O'Reilly: The unintended consequences of a liberal America

Obama Appoints French Economist Funded by Saudi Billionaire to Shape US Global Development Policy

thespeech

guardian.co.uk

By Gary P Jackson

As we noted last September, Barack Obama's ties to radical Islam and Saudi billionaires goes all of the way back to his collage days. Now it seems Obama is once again paying those who sponsored his collage education.

It's bad enough that Obama has seen to it that imports of oil from OPEC are up 20% during his time in office, now he's appointing a French socialist, who is funded by OPEC money, to head up the United States global policy.

From Front Page Magazine:

Esther Duflo is one of those people who are taken seriously by the sort of people who eat up TED talks with a silver spoon. Her big number is how to help people in the Third World up from poverty, which is a surprisingly profitable branch of economics when you consider the sheer number of NGOs and billionaires interested in getting into the aid business.

But there’s one particular billionaire at Duflo’s back. Abdul Latif Jameel.

Esther Duflo is one of the co-founders of the Poverty Action Lab at MIT, more commonly known as J-PAL for the father of Abdul Latif Jameel aka Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel, a Saudi billionaire with a net worth of approximately 5 billion dollars.

Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel owns the world’s largest Toyota dealership and sits on the board of Coexist as well as a number of other organizations. And Jameel provided 3 major endowments for J-PAL. Around the same time the Abdul Latif Jameel Group sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting its presence on the list of accounts monitored for funding terrorism.

Mohammed’s brother was sued by victims of Al Qaeda on accusations that he helped fund its terrorist activities after his name was found on a list in the offices of Benevolence International Foundation, an Al Qaeda front group started by Bin Laden’s brother-in-law.

So we have French socialist, funded by a Muslim radical with ties to Al Qadea shaping American foreign policy.

What could go wrong?

It's time for Obama to be removed from office, and the Republicans had better grow a set and get it done.

Obama Power Grabs on the Horizon

frontpagemag

reason.com

Arnold Ahlert 

Leftists and their media advocates, well aware that the tragedy of Newtown must be exploited before Americans regain their emotional balance, are pulling out all the stops. Almost a dozen new gun control bills were introduced on the first day of the new congressional session. Joe Biden’s task force continues its frenzied pace of activity, even as it broadens its scope far beyond the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, moving into such arenas as universal background checks for gun buyers, a national database tracking the movement and sale of weapons and measures that Obama could enact by executive order. Yet such an imperious manner of governance will not be limited to gun control. Obama and Democrats are embracing the same strategy with respect to raising the debt ceiling, absent any genuine spending cuts. In short, they’re acting like Republicans are irrelevant.

Yet the administration is well aware that its “never let a crisis go to waste” approach is on tenuous ground regarding gun control. The Washington Post notes that “as the shock and sorrow over the Newtown, Conn., shooting fades, the tough fight facing the White House and gun-control backers is growing clearer.” The paper then reminds Americans of several gun-related tragedies, such as the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, the Aurora movie theater massacre, the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and one at an army base in Texas, “all of which occurred during Obama’s first term,” even as none of them elicited “national progress on curbing gun bloodshed.” The Associated Press also speaks to the urgency of getting comprehensive gun control legislation through Congress as quickly as possible, because “as the shock of the Newtown shooting fades, so, too, will the prospects that pro-gun lawmakers will work with the White House to tighten restrictions.”

The implications here are obvious: a president facing reelection was “powerless” to take on “entrenched interest groups,” as in law-abiding Americans who support the Second Amendment. Now that the election is over, Obama, much as he promised Russian President Dmitri Medvedev with respect to foreign policy, can be more “flexible” in his approach to gun control. Furthermore, because of the emotionalism necessary to sustain such broad (and likely unconstitutional) changes, time is of the essence. Ergo, Obama will be entirely justified in taking whatever steps are necessary as quickly as possible, even if that means pushing the boundaries of executive power — or stepping over them.

