Intel Experts: CIA Penetration by Terrorist Group is 'Catastrophic'

From Human Events:

The recent setback for the U.S. Intelligence Community – specifically CIA – wherein scores of operators working for the Agency were seized by Iranian security forces in Iran and Hizballah, Iran’s proxy army, in Lebanon; speak to two disturbing truths.

The first is that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps​ (IRGC) and Hizballah, which is both financially and operationally supported by the IRGC, maintains human intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities that are as “formidable” as any fielded by the West.

Secondly, they are aggressively operating against us.

According to Reuters, former CIA operations officer Bob Baer​ said, "Hizballah’s security is as good as any in the world's. It's the best. It's better than that of the KGB, [the former Soviet spy agency]."

And at least one expert refers to Iran and Hizballah’s aggressive counterintelligence operations and recent success as bordering on war.

Prof. Walid Phares – an advisor to the U.S. House’s Anti-Terrorism Caucus and the author of several books on Jihadist terror (including Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America), said, "This latest operation by Hizballah’s against a major U.S. intelligence agency is bordering on an act of war. Lebanon is a sovereign country, and a terrorist organization has had the freedom to wage counter-espionage operations against CIA, and they have detained individuals they believe were working with that U.S. agency. If the Lebanese government endorses this operation, it would be responsible for an act of aggression bordering on an act of war against the United States.”

Phares said, “If the Lebanese government considers such operations against a U.S. agency on Lebanese soil as rogue – and conducted without legitimate Lebanese government authority – then it should demand Hizballah cease its activities against the U.S.”

The professor said, the Lebanese government – which receives military support from the U.S. – may raise the matter of U.S. espionage operations in Lebanon in bilateral discussions with the U.S. government. But Hizballah has no legal authority to conduct such counter-espionage operations against what is considered to be an ally of Lebanon.

Rep. Sue Myrick (R.-N.C.), who chairs the U.S. House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counter Intelligence, said both the immediate issue and the threat extend far beyond Iran and Lebanon.

Wednesday, she said, "This operation alleged by Hizballah against CIA resources in Lebanon shows their determination to hurt the United States. This terrorist organization claims their war efforts are only pursued in their war against Israel.”

The congresswoman said, “Their heavy involvement in terror operations against American interests in Iraq and the Gulf area, and in Latin America all the way to Mexico south of our borders, shows clearly that they are targeting U.S. national security.”

This latest claim by Hizballah in Lebanon only adds to their intentions to target U.S. interests, she said.

This should not come as a surprise.

Recall that my colleagues and I have discussed at length the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay that has – according to a 2009 study by the Rand Institute​ – “emerged as the most important financing center for Islamic terrorism outside of the Middle East."

But it is the effective penetration of a U.S. intelligence agency by Iran and Hizballah that disturbs most.

Phares said, “The reality is someone who knew of these names must have leaked them to the organization [Hizballah].”

The leak was not an accident, he said.

“That person or persons is either a member of Hizballah or they are working with the terrorist group. The U.S. Congress should investigate the possible penetration Hizballah may have developed over the years enabling it to have these kinds of access to names,” he said

Clare Lopez, deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team, said, “Up against Hizballah on its own turf, it seems that U.S. intelligence is out of its league. HIzballah's intelligence capabilities, learned from the Iranians, are highly sophisticated and include the full classical tradecraft skillset as well as very competent counterintelligence capabilities.”

A former member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, who spoke to Human Events on condition of anonymity, said, “This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the sophistication of these jihadist enemies and their professionalism in the skills of classical clandestine tradecraft.”

There has been an atrophy of talent inside the intelligence agencies, the source said.

“U.S. Intelligence Community failures to identify, effectively confront, and defeat the Islamic jihadist enemy speak not only to erosion of that skillset within the CIA, but also to catastrophic failure to master an understanding of the enemy ideology, the ideology of Islamic jihad,” the source said.

The former operator said “Intent and motivation are as critical as capability to the enemy's strategy and absent their accurate assessment, will lead as surely to defeat as failure to measure capability. America's enemies have penetrated its Intelligence Community in the past and betrayal of top CIA assets abroad has been tracked to moles deep inside the system more than once.”

How this plays out is anyone’s guess for the near future. But what we cannot continue to neglect are the overt threats and activities of Iran and Hizballah, the developing sophistication of their covert capabilities, their global reach and obvious intent, and the fact that – as former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff​ said - Hizballah "makes Al Qaeda​ look like a minor league team."

Occupy Wall Street: Only 1.6% of Protesters Are Black…

And we all know if this story was about the Tea Party instead of OWS the left would be howling that it’s proof the movement is racist.

(WaPo) — Occupy Wall Street might seem like a movement that would resonate with black Americans. After all, unemployment among African Americans is at 15 percent, vs. almost 8 percent for whites. And between 2005 and 2009, black households lost just over half of their median net worth compared with white families, who lost 16 percent, according to the Pew Research Center.

However, these numbers have not translated into action. A few prominent African Americans, such as Cornel West, Russell Simmons, Kanye West and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have made appearances at Occupy protests. “Occupy the Hood,” a recent offshoot, has tried to get more people of color involved. But the main movement remains overwhelmingly white: A Fast Company survey last month found that African Americans, who are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, make up only 1.6 percent of Occupy Wall Street.

African Americans share white Americans’ anger about corporate greed and corruption, and blacks have a rich history of protesting injustice in United States. So why aren’t they Occupying?

“Occupy Wall Street was started by whites and is about their concern with their plight,” Nathalie Thandiwe, a radio host and producer for WBAI in New York, said in an interview. “Now that capitalism isn’t working for ‘everybody,’ some are protesting.”
Keep reading…

Obama frustration drives businessman’s decision

“New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone”

Bill Looman, a Georgia businessman who owns U.S. Cranes, LLC, tells the local NBC-TV affiliate that he simply can’t afford to bring on new workers under the policies of the Obama administration. “I’ve got people that I want to hire now, but I just can’t afford it. And I don’t foresee that I’ll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C.”

Looman has posted the attention-grabbing signs on his company’s trucks, for all to see as they travel the roads, highways and interstates: “New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone.”

See the video here.

Pakistan outrage after 'Nato attack kills soldiers'

Pakistani officials have responded with fury to an apparent attack by Nato helicopters on a border checkpoint they say killed at least 24 soldiers.

The "unprovoked and indiscriminate" attack took place in Mohmand tribal region, the Pakistani military said.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called it "outrageous" and convened an emergency meeting of the cabinet.
Nato's force in Afghanistan is investigating and has offered condolences to the affected families.

The night-time attack took place at the Salala checkpoint, about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from the Afghan border, at around 02:00 local time (21:00 GMT). A statement from the Pakistani army said 24 people were killed and 13 were injured. Prime Minister Gilani cut short a visit to his hometown to return to Islamabad, where he called an emergency meeting of the cabinet. A foreign ministry statement said he was taking up the matter with Nato and the US "in the strongest terms".

Within hours of the alleged attack it was reported Pakistan had closed the border crossing for supplies bound for Nato forces in Afghanistan - a move which has been used in the past as a protest.

 

'Unacceptable aggression'

A senior Pakistani military officer told Reuters news agency that efforts were under way to transport the bodies of the dead soldiers to Mohmand's main town of Ghalanai."The latest attack by Nato forces on our post will have serious repercussions as they without any reasons attacked on our post and killed soldiers asleep," he said, requesting anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media.

The Pakistani army said in a statement that two border posts had been attacked by helicopters and fighter aircraft. It said Pakistani troops fired back as best they could. It said the Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani had strongly condemned the "blatant and unacceptable act", and demanded "strong and urgent action be taken against those responsible for this aggression".

In a statement, Isaf commander Gen John R Allen said the incident "has my highest personal attention and my commitment to thoroughly investigate it to determine the facts". "My most sincere and personal heartfelt condolences go out to the families and loved ones of any members of Pakistan Security Forces who may have been killed or injured."

In apparent response to the attack, lorries and fuel tankers were being stopped at Jamrud town in the Khyber tribal region near the city of Peshawar, officials and local media said - part of a key route supplying Nato equipment to Afghanistan.

 

"We have halted the supplies and some 40 tankers and trucks have been returned from the check post in Jamrud," Mutahir Zeb, a senior government official, told Reuters. 

Pakistani troops are involved in fighting the Taliban in the crucial border region area. Hundreds of militants have been resisting attempts by the security forces to clear them from southern and south-eastern parts of the district.

Anti-militant operation The checkpoint at the centre of this latest incident was set up to prevent insurgents crossing over the border into Afghanistan, our correspondent says. He says the movement of insurgents from the area into Afghanistan has been a concern for the Nato-led Isaf and the US.

The US has been targeting militants in Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border for several months, often using unmanned drone aircraft. Last year, US helicopters accidentally killed two Pakistani soldiers near the border, also prompting Pakistan to temporarily close the border to Nato supplies.

In October, Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani warned the US against taking unilateral action in nearby North Waziristan. He said that the US should focus on stabilising Afghanistan instead of pushing Pakistan to attack militant groups in the crucial border region. Washington has for many years urged Islamabad to deal with militants in the area.

From BBC News.

CBO LOWERS ‘WORST CASE SCENARIO’ FOR OBAMA’S ‘STIMULUS’ TURKEY

From The Rat:

The traditional method of preparing a Thanksgiving turkey involves stuffing it with dressing. In the case of the Boy King’s “stimulus” plan, the turkey itself has been stuffed up our – never mind, you get the picture. Apparently, the Congressional Budget Office agrees.

So, after nearly all of the Boy King’s “stimulus” money (our tax payments and additional debt) has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits Captain Class Warfare’s turkey cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth, and will actually hurt the economy in the long run.

In its latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the royal “stimulus” package, the CBO lowered its “worst case” scenario while also lowering many of its upper range estimates for “stimulus-driven” economic growth and employment. The report also estimates that the failed plan may have created as few as 700,000 new jobs. (helluva ROI, eh?)

The CBO lowered the best-case estimate for added growth in 2010 to 4.1% from 4.2%. In addition, it says the targeted infrastructure money didn’t boost growth as much as it had previously claimed, because states reacted by spending less of their own budgets on highways. (Some of us predicted this, by the way.)
In other words, the Congressional Budget Office now says the “stimulus” had no meaningful effect on growth and employment despite its massive cost. 

While the Manipulator-in-Chief  promised the massive” stimulus” package would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers,” unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction,” and keep “unemployment under 8%,” what we actually got was the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression. Yeah, Hussein; you did that.
^
You don’t suppose the Obama Media Group will report on this, do you?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: UNHAPPINESS IN THE BOY KING’S CASTLE

From The Rat:

The inconceivable has happened. Pigs have flown. Hell has frozen over. Chris “Thrill-up-my-Leg” Matthews has abandoned King Obama. At the very least, the MSNBC loon-extraordinaire has thrown his ex-Lord so far under the bus that the Boy King won’t be able to crawl out until next Thanksgiving. Strange times indeed on Planet Looney Tunes.
According to ex-sock puppet Matthews, America’s royal couple is no longer happy in the White House - if they ever were:
 ”I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president. Bill Clinton loved being president every minute and you knew it,” said the prior Kool-Aid-drinking Obama sycophant.
Fortunately, the ex-groupie was just getting warming up with his crazed rant against Obama and the “little kids with propellers on their heads” advising him:
“What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in the second term? More of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going? Are we going to do something the second term? He has yet to tell us. He has not said one thing about what he would do in the second term. Why are we in this fight with him? 
And I think it’s the people around him, too many people around, they’re little kids with propellers on their heads. Their idea of running a campaign is a virtual universe of sending e-mails around to people. No it’s not. “ I hear stories that you would not believe.” 
Far be it from the Rat to say I told you so, but check out the left footer below: “Truth be told, poor dude doesn’t really like being president anyway.”  It’s obvious – not only in his demeanor , but with his near- Nixonian detachment from political reality as well.
The bottom line  is this: Captain Teleprompter is in over his head; he has no concept of the difference between partisan campaigning and effective governing; he’s too petty and thin-skinned to be anywhere near the presidency, let alone actually being president. And the hell of it all? HE KNOWS IT.
Veteran Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen know it as well; they’re calling on Obama to abandon his reelection campaign and step aside - for Hillary. They made their call on the day Captain Buck Passer was widely criticized for failing to prevent the collapse of the congressional budget “super-committee” – which is on the verge of announcing that it has failed to reach agreement on a plan to solve the debt crisis:

“One year ago, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’” Caddell and Schoen write. “The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.”
The respected Democrats say Hillary Clinton must be prodded into taking Obama’s place as the Democrats’ candidate in November next year. Far be it from the Rat to endorse a Clinton – much less, Hillary – but given the choice between Hillary and the Boy King?
HILLARY EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK AND TWICE ON SUNDAY! GO HILL! YOU GO GIRL!
“Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country,” the respected pollsters write in an op-ed in Monday’s Wall Street Journal.
Caddell and Schoen likened the situation to 1952 and 1968, when Presidents Truman and Johnson decided to step down respectively -once they had “accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House.”
“Both men took the moral high-ground and decided against running for a new term as president,” they write. “President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.”
Of course, the stubborn fly in the arrogant ointment is this: Barack Hussein Obama cares more about himself and his delusional self-aggrandized image than he does about the good of his party – let alone the good of America.
The Boy King will not allow himself to go down in history as having thrown in the left-wing towel; that amounts to accepting defeat in Obama’s mind, even if that “defeat” is defined as failing to reach compromise with the evil Republicans. The Lord knows that he cannot run on his record. He also knows that an ever-growing majority of the electorate has tired of his daily fits of Republican-bashing. As a result, he’s lying in the weeds, hoping that Congress continues to oppose his Regime at every turn.
Can he win reelection this way? Dunno, but I do know this:
Barack Hussein Obama would rather lose the election and blame it on the electorate’s “disillusionment with Washington politics in general” -courtesy of the  ”do-nothing Republican Congress” – than step down. The man may not be much of a leader, but he sure as hell is consistent.

^
Isn’t it ironic that King Tut had big ears too?

REGIME SEEKS TO REWRITE OBAMACARE – WITHOUT CONGRESS OF COURSE

‘MAJOR GLITCH’ THREATENS BASIC FUNCTIONING OF LORD OBAMA’S PRIDE AND JOY

While the focus on ObamaCare has largely centered on the constitutionality – or lack thereof – of the individual mandate, the survival of socialist health care program will remain in doubt even if it receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court next spring. Yep, the Democrats were so hell-bent on ramming Obama’s bill through Congress before it could be read and understood by the American people, they overlooked what is clearly a major glitch that threatens the basic functionality of a key component of the law.

The oversight is so troublesome to the Regime that Lord Obama is once again attempting to rule by royal edict; he has quietly been trying to rewrite the law without involving Congress. (What a shock, eh?)

Here’s where the Democrats screwed up:
The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (that name still cracks me up) offers “premium assistance” – tax credits and subsidies – to households purchasing coverage through new “health-insurance exchanges.” (This provision was designed to hide a portion of ObamaCare’s cost to individuals by temporarily offsetting premium hikes that individuals will face after el presidente’s baby goes full metal jacket in 2014.)

ObamaCare “encourages” states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits the federal government to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange. This is where the free-market poop hits the socialistic fan; ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges – but not in federal exchanges.

This presents a major problem for the Captain of Socialized Medicine:
States that refuse to create exchanges can block much of ObamaCare’s implementation – and effectively force Congress to reopen the law for revisions, which would be anathema to Barack Hussein Obama.

So what’s a Dear Leader to do? Exactly what he’s done in the past when Congress or the Constitution of the United States has gotten in his way:  Rule by decree – or in this case, goad the IRS into changing the rules. (a cornerstone tenet of liberalism)

The Regime apparently discovered the free-market fly in the socialist ointment last summer, prompting Captain Transparency to quietly propose a new IRS rule that would offer premium assistance in all exchanges: “whether established under section 1311, (state exchanges), or 1321.” (federal exchanges).

There’s nothing quite like a liberal when he “thinks out of the box.”
According to an official from the Obama Treasury Department, the Regime is “confident” that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it “is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it.”

Others – including the Rat - disagree; not only is the wording of the law, as passed, very clear; the IRS lacks the power to dispense tax credits or spend money without Congressional approval. Period.

Setting the ultimate ruling by the Supreme Court aside, it’s going to be a long, bumpy road for Lord Obama’s only piece of “landmark” legislation. He clearly would like a different law than the one that was passed; so would we. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we could just tweak it here and there whenever we felt like it too?
Do you suppose Nancy Pelosi is rethinking her dopey comment, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”? Nah – she’s still a moron.

By The Rat.

