Halloween Frights -- Hillary, Perez on the Constitution, Obama's DOJ, and Losing West Africa to ISIS

THE REAL NEWS TODAY? IT'S HALLOWEEN AND WHAT COULD BE SCARIER THAN HILARY & CO. Even without their masks, Hillary and her ProgDem followers are downright frightening -- For example... • • • PEREZ AND THE CONSITUTION. The Daily Caller and Reuters reported last week that Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez falsely claimed that the Electoral College is not “a creation of the Constitution.” During a lecture at Indiana University Law School, Perez said the Electoral College “doesn’t have to be there,” asserting that the national popular vote should be the principal standard : “The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be there,” he said. “There’s a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same.” Perez’s claim that the Electoral College is not part of the US Constitution is COMPLETELY FALSE. Article II clearly outlines the electoral process, dictating that states must appoint electors who meet and vote for the President : “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” • Beware of this sinister "popular vote compact" -- it is the brainchild of the Soros Open Society and is meant to eliminate the Electioral College provision from the US Constitution without the required constitutional amendment process that is also in the Constitution. Soros' goal is to prevent any Republican conservative from ever again being elected President because of the fact that the East and West Coasts where his Progressives live have in total more popular votes than the heartland where Republican conservatives live. So, eliminating the Electoral College would give the popular vote -- and the presidency -- to the Progessives every time. It is the Electoral College that makes constitutional rule in the Republic possible, giving states the obligation to cast votes for President according to the vote in each state, in a process that gives equal weight to popular votes and the reasoned judgment of elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, in case a demagogue takes control of the United States -- a lot like right now. • Perez has made statements in the past that President Donald Trump “didn’t win” the 2016 presidential election because former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. No wonder Hillary picked Perez to be her chairman of the DNC. • • • OBAMA DOJ GAVE MONEY TO LEFTIST CAUSES. Daily Caller reported last week that the Obama Department of Justice funneled 'Big Bank' settlement money To liberal groups. The Daily Caller News Foundation says emails written by Obama administration DOJ officials confirm reports the agency engaged in a systemic effort to funnel money to liberal advocacy organizations from settlements reached with big banks, while taking steps to prevent conservative causes from receiving any such money. The documents, obtained by the House Judiciary Committee as part of an ongoing investigation, reveal the Obama Justice Department effectively skirted Congress’s budgetary authority by requiring that major financial institutions donate to a group of affordable housing nonprofits and legal advocacy organizations as part of settlement agreements resulting from predatory mortgage lending practices. The internal DOJ documents represent the latest revelation in a two-year investigation spearheaded by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. The congressional investigation has thus far produced evidence implicating the Obama DOJ in using mandatory donations to funnel roughly $1 billion in settlement money to activist groups, including The National Council of La Raza that wants to annex part of California as a home for Mexicans, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the National Urban League. The list of third party organizations were unrelated to the legal settlements, except through general claims that they would use the funds to aid the low income Americans most severely harmed by predatory lending practices. Goodlatte says the Obama DOJ practices amounted to the creation of a “slush fund” used to channel money to “left-wing” groups on the House floor before a vote on legislation that would stem the practice. The bill, introduced by Goodlatte in January, prohibits the government from entering into any settlement agreement that benefits any party other than the government, with few exceptions. The vote passed mostly along party lines after hours of debate. • Obama DOJ officials implicated in the effort have defended the settlements on the grounds that the banks made the donations willingly -- right!!! -- before signing the agreements. Critics allege, and documents suggest, that the donations were prearranged and stipulated as requirement under the settlement deals. The internal documents, turned over to the House Judiciary Committee and obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, include email exchanges in which DOJ officials discuss how to most effectively funnel settlement funds to liberal advocacy groups, to the explicit exclusion of conservative organizations. An internal email exchange reveals that DOJ officials made a concerted effort to prevent the allocation of settlement funds to a conservative legal group : “Concerns include: a) not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation (does conservative property rights free legal services).” A senior Obama DOJ official confirmed the extensive coordination required to prevent conservative groups from benefiting from the financial settlements in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. • These documents appearing to show a coordinated effort to hand pick the beneficiaries of the settlement money contradict Obama Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Graber’s February 2015 testimony. Graber told the House Judiciary Committee under oath that “the Department did not want to be in the business of picking and choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement.” Graber’s testimony is further refuted by the contents of an email, sent by another DOJ official, in which she points out that the settlement provisions require the banks to “make donations to categories of entities we have specified (as opposed to what the bank might normally choose to donate to).” • The DOJ announced large settlement packages that included mandatory donations to various liberal community groups also included an “enhanced credit” provision, which effectively credited the bank $2 toward their settlement for every $1 donated to a community organization. This settlement structure incentivized the banks to donate to third party nonprofits such as housing and legal advocacy orgnaizations unconnected to the actual legal wrongdoing, because donations to the plaintiffs in the case were given dollar-for-dollar credit. • • • THE MILITARY AUTHORIZATION ISSUE RAISES ITS HEAD -- AGAIN. In what has got to be the most important news today, TheHill reported last weekend that the Niger ambush that killed four US soldiers has ramped up the pressure on Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who testifed Monday before the Senate on war authorizations. Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee are expected to hit them with questions about the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria expanding into Africa, with some insisting the new battlefield should require an update to the 16-year-old authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). • Of course, it is ProgDems and #Never Trumps who are leading the charge. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, Hillary's bland VP running mate choice, said after a classified hearing last week : “I am very disturbed at the authorities question...just the extent of the operations. I don’t think Congress has necessarily been kept completely kept up to date, and the American public I think certainly has not.” Besides Kaine, who for years has been one of Congress’s most vocal proponents of a new AUMF, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, who has warned in his recent fits of hysteria that the President’s rhetoric could set off "World War III," thinks there are a number of issues to address in the AUMF debate : “I think that what’s happened in Niger and what’s happening around the world and then some of the things that are happening in the North Korea issue and the conflict there, the conflict that could occur there -- I think it’s going to end up being much more expansive than originally thought, so we’re probably going to take our time, not just walking through the AUMF for ISIS, but also to walk through other things that a White House can do without congressional authority.” Corker's Democratic counterpart on the committee, ranking member Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, agreed that the Niger attack has underscored the need for a new AUMF : “Having said that, the challenge of getting one done is not going to be easier. There are those who believe the President should have broad powers. There’s those of us who are worried about having our troops called in when they shouldn’t. So it’s hard to get that balance.” Cardin says it’s time to find out if there can be common ground on time limits, geographic limits and ground troops : “I think what we’re going to try to find out is what authorization do they need. And to try to see whether we can’t agree on limitations on authorizations that could get us significant -- enough support in Congress to pass an AUMF.” Though the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction over the AUMF, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain -- who else? -- has said he is also working on a new authorization in the wake of the Niger attack with Armed Service ranking Democrat Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. McCain said last Thursday : “Jack Reed and I are talking about an AUMF. Obviously this conflict, with Raqqa and Mosul, is moving now into Africa.” Should we be so unkind as to remind McCain and Reed that Raqqa, Syria, ISIS’s de facto capital, and the Iraqi city of Mosul, the largest city ever held by ISIS, have been retaken by US-backed forces since Trump became President. • The hurdles that keep Congress from passing a new AUMF, including deep divisions over sunset dates, ground troops and geographic constraints, still exist, making chances of success for this latest push very iffy. Mattis and Tillerson have briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the AUMF behind closed doors and have been asked about it at public hearings. • The Trump administration relies on the 2001 AUMF for legal authority in the war against ISIS, as did the Obama administration. The AUMF authorized military actions against al-Qaida, the Taliban and other perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Proponents of using it against ISIS argue that the terrorist group grew out of al-Qaida, while opponents highlight the two groups’ public falling-out as well as the fact that ISIS did not exist in 2001. The administration told Congress in a letter earlier this year that it believes the 2001 AUMF provides sufficient legal cover for the ISIS war, and so it is not seeking a new one. But after Mattis and Tillerson briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the issue in closed session in August, Senators said they were under the impression that the administration would not actively oppose Congress passing a new AUMF. In fact, Mattis has said publicly he thinks a new AUMF is important to signal support for the mission : “As far as the AUMF goes, my point is that we need the unity of the American government, and with the Congress involved that brings the unity of the American people to this fight." • NOTE TO THE US SENATE -- THE US MILITARY HAS BEEN IN MALI SINCE 2013. No, Senator McCain, as you well know, the US military