The Devil is in the Details of the State Department Budget

We have heard some Republicans say we would have been better off if Hillary won the nomination and become President.  Would we have been better off?  I don't think so plus she is also more energetic and has a real passion for her agenda.  Obama has more of a passion for basketball then he does anything else.  Even his wife from time to time has commented he can be kind of lazy.  When you have someone with an ideology like Obama, lazy is good.

Saw red when I saw that the Hillary State Department had requested $4.1B of our tax dollars in their budget for International Bodies including the 'Palestine' Embrascing UNESCO which is scheduled to get $79M which is $79M too much.  Then I remembered the relationship between Ms. Clinton Arafat's wife, Suha, so it shouldn't shock any of us.  Just a little reminder in case you may have forgotten:

On November 11, 1999, Hillary gave Suha Arafat, a hug and kiss following Suha's anti Israel speech where Ms. Clinton just sat there.

During the First Lady's recent visit to Israel, she sat silently only feet away as the wife of Yassir Arafat gave a speech accusing Israel of using poison to kill Palestinian women and children. Having heard what we now know was an accurate translation of these vile slanders, Hillary voiced no disagreement and moments later warmly embraced and kissed Suha Arafat. 

Less widely reported is that during this taxpayer-funded campaign trip, Mrs. Clinton told reporters she had "no comment" about whose capital Jerusalem should be, refusing to reaffirm a pro-Israel position she put in writing only weeks ago to Orthodox rabbis in New York.

Secretary of State Clinton has told Obama she will be leaving the State Department when a new Secretary of State is chosen and confirmed after Obama gets reelected.  Think we should make sure she doesn't get a chance to help pick her successor by electing a Republican like Rick Santorum who will appoint a new Secretary of State and who will stand up for American interests around the world and not bow to the Saudi king like Obama.

Obama's comments he made about the State Department budget are irritating to say the least:

“The Administration will advance the President’s vision of robust multilateral engagement as a crucial tool in advancing U.S. national interests, accomplished through our contributions to the
United Nations, peacekeeping operations and international organizations,” the White House said in an overview of the State budget request. 

“Our contributions enable U.S. participation in over 40 international organizations that maintain peace and security, promote economic growth, and advance human rights around the world.”

One thing is definite under a Santorum Administration as the State Department budget will be gone over with a fine tooth comb and American tax dollars will not be sent to agencies who work against us.  Think the United Nations is like a big black hole for US tax dollars.  Count me as part of the 'Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US' as our tax dollars are wasted on the UN being in NYC.  How many countries would allow an organization to have speakers who trash the country they are in when they speak?  Not many I bet.

Why does the US pays 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget, and more than 25 percent of its peacekeeping budget?  Then we learn that the State Department is only one of 17 agencies that help fund the UN and on top of that the US gives voluntary contributions to agencies of the UN.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) tracks overall U.S. contributions to the U.N. system. Its most recent report, released last June and covering FY2010, showed that the State Department was one of 17 government agencies that contributed to the U.N.

All total it looks like the US gives the UN and its agencies $11.7B, but we wouldn't be shocked if it is more  as some agencies try to hide the details.  Is this one of the reasons the Democrat Senate doesn't want to take up the budget for FY13 saying it was passed as part of an agreement before Christmas.  Please help take out the Democrat leadership in the Senate so once again both Houses of Congress will pass a budget. 

Administration Seeks $4.1 Billion for Int’l Bodies, Including ‘Palestine’-Embracing UNESCO

By Patrick GoodenoughFebruary 14, 2012 

(CNSNews.com) – The State Department budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes $4.1 billion for contributions to the United Nations and other international bodies. Among the intended recipients is the U.N’s cultural agency, which lost U.S. funding in FY2012 after it became the first U.N. agency to grant full membership to “Palestine.” 

The budget request released Monday includes $79 million for the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

UNESCO’s funding was cut last November in line with U.S. legislation that denies funds to any U.N. body “which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.” 

Thomas Nides, the State Department’s deputy secretary for management and resources, told a briefing Monday that President Obama wanted waiver authority that would allow the U.S. to continue supporting UNESCO in the future. 

“We have put the money in the budget, realizing that we’re not going to be able to spend the money unless we get the waiver – and we have made it clear to the Congress we’d like a waiver,” he said. 

Nides added that UNESCO does “a lot of enormously good work, and we’d like to make sure that we have a contribution commensurate with their work.”

Senior Republicans warned the administration last fall not to look for ways around the law. 

“Any effort to walk back U.S. law would send the damaging message that the U.S. will keep paying for U.N. bodies no matter what they do,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said at the time. 

While the State Department’s budget request for contributions to the U.N. and other international organizations is $4.1 billion, total funding for the U.N. system would be higher, since the State Department is not the only conduit of funding. 

(snip) 

Although State accounted for the largest share of the total by far, agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Labor and Health and Human Services also contributed to that year’s total expenditure for the U.N. – $7.69 billion. 

Congressional Republican are pushing legislation that would make U.S. funding to the world body contingent on far-reaching reforms. 

The U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act seeks a radical change in the way the U.N. is funded, allowing the U.S. and other member states to fund only those activities and agencies they regard as being well-run and in the national interest. 

(snip)

Apart from those “assessed” dues, the U.S. gives considerably more in “voluntary contributions” to various U.N. agencies. 

Excerpt:  Read More at CNS 

The fact we have "voluntary contributions" over and above the 22% of the UN budget the US provides makes us wonder if anyone has a solid number of how much we fund the UN from the 17 agencies.  Why does the US make "voluntary contributions?"  Here is the list of the larger ones which means there are even more smaller ones:

• $125 million for the U.N. Children’s Fund (Unicef) 
• $114.5 million for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 
• $111 million for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
• $109.4 million for the World Health Organization (WHO) 
• $88.3 million for the International Labor Organization (ILO) 
• $78.9 million for UNESCO 
• $67.2 million for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) 
• $39 million to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)

These are your tax dollars at work and we need a Congress and a President who will say NO to voluntary contributions and NO to the US funding so much of the UN expenses.  

NY Times goes after Obama on Campaign Finance -- Real Target the Republican Groups

First thought when I read this editorial from the NY Times was what happened to the Times? Then I clicked on the link and read the whole editorial -- some parts of it I couldn't believe they wrote in good conscience. For example:

A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley.

The Democrats, home of ACORN and SEIU voter fraud, are principled? That gave a laugh to start the morning. Voter fraud was rampant in 2008 led by ACORN with help from the SEIU, illegals were encouraged to register and vote Democrat, and in the 2008 Democrat primary, the Times would find even more fraud as Obama stole the election from Hillary Clinton. Guess the NY Times never bothered to watch the tapes of voter intimidation during the Democrat primary to keep Hillary voters from casting their vote. The Obama thugs stole the caucus system votes and why you saw Hillary winning the popular vote but had trouble in the caucus system where Obama had decided it was the easiest to fraud.

Here is another gem from the NY Times:

It is true that a group founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove has said it would raise $120 million for 2012, and another set up by the Koch brothers, conservative activists and industrialists, will raise at least $88 million. But Mr. Obama managed to raise the staggering sum of $750 million in 2008. And though he abandoned the public finance system to do it — possibly damaging it permanently — he at least disclosed all of his donors.

Read that carefully -- the NY Times is saying that Obama disclosed all his donors. Do they mean the ones that donated after security was turned off so that prepaid cards by the big donors could be used by small donor ACORN, SEIU members, and others or do they mean the overseas donations that with security turned off were able to come into Obama campaign war chest without tracking? How do they think he raised so much money? Maybe the NY Times thinks that money grew on trees in Obama's backyard.

Once you get passed the initial going after Obama who did change the way campaigns are financed after he double crossed McCain, you find it is nothing more than bashing Republicans Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers for using the same legal way to fund the 2010 campaign.

Why is the NY Times shocked that Obama will do whatever it takes to win no matter what he said in the past -- in fact whatever comes out of his mouth is subject to change as we have witnessed in the last week. He sat intently in the White House released photo watching the scene unfold in Bin Laden's hideout when there was no video. He didn't quit there, the man who they called in off the golf course when the mission was underway now takes full credit and said he was very tense for that 25 minutes. It sure makes you tense watching a mission you didn't order while watching a blank screen for the photo op.

Did the NY Times expect any less of Obama than NO transparency. For the entire time in office there has been no transparency starting with the CZARS along with having spin and lies as the standard for this Administration. Anything to make Obama look good is what seems to be the name of the game for the WH Staff and Obama news organizations like the NY Times.

Noted in the article that the Times believe all his has do to is tell these Democrats to stop with the fundraising and it will happen. Obama would never tell them to stop. In fact, we would bet this came out of his right hand person Valerie Jarrett. Everything he does is with an eye toward his political future. With this news, guess we might be willing to concede that the Soros huge amount money that funded a lot of Obama's campaign in 2004 for Senate and 2008 for President is off the table this time. Maybe George Soros isn't any happier with losing money on investments then most Americans.

NY Times slams Obama for turning blind eye to Dem outside group

By: Philip Klein 05/08/11 4:41 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

Last week, I reported that two former top aides in the Obama administration were forming an outside group to support Democrats, enabling them to raise the same sort of secret money that Obama once decried as a "threat to democracy." In an editorial today, the New York Times blasts Obama for not putting the kibosh on the group, Priorities USA, founded by Bill Burton, who served as deputy press secretary, and Sean Sweeney, who worked as Rahm Emanuel's chief of staff when Emanuel was working in the White House.

The Times editorializes:

If the president stood up and publicly told Mr. Burton to end his effort, that would probably be the end of it. But he has not done so. The White House is clearly worried it will have trouble collecting big checks from Wall Street and other business interests for the re-election campaign, and has decided the political end justifies the unsavory means. At the very least, he and other Democratic leaders could demand that the Priorities group raise its money through an affiliate, Priorities USA Action, which can collect unlimited funds but must disclose its donors.

A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley.

Read more at the Washington Examiner.com

The more we think about it, the more we are coming to believe that this NY Times editorial which slams Obama, calls the Democrats principled, and then goes after Republicans is going to be the meme for the Obama media in this 2012 Presidential campaign.

Secretary of Defense Gates on Odessey Dawn: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya

If there is no threat to the United States or its interests by Libya, why are we sending our military into the skies of Iraq as part of the UN Odessey Dawn?

There had been no plans to do a post today until Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC 'This Week' hosted this morning by Jake Tapper. Hard to believe they paid big bucks to the former CNN correspondent Christine Amanpour to host 'This Week'when Jake Tapper is so good and she is horrible as a host. Tapper should be doing the Sunday morning ABC show every week -- we would actually get the facts not spin and be willing to watch instead of waiting for what was said to come out. Don't want to start a Sunday morning off by watching Amanpour.

Why some people still push Hillary Clinton for President is beyond us and for anyone who needs reminded read her remarks this morning from 'This Week' which are highlighted in the Hot Air article below. She doesn't understand the Constitution or the War Powers Act (WPA) any better than Obama.

Constitutional division of War Powers:

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires there to be:

“(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”

before a President can send US military forces into a new conflict.

The WPA is pretty straight forward and we certainly don't see the wiggle room that Clinton has taken.  It is becoming more apparent that Clinton and Obama ignored not only the Constitution but the WPA rushing the United States into this conflict in Libya without consulting Congress. As reported earlier, Vice President Joe Biden as a Senator said that he would start impeachment against any President ignoring the WPA. Looks to us like Obama and Clinton need impeached after this fiasco in Libya ignoring the Constitutional duties and the WPA.

Clinton brags about the coalition the United States (Clinton) has put together but it is way smaller than WWII and half the size of the Bush Coalition on Iraq plus Bush spent six months getting Congressional approval before launching the strike on Iraq which is a huge difference than the Obama/Clinton days rush to war. Add to the fact that Obama launched the war effort while in Brazil by a recorded message and you have two people who are so far over their head in governing.

Obama and Clinton in this imperial administration are creating a very dangerous precedent and putting our military in harm's way without regard to Congress. A Republican President would have been aggressively attacked by the likes of Obama and Clinton when they were in the Senate for doing what those two have done.

Now we have the Secretary of Defense finally admitting there is no vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn was launched. Wonder if someday Gates, Obama and Hillary are going to admit that the rebels in Western Libya who they are supporting are members of Islamic Jihadists aligned with Al Qaeda? Clinton should have been the first to admit the fact since the State Department has the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed as a terrorist group in Libya. Why let a little detail like that stand in the way.

What started out this morning as a post about Gates and Clinton is now turning into much more. While researching the State Department Designated Terrorist Group, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), we discovered that the United States has probably been funneling arms to the rebels for sometime. Guess that little fact is the reason that Obama left the door open on arming the rebels. We also learned that On November 3, 2007, the LIFG was welcomed into Al Qaeda.  Since this LIFG is officially part of Al Qaeda so does that mean we are fighting alongside Al Qaeda now thanks to Obama and Clinton?

As mentioned earlier we are now learning that the United States has been funneling arms to this terrorist organization as they consider them rebels against Gadhafi. The CIA is really lame if they were involved in this operation because even the State Department website lists the LIFD as terrorists with known ties to Al Qaeda. The New American.com has a must read, well researched article about the LIFD:

The organization is officially on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. But according to countless news reports, the U.S. government has been covertly funneling arms to the Libyan rebels for weeks, via Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations.

Islamic extremists around the world have actually announced their support of the Libyan rebels as well. And as Raven Clabough pointed out in an article for The New American, a powerful coalition of leftist and globalist forces are also backing the war against Gadhafi’s regime.

The more I read from the article, the scarier all of this has become. Looks like Obama/Clinton got the United States involved in Libya on the side of Al Qaeda to oust Gadhafi. This whole effort in Libya to protect civilians makes no sense when Obama and others in Administration are saying they want Gadhafi taken out in favor of the rebels.  The UN Resolution specifically calls for civilians to be protected and forbids targeting of Gadhafi but Obama and Clinton seemed to be ignoring the UN Resolution as well. Was Gadhafi trying to rid Libya of Al Qaeda? We will probably never know the truth because we are sure not getting the truth from Obama or Clinton.

This excerpt from the The New American.com should make most Americans stop and ask the question, "What is the United States doing involved in Libya?"

The Obama administration’s UN-backed military intervention against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is aiding al-Qaeda, which, according to media reports citing high-level commanders in the terror group and Libyan rebel leaders, is deeply tied to the revolution. When the dust settles, the anti-American Islamic extremists could easily emerge as the new rulers of that nation, or at least a part of it. And al-Qaeda is already reportedly grabbing up  (see excerpt below) advanced military weaponry there. 

AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says.

Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion.

"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

Ironically, perhaps, Gadhafi has been claiming for weeks that al-Qaeda and drug use were responsible for the uprisings. "Bin Laden ... this is the enemy who is manipulating people," he told state television in late February. "Do not be swayed by bin Laden."

Most observers assumed the allegations were deliberate lies or the delusions of a madman trying to keep the reins of power. But it turns out that the claims of al-Qaeda involvement were at least partially correct.

The man identified in news reports as the leader of Libya’s rebellion, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, actually battled U.S. and coalition forces during the invasion of Afghanistan a decade ago. He was captured in 2002, handed over to U.S. authorities, and eventually released in Libya in 2008. Now, al-Hasidi, with U.S. and international air support, is supposedly leading the anti-Gadhafi revolution.

A Reuters report citing Qatar-based Gulf News said earlier this month — before Western intervention became official — that senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi released a videotaped message urging rebels in Libya to continue the battle. He also warned that failure to topple the Gadhafi regime would be unacceptable.

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Kaddafi for more than 40 years.... He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” the alleged terrorist leader said in the video. "Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”

The al-Qaeda leader also blasted the U.S. government and other Western regimes — now fighting the same battle he praised — for propping up dictatorships in the region. By press time, Gulf News was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the video posted on Jihadist websites.

More recently, Libyan rebel leader al-Hasidi, who fought U.S. troops in Afghanistan, offered another startling revelation. He admitted in an interview with an Italian newspaper that Islamic warriors from Libya, whom he had recruited to battle Western forces in Iraq, are now actually fighting alongside U.S. and international forces to help topple Kaddafi.

The Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled "Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,” quoted al-Hasidi as saying that his warriors "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists." He also praised al-Qaeda, saying they are “good Muslims ... fighting against the invader."

According to U.S. and British government sources cited by the paper, al-Hasidi is part of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The organization represents the second largest contingent of foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition forces.

Excerpt: Please read more details at The New American.com

Ed Morrisey's comments at Hot Air from the interview this morning on ABC by Jake Tapper with Gates and Clinton are very telling about how little Hillary Clinton regards the Constitution or the War Powers Act as she spins and lies:

Gates: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn
Ed Morrisey
Hot Air
March 27, 2011, 10:15 a.m.

Jake Tapper reminds ABC why they foolishly spent money on Christiane Amanpour last year for the anchor job on This Week with a tough joint interview of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Tapper asks Gates exactly what vital national interest the US has in Libya and what kind of imminent threat to our security Moammar Gaddafi posed at the beginning of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Gates says … none in either case:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

(snip)

Hillary felt the need to swoop to the rescue. She claimed that Obama didn’t need to go to Congress because this coalition is so darned multilateral:

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not go to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

Obviously, the Secretary of State has trouble with both math and the law. There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it. This coalition is the smallest since World War II involving the US in military action, only half the size of George W. Bush’s Iraq War coalition.

She also fails vocabulary test in her claim that the mission has a limited timeframe. Later, Gates says that no one knows how long this will drag on:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

"Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.

Excerpt: Read more at Hot Air

Tomorrow night you can tune in and watch Obama lie on his 'war' in Libya as he addresses the Nation. 

Hillary at the State Dinner

Can you imagine if she had become President?

Believe that is one of the ugliest dresses I have ever seen along with the necklace -- UGH.  Check out what Condi Rice, former Secretary of State, wore to a State Dinner -- Maybe Hillary needs a new designer and should check out where Condi purchased her gowns.





Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

WikiLeaks on Twitter said they released the documents to El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel, Guardian & NYT. Some websites are going after the NY Times but in this instance if they didn't release the information, foreign papers would have gone ahead without them. Looks like they worked together to release the information at the same time.  We believe the NY Times made a smart move to get the information out here in the States and not be filtered through foreign newspapers. Most of the documents released cover the last three years although a few are said to go back much earlier.

What a coincidence in that forty years ago Daniel Ellsberg who was a military analyst released the "Pentagon Papers" which sent shock waves through the military community and the White House.  We didn't believe those should have been released as he took an oath to never divulge security.  He broke that oath because he was part of the anti-war crowd who would do anything possible to embarrass the Government including breaking the law.

In late 1969 - with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague, Anthony Russo — Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of the classified documents to which he had access; these later became known as the Pentagon Papers. As an editor of the New York Times was to write much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance". They revealed that the government had knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed the government had lied to Congress and the public. (Wikipedia)

There is no excuse for someone getting these State Department documents and releasing them or the earlier documents on Afghanistan this summer or the "Pentagon Papers" all of which were released for some one's agenda with no thought to the harm it might cause. It is troubling that security can be broken that easily at the State Department  to allow access to documents that were classified for a reason. If this group, Wiki Leaks, founded by Julian Assange who is also their spokesman, didn't have someone on the inside at the State Department, would be shocked. We find it hard to believe that the person arrested for the original leak of documents from Afghanistan, Bradley Manning, US Army intelligence analyst who is being court martialed, would have access to the State Department documents.

The fact that this correspondence has been leaked doesn't speak well of the Department of State.  Cannot believe over the years what people have put in correspondence, but then most figured the documents were classified and would not be released. We agree with Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) that the greatest harm is the loss of trust by governments dealing with the United States. How many countries trust us anyway after the last few years with the Obama Administration? One thing the documents do show is that Obama was not interesting in furthering relationships with Europe but preferred to work with the Far East which should send chills up your spine.

"I think the greatest harm ... is the loss of trust that other governments will have in dealing with the United States of America," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told "Good Morning America" today. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange "is putting into danger our foreign policy and perhaps the lives of certain Americans around the world." (ABC News

Agree 100% with Senators Lyndsey Graham (R-SC) and Clare McKaskill (D-MO) that the leakers of these documents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Releasing classified documents is against the law, but will the Holder Department of Justice step in to help. Frankly the DOJ couldn't even win a case in civilian court against a terrorist so we have little faith they will do anything now.

Having worked around classified, find it so hard to believe that any organization would be so careless about their security. Think it is time to clean out the State Department and start over. For years leaks have been happening from the State Department against our own Department of Defense (DoD) as they did their power plays when they sensed that the DoD and National Security Advisor were getting more power.

The arrogance shown by many of our Secretaries of State has been mind boggling over the years. The people get that appointment and it goes to their head in most instances. Maybe if the Secretary of State would stay home more and concentrate on making the State Department a functional organization, we would be better off. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has logged countless miles on AF planes traveling around the world and what is there to show for all the travel? She doesn't even travel with the President on his foreign trips which is strange. Career diplomats who are firmly entrenched in the State Department hierarchy since the Carter years have not helped the perception of arrogance and power plays out of this group.

Leaking the material is deplorable," Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, told Fox News. "The people at WikiLeaks could have blood on their hands ... People who do this are low on the food chain as far as I'm concerned. If you can prosecute them, let's try."

His Democratic colleague Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri agreed with him and said she hoped "we can find out where this is coming from and go after them with the force of law". She added that "the people who do these document leaks need to do a gut check about their patriotism".

Representative Peter King of New York, a life-long supporter of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, called on Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to designate WikiLeaks a "Foreign Terrorist Organisation" outlawed in the US.

"WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. I strongly urge you to work within the Administration to use every offensive capability of the U.S. government to prevent further damaging releases by WikiLeaks," he said in a statement.

The Pentagon blasted WikiLeaks for its "reckless" dump of classified documents and said it was taking steps to bolster security of classified U.S. military networks. (London Telegraph

When reading the article from the NY Times, we are aghast at some of what was written. Anyone with an ounce of brains should know not to put some of these comments down on paper. These cables/messages speak poorly of the leadership at the State Department and in the Administration. Would fire Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat after this release of documents. Always thought she was over her head at the State Department and this proves that fact. We don't believe that Obama has the nerve to fire her over these leaks because he is afraid she will run against him for President.

Wonder who is going to be asked to fall on their sword for this failure of security?

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels
By SCOTT SHANE and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: November 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources, in the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

The disclosure of the cables is sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk. The statement noted that reports often include “candid and often incomplete information” whose disclosure could “deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world.”

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

Excerpt: Read More at NY Times

Hillary Clinton's Department of State Submits Report to UN Human Rights Commissioner Mentioning Arizona Law

UPDATE:  Click here for copy of Governor Brewer's letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
____________

Cannot fathom the anger that Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, Senator McCain, and the Legislature along with Arizona residents are feeling right now toward Obama, Hillary, and the State Department. To mention one of our States in a report to the United Nations on Human Rights is beyond despicable. This whole bunch of liberal, progressive Democrats have reached a new low.

"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

For those  who thought Hillary would make a better President than Obama, think again. She may turn out to be the worst Secretary of State to go along with Obama the worst President in modern times. She thinks nothing of signing our rights away to the UN or playing up to our enemies but then she did a good job of that as First Lady with Arafat's wife, Suha .   Following the terrorist speech of Suha Arafat where she accused Israel of poisoning Palestinians, Hillary gave her a hug and kiss.

It took Hillary Clinton a full 24 hours before she condemned parts of the speech. Who does she answer to now? Obama who also plays up to our enemies and disses our allies. Now we have this from the Hillary State Department talking about Arizona and human rights when the law specifically forbids racial profiling. Maybe if she took the time to read the law instead of wasting our tax dollars flying around the world, she would know what the Arizona Immigration Law says but then she might not be able to comprehend the meaning of 'prohibit' which is a wee bit longer the the word 'is' her husband used during his testimony on Monicagate.

