Flashback: Juan Ellis Bush Admitted That ‘Leaky’ Immigration Led To 9/11 Attacks

Flashback: Jeb Bush Admitted ‘Leaky’ Immigration Led To 9/11 – Big Government


Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s campaign is furious with 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump over Trump’s comments that the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened on Bush’s brother former President George W. Bush’s watch. But a review of the basic facts of the situation – and Jeb Bush’s own writings – reveals that even the Bushes admit that “leaky” immigration enforcement was a major driving factor in leading to the terrorist attacks.

While Trump has attacked Bush before – describing the candidate as “low energy” – this line of questioning represents a new level in the war as Trump soars over Bush in recent polling, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has essentially replaced Bush as the establishment frontrunner. The latest Trump-Bush bout began in the most recent debate.

In the CNN Republican presidential debate, Trump blamed George W. Bush’s unsuccessful presidency for giving us President Obama, prompting an immediate response from Jeb Bush.

TRUMP: “Your brother – and your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama, because it was such a disaster, those last three months, that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.”

BUSH: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe. I don’t know if you remember…”

This exchange sparked a war of words between the two campaigns – culminating in Trump’s declaration that if he were president and were able to enact his immigration policies, 9/11 would not have happened under his watch.

On Fox News Sunday, Trump said:

Look, look, Jeb said, “We were safe with my brother, we were safe.” Well the World Trade Center just fell down. Now am I trying to blame him? I’m not blaming anybody. But the World Trade Center came down. So when he said we were safe, that’s not safe. We lost 3,000 people, it was one of the greatest – probably the greatest catastrophe ever in this country… I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I am extremely tough on people coming into this country. I believe if I were running things, I doubt those – I doubt those people would have been in the country. So there is a good chance that those people would not have been in our country With that being said, I’m not blaming George Bush, but I don’t want Jeb Bush to say, “My brother kept us safe,” because September 11th was one of the worst days in the history of this country.

The Bush campaign was quick to attack Trump in response, declaring that “Across the spectrum of foreign policy, Mr. Trump talks about things as though he’s still on ‘The Apprentice’… My brother responded to a crisis, and he did it as you would hope a president would do. He united the country, he organized our country and he kept us safe.”

However, a review Jeb Bush’s 2013 book Immigration Wars reveals that Jeb Bush himself agreed with Trump’s argument and admitted that our “leaky” immigration policy was responsible for the attack.

Bush wrote:

In addition to the Mexican drug cartels, the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country lawfully under a leaky immigration system has heightened national security concerns – so much so that immigration enforcement has been placed under the Department of Homeland Security.

Indeed, all of the the nineteen September 11th hijackers were voluntarily imported into the country on visas issued to them by our federal government. Almost all of the visas were issued in the predominantly Muslim country of Saudi Arabia. Four of the September 11th hijackers – Zacarias Moussaoui, Satam al Suqami, Nawaf al Hamzi, and Hani Hanjour – were visa overstays.

In a blockbuster 2002 report, National Review’s Joel Mowbray acquired the visa applications of 15 of the 19 hijackers and exposed how every single one of their applications should have been flatly rejected.

Mowbray wrote:

Brothers Wail and Waleed al-Shehri applied together for travel visas on October 24, 2000. Wail claimed his occupation was “teater,” while his brother wrote “student.” Both listed the name and address of his respective employer or school as simply “South City.” Each also declared a U.S. destination of “Wasantwn.” But what should have further raised a consular officer’s eyebrows is the fact that a student and his nominally employed brother were going to go on a four-to-six-month vacation, paid for by Wail’s “teater” salary, which he presumably would be foregoing while in the United States. Even assuming very frugal accommodations, such a trip for two people would run north of $15,000, yet there is no indication that the consular officer even attempted to determine that Wail in fact had the financial means to fund the planned excursion. They appear to have received their visas the same day they applied.

ABC News covered Mowbray’s report:

Abdulaziz Alomari claimed to be a student but didn’t name a school; claimed to be married but didn’t name a spouse; under nationality and gender, he didn’t list anything.

Visa approved.

Three months later, Alomari followed his friend Mohamed Atta through airport security… heading for the World Trade Center.

Khalid Al Mihdhar, who helped crash the plane into the Pentagon, simply listed “Hotel” as his U.S. destination – no name, no city, no state – but no problem getting a visa.

“They were handing these things out gift-wrapped with ribbons on top,” Mowbray said. “[Al-Qaeda operatives] didn’t have to beat the system, the system was rigged in their favor from the get-go.”

By definition, had the visas been rejected or had the visa-overstays been deported, September 11th would not have happened.

Interestingly, even though George W. Bush remained in office for more than six years after the attack, millions of visa overstays were still not deported. In fact, the United States continues to churn out hundreds of thousands of visas to Muslim immigrants, some of whom have gone on to commit terror attacks in the United States.

