TIME MAGAZINE: Sanitized For Your Protection

You learn something every day.

Hey, you know Time puts out four covers for four different areas of the word?

I didn't know that.

But they do. They have a US cover, a Europe/Middle East/Africa cover, an Asia cover, and a South Pacific cover.

Yeah I don't get how they divided the world up myself.

But anyway.

So they have four covers.

Based on the covers, one person is dominating the world's interest... but not in the whole world.

Here's a suggestion for Time: how about different covers for red states and blue states? You could have Obama or Michelle's guns on every cover in the blues and the latest diversion (e.g., Miley Cyrus) in the reds.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

"A great country finds itself held hostage to the ego of a small man"

Guest post by Daniel Pipes

The Obama administration's diplomatic acrobatics over Syria of the past three weeks prove that the president and his team are in way over their heads, amateurs in the deadly game of war and peace. (One wonders if Valerie Jarrett is making the key decisions in this instance, as in so many others.)

Lurching from self-imposed trap (the "red line" statement) to self-inflicted crisis (the need for congressional approval), the administration erodes the credibility of the U.S. government and increases the dangers facing Americans. Enemies of the United States, its allies, and modern civilization itself will take succor in this ignominious performance and grow in strength.

That Obama seems driven to defend his own honor and credibility, regardless of cost, makes this episode particularly troublesome. A great country finds itself held hostage to the ego of a small man.

In short, Americans are finally starting to see the consequences of electing and re-electing arguably the worst politician in modern times to inhabit the White House, consequences that will only become more apparent in the years ahead.


For more information, visit DanielPipes.org.

You Risk Touching Off World War III, Mr. President -- And For What?

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Syria: As a Chinese warship joins Russian ships in the Mediterranean, we should remember a cruise missile attack on an Israeli warship. President Obama should understand that Syria and Hezbollah have missiles, too.

As the Obama administration continues to deploy its comical weapons, with Secretary of State John Kerry promising America any attack on Syria will be "unbelievably small," a Chinese warship deploys off the Syrian coast, joining its Russian counterparts in what used to be an "American lake," the Mediterranean Sea.

The People's Liberation Army has dispatched the amphibious dock landing ship Jinggangshan, a move that follows the announcement that Russia is sending three more ships — two destroyers and the missile cruiser Moskva — to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster forces that already include three other warships dispatched over the last two weeks.

All are a pointed reminder that we are not the only player that has pieces on the board.

Launched in 2011, the 19,000-metric-ton Jinggangshan is a 689-foot-long warship that can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft, according to a report in the China Daily.

China is reportedly worried that a Syrian strike and its aftermath could send oil prices skyrocketing, which would be bad news for the Chinese economy.

Russia has a naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus and is a major arms supplier to Syria. Russia is sending its large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov loaded with "special cargo" towards the Syrian coast, the state news agency Interfax quoted a navy source as saying Friday.

Could that "special cargo" be parts for completing its high-end, Russian-supplied S-300 air defense system?

Earlier last Wednesday Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed to Associated Press that Moscow supplied Syria with components for the state-of-the-art system but that the shipment was not completed: A cruise missile strike might assure its completion.

Syria is not Libya. If the United States strikes Syria, we might be surprised at how hard Syria can hit back. The P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles that Russia has equipped Syria with are the most advanced anti-ship missiles that Russia has.

From Syria, P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles can cover much of the eastern Mediterranean and can even reach air bases in Cyprus. If the U.S. Navy is not very careful to stay out of range, analyst Michael Snyder observes, we could easily see footage of destroyed U.S. naval vessels sinking into the Mediterranean on the evening news.

And once the American people see such footage, it will be impossible to stop a full-blown war between the U.S. and Syria and its allies, such as Iran and Hezbollah.

In June 2006, as Hezbollah and Israel fought a brief war, an Israeli vessel, a Saar 5-class missile ship, was struck by a Chinese CS-802 anti-ship missile launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon with the assistance of Iranian Republican Guards.

If President Obama thinks he can launch a few Tomahawks in an "unbelievably small" strike and then head off for a few rounds of golf, he may be sadly mistaken.

We hear the argument that U.S. credibility is on the line here, but we also note that U.S. credibility may already be destroyed as a result of repeated betrayal of allies like Poland, the Czech Republic, Britain and Israel, as well by precipitate withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hillary Clinton once defended the proposition that Bashar Assad was a "reformer." John Kerry once casually dined with the man he now likens to Hitler, calling him "generous." President Obama returned a U.S. ambassador to Syria after President Bush had pulled one out for Syria's role in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

An "unbelievably small" strike might not restore our credibility, but it could start our Nobel Peace Prize winner's next war.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? One Year Later, the Families of the Benghazi Dead and Wounded Want Answers

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Scandal: As cruise missiles are readied to aid Syria's al-Qaida-linked rebels, the president has yet to keep a promise to avenge the Benghazi dead and bring the killers to justice.

A year has passed since Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ty Woods were murdered in a Sept. 11 terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

A month later, Obama said of the attack that "my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice, and I think the American people have seen that's a commitment I'll always keep."

That depends on what he means by "bringing them to justice." It's not like we don't know who they are or we have failed to finger the suspects. As an Associated Press report detailed in May:

"The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn't enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers."

So we essentially do nothing while the FBI "continues to investigate." The status of that investigation came up over the weekend as "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace invoked the approaching first anniversary of the attack and asked White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough why the perpetrators hadn't been brought to justice.

Wallace was especially interested in why the U.S. had not brought in Ahmed abu Khattala, who has been charged with the crime but not arrested, despite having given interviews to several news outlets.

"Why is it that reporters seem to be able to find this guy, who the government is charging with involvement in Benghazi, but law enforcement can't find him?" Wallace asked. "It's been a year, sir."

"The United States government does what it says, and we will do what we say in this instance, as we do in every other instance," McDonough said as he tap-danced in response to Wallace's repeated queries as to why the AP can find him, the New York Times can find him, but the U.S. government can't.

At an Aug. 9 press conference, Fox News correspondent Ed Henry reminded the president of his words last year about getting the Benghazi perpetrators. "Eleven months later, where are they, sir?" Henry asked in a question that did not sit well with the commander in chief.

"I also said that we'd get bin Laden, and I didn't get him in 11 months," was Obama's testy response. "So we have informed, I think, the public that there is a sealed indictment. It's sealed for a reason, but we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack."

By the way, Mr. President, you didn't build that mission. Bin Laden was killed while you were president, not because you were president.

Bin Laden was indicted once, too. But in the end, it was a team of Navy SEALs not intent on reading him his Miranda rights that killed him in a daring raid on his compound in Pakistan. They locked and loaded and left the search warrants behind. It was a mission aided by the very "enhanced interrogation techniques" that President Obama despises.

The president wanted to try Khalid Sheik Muhammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack on New York City and Washington, D.C., who still enjoys free room and board courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, in a civil court just blocks from Ground Zero. He wants to try the Benghazi terrorists in civil court as well, instead of just going and grabbing them and bringing them to justice as promised.

Meanwhile, the deaths of Stevens, Doherty, Smith and Woods have not been avenged. Justice has been delayed and therefore denied. Maybe in President Obama's mind he's thinking, "What difference does it make now?"


Read More At Investor's Business Daily

No Wonder the EPA is Illegally Hiding Its Temperature Data

If the radical Leftists controlling the Democrat Party had even an iota of evidence suggesting the validity of global warming, they would be clamoring to make public its data. Instead, they are unlawfully concealing the data, violating Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests and other demands.

It would seem to be common sense for the data used in a study that guides public policy and the writing of federal regulations to be publicly available. That’s not the case when it comes to EPA and air pollution data.

As J.R. Reed explained on Free Enterprise in July:

During their pursuit of regulations that would cost businesses billions of dollars, EPA officials have refused to reveal the data used to support these proposals – not to White House officials, not to Congress, not to leading environmental experts, and not to the American people. The data sets have not been analyzed by independent scientists or gone through a peer-review process, and, yet, these findings are being used to justify onerous regulations.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, sent six letters to EPA asking for the data. In 2011, current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy promised to do so, but never delivered it. Rep. Smith subpoenaed the agency on August 1.

ScienceInsider reports that EPA continues refusing to turn over the requested data so, Rep. Smith found EPA in default:

“You did not provide the Committee with anything new,” Smith wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Instead, Smith wrote, the agency responded to his 1 August subpoena by providing “a file of already public information along with a letter outlining excuses for why EPA did not comply.”

In a statement, Rep. Smith explained,

EPA is using the subpoenaed data to support regulations that could cost the American people trillions of dollars. Yet the agency has refused to make the data available to Congress or the American people. Regulations based on secret data have no place in a democracy.

Ah, there's your mistake, Rep. Smith. We no longer live in a Constitutional republic, the kind in which a virtuous government does its best to hew to the letter of the law. Instead we have an out-of-control administration, with officials laced throughout the bureaucracy defying the courts and Congress.

As for "global warming"? Even the United Nations has been forced to confess the Earth is cooling.

Well, this is awkward. A leaked report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the world is not warming but actually cooling, and will continue to get colder until the middle of the century.

You remember the IPCC, right? It’s the group whose 2007 report on global warming said that snow would disappear from everywhere but the highest mountains, icebergs would melt, sea levels would rise, deserts would spread, people would die in heat waves and pretty much the earth was going to end if we didn’t immediately destroy our carbon-fueled economy with job-killing government regulations.

Well, that’s not happening. In fact, the Arctic ice cap has grown by 60 percent since 2012.

Thanks to the IPCC’s original predictions, billions of dollars were spent on supposed green measures to curb global warming ... Now, either those measures really, really paid off, or the skeptics were right all along.

There are only three reasonable ways to explain a "belief" in global warming. In order of increasing malevolence, they are hubris, greed, and Marxism. And they are not mutually exclusive; see exhibit A: Al Gore.


Related: Global Warming Comics -- The Fraudulent And The Immoral. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.

'This Week' Transcript: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks

On ABC's This Week earlier today, former Clinton apparatchik-turned-journalist George Stephanopoulos interviewed Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks -- the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya -- as the anniversary of the deadly attack nears.

And we still can't find out what the President what was doing for nine hours as Americans fought, bled and died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We're talking about people being killed by gas and you want to go talk about Benghazi.

REPRESENTATIVE JEFF DAVIS: Absolutely want to talk about Benghazi. Four Americans lost their lives.

SECRETARY KERRY: We don't deserve to drag this into yet another Benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up for international norms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later as you can see, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is still a political football. But for the Americans there on the ground it was a story of heartbreak and the struggle to survive. Greg Hicks was the Diplomat in Charge that night. The only officer who has spoken out about that harrowing night. This dramatic account is an ABC News exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY HICKS, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN LIBYA: I've been perplexed and frustrated with the way this has all played out. Because to me this is a simple story. Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi to do his job. To what he knew Secretary Clinton wanted him to do. And he was attacked while he was there.

And the American staff in Benghazi and in Tripoli responded as we've been trained to do, in an amazing way, to save the lives of our people who were in Benghazi. Unfortunately we lost four people in the line of duty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's take a look back at the events of that night. You're home in Tripoli--

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That evening at around what, 9:45?

HICKS: It's at 9:45 Tripoli time, right, 3:45 Washington time. Our regional security officer comes running into the house where I was and yells, Greg! Greg! The consulate's under attack! And I immediately look at my telephone and I see a missed call. I call back on that number, I get the Ambassador.

And the Ambassador says Greg we're under attack.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Chris Stevens.

HICKS: Chris Stevens. And I say, OK and the line is cut.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's it.

HICKS: And that's all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We are under attack.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You knew there were a lot of bad, a lot of bad guys in country.

HICKS: We knew that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were also worried about the overall security situation and the amount of protection both the Embassy and the Consulate had.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the Ambassador had been concerned about that?

HICKS: He had been concerned. He had sent in a cable in July requesting that our security personnel situation not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had a special security team in place.

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then it was reassigned.

HICKS: Exactly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: On the night of the attack, there were five diplomatic security agents with Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. There are at least 20 hostile attackers in the compound.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Months earlier the State Department had forged an agreement that in the event of an attack on the vulnerable Benghazi Mission, Security personnel would response from a nearby facility called The Annex, run by the CIA.

I know that you can't say so, but we know it was a CIA facility, and we know that the CIA facility was getting protection and more security than the diplomatic facility.

HICKS: The numbers are clear about twice as many in terms of trained security providers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did you tell Washington?

HICKS: I called Washington right after I talked to the Annex Chief and I told them that the consulate was under attack. That the--

STEPHANOPOULOS: You used the word attack?

HICKS: I did use the word attack. That there were at least 20 armed intruders in the compound and that help was on the way from the Annex.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Had you heard anything earlier in the day about any kind of protest or were you worried at all because of these reports of this video?

HICKS: No it was a non-event, the video, in Libya. And we had heard nothing about protests. The building had been set on fire by the attackers and our Diplomatic Security Agents there were heavily outnumbered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: About an hour after the attack began, the heavily armed CIA Team arrives at the mission.

HICKS: They began trying to find the Ambassador and Sean Smith who were unable to get out of the burning building. After tremendous efforts and exposing themselves to serious harm, they did find Sean and pulled him out. Unfortunately he was already dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So while all this is happening, what are you saying to Washington?

HICKS: I'm reporting it back to Washington every 15 or 20 minutes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department?

HICKS: State Department Operations Center. Exactly. By this time there's a second wave of attackers and looters coming to the Compound. Many, many poor people than--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Dozens?

HICKS: Yeah dozens. Perhaps hundreds. There's no way that 10 or 11 guys who were there can hold that off. So the decision is made to evacuate. They have to ram their way out of the compound. They are immediately brought under fire including heavy machine gun fire.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The entire group now heads back to the Annex but they have not found Ambassador Stevens.

HICKS: When they get back to the Annex they come under attack there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So at this point, this is ongoing battle. Did you ask for reinforcements?

HICKS: I had already spoken to the defense attache. I asked what help is coming? And he said there's some fighters in Aviano but it's going to be 2 or 3 hours before they could make an appearance. It was clear it was going to be a long time before any help came. So I made sure that people knew that they were going to have to hold out for as long as they could.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As the battle aged at the CIA Annex, a crowd overruns the now abandoned Mission. Some Libyans locate Ambassador Stevens, clinging to life, and rush him to a local hospital.

Meantime a team of reinforcements from Tripoli, military and CIA security has arrived at the Benghazi airport.

HICKS: About 3am, 9pm Washington, they get the call from the Prime Minister than Ambassador Stevens is dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did he tell you?

HICKS: He just says, I'm very sorry Greg to tell you this, but our friend Chris has passed on. I think those were his words. There was deep remorse in his voice when he said it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you?

HICKS: For me it, I think it's the saddest moment in my career honestly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With the news of Stevens' death, the security team from Tripoli heads to the Annex.

HICKS: And soon after they get there the attack on the Annex is renewed. And then the mortars come in. Those are the rounds that killed Ty and Glen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since this has all happened we've seen all of the top Pentagon officials at the time, all the top Military officials said there was just no way to respond in time. Military assets could not get there.

HICKS: I don't know exactly what was available. I still don't quite understand why they couldn't fly aircraft over to Benghazi. When I was a kid I grew up watching Western movies. And you know the Calvary always came. I just thought that they would come.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've had, you know, quite a journey yourself in this last year. Deciding to speak to Congress.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in May. Since then it appears you've been in something of career limbo inside the State Department.

HICKS: That's correct. That's true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department this was an assignment you requested, you're getting the same pay as before. But do you feel you're being punished for speaking out?

HICKS: Yes I feel that I have been punished. I don't know why I was punished. I don't know why I was shunted aside. Put in a closet if you will.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the State Department know you're speaking out now?

HICKS: No. They don't know I'm here with you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then why talk?

HICKS: Because the American people need to have the story. And Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Dohery's names are names that should be remembered by every American for the sacrifice that they made.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Could those four American heroes have been saved?

HICKS: Sadly, I think that Ambassador Stephens and Sean Smith maybe not. Ty and Glen of course were killed in the mortar attack that took place eight hours after the initial attack. It's possible they could have been saved, I think.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what's the best way we can honor the memory of the four diplomats and security professionals who lost their lives that night?

HICKS: We can't forget them. And we need to make sure that those people who are going out into the world on our behalf have the tools that they need and the resources they need to do the job that they've been asked to do for the people of the United States.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Greg Hicks right there. In response to his contention that he's been punished, the State Department has sent us this statement which reads in part, "The State Department has not punished Mr. Hicks in any way. We appreciate his exemplary service on the evening of September 11th. His departure from Libya was entirely unrelated to any statements he may have made relating to the attack in Benghazi, and we are working with him on his next permanent assignment."


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

WAPO: Obama Lied to American People, Had Bush-Era Restrictions on NSA Surveillance of Americans Lifted in 2011

Only a few short weeks ago, President Barack Obama spoke to the American people and said, essentially, that the government's surveillance of Americans' phone records and emails were targeted and had been "ongoing for years".

On the heels of a series of reports detailing the U.S. government's practice of tracking private citizens' phone and internet use, President Obama on Friday sought to downplay the invasiveness of the procedure, assuring a California audience that "nobody is listening to your phone calls," and that any data tracking is governed by comprehensive oversight spanning all three branches of U.S. government...

...But he reminded Americans that these programs have been ongoing for years, and that Congress regularly reauthorizes the programs and receives updates on how they are conducted.

The Washington Post reports today, however, that both assertions appear to be bald-faced lies.

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases...

...the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the [Bush administration]’s request — on ... searches [of U.S. communications], that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Together the permission to search and to keep data longer expanded the NSA’s authority in significant ways without public debate or any specific authority from Congress...

...Officials would not say how many searches have been conducted.

...The court’s expansion of authority went largely unnoticed when the opinion was released, but it formed the basis for cryptic warnings last year by a pair of Democratic senators, Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Mark Udall (Colo.), that the administration had a “back-door search loophole” that enabled the NSA to scour intercepted communications for those of Americans.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights has a Fourth Amendment for a reason.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Americans of all party affiliations should reject this administration's lawless behavior, its unconstitutional maneuvers and all of its many, attendant lies.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

PATIENTLY AWAITING THE APOLOGY FROM THE MEDIA: Syria's WMDs Came From Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.

King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.

"One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands," he said.

The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein's Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.

In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."

It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's WMD threat.

As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.

There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.

There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada's comments came more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts held in Arlington, Va., in 2006.

According to Shaw, ex-Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, went to Iraq in December 2002 and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Anticipating the invasion, his job was to supervise the removal of such weapons and erase as much evidence of Russian involvement as possible.

The Russian-assisted "cleanup" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achalov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achalov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003. Apparently they did their job well.

An article in the fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on Dec. 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated: "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." According to the article, about three weeks later, Israel's foreign minister repeated the accusation.

Syria has long had its own chemical weapons program, but the extent it may have been aided by weapons and materials transferred by Iraq before the war has only been the source of conjecture.

We may soon find out what happened to much of Saddam's WMD.


Visit Investors Business Daily

Lindsey Graham: Either we kill some camels in Syria or Charleston could get nuked by Iran!

The adjectives for this level of idiocy escape me.

South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people...

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons [and] those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

He says he’s working to convince South Carolinians weary of war that the situations in Syria and Iran are linked. Graham says Syria could destabilize the entire Middle East...

So, Lindsey, firing a "shot across the bow" -- in Obama's words -- will somehow deter a nuclear Iran?

So, Lindsey, launching an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will subdue Iran?

You're a joke, Senator Graham. You're a joke and a disgrace. And you need to go. My hope for 2014 is that a primary challenger will emerge and defeat you.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

A Letter from a Republican to Hispanics

Guest post by Dennis Prager


I am writing to you as a concerned and sympathetic American who is a Republican. My sentiments do not represent every American -- that would be impossible. But I believe the following represent most Americans.

First, a message to those of you here illegally:

You may be very surprised to hear this, but in your position, millions of Americans, including me, would have done what you did.

If I lived in a poor country with a largely corrupt government, a country in which I had little or no prospect of hope for an improved life for me or my children, and I could not legally get into the world's freest, most affluent country, the country with the most opportunities for people of any and every background, I would do whatever I could do to get into that country illegally.
Mexico and many other Central and South American countries are largely hopeless places for most of their people. America offers hope to everyone willing to work hard. Who could not understand why any individual, let alone a father or mother of a family, would try to get into the United States -- legally preferably, illegally if necessary?

Now that I have made it clear that millions of us understand what motivates you and do not morally condemn you for entering America illegally, I have to ask you to try to understand what motivates us.

No country in the world can allow unlimited immigration. If America opened its borders to all those who wish to live here, hundreds of millions of people would come here. That would, of course, mean the end of the United States economically and culturally.

If you are from Mexico, you know that Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants from south of its border is far harsher than my country's is of illegal immigrants. All it takes is common sense to understand that we simply cannot afford to take care of all of you in our medical, educational, penal and other institutions. However much you may pay in sales tax, most illegal immigrants are a financial and social burden in those states to which most them move.

Yes, many of you are also a blessing. Many of you take care of our children and our homes. Others of you prepare our food and do other work that is essential to our society. We know that. As individuals, the great majority of you are hardworking, responsible, decent people.

But none of that answers the question: How many people can this country allow into it?

The moment you have to answer that question is the moment you realize that Americans' worries about illegal immigration have nothing to do with "racism" or any negative feeling toward Hispanics.

Those who tell you it is racism or xenophobia are lying about their fellow Americans for political or ideological reasons. You know from your daily interactions with Americans that the vast majority of us treat you with the dignity that every fellow human being deserves. Your daily lives are the most eloquent refutation of the charges of racism and bigotry. The charge is a terrible lie. Please don't believe it. You know it is not true.