It never stops with this group of wanna be dictators. Does Obama want the UN to decide so he can blame them. Hillary, being the 'world's smartest woman' according to her adoring media, missed the boat on this one as well as a lot of other items since becoming Secretary of State. Maybe the media needs to revise their 'world's smartest woman' mantra for Hillary.

Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law

By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 27, 10:57 pm ET
PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.

The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.

Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.

A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.

Excerpt:  Read More at Yahoo News

Hillary Clinton's U.S. State Department is Building .. Mosques?

Once again the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is wasting our tax dollars. This time it is on building or refurbishing Islamic Mosques which is actually against Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations which prohibits using USAID funds for “inherently religious activities." We would expect that an Islamic Mosque would fall in the "inherently religious activity" category but that doesn't seem to have stopped the State Department.

Has anyone seen an accounting of how our taxpayer dollars are being spent by Ms. Clinton at the State Department? Would bet a fairly high amount is spent on her pet projects like the Clintons did when they were in the White House. Trip to Africa comes to mind with the vast number of 'close' friends they took with them or their trip to China. Now that she is Secretary of State she can fund all kinds of projects like it is coming out of her checkbook, but it is our tax dollars. The Clintons have no more regard for our taxpayer dollars than the Obamas who are bankrupting this Country.

The next time you see a billboard with President Bush's face asking "Do you miss me yet?" feel free to say "YES!" We didn't always agree with some things he did like his plan for immigration, but we found him to be an honest man who believed in the inherent good of people. Problem is he extended that to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who like nothing better than to trash Pres Bush. Also missing former Secretary of State Condi Rice who understood foreign affairs versus the current SoS Clinton who just wants to pass out money and play up to our enemies.

Guess we shouldn't be shocked that the good friend of Arafat's wife, Hillary, is using State Department money to help build and refurbish mosques. Something to remember if Hillary decides to run for President again.

U.S. State Department is Building… Mosques
Posted by Candace de Russy Aug 12th 2010 at 2:24 am

What else is the State Department larding out, at hard-pressed taxpayers’ expense, to facilitate “understanding” with the Muslim world?


What else, that is, in addition to Ground-Zero-Mega-Mosque Imam Rauf’s likely fund-raising gig in five, oil rich countries?

Just as it has greatly, very greatly, disturbed 68% of you registered voters to learn of plans to build a $100 million dollar mosque financed perhaps by the very ones who underwrote the 9/11 slaughter, it will likely disturb you to learn that the State Department has been hard at work – on your dime – rebuilding of mosques in foreign countries.

The Washington Times reports:

In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers.

For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

By what lights is U.S. citizens’ money being used to preserve and advance Islam? What of First Amendment considerations about the use of public moneys for religious worship? Our government claims murkiness on these issues but nonetheless forges ahead in constructing mosque abroad:

In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

Casting uncertainty to the winds, our government proceeded to rebuild the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, in the anticipation of such benefits as “stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.”

But here’s the rub:

Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.”

The Times is right: “It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.”

Our taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promulgate Islam. Nor should it be spent on a tour for Rauf that endows him with both access and the U.S. stamp of approval.

Source: http://bigpeace.com/cderussy/2010/08/12/u-s-state-department-is-building-mosques/

Tax Dollars at Work: US State Department is Building ... Mosques

Once again the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is wasting our tax dollars. This time it is on building or refurbishing Islamic Mosques which is actually against Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations which prohibits using USAID funds for “inherently religious activities." We would expect that an Islamic Mosque would fall in the "inherently religious activity" category but that doesn't seem to have stopped the State Department.

Has anyone seen an accounting of how our taxpayer dollars are being spent by Ms. Clinton at the State Department? Would bet a fairly high amount is spent on her pet projects like the Clintons did when they were in the White House. Trip to Africa comes to mind with the vast number of 'close' friends they took with them or their trip to China. Now that she is Secretary of State she can fund all kinds of projects like it is coming out of her checkbook, but it is our tax dollars. The Clintons have no more regard for our taxpayer dollars than the Obamas who are bankrupting this Country.

The next time you see a billboard with President Bush's face asking "Do you miss me yet?" feel free to say "YES!" We didn't always agree with some things he did like his plan for immigration, but we found him to be an honest man who believed in the inherent good of people. Problem is he extended that to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who like nothing better than to trash Pres Bush. Also missing former Secretary of State Condi Rice who understood foreign affairs versus the current SoS Clinton who just wants to pass out money and play up to our enemies.

Guess we shouldn't be shocked that the good friend of Arafat's wife, Hillary, is using State Department money to help build and refurbish mosques. Something to remember if Hillary decides to run for President again.

U.S. State Department is Building… Mosques
Posted by Candace de Russy Aug 12th 2010 at 2:24 am

What else is the State Department larding out, at hard-pressed taxpayers’ expense, to facilitate “understanding” with the Muslim world?


What else, that is, in addition to Ground-Zero-Mega-Mosque Imam Rauf’s likely fund-raising gig in five, oil rich countries?

Just as it has greatly, very greatly, disturbed 68% of you registered voters to learn of plans to build a $100 million dollar mosque financed perhaps by the very ones who underwrote the 9/11 slaughter, it will likely disturb you to learn that the State Department has been hard at work – on your dime – rebuilding of mosques in foreign countries.

The Washington Times reports:

In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers.

For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

By what lights is U.S. citizens’ money being used to preserve and advance Islam? What of First Amendment considerations about the use of public moneys for religious worship? Our government claims murkiness on these issues but nonetheless forges ahead in constructing mosque abroad:

In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

Casting uncertainty to the winds, our government proceeded to rebuild the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, in the anticipation of such benefits as “stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.”

But here’s the rub:

Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.”

The Times is right: “It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.”

Our taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promulgate Islam. Nor should it be spent on a tour for Rauf that endows him with both access and the U.S. stamp of approval.