As Center for Immigration Studies’ Executive Director Mark Krikorian wrote earlier this year, “This view, that foreign visa applicants rather than the American people are to be served, continues; the number of student visas issued to Saudis, for instance, is up more than 500 percent from 9/11.”

The Republican presidential candidates have taken starkly different positions on the issue of Muslim immigration.

For instance, while Donald Trump has repeatedly articulated a strong stance against increasing the number of Muslim immigrants voluntarily admitted into the country, Marco Rubio has adopted an entirely different position on the matter.

Although four of the 9/11 hijackers were visa overstays, Sen. Rubio authored legislation that would have legalized visa overstays and would have made them American citizens. At the same time, Rubio voted against a visa tracking system offered by his Republican colleague Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), which sought to prevent future foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas.

Rubio has also expressed support for expanding the resettlement of Muslim immigrants – on top of the annual 280,000 Muslim migrants the United States admits annually, which includes 100,000 Muslim immigrants who are brought in on green cards and will eventually be able to bring in their family members and vote in U.S. elections.

Moreover, while Trump has declared that he would be cautious about the Muslim migrants that are admitted into the United States on temporary visas, Rubio has introduced legislation that would substantially boost temporary visas to some of the most terror-prone regions of the world. Rubio’s legislation, however, does not include any corresponding enforcement measures to track foreigners brought into the country on temporary visas.

A review of recent terror activity – provided by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee – reveals that a number of attacks have been committed by Muslim immigrants admitted entry to the United States on visas.

A refugee voluntarily admitted from Uzbekistan and “living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.”

A college student voluntarily admitted from Somalia, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Kazakhstan “with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS.”



FLASHBACK 1996: One Of The Best Opinion Articles Ever Written About A U.S. President

Silent Cal Speaks: Why Calvin Coolidge Is The Model For Conservative Leadership Today – Cal Thomas


The Republican National Convention of 1924 nominated Calvin Coolidge as its candidate for a full four-year term as President. You’ll recall that Coolidge had assumed the presidency following the death of Warren Harding.

As one who has covered and commented on several political conventions, that 1924 convention in Cleveland did not yield many good stories.

It is generally remembered as the most uninteresting convention in Republican history. Delegates didn’t bother showing up at many of the sessions. The most popular drink was a keep-cool-with-Coolidge highball, composed of raw eggs and fruit juice. Will Rogers suggested that the city of Cleveland “open up the churches to liven things up a bit.”

But this is a reminder that politics, in the end, is not about drama but about principle, not about charisma but about character. I doubt Republicans will get a nominee out of San Diego with so many wise and principled things to say about the deficit, about tax cuts, and about welfare dependence as they had in 1924. And I very much doubt he will beat this opponent by a landslide of 54 percent to 28 percent.


I have always had a particular respect for the 30th President, not entirely explained by the ties of family.

Calvin Coolidge had a certain style and attitude toward public service. He seemed immune to the pretensions of politics. When asked his goals as Governor of Massachusetts, he explained, “to walk humbly and discharge my obligations.” It is hard to imagine a better definition of public service. When one woman admirer asked if the burdens of the presidency were more than a man could endure, Coolidge replied, “Oh, I don’t know. There are only so many hours in the day, and one can do the best he can in the time he’s got. When I was mayor of Northampton I was pretty busy most of the time, and I don’t seem to be much busier here.” There is something profoundly refreshing about a leader with that kind of perspective on life and politics. When Coolidge left the presidency he told reporters, “Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.”

I have always admired Coolidge’s political courage. He came to national prominence, of course, by breaking the 1919 police strike. Some people don’t understand that this was controversial even in his own party. When he was about to sign the order calling out the National Guard, some colleagues warned him that it might destroy the Republican Party in Massachusetts and end his political career. Governor Coolidge took the pen and said quietly, “Perhaps you are right,” then signed the document. No grandstanding. Just quiet strength.

Coolidge also showed real humanity beneath his inflexible exterior. I’ve always been moved by the story of how Coolidge, in the summer of 1924, crawled on his hands and knees to catch a rabbit to show his dying son. He later said, “When he was suffering he begged me to help him. I could not.” In that tragedy, he provided a model of dignified grief.

And Coolidge, of course, was always a source of great stories. Everyone has his favorites. Once a man, riding with Coolidge through Vermont, commented, “See how closely they have shaved those sheep?” “At least on this side,” said the President.

At another point, a rude, combative man came up to Coolidge and said, “I didn’t vote for you.” The President immediately replied: “Someone did.”

In some ways, I think that Calvin Coolidge misled people into thinking he was less thoughtful and astute than he actually was. He never set out to impress – a quality of character almost unique in politics. He would have liked the praise of one country shopkeeper, “That young chap Coolidge certainly has more stuff on the shelves and outs less in the show-window than any fellow I’ve ever seen.”

You would think that a President with this kind of character and personality would be widely respected and fondly remembered. In fact, in his own time, he was one of the most popular men ever to occupy the White House.

But the attempts to malign Coolidge – the historical slander – began early. H. L. Menken called him “petty and dull.” Franklin Roosevelt never tired of attacking the “Coolidge Prosperity,” as though it were false and empty.

The history books quickly took up the cause. Historian Henry Steele Commanger wrote:

The idealism of the Wilson era was in the past; the Rooseveltian passion for humanitarian reform was in the future. The decade of the twenties was dull, bourgeois and ruthless. “The business of America is business,” said President Coolidge succinctly, and the observation was apt if not profound… never before, not even in the McKinley era, had American society been so materialistic.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote in The Crisis of the Old Order, “But, for Coolidge, business was more than business; it was a religion; and to it he committed all the passion of his arid nature… as he worshipped business, so he detested government. Economy was his self-confessed obsession.”

None of this venom can be explained by the real-world results of the Coolidge Administration. The federal budget shrank. The national debt was cut almost in half. Unemployment stood at 3.6 percent. Consumer prices rose at just 0.4 percent. During his term, there was a remarkable 17.5 percent increase in the nation’s wealth. Total education spending in the United States rose fourfold. In the 1920s, illiteracy fell nearly in half. This was a golden age, by any standard.

There must be some other reason that Coolidge is controversial. He has not been forgotten – like Chester Arthur or Millard Fillmore – he has been actively vilified by certain historians. In my view, this is not because he was “dull” or “arid,” but because his ideas were important – and even threatening to some. He is attacked precisely because he is a figure who speaks beyond his time.

Calvin Coolidge, known for his reticence, was actually the most articulate conservative who ever served as President. He was, as British historian Paul Johnson comments, “internally consistent and single-minded.” If his views are right, much of modern political thinking – from FDR to Bill Clinton – is profoundly wrong. This is why he continues to be relevant.

Coolidge was sometimes criticized for stating and restating the obvious. It was he who said, “When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results.” Actually Calvin Coolidge was in a constant search for foundational principles – the bedrock convictions that explain everything else. His points were not simply obvious, they were fundamental. Johnson concludes, “No public man carried into modern times more comprehensively the founding principles of Americanism: hard work, frugality, freedom of conscience, freedom from government, respect for serious culture.”

“They criticize me,” Coolidge said, “for harping on the obvious. Perhaps someday I’ll write On the Importance of the Obvious. If all the folks in the United States would do the few simple things they know they ought to do, most of our big problems would take care of themselves.”


Our nation is constantly in search of new ideas and new solutions. It is desperate for answers and obsessed with innovation. But Coolidge’s message was very different. He urged his fellow citizens to examine the basics of their beliefs. He called their attention to the proven principles of our political tradition. This is the reason his views, opinions, and advice seem so current. Those who set out to be “new” and “modern” are quickly outdated. Those who call attention to the permanent things are always fresh.

The 1990s would be wise to listen to this voice for the 1920s, speaking about principles that never age.

Coolidge talked honestly about the nature of wealth and of individual responsibility.

He told the Massachusetts Senate in 1914, “Government cannot relieve from toil. The normal must take care of themselves. Self-government means self-support… Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing… History reveals no civilized people among whom there was not a highly educated class and large aggregations of wealth. Large profits mean large payrolls.”

The goal of public policy, in Coolidge’s view, was not to redistribute wealth, but to create it. “After all,” he said, “there is but a fixed quantity of wealth in this country at any fixed time. The only way that we can all secure more of it is to create more.”

Coolidge also saw that there is a tie between wealth, individual character, and social progress. “Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberty, the widening of culture.”

Coolidge spoke to a society struggling under the weight of federal debt.

“I favor the policy of economy,” he said, “not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the government. Every dollar we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.”

President Coolidge was opposed to the easy, false promise that we can pay for larger government by taxing “the rich” – the temptation of class warfare we still see today.

He argued,

The fallacy of the claim that the costs of government are borne by the rich cannot be too often exposed. No system has been devised, I do not think any system could be devised, under which any person living in this country could escape being affected by the cost of our government. It has a direct effect both upon the rate and the purchasing power of wages. It is felt in the price of those prime necessities of existence, food, clothing, fuel and shelter… the continuing costs of public administration can be met in only one way – by the work of the people. The higher they become, the more the people must work for the government. The less they are, the more the people can work for themselves.

In some ways, President Coolidge was a supply-sider before his time. He understood that high tax rates do not always mean higher tax revenues. Taxes can constrict economic activity, leaving less profit and income to tax. “The method of raising revenue,” he argued,

ought not to impede the transition of business; it ought to encourage it. I am opposed to extremely high rates, because they produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for the country, and, finally, because they are wrong. We cannot finance the country, we cannot improve social conditions, through any system of injustice, even if we attempt to influence it upon the rich… The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and in all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.

