Friday, December 12, 2014

Security or Values Cartoon


'I would kill you': ISIS captive held by Kurds admits taking 70 lives


Kurds in northern Iraq are holding hundreds of ISIS fighters prisoner, including one who told FoxNews.com in an exclusive interview that he killed as many as 70 people in the service of the radical jihadist army.
“Omar, “ a 25-year-old former Islamic State fighter from the Iraqi village of Dor sal-hadeen, said he killed scores of his countrymen and foreign contractors after joining “Daesh,” as ISIS is known in the region, in June. He said he fled the terrorist army in October, but was quickly captured by Kurdish security forces.
“They came to our area and forced me to protect their lands,” Omar said of his Islamic State commanders. “After a while they told me, ‘When are you going to start protecting your own land?’
“They told me to do it or die, and then they killed people in front of me,” said Omar, who is missing four fingers on his left hand from what he said was a 2009 industrial accident. The disability nearly got him killed by his ISIS handlers, he said, until he proved he could shoot right-handed.
Omar is currently being held in an undisclosed prison in Sulymaniyah, after being convicted of terrorism. He was initially sentenced to death, but a judge commuted the sentence to life in prison.

Face to face with ISIS

FoxNews.com's Hollie McKay last month traveled to Kurdish-administered territory in Iraq's Sulymaniyah province, where she met face-to-face with two imprisoned ex-Islamic State soldiers. The interviews were conducted over the course of several hours, and took place in an office at Sulymaniyah’s “Asaih,” or security facility, in the presence of a Kurdish colonel and an independent Kurdish translator. No questions were off-limits for the prisoners, who appeared in civilian clothes, and were not handcuffed or shackled. Asaish officials provided mug shots of the men, but as a condition of the interview insisted FoxNews.com not use their full names.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipping the tea provided by his Kurdish captors during the FoxNews.com interview, Omar insisted he was an ISIS victim – and even pledged to join the fight against them.
But victim or not, Omar said he became a prolific killer for ISIS, by his count racking up 70 executions in a matter of months. He claimed he killed his victims with rifle shots, and was chillingly candid about why he did it.
“Because they were saying bad words about A'isha [one of Mohammad’s wives, known as the “mother of believers”] and burning a mosque,” he said, adding that he did not receive any type of reward from ISIS leaders for the large number he killed.
Asked if he felt remorse, Omar replied said he “did not act on my own will.” That claim drew a sharp rebuke from the commander of the facility's department of investigation, prompting Omar to say he deflected blame because he was uncomfortable around women.
Omar and other hundreds of other former ISIS soldiers and deserters are being interrogated for intelligence that may help the Kurdish Peshmerga army in its fight against the jihadist group. Kurdish officials say the men are being held under conditions in adherence to international law and monitored by the Red Cross.
Evidence against individual former combatants is gathered and presented to a Kurdish judge, who decides whether prisoners are held or released, according to the Kurdish commander who sat in the interview, and did not allow his name to be used. Omar and many other ex-ISIS fighters convicted of mass murder or terrorism charges may well spend the rest of their lives in prison. Other ex-ISIS fighters judged to be non-terrorists will serve lesser sentences, or will be released among the general population. 
At another point in the interview, Omar said he joined ISIS to get away from his new bride. Saying she had “something in her head – she looked normal on the outside, but she wasn’t,” Omar added that his wife “couldn’t have babies.” He then acknowledged, with a shrug, that by fleeing to join the murderous jihadi army he left his family responsible for paying his wife’s family a fortune.