Source: http://bigpeace.com/cderussy/2010/08/12/u-s-state-department-is-building-mosques/

Hillary Clinton suffers ‘mis-speaking’ relapse with Belfast bomb claims (OOPS!)

What is so hard about the Obama Secretary of State being able to keep her stories straight? We have to wonder what she is telling foreign dignataries she meets if she cannot keep simple stories straight. What is her staff doing to provide background? Must not have learned how to do research on the Internet because it is not that difficult to do a little research.

Now we wonder about the stories we have heard from the Clintons over the years including all of her not remembering and finding things like the Rose Law Firm Records or her husband being present at all those church bombings that didn't happen during that time period. How do we know when she is telling the truth after this latest? Maybe that is the strategy to keep everyone guessing about both of their game plans -- continue to lie so you don't know what is fact or fiction.

19 October 2009

Hillary Clinton suffers ‘mis-speaking’ relapse with Belfast bomb claims
David Sharrock, Ireland Correspondent

Hillary Clinton has been caught out “mis-speaking” again in a manner that suggests that she hasn’t learnt from past experiences of her globe-trotting, “lily-gilding” speeches.

The US Secretary of State was exposed during her battle with Barack Obama to become the Democratic presidential nominee over her claims to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.

She was even described as “a wee bit silly” for claiming greater credit than was her due for the Irish peace process, having made several visits to Northern Ireland as First Lady.

She was back in Belfast last week, giving a gentle push to politicians dragging their heels over a final piece in the peace process jigsaw.

But according to the Sunday Life newspaper, during a speech she made to the Stormont parliament she said that Belfast’s landmark Europa Hotel was devastated by an explosion when she first stayed there in 1995.
The Europa, where most journalists covering the decades-long conflict stayed, was famed as Europe’s most bombed hotel, earning the moniker “the Hardboard Hotel”.

However, the last Provisional IRA bomb to damage the Europa was detonated in 1993, two years before President Clinton and his wife checked in for the night.

The last time the Europa underwent renovations because of bomb blast damage was in January 1994, 22 months before the presidential entourage booked 110 rooms at the hotel.

Mrs Clinton told assembled politicians at Stormont: “When Bill and I first came to Belfast we stayed at the Europa Hotel ... even though then there were sections boarded up because of damage from bombs.”

Excerpt: For Full Article See UK Times

Washington to tone down criticism of Russian human rights

What is America going to stand for after Obama and Clinton get finished? The Democrats attach a Hate Crimes Bill to the Defense Appropriation Bill and that is okay by their standards. When it comes to a Country like Russia, Iran, or China, human rights mean zero, zip, nada. Total hypocricy by Democrat elected officials.

At first we thought that Hillary would have made a better President then Obama but we no longer believe that the case. While Bill Clinton was moderate, his wife is nothing but a far left liberal. There is nothing even close to moderate or conservative about Hillary. Whoever came up with the smartest woman mantra needs to rethink their analysis just like saying Obama is so smart when no one has seen his records. Why are Democrats such a closed book and the media could care less?

This Administration didn't get it right on Honduras either -- Honduras followed THEIR constitution but that didn't make one bit of difference to dictator lovers Obama/Hillary. Both seem to have never met a dictator they didn't like.

Then we have the infamous picture of Hillary and SOHA Arafat, Yasser Arafat's wife which called into question which side the Clinton's were on -- Palestinians or Israel so she fits in just fine with the Obama Administration and their attacks on Israel:

Washington to tone down criticism of Russian human rights
Telegraph (U.K.)
October 14, 2009
Andrew Osborn

Washington will tone down its criticism of Russia's human rights record in order to win Kremlin backing for possible sanctions against Iran, it has been claimed.
It is the latest in a number of concessions the US has made to Moscow in order to improve relations and encourage co-operation on international issues.

The plan emerged as Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, visited Russia to discuss a range of issues including Iran's rogue nuclear programme.
Mrs Clinton's trip was part of what Washington is calling a "reset" with Moscow, a new more constructive relationship with the Kremlin that President Barack Obama wants to be based on pragmatism rather than the confrontation of the past.

But it is a policy that has stoked anxiety among Mr Obama's critics who fear Russia will accept concessions, including his decision to scrap a missile shield in Eastern Europe, without giving anything back. Critics also contend that it is a serious mistake to be anything but robust with Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, and believe that the Obama administration is showing alarming signs of going soft on Moscow.

Michael McFaul, Mrs Clinton's top Russia adviser, told Kommersant, an influential daily Russian newspaper, Washington was ready to dilute its criticism of Kremlin rights abuses.

"We have decided that we need a reset in this sphere and to scrap our previous approach," he said, adding that the US had decided it would no longer preach to Russia about democracy so as not to irritate Moscow.

Excerpt: Read more at telegraph.co.uk

Obama Sanctions Hondurans, Consoles Zelaya, and Props Up Chavez

Pajamas Media
Sept. 5, 2009
Dan Miller

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times on September 4, the United States has announced a major cutoff in aid to Honduras, saying that it had terminated “more than $30 million” which had previously been suspended. The announcement added that:
"It may eliminate as much as $200 million more if Honduras does not restore democratic rule and reinstate President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a coup."

In addition, the United States also threatened on September 3 to “withhold recognition of the new president who emerges from elections scheduled in November” unless Zelaya is reinstated prior to the election. Mr. Zelaya understood Secretary Clinton to have been more emphatic. He said that he "appreciated that Mrs. Clinton had “made it clear” the U.S. wouldn’t recognize any government arising from elections held by the interim government."

The United States had earlier started revoking visas “of members and supporters of the de facto regime. It had previously canceled four officials’ visas and stopped issuing new tourist and business visas to Hondurans.”

The situation is confusing. The “more than $30 million” termination of aid announced on September 3 probably refers to a further but undefined step with regard to the earlier “suspension” of aid noted on the same day by a State Department spokesman as “about $35 million in aid,” which “had been temporarily suspended after the coup.”

The earlier aid “suspension” apparently occurred on July 2. The difference between “suspension” and “termination” of aid is less than crystal clear. It is also unclear when, and even whether, the “about $35 million” aid termination will be followed by the threatened additional $200 million aid cut-off...

(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...

COMMENTS: What part of the fact this was not a coup which the rest of the world is waking up to does this Administration not understand? The former President went against the Honduran Constitution and was lawfully removed. What does Obama and Hillary do? They side with the legally ousted President Zelaya against the legitimate Government. What part of Impeachment do they not understand? Wait Hillary was against her husband being removed from office when he lied. Is that what is driving her? Failure to acknowledge a Constitution of another Country whose Congress and Supreme Court actually removed Zelaya after finding him guilty makes no sense except if you are socialist aka Communist leaning.

This President supports dictators over legitimate Governments which should get him impeached before this is all over especially if he thinks he can stay in office forever like the other dictators in the hemisphere. Time to cut of monetary support to ACORN voter fraud people and put an end the voter fraud of the Democrats to ensure we have legitimate people elected.

UPDATE:
Honduras targets deposed leader over expenses (Obama/Hillary on the wrong side against Honduras and refuse to recognize this is not a coup)

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

TEGUCIGALPA — Honduras' de facto government attacked deposed President Manual Zelaya on Saturday for wasting six million dollars of public funds on horses, vacations and Harley Davidson motorcycles.

Government officials distributed a lengthy list of what they claimed were Zelaya's pet luxury items, including cash for the upkeep of his horses as well as airline tickets, jewelry, the use of a private helicopter, and his own top-of-the-range motorbike, local media reported.

In an audit of Zelaya's expenses by judicial authorities, the mustachioed leader -- who was ushered out of the country on June 28 in a military-backed coup -- also spent money on expensive wines renting high-end real estate.

"By next week the High Court of Auditors will provide a report on each part of the investigation, and whether a criminal prosecution is appropriate," said Renan Sagastume, the presiding judge for Honduras' Superior Court of Auditors.

Meanwhile Honduras' interim government said it would suspend visa-free travel with Brazil for diplomats and other officials.

(Excerpt) Click here for Full Article

UPDATE:

The Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

Article 239 of the Constitution specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule. The U.S. State Department terminated a broad range of assistance to the government of Honduras, charging the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras (remember- they DID follow their constitution).

The State Dept. goes on to say that they will restore the terminated assistance upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras. Their normally scheduled presidential election will be in November. But, the State Department says "we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections." I don't understand WHY people are not up in arms over this. Make sure that people are aware...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/sept/128608.htm

R&R for Bill and Hill (Target Area for Hurricane Bill)

New York Post
August 21, 2009
JENNIFER FERMINO

Looks like the country's top diplomat and her headline-grabbing hubby have reached a détente while on a romantic Bermuda vacation yesterday.

The laid-back Clintons looked like any other happily married couple outside the Cambridge Beaches resort, where they are staying for a brief vacation.

The getaway comes less than two weeks after a feisty Secretary of State Hillary, during a visit to the Congo, lashed out at a university student who she thought had asked her Bill's opinion on an international issue.

And on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows when she skipped a meeting between President Obama and Bill Clinton regarding her husband's North Korea trip.

Meanwhile, the Clintons' cozy vacation might be dampened, coincidentally enough, by Hurricane Bill. The first major storm of the hurricane season appears ready to bypass Bermuda -- but it could still sock the idyllic island with torrential rains.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

NOTE: Romantic vacation? That one is good for a laugh -- more like she is reading him the riot act about interferring in something that should have come from the State Department. Just more of a photo op but did notice she is leading him. How ironic that Hurricane Bill is coming their direction. Ash trays or lamps flying? Place your bet. Wonder why they didn't go to Martha's Vineyard this year with the Obama's?

Hillary's Dark Side

By Ken Blackwell on 8.14.09 @ 6:07AM

In the days of colonialism, they called Africa the dark continent. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought her own version of darkness to her African tour. She was in Congo hosting a town meeting. One of the African questioners -- through a translator -- asked what "Mr. Clinton" thought of China's forays into African investments.

"You want to know what my husband thinks? Bill Clinton is not the Secretary of State. I'll tell you what I think. I won't be channeling for my husband," Hilllary snapped. It was a waspish performance. Her body English needed no translation. She was more than hostile. She was furious.

I've had a good deal of experience in diplomacy. The old joke is that a diplomat is one who can tell you to go to the devil -- and almost make you look forward to the trip. Mrs. Clinton should have sized up the situation, recognized that it may have been a translator error that substituted "Mr." for "Mrs."

Or, the African questioner may have sincerely wanted to know what Bill Clinton thought about a matter involving Asia and Africa -- since the former President has just returned from a highly publicized trip to North Korea. Presumably, the Secretary of State and her experienced husband share their thoughts over coffee and breakfast.

In either case, the question did not merit the cutting, even cruel public putdown. If you want to know why Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in last year's presidential primaries, you need look no farther than this public display of cruelty. People don't like powerful people who use their power to make others feel small.

Click Here for Full Article

NOTE: This has always been a potential problem since Obama appointed her as Secretary of State. As the SoS, Hillary is competing against her husband's popularity in foreign countries. They loved his personality and he made them feel special even when stretching the truth. In the Senate, she was her own person but now she is in Bill's shadow rightly or wrongly on every foreign visit. This snarkiness will not endear her to anyone.

Barack Obama may lose support in Philadelphia over 'street money'

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-streetmoney11apr11,0,6553901.story?page=1
From the Los Angeles Times
CAMPAIGN '08

Candidates traditionally get out the money to get out the vote. That sets up a culture clash for the April 22 primary.

By Peter Nicholas
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 11, 2008

Fourteen months into a campaign that has the feel of a movement, Sen. Barack Obama has collided with the gritty political traditions of Philadelphia, where ward bosses love their candidates, but also expect them to pay up.

The dispute centers on the dispensing of "street money," a long-standing Philadelphia ritual in which candidates deliver cash to the city's Democratic operatives in return for getting out the vote.Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce.It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay.

That sets up a culture clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes. Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.Obama's posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict."We've heard directly from the Obama organizer who organizes our ward, and he told us it's an entirely volunteer organization and that I should not expect to see anything from the Obama campaign other than ads on TV and the support that volunteers are giving us," said Greg Paulmier, a ward leader in the northwest part of the city.

Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign would say publicly whether it would comply with Philadelphia's street money customs. But an Obama aide said Thursday that it had never been the campaign's practice to make such payments. Rather, the campaign's focus is to recruit new people drawn to Obama's message, the aide said.

The field operation "hasn't been about tapping long-standing political machinery," the aide said.Carol Ann Campbell, a ward leader and Democratic superdelegate who supports Obama, estimated that the amount of street money Obama would need to lay out for election day is $400,000 to $500,000.

"This is a machine city, and ward leaders have to pay their committee people," Campbell said. "Barack Obama's campaign doesn't pay workers, and I guarantee you if they don't put up some money for those street workers, those leaders will most likely take Clinton money. It won't stop him from winning Philadelphia, but he won't come out with the numbers that he needs" to win the state.

A neutral observer, state Rep. Dwight Evans, whose district is in northwest Philadelphia, said there might be a racial subtext to the dispute. Ward leaders, he said, see Obama airing millions of dollars worth of television ads in the city -- money that benefits largely white station owners, feeding resentment. People wonder why Obama isn't sharing the largesse with the largely African American field workers trying to get him elected, Evans said.

"They view it that the white people are getting all the money for TV," said Evans, an African American and former ward leader.

"And they're the ones who are the foot soldiers on the street. They're predominantly African Americans, and they're not the ones who are getting that TV money.

"Hardscrabble neighborhoods across the city have come to depend on street money as a welcome payday for knocking on doors, handing out leaflets and speaking to voters as they arrive at polling places.

Peter Wilson, a ward leader from West Philadelphia, said: "Most of the ward leaders, we live in a very poor area, and people look forward to election days. . . . People are astute. They know the Obama campaign has raised millions of dollars."Street money is an enduring political practice in Philadelphia and cities including Chicago, Baltimore, Newark and Los Angeles.In Jon Corzine's successful race in 2000 for the U.S. Senate, people from out of state poured into New Jersey to be part of a huge get-out-the-vote operation. Some were paid $75 apiece in street money, as part of the well-funded Corzine campaign's election day efforts.

In the 2004 presidential race, John F. Kerry's campaign paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in street money to Philadelphia's Democratic apparatus, according to city party veterans.A famous scene played out at a Democratic committee meeting during the 1980 presidential primary. Vice President Walter F. Mondale came to Philadelphia hoping to boost support for President Carter, then in a tough nomination fight with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Mondale made his pitch, touting Carter's record on human rights and the economy.In an interview Thursday, Mondale picked up the story from there:"I finished my remarks, and the first person who stood up said: 'Where's the money?' And I think he was talking about street money."

Dryly, Mondale added: "That was not the subject of my talk."Before the 2002 state elections, a reporter watched two practitioners of the street-money arts in action: Campbell and U.S. Rep. Robert A. Brady, a ward leader and chair of Philadelphia's Democratic committee.

Brady was sitting in his campaign office with two of his political lieutenants. He reached into a desk drawer at one point and pulled out a $50 bill -- street money. Brady tore it in two and gave each man a half. Then the men made a bet: Whoever pulled in the most Democratic votes that day from his precincts would get both halves.

The night before that vote, Campbell, sitting at a kitchen table in a retirement community in West Philadelphia, spent hours passing out street money to various Democratic committee people. She kept receipts, working with stacks of cash. Campbell would give $10 to local teenagers assigned to put leaflets in doorways. And she paid out $100 to each of the committee people in her jurisdiction.

Ward leaders say such payments defray expenses such as food and gasoline, and compensate people for a grueling election day.

It is unclear to what extent Obama may suffer at the polls if any part of the city's Democratic apparatus jumps to Clinton.Obama's strategy in Pennsylvania depends on a strong turnout in the city's black precincts. That way, he can cut into the advantage Clinton has among older and blue-collar voters elsewhere in the state.Campbell said she could not in good conscience ask people to work for Obama for free.

"I'm not going to do that," said Campbell, who heads a coalition of black ward leaders. "There are a lot of poor people here.

"Paulmier said that of his ward's 48 committee people, the vast majority supported Obama. Though he doesn't expect a wholesale exodus to the Clinton campaign if no street money is paid, a handful of those key people might bolt, he said."If word gets out that the Clinton campaign is going to make . . . more support available to committee people, maybe five of the 48 might defect," he said.

With a week and a half left before the election, political leaders hope that Obama will relent.

Garry Williams, a ward leader based in north-central Philadelphia, said that he had not heard directly that the Obama campaign was withholding money. But he said payment would be needed. Workers who are in the field for Obama on April 22 will put in days stretching from 12 to 16 hours, he said.

"It's our tradition," Williams said. "You don't come to someone's house and change the rules of someone's house. That's just respect."

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

Hillary: I'll Ban Armed Private Contractors In Iraq

Monday, March 17, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON

Hillary: I'll Ban Armed Private Contractors In Iraq

Speaking this morning, Hillary hits Obama for not ruling out continuing to use armed private contractors in Iraq. She wants to ban such contractors.

Those contractors are protecting Iraqi government officials. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as Hillary once called for threatening to take away Iraqi lawmakers' security if they didn't reach a deal. And at least one Democrat didn't find that to be a wise move:

Addressing Mrs. Clinton’s latest proposal to cap American troops and to threaten Iraqi leaders with cuts in funding, Mr. Biden lowered his voice and leaned in close over the table.“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”The result of Mrs. Clinton’s position on Iraq, Mr. Biden says, would be “nothing but disaster.”

She goes on to talk about how she'll go after the favorite Democratic bogeyman, the infamous "no-bid" contracts.

"There's been a lot of talk about earmarks in this town (and she hasn't released her lists; credit Obama for going that far) but no-bid contracts are ten times more costly than earmarks. When I introduced my legislation, I could not get, as of this moment, Senator McCain's support for that."
03/17 09:49 AM

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzZmYTJjMmM5ZWU5ZWExNjZjNDc0NzNiMGQwYmQzNDE=