Breaking: Saudi State TV Confirms King Abdullah Dead at 91

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has died in hospital, state TV says.

Before the announcement, Saudi television cut to Koranic verses early on Friday, which often signifies the death of a senior royal.

The Royal Court announced in a statement read on official Saudi TV. Prince Salman was named the new the King of Saudi Arabia and Prince Muqrin as Crown Prince. King Salman has called on the family's Allegiance Council to pay allegiance to Muqrin as his crown prince and heir, the statement said.

Salman however,is  believed to be ill, there  is speculation he is suffering from dementia or Parkinson’s disease, something the Saudis deny.  The new king is a chipper 79, so he probably is not that far behind his brother.

In recent months Salman has begun to play a more active role and has represented the country at important meetings abroad – including a high-octane Gulf summit. He also serves as deputy prime minister and defense minister.

King Abdullah, who is said to be aged about 90, had been in hospital for several weeks suffering from a lung infection. Apparently Pneumonia was his cause of death.

Per the WSJ

Born before his father founded the modern Saudi state in 1932, King Abdullah focused his final years on internal and external security threats to a nation he had seen grow into an oil giant and center of political and religious power in the region.

His death removes a bulwark against the democratic and Islamist movements that have roiled the rest of the Arab world since the uprisings of 2011, though his immediate successors are seen as just as conservative as he was, or more.

In one of his final statements, an address before the consultative Shoura Council read by his half-brother and heir to the throne earlier this month, Abdullah emphasized that his country was “blessed with security and stability” in the heart of a volatile region.

There is now word whether Secretary of State Kerry will bring James Taylor to sing at the Funeral.

Read More

Hypocritical Pelosi Rips Boehner For Bibi Invite (But She Negotiated W/Syria's Assad Over Bush Objections)

Calling it "out of order" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) blasted Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) invitation to Israeli Premier Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress in March. But in April 2007 then Speaker Pelosi traveled to Syria to visit to negotiate with President Bashar al-Assad without the consent of, and despite the objections of the Bush White House.

According to a report in Roll Call Pelosi's objection was primarily based on the fact that neither the White House or the House Democratic Party leadership was consulted.

It’s out of order in terms of the protocol,” Pelosi said of the invite. Boehner apparently did not consult with the White House on the joint session, nor did he make Democratic leadership aware of the Netanyahu invite.

Pelosi said her understanding was that the joint session — which was originally slated for Feb. 11 but has since been moved to March 3 — would take place within two weeks of the Israeli elections on March 17. “I don’t think that’s appropriate for any country,” the California Democrat said.

Pelosi noted that, when she was speaker, she invited a number of foreign leaders at the time to speak before a joint session, including King Abdullah of Jordan, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. All of those speakers, she said, were invited in consultation with congressional Republicans and the White House.

Pelosi's visitor list may have been made in consultation with the White House, but in April 2007 she went to Syria for a meeting with Despot/President Bashar al-Assad ignoring the very public objections of the Bush Administration. Even worse she attempted to negotiate for the U.S. without administration approval and she attempted to negotiate for Israel without the knowledge of then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

At the time of her visit, liberal mouthpiece  Washington Post  blasted her on their editorial page.

After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

So which is worse, inviting the leader of a close ally to speak in front of Congress without consulting the White House, or negotiating with a thug, a sponsor of terrorism on behalf of one's own country and another, without the approval or consultation of either nation? Everyone knows the correct answer except for the hypocritical Pelosi.

Read More

Bibi Congressional Speech Moved To March 3rd/Obama Wont Meet With PM When He Comes To D.C.

Speaker Boehner has announced that at Netanyahu's request his speech to a joint session of congress has been moved from February 11th to March 3rd. Bibi the date be changed so he only would have to make only one trip to the U.S. before Israeli elections; as he plans to attend the AIPAC conference in Washington that weekend. At the same time, the White House has announced they will not meet with the Prime Minister during his March trip.

Boehner's office says he asked Netanyahu to speak, not to take one side or the other in the battle between Obama and congress on sanctions, but to explain what Israel knows about Iran's program and discuss the implications of a nuclear Iran and Islamic terror on the Jewish State.

Apparently house leadership had been discussing the invite with Netanyahu for weeks so they could put pressure on the Administration about the Iranian talks.