“I would call you to Islam and if you did not come I would kill you.”- "Omar," ISIS fighter held by Kurds
Omar said he deserted ISIS and fled to Kurdistan in an attempt to blend in and find work, but was arrested by police on Oct. 8, after being identified by Kurdish intelligence agents.
Although he said at times that he wished to take up arms with the Iraqi military or the Kurds, there were several instances in which Omar used the pronoun for “we” when discussing Daesh, a possible giveaway of his true sentiments toward non-believers in general, and Americans in particular.
“We count Americans like Jews,” he said at one point in the interview. He had similarly hostile views of Western women.
Asked what he would do if he saw his female interviewer on the street, he replied, “I would call you to Islam and if you didn’t, I would leave you alone.” Pressed, he corrected himself. “I would call you to Islam and if you did not come, I would kill you.”
Omar was one of two former Islamic State fighters who spoke to FoxNews.com at the Asaish facility, where terrorists are held with local criminals. The other, a 19-year-old Kurd identified as "Dawen," said he was lured to join by the group’s Facebook pages, which urged Muslims to come fight in Syria.
Dawen said he spent just 20 days in the world’s most infamous terrorist army before being arrested two months ago. He said he did not witness any killings, but had no illusions about Islamic State’s barbarity.
“I realized that this is not about God, especially after I was captured,” he said. “I realize this isn’t about God; it is about harming people. Also, the Kurdish people were nice even with my situation.”
Dawen said he felt regret about joining the group almost immediately. “I called my family and they were not happy, it was shameful… I felt weak because they made me act and think a certain way,” he said, when asked whether joining a terrorist organization made him feel powerful. “I was asking for forgiveness, even while there.”
Dawen, who faces terrorism charges, also insisted he is learning more from fellow inmates about other barbarities committed by ISIS, and suggested Kurdish officials “make anti-terror shows and programs” to teach others that this is “not the way to be.”
The facility's director of security said most ISIS fighters are uneducated, and easily led down the bloody path of violent jihad.
“Some regret their actions, some do not,” he said. “Understand that most are young and have no information. They are impressionable. They listen to the second-life paradise story, 72 virgins, rivers of wine, and [staying] young forever. That is all they know.”
Unlike prisoners of ISIS, many of whom have been marched into the desert and executed, or garbed in orange jumpsuits and forced to kneel before being beheaded, deserters and captives from the terrorist army say they are treated well by Kurdish authorities. The two men interviewed by FoxNews.com were dressed comfortably, clean-shaven, appeared well-nourished and showed no signs of physical injury or abuse.
Both men confirmed they are allowed phone contact with family members, and seemed aware of recent news events involving ISIS. Both said they feared being captured by ISIS if released.
Security officers, however, cautioned against believing the prisoners’ expressions of remorse. Both men told FoxNews.com they wanted to join the Peshmerga, the Kurdish army that has won back much of the Iraqi and Syrian land seized by ISIS. But Kurdish officials said neither man could be trusted, noting ISIS has been known to send spies into Kurdistan.
Kurdish officials privately predicted there was little doubt the two men, and others like them, would be back fighting for ISIS within days if they were ever freed.
Referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s repeated and destructive campaigns against the Kurds, the official noted they have extensive experience handling such threats.
“We have been dealing with terrorist groups since the beginning, so this is not new for us. We specialize in terrorists.”

