Corker and Chaffetz at hearings and socks it to the government- Video

After watching yesterday’s various hearings, I have attempted to put together three of my favorite hits. Guaranteed to give you a lot of fireworks, display the contempt this government has for us, and to otherwise be worthy of your time.  First, the most explosive with our man Kerry. (This is a duplicate that I offered as well with the vote to arm the Syrian rebels today). What would be a hit without Lerch. Lerch suggests that ISIS has been put on their heels by the Free Syrian Army. Then Chaffetz gives it to DHS, and finally a rather obscure clip when this DHS fellow is shown mocking us. Put your feet up and Enjoy!

Wednesday at the Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on U.S. strategy for combating ISIS, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) criticized President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry as “three senators” exercising “terrible judgment” on the U.S. strategy against ISIS. A written portion follows.

Kerry got into a heated exchange with Corker who said, “I want to say as I said personally, we have three senators, president, vice president, secretary of state, that are exercising terrible judgment right now. And to say that you’re going to do this regardless of what we say, you’re not going to ask for buy-in by the United States Senate or House of Representatives on behalf of the American people in a conflict that’s going to be multiyear. Some people say a decade. Taking us into another country with a different enemy, is exercising the worst judgment possible.”

“I’ve said this to you as strongly as I can personally, that in essence what you’re saying to the chairman right now, saying if Congress wants to play a constructive role, we would welcome that, to me, this is a political game and I’m disappointed that you as secretary of state, being chairman of this committee, espousing the views you have espoused,” he added.

Chaffetz to DHS Sec.: Do you know of any known terrorists apprehended at the southwest border.

Hearing: “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland”
House Homeland Security Full Committee
Sept. 17, 2014

 

 

During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing today focused on worldwide threats to America, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), asked DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson whether he is “aware of any apprehensions of suspected or known terrorists” who have attempted to enter the U.S. illegally during his tenure as homeland security chief.  Johnson was sworn in as the fourth DHS secretary on December 23, 2013. When asked if he was aware of that situation, Johnson said, “I’ve heard reports to that effect. I don’t know the accuracy of the reports or how much credence to give them, but I’ve heard reports to that effect.”

“I do agree with you that the challenge of those coming from countries other than Mexico particularly into the Rio Grande Valley sector [in Texas] is one I’m very concerned about. It’s something I’ve been concerned about since I took office in January,” the DHS secretary told Rep. Chaffetz. “I’ve seen it myself at our detention center in Brownsville when I visited there in January, there was something like 80 nationalities of illegal migrants present there.”

The congressman from Utah, citing an “internal” DHS document as the source, said that so far this fiscal year (Sept.1 thru October 30), the U.S. has apprehended aliens from 143 different countries trying to illegally enter the U.S., including 13 individuals from Syria, 6 from Iraq, and 4 from Iran. 

Those countries have been identified by the U.S. government as having ties to terrorism.

Rep. Chaffetz noted that although nearly 466,000 illegal aliens have been apprehended so far in fiscal 2014, an estimated 157,012 have been identified as “got-aways” and 142,630 as “turn-backs.”

Finally this clip where we are mocked.

During this interview, Mr. Johnson opines that everyone here illegally will willingly come forward and that will make for a safer America. Mr. Barletta takes him to task and asks whether drug dealers will come forward as well. Note the smirk.

 

Published on Sep 17, 2014 

Kerry wanted U.S. boots on the ground in Syria, has anything changed?

This was published 2013. Has anything really changed?

SYRIA John Kerry Wants Option To Place “Boots On The Ground” For Phony Limited Strike

Just for the record from these lying weasels. Of course Kerry doesn’t want to limit boots on the ground because our boots are already there.  Just for the record. This administration talks out of both sides of their mouth. Below are notes from the clip.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that a resolution in Congress on the use of military force in Syria should not remove the option of using U.S. ground troops, although he stressed there was “no intention” of inserting American soldiers into Syria’s civil war.

At the first public hearing in Congress on potential military action in Syria, Kerry said “it would be preferable” not to preclude the use of ground troops to preserve President Barack Obama’s options if there was a potential threat of chemical weapons falling into the hands of extremists.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,” Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry: We’re not looking for any countries to put boots on the ground

Regardless what the news reports are, there is no denying what Lerch said on Face the Nation. Huh? Not asking anyone for boots on the ground? But this is not the first time he acted like a you know what. Almost to the day last year when ratcheting up for war. I was stunned when I saw this yesterday. Anyone still wondering what we have going on in the WH? At least last year the WH admits we have zero allies for Syria attack September 9, 2013.

I guess this time we are not even going to ask. Here we go:

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Secretary of State John Kerry when asked if any nations have volunteered to supply combat troops to fight ISIS on the ground said, “We’re not looking to put troops on the ground.”

Bob Schieffer asked, “Mr. Secretary, you’ve gotten any specific commitments for military help? For example, have you found anybody that is willing to put troops on the ground in to this fight?”

Kerry answered, “We’re not looking to put troops on the ground. there are some who have offered to do so. but we are not looking for that at this moment anyway. The answer is, yes, there are some that have said that. There are some that are clearly prepared to take action in the area alongside the United States, and to do airstrikes if that’s what they’re called on to do.”

He added, “There are troops on the ground that don’t belong to us they’re called syrian. the syrian opposition is on the ground. one of the regrettable things is, it has been fighting ISIS by itself over the course of the last couple of years.”

Video over at Breitbart

John Kerry gets Zero support for Syrian non-war from ‘our’ Middle East ‘Allies’

Lerch has been once again tooling around the Middle East, searching for “the willing” to support Obama and his almost plan. The Brits, Germany and Turkey were quick to say “count us out”. They have had enough of this foolishness. The Libya and Egypt fiasco should have taught all of “the willing” how far throwing in with a loser will take them. Still looking for someone to put those ole boots on the ground. Why would Egypt and the UAE even be involved after just a few weeks ago, Obama and the EU reamed them out for trying to save the Tripoli airport from the Terrorists. Recall this nonsense?

Obama’s wacko Libyan policy. Attacks UAE and EGYPT for trying to save Tripoli? August 26, 2014

The New York Times, citing unnamed American officials, reported that neighboring Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have launched airstrikes against Islamists in Libya twice over the past week.

The US and EU governments “strongly condemn the escalation of fighting and violence in and around Tripoli, Benghazi, and across Libya, especially against residential areas, public facilities, and critical infrastructure, by both land attack and airstrikes,” the statement said. (They tried to save the Airport from the terrorists)

But I digressed.

To understand and to try and figure out who these “willings” will be and how Lerch is making out, I turned to the foreign news sources. So let’s take a look at what the Turkish media has to say about how the so-called coalition is working out. How are our friends stacking up?

The header reads:  Arabs back anti-ISIL statement as Turkey abstains. Let’s look at how the words are parsed. Grab this one first:

Squabbling among Washington’s allies in the region has complicated efforts to present a united front to beat back the militants.

Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Egypt are at odds with Qatar and Turkey because of the latter two countries’ support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups in the region.

Egypt’s foreign minister, Sameh Shukri, emphasized that rift in his opening remarks, saying regional chaos is the result of a number of factors, including the tolerance of some in the region and the West with “so-called political Islam” – a clear dig at supporters of the Brotherhood.

Salman Shaikh, the director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said the Sept. 11 meeting was important because it signaled a U.S. reengagement in the region – something many Mideast allies feel has been lacking under the Obama administration.

“How the U.S. can play this role will be absolutely crucial,” he said. “It has to act as a keen leader for its friends and allies, but also act as a referee between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran, particularly when it comes to the issue of Iraq and the issue of Syria.”

Key Arab allies of the United States agreed Sept. 11 to “do their share” to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),promising to take action to stop the flow of fighters and funding to the insurgents and possibly to join military action.