Democrats will act as your defenders by telling you that opposition to your presence here is race-based. There is no truth to that. As you probably know in your hearts, you have come to the least racist place on earth. The vast majority of us could not care less if your name is Gonzalez or Jones. That's why the chances are 50-50 that the child of Hispanic immigrants will end up marrying a non-Hispanic American.

One more thing: Many of you desire to return to your homelands. This is understandable, as many of you did not come here in order to become American but in order to earn the money that would allow you to afford to return home and lead a better life there. But as understandable as that is on an individual level, you must understand that that having millions of people in our midst who feel no bond to our country and who do not want to become one of us is a serious problem. You would feel the same about people who came to your countries to make money and use your country's medical, social, educational and other services paid for by the people of your country.

It is also a moral problem. There are countless people around the world who wish to come to America in order to become Americans, not just to earn money here. Many of you are taking their places. That is not fair to them or to America.

So, the truth is, in fact, simple: If you were an American, you would want to stop illegal immigration, and if most of us were you, we would do what you did to get into America. Neither of us is bad. You care about your family. We care about our country.
Now, a note to those of you who are here legally and to those of you who are American citizens.

First, while many of you understandably sympathize with the plight of fellow Latinos who are here illegally, you surely must understand that America cannot afford unlimited illegal immigration. This may well create a tension between your mind and your heart, and between your ethnic heritage and your allegiance to America.

If it does, your fellow Americans ask that you be guided by your mind (and we, believe, conscience) and by your concern for America. If anyone knows how extraordinarily welcoming America has been to Latinos -- from Mexico to Cuba to South America -- it is you. For your sake as well as America's, please do not succumb to the politics of victimization that are used solely and cynically to get your support for the Democrat Party.

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled. Take the Mexican example. The Democratic Party is, in most important ways, an American version of the PRI. For 70 years, the PRI governed Mexico and brought its economy to its knees because of vast government spending, the squashing of individual initiative, a bloated bureaucracy, unsustainable debt and the subsequent devaluing of the Mexican peso.
Why, for God's sake, would you want to see that replicated in America? The very reason America has been so prosperous and so free -- the very reasons you or your ancestors, like almost every other American's ancestors, came here -- is that America has had more limited government and therefore more liberty than any other country in the world. The Republican Party represents all that you or your parents came to America for -- and why you left Mexico and other countries: individual opportunity and individual responsibility. It is also the party that represents your social values.

Admittedly, the Democratic Party appeals to your emotions. But a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to make America like the Mexico of the PRI. And a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to undo the great American achievement of uniting the children of immigrants from all over the world as Americans.


Visit the Dennis Prager Show website for more information

Anti-War Leftist Michael Tomasky Makes Startling and Courageous Transformation to Pro-War Chickenhawk

Ed Driscoll calls this "speaking truth to Journolist", referring to a single comment that fillets the ludicrous excuse for a journalist named "Michael Tomasky" (if that is his real name):

Do you think the vast majority of American’s that do not want to get involved with Syria. Do you think it can be a lack of confidence in this Administration?

It is not like this administration has not lied before. Look at the job report today. We have been lied to and spind around on the economy for 5 years. (yes I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Fast & furious (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Benghazi (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about the IRS (I know it was Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Obamacare (I know it is Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about the NSA (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Immigration (I know Bush’s fault). We have seen the level of incompetence on the Gulf Oil Spill, Boston (terror)…Bush’s fault. We have seen the level of incompetence when it comes to Egypt ( Muslim Brotherhood) Lybia (Extremists / Anarchy), hell the whole middle east….not to mention Iran is that much closer to being nuclear.

I know it is all Bush’s fault.

But with this track record, why should we trust them this time? Obviously Bush will screw this one up also, no?

Fail-clown Ezra Klein hardest hit.

John Ekdahl sounds the alarm: highly principled, anti-war Hollywood celebrities are missing and we fear the worst

Writing at BuzzFeed, John Ekdhal is worried about our anti-war celebrities, but fortunately has not yet begun to panic. Won't you please help us locate the missing?

Our government is yet again marching us towards a war of choice in the Middle East and our non-partisan, peace-loving celebrities have gone missing since late 2008. We fear the worst.

The only explanation for their continued silence must be a large, organized kidnapping. To whoever is responsible for their disappearance, please post pictures of them holding a recent newspaper so we know they’re okay.

Hackneyed, but true: read the whole thing.

Prepare to have your Hypocrisy-Meter shattered.

RESET OR BLUE-SCREEN? USA Today Headline: "Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria"

Methinks Hillary got out while the gettin' was good:

Things aren't exactly warming up between the Obama administration and Vladimir Putin, even as President Obama arrived in St. Petersburg for the G-20 summit.

Putin called Obama Secretary of State John Kerry a liar over Kerry's testimony this week before Congress.

The question may be al-Qaeda's influence on the Syrian rebels, an issue Kerry has downplayed.

Speaking to his human rights council Wednesday, Putin said, "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans), and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."

Putin has criticized Obama administration claims that Bashar Assad's government attacked the rebels with chemical weapons.

Last month, Obama canceled a summit meeting with Putin after a series of U.S.-Russian disputes, including Russia's decision to grant asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.

Word has it that President Obama plans to issue a sternly worded memo to express his dissatisfaction with Putin's remarks.

Got Cold War?


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

KRAUTHAMMER: Left Mocked Bush For Going Into Iraq With 50 Allies But "Obama Can't Even Get One And A Half"

Consistency? From progressives? Surely you jest, Charles.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer blasts the liberal establishment for mocking the Bush administration at the time that the United States intervened in Iraq. He compared actions in that conflict to the Obama administration's inability to unite America's allies in the present Syria situation:

"I don't think it is a sudden embrace of the separation of powers or a renewed interest in constitutional action in which he brings in the Congress.

On domestic issues, he hasn't shown any interest in that, and all of a sudden he develops religion on the eve of the supposed strike. The reason is, he was alone and naked in the world.

He didn't have Russia, he didn't have the U.N., didn't have the Security Council, he didn't have the Arabs who, yes, very much oppose but won't lift a finger and didn't even approve in the resolution of the Arab League support for unilateral or any kind of action against them, military action against Syria, and he lost our closest ally in Britain.

He had nobody. Here are Obama and the Democrats who mocked the Bush administration for unilateral intervention In Iraq where we had a coalition of almost 50 countries and he can't get one and a half. So he had to have the Congress, that's the reason he did that switch in the end. He knew how alone he was and how he needed cover."

Anti-war progressives Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Harry Reid -- to name but a few -- all now support war in Syria. This gang of chickenhawks (always a favorite term during the Bush era) are banging the drums of war even though we have no idea whether anyone actually used chemical weapons and, if they were used, who used them; or who we're fighting for; or what the goal is; or whether a regional or global conflict will result; or how blowing up some camels helps U.S. national security interests.

All of those factors don't matter. This is about saving face for Barack Obama and keeping the attention off the litany of scandals -- Benghazi, IRS, NSA, James Rosen and AP wiretaps, Fast and Furious, and dozens more -- engulfing the administration.

These Democrat hacks are the worst of the worst. In fact, if the field of politics didn't exist, I find it difficult to imagine how they would earn honest livings.

Which reminds me of Mark Twain's famous missive: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

What Do We Stand For?

Guest post by Brandon Smith

At the very edge of oblivion, some men reflect, and some men snivel and cry. I have spent many years now studying the societal strengths and failings of modern American culture, and I have to say, that most citizens within our once grand Republic will do far less reflecting and much more crying when the bell tolls. This is not to say that I believe the fight is lost. Far from it. In fact, I would consider myself an optimist amongst many of my peers in the Liberty Movement as to our chances of defending Constitutional freedom today. There is a very strong core within our country that still embraces the ideals of individualism and independence. The problem is, those who are awake face each day surrounded by lunatics and and the giggling blind. It's difficult to find solace within the asylum of the “mainstream”, and so, we begin to assume we are alone.

Even worse, we sometimes have to deal with misguided and biased persons that join the Liberty Movement, not to stand upon any solid fundamental principles, but who seek to impress their own twisted world views upon us as if they “know better”. You would think that the concept of freedom would be simple to understand and grasp, but for some, it is like plunging into a trigonometric wonderland of confusion.

As the U.S., led by the Obama Administration, moves towards yet another possible war in the Middle East, using covert terrorists as proxies and enacting violent policy based on dubious or non-existent evidence and far flung accusations, I realize that with all the blathering voices out there telling us what to think, what to do, what to fear, who to admire, who to worship, how to live, and what to aspire, perhaps it is time for each of us to solemnly question what we stand for, and what America is supposed to stand for?

Really, think about it. What are we here for? What purpose do we serve in the grand scheme of things? What are our defining principles?

Have we lost track of ourselves as Americans so completely that we cannot even explain in a reasonable fashion what kind of people we want to be, and what kind of world we want to live in? Are we so busy squabbling with each other that we have no time to examine the foundation upon which we all rely?

I think it is safe to point out that the actions of our government, for many decades now, have not represented or reflected the ideals of the public. I can't say I've met very many people that would voluntarily or happily cheer the course of our nation. Much of what is done in our name is not done for our benefit, or the benefit of our children. Most of the crimes committed by our government are crimes we would never want to be remembered for as individuals.

If this is the case, and deep down we all want a much different legacy than what is being created for us, what would this legacy be? I believe that most Americans would not argue with the following list of virtues...

Enduring Individualism

Most Americans want to be in control of their own destinies. The sad reality though is that many Americans believe themselves to be in control of their own destinies when they are not. They believe they are informed when they are actually ignorant. They believe they are rich when they are actually poor. They believe they are self-sufficient when they are actually as helpless as newborn babies. They believe they are courageous when they are actually cowards. And, they believe they are righteous when they are actually guilty of numerous crimes against their fellow man. One cannot be an individual unless he understands himself, and his own weaknesses.

True Independence

Americans want to see themselves as independent and self-reliant, and yet many of us go about pursuing this independence in backwards ways. Socialists view an independent life as a gift granted by society through the tool of government. In other words, they believe that the collective is responsible for supporting and sustaining the individual, and the individual owes the collective allegiance for its efforts. Objectivists tend to treat independence as a kind of “get out of jail free card”, as if true individuals should only care about themselves and their posterity, and there should be no consequences for their own harmful actions.

What both sides can't seem to fathom is that independence is about responsibility. It's about responsibility to one's self, to make one's own way in life without the constant aid of a nanny state. It is also about responsibility to one's inner conscience, which warns us not to maliciously violate the life and liberty of others. Whether on the “Left” or the “Right”, Americans have forgotten that real independence comes with strings attached.