There is much hay being made of the fact that the President will not meet with Bibi when he comes to DC on the 3rd.   First of all there was no indication that Netanyahu asked for or wanted a meeting. Second is that if Netanyahu expected Obama to meet with him after the snub of spending a few weeks negotiating a meeting with Congress without letting the president know first, then Bibi is not as astute politician as people give him credit for.

Thin-skinned Obama gets mad and gets even.  Obama believes this trip is illegitimate and he will not bless it by meeting with the Prime Minister. Folks that is politics and Netanyahu knew what he was getting into when he "accepted" the invitation.

Also understand that Netanyahu would have been coming to the DC  in early March with or without a Congressional speech so it is not a wasted trip as it has been played in the MSM.   He usually attends the AIPAC, and believe me Bibi wouldn't miss the platform of speaking to this important convention just two weeks before the Israeli elections.

Read More

Jeb Bush/Mitt Romney Having A Confab on Romney's Turf

The two leading establishment candidates to be the GOP standard bearer in the 2016 presidential race, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush will meet this week on Romney's turf in Utah. As establishment candidates they will be compete for the same support and more importantly the same cash.

According to the NY Times:

The meeting was planned before Mr. Romney’s surprise announcement two weeks ago to donors in New York that he was considering a third run for the White House. Mr. Bush proposed the meeting, according to one of the party members familiar with the planning, who did not want to be quoted by name in discussing a secret meeting.

The original idea was for Mr. Bush, who announced his presidential ambitions in December, to show his respect for Mr. Romney, the Republican Party’s 2012 nominee. The meeting stayed on both men’s calendars even as Mr. Romney took steps to test the presidential waters, moves that could make the meeting awkward.  Aides to Mr. Romney and Mr. Bush did not reply to requests for comment.

Both men have been making a flurry of phone calls to Republican donors and officials to sound them out and gather commitments ahead of what could be a bruising primary race.

In some cases, Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney are calling the same people just hours apart. Many of the contributors and elected officials they are courting hope to stave off a collision between the two that could imperil the party’s chances in a general election.

Whether the meeting will be a symbolic gesture or a chance for the establishment Republicans to try and avoid a bitter clash on the campaign trail won't be know until the campaign develops but it is an interesting development.

Interestingly, a Rasmussen poll released Thursday show that in a head to head battle for GOP voters (yes I know it's way early) Romney would have a 49%-32% victory over Bush (19% undecided). Interestingly Romney has a big lead in every Demographic breakdown of likely GOP voters except one. Bush has the larger share of liberal Republicans by a 55%-35% margin but that group is a small share of the GOP.

Read More

Administration Admits It's No Longer Trying To Abolish Iran's Nuke Program

The "money line" picked up by the media was not the real story. The reports from Wednesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee focused on Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) saying, "The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran." The real story happened almost five minutes later when Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken admitted the White House is no longer negotiating stop Iran from breaking out to nuclear weapons, only to get a better "alarm" if the rogue nation tries to make the leap.

The Committee is looking at two bills that the Administration opposes. One will require the administration to seek Senate approval for any agreement. The constitution requires the Senate approve each treaty with a two-thirds vote. However if the agreement does not bind a future presidency it isn't considered a treaty and thus does not need Senate approval.  As Menendez explains in the video below that is exactly what the administration intends on doing.

The other bill would increase the sanctions on Iran in July 2015 if a framework agreement is not made by the March 2015 deadline, however Obama (or any President) has the right to waive or delay the sanctions.

In the video below Senator Menendez questions Anthony Blinken about both issues. Starting with the "talking points from Tehran" quote, through the first four minutes and forty-five seconds Menendez tears apart the administration's logic in opposing both bills. That's when he gets to the new purpose of the negotiations and the administration no longer trying to kill Iran's nuclear program just to get a more advanced warning. Menendez follows up by explaining the way the negotiations will net out, Obama is simply dumping the Iranian nuclear issue on the next president.

Menendez: So let me ask you this, isn't it true that even the deal that you are striving towards --is not to eliminate any Iranian breakout capability, but to constrain the time in which you'll get the notice of such breakout capability. Is that a fair statement, yes or no?

Blinken: Yes, it is.

Menendez: Okay, so we're not eliminating Iran’s ability to break out. We're just getting alarm bells, and the question is how long are we going to get those alarm bells for? Now, isn't it also true that the administration cannot lift sanctions, that it can only waive them under the present law, yes or no?

Blinken: That’s largely correct.

