Did Trump have the right, the authority under the Constitution to kill Soleimani and that other bag of dirty, al-Muhandis?
That’s been the burning question on everyone’s mind and just another perceived log, stoking the democrat fires of impeachment. Can this also be added to their Articles of Impeachment – or maybe saved for later?
Was Trump Constitutionally correct in “unilaterally” ordering the strike against the left’s new war hero, Qassem Soleimani?
Well, the short answer is yes, and I will explain exactly why the president was and is right and the dems are once again wrong. read more
There was a State Funeral yesterday. One in which CNN reported: “Tehran’s streets were packed with black-clad mourners Monday as a sea of people turned out to pay their respects to Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general killed by a US drone strike in Baghdad last week.”
“The mourners clutched photographs of Soleimani,” added an apparently sympathetic CNN, “a revered and powerful figure who headed the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps elite Quds Force and led Iran’s overseas operations. Posters with his image, and a black backdrop, were plastered across the capital.”
And yes, CNN is correct. The streets of Tehran were completely clogged with people. How many were actual mourners is anyone’s guess.
In other words, how many “mourners” wanted to be elsewhere, but felt for their own safety and well-being, they had better show up and act the part of distraught supporters … or else.
I liken it to virtually all other evil dictatorial regimes, whose citizens are told where to be and how to act. read more
For several years, the country of Iran has been the number one State sponsor of terrorism worldwide, according the U.S. State Department.
In September 2018, ALJAZEERA, yes aljazeera, reported that, “Nathan Sales, the [State] department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, said Iran-linked fundraising networks in West Africa, weapons caches in South America, and operational activity in Europe show the Islamic Republic ‘has no reservations about using [terrorism] on any continent.'”
“Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for intensifying multiple conflicts and undermining US interests in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, Afghanistan and Lebanon,” Sales told reporters.
In other words, they are bad news and remain an enemy of the United States and our allies.
Yet, just recently, in Houston Texas, school children were seen singing a song, praising Iran, its supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and pledging their support and loyalty, not to our president or the country they reside in, but to Iran and to leader Khamenei. read more
The New York Times made waves on Christmas after the “paper of record” decided to publish a piece that trumpeted the supposed good deeds of the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
In the piece “Christmas in Lebanon: ‘Jesus isn’t only for the Christians,’” Times reporters Vivian Yee and Hwaida Saad paint a sympathetic picture of the U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Writing on Christmas in Lebanon, they report: “Even Hezbollah, the Shiite political movement and militia that the United States has branded a terrorist organization, has helped ring in the season.” read more
The government shutdown is upon us. Has anyone noticed? No? Of course no one has noticed. It’s the weekend heading into Christmas. But the government “closes” every weekend and holiday. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to fear the shutdown, because somehow it’s different than the government just closing.
Trump was right to announce that we’re pulling boots-on-the-ground out of Syria. On that, I agree. I didn’t agree with how he did it. I explain why in segment two.
In segment three, I give advice to Trump on how he should handle the shutdown by explaining, via his bully pulpit and on national TV, why the border wall is so vital. As if he needs my advice. read more
It certainly appears that president-elect Donald Trump is serious about implementing at least some of his campaign promises. He better be – and not a moment too soon – because it’s much worse at the border than we’re being told.
The internet exploded on Tuesday when Reuters reported on an internal memo they obtained from the Department of Homeland Security.
After an exhaustive search of the web, it appears I am the only one to ask what I deemed to be a rather obvious question. How did Reuters obtain this memo? Virtually every article I perused, including the Reuters piece, described it as an “internal agency memo.” No one, including Reuters, ever said it was leaked, nor a Freedom of Information Act demand put on them to release it, as conservative media must do. No – just that it was a DHS “internal agency memo” reviewed by Reuters. I thought that odd. Is Reuters, and other leftist media outlets, privy to all DHS “internal” memos?
Anyway, Reuters wrote that the memo described a December 5, 2016 meeting between DHS and the Trump transition team. Trump’s team is said to have asked “the Department of Homeland Security to assess all assets available for border wall and barrier construction.” That’s a good sign. My guess is they probably have plenty of assets, as they sure haven’t been using any. read more
What happens when you give stuff away? Logically you think demand for the item would rise. I’m not talking about giving away a free pencil eraser with every hundred dollar purchase. I’m talking about something of real value.
By the way – for those under the age of 25, a pencil eraser is an old-fashioned manual delete function.
I’m talking about giving away free televisions or smart phones, etc., with no strings attached. Do you think you might have a line encircling your store three or four times over? Of course you would.
Or what if you were a dog or cat owner and someone steals your animal – holding it for an exorbitant ransom – and you pay it. Just don’t harm the animal, you say. There will be no police involvement – no investigation of any kind.
The animal is returned safely and all appears to be well – except that it isn’t. Because of this one incident, you have now become a citywide target for every criminal wishing to make a quick buck.
By simply giving in the first time, the criminal element now considers you a patsy and your animal the unwitting victim.
Well, the inept Obama administration is of course the pet owner and any American, military or civilian, who travels to or near Iran are the pets. read more
I wonder if now that the Obama administration has paid the ransom “we owed” the Iranian regime, whether it will set a precedent for others to put their hands out and demand, or at least request funds from the U.S. treasury?
Heck, even before the precedent, the Israeli government asked the U.S. to bump up its annual military stipend from $3 billion to $5 billion. Those dirty, money-grubbing Jews – asking for an additional $2 billion. You might think that, but they are blaming the Obama administration for the fact that they must request it in the first place.
It seems the Middle East is poised to get a lot more dangerous thanks to the huge infusion of cash which was part of the US-Iran nuclear agreement. So thanks to Obama, Israel expects to have to spend a lot more on defense. They do have a point.
Now in, we’ll call the post-ransom period, another has come forward asking for cash. Our old buddy, “former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is asking President Obama to release nearly $2 billion in Iranian assets frozen in a New York bank account.” read more
For decades Iran has been synonymous with terrorism. Americans had been its target since the ouster of the Shah and the rise of Islamist fundamentalism. In 1979 the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to head the Iranian fundamentalist revolution. Many Americans still recall the taking of 52 of our citizens from our embassy in Tehran – held for 444 days, coincidentally released as Ronald Reagan took office.
After Khomeini became supreme leader in Iran the direct attacks on American facilities overseas seemed to come one after another, starting in April of 1983, with the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut Lebanon. Soon after, in October, was the infamous U.S. Marine barracks bombing which killed 241. In December that same year was yet another U.S. embassy bombing – this time in Kuwait. 1984 saw the bombing of the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut and in 1985, the highly televised hijacking of TWA flight 847, where a U.S. Navy diver was shot and tossed out of the plane onto the tarmac for the whole world to see.
The last major attack by Iran or it’s number one surrogate, Hezbollah, came in 1996 with the bombing of the Kobar Towers, a U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia, which left nineteen Americans dead and 372 injured.
Since then it seems Iran has concentrating their hatred and terrorist efforts more toward Israel and others in the Middle East.
So it’s plain to see that Iran can surely dish out the terror. But it evidently can’t take it. read more
Due to the rash of American hostages taken by terrorist groups like ISIS, president Obama, in June of 2015, issued a directive and executive order reaffirming longstanding government policies regarding negotiation, ransom and recovery.
The directive reaffirms U.S. government policies, including (a) achieving the “safe and rapid recovery of U.S. nationals taken hostage outside the United States;” (b) our government will strive to “counter and diminish the global threat of hostage taking;” (c) that we will use all resources to get our hostages back; (d) that we will “make no concessions to individuals or groups holding U.S. nationals abroad” and; (e) that we will deny hostage-takers the “benefits of ransom, prisoner-releases, policy changes or other acts of concession.”
Right off the bat we see that like most what our president utters, this is too crap. How did Obama secure the release of the criminal deserter Bowe Bergdahl? Of course, it was through a rather inequitable prisoner exchange with the Taliban – designated a foreign terrorist group by the Secretary of State.
And why do I describe it this way? Because it is a federal crime to allow the “benefits of ransom, prisoner-releases, policy changes or other acts of concession” to groups, “designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organizations.” Clearly the Taliban was and still is a designated terrorist organization. But then, when has “federal crime” or the Constitution ever stopped this administration from doing what it wants?
The interesting thing about Obama’s reaffirmation is that it only includes “individuals or groups holding U.S. nationals abroad,” not terrorist nations or nations who sponsor terrorism. Also that it is up to Secretary of State John Kerry to determine who is and isn’t, which leads me to Iran, possibly the number one sponsor of terror in the Middle East if not worldwide.
We all recall the utterly humiliating photos and video of 10 U.S. Navy personnel being captured by Iran several months ago. Personally, it made my stomach turn, with a little seething anger mixed in for good measure.
Through negotiations and a newfound respect between our two countries, the great negotiators, Obama and Kerry, secured the safe return of our brave sailors. It was a triumph of diplomacy. Or was it.
Of course we all know Iran has zero respect for America and less for the feckless Obama administration. So it comes as no surprise to me that reports are now surfacing that the Obama administration – let me rephrase – Obama may have paid an additional $1.7 billion to Iran for the release of the sailors.
What do I mean additional? I mean on top of the $150 billion we already allowed to be released to Iran – you know – to fund more terror, purchase gobs of conventional weapons and nuke up.
A bill, “jointly filed by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), could force the administration to disclose if it paid the $1.7 billion” to secure their release.
If this turns out to be true, is this not a federal crime? No – no it’s not. First, recall Obama’s reaffirmation that we “make no concessions to individuals or groups holding U.S. nationals abroad” Well, the nation of Iran is neither. Second, recall that it is up to our moronic Secretary of State, John Kerry, to determine who the terrorists are and we all know he would never designate Iran as such. He was too busy kissing their behinds to designate them.
The bill “would compel the Obama administration to issue a report to Congress detailing whether it paid Iran a $1.7 billion settlement as part of the hostage release. It also would level sanctions against Iran for possible breach of Geneva Convention rules governing legal military detainment.”
“Pompeo said that he and Cornyn are seeking to ensure there are ‘consequences on the Iranians responsible.’”
But the administration had already formed an excuse for the payment. They don’t deny it was paid, but in January, spokes-idiot Josh Earnest said “that was to settle a long-standing claim against the U.S.” The fact it was paid on the very day the hostages were released was just a happy coincidence, I guess. Earnest said the payment was for a debt incurred in 1979, pre-revolution, for arms never delivered from the U.S to Iran. By sheer dumb luck, the debt just happened to be settled on that day. Wow – that was lucky!
While I’m glad the two lawmakers are making the attempt to unearth the truth, let’s be real. The legislature can write as many bills as there is paper in Washington and Obama will just ignore them.
I’m reminded of a quote from the movie Spaceballs, where Dark Helmet is battling Lone Star and says, “So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.”