First the Taliban are rebranded as "armed insurgents" and now ISIS are really the unemployed

State Department under fire for saying finding 'jobs' for jihadis - not 'killing them' - is the only way to defeat ISIS, as White House avoids saying latest beheading victims were Christian

Since we are giving tax refunds to illegals who didn't pay taxes I won't be a bit surprised when ISIS files for unemployment benefits. I learn something everyday. ISIS is not composed of ruthless, bloodthirsty, terrorists they are actually a "group" of people who just happen to be unemployed. But if they were employed the atrocities they commit would be deemed "workplace violence". Finally I got it.

-------------------------------------------------

'Countering violent extremism' conference kicks off in Washington but the White House insists 'we are not treating these people as part of a religion'

Marie Harf, the State Department's no. 2 spokeswoman, said Monday night that 'lack of opportunity for jobs' in the Middle East should be US focus

'We cannot win this war by killing them, we cannot kill our way out of this war,' she said of the ISIS terror army

Lengthy statement from the White House after brutal killings of 21 Christians by ISIS-linked minitants in Libya made no mention of Christians or Muslims

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com

Published: 12:03 EST, 17 February 2015 | Updated: 19:04 EST, 17 February 2015

The Obama administration is drawing fire for suggesting that defeating ISIS requires more of a jobs program for terrorists than a sophisticated approach to killing them.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday night on MSNBC that 'we cannot win this war by killing them, we cannot kill our way out of this war.'

Instead, she said, the administration should 'go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups' – including 'lack of opportunity for jobs.'

'We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance,' Harf insisted. 'We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.'

The embarrassing gaffe aired as the White House attracted new criticism for papering over religious aspects of a mass-beheading of Coptic Christians by the ISIS terror army.

JOBLESS JIHAD: State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted Monday night on MSNBC that a jobs program in the Middle East could stem the tide of ISIS

President Obama steps off Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Bace in Maryland after spending Presidents' Day weekend playing golf in Palm Springs, California

'THEY WERE CHRISTIANS': Pope Francis mourned the loss of 21 Copts in Libya who were beheaded on video by ISIS terrorists

Video surfaced on Sunday showing Libyan ISIS sympathizers decapitating 21 Christians on a beach. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest issued a 192-word reaction condemning the brutal killings as 'despicable' and 'cowardly' but made no mention of the religion of the killers or their victims.

The words 'Christian,' 'Islam' and 'Muslim.' were not included in Earnest's statement.

The video itself was titled 'A Message Signed With Blood to the Nation of the Cross.' The slaughtered men, clad in orange jumpsuits reminiscent of Guantanamo Bay detainee garb, were described as 'crusaders.'

One of the men was seen praying just moments before his throat was slit.

Families of Coptic Christians beheaded by ISIS inconsolable

The White House convened a conference with representatives from more than 60 countries on Tuesday on a subject it calls 'countering violent extremism.' 

Like Earnest's statement, administration officials connected with the event have studiously avoided any mention of radical Islam or its animosity toward Christians and Jews.

'We are not treating these people as part of a religion,' a senior administration official said Monday during a conference call with reporters.

'We're treating them as terrorists. We call them our enemies and we'll be treating them as such.'

World leaders outside of Washington have leapt to connect ISIS, the self-described Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, with a religious battle that pits Islamists against the world's other great religions.

The 21 Copts, 'were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians,' Pope Francis said Monday at the Vatican, speaking in his native Spanish.

MUSLIM VS. CHRISTIAN: The five-minute ISIS video released on Sunday was captioned: 'The people of the cross, followers of the hostile Egyptian church'; One of the terrorists (center) boasted that 'safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for'

IMPATIENCE IN CONGRESS: Republicans including New York Rep. Peter King are growing more frustrated with a White House that steadfastly refuses to frame the ISIS battle in religious terms

'The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard. It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians!'

British Prime Minister David Cameron said he was 'appalled by the murder of Christians in Libya, a simply barbaric and inhumane act.'

'Our efforts to defeat the monstrosity of Islamist extremism must not waver.'

A CNN/ORC poll found 57 per cent of Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS. Even among Democrats, 46 per cent say America's battle with ISIS is going badly. 

Public approval of the administration's anti-ISIS efforts has slipped by 8 percentage points since September.

Part of that slide may be due to the State Department's focus on what conservatives deride as 'hashtag diplomacy' – a program of pushback through social media designed to strip away ISIS's glamourous appeal to would-be jihadis.

The New York Times reported Monday that State is engaged in a broad effort through its Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to coordinate all the government's social media resources in response to nearly 100 Twitter accounts blasting pro-ISIS recruiting messages into the Internet's digital ether.

'We're getting beaten on volume, so the only way to compete is by aggregating, curating and amplifying existing content,' Under Secretary of State Richard Stengel told the Times.

'These guys aren't BuzzFeed,' Stengel said. 'They're not invincible in social media.'

But National Counterterrorism Center director told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last week that 'the government is probably not the best platform to try to communicate with the set of actors who are potentially vulnerable to this kind of propaganda and this kind of recruitment.'

'We try to find ways to stimulate this kind of counternarrative, this kind of countermessaging, without having a U.S. government hand in it.'

First the Taliban are rebranded as "armed insurgents" and now ISIS are really the unemployed

Federal judge orders temporary halt to Obama executive actions on immigration

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGE EVISCERATES OBAMA’S AMNESTY PROGRAM

On Tuesday, Judge Andrew Hanen of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a temporary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement of President Obama’s executive amnesty. In a comprehensive 123 page opinion, Hanen smacks down the Obama administration repeatedly.

Hanen begins by examining the legacy of executive branch failures to enforce immigration law, then points out that states have borne the brunt of cost related to ineffectual immigration enforcement:

While the States are obviously concerned about national security, they are also concerned about their own resources being drained by the constant influx of illegal immigrants into their respective territories, and that this continual flow of illegal immigration has led and will lead to serious domestic security issues directly affecting their citizenry.

Hanen then quotes Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in his infamous greenlighting of Obamacare to the effect that Congress has the power to determine immigration policy. Hanen writes:

The ultimate question before the Court is: Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case?

Hanen says that he is not questioning the policy decency of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program pushed by President Obama, but of aspects of its legality. He adds that President Obama’s program may or may not be an amnesty, but says that it makes no difference what you call the program; only its legality is in question. Finally, Hanen sums up the issues:

(1) whether the States have standing to bring this case; (2) whether the DHS has the necessary discretion to institute the DAPA program; and (3) whether the DAPA program is constitutional, comports with existing laws, and was legally adopted.

After summing up the legal and factual background of the case, noting the contentions of both the administration’s critics and the administration’s responses, Hanen comes to the actual legal arguments.

Standing

He first discusses the issue of “standing,” the requirement in any case that the plaintiff in a case be directly affected by the law in question. That requirement breaks down into three elements: that the plaintiff suffer a “concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent”; that there is a causal relationship between the statute and the damages; and that the injury could “likely” be addressed by the court striking down the regulation. Further, the judge points out, a broad harm to the general population should be addressed politically, not in the courts.

The judge points out a second level of standing as well: standing under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows standing to a “person suffering a legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.”

The ruling states that the states do have standing to contest the executive amnesty, citing the costs associated with processing of driver’s license, and the fact that supposed workarounds to avoid costs will likely be contested by the federal government, as the federal government did with regard to Arizona’s immigration law. “The federal government made it clear in Arizona (and would not retreat from that stance in this case),” the ruling states, “that any move by a plaintiff state to limit the issuance of driver’s licenses would be viewed as illegal.” The court further rules that these damages are not generalized, but particular to the driver’s license program. The judge slams the federal government’s incoherent immigration policy:

Although the federal government conceded that states enjoy substantial leeway in setting policies for licensing drivers within their jurisdiction, it simultaneously argued that the states could not tailor these laws to create ‘new alien classifications not supported by federal law.’ In other words, the states cannot protect themselves from the costs inflicted by the Government when 4.3 million individuals are granted legal presence wit the resulting ability to compel state action. The irony of this position cannot be fully appreciated unless it is contrasted with the DAPA Directive. The DAPA Directive unilaterally allows individuals removable by law to legally remain in the United States based upon a classification that is not established by any federal law. It is this very lack of law about which the States complain. The Government claims that it can act without a supporting law, but the States cannot.

As the judge adds, it is certainly ironic that the federal government is butting into the driver’s license business, given that it is traditionally a state function. He also points out that the feds require the states to pay certain fees for processing of driver’s licenses.

With regard to causation, Judge Hanen finds that there is a clear relationship between the regulation and the cost. He also finds that striking down the regulation would achieve the goal of avoiding that cost.

Hanen also points out several other possible grounds for standing. Hanen says parens patraie – the ability of a state to bring suit “to protect the interests of its citizens” – applies to state suits against the federal government. The state argued that businesses will be forced to cover health insurance for illegal immigrants under the new program. The federal government made the frightening argument that the federal government is the protector of the interests of citizens, so states could not file suit against the feds. Hanen says states could file parens patraie suit, but that this case has not yet materialized because the federal government has not made clear its intentions with regard to Obamacare.

Hanen then moves on to the biggest argument of all: the argument that the federal government’s refusal to enforce its borders costs the states money, and that that loss makes federal policy justiciable. He says that these costs are not directly related to DAPA:

The Court finds that the Government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country. Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the States’ resources. Regardless, the Court finds that these more indirect damages described in this section are not caused by DAPA; thus the injunctive relief requested Plaintiffs would not redress these damages.

The court also rejected the argument that allowing illegal immigrants to stay increases costs with regard to programs like education, explaining that the “Constitution and federal law mandate that these individuals are entitled to state benefits merely because of their presence in the United States, whether they reside in the sunshine or the shadows.” The Court adds that the specific costs associated with DAPA – the argument that “continued presence in this county will increase state costs” — is solid, but that the federal argument that the economy will pay for all of that is at least supportable. Finally, the Court states that the federal government’s statements encouraging illegal immigration are not redressable.

The Court then turns to the issue of standing with regard to abdication. Judge Hanan says that “The most provocative and intellectually intriguing standing claim presented by this case is that based upon federal abdication,” the theory by which the “federal government asserts sole authority over a certain area of American life and excludes any authority or regulation by a state; yet subsequently refuses to act in that area. The Court calls this argument indisputable. “[T]he Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law,” the Court states. The Court drops the hammer: “If one had to formulate from scratch a fact pattern that exemplified the existence of standing due to federal abdication, one could not have crafted a better scenario.”

Discretion

Next, the Court turns to the question of prosecutorial discretion. The Court explains that prosecutorial discretion is the purview of the executive branch, but that the DAPA program is not discretion at all. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Court points out, there has been no rule promulgated that meets the requirements of notice and hearing. The Court states, “The responsibility of the federal government, who exercises plenary power over immigration, includes not only the passage of rational legislation, but also the enforcement of those laws. The States and their residents are entitled to nothing less.” The Court also says that this is not a question of merely federal inaction, but “affirmative action rather than inaction….Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits.” Most tellingly, the Court quotes President Obama himself stating that he instructed the Department of Homeland Security to “change the law.” The Court then concludes:

While the Government would not totally concede this point in oral argument, the logical end point of its argument is that the DHS, solely pursuant to its implied authority and general statutory enforcement authority, could have made DAPA applicable to all 11.3 million immigrants estimated to be in the country illegally. This Court finds that the discretion given to the DHS Secretary is not unlimited.

In a final slap, the Court states, “In the instant case, the DHS is tasked with the duty of removing illegal aliens. Congress has provided that it ‘shall’ do this. Nowhere has Congress given it the option to either deport these individuals or give them legal presence and work permits.”

The Court also calls out President Obama directly for contending publicly that he changed the law, then sending his lawyers to claim that DAPA is supposed to be advisory in nature. The Court then states that the only “discretion” used has “already [been] exercised by Secretary Johnson in enacting the DAPA program and establishing the criteria therein.” The Court concludes, “The DAPA program clearly represents a substantive change in immigration policy…it contradicts the INA. It is, in effect, a new law.”

Injunction

The Court issued an injunction in this case because, as Judge Hanan writes, “legalizing the presence of millions of people is a ‘virtually irreversible’ action once taken,” both in terms of cost, and in terms of the presence of the illegal aliens themselves. “Once Defendants make such determinations,” the Court writes, “the States accurately allege that it will be difficult or even impossible for anyone to ‘unscramble the egg.’….This genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” The Court points out that the status quo ante would not be changed by striking down the regulation; we would merely have the clarity of knowing whether the government has the authority for DAPA before it is implemented.

Conclusion

In short, the Court eviscerates the Obama administration’s position. The case will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but Judge Hanan’s heavy reliance on Fifth Circuit case law makes it unlikely to be reversed at that level. The injunction means that the case will expedite to the Supreme Court level. Now the question becomes whether the lawless Obama administration will obey the judge’s ruling even though the injunction has been granted.

Federal judge orders temporary halt to Obama executive actions on immigration

This was a lead story a few days ago

US Muslim Student Deaths Spark Worldwide Outrage

http://www.voanews.com/content/killings-of-us-muslim-students-attract-worldwide-grief-outrage/2639951.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the outrage in this story below? Has it become so routine and commonplace no one even bats an eye anymore?

Islamic State released a video on Sunday purporting to show the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians kidnapped in Libya.

Reuters | 16 February, 2015 12:44

In the video, militants in black marched the captives to a beach that the group said was near Tripoli. They were forced down onto their knees, then beheaded. Egypt's state news agency MENA quoted the spokesman for the Coptic Church as confirming that 21 Egyptian Christians believed to be held by Islamic State were dead. File photo

Image by: REUTERS TV / Reuters

----------------------------------------------------------------

This is Islam. The teaching of the Quran. To break it down to its simplest terms. If you are not a Muslim you are an infidel. An infidel is a non-believer. According to Quran "infidels" must convert to Islam or die. It's really not complicated but we as a nation, and many other nations around the world, are too stupid or just flat refuse to face the facts.

This you can take to the bank.

This is the sitting president of the United States.

... beheadings burnings who has time for that?

This was a lead story a few days ago

The hypocrisy here blows me away!

EXCLUSIVE — DONALD TRUMP: MSM INVESTIGATION INTO SCOTT WALKER'S COLLEGE A 'DOUBLE STANDARD'

Suddenly the MSM takes an interest in college records. Scott walker's to be exact. Meanwhile Barry's college transcripts are shrouded in secrecy and as we all know sealed. Didn't the MSM find that the slightest bit suspicious? Yet they didn't seem to have any problem digging into George W. Bush's life and discovering a DWI way back in 1976. Guess it depends on what party you belong to. Now the bloodhounds of this unbiased MSM have been released and are...

 

investigating Walker's college records. Of course they will avoid mentioning with 34 credits to go Walker quit college to join the Red Cross. One good thing. It's clear who the MSM fears.

Why would you want your college transcripts sealed unless you had something to hide? I believe Barry presented himself as a foreign exchange student.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/revealed-bio-names-obamas-birthplace/ 

Breitbart originally broke the story by digging this up. If this was a "mistake" why didn't Barry address it? I could understand Indiana and they meant Illinois...but Kenya?

If you believe Barry's not lying I got a Bosnian sniper rifle I like to sell you.

   So the bottom line is either Breitbart is lying or Barry's involved in a coverup.  With Barry's track record my money's on him. Speaking of money maybe Trump could offer a mil to anyone who comes forward with the correct information. 

Don't we have a right to know?

Real estate magnate and reality television star Donald Trump, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, tells Breitbart News it's a "double standard" for the Washington Post to spend as much time and effort as it did investigating Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's college days, when reporters haven't put much effort into investigating President Barack Obama's background.

"Why didn't they send a reporter over to Occidental and to Columbia and to the various Obama schools?" Trump said in a phone interview. "There's never been a reporter over there. Nobody's ever found anything. There's no records available. Why didn't send a reporter over to talk to the people from the schools he went to? It seems like a terrible double standard."

When asked about how, six years deep now into the Obama administration, the president has been able to keep his college transcripts and records hidden from the American people, Trump said it's largely because Obama spent millions in legal fees aiming to keep them hidden.

"They have nothing. They have nothing," Trump said. "They don't even have any records at all. They have no record of names. They have no record he went there. And of course the president spent $3.2 million to make sure they don't have any records."

In a story before the 2012 election, the Washington Times' Dave Boyer wrote that, "most presidents' academic records are made public by the time they reach the highest office in the land, either with their consent or by someone else digging them up."

"There's no reason why people shouldn't know," Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution, told the Times then, imploring Obama to be transparent. "At this point, it's pretty moot — perhaps amusing if it turned out that he didn't do very well."

Boyer wrote that, "whenever Team Obama is asked about the president's college performance, officials dodge the question, obviously with Mr. Obama's blessing."

Specifically, the way Obama dodges the questions, Boyer added, is an orchestrated process.

"The White House press office refers such questions to campaign officials, who in turn refuse to provide any information," Boyer wrote. "The Obama campaign didn't respond to questions for this article."

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has also called on the president to publicly release his college records.

"President Obama himself has a very compelling story to tell," O'Reilly said on the O'Reilly Factor in early 2013.

His father abandoned him. He was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. He had few resources. Yet, Barack Obama rose up to become the most powerful man in the world, a stunning achievement. How much the system helped Mr. Obama is unknown as his college records have been kept private. We don't know the extent of affirmative action. We don't know how much the government subsidized his climb to the top. It would be very helpful to have that information simply to be fair to the president and his vision. There's no question President Obama believes his success is partly due to government. That goes to his famous line: "You didn't build that."

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2013, 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin remarked about Obama's hidden background as well—in a joke about gun control efforts via more "background checks" for gun purchasers.

"Background checks?" Palin said on the stage. "Yeah, I guess to learn more about a person's thinking and associations and intentions. More background checks? Dandy idea, Mr. President — should have started with yours."

The hypocrisy here blows me away!

What more do you need to know about Barry?

Did the idiots who voted for Barry know his promise to close Gitmo was based upon setting the detainees free? Did the 5  for 1 swap make a shred of sense? Now Congress rightfully wants to pass a bill preventing any further release of  Gitmo detainees and Barry says he'll veto it! Does this sound like a president who's foremost concern is the United States or the world of Islam? How can anyone truly believe releasing these dogs  is somehow going to benefit the United States? 

Now is the time to get serious. We have the House and Senate and I see no reason not to file impeachment charges especially in view of his latest treasonous act. Of course he'll scream racism but we can fire back with more than enough ammunition starting with amnesty and a plethora of scandals as long as your arm. What Clinton did was child's play compared to this guy. 

 Only a no good Commander in Chief  would ever allow stuff like this to go on.
This Muslim has got to go.

---------------------------------------------------

Obama would veto bill to stop transfers of Guantanamo prisoners: White House

Thomson ReutersThe exterior of Camp Delta is seen at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill being considered by Republicans that aims to freeze all transfers of terrorism suspects out of the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters on Thursday.

The bill was proposed by Republicans in the wake of attacks by Islamic militant gunmen in Paris in January.

(Reporting By Julia Edwards; Editing by Sandra Maler)

What more do you need to know about Barry?