war on ISIS is not just now "moving now into Africa.” • On January 26, 2013 -- just a week after Barack Obama was sworn in for his second term -- the Washington Post no less published a report about the US military helping France in Mali. The WP said : "The United States is significantly expanding its assistance to a French assault on islamist militants in Mali by offering aerial refueling and planes to transport soldiers from other African nations, the Pentagon announced Saturday night. The gesture comes amid a debate within the Obama administration about how deeply it should engage in the French effort to prevent islamists from wresting control of the West African nation. French requests for more robust support from Washington raised a legal dilemma because US law forbids foreign assistance funds to leaders that came to power through a coup. Mali’s military leaders, including some trained by US troops, seized power last year by force." -- Do we REALLY believe that Obama was worried about the legal nicety of Mali being run by a government that took power through a coup??? -- In the WP January 2013 article, a US defense official was quoted : “The French requested this support, and we believe it was important to move ahead. The US has the most advanced refueling technology in the world, and we wanted to provide this support.” Finally, the WP said that the US "has concluded that the expanded assistance is legally sound because of France’s notification to the United Nations Security Council that its mission in Mali is being offered at the request of the African country’s government, which is fighting 'terrorist elements.' ” Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel James Gregory said in a statement : “Under these circumstances, the US can lawfully provide support to France’s efforts in the armed conflict in Mali. The coup bars 'foreign assistance funds,' not military support. We remain mindful of, and are carefully taking into account, the coup restrictions as our plans for assistance develop." The WP said the Pentagon made the announcement after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to his French counterpart about the conflict in Mali, and a call a day earlier between President Obama and French President Francois Hollande. The Washington Post reported that : "During the Saturday call, Panetta commended France’s offensive and 'noted recent operational successes that have helped turn back terrorist advances.' " The WP described the US military intervention as "offering aerial refueling, which will enhance France’s ability to bomb suspected islamist cells, making US military aircraft available to ferry allied soldiers from African nations including Chad and Togo to 'support the international effort in Mali.' ” • France deployed troops to Mali on January 11, 2013, fearing that rebel militants could be close to seizing control of the capital, Bamako. The landlocked country, home to 14.5 million people, is a former French colony and remains an important trade partner for Paris. US officials have watched Mali’s turmoil with great concern, fearing that large, strategically important regions of the African country could become havens for hard-line islamist militants with global terrorist aspirations. As French troops descended on the Malian capital, some French officials held out hope that the United States and Britain would provide significant support. London and Washington have endorsed the offensive, but the two allies have only pledged non-lethal support, mainly transport planes. Mali is the home of the tombs of Islamic saints, which were destroyed by islamist group Ansar Dine, in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012, following which sharia law was imposed in Timbuktu. In December 2012, leaders of the 15-nation Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) agree to deploy a force of up to 3,300 troops for a year. On January 10, 2013, the UN Security Council approved sending an African-led force to take back northern Mali from the islamists. A day later , on January 11, 2013, French President Francois Hollande announced military intervention to halt advances by the rebels. French air strikes help drove islamist rebels from Konna, which the islamists had entered, and French warplanes bombed central Mali after islamist guerrillas captured the town of Diabaly. • NOTE that the American military, on January 21, 2013, deployed 100 trainers to assist in the training mission in Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Togo and Ghana -- the six nations that contributed troops to the pan-African force deployed in Mali. • In an addendum to the US military deployment in Africa's Mali, the Atlantic Council on November 14, 2013, published an article titled "The Role of the US Air Force in the French Mission in Mali." The article was written by Gabe Starosta, managing editor of the defense newsletter “Inside the Air Force,” and was originally published in the AIR FORCE MAGAZINE. In it Starosta said : "France’s intervention in Mali earlier this year -- helping its former colony defend against Islamic extremists -- didn’t get the media attention lavished on the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi or the crisis in Syria. But the Mali mission has so far proved successful , and likely because of the substantial help France got from the US -- largely through the Air Force. France sent fighter aircraft and troops to Mali, along with various ground vehicles and all the related gear. Although France has cargo aircraft -- and even KC-135 strategic air refueling aircraft to move its equipment long distances -- mobility support is exactly what France received from the US, along with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assistance." A French EMbassy spokesman told Starosta : "We can emphasize the very substantial and helpful support the USAF is providing to the French in Mali in terms of ISR, air-to-air refueling, and logistic