That is sound, practical, principled advice for any time. In his own time, it was dramatically effective. The Revenue Act of 1926 – engineered along with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon – was a stunning success. In 1922, the effective tax rate on the wealthy was 50 percent, who paid a total of $77 million into the Treasury. By 1927, Coolidge had cut their tax rate to 20 percent – but the same group paid $230 million in taxes. Meanwhile, the total tax burden on people making less than $10,000 fell from $130 million in 1923 to less than $20 million in 1929.

Calvin Coolidge talked with eloquence about human nature and limits on social engineering.

He believed it was impossible to change the world suddenly because it was impossible to suddenly change human behavior. In his inaugural address, he said, “We must realize that human nature is about the most constant thing in the universe and that the essentials of human relationship do not change. We must frequently take our bearings from these fixed stars of our political firmament if we expect to hold a true course.”

And Calvin Coolidge was also convinced that the ultimate strength of a government, an economy and a society depends on moral and religious values.

In no way was Coolidge a materialist. In the same speech in which he famously said, “The chief business of the American people is business,” Coolidge also argued, “The accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence.” Elsewhere he noted, “Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.”

No society, he believed, can be prosperous or successful in the absence of moral conviction. In essence, the common good requires that goodness be common. “Mere intelligence,” he said, “is not enough. Enlightenment must be accompanied by that moral power which is the product of home and religion. Real education and true welfare for the people rest inevitably on this foundation, which the government can approve and command, but which the people themselves must create.”

Coolidge was committed to religious freedom, stating that the “fundamental precept of liberty is toleration.” But he also noted, “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.”

American society is just now learning how difficult that task is.


These ideas represent more than a practical political approach. They are a coherent, consistent view of the world, rooted in a philosophy about God, man, and government. This is something rare in an American President – something we see only in figures like Jefferson and Lincoln.

I think it can be argued that the two seminal, symbolic figures in America during the early twentieth century were Calvin Coolidge and Franklin Roosevelt. They represented visions larger than their own lives – fundamentally different directions for our national experiment.

Roosevelt spoke of the need for “bold, persistent experimentation.” He established a tradition of liberal tinkering with American society that reaches through history to our current administration. A health care plan that attempted to nationalize one-seventh of the U.S. economy is a clear descendant of this approach.

Calvin Coolidge is the polar opposite. His philosophy of government and of life is summarized in an extraordinary speech, given in 1926 at the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It may be the finest, richest speech given by an American President in this century. “Under a system of popular government,” he said,

there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well-informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes.

What we need instead, Coolidge contended, is a “better knowledge of the foundations of government in general.” Once again, he was talking about foundations – always the basics.

Those foundations, in the history of our country, were not material, but spiritual. Our nation’s founders “were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.”

“No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence,” he said.

It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things which are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed.

For Coolidge this was not empty patriotism. It was a continual challenge, reissued in every generation:

Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man – these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

Coolidge concluded that our first, most important task as a nation is not to seek new ideas, but to return to old ideals:

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance of the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to [the Declaration of Independence]. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth and their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was not equality, not rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary.


Our century has proven Coolidge to be exactly right. The greatest revolution of our time – defeating a totalitarian empire – was the ringing reaffirmation of ideas familiar in Philadelphia in 1776. It is socialism – which claimed history as its own – that now seems reactionary. It is American liberalism that seems old and tired.

In the 1940s, Arthur Schlesinger wrote, “There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.” But, with the perspective of history, they have advanced toward exhaustion – toward dependence and spiritual decay. We forgot about the nature of man and the limits of government. We neglected that the “things of the spirit come first.” Calvin Coolidge would have found these things obvious. If only they had been obvious to us.

Let me conclude with a statement by Coolidge that has never been more current and relevant.

We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. If the foundation be firm, the foundation will stand.

I would add only that we also need to be graced by leaders of Calvin Coolidge’s stature again.



*VIDEO* Flashback: George W. Bush’s Prophetic Iraq Warning Of July, 2007



Flashback: Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy Tons Of Ukrainian Ammunition, Small Arms And Anti-Aircraft Missiles

Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 Tons Of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms And 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles In Ukraine – Daily Mail

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.

In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.

The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.

After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.



Photographs from the trip show Obama inspecting a plant where Soviet-era artillery shells and shoulder-fired missiles were collecting dust, leftovers dumped in Ukraine after the USSR withdrew from Eastern bloc nations after the once-mighty communist nation fell apart.

The United Nations had already identified some 7 million small arms and light weapons, and 2 million tons of conventional ammunition, warehoused in more than 80 weapons depots spread across the country.

Many of the artillery shells shown in photographs from Donetsk, multiple weapons experts told MailOnline, would be the same types of ammunition required to repel advancing Russian divisions as they advanced to the west, had they not been destroyed.

Two experts said the ammunition, particularly small-arms rounds, would have been useful to train Ukraine’s armed forces and million-strong reserves.