Menendez: So now the Iranians are going to make a deal in which this president may waive sanctions but the next president of the United States, whoever that may be, may decide you know what, this is not in our interests because it's only going to give us a limited period of time and they're going to go ahead and say sorry we're not waiving the sanctions anymore. In that the Iranians are willing to make the hard decisions that they agreed to make that they have been unwilling to make for 18 months because I heard this movie's been played before. Right? 20 years. Last June we heard from the president just give me time. That was seven months ago. Right? Now we're reliving it again. And so the bottom line is, that we are going to do all of this and ultimately be in a position in which if they don't make a deal, we're exactly where we are at, but with no immediate consequences to them. Their breakout time is shorter than the time it will take to create new sanctions. And now you're telling me the chairman, based upon your responses, that you don't want us to even -- the Iranians have made it very clear that their parliament has to vote on this issue. Why is it possible that Tehran will treat its parliament better than the administration in the greatest democracy is willing to its congress? It's -- it just boggles my imagination. So, Mr. Chairman, I’ll look forward to looking at your legislation, and I have suggested to you in our previous conversations some ways in which I think it might be made even stronger.

This hearing was conducted at the same time as Speaker Boehner's announcement about Netanyahu speaking before a joint session of Congress on February 11. The word is that Obama is angry at Boehner for the invite, but he is even angrier at Bibi because he believes the Prime Minister should have given the heads up to the President as soon as he first heard from the speaker, which he probably what he should have done if he had any hopes of repairing his relationship with the President.

But based on Obama's pro-Muslim view of the Middle East and his softness on fighting terrorism, there was probably little hope for a reconciliation between the two.

When one listens the admission Blinken makes at the 4:45 mark of the video below, it seems for Bibi, the February 11th congressional speech is not a slap at Obama, rather it is a critical attempt to prevent this President from exposing Israel (and the U.S.) to the existential threat of a nuclear Iran so he can have a foreign policy "win" for his legacy.

Read More

NY Times Reporting Officer Wilson Cleared By Justice Dept

According to the NY Times its all done except the paper work. The Justice Department is working on a legal memo recommending that no civil rights charges against a Officer Darren Wilson, the cop at the center of the Ferguson, Mo killing of Michael Brown.

That would close the politically charged case in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The investigation by the F.B.I., which is complete, found no evidence to support civil rights charges against the officer, Darren Wilson, the officials said.

Of course not it was not a racial shooting and from all the evidence the shooting was justified.

A broader civil rights investigation into allegations of discriminatory traffic stops and excessive force by the Ferguson Police Department remains open, however. That investigation could lead to significant changes at the department, which is overwhelmingly white despite serving a city that is mostly black.

Three law enforcement officials discussed the details of the federal investigation on condition of anonymity because the report was incomplete and Mr. Holder and his top civil rights prosecutor, Vanita Gupta, had not formally made a decision. Dena Iverson, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for Mr. Brown’s family, said he did not want to comment on the investigation until the Justice Department made an official announcement. “We’ve heard speculation on cases before that didn’t turn out to be true,” Mr. Crump said. “It’s too much to put the family through to respond to every rumor.” Mr. Crump said that at the end of last year that the Justice Department had told him that it was still investigating.

The lawyer for Mr. Wilson did not return calls for comment.

As the saying goes the Job isn't finished until the paperwork is done. Lets pray it becomes official and Wilson can rid himself of the pressure of waiting for the written decision.

Read More

VP Biden's Latest Gaffe ISIS Winning in Syria Because 'No Boots on the Ground'

Ya gotta love the SCHMOTUS, Joe Biden. Interviewed today on CBS this morning, he said what many in the GOP have been saying- "We’re gaining ground in Iraq. [But not] In Syria — there are no boots on the ground." Obama's position is there will be no boots on the ground while he is president.  An obvious gaffe, but as all of Biden's gaffes...it's great copy for bloggers an Obama's opponents.

No, what we need to do is double down on our strategy. If you notice, we are making progress against ISIL they call it Dash in the region,  in Iraq, because in Iraq we now have a more unified government the Sunni, Shia and Kurds are beginning to work together and they're [ISIL] ground. losing ground

(...) We're gaining in Iraq, In Syria, there are no boots on the ground. Syria is a dysfunctional country with nobody in charge. The fact of the matter is we're working with our Arab allies and European allies to build coalitions to be able to take on both Assad and ISIL. It's a difficult process, it's going to take time. And there's no existential threat to the United States because of what's going on there, but there's a threat in the region. We are making progress.

Read More