New Obama nominee for Social Security board a big fan of rationing

Barack Obama’s appointment of Donald Berwick as the head of Medicare and Medicaid became so unpopular — even among moderate Senate Democrats — that Obama ended up making Berwick a recess appointment even before Berwick had submitted a full questionnaire to the Senate.  That might happen once again with Obama’s latest entitlement program appointment, Henry J. Aaron, picked to serve on the Social Security Advisory Board.  The Brookings Institution economist shares a lot in common with Berwick, including a love of the British system of rationing health care, reports the Weekly Standard, which finds this from Aaron in the 1980s:

“If Americans are serious about curbing medical costs, they’ll have to face up to a much tougher issue than merely cutting waste, says Brookings Institution economist Henry J. Aaron.
“They’ll have to do what the British have done: ration some types of costly medical care — which means turning away patients from proven treatments.
“Cutting billions worth of ‘pure waste’ — in needless hospitalization, surplus beds, Cadillac-model machinery and superfluous tests — would only temporarily slow the growth in health spending, which now tops 10 percent a year, Aaron told a symposium sponsored by the American Academy of Physician Assistants last week in Reston.

Think that was long ago enough for Aaron to have changed his mind?  Think again.  Not only does Aaron like the idea of British care rationing, he’s also a big fan of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a topic we have covered many times at Hot Air.  ObamaCare sets up the IPAB as a body unaccountable to Congress while making decisions on health care that patients cannot reverse within the ObamaCare system.  In fact, once the IPAB has made a ruling on whether to support a treatment plan, the decision has to be reversed by statute under ObamaCare, meaning that it takes a majority in each chamber of Congress and the signature of the President.
That’s not good enough for Aaron, however.  Calling the IPAB “Congress’ Good Deed,” Aaron wants it strengthened, not made more accountable:

Aaron praises the IPAB, although he does admit to having a few problems with it. He thinks that its largely unchecked power isn’t unchecked enough, as the board should be able to order payment reductions for other aspects of medical care that have so far escaped its statutory grant of power. He writes,
“I admit that the provisions governing the IPAB are less than optimal. For example, recommendations regarding payments to acute and long-term care hospitals, hospices and inpatient rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities are off-limits until 2020; and those to clinical laboratories are off-limits until 2016. These politically motivated restrictions should be repealed as early as possible so the IPAB’s recommendations can comprehend the delivery system as a whole.”
Aaron says that “the survival and strengthening of the IPAB is of critical importance.”

In other words, Aaron shares Obama’s view that government exists to make decisions for people and that the rule of technocrats should not be challenged.  Aaron, like Berwick and Obama, want to make government even less accountable than Democrats proposed and passed in the ObamaCare bill, which put technocrat rule into orbit already.
Aaron would be one voice on the Social Security Advisory Board, and wouldn’t have direct impact on CMS or the IPAB.  That makes his nomination somewhat less dangerous than that of Berwick.  However, adding more elitists who push to demolish the pillars of self-government is exactly opposite of what this nation needs now.  Republicans in the Senate should oppose Aaron’s confirmation.

Courtesy of Ed Morrissey from Hot Air.

Obama

Libya’s Islamists Ransack Mosque Graves in Power Struggle

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Libyan gunmen broke into the Saif al-Nasr mosque in Tripoli early on Nov. 8, smashed open a wooden sarcophagus and removed the remains of Saif al-Nasr, a scholar who died 155 years ago, and a former imam, Hammad Zwai.

“These bodies have been moved to a Muslim cemetery,” announced graffiti on the walls, explaining the disapproval by some Islamists of the Sufi Muslim tradition of burying scholars and teachers in mosques to honor them.

Muslims pushing for a strict intepretation of Islamic law are jostling for power in the chaos that has gripped Libya since the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi, the third North African leader after those in Egypt and Tunisia to fall in the Arab Spring.

Last month protesters holding signs proclaiming “We Are Here to Purify the Honor of Tripoli” forced the early closure of the capital’s first fashion show since Qaddafi’s 42-year rule in Tripoli ended in August.

“I was scared; I wiped off my makeup and went home,” said Jasmin Abdul Aziz, a 22-year-old student who was one of five models at the event and once paraded a $5,000 dress studded with diamonds in a Qaddafi-era fashion show. “Before, we would wear shorts in the streets. Now, look around you, nobody does.”

The man responsible for maintaining security in the city is Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the head of the Tripoli Military Council and former Guantanamo Bay inmate. The council doesn’t regard the mosque break-ins as a crime and is awaiting the formation of a religious council to rule on the matter, according to his deputy, Mohammed Goaider.

‘Not A Crime’

“It is not a crime, but it is not the right time for the bodies to be removed,” Goaider said in an interview. If the religious council issues a fatwa, an Islamic religious edict, demanding the removal of the bodies, security units will do the work, he said.

Belhaj was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which opposed Qaddafi in the 1990s and is listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. After joining the Taliban in Aghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, he was captured and held by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 before being sent to Libya, where he spent seven years in a prison until his release last year.

“We are 99 percent Muslim,” said Emhemmed Ghula of the February 17th Coalition, a prominent political group that supports Belhaj. “Our country is a conservative country.”

‘Troubling Signs’

Tripoli is still controlled by a patchwork of militias, with the National Transitional Council unable to impose its authority over regional military bodies such as the Tripoli Military Council.

“These are all troubling signs for all those who wanted a secular Libya,” Shashank Joshi, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said in a phone interview. “Libya is a conservative country, so some amount of that is to be expected, but desecrating graves and closing down fashion shows encroaches on freedoms.”

The NTC says a new constitution, which will be drafted by a panel elected by June, must have Islamic law, or Sharia, as its “principal” source.

Acting Prime Minister Abdurrahim El-Keib is due to present his Cabinet on Nov. 20 to the NTC. Among the groups vying for posts are the Freedom, Justice and Development party, which says it is modelled on the moderate Islamic AKP party that has governed Turkey since November 2002, and the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which says it is secular.

Women Fearful

“The civil state that we yearn for, there is no conflict with that and Sharia as the source of legislation,” NTC spokesman Abdel Hafez Ghoga told reporters on Nov. 15.

How Sharia will be interpreted remains uncertain until the constitution is drafted, and in the meantime tensions between secular and Islamist groups are surfacing in all spheres.

“We are still in the midst of Libya thrashing out its new institutions,” Joshi said. “There will be a long period of instability in which these things will continue. As long as it can remain peaceful, it’s OK.”

At a five-day conference being held in Tripoli’s Radisson Blu Al Mahary Hotel, women’s groups from across the country voiced fears about their rights.

“If they apply Sharia, everything will be good. It is a system to organize society,” Aya Blaou, a Tripoli medical student, said in an interview. “What I am afraid about is that Sharia rules are used against us.”

Civilian Administration

Belhaj’s supporters insist that Islam must be respected, and say that they support democracy.

“Belhaj wields power on the streets, but he also feels marginalized by the NTC,” Joshi said. “Even if the NTC doesn’t control the streets of Tripoli, they are still in charge. He wants to be part of that.”

The Tripoli Council, the city’s civilian administration, opposes the vandalism at the mosques, according to council leader Abdulrezaq Abuhjaar. Yet it’s powerless to act because it doesn’t control security forces, he said.

“We are not happy about this, it is not right,” Abuhjaar said in an interview. “Disturbing the dead is harming the living. It is a crime that the law punishes.”

Sufi militiamen are now guarding the remaining mosques in Tripoli, including the Sha’b Mosque, home to the body of a revered scholar, Abdul Sahfi, which is interred in a large stone sarcophagus.

Threat of Violence

“Those who break these stones, they are following al- Qaeda,” said Mohammed Abdulla, one of several armed uniformed fighters guarding the mosque. “We will not let them in.”

Women in Tripoli are feeling the heaviest burden to conform. They have been under pressure to dress conservatively since Qaddafi’s downfall, Abdul Aziz said.

She blamed Belhaj and his insistence on a strict interpretation of Islam, and warned that violence may break out if he continued the policy.

“The young people will not allow it,” she said. “We have to have a new revolution.”

--With assistance from Caroline Alexander in London. Editors: Karl Maier, Heather Langan, Ben Holland

To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Stephen in Tripoli at cstephen9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net

Fantasy By Benetton: Feuding World Leaders Get to First Base (EEEEWWWWWW)

From Time:

Hardly a stranger to edgy advertisements, Italian clothing company Benetton continues its penchant for controversy with a new campaign that features images of various political and religious world leaders kissing.
The company’s “Unhate” campaign launched Wednesday, with a mission to combat hatred and “contribute to the creation of a new culture of tolerance.” The Photoshopped images are racy by nature of its pairings, pitting leaders against their supposed political foes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu locks lips with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, while President Obama gets up close and personal with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, among other pairings.  The Washington Post reports that the ads are inspired by this kiss between Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and East German communist leader Erich Honecker in 1979.

Perhaps most controversial was an ad depicting Pope Benedict XVI kissing Ahmed Mohammed el-Tayeb, a top Egyptian imam, but Benetton took it down just an hour after the Vatican issued a protest. A Vatican spokesman issued a statement saying the ad was an “absolutely unacceptable use of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated and exploited in a publicity campaign with commercial ends.” Benetton retracted the image and issued its own statement saying the company was “sorry that the use of the image had so hurt the sensibilities of the faithful.”

The company’s advertisements have always pushed the envelope, but the fashion house hasn’t come out with a campaign of this nature in a long time. The WSJ and the Washington Post both seem skeptical about whether its mission is in earnest, or rather just a last-ditch attempt to resurrect the brand. Either way, people are talking.

Read more.

Blue Dog Democrats Break with Obama, Back Balanced Budget Amendment

 

 

The Blue Dog Coalition of moderate lawmakers endorsed a bill put forward by House Republicans to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The endorsement puts them at odds with President Barack Obama, whose administration said it opposed such an amendment.

"We do not need to amend the Constitution for only the 28^th time in our nation’s history to do the job of restoring fiscal discipline," the Office of Management and Budget said on Tuesday.

Speaker of the House John Boehner said he was "disappointed" in Obama for opposing the bill — which is certain to fail in the Senate — saying it is needed "to hold back the growth of government and give our economy a chance to grow and create jobs."

The amendment would require a balanced budget, unless three-fifths in both chambers agreed to run a deficit. Raising the debt limit would require the same margin.

“Congress has demonstrated that regardless of which party is in charge, out-of-control spending is a hard habit for them to kick," said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), the Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, in a statement. "It’s become clear that a constitutional amendment is the only way to force Congress’s hand toward fiscal responsibility."

The Blue Dog Coalition is down to just 26 members, after nearly two dozen members lost their seats to Republican candidates in 2010.

 

Read more.

President Obama's Uncle: Picture Proof ... He's Still Selling 80 Proof

The pictures tell the story ... President Obama's uncle, wheeling and dealing behind a liquor store counter.  So there's no doubt, he's still dodging the deportation bullet ... at least for now.

Onyango Obama was busted for DUI August 24th in Framingham, Massachusetts ...after almost smashing into a cop car.  Immigration officials learned about the arrest, and then discovered the 67-year-old was in the U.S. illegally.  In fact, Onyango was on the receiving end of a 1992 deportation order, but it was never enforced.

While Onyango challenges the deportation order, the pictures show ... he's making a living at the Conti Liquor Store. 

He's due in court tomorrow for a hearing on the DUI charge.

From TMZ.