‘Vast stocks of conventional munitions and military supplies have accumulated in Ukraine,’ Obama said in am August 30, 2005 statement from Donetsk. ‘Some of this stockpile dates from World War I and II, yet most dates from Cold War buildup and the stocks left behind by Soviet withdrawals from East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland.’

‘We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.’

More than a year later, President George W. Bush signed into law a proposal authored by Obama and Lugar.





Obama said then that the existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ‘has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists.’

Much of the Ukrainian small-arms supply was ultimately exported, not scrapped, by a Yushchenko regime that chose revenue from arms dealing over the cost of melting down metal.

In 2008 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that between 2004 and 2007, the Ukrainian Export Control Service told the UN that it sent 721,777 small arms and light weapons to 27 different countries.

The United States was the top recipient, with more than 260,000 of those weapons, followed by the UK and Libya, which each imported more than 101,000.

That flood of weapons exports has continued, with annual export records showing hundreds of thousands of new exports each year, covering everything from pistols and carbine rifles to heavy machine guns and anti-tank weapons.




But while today’s 130,000-strong standing Ukrainian military isn’t short on AK-47s, Russian troops have met little to no large-scale resistance from armored divisions or heavy artillery as they steamrolled their way into Crimea.

Some of that was Ukraine’s own doing – it sold 320 tanks to Pakistan in the 1990s, for instance – but Obama and Lugar accelerated the pace of the country’s arms liquidation.

While the Ukrainian army seems to have been careful to avoid provoking an even larger conflict, it’s impossible to know whether Putin would have behaved differently in the face of columns of heavy weapons that once belonged to the Soviet Union in whose KGB he held a high-ranking position.

Sky News video broadcast on Tuesday showed Russian troops firing automatic weapons over the heads of apparently unarmed Ukrainian Air Force personnel near a contested airfield in Crimea.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


*VIDEO* ObamaCare Flashback – You Can’t Say The Tedious Marmosets Didn’t Warn You!


*VIDEO FLASHBACK* Barack Obama 2012: Unilateral Military Action In Syria Would Be A Mistake


H/T The Daily Caller


*VIDEO FLASHBACK* 2010 – Newt Gingrich To Michigan: Change Or Die

…..Too bad the people of Detroit utterly ignored Newt’s sound advice.



FLASHBACK: Ed Disproves The Fallacy That Conservatives Are Better Off Abandoning The GOP

Don’t Abandon The GOP, Grow A Pair And Take It Back! – Edward L. Daley (07/31/12)

When you figure in the $85 million million (aka trillion) worth of unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, the total debt amassed by the federal government of the United States comes to about $100 million million, give or take a few million million. That number is equate to roughly seven times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of our country. In fact, if we were to liquidate all of America’s assets today for cold, hard cash – in an effort to meet the obligations of just those two programs – Social Security and Medicare would still be about $10 million million in the red.

Think about that for a minute. If our federal government seized everything of monetary value in our country, and used those assets to make good on the promises its made to America’s elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken citizens, it would still find itself in greater debt than most nations on Earth.

This is a picture of Ed when he was 30 pounds heavier than he is now… and his beard had some brown hairs in it.

Now consider this: Social Security and Medicare spending currently accounts for nearly half of all federal spending, yet even though we devote more money to these programs than most of our other budget items combined, we still find ourselves facing a real debt number (not that puny $15 million million the mainstream media keeps babbling about) so massive that the combined GDPs of every other country in the world – roughly $55 million million dollars – equal only a little over half of it.

Let me put that another way. If every nation on this planet pooled together all the wealth they produced in a year’s time and gave every penny of it to the United States, we’d still end up roughly $45 million million in the hole. To give you an idea of how much money that is, here’s a little visualization exercise for you. Imagine you were to stand forty-five million million dollar bills end to end. If it were possible to do so, they would stretch from the Earth to the moon and back approximately nine thousand times.

Now that you’ve got that image in your head – a wall of greenbacks eighteen thousand bills wide, stretching into space to a point so distant that you can’t see the end of it – go ahead and double that amount, and then add another four thousand dollar-wide section to that imaginary money wall for good measure. THAT is our national debt; a wall of singles well over a mile and a half wide, and nearly 239.000 miles high.

If that mental image doesn’t convince you that the people currently in charge of our federal government are so monstrously inept that they shouldn’t be allowed to manage an ‘Orange Julius’ stand, let alone the budget of the United States, then I’m afraid nothing else you’ll read in this article will be of any use to you. I suggest you move on immediately to more pressing endeavors, like – say – staring at small, shiny objects, but whatever you decide to do, please accept my humble apologies for interrupting medication time at the home.

Okay, so now that I’ve whittled down my readership to only those individuals with a firm grasp on reality, let me see if I can adequately summarize my previous assertions in a single sentence.

