Friday, September 19, 2014

Mother of Slain Journalist James Foley Drops Bombshell on TV


Not that red-blooded Americans need any more reason to desire a total shake-up of the entrenched establishment… nevertheless, here’s a bit more fuel to add to the fire.
Diane Foley told Anderson Cooper in a CNN interview that she was both “embarrassed” and “appalled” at how the situation regarding her son’s capture and eventual execution played out. Primarily because the government looked right past the plight of her son and treated her and her family as an “annoyance.”
Diane Foley she wasted no time in indicting the government with serious “mishandling” of her son’s capture and treatment. For example, she told Cooper that many times she and her family knew more about the whereabouts of her son James than authorities ever did.
“Jim was killed in the most horrific way. He was sacrificed because of just a lack of coordination, lack of communication, lack of prioritization,” Foley said. “As a family, we had to find our way through this on our own.”
The Foley’s are like any other family who love their children. They weren’t selfish; they merely wanted to be reunited with their loved one.
At times, when it seemed like the U.S. government wasn’t doing enough to help them, the Foley’s considered raising ransom money to free their son.
Shockingly, they were told by the state department that, if they were to do that, they would be charged with a criminal offense.
The Foley’s were left with very little recourse, and were forced to depend on a government that didn’t really seem all that interested in helping free their son.
“I think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance [to the U.S. government],” she said in the interview. “It didn’t seem to be in (U.S.) strategic interest, if you will.”
As outrageous as it is, perhaps it isn’t all that shocking.
The Obama administration has been very calculating and very secretive in its handling of affairs internationally, often using situations like this as mere political props.
For instance, Foley revealed to Cooper that more than once they were told by U.S. government officials they were “not go to the media,” and that the “government would not exchange prisoners” or carry out “military action” to help free her son.
Why wasn’t the government interested in helping the Foley’s? The answer to that question might have something to do with America’s desire for military engagement with ISIS.
Keep in mind, much of the establishment is always looking out for their best interest. If you’ll recall, just a few short months prior, right as the VA scandal broke, Obama hastily arranged a hostage negotiation for Bowe Bergdahl, despite lacking the constitutional authority to do so.
His release served Obama and his administration as much as it did Bergdahl.
So, if you look at it in a certain light, James Foley might have served the U.S. government’s interests better dead than he ever would have alive.
As his mother said, “Jim would have been saddened… Jim believed, till the end, that his country would come to (his) aid.”

They're Back Cartoon


Immigration worker union warns ‘serious threat’ of ISIS entering US


The union representing America's immigration caseworkers warned Thursday of the "real and serious threat" that Islamic State terrorists could gain entry to the United States, either by slipping through the southern U.S. border or exploiting "loose and lax" visa policies. 
Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, issued the warning in a written statement. He's the latest to raise alarm that the Islamic State may be planning to infiltrate the U.S., though top security officials have said they see no evidence of such a plot at this stage. 
Palinkas specifically alleged the administration has made it easier for terrorists to "exploit" the country's visa policies and enter the homeland. 
He complained that the administration has "widened the loophole" they could use through the asylum system, and has restricted agents from going after many of those who overstay their visas. 
Further, he warned that executive orders being contemplated by President Obama would "legalize visa overstays" and raise "the threat level to America even higher." He said there is "no doubt" many are already being "targeted for radicalization." 
Palinkas' union represents 12,000 workers with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which handles immigration documents. 
His statement, though, also backed recent claims from lawmakers and others that ISIS is already looking at the southern border. Palinkas cited the threat that "ISIS has already or will soon slip across our porous southern border." 
On Wednesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a House hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson that he had "reason to believe" that four individuals were apprehended trying to cross into the U.S. from Texas on Sept. 10, and that they "have ties to known terrorist organizations in the Middle East." 
Johnson said he had "heard reports to that effect" but could not speak to their accuracy. 
Johnson, though, stressed that the government had "no specific intelligence or evidence to suggest at present that ISIL is attempting to infiltrate this country though our southern border." 
At the same hearing, National Counterterrorism Center head Matthew Olsen also said: "There has been a very small number of sympathizers with ISIL who have posted messages on social media about this, but we've seen nothing to indicate there is any sort of operational effort or plot to infiltrate or move operatives from ISIL" into the U.S. through the southern border. 
Still, Johnson said the U.S. needs to be "vigilant" and aware of the possibility of "potential infiltration by ISIL or any other terrorist group." 
Warnings have been circulating for weeks about that possibility. 
In August, the Texas Department of Public Safety put out a bulletin that said ISIS social media messages showed "militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack." 
Chaffetz, in an interview with Fox News, said he's concerned about that prospect. 
"We have a porous border," he said. "I'm worried about them actually coming to the United States and crossing that porous border and getting into the homeland."

Kansas must remove Dem candidate from Senate ballot, state court rules


The Kansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the state must remove the name of the Democratic candidate running against Republican Sen. Pat Roberts from the November ballot, adding another twist to a now-hotly contested race. 
The court's decision leaves independent Greg Orman, who has been rising in the polls, as the only major opponent currently in the running to take on the 78-year-old incumbent. 
The court agreed with Democrat Chad Taylor, saying his formal letter of withdrawal to the secretary of state's office was sufficient to get his name off the ballot.
The court also said it did not "need to act" regarding Secretary of State Kris Kobach's "allegation" that the Democratic party must name a new candidate for the race. Kobach said earlier Thursday that the Democratic Party is legally obligated to pick a new nominee and set a Sept. 26 deadline.
The Roberts campaign has repeatedly accused Democrats of playing dirty politics after national Democrats such as Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill reportedly nudged Taylor out of the race earlier this month to make way for Orman. 
Roberts' campaign manager Corry Bliss said in a statement the court's decision is deliberately disenfranchising "over 65,000 voters" for "political purposes." 
"In a bow to Senators Claire McCaskill and Harry Reid, liberal activist Supreme Court justices have decided that if you voted in the Democrat Primary on August 5th, your vote does not matter, your voice does not matter, and you have no say in who should be on the ballot on Election Day," he said. "This is not only a travesty to Kansas voters, but it’s a travesty to the judicial system and our electoral process."
The National Republican Senatorial Committee also decried the decision, saying the Democratic party now has a "clear legal obligation" to name a new candidate. 
"Greg Orman and his liberal friends like Barack Obama might not like it, but they have to abide by the law just like everyone else," spokesman Brad Dayspring said. 
Orman's campaign manager said in response to the decision Orman would run against a broken political system no matter how many candidates were on the ballot.
"Kansas voters from across the political spectrum are fed up with the mess in Washington, and that's why Republicans, Democrats and independents are supporting Independent Greg Orman for Senate," Jim Jonas said. 
Taylor announced his withdrawal earlier this month, but Kobach, a conservative Republican publicly backing Roberts, declared that Taylor didn't comply with a state election law limiting when nominees can withdraw. Taylor petitioned the Supreme Court to remove his name from the ballot.
Kansas law says party nominees can have their names removed from the ballot if they declare that they'll be incapable of fulfilling the duties of the offices they seek. Taylor's letter said that he was leaving the race "pursuant to" the relevant law but did not say why, and he's never publicly given a reason for dropping out.
"We conclude the plain meaning of 'pursuant to (the law)' contained in Taylor's letter effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected," the justices said.
Kobach argued that Taylor must explain himself, even if he simply says he can't serve as a senator, without giving more details.
Republicans need to gain six Senate seats to take the majority from Democrats and Kansas is one of about a dozen races nationally that could determine the outcome.
Kobach had said a quick decision was needed because ballots need to be printed Friday.
In another wrinkle, a registered Democratic voter in the state filed a new petition with the Kansas Supreme Court Thursday night asking it to force the party to name a new nominee.
David Orel of Kansas City, Kansas, filed the petition after his attorney sent the party a letter saying Orel wants to vote for a Democratic candidate.

Lawmakers renew call to roll back military cuts amid ISIS, Ebola fights


Defense hawks on both sides of the aisle are pointing to the new war against the Islamic State to revive efforts to roll back across-the-board Pentagon budget cuts.
Citing President Obama’s calls for an expanded bombing campaign against the terror group — whose videotaped beheadings of three western hostages drew international revulsion — longtime foes of what’s known as sequestration say now is no time to slash military funding.
Rather, they argue, the Islamic State, or ISIS, is just the latest threat that underscores the need to undo the $487 billion in automatic Defense spending cuts required under the 2011 Budget Control Act.
“Even before these things erupted, it was not adequate,” Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said of Pentagon funding at a Senate Armed Services Hearing earlier this week. “As we all know, risk increases when adequacy is not met.”
The Oklahoma Republican was pressing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on whether the Defense Department has enough money to carry out Obama’s goal of destroying ISIS. While the Obama administration has requested an additional $500 million to pay for arming and training Syrian rebels, more than a month of airstrikes against the terror group have already cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The fact the administration wants to expand operations has fueled renewed worries over Defense funding, including among those who support the White House’s proposed strategy.
“I am troubled by the hit that readiness has taken through some of the budget cuts,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told the Council on Foreign Relations last week, adding that while lawmakers have had some success restoring the funding, “the whole sequestration decision, looking back at it, was wrong.”
Beyond the task of fighting ISIS, crises like the Ebola pandemic in West Africa -- where U.S. military personnel are being deployed -- and the armed struggle in eastern Ukraine have military officials joining lawmakers in sounding the alarm.
“If sequestration occurs, we are going to have to continue to downsize the Army,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters in Germany this week, according to Reuters. “We are going to have to decide where we do it.”
Though top Democrats and Republicans have called for “fixing” the Defense portion of the sequester by reallocating federal dollars, the cuts themselves were the product of a congressional vote to drastically rein in spending — a reality many believed would never come to pass. Indeed, though Congress last year approved a bipartisan, two-year budget outline that provided some relief to the Pentagon, the agency faces another deep cut of about $45 billion next fiscal year, which begins next month.
Of course, Congress has other avenues it could use to appropriate money to the department, including war-fighting funds. But those efforts, along with what Hagel hinted would be a more robust budget request for fiscal 2016, are sure to encounter resistance among deficit-minded members intent on shrinking federal spending.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate budget panel, told Politico this week he’s not prepared to say “we’ve got to obliterate the sequester” to deal with the new threats. “We lived with the Budget Control Act numbers last year,” he said. “We’ve lived with them this year, and savings that the Defense Department was then executing are just now being harvested.”
For now, those eyeing a re-upping of the Pentagon budget are hoping polls that show public opinion surging in favor of striking ISIS -- coupled with bipartisan backing of the administration's initial request for $500 million to train and equip Syrian rebels -- will lay the groundwork for rethinking the Defense sequester before the next round of cuts kicks in.

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos