Hamas, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and problematic DC positions

Editor’s Note – Caroline Glick’s columns appear frequently in the Jerusalem Post and other publications. It is an honor to count her among the many close friends of both General Vallely and the Stand Up America family.

Hamas and the Washington establishment

By Caroline Glick


To date, the Republican presidential primary race has been the only place to have generated any useful contributions to America’s collective understanding of current events in the Middle East. Last month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich became the first major political figure in more than a generation to pour cold water over the Palestinian myth of indigenous peoplehood by stating the truth, that the Palestinians are an “invented people.”

Newt Gingrich describing the "Invented People" - Palestinians

As Gingrich explained, their invention came in response to Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement. Since they were created somewhere around 1920, the Palestinians’ main purpose has not been the establishment of a Palestinian state but the obliteration of the Jewish state.

For his truth telling, Gingrich was attacked by fellow politicians and policy hands on both sides of the ideological divide. To his credit, Gingrich has not backed away from the truth he spoke. Rather he has repeated it in two subsequent Republican candidates’ debates.

The second important contribution that Republican presidential candidates have made to the discourse on the Middle East was undertaken by Texas Gov. Rick Perry during a candidates’ debate in South Carolina on January 17, shortly before he pulled out of the race. When asked about Turkey, Perry said that country “is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.” He went on to say that the US ought to be having a debate about whether Turkey should continue to serve as a member of NATO.

Like Gingrich, Perry was pilloried by all right thinking people in the US foreign policy elite. And like Gingrich, Perry was right. The hoopla his statement generated showed just how destructive so much of America’s received wisdom about the Middle East has become. Moreover, it demonstrated the extent to which the US has adopted Middle East policies that are inimical to its national interests.

After Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January 2006, Turkey was the first country to invite Hamas’s terror master Khaled Mashal to Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan’s move provoked criticism from the Bush administration. But Erdogan just shrugged it off. And he was right to do so. By 2006, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had come to view Erdogan as the US’s indispensable ally in the Muslim world. As she saw it, he was proof that Islamist parties could be democratic and moderate.

The fact that Erdogan embraced Hamas could not get in the way of Rice’s optimistic assessment. So, too, the fact that Erdogan embarked on a systematic campaign to stifle press freedom, curb judicial independence and imprison his political critics in the media and the military could not move Rice from her view that Erdogan personified her belief that moderate jihadists exist and ought to be embraced by the US.

Rice’s starry-eyed view of Erdogan set the stage of US President Barack Obama’s even stronger embrace of the increasingly tyrannical Turkish Islamist. Since Obama took office, not only has Ankara stepped up its support of Hamas, and ended even the pretense of a continued strategic alliance with Israel that it maintained during the Bush years. Turkey began serving as Iran’s chief diplomatic protector while vastly expanding its own strategic and economic ties with Tehran.

Turkey's Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan and President Barrack Obama

In the face of Turkey’s openly anti-American behavior and actions, Obama clings to Erdogan even more strongly than Rice did. Obama reportedly views Erdogan as his most trusted foreign adviser. According to the media, Obama speaks with Erdogan more often than he speaks to any other foreign leader. In a recent interview with Time magazine, Obama listed Erdogan as one of the key foreign leaders with whom he has formed a friendship based on trust.

Over the past few weeks, Turkey has emerged as Hamas’s largest financier. During an official visit in Turkey, Hamas’s terror master in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh received a hero’s welcome. Erdogan pledged to finance the jihadist movement to the tune of $300 million per year.

COMMENTATORS CLAIM that Turkey’s sponsorship of Hamas was necessitated by Iran’s abandonment of the terror group. Iran, it is claimed, cut Hamas off in August due to the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood’s refusal to actively assist Iran’s other Arab client – Syrian President Bashar Assad – in massacring his domestic opponents.

These analyses are problematic for two reasons. First, it is far from clear that Iran cut Hamas off. Iran’s rulers have invited Haniyeh to Tehran for an official visit. This alone indicates that the mullahs remain committed to maintaining their relationship with the jihadist movement that controls the Gaza Strip.

And why would they want to cut off that relationship?