Decentralization Of Power

At this very moment, the White House has decided whether it will unilaterally attack a foreign nation that presents absolutely no clear and present danger to the United States. In a play for limited liability and shared guilt, Obama has “offered” to “allow” Congress to vote on the decision to go to war in Syria, while stating openly that as President he has the authority to initiate an attack anyway, without its oversight. The White House is moving to strike Syria because its attempts at covert destabilization and terrorism (again, without the approval of Congress) have failed, and it is trying to erase its mistakes in a hail of missiles. Centralization of power is the exact opposite of what America was founded on. Checks and balances exist for a reason. Such measures are ingrained in the Constitution in order to ensure that our entire country is not led down a path of criminality and destruction based on the decisions of only a few men.

The great allure of centralization is that each political faction within the U.S. is easily tempted by what they could do if the system was under THEIR control. Like J.R.R. Tolkien's “One Ring”, the Left and the Right foolishly imagine that if only the dark power of centralism was in their hands, they could use it for “good”. But nothing good ever comes from centralization. The ring must be destroyed forever, and decentralization is the only answer.

Spiritual Freedom

Americans have become increasingly schizophrenic as to what this actually means. Surely, most of us understand and agree that each individual has a right to worship as they wish, and participate in any religion they choose. The moment we begin to use government as a way to interfere in the worship of one religion, we risk one day having government used to interfere with our own religion. Sadly, this ideal has been turned on its head by some who think that spiritual concerns should be erased from government altogether. Government is not and never will be a purely objective entity, because government is made up of human beings, and human beings always bring their ideals to work. I fail to see the harm in allowing a courthouse, for instance, to post the Ten Commandments on its wall. This is an expression of a predominant spiritual ideal that ultimately harms no one.

By the same token, however if one day a court in another town decided to post the precepts of Buddhism on its walls, there should be no complaints from Christians either. Unfortunately, all sides (including Atheists) seek to apply their own spiritual (or secular) views as if they are in contest with each other, and this leads to all sides attempting to use government as a weapon to enforce those views. I think the Founding Fathers, though many of them Christian, saw the great danger in religious groups battling to force their particular beliefs on each other. The Constitutional protections of religious freedom were thus designed to make spiritualism a personal, rather than political endeavor. Most of us do not wish to live in a society in which our government has been sterilized of all spiritualism, but we also refuse to live under the insanity of a theocracy. The only answer is the original answer of the Founding Fathers; to believe as we wish to believe, and to leave everyone else the hell alone.

Non-Interventionism

Our country was built on the philosophy of non-interventionism, but today, those who promote the strategy are immediately accused of being “isolationists” by the mainstream. I think the stupidity of interventionism has been made abundantly clear over the past decade, as our mindless adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Yemen and Syria are falling apart. Nothing has been accomplished in these offensives on the other side of the world except the further erosion of America's economy, not to mention our credibility.

As polling appears to suggest today, many Americans are once again finally learning to embrace non-interventionism in the case of Syria, and this awakening should be encouraged further. Regardless of the rationalizations given by the establishment, freedom (if that is indeed what the White House is selling) cannot be spread by force of arms or sold like a fast food franchise. Further, we should be taking care of the liberties being eroded within our own borders before gallivanting around the globe pontificating to foreign nations about their supposed inadequacies.

Constitutional Liberty Before Political Party

Political parties are the bane of American life. They are the primary means by which our population is controlled and distracted. Parties are poison. When I vote, I vote for the individual representative, not his party. His party may argue that only THEY are the true purveyors of freedom. His party might argue that only THEY have my best interests at heart. His party may even argue that only THEY are honest and forthright in their platform. But, if the individual politician and his record does not reflect the promises of his party, then what they have to say is utterly meaningless.

There are no “lesser of two evils”; there is only honorable or dishonorable, Constitutional or unconstitutional, sincere or deceitful. A Republican who breaks his oath to defend the Constitution is no more likely to gain my support than a Democrat who does the same. This is a concept that has been lost on Americans for many years now. The idea that there should be no such thing as “party loyalty”, only loyalty to one's own conscience, is one we need desperately to return. The dangers we face in our current era are a product of both major parties, and anyone who says otherwise is wearing debilitating blinders. As we creep closer to disaster, it is vital that we remember that at bottom the coming fight is between champions of freedom, and proponents of tyranny, whatever party they may claim membership in.

I could continue for a hundred pages on the underlying structures of Constitutionalism that we still value but have been estranged from for so long. As our nation enters a new stage of social, political, and economic unrest, there may be very little left to hold onto. As I stated before, as a country, we can either reflect, or snivel. We can take action, beginning with ourselves, or we can complain (starting with others). We can stand firm in our core principles, or we can argue endlessly about the nuances and biases surrounding those principles. We can come together under the banner of freedom in the face of despotism, or, we can remain divided and conquered.

Via: Alt-Market.

INFURIATING: Senate to Vote on Air Support for Al Qaeda on 9/11

I cribbed most of that headline from Pamela Geller, who calls it a "perverse horror":

President Obama cleared his first hurdle on Wednesday in his push for a military strike in Syria, as a key Senate panel voted to authorize the use of force... The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7, with one senator voting present, to approve a military strike in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack last month.

The Senate now plans to return early from recess and meet Friday to file the resolution, setting up a key test vote in the full chamber as early as next Wednesday [9/11].

Josh Rogin reports that Harry Reid and Democrats in the Senate are violating the rules to cover for Obama's embarrassing 'red line' gaffe.

Senate Democratic leadership tossed aside the rules for moving legislation with regard to the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria, angering some Republicans and creating confusion on Capitol Hill in the run-up to the war vote ... some GOP Senate offices are upset with what they see as a rush by Democratic leadership to pass the war authorization outside the rules that govern how legislation goes through the committee process.

“This is a rush to war behind closed doors,” one senior GOP Senate aide said. “We were told there was a need to have a thoughtful and public debate about how this nation goes to war, but this seems to be about simply getting a resolution done to cover the president.”

A rush to war to "cover [for] the president"?

A rush to war to support Al Qaeda on, of all dates, 9/11?

And what are John Boehner and Eric Cantor doing? Well, like clockwork they continue to ignore the will of the people -- who oppose Syrian intervention by overwhelming margins -- to help cover for a failed president.

Meanwhile, where does the House stand with the NSA Scandal, the Benghazi investigation, the IRS Scandal, the investigation into DOJ wiretapping of reporters and their families?

Meanwhile, where does the House stand with defunding Obamacare, the Continuing Resolution, or the Debt Ceiling debacles that face us in mere weeks?

Meanwhile, what was Boehner's priority prior to the Syrian diversion? Amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Michael Walsh is right: we have a "partisan fusion party."

And no one in Washington represents "we, the people" any longer.


Hat tip: BadBlue News. Artwork: MattrosArt

Egyptian Newspaper Depicts President Obama as the Devil

I'm guessing that Bush gets the blame for this, too.

Popular and widely read Egyptian newspaper Al Wafd published the above picture today portraying U.S. President Barrack Hussein Obama as Satan himself. The unflattering picture has been making the rounds on Facebook in the Middle East and, according to Al Wafd, is representative of the hatred growing numbers of people in the region have for the American president, thanks to his staunch and unwavering support for Islamists and jihadiis — whether in Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, or Syria — even as they terrorize, murder, rape, and burn down Christian churches, that is, even as they engage in diabolical activities.

Remember when President Obama was going to repair the image of the United States in the Muslim world while bringing peace to the Middle East?

Good times. Good times.

Now we appear to be only a couple of prophecies away from the apocalypse.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Obama: I Didn't Build That Red Line, World Government Did!

All that talk about red lines? It ain't President Obama's fault:

President Barack Obama repeatedly denied Wednesday that he ever set a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and he insisted that the “world community” and Congress created the so-called red line, and should enforce the line.

“I didn’t set a red line,” he insisted to reporters at a press conference in Sweden Wednesday morning.

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a [1993] treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war,” he said.

“Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation [in 2003] titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for,” he said.

MOTUS offers the following perspective (via Thomas Lifson):

This new tact is no doubt the work of his old trusted team of really big brains: the Axelrod, Gibbs, Plouffe and Favreau Brain Squad (BS) team was called into an emergency session yesterday to "coordinate the administration's message strategy on Syria," as it continued to spin totally out of control, i.e., Big Guy's favorability polls are dropping like rockets. Because everyone knows that what we need now, more than a strategy, is a messagestrategy.

Maybe the BS would be better utilized going to work for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who's still unable to tell Congress exactly what the U.S. is seeking to accomplish in Syria. (snip)

This turn of tables is clearly the result of having called in the Brain Squad (BS) whose sole strategy in the past has been to blame stuff on everybody else.  BO then criticized the do-nothing Congress for dithering on the authorization of his "Syria Accountability Act" or, as ACE calls it, "Operation Enduring Hesitation."  And while the BS team likes that turn of phrase, they've softened it to "Operation Enduring Dithering."

Wut, wut?

There were several "red lines" on the walls of the Benghazi compound, ain't that right Rep. Chickenhawk, @NancyPelosi?

— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 31, 2013

Mexican Border Town's Black-Clad, Blonde Vigilante Said to be Avenging Brutal Deaths of Innocent Women

At The Los Angeles Times, Tracy Wilkinson and Cecilia Sanchez report:

Like a character from a graphic novel, she dresses in black, has unusually blond hair — and kills bus drivers who sexually assault women.

In a place like Ciudad Juarez, known for its years of brutal killings of women, the story has inexorable appeal. But how much of it is true?

Authorities are taking the reports seriously enough to investigate and have posted undercover cops on buses. Women’s advocates say they wouldn’t be surprised if someone finally had taken long-denied justice into her own hands.

Two bus drivers were slain in the last week, and over the weekend an electronic message claiming responsibility was sent to several news outlets.

“You think because we are women we are weak, and maybe we are,” the message says. “But only to a certain point.... We can no longer remain quiet over these acts that fill us with rage.

“And so, I am an instrument who will take vengeance.”

Signed: Diana, Huntress of Bus Drivers.

The message says women who work the night shifts in Juarez’s enormous maquiladora industry repeatedly fall prey to the bus drivers on whom they must rely to get home in the dark.

For now, at least, there is no way to verify the veracity of the message, whether it was written by the actual killer or killers of the bus drivers, whether Diana the Huntress really exists, or even whether she is a she.

What is clear is that for the last two decades, hundreds of women, many of them maquiladora workers, have been killed or have gone missing in Ciudad Juarez. Some disappeared after boarding buses, their raped and tortured bodies later found dumped in the desert. Few of the cases are ever resolved, and families have endlessly protested the lack of justice for their daughters, sisters and mothers...

Human rights activists in the region said that police appeared to be investigating the avenger much more diligently than the rapists.

And, by all means, let's keep those borders open, Democrats!


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Community Organizing Nobel Peace Prize Winner Goes to War

Ann Coulter absolutely shreds the duplicitous treachery of the Left:

No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.

It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim's wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war...

Led by none other than Barack Obama.

Read the whole thing. And memorize it.

Hey, Leftists: you gonna put some ice on that?


Hat tip: BadBlue News.