Corruption And Election Tricks Are Adding To The U.S.' Energy Troubles

The Obama administration pulled off a rare trifecta this past week, demonstrating in three separate energy decisions how corruption and election manipulation are killing jobs and restricting the nation’s energy supply, but paying political dividends to our sitting president.
The first example of the administration putting its own political interests ahead of the interests of the nation occurred last Friday, when it announced that it would decline to make a decision on a proposed pipeline to carry oil from western Canada to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL pipeline would put Americans to work building the pipeline, would create additional jobs along the Gulf Coast where the oil would be refined.
Predictably, environmental activist groups argued against the pipeline, asserting that we should be weaning ourselves off of oil rather than taking steps to make it more available and affordable. They also argued that the production of this particular oil, recovered from oil sands, imposed more environmental damage than oil produced from conventional deposits. China has nevertheless made it clear that if the United States chooses not to purchase the oil, it will, so a U.S. decision not to purchase the oil will do nothing to alleviate oil sands production, even if environmental activist claims against the process are to be believed.
After reviewing the proposal for several months, the Obama administration was scheduled to announce a decision this fall. Instead, the Administration announced last Friday it would wait until after the 2012 elections to decide.
All the facts have been studied and a decision is ripe for the making. So the question is, why the delay? The reason is obvious; a decision on the pipeline might hurt the president’s reelection campaign. Approve the pipeline and anger the president’s liberal base when he most needs its support. Scuttle the pipeline and Republicans have more ammunition to support their claims that the Obama administration is restricting energy supplies and killing jobs.
A major consequence of the Administration playing political games with the timing of its pipeline decision is that Canada could well decide not to wait around indefinitely for a fickle president to determine whether his personal political career is advanced by approving the pipeline. China will take the oil today and will be more than happy to sign a long-term contract for it. Friendship aside, the smart economic move is to secure a buyer when one can, and friendship only goes so far when billions of dollars of sales are at stake – especially when friendship appears to be only a one-way street right now as Obama unnecessarily leaves the Canadians hanging.
Moreover, the president’s political gamesmanship is keeping domestic oil prices high, and killing jobs. Even if the president announces a year from now that he will approve the pipeline (and even if the Canadians are still waiting around for our decision a year from now), the president will have needlessly prolonged unemployment. If approving the pipeline is the right thing to do, there is no reason other than political self-interest not to give the approval now.
The second example of the Obama administration putting its own political interests ahead of the interests of the nation came to light yesterday, when it was revealed that the Administration pressured Solyndra executives to delay layoffs that were planned for October 2010 until after the November 2010 midterm elections.
Solyndra was preparing to make necessary job cuts in light of its difficulty generating revenue. Rather than allow the company to immediately make a decision that would maximize its chances to eventually balance its books, Obama administration officials used their leverage to push Solyndra to delay necessary cost-saving measures. Delaying necessary cost-saving measures would harm the financial viability of the taxpayer supported company but would avoid an embarrassing news story for the president and his political allies on the eve of an election.
Solyndra indeed held off announcing its job cuts. On the morning after the 2010 midterm elections, Solyndra announced it would lay off 190 workers and close one of its factories. The Obama Energy Department rewarded it by thereafter giving the floundering company millions more taxpayer dollars even though its ultimate fate was by then readily apparent.

Read the rest here.

Obama’s Promise of No Abortion Funding in ObamaCare Just a “Magic” Trick

We knew, and now new information reveals that the White House knew, that President Obama’s Executive Order to prevent abortion funding in ObamaCare is a sham.
In order to gain enough votes to pass ObamaCare, President Obama made a “deal” with a group of supposedly “pro-life” Democrat Congressmen, led by then Congressman Bart Stupak.

The deal was simple, if the group of Congressmen would forego their concern that ObamaCare provided funding for abortions – which it does – and vote for the bill, President Obama would sign an Executive Order which he promised would “ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is now clear that the White House knew that this promise against abortion funding was a sham.

In an email exchange with then Solicitor General, now Justice, Elena Kagan, Lawrence Tribe, “senior counselor for access to justice” of the Department of Justice and liberal Harvard law professor, expressed his elation for ObamaCare’s passage and noted that the President’s Executive Order was nothing more than a sham.
Tribe stated, "And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!"

He is exactly right. It was a “magic” trick, slight of hand, intended to fool the American people and Members of Congress into passing this pro-abortion bill.
Neither a signing statement – a written pronouncement by the President when he signs a bill into law – nor an Executive Order has the force of a congressionally enacted law.

As Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel, made crystal clear at the time President Obama proposed this Executive Order:

The Executive Order is problematic on a number of fronts. It is not a legislative fix and does not carry the force of Congressionally-approved legislation. It does not supersede law. It can be rescinded.

And, what should concern everyone: this Executive Order places HHS Secretary Sebelius at the helm of the funding process - a cabinet member who has a long and documented history of supporting abortion.

The fact is the American people won't be fooled. They understand what happened - another Washington power play that ignores what most Americans want.

That Executive Order does not stop ObamaCare from funding abortions because it does not have the effect of a congressionally enacted statute. It is, as Tribe said, nothing more than a “signing statement on steroids.”

Read more here.

Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s ‘Green’ Company Scored $1.4 Billion Taxpayer Bailout

President John F. Kennedy’s nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., netted a $1.4 billion bailout for his company, BrightSource, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee-turned Department of Energy official.

It’s just one more in a string of eye-opening revelations by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer in his explosive new book, Throw Them All Out.

The details of how BrightSource managed to land its ten-figure taxpayer bailout have yet to emerge fully. However, one clue might be found in the person of Sanjay Wagle.

Wagle was one of the principals in Kennedy’s firm who raised money for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. When Obama won the White House, Wagle was installed at the Department of Energy (DOE), advising on energy grants.

From an objective vantage point, investing taxpayer monies in BrightSource was a risky proposition at the time. In 2010, BrightSource, whose largest shareholder is Kennedy’s VantagePoint Partners, was up to its eyes in $1.8 billion of debt obligations and had lost $71.6 million on its paltry $13.5 million of revenue.

Even before BrightSource rattled its tin cup in front of Obama’s DOE, the company made it known publicly that its survival hinged on successfully completing the Ivanpah Solar Electrical System, which would become the largest solar plant in the world, on federal lands in California.

In its Securities and Exchange Commission filings, BrightSource further underscored the risky nature of the Ivanpah venture and, more broadly, the company’s viability:

Our future success depends on our ability to construct Ivanpah, our first utility-scale solar thermal power project, in a cost-effective and timely manner… Our ability to complete Ivanpah and the planning, development and construction of all three phases are subject to significant risk and uncertainty.

Ironically, in 2008, Kennedy wrote a CNN article praising Obama as reminiscent of his famous father and uncle.  The article, titled “Obama’s Energy Plan Would Create a Green Gold Rush,” proved prophetic. However, the “green gold rush” came in the form of $1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money flowing into the pet projects of rich venture capital investors like Kennedy, not average citizens.

What’s more, BrightSource touted the Ivanpah project as a green jobs creator.  Yet as its own website reveals, the thermal solar plant will only create 1,400 jobs at its peak construction and 650 jobs annually thereafter. Even using the peak estimate of 1,400 jobs, that works out to a cost to taxpayers of $1 million per job created.

As Schweizer writes in Throw Them All Out, “A billion dollars in taxpayer money being sent to wealthy investors to bail them out of risky investments—does this sound familiar to anyone?”

Read this story here.

‘YOU’RE GOING TO SEE WHAT A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL CAN DO TO MACY’S

Yep, the similarities between “Occupy Wall Street” and the Tea Party just keep piling up – day-after-day, week-after-week, don’t they? The parallels are simply uncanny:

Rape, murder, drugs, (including overdoses), vandalism and health concerns, (including tuberculosis and sexually-transmitted diseases), just to name an obvious few.

And now this- the uncanny similarity of uncanny similarities – from an OWS protester:

“We going to burn New York City to the f**king ground. Ain’t no more talking. They got guns, we got bodies. They got bricks, we got rocks. Let’s see what they got. They got missiles, we got bombs. I want them to make that decision so they can see; in a few days you going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy’s.”

Eerily similar to words you’ve heard from Tea Party members, right? (right down to this guy’s exquisite command of the English language.)

Before we continue, let’s pause for a round of  Point-Counterpoint, shall we?

Rat: The words and actions of the OWS protests prove that this is not a peaceful movement that seeks an intelligent debate.

Loon: These people are fringe-elements; they are not representative of, nor to they speak for, a majority of the movement. OWS should not be judged by a few people.

Rat: But the Tea Party is racist and bigoted?

Loon: Of course.

Rat: Why do you say that?

Loon: I’ve seen the signs, man; haven’t you seen the signs?

Rat: No, but I’ll accept your premise; these people are fringe-elements; they are not representative of, nor to they speak for, a majority of the movement. The Tea Party should not be judged by a few people.

Loon: (Silence)

Rat: Oh, and loon?

Loon: Yeah, Rat?

Rat: Obama, Biden and the liberal media – to name a few – have suggested that there are many similarities between OWS and the Tea Party. Can you name a few of those for me?

Loon: Um…um…I got nothin’.

Of course, those of us with the capacity (not to mention, “desire.”) to see through Obama & Co. understand completely why they rushed to draw comparison between OWS and the Tea Party:

The desperate desire to legitimize OWS and its message. (or shall I say, the “message” the Democrats THOUGHT they heard from OWS.)

However, as anyone with an ounce of objectivity (and honestly) can see; from the beginning, any comparison between these organizations is ludicrous (and disingenuous) at best – both message and delivery of such message:

OWS is about what it (irrationally) opposes – while offering no substantive debate or viable alternatives for what it supports. (which granted, is a tall order to fill when one begins from a such a ridiculous position of irrationality.)

Anyway, back at the OWS threat of terrorism: No word yet on whether these loons are planning for their pyrotechnics display to be a part of the festivities surrounding Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Oh, and I said “these loons” vs. “this loon” with reason; the threat comes a week after a protester at Occupy Portland was arrested “on suspicion of throwing a Molotov cocktail onto a staircase at World Trade Center Portand, which should not be confused with The World Trade Center in New York, although the irony is perfect, isn’t it? Two World Trade Centers targeted by terrorists; who knew?

Watch video here.

SEIU makes early, expected Obama endorsement

WASHINGTON--The Service Employees International Union announced Wednesday it will endorse President Barack Obama in 2012--an early, but entirely expected endorsement from a union bankrolling Democratic-allied SuperPacs.
The endorsement comes before the Republicans even have a nominee, but at least there is no charade about where they stand.
"President Obama shares our vision of a nation that invests in good jobs here at home; where everyone pays their fair share; where access to quality, affordable health care is preserved; and where there is a pathway to citizenship for every immigrant worker," said SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry. "It's a vision that says: Our country does better when we all do better."
The SEIU runs a big political operation to help candidates directly and indirectly. Obama's team will get the help of SEIU controlled phone banks, canvassing and related ground activities.
SEIU is a major SuperPac player. The union gave $500,000 to Priorities USA Action, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's the group founded by formerdeputy White House press secretary Bill Burton and former White House aid Sean Sweeney, who worked for Rahm Emanuel when he was chief of staff.
The SEIU gave $100,00 to American Bridge 21st Century run Rodell Mollineau, a former spokesman forSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Read this story here.

Obama's overlooked white side

A high-ranking member of our family administration, who wishes to remain anonymous, has the audacity to characterize me as "contrary." She has never understood that I am just an early adopter of enlightened views that the masses eventually will embrace.
For instance, I'm still waiting for America to elect our first African-American president. In my view, Barack Obama is just another in the long line of white guys to hold that office. Long before we knew what the prez put on his census form, everyone looked at Obama's dad and considered Barack "black." Well, I find it just as reasonable and a lot more logical to look at Obama's mom and declare him "white."
Why not? This "one-drop of black blood" thing for assigning race is not only old school, it is colonial Virginia old school, which over time has become generally accepted. Both whites and blacks like it because it makes it quick and easy to categorize folks. Black people also find it appealing since we then can claim mixed-race celebrities as one of us. (This can sometimes lead to buyers' remorse, however. In my barbershop, as Tiger Woods' personal problems surfaced, the talk quickly went from, "Our brother, Tiger, has got that golf thing whipped" to "What was that Asian dude thinking?")
Obama missed a lot by not playing his "white race" card. He could have had birthers tied in knots over Kansas instead of Kenya. He could have explained his attendance at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church by saying he was just doing research on black folks. It also would offer an account for Obama's lame basketball game. And don't give me that, "Well, he certainly looks black." Hello, so does Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and no one challenges his authenticity.
Maxine Waters, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are starting to tilt in my direction as they criticize Obama for not being "black enough." Well, duh, maybe the man wasn't black to begin with. What brother do you know who was reared in Indonesia and Hawaii? Even if my man started out certified 100% African, growing up in those two places would have sucked all the black out of him.
OK, so up to now, no one but me considers Obama white. But why isn't he ever referred to as biracial? How can that be overlooked? Americans claiming multiracial identity is burgeoning, with one in seven marriages now multiracial and mixed-race individuals are a population that has increased by roughly 35% since 2000. (Interestingly, the rates of intermarriage are lowest between blacks and whites. Go figure.)
Anyway, the aforementioned critic embedded in my marriage advises, "Enough with the labels" and says that my inverting stereotypes is hardly constructive. Once again, she's right, of course. In truth, no matter how you come at it, there's no excuse for putting people into boxes based on their birth.
I think it is Dr. Seuss who appropriately said: "A person's a person, no matter how" bred (or whatever).

Read this article here.

Obama has a knack for ticking off America's friends

The election of Barack Obama, we were told, would bring new respect and friendship for America in the world.

No longer would we be led by a Texas cowboy ignorant of and indifferent to world opinion. Instead we would have a visionary leader sympathetic to the governments and peoples of the world.

But Obama's best moments in foreign policy have been when he follows the leads of predecessors. In his twice-postponed trip to Australia this week, he will reportedly announce that a U.S. Navy base will be opened there.

That cements ties already strengthened by George W. Bush and previous presidents to the one nation in the world that has fought alongside the United States in every war in the last century.

But domestic politics can trump foreign policy for Obama. He canceled previous Australian trips to lobby the House to pass Obamacare and to respond to the Gulf oil spill.

Closer to home, crassly political ploys have angered the governments and peoples of our two geographical neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

Only domestic politics can explain two of the Obama administration's most controversial moves: exporting illegal guns to Mexico and balking at building an oil pipeline from Canada.

The export of guns to Mexico was the whole point of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Operation Fast and Furious.

Why ever would our government do such a thing? Conservative commentators have argued that the administration wanted to use evidence of deaths caused by guns illegally exported from the United States to spur demands for gun control laws here.

Democratic leaders have done that before. In 2009, Obama claimed that "more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States." That claim was echoed by Hillary Clinton and Sens. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein.

But the statistic was bogus, as FactCheck.org concluded. The 90 percent refers only to guns Mexican authorities submitted to the U.S. for tracing. The actual percentage of U.S. guns used in Mexican drug wars is unknown but is clearly far lower.

We don't know for sure why the ATF and Justice Department embarked on Fast and Furious. Officials are keeping mum. But no one has come up with a more plausible explanation than the charge that it was intended to make a case for gun control at home.

In any case, Mexican citizens and government officials are understandably incensed. But maybe not as incensed as Canadian citizens and government officials are over the Obama administration's decision to punt until after the 2012 election the decision on whether to allow the Canadian firm TransCanada to build an oil pipeline called Keystone XL from Alberta to Oklahoma and Texas.

This was a crass political decision if there ever was one. The policy arguments for blocking the pipeline, first proposed in September 2008, are pathetically weak. Environmentalists claim that Canadian oil sands production will release too much carbon dioxide. But if we block the pipeline, Canada will keep producing the oil and sell it to China.

Concern is also expressed that the pipeline will somehow pollute the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. But pipelines are the safest way to transport oil, and we've been building them for decades without polluting aquifers.

What is undisputed is that the Keystone XL pipeline would create a lot of jobs in the United States -- 20,000 directly and more indirectly, the Canadian firm says -- and will provide us with about 7 percent of our imported oil.

That would be a big plus for energy independence. It would mean that we'd get more oil from a friendly neighbor and depend less on the Middle East and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

On this one Obama even stiffed his usual allies, labor unions that are eager for pipeline jobs, and sided with the environmentalists who staged Occupy-type demonstrations outside the White House earlier this month.

To make points with them he was quite willing to snub Canada, with whom we have shared the longest unfortified border in the world for more than a century.

A president who showed respect and friendship for the governments and peoples of other nations would not have connived in the smuggling of guns into Mexico and would not have blocked the import of oil from Canada.

But, on these and other foreign policy issues, we don't have such a president right now. We have a presidential candidate with a negative job rating desperate for re-election.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/11/obama-has-knack-ticking-americas-friends#ixzz1dpNPGIyl