Fox News Poll: Voters agree with Brown grand jury, disagree with Garner


Two grand juries recently declined to charge white police officers in connection with the deaths of unarmed black men.  Americans think one was right and the other wrong. 
That’s according to the latest Fox News poll. 
Click here for the poll results.
Commentators and others have understandably linked the decisions coming in quick succession out of Ferguson, Missouri and New York City.  Yet voters apparently see key distinctions between the two cases. 
By a 22-point margin, they agree with the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer in the shooting death of a black teenage robbery suspect (55 percent agree vs. 33 percent disagree).
The reverse is true for the grand jury decision in New York: by 30 points, most disagree with the decision not to seek criminal charges against a white officer in the chokehold death of a black man stopped for selling loose cigarettes (27 percent agree vs. 57 percent disagree).
Large majorities of black voters disagree with the decisions in Ferguson (83 percent) and New York (90 percent).  For white voters, a majority agrees with the decision in Ferguson (65 percent), while just over half disagree with the outcome in New York (51 percent). 
Democrats disagree with both the Ferguson (59 percent) and New York (74 percent) decisions.  Republicans think the grand jury made the right decision in Ferguson (77 percent).  On the decision in New York, Republicans have mixed views: 40 percent agree, 37 percent disagree and 23 percent are unsure. 
These grand jury decisions have provoked protests in cities nationwide that are continuing days after the decisions were announced.  Nearly 4 in 10 think news coverage of the protests has been “about right” (39 percent). 
Others think the news favors one side: by a 25-point margin, voters are more likely to say the coverage has been too supportive of the protestors (37 percent) than to say it’s been too supportive of the police (12 percent).
Some say the refusal of large segments of society to believe a jury’s findings in such cases is a solvable problem -- police should wear body cameras. It’s a proposal pretty much everyone can get behind:  85 percent like the idea of police being required to wear them. That includes most blacks (90 percent), whites (84 percent) and Hispanics (85 percent).
There is also agreement across party lines, as large numbers of both Democrats (89 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) favor body cameras for police.
Meanwhile, voters are nearly three times as likely to say race relations have gotten worse (62 percent) rather than better (19 percent) since Barack Obama became president.  Another 17 percent say things are the same. 
Majorities of white (65 percent), black (55 percent) and Hispanic voters (56 percent) say race relations have gotten worse under Obama. 
Overall, Obama receives a 41 percent approval rating for the job he’s doing on race relations, while 51 percent of voters disapprove.  Despite the negative rating, that makes this one of his best issues. 
Sixty-five percent of black voters approve of Obama’s performance on race relations, down from 82 percent approval in 2010.  Twenty-four percent disapprove.
Among white voters, 37 percent approve and 56 percent disapprove.
These numbers help explain why, overall, just 19 percent of voters think Obama should get more involved personally in cases like Ferguson, while nearly half -- 48 percent -- say he should be less involved.  Nearly a third feels Obama’s actions in the recent cases have been “about right” (31 percent).
Black voters (35 percent) are more than twice as likely as white voters (15 percent) to say Obama should get more involved personally. 
The issue of race relations comes in at the bottom of things voters want Obama to work on right now: 38 percent say working on the economy should be his top priority, while 21 percent say terrorist groups like ISIS. Another 12 percent say health care, 10 percent immigration and 9 percent race relations. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Conservative group sues California AG over donor list demands, 'bullying'


Americans for Prosperity, a prominent conservative group, is suing the California attorney general for allegedly demanding donor information and threatening harsh penalties if they don't comply. 
The lawsuit, which claims that complying with Attorney General Kamala Harris' demands would put donors' safety "at risk," comes on the heels of the 2013 controversy over IRS targeting of conservative groups. 
According to the Courthouse News Service, the nonprofit group is seeking a federal court order that would bar Harris from demanding the names of its donors. Harris, according to the report, had told the group if it did not hand over the donor lists from 2011 and 2012, Americans for Prosperity would be slapped with fines and barred from operating in California.
Harris’ office has not yet been served with the lawsuit and so far is not commenting, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the Koch brothers and based in Virginia, acknowledged in court documents that its views are not “universally popular” -- the group said it feared for the safety of donors, citing past harassment and hackers. They said Harris' demands violate the First and 14th amendments and the Supremacy Clause.
"Faced with such bullying, current and potential donors are understandably afraid that having their identities disclosed will put them and their families at risk," the court complaint states. "Dozens of potential donors, a number of whom live in California, have reluctantly refused to contribute to the foundation because they are too fearful of the reprisal they will face if their contribution becomes public knowledge, and current donors have indicated that they will cease their contributions if their names and addresses are revealed to the state of California."
The case follows the 2013 scandal in which the IRS applied extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. 
Americans for Prosperity is federally registered as a 501(c)(4), which means it can engage in political campaigns and elections as long as it is not for a specific candidate. They are not required under federal rules to release donor lists. The group has a separate registration in California, which they say has been put at risk if they do not comply with Harris’ demands.
Another conservative group, the Center for Competitive Politics, a 501(c)(3), also sued Harris in March, contending that its First Amendment rights were violated by her demands for their donor lists. They lost their request for an injunction in federal court and are appealing the court’s decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