transport assets. The French air force possesses its own assets in those three strategic areas, but not as widely as the USAF does,” calling the US assistance "nothing less than essential in allowing the operation to proceed." Starosta reported that the C-17 was the main aircraft used by American forces early in the conflict to transport French troops and cargo into Mali, and that US C-130s were used to move people and equipment around the country throughout the last 10 months. Starosta said : "The intervention has been effective at restoring civilian government and limiting the political power of potential terrorists in North Africa. In May, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves le Drian visited Washington DC and expressed how satisfied his department had been with the Pentagon’s -- and mainly the Air Force’s -- cooperation in the critical opening months of the campaign. In the early, most dangerous days of Operation Serval, the name given by France to the military intervention against terrorists in Mali, French fighter aircraft relied heavily on American KC-135 refueling tankers to extend their missions." Justine Leger, a spokeswoman for the French government in Paris, explained to Starosta that French fighters staged their missions from N’Djamena, the capital city of Chad, separated from Mali by Niger. Mali’s large size (about twice the size of Texas) made aerial tanking a necessity. Leger said : “The commitment of US tankers [contributed to] French combat aircraft capacity to perform the two hours of flight from N’Djamena to Mali, achieve their missions, and fly back to N’Djamena. Many of those missions needed not less than three or four in-flight refuelings in order to get a significant time over the engagement area. In that sense, the US assistance has been very helpful.” Leger said the French engaged around half their own refueling fleet in the operation and that in the first six weeks of Serval, American C-17s flew 120 sorties transporting troops and equipment into North Africa in addition to the Air Force’s tanking mission. Starosta gave the following breakdown : "By the end of the 818th’s 30-day deployment, US aircraft had flown 190 sorties, transported 1,480 French troops, and moved 2,400 tons -- almost five million pounds -- of cargo and equipment into Mali....As of September 11, 2013, Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers off-loaded more than 14 million pounds of fuel for French operations in Mali, while airlift aircraft (C-130s and C-17s) moved or delivered more than 121 tons of cargo within the theater. The service had also moved 334 passengers around Mali through early August. The third major mission area where France needed assistance was in ISR, but Air Force officials at the Pentagon declined to discuss how the service met that request." NOTE : ISR refers to "Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance" functions that are principal elements of US defense capabilities, and include a wide variety of systems for acquiring and processing information needed by national security decisionmakers and military commanders. • • • DEAR READERS, a trusted friend and advisor and I were recently talking about the media splash over the re-taking of Raqqa in Syria, with the MSM calling it the end of ISIS. I doubted that, but since I don't have a military background, I wondered if the fall of Raqqa really was the end for ISIS. My friend sent me a bit of advice : "Our military history is ladened with the art of declaring victory from battles that were never pivotal in the war. Politicians' knee jerk reaction to declare victory is foolhardy and nearly always detrimental to the overall objective. War is a living and breathing thing that has a life span that is adjusted not by single victories, but rather a series of enemy defeats that staggers and disrupts their ability and will to win. That is when defeat starts. War is also a living and spontaneously dying thing. So, military victory is a series of events that come into play at the same time. And the pre-victory and post-victory period of the chess game is critical in timing and recognition. Sometimes it comes and goes and is never recognized as what was available at hand by the 'non-field' commanders." • Non-field commanders -- "There's the rub." What if the US military had been prevented from providing essential support to France in the short period in January 2013 when it was the make-or-break time in saving Mali from being overrun by islamic terrorists? What if the US military had been stalled while Senate committees debated and angled for media opportunities while "Mali burned," so to speak? What if US military field commanders had been overruled by "non-field commanders" and the US help to save Mali had never arrived? What if???...that is the point of the silliness now heating up again in the Senate. The AUMF debate has appeared several times before in the Trump administration, notably after President Trump ordered a US strike on a Syrian airbase and the several times when Trump has appeared to threaten military action against North Korea. Some ProgDems have even called for legislation that would prevent Commander-in-Chief Trump from making decisions about North Korea military strikes without congressional approval. • But, just for clarity, the French military presence in Mali goes on and is keeping the entire area of West Africa from being overrun by ISIS-affiliated terrorist groups. And, without the initial US military assistance, the French would have been hard-pressed to do what was required to get the head start on islamic terrorists in Mali. And, the US military continues to have a presence in Mali for this very reason -- to keep West Africa from falling to ISIS and other islamic terrorist groups. • The scariest thought for Halloween is this -- If we thought that running the US military from the Obama Oval Office was bad, just imagine running it from congressional committees.