Such brinksmanship is hardly accidental. Although the president and Democrats knew as far back as August 2011 that the combination of tax increases and spending cuts engendered by the last debt ceiling debate would kick in on January 1, 2012, serious negotiations were put off until the very last minute–and beyond. This intransigence was intentional. The Democrat-controlled Senate tabled every spending bill sent to them by the Republican-controlled House, and failed to enact any budget for more than three-and-a-half years. The same party that completely derided the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 as an unconscionable addition to the national debt, suddenly favored them. Yet in the end, the so-called “grand bargain” was a farce, producing little more than an additional $3.9 trillion dollars of debt over the next ten years, according to the CBO.

Furthermore, even as negotiations were ongoing, America once again reached its borrowing limit on December 31, as the national debt climbed to more than $16.3 trillion. On December 26, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warned he could take “extraordinary measures” to prevent America from defaulting on its obligations for a couple of months.

Now one might be inclined to think that national default would trump gun control as the most pressing issue of the day. Republicans certainly think so. “The biggest problem we have at the moment is spending and debt,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last Sunday. “That’s going to dominate the Congress between now and the end of March. None of these issues will have the kind of priority as spending and debt over the next two or three months.” Yet once again, the president has indicated that he will push the envelope. ”While I will negotiate over many things, I won’t have another debate with this Congress on whether they should pay the bills we racked up in the past,” he said on January 2.

And just like they are doing with gun control, Democrats are urging the president to run over congressional Republicans, using executive authority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reportedly told other Democrats he supports such a move, using the 14th Amendment as a vehicle. Nancy Pelosi echoed that assessment. “I’ve made my view very clear on that subject: I would do it in a second,” said Pelosi on January 4. They are joined by Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and James Clyburn (D-SC), the second- and third-ranking Democrats in the House, as well as Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and former president Bill Clinton, who claimed he would do it “without hesitation and force the courts to stop me.’’

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Harvard law professor and former Obama advisor Laurence Tribe underscores the arrogant nature of Democrats’ thinking. “We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking the 14th Amendment gives [Obama] this authority,” he warned. “It’s just a fantasy.” John Yoo, a former legal adviser to President George W. Bush, agreed. “The Framers wanted the president to exercise emergency power in response to national security threats, not over domestic affairs where Congress and the president have had plenty of time to deliberate and figure out a solution,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Obama himself has said he will not bypass Congress and invoke the Amendment, but given the president’s track record of lying and/or changing his mind at the last minute, Americans should take no comfort from the statement. What Americans should take from this issue, and the issue of gun control, is that Democrats are more than willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want, and “force the courts to stop” them, even if it necessitates creating one of the most divisive atmospheres Americans have ever endured in the process.

That is the essence of imperiousness and brinksmanship. Thus, while they are rushing gun control legislation while emotions are still raw, they will delay debt ceiling negotiations until they can gin up a similar level of public frustration on that issue. That is why Obama, despite getting his tax increases on the “rich,” wants to re-negotate tax increases. ”Now, if Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone…then they’ve got another think coming. That’s not how it’s going to work,” he said, two days after the fiscal cliff deal was made. “It’s going to have to be a matter of shared sacrifice, at least as long as I’m president. And I’m going to be president for the next four years.”

And for the next two years at least, Republicans will control the House of Representatives. In a logical world, that would mean Democrats have to find some common ground with the GOP. Yet somehow the president and his party have convinced themselves that Republicans are an obstacle — not a partner — in solving America’s most pressing problems. No doubt a large part of their arrogance is due to the reality that, when Americans get utterly disgusted by this continuing spectacle, they have the utmost confidence the mainstream media will blame Republicans for any and every debacle.

Yet that odious arrangement may be far more tenuous than both Democrats and their media sycophants realize. A substantial number of Democratic voters were shocked to discover that their taxes went up when the temporary payroll tax deduction enacted in 2009 went back up from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. For many of them, that may have been one of the first indications that the “raise taxes on the rich” narrative promoted by the unholy Democrat-media alliance was a fraud. If the president and his party continue to push the envelope on imperious governance and brinksmanship, it won’t be the last shock they receive. Not by a long shot.

El calvario de Carromero en Cuba no basta para los comunistas espanoles

Alex Jones Goes Ballistic Debating Gun Control With Piers Morgan: ’1776 Will Commence Again If You Try to Take Our Firearms!’

Read on theblaze >>

MoveOn.org nominates Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary

theblaze

The progressive activist group MoveOn.org is partnering with Hollywood actor/Hugo Chavez superfan Danny Glover in a petition drive urging the president to nominate New York Times‘ Keynesian economist and Obama enthusiast, Paul Krugman. So far, their petition has netted over 197,000 suckers… er, I mean signatories.

“We urge you to nominate Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary,” the petition states. “Krugman will protect Social Security and Medicare from benefit cuts, promote policies to create jobs, and help defeat the austerity dogma in Washington and around the world.”

Krugman, a fellow Nobel Prize winner and poster child of modern liberalism, would handily complement Obama’s progressive policies.  He’s also a big Obama apologist & Bush-blamer — aces for a liberal litmus test.

“It’s terribly unfair that [President Obama is] being judged on the failure of the economy,” Krugman has explained, “to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.”

Left Pushes Illegal Immigration “Reform” as Step to Permanent Democrat Control, Socialism

NewZealBlog

The left, led by the US’s largest Marxist organization, Democratic Socialists of America, is about to start a huge push, starting with organized labor, to grant amnesty and citizenship to more than 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.They hope to make enough noise to allow their long time ally President Obama to claim a public mandate for an illegal immigrant amnesty.

Unions, before they were taken over by DSA, in 1995, were traditionally anti illegal immigration. Why the change?

The reason is simple. Marxist led unions do not care about getting a better deal for their members. They care about achieving socialism. They understand that Latinos, which illegals mostly are, tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Marxists also have huge influence in the Democrat Party, and huge leverage over Democrat policy formation, through their locktight control of organized labor.

Therefore, giving illegals citizenship and voting rights could move America way to the left – forever.

Listen here to AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka, a longtime DSA supporter, put on his best fake sincerity “Judas goat” tone, to seduce union members into support their own destruction. This is almost barf bucket material,  as this hard bitten union thug,  invokes patriotism and American values,  to sell his socialist “snake oil”.

Now watch an identified DSA member, SEIU VP Eliseo Medina , speaking at a 2009 progressive conference in Washington DC. Medina, the leading immigration activist in the country, reveals the real reason for his efforts … 8,000,000 more Democratic voters, and a “progressive majority for the forseeable future”.

‘Negotiating’ With the Left: A Waste of Time

frontpagemag

John Boehner

By Tom Blumer

Having lived in Greater Cincinnati for most of my life, I’ve had a chance to observe Congressman John Boehner’s actions and performance from a perspective most haven’t.

Most of what I saw until he became House Speaker in January 2011 was good — usually very good. What has transpired since has not been. Boehner and House Republicans have been unable to put the brakes on the country’s headlong rush towards insolvency driven by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the federal regulatory leviathan, and the courts, or on their continued trampling of our fundamental freedoms.

I can already see the excuses: “Tom, the House of Representatives is only one-half of one of the three branches of government. You can’t expect Boehner and Republican leaders to withstand the daily assaults from all other quarters.” Sure, I get that. Add the adversarial, hostile, double standard-driven establishment press to the mix, and one can totally understand the daunting challenges the Speaker has faced.

There’s one problem with that attempt at justification, and it has nothing to do with ordinary expectations. It instead has everything to do with the heightened expectations Boehner and the Republican Party created in the run-up to the 2010 congressional elections, embodied in both the party’s Pledge to America and Boehner’s October 2010 speech just a few weeks before Election Day.

By that time, it was clear to almost everyone, thanks to the growing influence of the Tea Party movement, the pathetic economic recovery, and the unprecedentedly awful job market, that Nancy Pelosi’s reign as Speaker of the House was going to end, and that Boehner, with a solid post-election GOP majority, was a virtual lock to become its next Speaker.

Boehner’s speech and the party’s Pledge gave millions of frightened mainstream Americans hope that they could, and would, right the ship of state. Consider just a few things Boehner said in that October speech, and compare them to actual results.

“(This speech is) about the jobs that were promised to the American people by the current administration, and never delivered.”

At the time, total seasonally adjusted private-sector employment as measured by the Establishment Survey at the Bureau of Labor Statistics was eight million below its January 2008 peak. 25 months later, private-sector employment, which should by now have jumped to several million above that 2008 high, is still down by 3.7 million. Even those grim statistics understate the gravity of the employment situation and how little improvement we’ve seen, especially in comparison to past recoveries. Full-time employment as measured by the BLS’s Household Survey is still 6.2 million lower than its peak in late 2007, while part-time employment is up by 2.8 million. Since the recession officially ended in June 2009, over 800,000 of the 3.3 million net jobs added have gone to those who toil at temporary help firms.

“The greatest threat to job creation in our country is the flawed idea that we can tax, spend and borrow our way to prosperity.”

In the 24 months Boehner has been Speaker, the government has run a deficit of over $2 trillion, spent over $7 trillion, increased the national debt by over $2.4 trillion, and done almost nothing to contain the explosive growth of entitlements. 

“Our plan cuts spending immediately, back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.”

If that were currently the case, the government would be spending about $2.9 trillion annually — still far more than necessary to carry out its constitutionally assigned functions (a topic for another day). Instead, it has spent $3.4 to $3.6 trillion during each of the past four fiscal years, and is off to a record-shattering start in fiscal 2013.

“Your government is out of control. Do you have to accept it? Do you have to take it? Hell no you don’t! That’s what elections are for! In Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote that ‘we have it in our power to begin the world over again.’ In just 25 days, voters will have a chance to do just that.”

Unlike many others, I really believe that John Boehner intended to get what he described as an “out of control” government back on track. Nobody who heard that speech could possibly have imagined that he would acquiesce to an August 2011 debt-ceiling deal that put off serious consideration of what we are doing to our children, grandchildren and generations yet to be born until after the 2012 elections, seriously crippling 2012 GOP election campaigns across the land. There was also no reason to believe that Boehner would just over two years later get behind fiscal cliff-preventing legislation which by some accounts involves $41 in tax increases for ever dollar in spending “cuts,” which we know really means “reductions in projected spending increases.” A January 2 Wall Street Journal editorial asserts that the legislation involved represents “the biggest tax increase in 20 years” coupled with “spending increases.”

So what happened? Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Washington Republicans have naively believed, and probably still do despite their repeated humiliations, that there can be honest negotiations with Washington Democrats led by the most radical president in U.S. history. That is not possible.

Boehner’s only alternative from Day 1 of his speakership, something which I erroneously thought he finally realized in that 2010 speech, was to:

• Insist on constitutional grounds that the House would consider no revenue-raising legislation originating in the Senate. (Article 1, Section 7: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”)

• Pass comprehensive legislation to accomplish the goals articulated in the Pledge for America.

• Adjourn, and don’t come back. If the Senate or the President wouldn’t sign, then the government would shut down, and it would be blindingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense who caused it.

The People’s House has the constitutional power of the purse. John Boehner hasn’t leveraged it. Until he or the next Speaker does, the left will rule the fiscal roost in Washington, and our nation’s rapid descent into bankruptcy will be virtually assured.

Piers Morgan: Time to Amend the Bible

thelittlelephant

The Art of Class War

frontpagemag 

frontpagemag.com

Mark Tapson

While many stunned Republicans still wallow in handwringing and second-guessing after President Obama’s stolen re-election, the progressive offensive is gaining momentum. The Democrats are stepping up the class warfare that is the heart and soul of their us-versus-them strategy to pit the oppressed 99% against the heartless capitalists of the 1%.

Check out, for example, the unabashedly named Wage Class War website, launched only a month ago and administered by longtime progressive activists Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey. A former New Left radical and Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, Borosage founded and currently chairs the Progressive Majority political action committee. He is also an editor at The Nation and a regular contributor to The American Prospect, both progressive publications.

If you click on Wage Class War’s “About” link, you are taken to the website for the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF). Borosage and Hickey co-founded CAF in 1996 as “the strategy center for the progressive movement. Our goal is to forge the enduring progressive majority needed to realize the America of shared prosperity and equal opportunity that our country was meant to be.” Each year, CAF holds a “Take Back America” conference which the organization describes as “a catalyst for building the infrastructure to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.” “We are the 99%,” the conference page proclaims.

Borosage and Hickey’s WageClassWar.org boldly states at the top of its home page that “in the future it won’t be values voters, angry white men or soccer moms that win elections. It will be class war.” The site celebrates what they deem to be the class war successes of the 2012 election, which it describes as “the first of the class warfare elections of our new Gilded Age of extreme inequality.” Those victories include Senate wins by Elizabeth “No one gets rich on their own” Warren and the socialist-leaning Sherrod Brown, and of course, Obama’s re-election.

Warren’s page on the site asserts that her campaign “established her populist credentials and defined the theme for the campaign – the people over the powerful.” Her page prominently features the YouTube video in which she rants illogically that factory owners “moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police and fire forces that the rest of us paid for,” and so on. As if factory owners didn’t also pay taxes for those services – but acknowledging that would undermine her demagoguery. Her page conveniently omits mention of how she exploited Harvard’s diversity program and Native Americans as well by claiming minority status as a law professor, the comically thin evidence for which was her 1/32 Cherokee heritage and her grandfather’s high cheekbones.

Speaking of diversity, the Wage Class War site ridicules Republicans as a “stale, male, pale, Southern-based party in a nation of diversity,” and demonized Mitt Romney as “inescapably the candidate of, by and for the 1 percent. He came from the world of finance and carried their agenda.” Curiously, the website describes Obama as “neither by temperament nor predilection a populist class warrior,” but acknowledged that when “faced with potential defeat, he turned to what works.” And what worked for him in 2012, according to the site, was “his calls for raising the taxes of the wealthy” and “repeatedly portraying Mitt Romney as a walking example of the out-of-touch elite.”

Borosage states that “more and more of our elections going forward will feature class warfare – only this time with the middle class fighting back.” But as FrontPage’s Daniel Greenfield points out, “the only middle class he wants fighting back is the one that holds down government jobs and feeds off the working middle class… It’s the Russian economy with an American flag and a framed photo of Obama in the background.”

That’s what progressives want (minus the American flag, I suppose). They don’t want prosperity – they want “fairness.” They don’t want freedom – they want dependence. And even in victory – in fact, especially in victory – they don’t want coexistence, regardless of what their Prius bumper stickers say. They want total domination over the right, and our eventual extinction. Because the beating heart of the radical left is totalitarianism.

How do we combat that? As Sun Tzu advised in his renowned The Art of War,

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Unless the right wants to keep succumbing in every battle, we must not only understand the ruthless nature of the enemy, but re-examine ourselves and commit to our fighting spirit. Power-lusting, Alinsky-trained, class war radicals like Borosage, Hickey, Warren, and Obama control the Democratic party today. They are “in it to win it” by any means necessary, and maddeningly, the Republican party seems woefully ill-prepared to defeat them. We’re still playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules, trying to take the high road, like the British troops of Revolutionary times, marching in bright red uniforms and tight formation down the center of the trail, forming one big fat target for the American guerrillas to pick them off from behind rocks and trees.

We are in a civil war for the soul and future of the nation. Progressives have been waging this war for a long time, and Obama’s re-election confirms that we are now officially no longer a country of two parties who are united in the goal of a greater and more prosperous America, just divided about how to achieve it; instead, America is divided between those who proudly want the American Experiment to succeed, and those who are hell-bent on perverting it and transforming our homeland into a Euro-socialist wasteland. Until the right acknowledges this and responds with the ferocity and vision of winners, the class warfare legions of the left will march toward total victory.

John Kerry: Still Wrong After All These Years

frontpagemag

sodahead.com

Daniel Greenfield

A year and a half before Osama bin Laden was found living in a compound at the heart of Pakistan’s military establishment, Senator John Kerry was celebrating the passage of the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act,” also known as the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan Bill. Under either name, Kerry was offering a rather sizable giveaway to a government that had a long history of ties to the Islamic terrorists that the United States was fighting.

Kerry, along with the bill’s co-sponsors, issued an explanatory statement to clarify why they would be directing 1.5 billion dollars a year over five years to a state sponsor of terrorism.

“The core intent of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is to demonstrate the American people’s long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan. The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the great sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism…  There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid.”

A year and a half later, after the Bin Laden raid, the man whom Pakistan’s top diplomat in D.C. described as a “steadfast friend of Pakistan” was sent once again as an envoy to the terrorist state. It was not the first time in his long career that Kerry had been dispatched to make nice with an enemy of the United States.

In 1971, 40 years before he flew off to Pakistan, Kerry had headed the Vietnam Veterans Against the War delegation that met with the Viet Cong in Paris. It was the first time that the future senator, presidential candidate and Secretary of State would meet with enemy leaders. It would not be the last.

Over the next forty years Kerry would reinvent himself numerous times, transforming from an anti-war activist disgusted by the uniform to a war hero reporting for duty as he sought to corner both sides of the market, but his flirtation with tyrants and tyrannies, particularly those hostile to the United States, never changed.

The murderous Viet Cong gave way to the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Ho Chi Minh gave way to Assad. Vietnam gave way to Pakistan. But at no point during those long 40 years, a biblical number often linked to transformation and change, did John Forbes Kerry learn anything at all from his countless mistakes.

directorblue.blogspot.com

Kerry had hardly managed to win his first term in the Senate when he was back on a plane, this time to Nicaragua for a meeting with another Communist terrorist group. The Sandinista anthem called the “Yankee” the enemy of mankind and a year before Kerry’s visit, Daniel Ortega had threatened the United States with war while crowds of his supporters had chanted, “Here or There, Yankees Will Die Everywhere.”

The Sandinistas had ethnically cleansed the Miskito Afro-Indians and destroyed Nicaragua’s Jewish community. But none of that deterred Kerry from shaking hands with Ortega and urging Reagan to make a deal with him.

“We negotiated with North Vietnam… they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them,” Kerry whined. And Kerry did want to talk them. To the Viet Cong, to the Sandinistas and to anyone else who hated the United States and wished us harm.

Of FARC, the Colombian Marxist Narcoterrorist group, Kerry said that they had “legitimate complaints.” When it came to Cuba, Kerry killed democracy funding for the island just last year and complained that the United States clings to a Cuba “policy that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.” By that Kerry meant the Castro embargo, which he had steadily opposed for as long as he had been in the Senate.

But Kerry wasn’t just wrong when it came to Latin American Marxists; he was equally wrong in the Middle East.

In 2009, Kerry visited Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and described Syria as “an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.” Kerry’s visits to Syria and gushing about Assad grew so torrid that even the Washington Post described him as a “prominent admirer” of Assad.

boston.com

Last year at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Kerry bragged about his close relationship with Assad and gushed, “Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and the economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”

But then Kerry had a long history of getting the Middle East wrong, of supporting tyrants and terrorists.

Two years ago, Kerry wrote a letter of support for Code Pink activists bound on a mission of support for Hamas. “My staff has met with members of the group and is impressed with their ability, dedication and commitment to the peace process.“  The letter was used to allow a political march from Egypt into Gaza and a meeting with Hamas leaders.

And there’s Iraq, an enduring part of the Kerry legend, because in few places did Senator Kerry get it as wrong, as often, as he did in Iraq. While it’s famously believed that Kerry flip-flopped once on Iraq, going from pro-war to anti-war, he actually shifted gears and directions a dizzying number of times.

Before the original Gulf War, Kerry urged Bush I to give Saddam Hussein room to back off, negotiating an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in exchange for allowing Iraq to make a claim on some Kuwaiti territory and proposing some Israeli concessions as well. He claimed that threatening Saddam “stiffened Iraq’s resolve and weakened America’s.”

After the war, Kerry turned into a hawk, saying of Bush that, “The administration has basically sided with Saddam Hussein” and demanded that Saddam be tried for environmental terrorism. During the Clinton Administration, Kerry called for using ground troops to force Saddam out of power. It was no surprise at all when during the Bush Administration, Kerry flipped in reverse, going from a strong supporter of the war to a strong opponent of it.

In the spring of last year, Senator Kerry met with Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s new tyrant in Egypt, and said that, “in our discussions, Mr. Morsi committed to protecting fundamental freedoms, including women’s rights, minority rights, the right to free expression and assembly.”

Six months later, Morsi’s thugs were beating political opponents in the street and ‘Always Wrong’ Kerry had another notch in his belt.

“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Kerry had asked during his Senate testimony, and throughout his decades in the Senate, with the power of the same committee that he had once testified before behind him, he had done his best to see to it that Americans and people from all nations would die for his mistakes.