Behar and the Left Use the Bush Family to Bash Trump

from Michelle Malkin at Conservative Review:

Malkin: Stop partisan corpse abuseRelated image

Impolite question, but it needs to be asked: Is there a Republican dead body that left-wing partisans won’t use to bash Donald Trump?

This week’s partisan corpse abusers callously exploited the passing of George H.W. Bush, America’s 41st president, to get in their digs at the current commander in chief. Their vulgar level of incivility was inversely propositional to their sanctimonious calls for decency. read more

Obama is Worse Than Bush

from Breitbart:

“The Billings Gazette,” a Montana newspaper that endorsed President Obama over John McCain in 2008 (but went with Romney in 2012) admitted Friday that they were wrong — Obama is in fact worse than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Apparently, the potential collapse of Iraq (and the disastrous worldwide consequences sure to follow) was the last straw.  read more

Obama Released Worst Terrorist Yet

by: the Common Constitutionalist

What did we hear for so many years during the Bush administration? Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan would create terrorism. Bush’s wars would cause more danger in the world.

Well, evidently letting terrorists walk free is far worse than fighting and killing them.

The UK Daily Mail reports that, “The United States once had Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (his friends call him Bag-Daddy…Yo) in custody at a detention facility in Iraq, but president Barack Obama let him go, it was revealed on Friday.”

al Baghdadi was among the prisoners released in 2009 from the U.S.’s now-closed Camp Bucca near Umm Qasr in Iraq.

Naturally it would be against Obama’s brilliant foreign policy to simply transfer some of the worst to Club Gitmo where he could have all the comforts of home. Actually, I’m quite sure the “detainees” have never had it as well as they have at Gitmo.

Is this what we have to look forward to with the release of the five radical Islamists Obama just “traded” away – five more ruthless, bloodthirsty, would-be extremist leaders? Remember the five he released were not no-nothing foot soldiers. These were part of the al-Qaeda brain trust.

But now, five years later Bag-Daddy is leading an army of ruthless extremists bearing down on Baghdad who want to turn the country into an Islamist state by blazing a bloody trail through towns and cities, executing Iraqi soldiers, beheading police officers and gunning down innocent civilians.

And as for the five year mark – no one really knows. No intelligence agency can determine when he became part of ISIS. Upon his release, did he just step into the role? Who knows? read more

Grover Norquist, The Muslim Brotherhood & the Republican Party

The following are excerpts from a Clarion Project article entitled “Grover Norquist & Co. Build Islamist Influence in GOP

How the GOP Came to Embrace the Muslim Brotherhood Lobby

Islamism is not a partisan issue. Special interests, major companies and foreign powers have long tried to affect both political parties—and the Muslim Brotherhood lobby is no different. Ten former senior officials, including a former CIA director, have issued a  joint statement with meticulous documentation about how the Republican Party was and is influenced by this lobby.

In the 1980s, the FBI recruited a confidential source deep inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood lobby. He warned that the Brotherhood established a network of front groups including the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Muslim Students Association, Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust. One of the chief objectives was to penetrate the U.S. government with sympathizers and IIIT already claimed success. The Brotherhood donated to campaigns on both sides of the political aisle and met with officials involved in foreign policy.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood drafted a secret plan in 1991 that defined its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad…in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” You may read articles I wrote in 2012 entitled, “The Project” and “The Project, Part Deux” on the subject.

The most senior elements of the Brotherhood lobby handled outreach to the Clinton Administration and both political parties, especially the presidential campaign of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush.

Sami al-Arian was a central figure. He admits having been a Muslim Brotherhood member from 1978 to 1982, but his involvement in the American lobby continued after that.

In 2000, Abdurrahman Alamoudi of the Muslim American Council was asked by an Islamic website how Muslims should “decrease the influence of the Zionist lobby on presidential candidates.” He said they must elect sympathetic candidates like Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA). Rep. Campbell spoke at the Brotherhood lobby’s events and touted their causes. read more

No More Common Core

Republican advocates for the Common Core State Standards have been surprised to discover deep and persistent opposition to a top down, educational system driven by a “testing to the test” mindset which seeks to push all students towards a four year university degree. You might say that, by failing to anticipate objections from grassroots conservatives, Common Core advocates are guilty of the soft bigotry of low expectations. But, the trajectory of the debate and the passion it engenders from many parents, educators, grassroot conservatives and employers dissatisfied with the increasing state and national control over local public education, is not at all surprising to those of us in Texas who have watched and participated in the battle over our state’s education policy in recent years. As Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission, I was heavily involved in that battle. read more

Democrats: Hawks or Hypocrites?

by: the Common Constitutionalist


The “Hawks” have aligned and are ready for war. All the administration heavy hitters have come out swinging. Throughout the halls of the White House and Congress there is a “Call to Action”.


Isn’t it great that progressives always want “action”, although it must be the correct action, as defined by them and must be action by those approved to act, also defined by them.


Yet less than a decade ago the Bush administration was warning us of Syria’s Assad. Strangely though, there was no “Call to Action”. The exact opposite, in fact.


Many of the same “Hawks” of today were “doves” not too long ago.


In 2005 then Senator Barack Milhouse Obama grilled ambassador John Bolton regarding Syria. Bolton was trying to warn us of Syria’s progress in developing WMD and that they would pose a threat to the Middle East region and beyond. read more

Warmonger Maureen Dowd

by: the Common Constitutionalist


On Monday the Washington sage Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in, where else, the New York Times entitled, “Shadow of a Doubt“. It was regarding the potential strike on Syria and how, in her opinion, things in Washington seem to be completely upside down.


She expressed it as a “bewildering time here”. She did make a couple of good points although mostly and typically it was trashing all Republicans and those on the right.


She described Nancy Pelosi as “the hawk urging military action”. She does have a good point. When was the last time Pelosi urged action against anyone other than conservatives and the Tea Party?


She described the Republicans as “squeamish about launching an attack” and “top generals going pacifist”. Although she makes no distinction, I will. Republicans are squeamish about virtually everything. They’re afraid of their shadows or at least the shadows of Democrats (and illegal aliens). Conservatives on the other hand are not squeamish. They/we just require the facts before taking action, the real facts.


Dowd characterized former ambassador John Bolton as a “dove who doesn’t think we should take sides” who wishes for more intelligence.


I always knew John Bolton was a smart man. We shouldn’t take sides in a civil war that we have no interest in nor threat from. And as far as intelligence goes; there’s been plenty showing that Assad did not initiate the chemical attack. That it was in fact the “rebels” (terrorists) that released the chemicals. Possibly what they call “kitchen sarin” gas. I wrote about this just yesterday. Feel free to review the article.



Of course Maureen makes no mention of the fact that the terrorists may be setting up the dictator Assad. That’s assuming she’s even heard the contradictory facts. After all, most of these elitist liberal columnists live and work in a bubble, speak to and read only those of like mind. How would she know?


She explained, “many around the president are making the case that if he doesn’t stand firm on his line in the sand… he’ll look weak and America will lose face and embolden its foes.”


Well Maureen, it’s a bit late for that. His foes, along with the rest of us, already see him as weak due to the fact that he is. Terrorists, regardless of affiliation know full well how to “play” the West to achieve their ends. Whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or a subsidiary group, they understand how to move liberal Westerners to action.


She then goes on a typical tirade comparing Bush and Iraq to Syria. The whole “Bush lied and people died” nonsense. Years later and Bush derangement syndrome still lives.


She described how John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as senators both voted to invade Iraq and then came to regret it. She neglected to remind us that many liberals originally rejected the notion of Iraq invasion. Yet when public opinion turned against them they didn’t want to appear weak so they asked for a do over and then voted for it. Way to stick to your guns!


She explained how Democrat hack Robert Menendez of New Jersey “opposed the Iraq invasion but supports a Syrian smackdown”. Funny how that works. It just goes to show that everything is political with these people.


Dowd quoted Menendez asking Lurch (John Kerry) if the administration would accept a “prohibition for having boots on the ground”. It seemed a rather obvious attempt at coaching. Lurch explained that “it would not be preferable” but could not rule it out.


She reported that Kerry said if WMD “fell into the hands of Al Nusra or someone else” ground troops might have to be deployed.


Well, from the evidence coming in, it appears they already have some form of chemical weapons.


Dowd closes in typical liberal fashion stating, “It’s up to president Obama to show Americans that he knows what he’s doing, unlike his predecessor”.


As most are well aware, I am no fan of George W. Bush but it’s been painfully obvious for years that Obama, his advisers and cabinet are utterly clueless. We cannot afford a buffoon like him leading us into armed conflict, although regardless of the outcome it will be reported by Dowd as a smashing success for Old Blood and Guts Barack.

Bush: Deficits Bad, Obama: Deficits Required

by: the Common Constitutionalist


You can always count on genius economist Paul Krugman to tell the truth… as he sees it. He wrote an article last week, published in the “paper of record” (hah), The New York Times entitled “Moment of Truthiness“.


Wow Paul; how provocative yet whimsical. What’s life without a little whimsy?


The article was regarding the deficit and how voters “are often misinformed and politicians aren’t reliably truthful”. On that point he will get no argument from me. He said how “voters are poorly informed about the deficit”.


That may be Paul, but most voters don’t give two hoots about the federal deficit as they go off to their part-time jobs because either their hours have been cut to part-time status due to Obamacare or a part time gig is all they can find.

read more

The Greater Depression

**Note** What have we always said, A Big Government Progressive is a Big Government Progressive. Sides of the aisle do not matter.


You can’t say we haven’t been warned. Despite the high debt price tag  resulting from the government intervention and arbitrary price controls designed  to “spur the economy” during the American Great Depression, modern politicians  on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to repeat the same mistakes.  Interestingly, just as Herbert Hoover is blamed by leftist historians (but I  repeat myself) for leading us into the Depression with his so-called free-market  policies, so is George W. Bush blamed for his “capitalistic” tendencies. This is  nonsense of course, both Hoover and Bush implemented interventionist economic  policies that were exactly the antithesis of free-market capitalism. And both  were succeeded by men who took their economic strategies (i.e. political  compromises) and opened them up to full-throttle. What Hoover and Bush began,  FDR and Obama have respectively finished.

In his book, America’s Great Depression, Murray Rothbard sets the  record on Hoover in proper perspective:

Hoover’s role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to  combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D.  Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his  predecessor. To scoff at Hoover’s tragic failure to cure the depression as a  typical example of laissez-faire [meaning “allow to act,” or  free-enterprise] is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover  rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free  market.

Continue Reading

Bush Didn’t Lie and More May Die

Remember the Lefty chant, “Bush lied, People died”?

The infamous mantra regarding the revelation that George W. Bush knew Saddam Hussein had no “Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)” prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Apparently there were top-secret CIA briefings that “W” dismissed or kept from Congress and the American people, thus cementing a positive Congressional vote for force against Iraq.

It was indeed a scandal and one that seemed to leave egg on the facebush-lieds of the administration. I believe Colin Powell still has not forgiven Bush for that.

The fact that virtually every country with an intelligence service emphatically stated that Hussein did have WMD was of no account.

In 2006 CBS even interviewed a former CIA agent who claimed documentary evidence for the lack of mass destruction weapons.

So why were all these countries intelligence services so convinced Saddam did have WMD? Could it be that the dictator used chemical weapons to put down his own people years before? That may have been a factor. Could it also be that Iraq did in fact try to acquire yellowcake uranium despite the fraudulent reports to the contrary?

Could all these countries, including our CIA and the Israeli Mossad, quite possibly the best intelligence agency in the world, have been mistaken?

According to some sources, Bush and the “NeoCons” warmongers had already written the script. Regardless of what was known or not known of WMD, Americwmdsa was going to invade Iraq and depose Hussein. That’s what “NeoCons” do, don’t ya know.

I was not a big fan of George W. Bush, but I believe he would never invade a country without actionable intelligence. One important factor that was not widely publicized and that in most are unaware of even today, is what I and very few others were convinced of, both in 2002 and still today.

By all accounts of numerous intelligence agencies, Saddam did have stockpiles of weapons and evidently, just like magic, they disappeared.

The press hailed Charles Duelfer, chief of the Iraqi survey group, when he reported no WMD findings and the transfer of WMD did not occur.

But the press, as they too often do, failed to give us the specifics of Duelfer’s report. Deep within his report he concluded that he could not confirm WMD or its movement, due to poor security situations.

Satellites and dissCharles Duelferident intelligence did however confirm the movement of some 50 trucks and two aircraft from Iraq to Lebanon and Syria in 2002 and in March 2003.

I surmised, as some others had, working off this intelligence, that the Russians were helping move the WMD to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran and Syria,  where it could be stashed away in a remote location or locations.

This Russian maneuver was exactly what the Soviets used to do during the Cold War. The Soviets called these types of covert movements, “Operation Sarinder”, which would scrub any evidence of underhanded Soviet weapons involvement.

I believe that then and still do now, that George W. Bush knew it was the Russians moving WMD from Iraq to Lebanon and Syria.Bekaa Valley

I also believe he purposely-kept quiet about it so as to not provoke an international incident with the Russians.

So what is the point of this history lesson?

Well, it’s simple. Syrian President Assad is said to have authorized the use of chemical weapons against the rebel forces trying to depose him. Where, pray tell, did he acquire said weapons?

Gee, I wonder. Maybe from the Bekaa Valley? Could it be he has had them in his possession for all these years with the knowledge and blessing of the Russians?

I guess the question we should be asking isn’t whether he will use the WMD, but whether Vladimir Putin will alloPutin, Assadw him to.

If Putin does, or even if he doesn’t, would it be possible to trace them back to Iraq and then to their origin, Russia?

If Assad is deposed, I doubt Vladimir would allow those weapons into rebel hands.

The last question might be, where will the Russian WMD turn up next?