Our federal debt is really, REALLY big, and our representatives in Washington DC are really, REALLY incompetent.

Moving on…

Glenn Beck, the prominent radio (and former TV) talk show host, has stated on numerous occasions that the only difference between the DNC and RNC is that the latter party is taking our country down the road to statism and, ultimately, economic collapse at a slower pace than the former. And in a way he’s right. The leaders of these two political groups are fairly similar in that few if any of them seem to give a rat’s pucker about future generations of Americans, and the socio-economic hell they face as a result of this generation’s utter lack of fiscal responsibility.

That having been said, Mr. Beck – if, indeed, that is his real name – has failed time and time again to point out that the overwhelming majority of conservatives who constitute the foundation of the Republican party, strenuously oppose the out-of-control spending practices of our elected representatives. He also doesn’t bother to mention that the vast majority of leftists who comprise the Democrat party’s base, exhibit exactly ZERO interest in restraining the growth and irresponsible budgetary habits of our federal government.

As a matter of fact, today’s leftists wholeheartedly support the insane (yes, I said INSANE) increases in spending that the current administration has already inflicted upon our nation, and apparently wishes to double as soon as possible. What’s their primary justification for this endorsement? Well, the Republicans increased spending over the past eight years by more than $4 million million, so now that the Democrat party is in charge, it gets to spend at least double what George W. Bush did on thousands of fatuous, government programs, idiotic make-work schemes and more freedom-smothering, federal bureaucracies than ever before. NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!

Tell me, is any part of what I just wrote inaccurate?

Okay, so maybe that “NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!” thing was a little over the top, but still…

Is there any doubt that the notion of expanding the scope and authority of the federal government originated with the left in this country, or that its subsequent growth momentum has been fueled by the “progressive” movement ever since?

Wacky, yet impassioned Glenn – the self-proclaimed “rodeo clown” and outspoken critic of government waste, fraud and abuse – seems to believe that we can just ignore the two main political parties in this country on election day and come together as a nation of independent voters to solve the myriad problems we face.

Talk about naiveté!

Regardless of how independent-minded one may be, if disseminating throughout the federal establishment the conservative ideals of limited government, personal accountability and fiscal restraint is one’s aim, there’s no viable delivery vehicle available other than the Republican party. After all, that’s where the overwhelming number of politically active right-wingers reside today, and to abandon it at this point in history is akin to calling for the forces of conservatism to further fragment in the face of an aggressive and unified leftist front.

If he were a soldier in General George S. Patton’s army, Private Beck would likely be relegated to the position of chief latrine scrubber for merely suggesting so foolish a strategic battle plan. Suffice it to say that no political ideology can be advanced in the United States without the assistance of an organized party of substantial wealth and influence. Independent political candidates don’t win federal elections very often, and the few who do, usually find themselves alone in the wilderness when it comes to garnering support among their peers for their policy initiatives.

Like it or not, changing the culture of irresponsibility and corruption that defines our national government these days, means changing the culture of at least one of the two major parties currently running it, and to accomplish that, one needs to confront the problem from within. It simply cannot be done by standing outside the gates of power, shaking one’s fists and wailing at the gathering storm.

Sure, there are times when large demonstrations by rag-tag coalitions of citizens can make a difference in the way our public officials behave at any given time, and you’ll find no stronger proponent of such peaceful revolts than I. That having been said, truly influential mass protests are rare and their impact fleeting. Lasting change only comes about as the result of a concerted effort among people of like-mind to repeatedly vote into public office, honorable candidates from a common political party who are capable of persuading others within their ranks to do the right thing.

There will always be a certain amount of corruption in any group, however, which is why it’s important to expose and punish as swiftly as possible the bad eggs in one’s own party. For all their flaws, the leaders of the GOP do have some integrity in this regard, whereas Democrat bigwigs are utterly shameless in their repeated defense of demonstrably corrupt leftists.

It’s going to take a lot of hard work to get the Republican party back on its conservative feet again, no question about that, and the transition from a party of wishy-washy RINOs to one controlled by genuine right-wingers, won’t happen overnight. But think about the ramifications if we don’t even try to salvage it. We’ll be stuck with essentially two versions of the same party controlling the political direction of our country for at least a generation to come; one which continues to slide seemingly irrevocably into the cesspool of Marxism, while the other dances precariously on a sheet of thin ice above that same, putrid sewer.

That doesn’t have to happen, Mr. Beck, but if you insist upon preaching the gospel of “to hell with both major parties” to a sizable audience of disenfranchised former GOPers, Libertarians and right-leaning independents, it probably will. If such a tragedy should come to pass, national bankruptcy and severe economic depression is not only probable, but a near certainty.

Indeed, if our nation is to survive the hopey-changey era of President Obama and his left-wing lackeys in Congress, electing vast numbers of true conservative REPUBLICANS to their respective high government offices is the only rational course of action available to us, and it is a course we must embark on sooner rather than later.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Flashback: Obama Sole Senator Not To Vote In Favor Of Protecting Rape Victims In ’99 Illinois State Senate Vote

Flashback: Obama Broke With Colleagues, Voted Present On Protecting Rape Victims In ’99 State Senate Vote – Daily Caller

In a 1999 legislative vote, then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama was the sole state senator to not vote for a bill that would protect sexual assault victims from having the details of their cases revealed publicly.

On May 11 of that year, Obama voted “present” on a bill, ultimately made law, that allows victims of sex crimes to request that their cases be sealed from public view following a criminal conviction. Illinois Senate voting records show that Obama was the only senator who did not vote in favor of the bill.

Obama’s unique objection to voting for a bill meant to protect victims of sex crimes is a substantial departure from the picture he has attempted to paint for women voters.

The future president, it was reported then, questioned the bill’s constitutionality.

The legislation’s intent was to prevent public consumption of the explicit details of sex crimes without “good cause.”

“Under the bill, the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state’s attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case,” reporter Joe Mahr wrote for The State Journal-Register. “If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause.”

The Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault led the charge for the law, Mahr reported, adding that the group “pushed the bill after a victim’s co-worker researched the details of her assault in court files. The victim later realized, to her horror, that anyone could look up court files on criminal cases, including sex crimes.”

A contingent of schoolchildren from Obama’s Chicago district were in attendance as Obama voted “present.”

Mere minutes before, Obama had announced their presence to the Illinois State Senate chamber.

“I am pleased to say that we have today some schoolchildren from my district, for the Ancona School in Hyde Park/Kenwood area,” Obama said, according to Senate transcripts. “These are seventh and eighth graders who worked on a history project all year and are down here to observe the workings of the Senate in the State Capitol,” he said.

Obama would later vote “present” on the bill a second time when it returned to the state Senate Judiciary Committee, following passage by the state House. In that committee vote, two other state senators joined Obama in voting “present.”

As he runs for re-election, Obama has made women’s rights – and a supposed Republican “war on women” – a focal point of his campaign. Rape-related gaffes from Republican Senate candidates like Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Rep. Todd Akin in Missouri have become springboards for Obama’s attempts to drive a political wedge between Republicans and women voters.

In a Wednesday interview with comedian Jay Leno, for instance, Obama bashed Mourdock, who implied this week that abortion should not be a viable choice for women who are raped because procreation in such cases is still an act of God’s will.

“Let me make a very simple proposition: Rape is rape,” Obama said. “It is a crime. And so these various distinctions about rape don’t make too much sense to me – don’t make any sense to me. This is exactly why you don’t want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women’s health care decisions.”

Obama has also tried to depict his GOP opponent Mitt Romney, with relative success, as anti-woman.

He started the election polling 16 points ahead of Romney with women. But an Associated Press poll published Thursday shows that Romney has erased that advantage and is running even among likely voters who are female.

The Obama campaign and Democrats were left scrambling Thursday to turn that tide back in their favor.

The president’s re-election campaign released a new ad Thursday morning attacking the former Massachusetts governor’s position on abortion.

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer hammered the Republican party on Twitter Thursday afternoon, claiming the “GOP doesn’t stand with women even when they are raped.”

And The New York Times reported that Obama bashed the GOP on the stump in Tampa over women’s health issues.

“As we saw again this week, I don’t think any politician in Washington, most of whom are male, should be making health care decisions for women,” Obama repeated.

Spokespersons for the Obama campaign did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*AUDIO FLASHBACK* Adam Carolla And Andrew Breitbart Talk About Why Los Angeles Sucks – May, 2011


….PART 1

….PART 2

….PART 3

….PART 4

….H/T Sharp Elbows


*VIDEO* Flashback: 1999 CNN Report On Newt Gingrich’s Exoneration By The IRS Over Ethics Charges


……………………………………….Click on the image above to watch the video.

NOTE: Of the 84 ethics charges filed (exclusively by Democrats) against Newt Gingrich, 83 were subsequently dropped due to a complete lack of merit or foundation in fact. The remaining charge is the subject of the above video. It too proved to be utterly baseless.


*VIDEO FLASHBACK* Joe Biden 2007: ‘If He [Bush] Takes This Nation To War In Iran Without Congressional Approval. I Will Make It My Business To Impeach Him’

Joe Biden Flashback: ‘Framers Intended To Grant Congress Power To Initiate All Hostilities, Even Limited Wars’

Joe Biden Flashback: ‘Framers Intended To Grant Congress Power To Initiate All Hostilities, Even Limited Wars’ – CNS

After studying the constitutional language governing the use of military force and the debates that the Framers had on the issue, Joe Biden determined that the Founding Fathers had vested the power to authorize even the limited use of military force in the Congress not the president—unless it was necessary for the president to act swiftly to repel an attack on the United States or to rescue U.S. citizens.

Biden derided the opposite position—that the president could use military force without congressional authorization—as a “monarchist” view of presidential power.

That was in 1998, however, when Biden was in the Senate.

Today, Biden serves as vice president to a commander in chief who has just committed the U.S. military to an action in Libya that was authorized by the U.N. Security Council but was never even so much as debated in the U.S. Congress let alone put to a vote.

Nor has the president argued that the aim of the military action in Libya is to repel an imminent attack on the United States or rescue U.S. citizens.

“The rationale for vesting the power to launch war in Congress was simple,” Biden said in a Senate speech delivered on July 30, 1998. “The Framers’ views were dominated by their experience with the British King, who had unfettered power to start wars. Such powers the Framers were determined to deny the President.”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution says: “The Congress shall have power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

After summarizing this language, the debate over it at the Constitutional Convention and the treatment of it by Presidents George Washington and John Adams and the early Supreme Court, Biden determined it was impossible to conclude anything other than that the president could not use force without prior congressional authorization unless it was necessary to “repel a sudden attack.”

Indeed, this was exactly the language used at the Constitutional Convention by James Madison and Elbridge Gerry when they offered a successful amendment to the draft Constitution—which, as originally written, would have granted Congress alone the power to “make war.”

“Mr. [James] Madison and Mr [Elbridge] Gerry moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks,” said James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention.

“Mr Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” said Madison notes.

“Mr. [George] Mason was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make,’” said Madison’s notes.

“On the Motion to insert declare–in place of Make, it was agreed to,” Madison recorded in his notes at the Constitutional Convention.

In his speech to the Senate in 1998, Biden accurately summarized the notes of the Constitutional Convention.

“The original draft of the Constitution would have given to Congress the power to ‘make war.’ At the Constitutional Convention, a motion was made to change this to ‘declare war.’ The reason for the change is instructive,” said Biden.

“At the Convention, James Madison and Elbridge Gerry argued for the amendment solely in order to permit the President the power ‘to repel sudden attacks,’” said Biden. “Just one delegate, Pierce Butler of South Carolina, suggested that the President should be given the power to initiate war.”

Citing Federalist No. 69, Biden noted that Alexander Hamilton, who among the Framers was perhaps the greatest champion of a strong executive, argued that the Constitution gave the president the authority to direct the military in action only after that action was authorized by Congress.

“Even Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate of Presidential power, emphasized that the President’s power as Commander in Chief would be ‘much inferior’ to the British King, amounting to ‘nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces,’ while that of the British King ‘extends to declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies–all which, by [the U.S.] Constitution, would appertain to the legislature,’” said Biden.

“Given this,” Biden concluded, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

Biden gave this speech laying out the Framer’s original understanding of the meaning of the war power to explain why he was introducing legislation that would replace the War Powers Resolution, enacted in the 1973, with a new law designed to prevent the president from indefinitely committing U.S. forces to a military engagement without congressional authorization. Biden’s proposed act also spelt out the conditions under which Biden believed the president—using his authority to “repel a sudden attack”—might launch a military action without prior congressional approval.

“One fundamental weakness of the war powers resolution is that it fails to acknowledge powers that most scholars agree are inherent Presidential powers: to repel an armed attack upon the United States or its Armed Forces, or to rescue Americans abroad,” said Biden in his 1998 speech.

“My legislation,” he said, “corrects this deficiency by enumerating five instances where the President may use force: (1) To repel attack on U.S. territory or U.S. forces; (2) To deal with urgent situations threatening supreme U.S. interests; (3) To extricate imperiled U.S. citizens; (4) To forestall or retaliate against specific acts of terrorism; (5) To defend against substantial threats to international sea lanes or airspace.”

Biden did not say that the president could use a UN resolution, as opposed to an act of Congress, to justify military action. In fact, he specifically criticized President Harry Truman—a Democrat—for going to war in Korea after that war had been authorized by the UN Security Council, but not by the U.S. Congress.

Biden, in fact, accused Truman of taking what Biden called the “monarchist” view of the president’s power to use military force.

“[W]hat I call the “monarchist” view of the war power,” said Biden, is “the thesis that the President holds nearly unlimited power to direct American forces into action.

“The thesis is largely a product of the Cold War and the nuclear age: the view that, at a time when the fate of the planet itself appeared to rest with two men thousands of miles apart, Congress had little choice, or so it was claimed but to cede tremendous authority to the executive,” said Biden.

“This thesis first emerged in 1950, when President Truman sent forces to Korea without congressional authorization,” said Biden.

On June 27, 1950, after North Korea invaded South Korea, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 83, recommending “that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

That same day, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into Korea without seeking congressional authorization.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Senate Republican Leader Robert Taft (Ohio) said of Truman’s action: “The President simply usurped authority in violation of the laws and the Constitution, when he sent troops to Korea to carry out the resolution of the United Nations in an undeclared war.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story