Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senator Diane Feinstein’

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for February 27, 2018

california dems moving further leftdueling memoseconomy up polls downhollywoods answer to gun violence is to create more movies with gun violencerussia with hillarywe need toban forkswhat a kookwhy cant we protect our schoolsplease likeand share and leave a comment


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons

President ignores Yemen, Feinstein Calls for Embassy Evacuation – UPDATED

Posted by    Wednesday, January 21, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:

In September, Obama touted Yemen as a success story!

LI #13 Yemen 2 Failed State

Sometimes, more can be learned from what a world leader fails to say.

One of the topics President Obama failed to cover in his State of the Union address is the situation in Yemen, a country that has descended so far into chaos that two U.S. Navy warships now stand ready to evacuate Americans from the Embassy.

Just prior to the President’s speech, California Senator Dianne Feinstein urged that the embassy be closed immediately and the personnel evacuated.

The U.S. government should immediately close and evacuate the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, according to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

I asked her today whether the embassy, which remains open despite raging violence throughout the Yemeni capital, should be closed. She responded: “Based on what I know so far, yes.”

“I’m very concerned about our embassy there, who is still there, who isn’t still there, and what the plans are,” Feinstein added.

Contrast this to what the President said of Yemen just last September:

President Obama recently told Thomas L. Friedman of The Times that failing to help Libya form a new state after the fall of Qaddafi was his biggest foreign policy regret. Yet the fate of that country has been largely absent from discussions about the new war, which is certain to last longer and unleash a wider array of consequences.

Instead, Mr. Obama, in making the case for carrying out airstrikes against the Islamic State, drew a dubious parallel to counterterrorism efforts in Yemen, which he billed as successful.

While dangerous Al Qaeda offshoot organizations in tribal areas of southern Yemen have been weakened by drone strikes, calling Yemen a success story is absurd.Obama Muslim collection

Not only absurd, but potentially dangerous to Americans in that country. Just because Obama scrubbed any mention of Benghazi doesn’t mean we have forgotten the lives lost there.

VICE News recently compiled a video, “Yemen: A Failed State”:


Heavily featured in this analysis is another group that somehow escaped mention in the year’s State of the Union Address: Al-Qaeda. It appears as if these terrorists are no longer on the run; their Yemen branch claimed credit for the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.

Richard Spencer, Middle East Editor for The Telegraph, has a substantive analysis of region — pointing out the clear winner (Iran, as supporter of the Yemen rebel group) and the obvious losers in recent events.

An Iranian politician close to that country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could not contain himself. Ali Reza Zakani, an MP, boasted that Sana’a [Yemen’s capital] was now the fourth Arab capital in Iranian hands – after Beirut (through Hizbollah), Damascus (through President Assad) and Baghdad (through Iraq’s democratically elected Shia-led government).

…[O]on the surface, a stunning blow for the West. The US and UK – and regional allies like Saudi Arabia – strongly backed a political settlement in Yemen following an “Arab Spring” uprising against the country’s long-time leader, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in late 2011.

That put a pro-western replacement, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, in office, presiding over a parliament that was supposed to represent all shades of Yemeni political thinking apart from al-Qaeda, which is strong in some southern and eastern parts of the country.Wake up America

Truly, more was learned last night about the state of the Union by figuring out what Obama failed to mention. Let’s just hope our people come back home safely.


U.S. Embassy in Yemen set to evacuate

Posted by    Tuesday, January 20, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:

“U.S. Navy on alert”

us embassy yemen

Yemen is in chaos.

For the past two days, Shiite Houthi rebels have laid siege to the presidential palace. Now, reports claim that the rebels have seized the palace; and the status of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi remains unknown. Although the Houthi rebels are not targeting Americans—at least for the time being—U.S. officials are preparing for the possibility of a “non permissive environment,” meaning that the city of Sana’a will have descended into combat-like conditions.

Unfortunately for Americans in Yemen, evacuation isn’t simply a matter of driving to the airport and hopping a flight.

CNN explains:

If an evacuation is ordered, the first option would be to have embassy personnel drive to the commercial airport in Sanaa and fly out, the official said. But in the wake of an embassy car being fired Tuesday, the safety of the roads in the capital is now being constantly evaluated, the official said. If embassy workers did drive to the airport it is likely some sort of air cover would be provided, under the current plan.

Other detailed military planning for various options has been finalized, the official said. Those options would be used if a request for military assistance were made.

If helicopters and V-22 aircraft from the ships are sent to Sanaa, it would be a complex operation that could last for several days to fully evacuate “several hundred Americans” from the embassy, the official cautioned. “Nobody should think this would be easy.”

The Houthi rebels claim that they’re working for a more democratic Yemen, but analysts are skeptical of the group’s claims, and worry that a successful coup could lead to further radicalization.

The Houthis are an offshoot of Shiite Islam that is known as Zaydism, and they have put together a militia that has been fighting the central government on and off for the past decade.

The Houthi leader, Abdulmalik al-Houthi, 33, is considered a saint by his followers. The militia, which is widely believed to be backed by Iran, claims it is willing to work with other groups in Yemen and would like a democracy.

But the majority Sunnis feel threatened by the minority Houthis, whose rise could easily lead to increased sectarian friction in Yemen, the poorest of the 22 Arab countries.

“Yemen could become another Afghanistan — a failed state dominated by warlords and extremists, and with even fewer prospects for the young revolutionaries who just three years ago thought their nightmare had ended,” Middle East analyst Robin Wright wrote in The Wall Street Journal.

Unrest has plagued Yemen since 2004, when now-rebels revolted over perceived discrimination on the part of the majority Sunni government. In September, the rebels began to move out of their traditional strongholds in north Yemen and into new territory.

As of right now, plans are to evacuate only State Department personnel if conditions deteriorate; U.S. officials haven’t yet decided whether or not to extend evacuation orders to other Americans in Yemen.

Freedom with Prayer

The Self-Hating Americans

By Jeffrey Lord – 12.11.14

URL of the Original Posting Site:

What the CIA report says about the American Left;

  • They hate America.

  • They hate themselves for being Americans. What Liberals have accomplished so far

And in a vivid display of just how far self-hating Americans will go to smear their own country, look no further than this quickly infamous leftist-generated so-called CIA report. Its title as bequeathed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

Three former CIA directors, two former deputy CIA directors, and a former Democratic Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee have responded in detail to the report pushed out by California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein, the outgoing committee chairwoman. And they have not been kind.

In the Wall Street Journal, the three former CIA directors — George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden — say this:

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

… We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct. Which is another reason why the study is so flawed. What went on in preparing the report is clear: The staff picked up the signal at the outset that this study was to have a certain outcome, especially with respect to the question of whether the interrogation program produced intelligence that helped stop terrorists. The staff members then “cherry picked” their way through six million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to construct their argument against the program’s effectiveness.Propaganda Alert

In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.liberals-thanks-saul-alinsky-political-poster-1308396354

The former Senate Democrat is Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey, who said this in the pages of USA Today:

I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.

When Congress created the intelligence committees in the 1970’s, the purpose was for people’s representatives to stand above the fray and render balanced judgments about this most sensitive aspect of national security. This committee departed from that high road and slipped into the same partisan mode that marks most of what happens on Capitol Hill these days.Propaganda Alert

And oh yes… last night on Fox former Vice President Dick Cheney called the report “crap.” 

So what we have here are six very serious people (seven counting Cheney) who understand the CIA inside and out and what goes on behind the scenes in the Senate Intelligence Committee inside and out. And all have come to the exact same conclusion.

The CIA Directors put it this way:  

We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct.

Former Senator Kerrey put it this way: 

I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.coservatives deal in facts

In other words? What is being described here is a deliberate effort to make the CIA and by extension the country look as bad as it could possibly look, and they were willing to cook the books to accomplish their objective.

But why? There’s the real question.

In the Jewish world there is a term that should be adapted to America. The “self-hating Jew” is defined (here at the Jewish Virtual Library) this way: 

A Jew who expresses self-hatred, according to Kurt Lewin [in Resolving Social Conflicts], “will dislike everything specifically Jewish, for he will see in it that which keeps him away from the majority for which he is longing. He will show dislike for those Jews who are outspokenly so, and will frequently indulge in self-hatred.” 

Change the word “Jew” to the word “American” and the description reads this way:

“An American who expresses self-hatred… will dislike everything specifically American, for he will see in it that which keeps him away from the majority for which he is longing. He will show dislike for those Americans who are outspokenly so, and will frequently indulge in self-hatred.”Leftist Marxist

A more exact description of today’s American Left could not be had. “Dislike everything specifically American” extends on a scale of one to ten from the Jonathan Grubers of the world who hold themselves out as so much smarter than their “stupid” fellow Americans all the way to the other end and all those Bill Ayers types who spend their time finding ways to literally blow up the country or this or that part of it. They all feel a dripping contempt for both their countrymen and their country, merely differing on how to express that contempt.

Sometimes that hatred extends to specific, high-profile Americans. All conservatives of course, and Fox and talk radio. But they can’t abide capitalism, Wall Street, the middle class, two-parent heterosexual families of a Mom and Dad. Marriage is a target. Religion certainly, Catholics, Jews, and Evangelical Christians specifically. (Islamic fundamentalism, virulently anti-American, not -so-coincidentally finds favor with the self-haters.) Culturally speaking this would include things like country music or Disney and oh so much more. The contempt expressed by Leftists in various venues for any or all of these things is the epitome of American self-hatred. They hate the country, its people, its history, its culture, and most of all its power.terrorist-cartoon

Anything and everything that spits in the eyes of all of these things and more are made attractive to American self-haters precisely because middle class America may frown on it. Or religious leaders. Or office holders or other authority figures. Legalizing marijuana is not as much about marijuana as it is about the kind of Americans who are in opposition to legalization. If sex is presented in American society as a husband/wife/man/woman relationship than the objective is to go as far in the opposite direction as possible. Gays are, in a real sense, irrelevant to the conversation. The military, like religion, is another target for smirking contempt. Not to mention that ultimate symbol of America — the American flag.

As has been said of the self-hating in the Jewish world, the self-hating American is a “social-psychological phenomenon.” Indeed. In this case that “phenomenon” has targeted the CIA. But the real target is America itself. First, last — and most disturbingly? Always.

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at



Blog wishes



An Interrogator Breaks His Silence

Dec 9, 2014 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

URL of the Original Posting Site:

What follows is the document written by Jason Beale — a pseudonym for a longtime U.S. military and intelligence interrogator with extensive knowledge of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA on some high-value detainees. Those techniques are scrutinized a forthcoming report, scheduled to be released today, prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Beale would not confirm to THE WEEKLY STANDARD that he worked in that program, but others with knowledge of the program and its personnel tell TWS that he served as a senior interrogator beginning in 2004.

Beale tells TWS that his document was reviewed, redacted, and cleared by a U.S. government agency. A CIA spokesman would not confirm that the CIA was the agency in question. Beale says he made minor edits for grammar and flow after the document was cleared.com01

An Interrogator Breaks His Silence:

(click on link below to view PDF file)


Blog wishes

Media Shield Law Heralds the Death of the 1st Amendment


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a new “media shield” bill, and will now ask the Senate to take the bill up for a vote. In the wake of the Justice Department’s recent attacks on the freedom of the press, many members of Congress seem ready to take up the cause and support the media shield law. At first glance a new media shield law would be a positive development, because it would imply that our Congress took our press freedom seriously. However, that is just not the case. This media shield law is not just a bad idea, but a dangerous one.

GrahamLet’s begin with the most basic argument against the media shield law. It is unnecessary because the Bill of Rights offers us complete coverage on freedom of the press. “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. So the real issue here is not that we need a media shield law (we already have the 1st Amendment), but that someone at the Justice Department needs to go to prison for their roles in the AP scandal and in the Fox News and James Rosen case. The likely jailbird should be Attorney General Eric Holder, because he signed off on both investigations. In addition, the Justice Department should have to pay hefty restitution to both organizations for their heavy handed attack on free speech.

The first argument was easy – we already have a media shield in the First Amendment and the real problem is that the Justice Department broke the law, so they should be punished. But the next argument gets a little more nuanced.

FeinsteinThe second argument here is that by allowing Congress to pass a media shield law we are allowing them to decide who is a journalist. Congress will not pass a bill that gives blanket protection to any Tom, Dick, or Harry’s free speech or press freedom. Their concern is that someone blogging out of their mom’s basement will get a hold of classified information, publish it and then be covered by the media shield law… and Congress just cannot risk any more Edward Snowdens. So in the bill that has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have drawn lines to show who is and isn’t a “real” journalist. An example – an 80 year old retired English teacher working for a small town newspaper (or newsletter) is a journalist… but Matt Drudge who publishes the Drudge Report and is read by millions may not be covered. A reporter with a college paper may be covered, but one of the writers for this site might not be. This begs the question… where is Congress given the authority to decide who is and isn’t a journalist? The answer is, that Congress has no say in that question whatsoever – because the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. In fact, the 1st Amendment strictly prohibits Congress doing anything to draw lines on free speech or press freedom. The very notion of passing a media shield law that applies only to some is Congress doing exactly what the First Amendment says it CANNOT do.

So… Congress passing a shield law for some but not for all, and putting conditions on the information covered by said law – is unconstitutional and therefor illegal.

The last argument I want to make is about precedent. If we allow Congress to move forward with a media shield law that protects some citizens at a greater level than others, who’s to say they won’t use similar tactics to weaken other freedoms? For example, could we next see a Religious Practice shield law? Perhaps it will allow only practitioners of certain government recognized religions to practice freely. Or maybe a Firearm Shield law, which will say that the government cannot prohibit the use of certain firearms, while at the same time effectively saying that other firearms can be legislated against? Do you see the danger? Do you see how thin the razor’s edge of our liberty is?

A media shield law sounds like a good and noble idea, and maybe some legislators are well intentioned as they seek to pass the law. But you know the old saying about good intentions don’t you? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s often true, and this law is no exception.

This is a dangerous bit of legislation and those of us who value our freedom of speech and our free press, should stand against it.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: