ISIS and the American Politician – As the World Dithers – the Times Lays Blame on – Republicans

ISIS, the rapid Islamic group that has established a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, killing anyone whom they please in the most barbaric manners, including children has taken front and center stage in the American Political area. The question of stopping ISIS in Iraq and Syria by the use of U.S. military intervention has come under some scrutiny by both major political parties. The President has taken his usual steps in being deliberative before he acts, something he has done since taking office. This often leads to missed opportunities and or a worsening of the situation; however, it is his style of being cautious before fully committing U.S. forces.

That cautious quality has the media and both parties in a quandary as politicians’ from both sides of the aisle see the threat of Isis on many levels, not only to the middle east, but to our homeland, as well as Europe and other parts of the world.

NBC News on Senator Feinstein’s remarks that Obama has been too cautious in this situation, suggests that the Democrat from California may be running out of patience, as the public is becoming increasing aware of the real danger that ISIS presents – California being a border state. (NBC News)

CBS News reporting the Presidents delay on strategy - notes that both Republicans’ and Democrats alike are in a quandary over the situation – agreeing with one another.

However, the New York Times, true to the party line, suggests that it is Republican’s only that are politicizing the crisis, and that there is “nothing to see here – move along – the President is in control.

Be that as it may, the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria may need a buffer via the Iraq and Kurdish forces who are in the thick of the fighting. It is, after all, their country, and other than support (air and weapons); ISIS may be dealt with fairly easily – with a little pushback.

The threats being made to the U.S, suggest that those in ISIS already here (See any Chicago newscast about threats being made in that City by said group), might come to pass, however, one has to wonder if those commanding ISIS forces, understand the psyche of the general American public – unlike any nation in the world, where, when invaded, lay down and take abuse, the U.S. fights back.

One might wonder what ISIS would encounter if, with boots on the ground, in say, a border state, say Texas, might meet once they moved to attack. One might not see Texan’s rolling over so easily, ISIS does not understand the basic independent streak inherent in most U.S. citizens. It is not so much that as a nation, relying on the government is primary, it is also not so much that as a nation, there is a political body in sync that makes all deliberations until it is too late. It is more likely that from Massachusetts, to San Francisco, and places in between, Urban-Suburban-and Rural militias would wipe ISIS out – or as one politician suggested – bomb them back to the Stone Age.

Therefore although we may have interests in the Middle East – it may behoove the U.S. to employ air strikes and tactical support there, and shore up protection in the U.S. – otherwise, the citizens of this nation would most likely do it for them. One would suggest that anytime that intelligence suggests that the U.S. is a target, those from both parties, would align, rather than take political opportunities – it is clearly not the way of the United States. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue; it is an issue that drives all U.S. Citizens or those hoping to become citizens. Furthermore, the New York Times piece is a bit disingenuous suggesting that this is a situation where Republican’s are politicizing an atrocious entity.

Sr. Diane Feinstein on National Security Leaks and the White House Involvement – The Implications and Backpedaling – Leaks: Treasonous

Timeline: On June 6th, Diane Feinstein (D), Senator from CA, with her Republican counterpart, spoke with CNN regarding highly classified national intelligence leaks and the impact that these leaks have on national security (See Video Below)



Diane Feinstein is the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. and as such is bound to insure that the secrets that the U.S. Intelligence services and their allies have are kept so, in order to preserve the peace of the both our nation and those who would help us abroad – as well as to prevent acts of war on the U.S. and its interests abroad.

The beginning of the investigation (video above) suggests that the committee understood the leaks were coming from the highest offices.

On June 8th, the Atlantic Wire Reported that the Senator would find herself against the White House (i.e. her political party in an election year)

:
"Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's reputation for toughness when it comes to cracking down on national security leaks is bringing her dangerously close to butting heads with the White House. As Reuters' Mark Hosenball and Susan Cornwell report, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman is considering joining Republican calls for an outside investigation of U.S. national security leaks, but according to a transcript from the White House's Thursday press briefing, President Obama is adamantly opposed to such an investigation."

On Thursday, Feinstein joined the House intelligence committee's Republican chairman Mike Rogers and Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger for a rare Capitol Hill press conference to lament a series of leaks regarding President Obama's classified "kill list" and CIA cyber attacks to The New York Times. Feinstein said she's still pondering the idea of a "special counsel" but finds the leaks damaging to national security. "I am deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media, most recently regarding alleged cyber efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program," she said. The White House, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with an outside investigation of the leaks, as Thursday's press gaggle with Jay Carney revealed:

Video Below – Feinstein “The White House has to be aware that the leaks are coming from the White House”


On July 24, the Hill reported that Feinstein’s remarks were direct in that someone at the White House is behind the national security leaks – but not the President.

A few Hours Later she cautioned:“I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information,” Feinstein said in the statement on Tuesday. “I shouldn’t have speculated beyond that, because the fact of the matter is I don’t know the source of the leaks.”

This was most likely due to the fact that Mitt Romney as well as conservative news outlets began to look at this revelation as it should be viewed, regardless of the source, as a huge mismanagement of the public trust, specifically as it regards the safety of the nation and our allies. In addition, regardless of whether or not it was a bungle by a member of the White House staff, who has access to highly secure information, trying to get out the “news” of what a great job the Administration is doing on the Terror Threat we live within the U.S, it is, regardless of intent – treasonous under the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution, Article III (The Judiciary) Section 3, states: - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Notes on the definitions: The Constitution explicitly states that there may be no "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation; the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends.(usconstitution.net)

This opens up a huge can of worms, one which, politics aside, should be alarming regardless of which political party has been involved. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “as bad as” the Plame revelations (outing of a CIA operative who was no longer an operative) by a Bush Administration official. This involves ongoing efforts by the U.S. Intelligence agencies to secure U.S. safety, puts lives at risk for those in hostile lands that might have helped us, and/or makes the likelihood of anyone thinking of helping the U.S. – zero.

There should be not only an internal investigation by the White House under the direction of Attorney General Holder, but due to the partisan nature of the administration, an independent council should be assigned to investigate the matter – as was done under other administrations who had not strayed so close into the area of Treason as defined by the Constitution. As to Senator Feinstein’s backtracking on first naming then denying she has the knowledge, one finds that somewhat incredulous due to her position on the Committee and the fact that this has been going on for months that the public is aware of. However, the pressure brought to bear by the White House on the Senator must have been somewhat crippling, even though, as some pundits suggest, she has a very “safe seat” in her upcoming bid for reelection to the Senate, and therefore, should continue to stand up for the nation, rather than the party, if she is certain. One would think that, if that were the case, then Senator Feinstein has some very deep soul-searching ahead of her – specifically if the joint committees investigations conclude that the leaks could come from nowhere but the White House – and should an independent counsel find the same, then a full prosecution should take place as directed by the U.S. Constitution. In that wise, the Senator would have been indirectly complicit in denying knowledge, if knowledge existed. One would think that she is above that fray, given her passion for the protection of the U.S. and, should she find herself in such a position, specifically backtracking if she does know the leaks indeed came from within the administration, then it would be hoped she has the chutzpah to stand up and do her job as the Committee Chair of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, and pay due attention to the Oath she Took when she attained her office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Democrats Gone Wild - Senate To Finalize War Spending Bill – Includes “Cash for Clunkers” Program

Fuel Efficient? 2009 Hummer: 16MPG Highway - photo: truckinweb.com

An “emergency” spending billis set to move from the Senate to the Oval office today – the House passed the bill early this week with objections from Republican’s and anti-war Democrats. The majority of the bill’s funding is geared towards the Afghanistan-Iraq wars, however, it also includes 7.7 billion dollars for the flu pandemic, 108 billion to bail out the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and 1 billion for a program which can be credited to Sen. Diane Feinstein called “Cash for Clunkers”.

The fact that the U.S. economy is not exactly “healthy” should prevent any funds from being dispersed in the form of “loans” to the IMF, at least temporarily – Republican’s argue that the funds may end up in the hands of countries that aren’t exactly friendly towards the U.S. and did not support that particular portion of the bill. The kicker, however, is the “Cash for Clunkers” bill, which will offer a “rebate” to consumers who currently have low mileage vehicles and trade-up for a more fuel efficient model. Among auto’s one might want to consider: the Hummer (ironically produced by General Motors - or Government Motors).

Unbelievable: Should one purchase a new SUV, that gets 2 miles per gallon more than the old vehicle, they are entitled to a $3,500 rebate, should that new vehicle get 5 miles per gallon more, the rebate increases to $4,500.
The new owners of GM, Car Czar, Massachusetts 4th Congressional District Congressman Barney Frank and the U.A.W, are ecstatic over the measure. Apparently, this is one of the few areas in spending in which the Democrat Controlled Congress feels it is necessary to move “slowly” - fuel efficiency.

What is most interesting is that harsh critics of the measure are coming from, of all places, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi’s backyard. The San Francisco Chronicle is appealing to Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, to stop the madness. Should Gregg be unable to fend off Feinstein’s vision of promoting fuel efficiency thought government handouts, one can bet the house that the Bill will barely touch the Oval Office Desk before it is signed, sealed and delivered.

Will they never learn? As the comparisons increase between the failed Carter Presidency (foreign policy and economics) and the Obama administration, one has to question why not one of those individuals writing this junk and imposing it upon the American Taxpayer, either does not have, or refuses to investigate historical data that would indicate abject failure as a result of frivolous spending, bailouts, and pork! As Obama and the U.N., work out the latest “strongly worded’ missive to North Korea, the Senate and Congress continue to play fast and loose with Taxpayers dollars and the President is likely to either have pre-approved of this nonsense, or he is unaware of the consequences. Either way, Carter’s doppelganger has made a complete transformation from “hope and change” to “chaos and confusion”, be it in concert with or fooled by a like-minded (confused and chaotic) congress.

The Nation Wakes Up - While ABC News and AP Rip Gibbs over Obama Miniscule Budget Cuts – Freedom Works Plans September 12 March on Washington

The Capital - image CNN

On Monday during the White House Press Briefing Robert Gibbs dodged questions from AP Reporter Jennifer Loven and ABC’s White House Correspondent, Jack Tapper. A Video of the exchange is available at Real Clear Politics. At issue, the $100 Million in budget cuts that Barack Obama requested from his Cabinet - (Granted he said it was just a “drop in the bucket) – a transcript of the exchange:

JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet; can you explain why so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?

GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...

LOVEN: The deficit's very large. It's not a joke.

GIBBS: No, I'm...

LOVEN: The deficit's giant. $100 million really is only a step.

GIBBS: But no joke.

LOVEN: You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.

GIBBS: I'm not making jokes about it. I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

LOVEN: The point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.

TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule -- $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that...

GIBBS: Well, in terms of -- in...(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: ...$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?

In the grand scheme of things, with the earmarks included in this budget in the billions, Obama should be telling those members of Congress and the Senate to start eliminating earmarks post-haste. A primary example would be Senator Diane Feinstein (CA-D), requested $25 billion for a firm that awarded a contract to her husband. It’s only money, taxpayers money, and the taxpayers are fed up with both parties abuse of the public trust – from bumbling Barney Frank (D-MA) and Mortgage Mogul Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) mismanagement of financials, to Harry Reid’s high speed train from Vegas to Disney; the never ending list of earmarks reads like a monopoly game run amok.
The Tea Party’s held across the country on April 15th, may have given, Obama advisor and Political Kingmaker (Duval Patrick Governor (D-MA) and Barack Obama), David Axelrod the “hebbie jebbies” –

Axelrod was asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" about the "spreading and very public disaffection" with the president's fiscal policies seen at the "Tea Party" rallies around the country last week.
"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," Axelrod said.

One has to wonder how Mr. Axelrod, and his friends at what has become known as MSDNCby conservatives, will react when the Tax Day Tea Party takes to the road in a planned March on Washington DC on September 12. (suggested – road trip) Permits have been secured, and this grassroots organization which managed to mobilize an estimated 800,000 non-violent protesters on April 15th, will send another message to Washington regarding fiscal responsibility, or the lack thereof. Freedom Works, a Washington based Conservative Think Tax, has an outstanding Board of Directors, including Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine and former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey. There is a link on the website homepage which allows one to sign-up for the March in September (suggested). It might be interesting to see the next Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Missive, naming publishers, investors, and former House Speakers as possible domestic terrorist, right along with those dangerous pro-life Christians.

A side note: The Tax Day Tea Party’s that were held across the nation were organized by several groups, Freedom Works being one of the most prevalent sponsors. The events were bi-partisan and included individuals from all parties. For enthusiastic coverage of the Chicago Tea Party Event visit; Hillbuzz.org, a moderate Democrat blog.