in legislation, in the culture of the agencies that deal with classified information, in punishing leaks, and in the level of leadership across the government to make clear that these types of disclosures will not stand.”

Said Rep. Ruppersberger: “These leaks can be dangerous to our country, they can hurt us with our allies, and they could have very serious consequences. They’ve got to be stopped.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. He is the New York Times bestselling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA.

Related articles

Portrait of a Failed “Messiah” – Tea Party Nation

Kasey Jachim:

“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

 

Originally posted on Gds44's Blog:

By Alan Caruba

“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

If you think this is a psychological profile of Barack Obama, you would be wrong. It is a quote from a profile of Adolph Hitler, prepared for the Office of Strategic Services—the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency—by Walter C. Langer and three others during World War II.

The fact that it rather closely resembles aspects of Obama’s personality we have come to know would be cause for…

View original 922 more words

Morning Bell: A Troubling Trend in the Courts

By Ericka Andersen via The Foundry

Should judges act based upon reasoned legal arguments, or based upon their personal feelings and media coverage?  A controversial recent “statement” made by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in a case that was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk raises serious questions about what really guides some judges.

In the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court was asked to address a Montana Supreme Court opinion upholding a Montana ban on independent expenditures by corporations. This should be an easy case—after all, the Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that bans on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment.

But Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who dissented from Citizens United, want another crack at Citizens United.  They issued a separate “statement” advocating that the Court take the “opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

As Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky wrote:

What evidence is there before Justices Ginsburg/Breyer that the allegiance of candidates is being bought?  The misinformed editorial pages of The New York Times?  The propaganda spewed out about Citizens United by MSNBC?

von Spakovsky concludes regrettably that Ginsburg and Breyer are “making decisions based on their personal ideologies and political opinions” instead of relying on “actual evidence submitted in the cases before them.”

Personal preferences and subjective editorials clearly shouldn’t form the basis for judicial decisions.  But what should guide their decisions, and how much power should the Supreme Court exercise? The Founders asserted that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government. As of late, however, the courts are looking pretty strong, particularly compared to a Congress that refuses to take their duty to interpret the Constitution seriously.

In the latest “Understanding America: What is the Proper Role of the Courts?,” Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Robert Alt gives an example of how a “weaker” Congress leads to a “stronger” judiciary involving the very law at issue in Citizens United:

When Congress was considering the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—popularly known as McCain-Feingold—which imposed numerous restrictions on election-related speech, its Members delivered speeches acknowledging that provisions of the Act were likely unconstitutional. That should have ended the debate.

But some Members surprisingly went on to state that questions of constitutionality were for the Supreme Court, not Congress, to decide, and that Congress should pass the legislation because it was too important not to enact. This was a flagrant abdication of Congress’s role in determining the constitutionality of legislation.

In short, Members of Congress failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution and tossed that responsibility to the Supreme Court — a poor way to run a constitutional government. The Court’s power here is only a snapshot of increasingly customary and destructive tendencies toward judicial activism.

The effects of liberal judicial activism are regrettably widespread.  Alt writes:

The federal courts have awarded the federal government power to regulate matters well beyond its constitutional authority. The courts themselves have taken over school systems and prisons for decades at a time, created new rights found nowhere in the Constitution, whittled away at constitutional rights (like property rights) that they apparently dislike, and asserted that they have the authority to decide questions concerning how to conduct the War on Terror that are constitutionally reserved to Congress and the President.

Americans should be concerned about the increasingly powerful judicial branch. With politicized appointments and repeated judicial failures to adhere to the Constitution as it is written, the public must demand action from the political branches.  Specifically, Americans must insist that the President and Congress do their duty by passing and signing only laws which are consistent with the Constitution’s original public meaning — and that they appoint and confirm only judges who check their personal agendas at the door.

H/T News You May Have Missed

The Obama Doctrine

From Sultan Knish  h/t Leslie Burt

The Obama Doctrine can be summed up as the assertion that for the United States to have influence and standing on the global stage, it must first abandon its interests and its allies.

The doctrine is rarely described as bluntly as that by its proponents who employ euphemisms like multilateral policies and honest broker to mean much the same thing, denouncing the previous administration and all the preceding administrations going back to old Tom Jefferson for alienating the world by pursuing American interests and cutting deals with non-progressive allies.

The easiest way to spot the problem with this approach is to try and distinguish it from the UN. That’s hard to do because except during the occasional pro-forma trade dispute there is no distinction. It’s the same policy of multilateral human rights interventions, global mediation and stability, and promoting the welfare of the angrier parts of the Third World. And if America’s agenda is identical to that of the United Nations, than for all intents and purposes there is no American foreign policy.

This leaves the United States as less than a nation, a version of the United Nations with its own military and a great deal of wealth. It has no interests except reaching out to befriend its enemies and it has no allies except those enemies willing to pretend to be its allies, at which point they will become enemies. But the United Nations was designed to be a forum in which nations pursue their own interests, it is not supposed to have interests or allies. The United States is a nation and it is meant to have both. If the United States cannot articulate interests apart from the UN agenda then it no longer functions as a nation on the world stage.

The Obama Doctrine dispensed with America’s traditional allies and pursued relations with its enemies without improving America’s standing or influence in the world, though it did garner its overseer a preemptive Nobel Prize. Even the Libyan War was more of a European project than an American one.

The truth that dare not speak its name in the ink stained pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post is that the Obama Administration has been standing by the sidelines of world events with a very limited influence on what happens anywhere. The United States will not decide what happens in Syria. France, Germany, Qatar and England will decide what they want to do and will allow Obama to sign on if he wants to. Exactly the way it happened in Libya.

The United States still has mass, but it no longer has momentum. It does things like abandon Mubarak or bomb Gaddafi because other countries think they are a good idea. It responds belatedly to events from the outside world and then does its best to take credit for them.

Part of that is inexperience. The White House is headed up by a junior Senator who was a State Senator five years before he ran for the highest office in the land.  The Secretary of State is a former First Lady who spent eight years in the Senate before doing the same thing and then oddly enough landed as head of the country’s foreign office. But it’s not all of it.

The real problem is that the United States no longer has national interests. Its leaders act like they are the Secretary General of the UN, rather than the President of the United States. They jostle for standing on the world stage and play international philosophers preaching higher principles to the world, instead of looking out for their own country. Rather than representing the United States, they speak for some global ethical consensus on human rights and democracy.

The problem did not begin with Obama. LBJ may have been the last president who was satisfied with being a national leader, rather than an international leader, but it significantly worsened with Obama because he lacks even the vestigial allegiances that Biden or Kerry retain on some level. If they think like Americans at some gut level, Obama doesn’t and he has no reason to. He is the figurehead of an ideology that champions an end to American interests.

The Obama Doctrine has not actually repaired America’s foreign relations or made the world a better place. What it has done is taken American interests off the table.
The Reset Button did nothing to aid American relations with Russia. Abandoning Eastern Europe did not fix anything, because the problem was not that America was in Russia’s backyard, (that might have been the problem under Yeltsin) but that Russia was run by a clique of thugs whose foreign policy was aligned with their interests. By abandoning America’s allies in Eastern Europe, we did not create a new state of relations with Russia, we just got out of its way.

The same thing has happened around the world as the United States has gotten out of the way of the agendas and interests of our enemies, and in some cases actively aided and abetted their agendas, with entirely predictable results. In South America, in Europe, in Asia and the Middle East, the new policy has yielded dividends for those nations and causes hostile to us. It hasn’t yielded any for us.

Abandoning American allies in the name of being an “Honest Broker” has not won us the respect of the world or made our enemies any friendlier. Alliances are based on mutual interests. Abandoning our alliances makes us more toxic than ever and even if our enemies were interested in approaching us, why would they when we have already demonstrated that an alliance with us is worthless?

The Honest Broker paradigm makes no sense on a national level. If we act as an honest broker between our allies and our enemies, then we have abandoned our allies and devalued the very idea of an alliance with us. And acting as an honest broker between warring allies is a thankless job that will not yield any benefits and infuriate both sides.

Advocates for honest brokerhood insist that it is in our national interest to be an honest broker. But nations aren’t brokers, they are friends and enemies, they are buyers and sellers. Only international organizations can be brokers, and they generally aren’t honest ones either. A nation with its own interests can never be an honest broker. Only by abandoning its interests can it play at being an honest broker and then it is no longer a nation.

Democrats positioned their post-Bush foreign policy as a soft power quest to be liked, but being liked is not a national interest. Not only are very few nations liked and those nations are usually obscure and far away, but being liked means that they have never come into conflict, which is another way of saying that they either have no national interests to pursue or do have national interests but do not pursue them.

National interests are often competitive. For a country to assert its own rights and agendas is to earn the enmity of those nations they conflict with. To have allies and friends is to earn the enmity of their enemies. Even to exist as a large nation on any terms is to earn the wrath of those nations whose aspire to your status.

To act in any way is to alienate. Everything the Obama Administration has done to be liked has made more enemies. Bombing Libya to win the favor of the Arab Street still infuriated that same street which wanted Gaddafi gone, but didn’t want America to do it. Playing Honest Broker between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands has certainly earned the anger of the UK. The lesson here is that doing anything still creates enemies. There is no pure path will not alienate anyone which is why the path you choose should be based on practical interests, not a need to be liked.

The Obama Doctrine is completely detached from American interests and even hostile to American interests. Its goal is to overcome a legacy of American power and replace it with multilateral powerlessness and the only real end of that objective is more of the same. Multilateral powerlessness is not a means of better representing American interests as its advocates tries to claim, it is a policy that terminates the very notion of American interests as too selfish and alienating to have a place on the world stage.

This is not meant to be a surrender of power. Like European national leaders who aspire to regional leadership, the Obamas and the Clintons aren’t interested in being powerless, they would just rather represent an international consensus, rather than a national one. They would like an upgrade from being the elected leaders of farmers and businessmen to the unelected leaders of the world. But for all their shiny diplomas, they are too basically dim to understand that their status and influence is derived from the status and influence of their nation.

The Secretary General of the United Nations is impotent because he represents no one. The UN has no national base and accordingly it is every bit as useless as the League of Nations was. Obama has tried to act like a United Nations Secretary General, rather than an American president, and he has reduced his status and power to something closer to that of the Secretary General. If Obama did not have a military to throw into the pot every time select members of the international community decide to bomb someone, his status would be even lower.

International power is still national power projected internationally. International power without a national base is a fantasy akin to perpetual motion that exists only in the frontal lobe of the schizophrenic progressive. Take the nation out of the equation and all you have are empty words, which is what Obama’s speeches amount to.

The only power that Obama has exercised internationally has been purely negative, the abandonment of American allies and interests. This self-destructive national wrist slitting campaign has not made America more influential, because by definition abandoning power cannot give you power. And that is the fallacy of the Obama Doctrine which chops down the American tree in order to build a castle in the air on top of it.

Like everything that the left does, the Obama Doctrine is self-nullifying, both in concept and in practice, the very exercise of it eventually destroys the thing itself. The problem is that as with so much the left does, the damage spreads inward so that the perpetrators of the policies are the last to feel its effects. A self-destructive ideology destroys everything it touches until its pursuit of power at the highest levels leaves even the highest levels powerless.

In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution

By Derek Hunter via Townhall

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

Progressives hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard. That’s not a line you hear often outside of a parody or a conversation with someone who has recently suffered a closed-head injury, but it’s true. Progressives hold the parts of the Constitution they like in high regard but only when applied to other progressives. The rest, particularly the parts they like to use against conservatives, are held in contempt.

I got to thinking about this after reading a piece in The New York Times entitled, “’We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World,” which made the case fewer and fewer nations around the world look to our Constitution as a model for their own.

Frankly, this reminds me of the famous line of parents everywhere: “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” And the answer for the Times and for many progressives seems to be “yes.” Not literally – I conjured the same thought.

Why has our Constitution fallen out of favor with the rest of the world? Aside from the fact progressives in this country tell the world it’s a horrible document, steeped in racism and inequality, the Times suggests, “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

What the Times ignores, what all progressives ignore, but what a 5-year-old could understand from reading it, is our Constitution doesn’t grant or “guarantee” us rights. It prevents, or attempts to prevent, the government from infringing upon rights with which we were born.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant or guarantee the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It says the government can’t infringe upon it. That’s what the “Congress shall make no law” bit is all about.

This confuses the people at the Times. “The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation,” the piece says.

Only progressives could even think such a muddled thought. But then, only progressives could hear we have a record number of people on food stamps, then hear the phrase “food stamp president” and think “racism.” That’s because only progressives could hear that phrase and think, “black people.”

Only progressives could read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and think somehow “the people” means only the “well-regulated militia” mentioned earlier in the Second Amendment. This odd construction, of course, gives them license to infringe on this right as much as they see fit.

In reality, they know exactly what they’re doing. They know they can’t completely ignore the Constitution, so they chip away at the edges. Once one part is chipped off it’s easier to chip away others.

This week, the president wasn’t chipping … he was trying to take a jackhammer to the First Amendment. When he ordered Catholic organizations to provide birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill to all their employees, free of charge, against church dogma, there was outrage. That outrage was justifiable.

Progressives cheered the order as a triumph for women, as if the free birth control pills given out at clinics across the country, the low price of condoms and the in-expense of simply not having sex were not option enough for people. No, the government had to go further. Without any sense of hypocrisy, the “keep-your- religion-out-of-our-politics” crowd lauded the insertion of government into religion.

But the destruction of religion by government was not the goal of this move; that will come later. This was the magician talking and waving one hand around to catch your eye while he slips the “disappearing” coin into his pocket with the other. When President Obama “caved to pressure” from people on both sides of the aisle, it was heralded as a victory for liberty. It was anything but.

So, the First Amendment was not jackhammered this week after all. But our liberty was.

President Obama didn’t force religious organizations to violate their deeply held beliefs. But in its place, he put the onus of providing what he wanted on insurance companies, who now will be forced to provide everything he wants for “free,” then past the cost on to us.

But the cost isn’t the issue. It’s the concept. While we were distracted by the waving of the one hand, we missed the other that had the president mandating coverage, coverage of anything, by health insurance companies. That’s a power that didn’t exist. It’s a power that shouldn’t exist, according to the Constitution.

The federal government has mandates in Medicare and Medicaid, which are both government-run insurance plans. But private sector health insurance is regulated by the states. Or at least it used to be. That’s why there has been a push to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Some states mandate more things be covered than others, which drives up the price.

The news this week isn’t that the president “caved to pressure” and no longer will force religious organizations to violate their teachings. It’s that the president decided he simply could dictate what you, as an individual, need (and now will have to pay for) as far as your health insurance goes. And if he can simply walk off the golf course one day and will this into existence, what can’t he do?

Now that I think of it, what I tweeted out the other day is even more appropriate today. It was, “Obama wants birth control to be free because if he gets a 2nd term he plans on screwing the country even more & doesn’t want the kids.” It’s funny because it’s true. It’s sad for the same reason.