House narrowly approves spending bill, legislation heads to Senate


The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.
The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.
Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.
"We will not have a government shutdown," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.
Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.
Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.
Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.
In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.
Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not attack Obama's immigration executive actions, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.
The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.
She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama's lobbying effort.
In a rare public rebuke of the president,  Pelosi said she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.
Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had "leverage" to make demands -- namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn't like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.
Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”
But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.
The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.
Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it -- despite having reservations about certain provisions.Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.
The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Stupid and Stupider Cartoon.


Georgetown basketball players sport 'I Can't Breathe' shirts in warm-ups

Stupid.

The first major "I Can't Breathe" protest from college sports would naturally come from Georgetown, where societal statements are part of the school's DNA.
And what a powerful one it was. The entire roster emerged for the final warmups before the Hoyas' loss to No. 10 Kansas on Wednesday night wearing black short-sleeve T-shirts with the words "I CAN'T BREATHE" in bold white letters.
The players wore the T-shirts during the national anthem while lined up across the court, an image that could bring to mind protesters blocking traffic on a city street in silent, nonviolent defiance. Then they shook hands with the Jayhawks before taking off the shirts for the announcement of the starting lineups.
Many notable professional athletes — including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant — have written the message on their warmups or other equipment in recent days, echoing the last words spoken by Eric Garner as police were attempting to arrest him in New York in July. A grand jury decided last week not to indict the officers involved, spurring protests across the country.
It should be no surprise that coach John Thompson III would allow his players to make such a statement. His father, longtime Hoyas coach John Thompson Jr., was known for taking bold positions during a Hall of Fame career, especially in support of minorities. Most famously, the elder Thompson walked off the court before a home game in 1989 to protest NCAA Proposition 42, which restricted the criteria under which athletes could receive scholarships.
After the game, Thompson III gave a detailed, eloquent explanation for the T-shirts, saying it was a player-driven idea that had its origins after the team watched a similar grand jury decision concerning another shooting — that of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri — live on television while in the Bahamas for a holiday tournament.
The coach said the players initially wanted to wear the shirts at the Hoyas' previous game, but he first wanted to have more conversations with them to make sure they all understood the answer to the question: "Why do you want to wear this shirt?"
"You can go from Patrick Ewing wearing a T-shirt underneath his jersey, then it becomes something that everyone does," Thompson III said. "Allen Iverson braiding his hair and playing in the league, then it becomes something everyone does. Kobe wearing the tights and then everyone does it.
"And this isn't that. This isn't one of those things where you go along just because it's something that's trending. We have had a lot of discussions, and the emotions as it relates to the protest the guys wanted to do today, the emotions and the feelings in the locker room are all over the place, meaning not necessarily everyone feels the same way.
"The emotions are from fear to frustration to confusion to anger, and the reasons why every individual wanted to wear it is all over the place, too, which is probably pretty consistent with the emotions across the country right now. ... I think the group wanted to possibly put ourselves in the position to be a part of a process, to help where there's positive change, as opposed to just negative reactions."
Junior guard D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera referenced the names of Brown and Trayvon Martin as he spoke about the protest, saying it goes beyond one case in New York.
"We really wanted to represent those families that all lost (a loved) one," Smith-Rivera said.
Added senior center Joshua Smith: "We didn't wear the shirts to say that the cops were wrong or the system was wrong. We just wore the shirts just to show our condolences to the family because no matter how you look at it, we don't know who was right or wrong, but they still lost somebody. And they won't get that person back."
When Thompson III was asked about his father's legacy of speaking his mind, the elder Thompson spoke up from the back of the room.
"It's a (expletive) school, man," Thompson Jr. said. "That's your responsibility to deal with things like that. We're not a ... damn pro team."
Kansas freshman guard Kelly Oubre was impressed by the Georgetown players' stand.
"That's definitely a powerful statement that those guys collectively made," Oubre said. "I respect them for doing that, and they did it all as a team, too, so it was something good to watch."
Jayhawks coach Bill Self didn't see the protest because he was focused on preparing for the game, but he also supported the players' action.
"It's a pretty strong stance," Self said. "And I think it's pretty good, and it certainly shows a lot of solidarity amongst their unit. And I don't see anything negative with it at all."

Fox News Poll: Voters worry about checks and balances after Obama immigration action


Majorities of American voters think President Barack Obama exceeded his authority with recent executive actions on immigration -- and are worried he may be permanently altering the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. 
That’s according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.
Click here for the poll results.
By an 8-point margin, more voters disapprove (51 percent) than approve (43 percent) of the specific policy changes Obama made that will, among other things, allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain temporarily in the United States to work. 
Meanwhile, nearly three quarters think this easing of immigration laws will encourage more people to enter the country illegally (74 percent).  That includes 50 percent who believe Obama’s actions are “very likely” to result in more people illegally entering the U.S. 
Even more voters are unhappy with how Obama made these changes.  By a 60-38 percent margin, voters disapprove of the president bypassing Congress to change how the government deals with illegal immigration. 
In addition, a 54-percent majority thinks Obama “exceeded his authority” under the Constitution by making the immigration changes unilaterally.  Thirty-eight percent say he “acted within his authority.” 
The poll goes on to ask what such actions mean for the country in the long term and finds more than two-thirds -- 68 percent of voters -- are concerned Obama’s use of executive orders and unilateral actions may be “permanently altering” our country’s system of checks and balances. That includes 42 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents and 93 percent of Republicans.
Hispanic voters -- who are almost twice as likely as white voters to approve of the recent changes Obama made on immigration (66 percent vs. 34 percent) -- like how the president went about making the changes as well.  Fifty-six percent of Hispanics approve of Obama bypassing Congress compared to 29 percent of whites.  Even so, views among Hispanics are about evenly divided over Obama’s authority under the Constitution: 48 percent say he acted within his authority, while 44 percent say he exceeded it.  By two-to-one white voters say Obama exceeded his authority under the Constitution (62 percent-31 percent). 
In general, a 63-percent majority wants the government to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. and eventually qualify for citizenship after meeting certain requirements.  Some 16 percent favor a guest-worker program, while 17 percent say deport all illegal immigrants.  Despite the president’s recent actions and the reactions they have sparked, these sentiments are mostly unchanged since 2011. 
While Hispanic voters (77 percent) are more likely than white voters (59 percent) to think the government should allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country, majorities of both groups favor that option. 
Many lawmakers and commentators questioned the timing of Obama’s actions on immigration -- especially given the thumping his party received during the midterms. And voters certainly don’t think immigration should be at the top of the president’s to-do list.
The economy is the priority at 38 percent, followed by terrorism from groups like ISIS at 21 percent.  Next on the list is health care at 12 percent, immigration comes in fourth for voters at 10 percent and race relations follows at 9 percent.
Those voters saying immigration should be the president’s top priority are split on the changes Obama made:  48 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove. 
Thirty-six percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing on immigration, while 60 percent disapprove. Obama’s record-high approval on immigration was 47 percent in February 2013, around the time he was proposing a comprehensive immigration reform plan.
Hispanic voters (55 percent) are twice as likely as white voters (27 percent) to approve of Obama’s job performance on immigration.
Obama’s overall job rating held steady this week: 42 percent of voters approve and 53 percent disapprove.  Just before the midterms it was 41 approve - 54 disapprove. 
The average for Obama’s ratings since becoming president is now split: 46 approve - 46 disapprove. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The poll includes additional interviews (an oversample) of randomly selected Hispanics to allow analysis of the subgroup.

CartoonDems