Vote to repeal 2002 Iraq war authorization coming up



GOP Hawks Warn against Repealing Iraq War Resolution ahead of Vote | National Review

So goes the headline:

In a little-noticed development on Friday, a House panel scheduled a vote to repeal the Congressional resolution that authorized the Iraq war.

National Review has learned that the House Foreign Affairs Committee will vote next Thursday on a measure to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This resolution to eliminate the Iraq War AUMF is expected to pass, likely with the support of all of the panel’s Democrats and Representative Peter Meijer (R., Mich.).

Repealing the 2002 AUMF and the 2001 AUMF that authorized force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks has gained widespread popularity in both parties, as a war-weary public and top politicians have called for an end to the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But ahead of the vote on repealing the 2002 measure, some Republicans say they aren’t convinced, warning of ongoing threats from Iran, which backs proxies and operates in Iraq.


Flashback:  Here is what happened when it was feared that Trump was causing a “premature withdrawal” from Afghanistan:

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell warned against a potentially “humiliating” withdrawal that threatens to undo Trump’s “tremendous” work in the region. The GOP leader said a “premature exit” would be reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975. Leaving Afghanistan now “would be broadcast around the world as a symbol of U.S. defeat and humiliation and a victory for Islamic extremism,” McConnell said.



Our man Mustang responds to the upcoming vote on the war resolution:.

The problem with open ended congressional authorizations are several.  The power to declare war is constitutionally within the purview of the Congress; we seem not to do “declarations of war” anymore – and the reason, I suppose, is to prevent “war” affecting the way citizens behave.  A declaration of war doesn’t just put our troops in a war situation, it places the entire nation in a war situation, and could even result in government imposed rationing – of petroleum products, for example.  And once “war” affects the people in a negative way, they become unhappy voters, which is a seat-threatening situation for presidents and members of congress.

I think the AUMF should expire.  We’ve been in the sandbox for far too long and beyond the horrendous expenditures, in terms of money, material, and human lives, have achieved next to nothing.  In fact, going to Iraq made Iran the regional king pin – which if nothing else, tells us what a bunch of nitwits we have running the show inside the beltway.

I’m a professional officer.  I have no objection to whacking the bad guys.  The problem is that the nitwits send us out to face dangerous enemies in pursuit of poorly contrived objectives.  No one tells us what our national interests were/are in Afghanistan or Iraq.  I suspect that’s because there are no national interests, beyond whacking Saddam Hussein, who tried to have Bush the Elder assassinated.  The US military shouldn’t be carrying out personal vendettas.

Still, a president has the authority to conduct limited military operations without a declaration of war – for up to sixty days before having to obtain congressional authority (in reality, a spending authorization).  I’m fine with that, but if congress does “authorize” operations beyond sixty days, there should be a specified “end date” and a specific, clearly defined “national interest.”  In both instances, war planners know what they are trying to accomplish, why, and they know that it has to be accomplished within a specific time frame. 

And if I could have my way, not only would the president have a specified end date to non-declared wars/conflicts, but he would also have to commit to asking congress for a formal declaration of war if the time frame was inadequate to achieving the national interests/objectives.  That way, it wouldn’t only be the troops who go to war while the rest of the country goes to the mall – it would be a national effort to win.

War is a terrible event.  We should not be involved in them unless every other possible effort has failed.  War is a “failure in diplomacy” … and there are times when diplomacy must fail (mostly on account of the fact that the US has the world’s worst-diplomats).  When that happens, the US should, as a nation, with clearly defined national objectives, go to war; the US should then be committed to beating the living crap out of everyone on the other side (men, women, children, their armies, their leaders, their infrastructure, their economy) and do that in the most conspicuous way possible.  Two clearly discernible results will present themselves: we defeat a nationally declared enemy, and we send an important message to all others – do not mess with the USA.  Fewer major wars is better that dozens of smaller ones.

I will conclude by observing that none of this matters when the purpose of the US military is social engineering.  Not sure a “Tranny Brigade” would accomplish much that make the enemy fall down laughing.  The other day, the SecDef (Austin) publicly announced to North Korea that we could go to war with them “tonight.”  I understand General Austin (who could be a moron) caused much levity in the North Korean Officer’s Club.


Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

USA Wars: News from the front


Here we go with the news that is making our military-industrial complex squeal like a stuck pig. Bringing the boys home… heresy to those who have a need for a war somewhere. Always. The best part is now they have no shame. They use to hide their nefarious actions but no more. James Jeffrey is more than happy to claim the title of a treasonous scoundrel. Here we go:


James Jeffrey—who is retiring from his posts as the Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS — reportedly said that “shell games” have been used to avoid telling U.S. leaders the true number of American troops in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said, according to Defense One.

Amb. James Jeffrey, special representative for Syria Engagement and special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019. AP PHOTO/SUSAN WALSH

Jeffrey reportedly said that when President Donald Trump was interested in withdrawing from Syria, arguments against a withdrawal were presented to the commander in chief.


“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey told the outlet. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.” From Just the news

Wandering over the Afghanistan:

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell warned against a potentially “humiliating” withdrawal that threatens to undo Trump’s “tremendous” work in the region. The GOP leader said a “premature exit” would be reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975. Leaving Afghanistan now “would be broadcast around the world as a symbol of U.S. defeat and humiliation and a victory for Islamic extremism,” McConnell said.



Acting Secretary of Defense Miller to officially announce U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan and Iraq from the Pentagon.



We can count on Liz Cheney. June 2020.



The Democrats pitched in:

House Democrats, Working With Liz Cheney, Restrict Trump’s Planned Withdrawal of Troops From Afghanistan and Germany. July,2020.

The bipartisan commitment to using Russia for endless war and imperialism remains vibrant.

THE U.S. MILITARY HAS BEEN fighting in Afghanistan for almost nineteen years. House Democrats, working in tandem with key pro-war GOP lawmakers such as Rep. Liz Cheney, are ensuring that continues.

Last night, the House Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment — jointly sponsored by Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado and Congresswoman Cheney of Wyoming — prohibiting the expenditure of monies to reduce the number of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan below 8,000 without a series of conditions first being met.

The imposed conditions are by no means trivial: for these troop reductions from Afghanistan to be allowed, the Defense Department must be able to certify, among other things, that leaving Afghanistan “will not increase the risk for the expansion of existing or formation of new terrorist safe havens inside Afghanistan” and “will not compromise or otherwise negatively affect the ongoing United States counter terrorism mission against the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and associated forces.”

Read more The Intercept

Speaking of Liz – I add a refresher. Let’s roll back to 2013 and her Institute for the study of war. Wander over for the full read.

Liz Cheney, Elizabeth O’Bagy, Military contractors- a toxic brew

Just what is the  Institute for the Study of War? Unfortunately,  much of their original information disappeared yesterday from their website. Thanking various military contractors for hosting dinners, and of course Liz Cheney’s name and picture are no longer prominently displayed.

ISW has increasingly drawn support from military contractors with stakes in the issues that the institute studies. “According to ISW’s last annual report,” noted Consortium News in December 2012, “its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it now is backed by national security contractors, including major ones like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provides training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplies software to U.S. military intelligence in Afghanistan.”[18]


Other than that all is swell in the swamp.




Flashback Hillary: ‘If I were President I would obliterate Iran’


A trip down memory lane with our savants during the halcyon days of the Obama tenure. First a couple of tweets from Hillary to set the stage for some laughs and giggles. As painful as it is to review the statements of these characters that were running our country, it explains why Trump had and has such a mess on his hands.

You betcha Hillary – cheat? Oh not you!

Interference? Here is a story worth a read…..

Clinton’s interference in Russian election – Putin’s payback



Iran? Here is how Hillary would roll as President. Apparently just as she did in Libya. They are worried about Trump???

Position of Hillary Clinton on Iran



Ho, Ho, Ho…. a real knee slapper… Congressional approval? What Congressional approval? Just asking.

Now Libya is a failed State where terrorists sell human beings in open air slave markets, thanks to Hillary and the Obama/Biden intervention.



Bonus: Iran is no threat to us…. it is a tiny country. Just give them 150 Billion dollars and all will be well.


Our savant Biden:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.

“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.”

In 2010, Biden Predicted Iraq Would Be “One Of The Great Achievements Of This Administration”


Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news


Iran – Iraq: The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement


The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement
by Mustang 
Some background
Iran is the seventeenth largest country in the world, encompassing just under one-million square miles of land—larger than the combined nations of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal.  It is also the sixteenth largest country in terms of human population.  The size of the country, its terrain, weather patterns, shortage of water, and the distribution of human populations make Iran unsuitable for sustained land warfare. 

Reza Shah Pahlavi

Reza Shah Pahlavi (1878-1944) (also known as Reza Shah) was the Shah of Iran from December 1925 to September 1941, when a joint British-Soviet invasion forced his resignation.  Before leading Iran as its monarch, Pahlavi served as Iran’s prime minister.  He was appointed legal monarch by the Iranian Constituent Assembly, which deposed the previous shah, Ahmad Shah Qajar [1].  Reza Shah sought to restrict opposition to his regime by restricting freedom of the press, worker’s rights, and certain political freedoms.  Political parties were banned—including the party most loyal to Reza Shah—along with trade unions. 

He was also known for punishing through torture criminal elements, spies, and those accused of plotting regicide.  There are some today who accuse Reza Shah of suppressing religious expression, particularly those practicing the moslem faith and of suppressing the communist elements in Iran during his reign.  The confiscation of clerical land holdings did not endear him to a group of increasingly radical Iranian clerics—and the more these leaders protested Reza Shah’s policies, the more he cracked down on Islamic extremists.
In 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa—the invasion of the Soviet Union.  It was a direct violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.  That summer, Soviet and British diplomats sent a number of notes to the government of Iran, stating that they regarded the presence of Germans in Iran, such as those administering state rail systems, as a threat to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom.  The implication was that if Iran did not expel these German civil servants, a state of war might exist between Iran and the allied powers. 

It was the intent of the British to ship arms to the Soviets through Iran.  Iran, however, did not believe the British would declare war on Iran, particularly since Iran had declared its neutrality in the growing conflict.  However, on 25 August 1941, British and Australian forces attacked the Persian Gulf and Soviet land forces invaded Iran, which included the aerial bombing of Tehran.  It was not long before Iranian defense forces collapsed.  On 16 September, Reza Shah resigned and was replaced by his son, Mohammed Reza [2].
In 1953, the United States helped to orchestrate a coup d’ẻtat, which overthrew a popularly elected prime minister and strengthened the Iranian monarchy.  Despite his demonstrations of enlightenment in 1941, Shah Reza Pahlavi by 1971 had become increasingly authoritarian (and inept).  His domestic policies did as much to foment revolution as did the radical Islamist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who was working to achieve revolution in the background from Paris). 

One might argue that through their support of the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian people have suffered mightily of their own choosing.  It can also be argued that the policies toward Iran of the United Kingdom and United States have not served the interests of either country, or of Iran and its people [3].

More Recently


The United States eliminated through extreme prejudice Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, a thoroughly nasty fellow who commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the so-called Quds Force, an organization responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations, which involved providing military assistance to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. 

Soleimani was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 due to his alleged involvement in providing material support to the Syrian government in its suppression of civil protests.  Owing to the fact that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist since Osama bin Laden, the United States listed him as a known terrorist.  At 0100 on 3 January 2020, a US drone strike introduced Soleimani to the afterworld.  This strike came as a consequence of Soleimani’s orchestration of the attack on the United States Embassy in Baghdad [4].
Shortly after the drone strike, President Donal J. Trump warned leaders in Iran against following through on their threats to avenge General Soleimani.  By now, all of Donald Trump’s “tweets” have become famous, but his communique via Twitter in the aftermath of Soleimani’s demise is particularly noteworthy. 
Mr. Trump wrote, “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, and badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. 
“Let this serves as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, will be hit very fast and very hard.  The United States of America wants no more threats.”
President Trump made two important decisions: to kill Soleimani —and to do it publicly.  In making the act public, Mr. Trump left no doubt as to whom was responsible for Soleimani’s long-overdue death.  Trump in fact emphasized the direction of his administration when he also announced that there would be no more Benghazi’s.  Bravo, Mr. Trump!  But of course, the decision places Iran in the unenviable position of having to decide what to do about the drone strike. 
Currently, there is a lame duck government in Iraq, which Iran must see as an opportunity.  There is also an issue among some Afghanis who wonder why, if Mr. Trump can reach out and touch Soleimani, why can’t the United States reach out with equal precision and rid the world of a number of Pakistani thugs who fund or orchestrate Taliban anti-government campaigns.  It is an interesting question.
What the US government should keep in mind, in addition to the fact that Iran is unsuitable for a sustained land engagement, is that only 55% of the Iranian people are ethnic Persian; a large percentage of the Iranian population are minority Sunni moslems.  This is a fact that should lead US political leaders to avoid any policy or action that would serve to unite these disparate groups behind the Ayatollah or any of his henchmen [5]. 
With substantial American military forces to the east and west of Iran, the Iranian regime must have concerns that the United States is well-placed to foment rebellion inside Iran—and this may be the reason Iran is desperate to develop an offensive nuclear capability.  It may also explain their support of ideological extremism, which equates to cheap warfare for Iran, while remaining costly for everyone else.

The problem we have with Iran today is more than just a little of our own fault.  We need to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs; it is a nasty habit we picked up from the British.  We also need to stop appeasing thugs and criminals.  There is no good reason for any American president to “understand the plight of Islamic freedom fighters.” 

What these Islamists do in their own country is none of our concern; it should only be a concern to us when their unseemly behaviors affect our (actual) national security, the safety of our people, and the protection of our property.  I support the concept of using our air forces to punish any Iranian revenge attack.  I do not care about any collateral damage that might result from it.

The Iranians opted for their plight in 1978-79; they continue to put up with radical regimes today.  The sooner Iran understands that western civilization will defend itself, that we (collectively) will not tolerate Islamic extremism (in any form), the quicker they learn that there are dangerous consequence to global extremism, the better for everyone.


Donald J. Trump is the only president we’ve had in the past 32 years with the courage to set Iran straight.  Not only should we (true) Americans be thankful for that, we should also demand it from all future presidents/presidential candidates.

  1. Buchan, J.  Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences.  Simon & Schuster, 2013.
  2. Abrahamian, E.  Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran.  University of California, 1999.
  3. Daniel, E. L.  The History of Iran.  Greenwood Press, 2000.
  4. United States Department of State, American Foreign Policy Basic Documents, 1977-80.  Washington, DC 1983.
  1. Ascended to the throne of Iran at the age of 11 years after his father was overthrown in 1909.  His reign was short lived, sent into exile in 1925.  He passed away at the age of 32 years in 1930.
  2. Mohammed Reza reigned until 1979 when he abdicated and went into exile.  The Iranian revolution was unusual in the sense that it occurred in a relatively prosperous nation, not the result of war, financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or a military coup d’ẻtat.  Rather than evolving as a single event, the revolution involved a series of incidents beginning in 1977 which culminated in wide-scale civil disobedience that included both secular and religious elements and university students.  Strikes and demonstrations paralyzed Iran between 1978-79.  On 16 January 1979, the Shah went into exile leaving the government in the hands of a regency council headed by an opposition prime minister  The council in turn invited Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran, thinking that he would serve the interests of secular government by maintaining the status of a religious figurehead.  That didn’t happen, of course.
  3. The Iranian Hostage event occurred in November 1979, lasting for 444 days, which proves beyond question that US elections have significant consequences to the safety and security of the American people, United States property, and our national prestige.  It is a shame that the American voter has never learned this important lesson of history, which is illustrated by their election of Barack Obama to the presidency, their continued and bewildering support of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and their jaw-dropping support of Marxist/globalist politicians.
  4. American diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to limit Iranian influence in the Middle East has had no impact on Iranian behavior since the Iranian Revolution in 1976.  In addition to murdering Americans, Soleimani was also responsible for the deaths of (estimated) thousands in Syria, but of course the American political left has condemned the attack, arguing that it violated international and human rights standards protecting known terrorists, murderers, and rapists generally, and Soleimani particularly.
  5. It is only through the fear and intimidation imposed on them by Iran’s revolutionary guard that keeps minority groups “in line.”  

For the best in news.

What did happen at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq?


While we are looking away from the political happenings around the world, there was “Some thing” to coin a phrase from our favorite Muslim, that happened in Iraq. That something apparently can be spun in any number of ways. The New York Times takes the case to a new level as a case in point and Powerline points it out in this tweet.

The news accounts of the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad conventionally refer to the Iranian or pro-Iranian force that attacked the embassy as “protesters.” This conferred a sort of legitimacy on the attack, and was wrong. But the New York Times went farther over the edge, referring to the militiamen as “mourners.”

Hey, who doesn’t bring rockets to a funeral? You have to wonder: do the idiots at the New York Times seriously believe that they are fooling anyone?

For the best in conservative news its

Posted in Military. Tags: , , . 20 Comments »

Does anyone give a darn about this Iran business?



I had close relatives working in Iran during the the period of governance by the Shah of Iran, who was a Progressive, with Western values. He worked hard on liberalizing the culture, especially women. The cities were  cosmopolitan. I recall many conversations during this time with them and the requisite “Sunday night slide show” of Iran when they returned to the the U.S. at times to visit. When I ran across this clip I felt dreadfully sad. It brought to mind the pictures I had seen in the 1960’s- 1970’s. The swamp remains with its lies and deceptions.

Last week I posted Iran’s Rouhani Makes First Visit Ever To Iraq To “Bypass Unjust US Sanctions”

The post wasn’t a barn burner.. not even close. Just let the headline sink in. All I ask.



Looking at these women now, I can only wonder about them. Forty years later.


Information shows how Khomeini fooled Carter into helping him overthrow US ally, while deceiving US public.

The BBC reports that Khomeini had made several overtures to US presidents, asking them to encourage the Iranian military to stand down and allow the uprising to succeed. In exchange, he promised to continue the warm relationship between the two countries.

The first message was sent to President John F Kennedy in 1963, but arrived only two weeks before he was assassinated. The next known attempt came in January 1979, as the Ayatollah prepared to return home from exile.

American officials in Tehran were already aware of the rumbles of discomfort and were looking for a way out of the situation, despite publicly supporting the Shah and Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar. “The best that can result, in my view, is a military coup against Bakhtiar and then a deal struck between the military and Khomeini that finally pushes the Shah out of power,” wrote Deputy National Security Adviser David Aaron.

A couple days later, President Carter encouraged the Shah to “leave promptly.” He never returned to Iran. (Ed. In fact, the Shah was very sick at the time.)

The Ayatollah’s message arrived just as US officials were thinking of ways to quietly back the Islamists. The two sides began secret talks, which culminated in American assurances that it was not opposed to overthrowing the monarchy. For his part, Khomeini repeatedly promised that Iran would view the US as a friend and would continue selling oil to all countries except for Israel and South Africa. He even convinced the US that there was no need to remove its weapons, because the US military would still be welcome to operate in the country.

Analysts have pointed out how well Khomeini succeeded in deluding the Americans. “Unlike Carter, Khomeini pursued a consistent strategy and played his hand masterfully. Guided by a clear vision of establishing an Islamic republic, the ayatollah engaged America with empty promises, understood its intentions, and marched toward victory,” the BBC notes.

While this information has only now been revealed to the public, it would presumably have been available to the Obama administration during last year’s nuclear negotiations with Iran. Though we are in a different century and Ayatollah Khomeini has been replaced by Ayatollah Khamenei, Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama regularly assured the public that Iran was negotiating in good faith and could be trusted, just as the Carter administration believed.

After the deal was signed, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes admitted that the US government lied to its constituents and allies, and had been secretly preparing for a nuclear agreement with hardliners in Tehran.

Shortly after Rouhani was elected in 2013, he and Obama exchanged letters, and Obama later publicly reached out to Iran in a speech to the UN General Assembly.

In November of that year, it was revealed that a preliminary deal between Iran and the West was made possible due to secret talks that the United States and Iran held for more than half a year and were authorized by Obama himself.

Those discussions were kept hidden even from America’s closest friends, including its five negotiating partners and from Israel.

The reason for the skewed presentation of the talks’ timeline, said Rhodes on Sunday, was to enable the administration to sell the deal to a wider audience.

After the deal was struck last July, Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, explained to the Times how Washington’s foreign policy objectives focused on Iran.

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed in the same article, noted that his job at the time of negotiations was to keep Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Speaking of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Panetta noted that “They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ”

“And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”

Asked whether he would make that assessment now, Panetta answered, “Probably not.”

Regarding the media’s support for the deal, Rhodes admitted in the interview that “We created an echo chamber.”

Rosen report on Ben Rhodes lying to Americans on Iran deal


Iraqi Christians celebrate Christmas once again

For inspiration, a few beautiful tweets that came from the Iraqi Christian twitter account. Well worth checking it out. Thanks to Unit, a commenter yesterday that left the link..
The Guardian Here For Iraq’s Christians, a bittersweet first Christmas home after Isis takeover


Iraqi Christian Human Rights Council promotes the human, political, and legal rights of Iraqi Christians and other Middle East Christians.

Iraqi Christian HRC Retweeted

Ancient communities celebrating around the Middle East. in ; in ; in ; in .

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

State Department Delaying Aid Congress Provided to Yazidis, Christians in Iraq


Go figure this one out. Trying to save Christians and Yazidis in Iraq? Apparently we will leave that to the UN. But Secretary Tillerson is more than happy to bail out the Muslims in Burma. You can bet they will be getting refugee status and moving here to our quaint little towns in places like Idaho and other rural communities because that is the way this stupid stuff rolls:

Human rights activists and Catholic groups are questioning why the State Department still appears reluctant to direct money Congress appropriated to assist Christians, Yazidis, and other persecuted religious minorities in Iraq but this week quickly dispatched $32 million to help a majority Muslim group fleeing violence in Burma.

Tillerson’s quick efforts to help the Rohingya demonstrated the State Department’s ability to quickly direct humanitarian aid to a threatened minority group. However, critics say the swift action stands in sharp contrast to State’s foot-dragging when it comes to directing funds to Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities facing genocide in Iraq.

Despite the congressional commitment, lawmakers and human rights activists say most of the U.S. taxpayer money going to help people in Iraq is channeled through the United Nations, which has a “religion-blind” policy of distributing most of the money to refugee camps that Yazidis and Christians avoid out of fear of further violence and persecution.

“It is always good when people who are in danger are helped. But why is there a terrible disparity between our government’s treatment of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma and the absolute lack of help for Yazidis and Christians in Iraq, whom Secretary Tillerson declared last month to be victims of genocide?” asked Nina Shea, an international human rights lawyer who directs the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

More at Free Beacon

Six US troops killed, just before Christmas

Z posted this, and here is a part of her post:This terrible hit before Christmas hit us all……  I am including the music “Bring him home” as a reminder of all those who are away from home in this precious time of year.

This is about the six US troops killed two days  ago in Afghanistan.  These six were killed:  Please take in their smiles, their optimism, their strength, their lives.  The life’s gone now and their families are a mess.  Their families will never have another totally happy Christmas in their LIVES…NEVER.  There will always be the pall that “Daddy died 7 years ago just before CHRISTMAS..”  Ever year.

Air Force Major Adrianna Vorderbruggen

New York City Detective Joseph Lemm, a 15-year veteran of the NYPD who also volunteered in the U.S. Air National Guard and was on his third deployment to war zones.

Serviceman Chester McBride Jr., who was remembered by the principal of Statesboro High School as “a young man of high character with a great smile.”

Serviceman Michael Anthony Cinco of Rio Grande Valley, Texas, was identified by local media as another victim.

Staff Sergeant Louis Bonacasa from New York.

But what we do actually know is that six brave American families will be celebrating Chrismas without their dad, their mom, their brother, their wives………….and they need PRAYER.

I blog this to ASK FOR PRAYER FOR THEM………for Adriannna, Joe Lemm, Mike Cinco, Chet McBride, Peter Taub and Bonacasam

Keep these service people and their spouses in your prayers…………but,mostly pray for their children, missing their dad every Christmas from now on.

God bless you………….Z

Colm Wilkinson – Bring Him Home (Les Misérables)

God on high
Hear my prayer
In my need
You have always been there

He is young
He’s afraid
Let him rest
Heaven blessed.
Bring him home
Bring him home
Bring him home.He’s like the son I might have known
If God had granted me a son.
The summers die
One by one
How soon they fly
On and on
And I am old
And will be gone.


Bring him peace
Bring him joy
He is young
He is only a boy

You can take
You can give
Let him be
Let him live
If I die, let me die
Let him live
Bring him home
Bring him home
Bring him home.

Pilots confirm that Obama blocks 75 percent of ISIS strikes

Let me know just how one “wins” a war, or otherwise degrades an enemy if seventy-five percent of the bombing runs are blocked? Does Obama really want to win anything other than degrade America? I happened to be on the road and heard the full miserable speech, given on foreign soil, castigated the GOP and otherwise showed the man to be the petulant, angry little man that he is. I urge everyone to catch it. Delusional is too kind a word.

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordinance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”

More at Free Beacon . The Picture below is from a tweet from the WH..Your child would have been thrown out of school for this move                             Your child would have been thrown out of school for this move

Or would you rather have this man for your leader?

jordan king

                                                              King Abdullah


%d bloggers like this: