Obama gets failing marks for letting Americans join ISIS: congressional study

A new study commissioned by Democrats and Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee finds the White House has failed to keep Americans from traveling overseas to join ISIS due to an overall lack of counter-terrorism vision and strategy.

"It is clear that our nation faces a grave and growing threat from foreign fighters," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who chairs the committee, in a statement reported by Fox News. "Sadly, global efforts have failed to stop the flow of these aspiring jihadists into Syria and we have already seen 'returnees' from the conflict zone come home to America and Europe and plot acts of terror. Even more, those still on the battlefield are radicalizing their peers online and inciting them to launch homegrown attacks."

The report found more than 250 Americans have gone overseas since 2011 and either joined, or tried to join, various terror groups, including ISIS. Only a handful have been stopped, the study said. Moreover, ISIS has managed to recruit more than 25,000 of other fighters from overseas spots for training in Iraq and Syria.

"As horrible as attacks like the Chattanooga shooting were, we've been incredibly lucky," said Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project Professor, to Fox News.

The report also cited other worrisome findings.

One: "Despite concerted efforts to stem the flow, we have largely failed to stop Americans from traveling overseas to joing jihadists."

Another: "The U.S. government lacks a national strategy for combating terrorist travel and has not produced one in nearly a decade."

And another: "Gaping security weaknesses overseas, especially in Europe, are putting the U.S. homeland in danger by making it easier for aspiring foreign fighters to migrate to terrorist hot spots and for jihadists to return to the West."

The report comes as the government watchdog, Judicial Watch, finds the Obama administration has allowed 1,519 refugees with suspected ties to terror to enter the United States in the last year, as reported by WND. The refugees were admitted largely because of a softening of rules and restrictions, and would have been kept from entering the country in previous administrations.

Kim Davis faces new charges of non-compliance: 'They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy'

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who spent five days in jail for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses in compliance with a judge's order – and who resumed work a few days ago – is still not doing her court-ordered job, say same-sex couples who've tried to get their proper wedding documentation.

And they've taken their case back to court, saying Davis needs to fully comply or face fines.

Reuters reported Davis is issuing forms that contain material changes, not the original, official ones. Specifically, she's taken the documents pertaining to marriage licenses and removed the references to Rowan County and her clerk's office. Gay couples seeking marriages are instead given forms that list deputy clerk Brian Mason – the entity who issued the licenses during Davis's jail time – as a notary public.

But gay couples say: That substitution won't suffice. They're charging Davis is still violating U.S. District Judge David Bunning's order, particularly the part where he said she could leave jail, but only on the condition she not interfere with the issuance of gay marriage licenses any more.

Lawyers representing the gay couples have filed a motion in court, alleging Davis is non-compliant with a federal order, Reuters reported. Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky say the documents for gay marriage licenses should either be the old style, with the proper office reference, or the clerk's office should be fined.

Mat Staver, the attorney for Davis, said the new filing is little more than a witch hunt.

"The ACLU's motion to again hold Kim Davis in contempt reveals that their interest is not the license but rather a marriage license bearing the name of Kim Davis," he said, Reuters reported. "They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy."

Bunning has already ruled the licenses issued while Davis was in jail, absent her name, are valid, a view the governor has confirmed.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/kim-davis-faces-new-charges-of-non-compliance/?cat_orig=faith

White House administration rushing to bestow citizenship on 8.8 million immigrants

Obama's election gift to Democrats?

The White House announced a new campaign Thursday to get the 8.8 million legal immigrants in the United States on U.S. citizenship rolls – a message presidential staffers are sending across the nation just in time for voting season.

Specifically, the Obama administration is pressing for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to make it easier for the legals to pass the test, the New York Times reported. The agency is going to provide practice tests via cellphone, as well as hold study and preparatory workshops in key spots around the country.

The fee to take the citizenship tests will remain at $680, but can be paid by credit card, the newspaper said.

Team Obama has reached out to regional immigration groups for assistance with the more than 70 workships that have been organized, the New York Times said. The administration's also planned about 200 naturalization events in the next week.

But that's not all.

The White House is embracing a plan to make immigrants feel welcome, in part by adjusting Justice Department rules so that those who want to help with the citizenship process can get their credentials quicker.

And one more facet of the campaign: The White House has backed a blitz of television promotional spots aimed at enticing immigrants to take the test.

Only those immigrants who've been legal permanent residents for a minimum of three years are eligible for the assistance. White House staffers are hoping to offer immigrants what they say is a more positive message than what's being put forth in the Republican camp, mostly from presidential hopeful Donald Trump who's promised to deport the 11 million or so illegals currently in the country.

"We want to build off the negative energy," said Tara Raghuveer, policy and advocacy director for the Natinoal Partnership for New Americans, the New York Times reported. "People are hearing the hate and racist xenophobia on the national stage from the presidential candidates. They are angry and this is an opportunity for us to organize."

Bill Maher warns of fallouot on Obama's overreach: 'One day liberals won't like executive orders'

Bill Maher, one of TV land's most liberal voices, nevertheless took to his blog to suggest his fellow left-leaners they might not want to cheer so loudly when President Obama issues executive orders because one day, the tables could turn and it might be Republicans at the helm, doing the same.

"One day," he wrote, "liberals won't like executive orders so much."

Maher, who hosts "Real Time" on HBO, referenced the renaming of Alaska's Mount McKinley to Denali, and the new requirement for companies contracting with the federal government to provide a certain amount of paid sick leave for workers, both of which Obama accomplished via executive order.

Bill Maher (Real Time website)

Maher said that while he agrees with both those policy outcomes, he nevertheless takes issue with how they were achieved.

"Okay. Again, probably something I agree with," he wrote. "But I also used to remember a time when things like this [sick leave order] and the Denali thing were bills and they were introduced in Congress and went through a 'legislative process' to see if they had 'popular support,' at which point they were either 'signed' or 'vetoed' by the president. In fact, both paid sick leave and renaming Mount McKinley were bills that failed to get through Congress."

Maher referenced the "dysfunctional Congress" and said that situation, in part, has fueled the trend of issuing executive orders.

"Executive orders are the new legislation, and if a president wants to get anything done during their term, they're going to have to issue a lot of them," Maher said. "Which makes the stakes for 2016 higher than usual. And not because 'we face a crossroads in history' or because 'this is the most important election of our lifetime' or any of the other hyperbole we hear every four years. It's because the president is now more like a king. And if a Republican wins, you can get ready to have your benefits slashed, your immigration laws enforced differently, and all your mountains named after Reagan."

Ayatollah Khamenei vows no Israel by 2040 -- says Jewish nation will be 'destroyed'

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday in a series of social media postings that Israel ought to be prepared for total annihilation – the Jewish nation "will not see [the] next 25 years," his account tweeted.

By 2040, he vowed, Israel would be completely devastated, the Times of Israel reported.

Khamenei, in a message directed at Israel, wrote: "You will not see next 25 years" because enemies would continue to wage war on the nation until it was completely destroyed, the newspaper said.

The tweet also included a photograph of the Iranian religious leader walking on a sidewalk painting of Israel's flag.

The full text of Khamenei's threat, which came from a speech he made earlier in the day, read in broken English: "After negotiations, in Zionist regime they said they had no more concern about Iran for next 25 years. I'd say: Firstly, you will not see next 25 years. God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years. Secondly, until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists."

Against this backdrop is the fate of the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran, which President Obama insists will prove successful. A just-release Pew poll indicates nearly half of America disagrees with Obama, and dislikes the deal, while only 2 percent say they trust Tehran to uphold its end of the bargain, as WND reported.

The White House says the deal means Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon. Critics say it opens the doors to just that, even as it givens Iran between $50 billion and $150 billion in sanctions' relief and allows the country to stall nuclear watchdogs from scrutinizing suspected sites for up to 24 days.

This isn't Khamenei's first threats against Israel – or against Israel's allies, for that matter. He's frequently referred to America as the "Great Satan." And in his comments this week, he doubled down on that label, adding that the nuclear talks with Washington were the only diplomatic correspondences America should expect with Iranian leaders.

"We approved talks with the United States about [the] nuclear issue specifically," he said, the Times of Israel reported, citing Khamenei's website. "We have not allowed talks with the U.S. in other fields and we [do] not negotiate with them."

He also wrote on his website further talks would prove "a tool for penetration and imposing their demands." And on Twitter, he expanded on that view, writing how his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, saw the "U.S. [as] the Great Satan" despite how "some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel." He added in his tweet: Talks with America were a "means of infiltration and impositions of their wills."

Half of Americans dislike Iran deal -- only 2 percent think Tehran trustworthy: Pew

President Obama may have sealed the deal on his Iranian nuclear deal, winning the required 41 votes in Congress needed to keep it alive, but as far as the American people go, nearly half hate it.

Another 30 percent have no opinion, Pew Research Center for U.S. Politics & Policy found, in a recent poll. But only 21 percent actually approve of it.

The level of U.S. approval for the pact is down quite a bit from mid-July, when 33 percent of Americans said they were on board with it.

The past six weeks has seen a lot of shake-up with the polling numbers, however, in part because of the widespread press coverage about some of the more controversial details of the deal. Among those areas still hotly contested are allowances for Iran that give the country the ability to delay inspections up to 24 days, and that provide sanctions relief to the tune of $50 billion – and, by some reports, up to $150 billion.

Moreover, Americans aren't sold on the idea of a trustworthy Iran.

"The public continues to express little confidence that Iran's leaders will live up to their side of the nuclear agreement," Pew found. "Just 2 percent have a great deal of confidence that Iran's leaders will abide by the agreement, while another 18 percent say they have a fair amount of confidence."

Another 70 percent say "they are not too confident" Iran will honor the terms of the pact, Pew said.

Iran, in fact, has already moved toward development of a new nuclear reactor. As reported by WND, Russia has just signed a pledge to help Tehran construct a second reactor in the Bushehr province later this year. The State Department, meanwhile, said this project is not explicitly prohibited by the terms of the nuclear deal or by existing U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Pew poll: http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement-falls/

Tom Brady wins big in court, as 4-game suspension thrown out

Immigrant homes hit high on welfare lists, as more than half tap into taxpayer doles: report

Immigrant households, both legal and illegal, tap into the nation's welfare system at a level that's higher than families deemed "non-immigrant" – to the tune of 51 percent in 2012, a new study found.

The Center for Immigration Studies reported in a just-released 52-page document the welfare rates for immigrant households are "a good deal higher than use rates shown by other Census data."

Specifically, CIS looked at Census data regarding Medicaid and cash, food and housing benefits. And in a comparison of legal and illegal immigrant households versus native citizen households, the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation data indicated "immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households," CIS reported.

For example, 51 percent of households headed by either an illegal or legal immigrant tapped into at least one welfare program in 2012, compared to 30 percent of native households, CIS said.

"Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent)," CIS reported.
Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and use of housing programs is similar to natives."

The report also found both "new arrivals and well-established immigrants" utilize the taxpayer funded programs at similarly high rates.

"Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades," CIS reported, "48 percent access welfare."

And the breakdown by country of origin is even more enlightening.

CIS found: "Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest."

The study concluded low education levels among immigrants, and the "resulting low incomes," in part explained the high welfare use – but certainly not all.

"The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives – 26 percent vs. 13 percent," CIS reported.

The report also disseminated the geographical hot spots for immigrant-fueled welfare statistics, finding California led the way, followed by New York, Texas and Florida.

"In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent)," CIS reported.

See report: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

Russia, China pounce on U.S. hacked data, searching out blackmail targets

This can't be good for America's future ....

China and Russia are both taking advantage of the hack attacks against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Ashley Madison adultery website, tasking experts to cross-check data and see who's cheating, who has security clearances and who's vulnerable to blackmail.

The Los Angeles Times, citing sources, said operatives in both countries are aggressively scouring through the hacked data, checking to see if any names pop up as past security clearance applicants. They're also cross-checking the hacked names with airline records and medical documents, searching for clues that might help identify undercover agents and other top U.S. intelligence officials, the newspaper said.

And two sources told the newspaper the aggressive search has already paid off. At least one undercover network of U.S. engineers and scientists has been compromised, they said, to the newspaper. The scientists had been working on the sly to provide assistance to U.S. agents stationed overseas, the sources said.

The massive OPM hack reportedly compromised millions of past and present U.S. government workers' sensitive records, including those in the CIA and military, as reported on numerous occasions.

The White House has reacted to the breaches with vows to bolster the government's cybersecurity. In the meantime, counterintelligence agents say America's enemies have gone full steam ahead to try and take advantage.

"[Digital analysis can reveal] who is an intelligence officer, who travels where, when, who's got financial difficulties, who's got medical issues, [it can] put together a common picture," said William Evanina, a top U.S. counterintelligence official, in the L.A. Times.

And asked if U.S. enemies had already used such information against U.S. undercover agents and operatives, Evanina said: "Absolutely."

She wouldn't give specifics, however.

The Pentagon is working to get ahead of the game, sifting through some of the same hacked information to find out who might be susceptible to blackmail, the newspaper said.

China was the suspected source of the recent OPM database hack which impacted an estimated 22 million past and present federal workers, along with their family members.

"A foreign spy agency now has the ability to cross-check who has a security clearance, via the OPM breach, with who was cheating on their wife via the Ashley Madison breach, and thus identify someone to target for blackmail," said Peter Singer, a fellow with the New America Foundation and coautor of the book, "Cybersecurity and Cyberwar," the newspaper reported.

200 ex-generals write Congress: Reject nuke deal else Iran gets 'far more dangerous'

An estimated 200 retired generals and admirals put pen to paper and sent a letter to Congress to advise them to reject the nuclear deal pressed by President Obama, saying the world will become a more dangerous place if it's approved.

"The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies," the letter stated.

It was addressed to House Majority Leader John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

The writers say the "agreement as constructed does not 'cut off every pathway' for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons," an apparent reference to the terminology President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry used to tout the benefits of the deal.

"To the contrary," it continues, "it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding the deal."

The generals and admirals say the agreement will let Iran enrich uranium, develop centrifuges and keep up work on its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak.

And also of concern, they write: "The agreement is unverifiable. Under the terms of the [agreement] and a secret side deal (to which the United States is not privy), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be responsible for inspections under such severe limitations as to prevent them from reliably detecting Iranian cheating."

The letter references the widely reported 24-day delay that was given Iran to keep out inspectors, under the terms of the forged deal. And it also mentions the facet of the agreement that "requires inspectors to inform Iran in writing as to the basis for its concerns about an undeclared site," and says such allowances are inappropriate and dangerous.

"While failing to assure prevention of Iran's nuclear weapons development capabilities, the agreement provides by some estimated $150 billion ... or more to Iran in the form of sanctions relief," the letter states.

And their conclusions?

"As military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the Obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally," they wrote, summarizing the agreement is a danger to the world.

"Accordingly, we urge the Congress to reject this defective accord," the letter wraps.

Among the signers: Admiral David Architzel, U.S. Navy, retired; Admiral Stanley Arthur, U.S. Navy, retired; General Alfred Hansen, U.S. Air Force, retired; Admiral James Hoggs, U.S. Navy, retired; and General Ronald Yates, U.S. Air Force, retired.

Judge slaps down EPA water rule, citing 'risk of irreparable harm to the states'

The Environmental Protection Agency received a big face-slap from a federal judge in North Dakota who ruled the entity cannot go forward with a new rule that would give it massive control over waterways, at least for the time being.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson issued a temporary injunction against the rule, which has been widely criticized as a massive bureaucratic overreach that would lead to brutal crackdowns on developments near the smallest of bodies of waters, as WND has previously reported, here and here, and again, here. Basically, critics of the rule had argued the regulation would give the EPA the power to developments and other land activities next to even puddles of water – something the government derided as untrue. Critics also said the rule would result in costly compliance measures for developers, energy companies, businesses, farmers and ranchers and other private property owners – all denied by the government.

The federal judge, however, sided with the rule's critics and found in favor of the states.

Erickson's view, from Fox News: "The risk of irreparable harm to the states is both imminent and likely," he said.

His ruling comes from a case brought by 13 states, requesting the court suspend EPA waterway rules that were deemed as infringements on the Tenth Amendment and the states' right of sovereignty.

Among the states that petitioned the court: North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming. It wasn't clear if the judge's injunction would apply to even those states that weren't parties to the petition.

But private property rights advocates and some politicians were cheering Erickson's ruling as a big win.

"North Dakota landowners and energy workers and their peers around the country will be temporarily spared the devastating consequences of an onerous rule. This is appropriate, given the judicial history of this issue and its impact on states and property rights. The injunction provides time for Congress to continue working toward a fix and for a complete judicial review of the legal merits of the rule," said North Dakota state congressman Kevin Cramer, Fox News reported.

And Julia Slingsby, the press secretary of the Natural Resources Committee, said to the news outlet: "The Waters of the United States rule is unlawful and an abuse of executive power. The judge’s decision to block the rule, which was challenged by 13 states, is encouraging, especially as EPA’s credibility has been questioned in the past month. The EPA needs to be stopped before it does more harm to our nation’s precious water resources."

The 13 states sought court action after attorneys general for more than 30 states sent a letter to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers requesting a delay of the rule's implementation for several months, but were never answered. So they went to court for the preliminary injunction.

Jesus picture gets boot from Kansas school: 'That's what's wrong with this world,' ex-student says

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has successfully pressured a school in Kansas to remove a picture of Jesus that had hung in the hallways for decades.

Royster Middle School took down the "Head of Christ" print by Warner Sallman, following a complaint from the well-known atheists' group that's headquartered in Wisconsin.

Richard Proffitt, who serves as superintendent of Chanute, said the school district attorney advised to remove the picture, the Wichita Eagle reported.

Warner Sallman first drew his Jesus picture in charcoal.

"We were notified and we responded to stay in compliance," he said, the newspaper reported.

Sallman drew the picture in 1924 in charcoal. It was later reproduced in color, and a copy of that colorized version hung in Royster in the 1940s.

"Oh man, it's getting bad," said Erika Semey, a former Royster student who attended a decade ago, Fox News reported,. "That's what's wrong with this world. Not enough people have Christ in their lives."

FFRF's Ryan Jayne couldn't disagree more.

"It's nice to have people who appreciate the law and get things done [and] who follow the law even if it's likely to be unpopular in the community," he said, Fox News reported.

Iran to inspect itself? United Nations gives OK for rogue nation to act as own watchdog

This deal just gets crazier and crazier ... to put it mildly ...

President Obama's vaunted vows that accountability would be a key, non-negotiable aspect of his nuke deal with Tehran seems to have melted away with a report the United Nations is letting Iran act as its own watchdog – its own inspector – for a long-suspected nuclear arms development site.

Republicans quickly seized on the report, which first came to light from the Associated Press.

"President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification,'" said House Speaker John Boehner, AP reported. "He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

The Parchin site, as seen from satellite.

And House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce was even blunter: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period," he said, AP reported.

The terms of the newly discovered secret side deal – the Parchin agreement, forged by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran –  would allow Tehran to used its own experts and technical advisers to search out evidence of nuclear arms development activities at one of the same site's it's been accused of developing nuclear arms technology, AP said.

Former IAEA director general Olli Heinonen said he couldn't think of any other deal ever made between other countries that allowed for such concessions, AP said.

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed the danger of the deal, though, saying simply she "truly believe[s] in this agreement," the news wire service reported.

Iran has turned away inspectors from its Parchin site for years. World powers, backed by satellite imagery, have long suspected the area is one of Iran's busiest spots for developing nuclear capability. And the IAEA itself has presented satellite images that indicate Iran has tried to sanitize the area, a suspicious behavior that underscores the notion of an ongoing cover-up.

The new revelations of the side deal could very well prove the final straw for congressional members who were already opposed to the Obama-backed nuclear deal with Iran. In recent days, key Democrats like Sens. Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez have joined in teh Republican-led call to kill the deal, saying America has conceded too much to Iran and received too little in return.

Jade Helm critics mocked by media: Dallas writer pokes fun of pastors who express concern

Jade Helm 15, the Special Operations weeks-long military training mission that kicked off this July in seven states out west, is about half-way over, and its peaceful progression has apparently emboldened several in the press to unleash pot-shots at government watchdogs who expressed concerns at its secrecy.

Jade Helm was widely criticized for its labeling of two states, Texas and Utah, and the southern portion of California as "hostile" areas for training purposes, and for refusing to embed journalists with the military during the exercise.

Meanwhile, other critics picked up on the "Master the Human Domain" mission logo and expressed suspicion the military was using the Jade Helm exercise as a psychological warfare testing ground to learn how U.S. intelligence agents could influence citizens in overseas' conflicts.

Some said the exercise was aimed at taking Americans' gun rights; others, as a precursor to martial law. Reports also surfaced about closing Wal-marts, fueling some to suggest the military was going to use the retail outlets as a staging area for the operation, or worse, as internment facilities.

In response to these rumors and fears, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced members of the National Guard would be monitoring the exercise – an action that hardly alleviated all the worries.

Just a few days ago, Dallas pastor Rick Wiles and and televangelist Jim Bakker discussed the operation in a series of broadcast programs, saying the mission may be rounding the curve toward completion, but in their minds, Americans should remain skeptical of the military's actions.

Wiles, for instance, told Bakker during one show: "The government is saying, 'All we're doing is, we've got our troops practicing for foreign wars,' but I'm not so sure about that. I think they are getting ready for social unrest."

It wasn't long after that discussion many in the media shot out some mocking pieces, slamming not just Wiles and Bakker but pretty much all Americans who expressed doubt in their government over Jade Helm.

Writing for the Dallas Observer, Stephen Young waxed sarcastically about the fears surrounding Jade Helm and said: "Congrats to everyone reading this outside of a FEMA camp based in an abandoned Wal-Mart for making it through the first month of Jade Helm 15 unscathed. For those of you who've been interned, and yet still inexplicably have web access, our prayers are with you. Thanks to the brave actions of Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the members of the Texas Guard he deployed to watch the not-at-all routine military takeover exercises enveloping the rest of the American South and Southwest, our fine state has remained largely unscathed."

He then jabbed at Wiles and Bakker, referring to the latter as a "disgraced televangelist ... who's previously claimed that Miley Cyrus has sex with demons."

Ring of Fire Radio picked up on the theme, blogging: "Televangelist Jim Bakker wants Americans to know that it's right to be skeptical of Jade helm 15. After serving time in prison for fraud int he 90's, Bakker returned to the airwaves to spread his message of doubt and deception. In a discussion with Rick Wiles, the pair ventured an idea (read: conspiracy theory) that the real purpose of Jade Helm 15 is to instill social distrust and unrest in communities. Thus preparing the country for another civil war."

The exercise, involving hundreds of special forces from four military branches – the largest of its kind on American soil – is due to wrap Sept. 15.

Carly Fiorina humble in face of debate success: 'Lot more people know who I am'

Okay, if you missed her performance, you missed brilliance ...

Presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina took to Fox & Friends on Friday to discuss her unrivaled success on the 5 p.m. debate stage, adopting a humble tone to thank the powers-who-be for the chance to shine a national light on her campaign.

Carly Fiorina

"I think a lot more people know who I am," she said, when asked about what's changed in the hours since poll watchers and pundits declared her the clear winner of the Thursday night debate. "Before this debate, only 40 percent of Republican voters ever heard my name. Last night, they said, ohmigosh, there's another woman in the race, ohmighosh she actually does pretty well."

She also thanked Fox for the chance to make an appearance in the nationally televised event, saying she's done well with the grassroots crowds but her low name recognition factor has kept her from catching and riding the larger media attention. And that chance has resulted in widespread Internet searching on her name – even more so than on Trump's, Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends said.

"Of course it makes me feel good, absolutely," Fiorina said. "What all that activity demonstrates is that people have started to pay attention."

Fiorina fielded on policy question, on the economy, and said the top action the government could take to bolster job growth would be to get out of the way of small business.

"The engine of economic growth in this nation has always been small business, community-based businesses, family businesses," she said. "If is the small, family-owned, community-based business that we're crushing, and in fact we're destroying more than we're making."

Why?

"Big government," Fiorina said. "This is called crony capitalism, when the government gets so big only the big [businesses] can survive. We have to get the engine of economic growth, small business, growing again."

DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz can't differentiate in Socialist v. Democrat

That's about right ...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, couldn't explain the difference between a socialist and a democrat during a nationally televised interview – and when asked the same question in a second, later TV spot, similarly stumbled.

She was first asked point-blank by Chris Matthews on MSNBC: "What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?"

As Mediaite pointed, she tried to dodge the question before then diverting to the bigger chasm
between Democrats and Republicans.

A few days later, NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd posed the same question to her, and once more, Wasserman Schultz couldn't explain.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Todd asked: "Given that Bernie Sanders is an unabashed socialist and believes in social democratic governments, [he] likes the ones in Europe, what is the difference? Can you explain the difference?"

And Wasserman Schultz's reply: "You know, Chuck, it's always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews and I know that he enjoys that banter. The important distinction that I think we are going to be discussing, I'm confident we'll be discussing during this campaign, is the difference between Democrats and Republicans."

She then went on to define the Democrats as for-the-people and the Republicans as extremists.

Video here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/debbie-wasserman-schultz-again-wont-explain-difference-between-democrats-and-socialists/

Obamacare overhaul leaves taxpayers on hook for $2.4 billion, audit finds

More reasons to get government out of the health care business ...

A new audit from the Health and Human Services inspector genera's office shows the $2.4 billion taxpayers loaned the federal government to implement an Obamacare overhaul demanded by President Obama did not bring the promised results, and in fact, could prove to be a total waste.

Taxpayers provided the money at Obama's request to get nonprofit co-ops, the Obamacare alternative to mega-insurers, up and running so more Americans would join the health care plan. But of the 23 funded by the $2.4 billion, only one has met sign-up goals, the audit found, the Associated Press reported.

And one, the Iowa/Nebraska co-op, actually had to shut down after regulators voiced concerns over how money was being used, AP said.

"The low enrollments and net losses might limit the ability of some co-ops to repay startup and solvency loans and to remain viable and sustainable," the audit said.

The audit only covers the co-ops' activities through the end of 2014, but a review of the last few months shows 2015 appears to follow the same failing trend. Co-ops continue to report financial losses, AP reported.

The co-ops are officially called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans and they were put in place as an Obama-inspired and Democratic-implemented option to the corporate insurance agencies, after failing to get enough people to sign on to the government-run insurance plan. The deal was taxpayers would provide startup money and reserve money for the nonprofits to get going.

Just a few months ago, the White House was calling the co-ops a success. The president's Domestic Policy Council said just recently, "In states throughout the country, co-ops have competed effectively with established issuers and attracted significant enrollment," AP said.

But the inspector general's report finds differently.

Among the findings of the audit: Maine was the only co-op that recorded financial solvency for 2014, with $5.9 million in income. Kentucky's co-op lost $50.4 million; Montana's lost $3.5 million. New York's lost $35 million.

Medicare chief Andy Slavitt downplayed the findings in a statement to AP: "The co-ops enter the health insurance market with a number of challenges, [from] building a provider network to pricing premiums that will sustain the business for the long term," Slavitt said. "As with any new set of business ventures, it is expected that some co-ops will be more successful than others. [The administration] takes its responsibility to oversee the co-op program seriously."

Seattle seeks Sharia law for Muslim homebuyers: Mayor vows 'new tools' to accommodate Islam beliefs

Seattle's local governing authorities are pressing forward with a plan to give Muslims with Sharia-compliant beliefs a financial option to buy homes.

The idea comes in recognition of the current purchasing and financing laws that Muslims say lock them out of home buying, due to their Sharia principles.

"We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevents from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," said Seattle Mayor Ed Murry, at a recent press conference, Fox News reported.

The facet of home financing that Sharia-compliant Muslims can't abide? The payment of interest, FOx News said. And that means about 30,000 Muslims in the Seattle area who follow what the Koran calls "the right way" aren't able to participate in the banking loan process – because interest is the primary way lenders earn money.

Chicago already offers some options for Sharia-compliant Muslims, as well as the Bank of America. But the special treatment in Seattle isn't sitting well with everyone. Critics say the idea opens the door to financing for Islamic radicals and even terror-tied groups, via money laundering.

In 2008, some in Congress opposed the American International Group's provision of special insurance programs for Sharia-compliant Muslims.

In a letter dated Dec. 18, Rep. Frank Wolf and then-Rep. Sue Myrick wrote: "You may defend your decision to offer Sharia products and will probably state that they have no real ties to Sharia law, and therefore pose no threat. You are wrong, Like Britain, the way to America's legal code is through its wallet, and if Sharia law gains a strong footing in the United States, it will be through Sharia finance and Sharia products."

Fox News reported Seattle's plan to help Muslims could lead to banks outright buying the home and holding the title. The bank would then contract with the buyer to purchase the home at marked-up price. The buyer could then pay in a lump sum or in payments over time.

Some financial outlets in Seattle are already offering such options.

Halal Inc. has a website ad that says "instead of starting with a flawed system and trying to 'make a fit,' we took the perfect system ordained by Allah and created a legal framework for it," Fox News found.

Iran deal exposes Obama’s fairyland views

President Obama stepped onto the national stage early Tuesday morning to announce a deal with Iran to stop that country’s development of nuclear capabilities – and by stop, of course, what he really meant was delay.

Among his self-congratulatory back-pats: The part where he said the accord “demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and immediate change.”

Congratulations, Mr. President. Once again, you’ve exposed the depth of your Land of Oz-like thinking. Believing in the power of the tongue to control terrorists, state sponsors of terror and all-around enemies of Israel and the West is not only sheer hubris – it’s borderline madman.

What part of the ayatollah’s mid-negotiations “Death to America” chants did you not hear?

Listeners of the early morning speech he delivered while staring directly and nearly unblinkingly into the lens of the camera – a la the “look ‘em in the eye” approach – had to know the deal was bad for America when he assured: “Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle …”

But did anybody ever think that -- ever?

Just look at these headlines: From U.S. News, in November 2014: “Desperate and Dumb: The White House is Grasping at Straws to Reach a Nuclear Deal.”

From Fox News, via Charles Krauthammer, in January: “Obama’s ‘Negotiating Out of Weakness and Desperation’ With Iran.

From the Washington Post, in March: “Obama is Conceding Too Much to Iran.”

From Breitbart, in April: “Cotton: U.S. Negotiating With Iran ‘From a Position of Weakness,’ ‘Desperate for Deal.’”

From The Week, in June: “Former Top Obama, Bush Advisers Warn Against Weak Iran Nuclear Deal.”

That’s quite a list – a quick drop in the bucket of what’s out there. But you know what’s curiously missing?

Mentions and accolades of America’s negotiations with Iran from “a position of strength and principle,” except in stories quoting Obama’s claim to such.

As Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted shortly after the announcement: “When willing to make a deal at any cost, this is the result. From early reports, we can see that the deal is a historic mistake.” He then tweeted: “World powers have made far-reaching concessions in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability.”

One huge hole in the deal is its appeasement quality. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called it a pact akin to the “ill-fated Munich Agreement which sought to appease Nazi Germany.” U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the “administration just lit a fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” And Iran expert Clare Lopez bluntly called the pact “sheer insanity” and a means for Iran to both fund and continue its secret pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Another frightening facet: The deal reportedly gives Iran the power to hold up inspectors from accessing sites deemed suspicious. Obama may say the plan is “not built on trust” but rather “verification,” but that’s just not true if IAEA inspectors have to wait for the all-clear from Iran in order to gain access to suspicious sites.

And one more thought to consider: What of the U.S. hostages held in Iran? While Obama cheers himself, Idaho’s Saeed Abedini, a Christian evangelical, and Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, continue to rot in Iranian prisons. As Commentary opined, comparing their sad fate to those of terrorist ilk: “Obama seems more concerned with springing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay than in freeing Americans held captive by one of the world’s most repressive regimes.”

This accord would have been the perfect time to win the release of Abedini, Hekmati and other Americans held by Iran. 

Position of “strength and principle?” Hardly. Position of “politics and personal agenda” is much more to the truth.

Louie Gohmert reminds: Democrats were party of slavery

Rep. Louie Gohmert took to the House floor to deliver an impassioned speech about history, with a lesson on hypocrisy, reminding the nation and those on the left the rabbit hole of removing all things perceived as racist – like the Confederate flag – is a deep one that leads right to the Democratic Party.

The context of Gohmert's remarks was the nationwide condemnation of the Confederate flag, leading to a congressional legislative attempt to boot the banner from some federally managed properties. Gohmert first reminded the cause of the shooting at the Charleston, South Carolina, church that left nine dead – the spark that started this recent anti-Confederate flag efforts – was "evil," rather than a piece of cloth waved by the suspected shooter, Dylann Roof.

"[But] now there's this big race to go after the Confederate flag," he said.

He then suggested those who want to erase from U.S. society all symbols and signs that are tainted by anything racist ought to do a complete job of it.

"In thinking about that," Gohmert said, "I think there is an entity that was so evil in supporting slavery, in fighting against civil rights, in fighting against the Christian brother that Martin Luther King Jr. was ... we ought to look at those symbols and ought to look at what they stood for and perhaps ban any political organization [that touted them] from participating in Congress."

He then read from the Democratic Party's political platforms from 1856 and from 1860, where it was stated "all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the permanence and stability of the union and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions," he said.

"That was the official number one plank," Gohmert said, of the Democratic Party's 1856 platform.

And the third plank for that year?

"They're saying they want to preserve slavery in any state that wants to have it," he said. "I mean, it sounds like something the Ku Klux Klan would've done."

Gohmert said the party adopted the same platforms again in 1860 and concluded: "So if we're going to eliminate everything that reminds us of the hideous past that supported slavery, the oppression, the horrors that slavery entailed ... if we're going to have a complete cleansing of this country of anything, any symbol, then this platform from he Democratic Party in 1856 and 1860 ... then I think its time not for the Washington Redskins to change its name, but for the Democratic Party to change its name."

Why?

"Because the history of the Democratic Party is one of oppressing African Americans, one of supporting slavery," he said.

Gohmert then suggested a better way for the country to deal with race relations and the current campaigns to erase or skew history.

"Let's recognize the good with which we've been blessed. Let's stop the name calling, the race baiting, the division politics," he said. "Let's quit trying to tear this country apart because of things of the past with which not one person in this room would have taken part in. If we're really going to go there, we've got to end the Democratic Party."

He went on: "We don't need to end the Democratic Party.We just need to work together in the present. That doesn't mean we can't disagree ... [but] let's look at the example of the victims' families in Charleston, South Carolina and say, 'Wow, they are incredible believers and followers of Jesus Christ – that's somebody we can emulate.'"

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/louie-gohmert-reminds-democrats-were-party-of-slavery/?cat_orig=politics