By serving as Hamas’s chief sponsor since 2006, Iran has won enormous credibility in the Arab world. This credibility has bought Tehran influence with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and beyond. Particularly now, with the Brotherhood taking over Egypt and much of the Arab world, Iran would only stand to lose by cutting off Hamas.

The second problem with these assessments is that it makes little sense to believe that Turkey has replaced Iran as Hamas’s main state sponsor since Iran and Turkey are not necessarily competing over Hamas. Given the interests shared by Tehran and Ankara, it is far more reasonable to assume that they are coordinating their moves regarding Hamas.

Iran became Hamas’s chief financier and weapons supplier the same year that Erdogan emerged as Hamas’s most important political supporter. And in the six years since then, Iran and Turkey have become strategic allies. Even with regards to Syria, the fact that Assad remains in power today is due in no small measure to the fact that Erdogan has used his influence over Obama to ensure that the US has remained on the sidelines and so effectively supported Assad’s survival.

In light of Erdogan’s enormous influence over leaders in both US parties, it is little wonder that Perry’s factual statement about the nature of the Turkish government and the need for the US to reassess its strategic alliance with Turkey provoked such an across the board outcry. Erdogan’s close relationship with Obama – like his previously close relationship with Rice – renders it well nigh impossible for US government officials and inside-the Beltway “experts” to make the kind of commonsense assessments of Turkey’s counterproductive regional role that an outsider like Perry was able to make from his perch in Austin, Texas.

CONTRARY TO what several leading commentators have argued since the onset of the Syrian popular rebellion against Assad, Hamas has not been seriously damaged by the events. True, its leaders are looking for a new place to station their headquarters. But there is no law that requires terrorist organizations to have one central office. The families of Hamas’s leadership have decamped to Jordan. Hamas leaders have close relations with the Qataris – who remain major funders – as well as with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Sudanese regime.

Hamas Leader - Khaled Mashal

In addition to these state supporters, through its relations with Turkey and Fatah, Hamas has Washington as well. To understand how Washington acts as Hamas’s protector, it is necessary to consider not only the corrosive impact of Washington’s relations with Turkey, but also the nature of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Since its inception in 1993, the peace process has been predicated on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians. To the extent that Israel makes concessions, the peace process is seen as advancing. To the extent that Israel fails to make concessions, the peace process is seen as collapsing. True, at certain times, the Bush administration blamed the Palestinians for the failure of the peace process, but the blame owed to the fact that Palestinian terrorism made Israel less amenable to concession making.

Palestinian terrorism was not in and of itself blamed for the demise of the peace process. Rather it was perceived as the means through which Israel avoided making more concessions. And at certain times, the US supported Israel’s avoidance of concession making.

Since Israeli concessions to the Palestinians are the only tangible component of the peace process, the US, as the chief sponsor of the peace process, requires the Palestinian Authority – run by Fatah – to be accepted as a credible repository for Israeli concessions regardless of its actual nature. Consequently, despite Fatah’s two unity deals with Hamas, its sponsorship of terrorism, its incitement of terrorism, its refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist, its adoption of negotiating positions that presuppose Israel’s demise, and its conduct of political warfare against Israel, neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration ever showed the slightest willingness to consider ending their support for the PA.

If Israel has no peace partner, then it can’t make concessions. And if it can’t make concessions, there is no peace process. And that is something that neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration was willing to countenance.

It is true that under Obama the US has become far more hostile towards Israel than it was under Bush. The most important distinction between the two is that whereas George W. Bush sought to broker a compromise deal between the two sides, Obama has adopted Fatah’s negotiating positions against Israel. As a consequence of Obama’s actions, the peace process has been derailed completely. Fatah has no reason to compromise since the US will blame Israel no matter what. And Israel has no reason to make concessions since the US will deem them insufficient.

Condoleezza Rice and Recip Tayyip Erdogan

Noting this distinction, Washington Post commentator Jennifer Rubin wrote this week that for the benefit of the peace process, it is important for a Republican administration to be elected to replace Obama in November. As she put it, “If history is any guide, progress is made in the ‘peace process’ when the Israeli prime minister operates from a position of strength and has the full support of the US president. We might get there, albeit not until 2013.”

The problem with her analysis is that it is of a piece with the insiders’ attacks on Gingrich and Romney alike. That is, it is based on the false assumptions of the peace process and the generally accepted wisdom embraced by the American foreign policy elite on both sides of the aisle that the PA is a reasonable repository for Israeli concessions.

Here it is worth noting that this week Fatah-controlled PA TV aired a sequence venerating the murderers of the Fogel family. Udi and Ruth Fogel and their children Yoav, Elad and Hadas were brutally murdered in their home last March.

Fatah’s glorification of their murderers is yet further proof that the foundations of the peace process are false. Peace cannot be based on appeasing societies that uphold mass murderers as role models. It can only be based on empowering free societies to defeat societies that embrace murder, terror and in the case of Hamas, genocide.

And this brings us back to the Republican primaries and Gingrich’s and Perry’s statements. For the US to secure its interests in the Middle East, it requires leaders who are willing to reassess what passes for common wisdom on both sides of the aisle.

Media vetting – Ignore this one, attack that one

Editor’s Note – Why are Newt Gingrich’s love affairs and marriages germane to the election process? What grades did George W. Bush earn at Yale University? Why did Dan Rather throw away his career to show that he believed Bush had lied about his armed services career? Why is it important to pick apart one candidate, often to the point of absurdity, only to allow another to walk by unmolested?

The answer is obvious, the vetting process is broken, or better said, it is not a vetting process, its a vested interest process.

Obama has been President for over three years now, and we still do not know what this “very intelligent” man earned for grades at Occidental or Harvard. If Newt Gingrich’s birth father, Newton Searles McPherson, or his adoptive father, Robert Gingrich were not citizens of the USA, would the media be all over the “Natural Born” issue that Obama supporters just ignore as trivial?

Why also, by extension, has the media generally ignored the fact that Obama and his legal team just told a Georgia Court to “talk to the hand”? A person who seeks the employment only the voter can secure for him, the candidate for the job has the duty to provide ALL pertinent data and facts. Apparently, information about Obama is unnecessary.

Talk to the hand! We don't need any vetting process, we have the press!

Ex-CIA Operative: Obama Never Properly Vetted

By Kent Clizbe


As an executive recruiter, I provided a 100 percent guarantee to my clients. When my candidate showed up for the interview, that candidate was ready, willing, and able to do the job. However, the most crucial step was vetting the candidate.

The candidate provided references and signed releases to allow me to obtain records of his education, citizenship, criminal history, civil court actions, and other documents.

As a CIA case officer, I dealt with people of dubious backgrounds, making outrageous claims, in search of solutions to their problems. I had to assess their personalities, motivations, and the basics of their story. Were they who they said they were? Did they have access to what they claimed?

This process relied on my street smarts, people skills, and assessment abilities. I was successful, because I ran operations like a business — with results required.

Meeting and developing a relationship with a potential espionage agent requires the same care as recruiting a computational linguist for a Silicon Valley start-up, but the stakes are much higher. Not in monetary terms, but for the security of our country. Lives are at stake.

Placing a candidate who lies about his education with a commercial client would damage both my pocketbook and my reputation. Recruiting an espionage agent who works for an enemy intelligence service could be deadly.

The consequences of faulty vetting can be devastating — seven CIA employees paid with their lives in December 2010 when a “vetted” candidate killed himself and his CIA case officer in Afghanistan.

Assessing personalities and detecting deception are two skills that have been profitable — monetarily, and in fighting terrorists and enemies. Vetting and validation of candidates is a difficult and unrewarding process. But on-going vetting and validation of the bona fides of candidates is a must, if you are serious about your reputation, or the security of your country.

Vetting candidates for political office makes vetting espionage agents, or dot-com engineers, look like child’s play. The damage a liar or enemy infiltrator can do to our country is potentially astronomical.

In the 2010 congressional elections, I vetted a tea party candidate without his cooperation. The issues I identified should have disqualified him. Besides lying about his degree, and exaggerating his work in the private sector, there were unanswered questions with the candidate’s long record of military service. As is typical with those caught covering up the truth, the candidate went on the attack.

The stakes for vetting a candidate for president of the United States make any other kind of vetting work seem silly. If a liar, or faker, or cheat was to make it into the White House our constitutional system could be at risk.