NATO member Turkey refused to join its Arab neighbors in their public pledge, however, signaling the struggle the West faces in trying to get front-line nations to set aside political feuds and work together against a common enemy, according to the Associated Press.

The announcement followed a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his regional counterparts in the Saudi Red Sea coastal city of Jiddah. His visit, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, was aimed at pinning down regional allies on what support they are willing to give to U.S. plans to beat back the ISIL, which has seized large chunks of Iraq and Syria.

The meeting ended with Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon pledging in a joint statement to stand against terrorism. They promised steps including stopping fighters and funding, repudiating the ISIL’s ideology, providing humanitarian aid and “as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign.”

More at Hurriyet Daily News

The first clip gives us a flavor of the meeting and a view of the lying characters involved. The short second clip is even better. No wonder no one wants to get involved in this nonsense.

John Kerry to CNN: U.S. Is Not ‘at War’ with ISIS

Published on Sep 11, 2014

CNN’s Global Affairs Correspondent Elise Labott caught up with Kerry during a summit in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Thursday and asked him if America is “at war” with ISIS, “because it sure sounded in President Obama’s speech that we were.

 

John Kerry: No need for “war fever” in ISIS operations

 

Obama plays the tune again, “We will hunt down terrorists”

Let us hear about the partners who are going to help out our “lead from behind” President. I give you last year’s post, almost to the day. But first-

Adrienne’s Corner about said it all.

Obama: Little man sock puppet president ribbon cutter doing the bidding of his masters…

wondering when his next tee time is. 

“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” Obama declared in a prime-time address to the nation from the White House. “This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

They’re walking across our Southern borders unimpeded because of your orders.

Has anything changed since September 9, 2013 when I did this post?

WH admits we have zero allies for Syria attack

Too bad Candy Crowley wasn’t as concerned about the truth when she moderated the debate between Romney and Obama. There are zero countries that will stick their neck out to support our one man band Syrian war event. Get off your horse Lurch, and go back and enjoy your rowboat. We are tired of being played as fools by fools.

Recently WSJ reported on John Kerry’s claim that the number of countries supporting a U.S. attack on Syria reached “double digits” but Kerry failed to name any.

JihadWatch noted the following:

Liechtenstein? Luxembourg? Andorra? San Marino? Monaco? Seychelles? Tuvalu? Tannu Tuva? No, not even them. Kerry didn’t name them because he doesn’t have them. He is bluffing.

Apparently, McDonough has a similar problem. In a CNN interview with White House Chief of Staff, Dennis McDonough was repeatedly pressed by Candy Crowley to provide examples of countries that will endorse or provide personnel or equipment for a military intervention in Syria. McDonough emphasized other nations condemnations of Syria but no specifics on support for intervention. The key WH strategy seems to be the repeated memo phrase:  ”Holding him [Syria] to account,” and vague references of “support.”

H/T:Gateway Pundit

Published on Sep 8, 2013

Appearing on CNN on September 8, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough couldn’t provide one example of a country currently offering military support for an intervention in Syria.

McDonough Admits It’s a Coalition of One

Kerry: ‘Bible commands we protect Islamic countries from Global Warming’

We haven’t heard much from Lurch lately. Here is a reminder he is on the job. He still cannot get off the Climate Change meme. Now we are going to save the Islamic countries as well. Swell. The world must think we are totally off our rocker.

 

Kerry

Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”

Kerry said Scripture, in particular the Book of Genesis, make clear it is our “duty” to protect the planet and we should look at Muslim countries “with a sense of stewardship of earth,” adding, “That responsibility comes from God.”

Video here…

H/T: Weasel Zippers

Obama reneges on U.S. Ukraine “Security Assurances” after giving up Nukes

Obama made it clear yesterday at his Presser, that he had no intention to honor the Security Assurances commitment made to Ukraine. In fact, he flew the doors wide open for Putin to march forward. If you want to know why Iran will never give up their Nuclear ambitions, this is a prime example. This is why we cannot be trusted. It was the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia that signed an accord with Ukraine and made a commitment to them, understood as “Security Assurances” in return for them to giving up their Nukes. So let us look back what was said just a few months ago when Putin marched into the Crimea Peninsula. Bet they sure wished they had those nukes now. They would still be a Sovereign Nation. Bet Saddam Hussein had managed to keep them. Same for Syria. The world would look much different now. So let’s take a look.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of December 4, 2009 confirmed their commitment.

“There are very clear legal obligations that are at risk,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Paris.

Mar 5, 2014 4:34 PM

For a brief period, Ukraine was the world’s third-largest nuclear power.

It gave up thousands of nuclear warheads inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a 1994 promise from the U.S. and Russia not to use force or threaten military action against the newly independent nation, a pledge Russian President Vladimir Putin repudiated yesterday after his troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.

The 20-year-old Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by the U.S., Russia, the U.K. and Ukraine, has moved to center stage in the standoff over the country’s Crimea region. Beyond the immediate crisis, Putin’s actions may have lasting consequences for future security talks, including efforts to further reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

“There are very clear legal obligations that are at risk,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Paris.

The U.S. says Putin violated the accord by sending forces into Crimea and threatening to intervene elsewhere in Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians.

The Budapest agreement was considered a major diplomatic accomplishment two decades ago, when the U.S. and Russia shared an interest in limiting the number of nuclear-armed states and reducing the risk that former Soviet weapons would fall into the wrong hands.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 left Ukraine with a large nuclear arsenal — about 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads designed to strike the U.S. and 2,500 shorter-range nuclear weapons.

In 1994, the country’s leaders agreed under pressure from Russia and the U.S. to give up all of them in return for a pledge to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory. Ukraine completed the transfer of all its nuclear warheads to Russia in May 1996.

From Bloomberg March 2014

And boy did we shaft Qaddafi

 

In US-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away

The cache of nuclear technology that Libya turned over to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors in early 2004 was large — far larger than American intelligence experts had expected. There were more than 4,000 centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. There were blueprints for how to build a nuclear bomb — missing some critical components but good enough to get the work started.

The haul was so large that President Bush, with photographers in tow, flew to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to celebrate a rare victory against nuclear proliferation. He briefly noted the success in his recent memoir, “Decision Points,” saying that with the surrender of the weapons Libya “resumed normal relations with the world.” Mr. Bush lifted restrictions on doing business with Libya and praised Colonel Qaddafi, saying his actions had “made our country and our world safer.

In Libya, the story was told differently. In an interview with The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a documentary, “Nuclear Jihad,” Seif Qaddafi complained that the West never followed through on many of its promises.

 Syria and Iraq.

Then we have Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bet the wished they had finished their Nuclear ambitions. But Israel took care of business’

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor – BBC News

The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: “The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose.”

It acted now because it believed the reactor would be completed shortly – either at the beginning of July or the beginning of September 1981.

The Israelis criticised the French and Italians for supplying Iraq with nuclear materials and pledged to defend their territory at all costs.

The Attack on Syria’s al-Kibar Nuclear Facility – inFocus

Israel’s September 6, 2007, attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility surprised the world—Syria most of all. The operation, executed by the Israeli Air Force (IAF), was reminiscent of Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, but with two noticeable differences. First, Israel remained silent following the al-Kibar bombing, while in 1981 it boasted publicly about the Iraq strike even before the pilots had returned. Second, whereas the international community knew of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plans in 1981, few were aware of the extent of Syria’s nuclear program in 2007.

The IAF’s attack raises two important questions: What was Syria hiding? Why did Israel feel compelled to launch a military strike? Subsequent investigations have painted a clearer picture of what took place at al-Kibar.

Finally, we have Lerch. This was back in March when Crimea was taken over by Russia. No mention of the “Assurances Agreement” which was part of the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 832 other followers

%d bloggers like this: