The Minority Report Blog http://www.theminorityreportblog.com Conservative News & Opinion Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:01:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Weekly Republican Address: Gov. Mary Fallin (R-OK) http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/weekly-republican-address-gov-mary-fallin-r-ok/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/weekly-republican-address-gov-mary-fallin-r-ok/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:01:13 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134053 Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma delivers this week’s Republican Address. In her address, Gov. Fallin discusses the Keystone XL pipeline, and its potential to help create good-paying jobs and bolster our nation’s energy security.

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/weekly-republican-address-gov-mary-fallin-r-ok/feed/ 0
We Are Grateful U.S. Army Will Honor Fort Hood Terror Victims with Purple Hearts http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/we-are-grateful-u-s-army-will-honor-fort-hood-terror-victims-with-purple-hearts/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/we-are-grateful-u-s-army-will-honor-fort-hood-terror-victims-with-purple-hearts/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:24:50 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134048 We Are Grateful U.S. Army Will Honor Fort Hood Terror Victims with Purple Hearts

Last week, Sen. Cruz released the following statement regarding the Army’s announcement to award the Purple Heart and its civilian counterpart, the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, to the victims of the 2009 terrorist attack upon Fort Hood.

“On November 5, 2009, a brutal terror attack was carried out at Fort Hood. The lives of 14 people were taken, one of them an unborn child, and 32 were injured. Today, we are grateful that the U.S. Army has chosen to bestow the Purple Heart, and its civilian counterpart, the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, on these victims,” said Sen. Cruz.

“This attack was a clear act of radical Islamic terrorism, conducted on American soil – the original decision to designate it ‘workplace violence’ and deny these honors was a betrayal of the sacrifice of each of the victims. It is well past time for them to receive these awards and I thank the Secretary of the Army for reaching this determination. We can never undo the events of that day, but we can properly honor the courageous patriots who protect our nation and remain forever grateful for them.”

Last year, Sen. Cruz introduced an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Reauthorization Act (NDAA), which was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee and passed by Congress, to expand Purple Heart eligibility to victims of the Fort Hood terror attack.

He also released a video last year to highlight the importance of designating the attack as an act of terrorism instead of workplace violence.

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/we-are-grateful-u-s-army-will-honor-fort-hood-terror-victims-with-purple-hearts/feed/ 0
GOP Will Have Fix In Place if SCOTUS Rules For Plaintiffs in ObamaCare Case http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/gop-will-have-fix-in-place-if-scotus-rules-for-plaintiffs-in-obamacare-case/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/gop-will-have-fix-in-place-if-scotus-rules-for-plaintiffs-in-obamacare-case/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:16:25 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134044 Grace Marie Turner, President of the Galen Institute has for decades been a foremost health care policy expert for members of Congress and the center right. She is the person Republicans and Conservatives turn to for help in crafting policy, which is what is laid out in today’s New York Times op-ed “A New Fix for Obamacare,” in case the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in the ObamaCare case King v. Burwell which will be argued in just two weeks. If the court rules for the plaintiffs it will effectively repeal ObamaCare in the 37 states where there is no state exchange.  The GOP will have a fix in place, this is just one way they could go.

Should the court decide in the petitioners’ favor, most likely in June, critics in Congress will feel vindicated. But then comes the hard part: Congress must be ready with a targeted plan to help at least six million people who would quickly lose that federal assistance, and most likely their insurance.

While several Republicans in Congress have offered serious proposals to replace Obamacare, debating a wholesale replacement of the Affordable Care Act would take months, even years. But it is essential for Congress to move fast on a short-term solution. About 85 percent of people who bought plans on the exchanges receive subsidies, and most could not afford the policies without them. If fewer people are enrolled and new enrollments decline, premiums will rise, leading to the breakdown of the exchange markets.

If the Supreme Court decides that the Affordable Care Act means what it says — that subsidies are available only if a state establishes its own exchange — then President Obama’s signature legislative initiative would be significantly weakened in two-thirds of the states.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan also said yesterday the GOP needs to be prepared.

“We think we need to have an option, a plan, for these states that might find themselves in this difficult position,” Ryan said.

As Republicans cheer the lawsuit as the quickest path to undoing ObamaCare, the party is also facing intense pressure to create a plan B for people to keep their healthcare without billions of dollars in ObamaCare subsidies.

Ryan stressed that Republicans would not simply tweak the law and said there would be no chance lawmakers would consider rewriting the ObamaCare language being challenged.

“The idea is not to make ObamaCare work better or to actually authorize ObamaCare,” he said.

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/gop-will-have-fix-in-place-if-scotus-rules-for-plaintiffs-in-obamacare-case/feed/ 0
Americans for Prosperity Launches Major Effort Urging Keystone Passage http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/americans-for-prosperity-launches-major-effort-urging-keystone-passage/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/americans-for-prosperity-launches-major-effort-urging-keystone-passage/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:07:58 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134041 ARLINGTON, VA. – Americans for Prosperity, the nation’s largest grassroots advocate for economic freedom, is launching a major effort directed at President Obama urging him to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. The effort includes directing their over 2.3 million activists to call the White House switchboard and ask the President not to veto the bill.

“The Keystone pipeline has been approved by the House, the Senate, and has passed environmental review. The project would create much needed jobs right away. Vetoing this legislation would mean putting special interests and ideology above American workers.  We ask President Obama to do the right thing and approve the Keystone plan,” said AFP President Tim Phillips.

AFP said their efforts will include directing hundreds of calls into the White House switchboard, organizing online activism, and digital advertising.

Passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline is part of a list of top policy priorities unveiled last month when AFP launched Reform America 2015. The agenda includes a set of goals that the organization will advance in the coming months, including achievable reforms to health care, energy, and the federal budget. AFP, which has chapters in 34 states, has said it will engage its robust network of activists to push for policy reforms outlined in the Reform America 2015 plan.

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/americans-for-prosperity-launches-major-effort-urging-keystone-passage/feed/ 0
Grabien Montage: ‘Brian Williams: Disqualified from NBC … Qualified for Washington’ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/grabien-montage-brian-williams-disqualified-from-nbc-qualified-for-washington/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/grabien-montage-brian-williams-disqualified-from-nbc-qualified-for-washington/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:58:19 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134038 Grabien takes a look at just a few of the lies, boasts, and exaggerations that politicians have had to walk back in recent years

After Brian Williams last week was caught making up war stories about himself, other questionable tales quickly surfaced. And soon after announcing a self-imposed exile, NBC took its own action, suspending its marquee anchor without pay for six months.

Which got us thinking: What if the public sector held officeholders just as accountable? Is a six months suspension — without pay – unreasonable for elected leaders caught fibbing?

After digging through the archives, we found a few classic cases of bogus braggadocio.

But rather than suffering any repercussions, these individuals went onto become: vice president, U.S. senator (x2), president, and secretary of State (x2).

That might be bad news for government accountability. But it’s great news for Brian Williams. Next stop, 2016?

P.S. Did we miss any? Leave your favorite bogus boasts in the comments. We just might update the montage next week.

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/grabien-montage-brian-williams-disqualified-from-nbc-qualified-for-washington/feed/ 0
Caroline Glick: Mainstreaming Jew hatred in America http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/caroline-glick-mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/caroline-glick-mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:53:32 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134035 By Caroline Glick:

US President Barack Obama is mainstreaming anti-Semitism in America.

This week, apropos of seemingly nothing, in an interview with Mathew Yglesias from the Vox.com website, Obama was asked about terrorism. In his answer the president said the terrorism threat is overrated. And that was far from the most disturbing statement he made.

Moving from the general to the specific, Obama referred to the jihadists who committed last month’s massacres in Paris as “a bunch of violent vicious zealots,” who “randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

In other words, Ahmedy Coulibaly, the terrorist at Hyper Cacher, the kosher supermarket he targeted, was just some zealot. The Jews he murdered while they were shopping for Shabbat were just “a bunch of folks in a deli,” presumably shot down while ordering their turkey and cheese sandwiches.