In my experience, a valid candidate, with nothing to hide, is eager to help in the vetting process. From providing full details of his/her personal and professional background, to revealing deep personal issues, a valid candidate works with those doing the vetting.

In the 2008 presidential election, candidates were vetted by the press in varying degrees. The media examined, analyzed, and publicly evaluated them. They explored in detail John McCain’s personal wealth, marriage, place of birth, mental stability, and other important issues. McCain cooperated, provided documents, and answered questions.

On the other hand, Barack Obama’s background remains nearly a blank slate. His school records, from kindergarten to law school, remain hidden. The story of his financial support is hidden — his private elementary and high school in Hawaii, his international travel, his graduate and undergraduate tuition and living expenses, and more. And these are just the beginning of the Barack Obama vetting failure.

My extensive research into the espionage operations of the Communist International (Comintern), detailed in Willing Accomplices, familiarized me with their techniques. One of their most common tactics when responding to exposure is so pervasive that it could be their motto: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counteraccusations.

For a professional vetter, it is clear that one candidate in 2008 was concealing vital information, at best. The documents and stories floated to support the candidate’s claims only raise more suspicion.

The most disturbing aspect of attempts to vet the mystery candidate was the Obama camp’s vigorous response. Their stereotypical response is nearly as damning as any information that could be revealed: Admitting nothing, denying everything, and making counteraccusations, the vetting of candidate Obama continues.

Do we need a professional candidate vetter? It looks like the project may have just begun. The future of our country might depend on it.


Kent Clizbe, a former CIA covert case officer, is a professional vetter. From spies to computational linguistics engineers he has successfully vetted scores of valid candidates, and exposed many lying candidates. His upcoming book, “Willing Accomplices,” explores how the KGB used covert influence to destroy American exceptionalism and create Political Correctness and Progressive politics.”!

New Nationwide FEMA Camps Should Raise Eyebrows

By Alan P. Halbert

American Thinker

Of all the rumors flying around on the internet, one just refuses to die, and it concerns America’s FEMA camps.

In a nutshell, there seems to be a solicitation of bids occurring for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours of implementation by an order from either Homeland Security or the president. This situation begs to be investigated, with special consideration paid to the motives of the present administration.

I went to the source, the FedBizOpps.gov, and searched for the solicitation number HSFEHQ-10-R-0027, titled National Responder Support Camp.

A search of the history of the amendments to this Solicitation for Contract showed that it had been modified several times, with the last modification — number 0008, with an original date of letting out to bid with a synopsis of May 13, 2011 — occurring on December 16, 2011. This last modification rescinded the solicitation, with said modification’s purpose noted as follows:

  1. Cancel Solicitation HSFEHQ-10-R-0027.
  2. A new draft solicitation will be issued on January 2012 for industry comment.
  3. A Pre-Solicitation Conference will be held approximately two week post draft solicitation.

Okay…score one for the internet and the vigilant citizens who perform an invaluable service to our nation by monitoring the actions of our government and its various agencies.

I began the laborious task of reading the Invitation to Bid — this tome is 116, pages with many canned and boilerplate requirements for doing business with Uncle Sam duly enshrined amongst the pages. The Task Order Request (TOPR) under Scenario I & II under Section J of the Appendix made for another 42 pages. The required size of the camps was fluid, though they had the required capacity of 301 to two thousand, including security and camp cadre.

The staffing requirements or cadre for FEMA personnel for these camps — which are identified as being located in five (5) distinct regions throughout and within the borders of the USA, with camps located in each and every state — was three to fifteen each. The size of these camps will vary around 5 acres per 1,000 inhabitants, though they will never be less than 3 acres for populations of 500 or fewer inhabitants within the camps’ boundaries.

This requirement also had a minimum square footage for each inhabitant: either the camp’s cadre and first responders of 63 square feet, or approximately 8 feet on each side. This is slightly less than current Federal Court(s) requirements for housing prisoners, which is approximately 72 square feet. Perimeter fencing or barricades is required to be six feet high, enclosing the camp, with all traffic in or out to be recorded on a daily log and with security restricting all traffic and access. The contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are “off limits” to occupants. ID Badges are required and are either blue or red, depending on the carrier is temporary or considered an occupant of the camp.

The first of several anomalies in the solicitation for bid was in the contractor staffing requirements, which puzzlingly required staff to be fully operational within 72 hours. Furthermore, “[w]henever practical, displaced citizens will be given the first opportunities for employment within the camp, assuming skills and capabilities are pertinent for the open positions.”

This led me to question the stated purpose of these camps, considering that the successful contractor would need to have personnel ready to go on such short notice, with notification from FEMA, Homeland Security, or the president within 72 hours. So the question arises: how could the camp utilize “displaced citizens” in the initial staffing unless the contractor knew where and when a disaster, man-made or otherwise would occur beforehand?

Another anomaly was the requirement that the “off limits” area was to be enclosed before anything else:

The contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are “off limits” to occupants. Fencing and barricades are required within 36 hours for “phased” setup timeframes, and 72 hours for the rest of the initial setup timeframe.

Next question: just what is this “off limits” area to be used for, since the bid proposal specified only two (2) classes of occupants of the camp — temporary or occupant as first responder? Furthermore, it indicates that there may be a camp within the camp, or an area that is to be utilized by another group that is not revealed in the bid solicitation…your guess is as good as mine. Most Americans would not like the ambiguity of this area’s function!

Another question arose on the Term of the Contract (F.3), which reads as follows:

The contract shall be effective as of the execution date of the base contract, and shall continue up to five years if all four one-year options are exercised, except that delivery orders placed prior to the expiration date shall remain in full force and effect until deliveries have been completed and payments, therefore, have been made. The final delivery order shall not exceed two years.

The nature of the duration seems to belie a long-term use for these camps, which is also not fitting the transitory nature of natural disasters, with most communities being habitable again after a relatively short period of time. We’re talking months, not years.

Under the Principal Place of Performance (F.4), this solicitation implies that all of the areas outlined below must be staffed:

The effort required under this contract shall be performed in the United States. Task Orders will designate the exact locations where services will be provided. The five (5) areas of coverage are broken down as follows:

  • Area 1: Includes the states of CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA, VT, NY, WV, VA, RI
  • Area 2: Includes the states of KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, FL
  • Area 3: Includes the states of CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, OH, SD, UT, WI, WY
  • Area 4: Includes the states of AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
  • Area 5: Includes the states of AZ, CA, ID, NV, OR, WA

The language is specific in that all requirements are performed in the United States. However, the language does not specify that it would be a phased approach or even a localized area that experiences a natural disaster — simply the entire nation.

In the Task Order Proposal Request, there is a specific requirement for large vehicle parking:

Special Requirements:

  • Outsized Vehicle Parking within Security Area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate required space and add to acreage requirement.
  • Outsized vehicle parking outside security area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate required space and add to acreage requirement.
  • Mission Support Work Area(s): Minimum square footage, Accessibility

These requirements suggest that the type of vehicle(s) will be either solely high-occupancy (i.e., buses) or large trucks or heavy equipment combined with buses. The interesting point about this section is that the authors allude to a “Security Area” and an “Unsecured Area” with no specific requirements coming forth.

To sum up: the solicitation to bid for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours is a curious proposition, since it appears to predict a calamity that will affect the entire nation simultaneously –completely unlike a location-specific natural disaster.

This may be nothing more than a preparedness exercise by Homeland Security to see if anyone besides the military would be able to meet these stringent requirements for rapid deployment. However, what I found most striking was the “off limits” areas within each camp and staffing with “displaced persons” and the “Mission Support Work Area(s),” all undefined. As citizens, we need to know the exact purpose of these camps, given President Obama’s propensity to bend our constitutional republic to his own purposes!

History/Civics Lessons vs. Rhetoric on the Campaign Trail

By SUA Staff

Edited by Scott W. Winchell

In this election year, and the several before it dating back to the elections of 2008, America has suffered from one economic/banking/financial disaster after another and blame has been a central theme in both election cycles and the intervening years.

At the end of the Bush administration, the housing market and financial institutions hit a brick wall and as is so human to do, blame was cast squarely on Bush’s head, and has been ever since.

The Obama campaign of 2008 took the lead and blamed the Bush administration, Wall Street greed, and the rich “fat cats” of the Republican Party and its cronies. Though it is common to blame the President for a failed economy, or to earn the accolades of a good run, it is however disingenuous because the President does not set the budget, Congress does.

There may be a lot of wrangling, or Presidential pressure placed on the process, it is in fact, the Congress that sends the budget to the Oval Office for a signature from the President making it the law of the land.

"Honest Leadership" - The new definition for obfuscation, blame, mis-information, campaign rhetoric, class warfare, do-nothing Congress.

Additionally, the crash had roots as far back as 1977 in the Carter Administration, yet it is and was Bush, and now the so-called “do nothing Congress” that Obama is continuing to blame.

Even three years into his Presidency, Obama still does not claim ownership of anything, including his own failures. Those are Bush’s as well as the recent Congress’s.

In recent months, a letter has been floating about the internet pointing out the fallacious arguments that the “blame Bush crowd” continues to spew and is posted here at Daily Kos and below.

The reason it is posted there and on Scopes.com is because those who posted it want to be able to shoot down the arguments with the help of their liberal friends.

So we at SUA decided to help them, unfortunately for their endeavor, facts abound, so we took the letter and dissected it. The letter is listed below, but we want you to see how it is based, and why it is a very different story than the sound bites we hear continuously from his campaign and the talking heads at places like MSNBC.

First, one must ask, How did this all happen, what were the events and people who contributed to our near demise.

There is an article at the Guardian from 2009 describing the 25 people who had the biggest hand in the failures, but some of the facts are missing there as well, and their conclusions are a tad biased so we recommend reading all citations for the full picture.

Then, re-read the letter and judge for yourself.

We found the following facts to back up the letter at Soda Head and the Daily Kos which was derived from the report compiled by the Professional Risk Managers International Association:

(KEY – Blue = Democrat action, Red = Republican action, Green = Other actions and outcomes. Then, take a brief moment to look at the power structure of the periods in question and the rules they must oblige, below the list.)

    1. 1977: Jimmy Carter (D) signs the Community Reinvestment Act, guaranteeing home loans to low-income families.
    2. September 14, 1993 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs NAFTA bill, killing US jobs
    3. December 08, 1994 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs GATT, killing US jobs
    4. September 03, 1998, HUD publishes report damning FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE for not lending home loans to unqualified blacks and Mexicans. EEOC charges that FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE create “hostile” work environment toward blacks.
    5. 1999: Bill Clinton (D) puts the CRA on steroids, pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the number of sub-prime loans to 45% of their total.
    6. March 02, 2000, Franklin D. Raines (Democrat) chairman of FANNIE MAE pledges to open lending to unqualified blacks and Mexicans.
    7. October 10, 2000, Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000, killing US jobs
    8. April 2001, Bush administration raised red flags over massive low-documentation loans by FNMA
    9. September 30, 2002, African-American Safiyyah Rahmaan, (Democrat) sues FANNIE MAE for not lending to enough unqualified blacks.
    10. September 10, 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow (Republican) recommends to the House Financial Services Committee to impose controls on FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Barney Frank (Democrat) and Maxine Waters (Democrat) object to controls.
    11. October 2003, less than a month later, Fannie Mae disclosed 1.2 billion dollars in “accounting errors”
    12. November 2003, Bush Administration increases warnings of toxic loans made by FANNIE MAE.
    13. December 21, 2004, Franklin Raines (Democrat) resigns from FANNIE MAE.
    14. February 2005, Bush budget plan exposes potential disaster from FANNIE MAE loans.
    15. February 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan recommends limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
    16. April 6, 2005, Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat) refutes placing limits on FANNIE MAE.
    17. June 2005, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Samuel Bodman (Republican) warns of risks caused by FANNIE MAE lending to unqualified lenders.
    18. April 2006, Goldman Sachs sold $494 million of securities on toxic FANNIE MAE loans.
    19. May 25, 2006, Senator John McCain (Republican) warns of risks of slack limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
    20. August 2007, Bush (Republican) asks Congress to put through limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
    21. December 2007, Bush (Republican) warns Congress to hurry limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
    22. March 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
    23. April 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
    24. April 2008, Goldman Sachs donates $1,000,000 to Obama campaign.
    25. April 2008, AIG donates $630,000 to Obama campaign.
    26. April 2008, Morgan Stanley donates $485,823 to Obama campaign.
    27. May 03, 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
    28. May 19,2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
    29. May 31, 2008, Bush (Republican) makes radio address warning Congress to pass limits on FANNIE MAE.
    30. June 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
    31. July 2008, Congress finally passes a reform bill on FANNIE MAE lending.
    32. November 4, 2008, Barrack Obama elected president.
    33. December 18, 2008, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducts further hearings into FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC.
    34. February 17, 2009, Barrack Obama (Democrat) signs bailout program.
    35. March, 2009, AIG reports $62,000,000,000 loss.
    36. April 2009, Goldman Sachs reports $780,000,000 loss.
    37. April, 2009, Morgan Stanley reports $1,300,000,000 loss.
    38. American taxpayers get stuck with over $787,000,000,000 in bailouts.

The Power of the Congress

To understand the spending and regulation process, one must go back to the basics and refer to our founding documents and the Constitution to see who actually has the power of the purse and rule, so perhaps another civics lesson is in order. The way the Federal Government collects and spends revenues and sets taxes and rules (other clauses not germane excluded here) is listed below, directly quoting the Constitution:


Article I – The Legislative Branch

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Section 9 – Limits on Congress

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.


Amendment 16 – Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


It is that simple, yet, for the past three years, a period in excess of 1,000 days, the Senate has failed to pass a budget. It also important to understand that the debt compiled by the United States prior to this period is indeed a product of the Congresses of each prior two year period. Since there has been no budget, a series of continuing resolutions have been brought forth, including raising the debt ceiling numerous times to keep the government operating.

It is also important to understand who, or what group has been in power during the periods since January of 2007, the year before the financial melt down, now threatening every nation on earth. Lets take a look at the make-up of our government at the time and through today, and who was in charge or control:

109th Congress (January 2005 – January 2007)

  • House of Representatives (Republican) – Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) Illinois
  • Senate (Republican) – Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) Tennessee
  • President during Session 1 (2005) – George W. Bush (Republican)
  • President during Session 2 (2006) – George W. Bush (Republican)

110th Congress (January 2007 – January 2009)

  • House of Representatives (Democrat) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) California
  • Senate (Democrat) – Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) Nevada
  • President during Session 1 (2007) – George W. Bush (Republican)
  • President during Session 2 (2008) – George W. Bush (Republican)

111th Congress (January 2009 – January 2011)

  • House of Representatives (Democrat) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) California
  • Senate (Democrat) – Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) Nevada
  • President during Session 1 (2009) – Barack H. Obama (Democrat)
  • President during Session 2 (2010) – Barack H. Obama (Democrat)

112th Congress (January 2011 – January 2013)

  • House of Representatives (Republican) – Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) Ohio
  • Senate (Democrat) – Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) Nevada
  • President during Session 1 (2011) – Barack H. Obama (Democrat)
  • President during Session 1 (2012) – Barack H. Obama (Democrat)

Note – Presidents serve from January 20th of the year after they are elected the previous November, and serve through that date after the November election in their fourth year. The new session of each Congress begins in the first week of the year, and in Presidential election years is seated prior to the inauguration of each President also in the first week of January.


George W. Bush, in his first term (2001-2004), enjoyed his party’s control of both houses of Congress for four years in the 107th and 108th Congresses.

Due to the mid-term election in November 2006, the control of both houses of Congress changed from Republican to Democrat with the rise of Harry Reid to Majority Leader of the Senate in 2007, and Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House, also in 2007 . Therefore, President Bush no longer had the pleasure of his party being in control of the Congress for his final two years of his second term.

Harry Reid has been in charge of the Senate since January 3, 2007 through today (In his sixth year). Nancy Pelosi (after 4 years) was supplanted by John Boehner when control of the House changed with the November 2010 mid-term election. President Obama, elected in 2008, had enjoyed his party’s control of Congress for the first two years of his term only to see his party lose the House in the mid-term elections, by a wide margin, and he now only enjoys his party’s control of the Senate, though by a smaller margin.

Therefore, the Democrats have been in charge of the budget and all of Congress from January 3, 2007, through January of 2010, the last two years of Bush’s administration, and the first two years of Obama’s Presidency, and partially in his third and fourth years.


The Original Email Letter

This is just a History lesson. I am posting it to all regardless of party . It is history and nothing can change it.

The day the Democrats took over was NOT January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day…

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?


THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush…


Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.

Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,

and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

Arrogance – Courts, Governors, the public, the Campaign!

By Scott W. Winchell

It seems that arrogance is more important than truth, twisted statistics trump the truth, throwing enough mud at the wall until some of it sticks is better than the truth, and apparently, arrogant ignorance trumps all, especially when it relies upon and fuels the ignorance of the voting public.

Empty seats reserved for the Obama legal team - empty!

That is the story this week.

Arrogance – on full and obvious display!

A “State of the Union” speech where campaign rhetoric, replete with recycled talking points, and people used as campaign props sitting in the First Lady’s box was aired free of charge, coupled the next morning with an airport smack down of the Governor in Arizona, and today, complete disregard for a court hearing; arrogance is the rule of the day.

An arrogance that relies on ignorance, and the knee-jerk reaction to be arrogant despite the level of ignorance of understanding even the simplest law of the land.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points at President Barack Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. Brewer greeted Obama and what she got was a book critique. Of her book. The two leaders engaged in an intense conversation at the base of Air Force One?s steps. Both could be seen smiling, but speaking at the same time. Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer, a Republican, said: "He was a little disturbed about my book." Brewer recently published a book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," something of a memoir that describes her years growing up and defends her signing of Arizona?s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes. Brewer also handed Obama an envelope with a handwritten invitation for Obama to return to Arizona to meet her for lunch and to join her for a visit to the border. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

No matter the level of a court; any court in any state, no citizen has the right to ignore its mandates.

To ignore a legal order from a sitting justice, no matter what you think of the case, is something you do at your own peril, and in fact, it is text book contempt of court. This from the man who’s oath of office was to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Not just any citizen, and SUA does not argue his simple citizenship, but the chief law enforcement position in the United States chose to ignore the court that adjudicates questions and arguments about our most fundamental right, voting.

Today, President Obama, as ordered by Deputy Chief Justice Michael Malihi, presiding over the Administrative Law Court for the State of Georgia in Atlanta, did not appear, nor did his legal team. The reason for the ordered appearance, to face a challenge to his credentials that would enable his name to appear on a statewide ballot.

As a candidate, the onus is upon the candidate to manifestly demonstrate a positive, not a negative. This is not a criminal case and the duty is not on the people, but rather on the candidate since he is the one seeking office. Any voter can challenge that – its one of the most basic rights an American can exercize.

After several attempts to get the trial thrown out, subpoenas quashed, and a letter to the Secretary of State all failed, so what do they do – just do not show up!

This is most troubling on many levels, not the least of which is the manner in which challenges to his eligibility have been met with quite non-legal arguments, innuendo, mud-slinging, demagoguery, and dependence on confusing the people and the courts. Let’s not forget outright forgery ala “photo-shopping” and CGI games, its about his agenda, and nothing will stand in his way.

The letter below, sent to the court to declare they will not participate, from Obama attorney Michael Jablonski, continues to maintain the confusion in an effort to once again sweep the issue under the carpet.

Words have meaning, and they are important, no matter if its the word “is”, as was so famously argued by Bill Clinton in another court proceeding, or if the case is “just about sex”.

The words in the Constitution ALL have meaning and are not there for decoration, there is meaning to each and every one, and the words “Natural Born” are perhaps more important since the office of the President is the only one requiring a candidate to be such.

To see just how pervasive the ruse worked, just read some of the comments at the Atlanta Constitution Journal story on the subject, or watch the video of the Atlanta TV station covering the story. The Obama troop and its loyal minions have that certain ‘arrogant ignorance’ in full bloom.

Don’t damn us with the facts, or even do any homework on your own, just stand there and openly deride those who have. Be arrogantly ignorant, just like the current office holder.

Here is the letter from Jablonsky, below it is the response from the Secretary of State:


January 25, 2012

Hon. Brian P. Kemp

Georgia Secretary of State

214 State Capitol

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Secretary Kemp:

This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia – that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.

Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.

For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.

It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.

Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.

In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law…. As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.

All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).

The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.

We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.


Read the response to the letter from the Georgia Secretary of State here.