No matter that Coulibaly called a French TV station from the kosher supermarket and said he was an al-Qaida terrorist and that he chose the kosher supermarket because he wanted to kill Jews.

As far as the leader of the free world is concerned, his massacre of four Jews at the market can teach us nothing about anything other than that some random people are mean and some random people are unlucky.

And anyway, Obama explained, we’re only talking about this random act of senseless violence because as he said, “If it bleeds, it leads.” The media, desperate for an audience, inflates the significance of these acts of random violence, for ratings.

Obama’s statement about the massacre of Jews in Paris is notable first and foremost for what it reveals about his comfort level with anti-Semitism.

By de-judaizing the victims, who were targets only because they were Jews, Obama denied the uniqueness of the threat jihadist Islam and its adherents pose to Jews. By pretending that Jews are not specifically targeted for murder simply because they are Jews, he dismissed the legitimate concerns Jews harbor for their safety, whether in Diaspora communities or in Israel.

If nothing distinguished Coulibaly’s massacre at Hyper Cacher from a mugging or an armed robbery gone bad, then Jews have no right to receive unique consideration – whether for their community’s security in London or Paris, or San Francisco – or for Israel’s security.

As subsequent statements from administration spokespeople made clear, Obama’s statement was not a gaffe. When questioned about his remarks, both White House spokesman Josh Earnest and State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki doubled down on Obama’s denial of the anti-Semitic nature of the massacre at Hyper Cacher. Earnest said that the Jews who were murdered were people who just “randomly happened to be” at the supermarket.

Psaki said that the victims didn’t share a common background or nationality, pretending away the bothersome fact that they were all Jews.

Just as bad as their denials of the anti-Jewish nature of the attack on Hyper Cacher, were Psaki’s and Earnest’s belated revisions of their remarks. After coming under a storm of criticism from American Jews and from the conservative media, both Psaki and Earnest turned to their Twitter accounts to walk back their remarks and admit that indeed, the massacre at Hyper Cacher was an anti-Semitic assault.

Their walk back was no better than their initial denial of the anti-Jewish nature of the Islamist attack, because it amplified the very anti-Semitism they previously promoted.

As many Obama supporters no doubt interpreted their behavior, first Obama and his flaks stood strong in their conviction that Jews are not specifically targeted. Then after they were excoriated for their statements by Jews and conservatives, they changed their tune.

The subtext is clear. The same Jews who are targeted no more than anyone else, are so powerful and all controlling that they forced the poor Obama administration to bow to their will and parrot their false and self-serving narrative of victimization.

The administration’s denial of the unique threat Jews face from jihadists is not limited to its anti-Semitic characterizations of the attack at Hyper Cacher.

It runs as well through Obama’s treatment of Israel and its actions to defend itself against its jihadist enemies from Hamas to Hezbollah to Iran.

Today, the most outstanding example of Obama’s exploitation of anti-Semitic tropes to diminish US support for Israel is his campaign to delegitimize Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ahead of his scheduled speech before the joint houses of Congress on March 3.

As we belatedly learned from a small correction at the bottom of a New York Times article on January 30, contrary to the White House’s claim, Netanyahu did not blindside Obama when he accepted Speaker of the House John Boehner’s invitation to address the Congress. He informed the White House of his intention to accept Boehner’s offer before he accepted it.

Netanyahu did not breach White House protocol.

He did not behave rudely or disrespectfully toward Obama.

The only one that behaved disrespectfully and rudely was Obama in his shabby and slanderous treatment of Netanyahu. It was Obama who peddled the lie that Netanyahu was using the speech not to legitimately present Israel’s concerns regarding the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, but to selfishly advance his political fortunes on the back of America’s national security interests and the independence of its foreign policy.

It was Obama and Vice President Joe Biden who spearheaded efforts to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech by announcing that they would refuse to meet with the leader of the US’s closest ally in the Middle East during his stay in Washington.

So far only 15 members of the House and three Senators have announced their intention to boycott Netanyahu’s speech. But even if all the other Democratic lawmakers do attend his speech, the impact of Obama’s campaign to defame Netanyahu will long be felt.

First of all, if all goes as he hopes, the media and his party members will use his demonization of Netanyahu’s character as a means to dismiss the warnings that Netanyahu will clearly sound in his address.

Second, by boycotting Netanyahu and encouraging Democrats to do the same, Obama is mainstreaming the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to isolate Israel.

Moreover, he is mobilizing Democratic pressure groups like J Street and MoveOn.org to make it costly for Democratic politicians to continue to support Israel.

There is another aspect of the Hyper Cacher massacre, which was similarly ignored by the White House and that bears a direct relationship to Obama’s attempt to destroy the credibility of Netanyahu’s warnings about his Iran policy.

Whereas the journalists murdered at Charlie Hebdo magazine were killed because their illustrations of Muhammad offended Muslim fascists, the Jews murdered at Hyper Cacher were targeted for murder because they were Jews. In other words, the Islamist hatred of Jews is inherently genocidal, not situational.

If Islamists have the capacity to annihilate the Jews, they will do so. And this brings us back to Obama’s statement to Vox.com. As is his habit, Obama refused to use the term Islamic to describe the “violent, vicious zealots” who randomly targeted Jews at the Hyper Cacher.

Since the outset of his presidency, Obama has vigilantly denied the connection between Islamism and terrorism and has mischaracterized jihad as peaceful self-reflection, along the lines of psychotherapy. Last week his denial of the Islamist nature of jihadist assaults worldwide rose to new heights when in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast he compared today’s jihadists to the Crusaders from a thousand years ago. And whereas he identified the Crusaders as Christians, he refused to acknowledge that today’s mass murdering zealots act in the name of Islam.

Obama’s stubborn, absurd and dangerous refusal to mention the word Islam in connection with the war being waged worldwide by millions in its name, coupled with his eagerness to always compare this unnamed scourge to the past evils of Western societies, indicates that his defense of Islamic supremacism is not merely a policy preference but rather reflects a deeper ideological commitment. The perception that Obama either does not oppose or embraces Islamic extremism is strengthened when coupled with his appalling attempts to ignore the fact of Islamic Jew-hatred and its genocidal nature and his moves to demonize Netanyahu for daring to oppose his policy toward Iran.

It is in this policy and in Obama’s wider Middle East strategy that we find the real world consequences of Obama’s denial of the unique victimization and targeting of Jews and the Jewish state by Islamic terrorists and Islamist regimes.

Loopholes in Obama’s interim nuclear framework deal with Iran from November 2013 have allowed Iran to make significant advances in its nuclear weapons program while still formally abiding by its commitments under the agreement. Iran has stopped enriching uranium to 20 percent purity levels, and sufficed with enriching uranium to 3.5% purity. But at the same time it has developed and begun using advanced centrifuges that enrich so quickly that the distinction between 3.5% and 20% enrichment levels becomes irrelevant. Iran has made significant advances in its ballistic missile program, including in its development of intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. It has continued its development of nuclear bombs, and it has enriched sufficient quantities of uranium to produce one to two nuclear bombs.

According to leaked reports, the permanent nuclear deal that Obama seeks to convince Iran to sign would further facilitate Iran’s ascension to the nuclear club. Among other things, the deal will place a time limit on the already ineffective inspections regime, thus blinding the world entirely to Iran’s nuclear activities.

At the same time that Obama is facilitating Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, he is doing nothing to stop its regional empowerment. Today Iran controls Syria, Iraq and Yemen and holds sway over Lebanon and Gaza. It threatens Saudi Arabia, and its Muslim Brotherhood allies threaten Egypt and Jordan.

As for Obama’s allied campaign against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the largest beneficiary to date of the US-led campaign has been Iran. Since the US-led campaign began last fall, Iran has achieved all but public US support for its control over the Iraqi military and for the survival of the Assad regime in Syria.

The trajectory of Obama’s policies is obvious. He is clearing the path for a nuclear armed Iran that controls large swathes of the Arab world through its proxies.

It is also clear that Iran intends to use its nuclear arsenal in the same way that Coulibaly used his Kalashnikov – to kill Jews, as many Jews as possible.

Perhaps Obama is acting out of anti-Semitism, perhaps he acts out of sympathy for Islamic fascism.

Whatever the case may be, what is required from Israel, and from Netanyahu, is clear. Speaking to Congress may be a necessary precondition for that action, but it is not the action itself.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/caroline-glick-mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/feed/ 0
Retired Flag Officers, National Security Experts Advise Against Transfer of Gitmo Detainees and Surrender of Gitmo to Government of Cuba http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/retired-flag-officers-national-security-experts-advise-against-transfer-of-gitmo-detainees-and-surrender-of-gitmo-to-government-of-cuba/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/retired-flag-officers-national-security-experts-advise-against-transfer-of-gitmo-detainees-and-surrender-of-gitmo-to-government-of-cuba/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:48 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134032 RETIRED FLAG OFFICERS, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS ADVISE AGAINST TRANSFER OF GITMO DETAINEES AND SURRENDER OF GITMO TO GOVERNMENT OF CUBA

(Washington, DC): Today, dozens of distinguished retired senior military officers and national security experts signed a letter to President Obama, organized by the Center for Security Policy, urging him to keep the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay open, and to refrain from transferring – either to foreign countries or to the United States – jihadist detainees currently held there.  The letter also cautions President Obama against acceding to the demands of the Castro regime that the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base] itself be surrendered to the government of Cuba.

With respect to the detainees held at Gitmo, the letter underscores the extent to which transferring detainees out of Gitmo, either to foreign countries or to the United States, poses serious national security risks.  The letter states in part:

“The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers.  According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so.  The actual number could well be considerably higher….”

“…While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention.  We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.”

The letter goes on to explain the strategic value of the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base], and the importance of maintaining U.S. control over that installation from a military and geostrategic perspective.  The letter states in part:

“Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so.  Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.”

“Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran).  We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China.  (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)”

Among of the signatories of the letter were:

  • Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)
  • Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
  • Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
  • Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
  • Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent   Select Committee on Intelligence
  • Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated:

“The individuals who have signed this letter urging President Obama to change course on his disastrous agenda to close down the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, deserve the nation’s gratitude for having stepped up, yet again, in defense of the national security of the United States.  It is also most welcome that the signatories of this letter recognize the geostrategic necessity of keeping Guantanamo Bay under American control, rather than surrendering it to the Castro regime, which would most assuredly use that base against the interests of the United States, and invite others to do the same.  President Obama should heed the advice of these distinguished warriors and national security professionals and keep Gitmo open, operational and in American hands.”

The full text of the letter, with signatures, below:

12 February, 2015
 
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As you are well aware, the Department of Defense has, since shortly after September 11, 2001, detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba dangerous individuals the U.S. government has designated as unlawful enemy combatants.  Yet, shortly after you took office in January of 2009, you issued an Executive Order mandating the closure of the detention/interrogation facilities at that installation (popularly known as Gitmo.)

In the intervening period, you have transferred a number of those detainees to foreign countries, particularly during the past several months.  You also reiterated in your 2015 State of the Union address your intention to close Gitmo and appear intent on removing from that secure facility the unlawful enemy combatants – jihadists that have been officially described as “the worst of the worst” – still confined there.

Meanwhile, public reports indicate that the Castro regime has demanded that the United States surrender Gitmo as part of any arrangement for normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.  As you have made a priority of achieving such a restoration of ties, you may feel tempted to accede to this demand.

Our past experience as military, intelligence, law enforcement and security policy professionals leads us to believe that the continued transfer of detainees out of Gitmo to foreign countries, and potentially into the United States, threatens national security and public safety.  This is particularly true given events of recent weeks, during which we have seen a resurgence of al Qaeda, Islamic State and other jihadist organizations eager to deploy operatives both abroad and, if possible, here at home to carry out attacks against the West.

The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers.  According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so.  The actual number could well be considerably higher.

Some of the former Gitmo detainees who have definitely resumed their jihad include: Abu Sufian bin Qumu, now the leader of a group that participated in the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi; Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, now a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; and Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi, also a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There are press reports that at least one of the Taliban commanders exchanged for Sergeant Bo Bergdahl has already returned to the fight.  Such individuals pose a direct threat to our military and diplomatic personnel overseas, as well as to our civilian population domestically.

While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention.  We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.

For example, the transfer of detainees to U.S. prisons or military bases would turn those facilities – and the nearby civilian populations – into high-probability terrorist targets. In addition, convicted terrorists are known to have plotted or facilitated attacks while incarcerated in our penal institutions.  For example, Sayyid Nosair helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing from a U.S. prison.  And Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (a.k.a. the “Blind Sheikh”) ran the al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya terrorist organization from a U.S. prison.

Moreover, once inside the prison system, detainees will be better positioned to argue that prison security practices violate their rights and need to be altered.  That was the case when “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid asserted the Special Administrative Measures  (SAMs) interfered with his free exercise of religion.  The Department of Justice chose in response to lift the SAMs at Supermax.

Furthermore, once on U.S. soil, detainees will argue that they are entitled, by virtue of their physical presence here, to a range of constitutional protections that can only, they will argue, be realized in our defendant-friendly civilian criminal court system.  At least, some federal judges can be expected to entertain such a contention.

Given the circumstances surrounding the capture of these detainees – often on foreign battlefields – civilian prosecutors will likely be forced to choose between revealing classified evidence to secure a conviction, and dropping charges.  Such a scenario begs the question of what we will have to do with detainees who, once here in the U.S., cannot be tried and cannot be sent overseas.  The options at that point will be either to detain these terrorists inside the U.S. indefinitely, without trial and possibly in the face of court orders dismissing their cases, or release them here.

Additionally, proponents of closing detention operations at Gitmo often argue that the facility’s existence is a “recruiting tool” for terrorists. This ignores the fact that the United States was repeatedly attacked by terrorists during the decades prior to the commencement of detainee operations at Gitmo, including on September 11, 2001.  To suggest that Gitmo fuels terrorism ignores history and the reality that the terrorism of greatest concern today is, and has long been, driven by jihadist ideology.  Gitmo does not fuel global jihad; rather, it is global jihad that necessitates Gitmo.

That said, there is some truth to the idea that Gitmo has symbolic value to our enemies: It is certain that they would, quite properly, consider its closure a signal victory in their determined effort to demonstrate our submission and enlist new recruits to their cause.

It is also our professional judgment that surrendering to the Castro regime control of the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, with its deep water port and airfield, would be a strategic mistake of the first order.

Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so.  Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.

Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran).  We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China.  (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)

The Castro regime is already making its ports, airfields, intelligence collection and other facilities available to our actual or potential foes. There is little doubt in our view that the Cuban government would be inclined toward similar arrangements with China or others with respect to Gitmo.  It would be a serious dereliction of duty were our government to facilitate such a fundamental transformation of our strategic posture in the Caribbean.

For these reasons, we believe that there should be no further transfers of unlawful enemy combatants currently held at Gitmo – either to other nations or to any locale in the United States or its territories – for the duration of hostilities.

We further strongly recommend that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies refrain from spending any funds to accomplish the closure of Guantanamo Bay  or the transfer of detainees abroad or to the United States, and that the United States reject Cuban government demands that this vital strategic facility be transferred to the latter’s control.

Sincerely,

Army
Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. John R. D. Cleland, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Alvin W. Jones, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. H. Douglas Robertson, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. George R. Robertson, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Duane Stubbs, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Dale F. Andres, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Terence M. Henry, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Darryl Powell, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Richard D. Read, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Warren A. Todd, USA (Ret.)
Navy
Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
Adm. James A. Lyons, USN (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Edward S. Briggs, USN (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Lawrence Burkhardt, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert McClinton, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. E. S. (Skip) McGinley, II, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Don. G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. H. Denny Wisely, USN (Ret.)
 
Air Force
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Henry Canterbury, USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Bentley B. Rayburn, USAF (Ret.)
 
Marine Corps
Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. J.D. Lynch, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. James M. Mead, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. Michael I. Neil, USMCR (Ret.)
BGen. W.H.J. Tiernan, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. William Weise, USMC (Ret.)
State Defense Forces
Maj. Gen. John Bianchi, CSMR (Ret.)
National Security
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House Permanent   Select Committee on Intelligence
Hon. Tidal McCoy, Former Acting Secretary of the Air Force
Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive
José R. Cárdenas, Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the  Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development; Former Staff Member, National Security Council
Daniel J. Gallington, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former General Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Andrew C. McCarthy, Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
Elaine Donnelly, 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services
cc: Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
      Members of the House Armed Services Committee

About the Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/retired-flag-officers-national-security-experts-advise-against-transfer-of-gitmo-detainees-and-surrender-of-gitmo-to-government-of-cuba/feed/ 0
It’s Easy to Know Who Democrats Fear. The Hit Pieces Have Started Aimed at… http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/its-easy-to-know-who-democrats-fear-the-hit-pieces-have-started-aimed-at/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/its-easy-to-know-who-democrats-fear-the-hit-pieces-have-started-aimed-at/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:44:00 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=133999 Governor Scott Walker.  Governor Walker has them quaking in their boots.  He’s beaten the tar out of them for the past four years in a purple state.  He’s defunded public employee unions.  Balanced the budget from a deep Democratic hole.  Actually lowered property taxes for the first time in anybody’s memory.

He says stuff like this.

That sound was liberal heads exploding.

Democrats and unions spent hundreds of millions trying to recall Scott Walker.  they tried to recall a group of Republican State Senators.  They tried to beat a Republican appointed Supreme Court Judge.  They lost across the board, and badly.  Walker won the recall by a bigger margin than he won his first election.  Last year Democrats hauled out their best hope, a woman who held executive positions in the family business, headquartered in Wisconsin.  Walker trounced her by a bigger margin than he won his recall.

The soon-to-be-avalanche of hit pieces has started with this gem from the Washington Post.  They are really desperate.  They couldn’t find affairs.  They could find any hint of corruption even though a Democrat District Attorney in Milwaukee has been using a “John Doe” investigation to try to dig up dirt on Walker for over two years.  A judge through the investigation out of court and had very harsh words for the prosecutor.

Here’s the best they could do.

In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.

To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery. Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school. Walker clearly liked college politics more than college itself…

Walker’s own explanation has been short and simple. He got a job. He meant to go back. But he just never found the time.

“A lingering mystery.”  In fact Walker quit school and got a job.  It seems that path has served him – and the people of Wisconsin – very well.

Believe it or not, it gets worse.  It turns out the WaPo seems to think Governor Walker is some kind of latent failure.

Today, Walker, 47, is the governor of Wisconsin and a strong contender for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination. He is known for an astounding political hot streak: Since 1993, he has run 11 races for state legislature, county executive and governor — including a highly unusual recall election in 2012 — and he has won them all.

But before that streak came a string of defeats — the campus election, his failure to finish college and his first campaign for state office.

“A string of defeats…”  A campus election – he was a conservative Republican on a campus that Karl Marx would be lumped together with Ronald Reagan.  His “failure” to finish college.  Excuse us?  That sounds like the was tossed out, failing classes.  There is absolutely no evidence of that, in fact, we’ll bet Governor Walker will make his school records public.  Unlike some other public figures.  And he lost his first campaign for public office at the state level.  Earth to WaPo…  Almost everyone loses their first campaign for state office.  Since then, he’s won eleven in a row.

For a while the desperate unions in Wisconsin were trying to pass off stuff like this.

Walker wasn’t asked to leave Marquette.  We have no idea what his GPA was, and frankly we don’t care.  It’s obvious that Wisconsin’s desperate unions have their stories confused, they were obviously thinking of a guy who was tossed out of Harvard for cheating.

Next thing you know, we’re going to be hearing about how Walker left an election eve party drunk and drove his car off a bridge leaving a young man he was having sex with in the car to freeze to death in a cold Wisconsin river.

Grasping at straws.  We love it.  And, we love Scott Walker.  He’s a winner



]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/its-easy-to-know-who-democrats-fear-the-hit-pieces-have-started-aimed-at/feed/ 0
All Men Are Created And Endowed With Rights By … http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/all-men-are-created-and-endowed-with-rights-by/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/all-men-are-created-and-endowed-with-rights-by/#comments Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:22:00 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134003 Well, it just depends on who you ask as to where those “rights” come from.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was speaking with CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo about same sex marriage.  It came down to a discussion about our rights under the Constitution and where those rights come from.

That statement is pretty much what we’d expect from a CNN Anchor.  Here it is again.

Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man… That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

First of all, Cuomo is torturing his facts.  At first (we were going to say “In the beginning…”) Cuomo is talking about “our rights.”  He quickly drops that line and moves to “our laws.”  Mr. Cuomo, our rights and our laws are, unfortunately, two different things.  And they’ve become two different things because of Progressive interpretations of the US Constitution, complete ignorance of the Founders, and a rebuke of the idea of a Creator.

Second, Cuomo is historically ignorant.  Maybe he took history with our President.  Here’s the opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

The purpose of government, Mr. Cuomo and friends, is to secure the rights of individuals as they are endowed by their Creator.

It’s really uncomfortable for Progressives and fools, but I repeat myself) to understand the simple language of the Founders.  They hold an evolved worldview that rejects the idea of individual liberty and the fundamental idea upon which the Nation was founded, namely that government serves the people, people don’t serve the government.

Two wars, the Revolution and the War of 1812, were fought over that principle.

Quick history question for Progressives:  When was the War of 1812 fought?



]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/14/all-men-are-created-and-endowed-with-rights-by/feed/ 0
BREAKING: ISIS Closing in on US Marines in Iraq http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/13/breaking-isis-closing-in-on-us-marines-in-iraq/ http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/13/breaking-isis-closing-in-on-us-marines-in-iraq/#comments Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:58:00 +0000 http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/?p=134028 Remember the Iraq campaign, the one the White House never got around to having the Pentagon name?  That would be the same campaign that the President has insisted no ground forces would be deployed in the fight against ISIS.  Here’s part of his statement regarding the region earlier this week.

The resolution we’ve submitted does not call for the deployment of US ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq. The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on basis, and yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment, but they do not have a combat mission.

Pretty clear, right?

Well maybe not if you happen to be one of the Marines currently stationed in Iraq.

Eight suicide bombers managed Friday to get onto a sprawling Iraqi military base where hundreds of U.S. Marines are training their Iraqi counterparts, but were killed by an ISF counter attack almost immediately.

Sean Ryan, chief of foreign affairs for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, confirmed to CBS News that the attackers made it onto the secluded Ain al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, but said the attackers made it “nowhere near” the American forces on the base before they were killed.

A U.S. defense official, speaking to CBS News on background, said the militants were believed to have been members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who hold positions just a few miles northeast of the base, in the al-Baghdadi area.

We have no idea what the current Rules of Engagement for those Marines are, but we’re not confident that the President has given them the authorization to even defend themselves.  After all, earlier this week Marines were required to surrender their weapons to board a flight out of Yemen when ISIS forces caused the evacuation of the US Embassy.

And don’t forget, Yemen was a “foreign policy success” in the fight against ISIS.

But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

On a selfish note, we’re very happy that our Marine Corps son is no longer on active duty.  On the other hand, we grieve for Marines (and other military) and their families who serve under this Commander in Chief.



]]>
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2015/02/13/breaking-isis-closing-in-on-us-marines-in-iraq/feed/ 0