Friday, October 31, 2014

Islamists back Democrats

Posted By David J. Rusin On October 31, 2014 @ 12:01 am In Uncategorized | 8 Comments
An analysis of federal campaign contributions finds that key figures at six of America’s most prominent Islamist organizations have favored Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This trend began with multiple donations to Cynthia McKinney dated September 11, 2001, reversing a previous pattern that had seen Islamist officials spend slightly more on Republicans. Their preference for Democrats has solidified during the past 13 years and shows no signs of waning. What does this say about the politicians who benefit from Islamist largesse?
Islamist Watch [1], a project of the Middle East Forum [2], recently launched Islamist Money in Politics [3] (IMIP [3]), to monitor Islamists’ influence in the halls of power, inform the public about which politicians accept their tainted money, and hold accountable those who do. IMIP’s inaugural data release [4] focuses on the national organizations of six Islamist entities [5] — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR [6]), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA [7]), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA [8]), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA [9]), Muslim American Society (MAS [10]), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC[11]) — as well as CAIR’s many local chapters.
Names of important personnel [12], both current and former, were mined from the groups’ Internal Revenue Service filings and/or website listings, some going back more than a decade. The Federal Election Commission’s online database [13], which spans the late 1990s to the present, was then searched for donations to candidates, joint fundraising committees, relevant political action committees, and parties. IMIP employed biographical information to select only those contributions that could reasonably be attributed to the individuals of interest, rejecting ones likely to have been made by unrelated persons who share their names. See IMIP’s description of methodology [14] for details and a discussion of the challenges.
As of now, the IMIP database [3] tabulates nearly $700,000 in donations. Surely many more people and contributions remain to be added, but the data already constitute a large and representative sample that is sufficient for an initial pass at quantifying Islamists’ political affinities.
First, who contributes? Major donors tend to be board members rather than staffers. While many of the biggest contributors maintain relatively low public profiles, several are quite familiar. With outlays totaling $56,800, the most generous funder of politicians in IMIP’s database is Kenny Gamble [15], who goes by Luqman Abdul Haqq [16] in his position on MANA’s governing body. An Islamist-aligned music and real estate mogul [17], Gamble is tied to the “Islamic paramilitary boys group” known as the Jawala Scouts [18] and has been accused of working to build a self-contained “black Muslim enclave [19]” in South Philadelphia. Also among the top 20 donors are CAIR executive director Nihad Awad [20], who has contributed under numerous variants of his name; former MAS president and current CAIR national board member Esam Omeish [21], who resigned from a Virginia immigration panel [22] in 2007 after a video emerged of his speech touting the Palestinians’ embrace of “the jihad way” against Israel; and Zead Ramadan [23], the CAIR-New York board member who unsuccessfully ran for New York City Council [24] in 2013.
With regard to recipients, the Democratic Party [25] dominates. Leading the all-time list by vacuuming up close to one in every five dollars is Keith Ellison [26], the Islamist-leaning Muslim congressman [27] from Minnesota who has a long history of collaborating with Islamist groups. Barack Obama [28], whose policies have been popular with Islamists [29], comes in second when direct contributions are combined with those sent to joint fundraising committees associated with his 2008 [30] and 2012 [31] presidential campaigns. Third is Cynthia McKinney [32], the far-left former congresswoman [33] from Georgia who peddled conspiracy theories and harsh critiques of U.S. foreign policy in the wake of 9/11; that she ranks so high despite the fact that most donations to her were collected during a one-year, post-9/11 window testifies to Islamists’ endorsement of her adversarial stance at the outset of America’s military response to Islamic terrorism. Fourth is Indiana’s André Carson [34], the second Muslim congressman [35] to be elected; he told attendees [36] at the 2012 ICNA–MAS convention that educators should model American schools after Islamic madrassas. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [37] rounds out the top five.
However, Democrats did not always prevail in the battle for Islamist cash. According to IMIP’s current data, Republicans [38] actually received about 15 percent more Islamist-related contributions than Democrats [25] did over the several years prior to 9/11. The Islamists’ favorite Republican of that period was Californian Tom Campbell [39], who contested a Senate seat in 2000. Campbell’s warm [40] relationships [41] with radical Muslims, such as terror operative Sami al-Arian[42], are thoroughly documented. Further, although IMIP features only a handful of entries from the 2000 presidential race, there is more money for George W. Bush [43] than for Al Gore [44]. This is not a surprise because Bush won the backing [45] of the American Muslim Political Coordination Committee, an Islamist-heavy coalition.
But 9/11 and the subsequent Republican-led war on terror changed everything, even the destination of Islamist money. IMIP detects the first hints of a sharp left turn in the form of donations to Cynthia McKinney [32] from three Islamist figures, including Nihad Awad [20], on September 11, 2001 — undoubtedly before the Bush administration had a chance to do much to upset the self-proclaimed guardians of the Muslim community in the post-9/11 era. IMIP records no other contribution to any recipient within two weeks in either direction [46], making the date seem less coincidental. Many more donations would be routed to McKinney from Islamists’ wallets in the months to come. Over the 365 days that followed the 9/11 attacks, IMIP measures an 8-to-1 ratio of contributions in the Democrats’ favor. A majority of them flowed to McKinney.
This pro-Democratic tilt has continued to the present. Based on contributions now cataloged by IMIP, Democrats outraised Republicans by a factor of 4.8 from 2003 to 2006, 29.7 from 2007 to 2010, and 17.5 from 2011 to 2014. The two most recent blocks reflect the impact of Islamist enthusiasm for Obama’s White House runs. As for the last three Republican presidential [47] nominees, IMIP has located no contributions to Bush’s 2004 campaign, none to John McCain’s in 2008, and just one to Mitt Romney [48] for $1,000 ahead of the 2012 primaries. Overall, the people in IMIP’s sample have donated 12 times as much to Democrats since September 11, 2001.
Islamist-affiliated individuals presumably support Democrats for the same reason that other subsets of Americans throw their weight behind certain politicians and parties: they expect Democrats to support them, at least at the level of providing the best political landscape in which to pursue their objectives. But as Daniel Pipes points out [49], we are not dealing here with professionals attempting to “tweak the tax code” to their advantage or even a minority population striving to secure equal rights. Islamists intend to alter the fabric of the liberal democratic system, a goal characterized by the Muslim Brotherhood [50], in a memorandum[51] outlining its North American strategy, as “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” culminating in Islamic rule.
Each of the six groups [5] analyzed by IMIP is connected to the Brotherhood or its dream of institutionalizing Shari‘a. ICNA, ISNA, and the Islamic Association for Palestine [52], CAIR’s immediate predecessor, appear on the Brotherhood’s 1991 “list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends [53].” Both CAIR and ISNA were designated as unindicted co-conspirators [54] in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation [55], a charity convicted of bankrolling Hamas [56], the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing. Prosecutors classified CAIR [57] among the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations”; they named ISNA [58] as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.” Furthermore, according to a brief [59] filed by the government in a separate case, “MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Two Muslim Brothers also formed MPAC [60]. Finally, MANA is helmed by radical cleric Siraj Wahhaj [61], who has spoken of replacing the Constitution[62] with Islamic law.
Because the various board members and staffers researched by IMIP have participated in defining and executing the ideological agendas of the above groups, their campaign contributions are a matter of concern. This is not to suggest that the dollar amounts uncovered thus far — quite small by American standards — are tipping any elections. But even in modest quantities, money can purchase political access and open the doors of influence. When it comes to the agents of radical Islam, these doors must be barred shut.
No remotely mainstream politician would knowingly accept, let alone get away with accepting, contributions from a leader of a white supremacist organization. Why should it be any different for a leader of an Islamic supremacist organization? Those who represent the American people or seek to do so, especially in federal offices that oversee counterterrorism and foreign affairs, need to begin saying no to funds from these problematic sources. Islamist Money in Politics [3] is a first step in nudging candidates and parties toward the right decision — and, where that fails, empowering voters to make informed choices of their own about politicians who wittingly or unwittingly legitimize, enable, or embolden America’s enemies.

(Hat tip: P J media)

"I have never in my increasingly long life felt vulnerable as a Jew in America"...

Posted By Roger L Simon On October 30, 2014 

I have never in my increasingly long life felt vulnerable as a Jew in America.  I never even dreamed it would happen.  But it has now — with the Obama administration.
Something is seriously wrong. At almost every opportunity, Obama and his minions have criticized Israel out of all proportion to the actions of the Jewish state, particularly during the recent Gaza War when there was a constant barrage of warnings from our State Department about harming civilians. (This is a criticism State would never turn on itself. Who knows how many innocents have died in the U.S. air attacks on ISIS — no one even says a word about it.)
Now they have called Israel’s prime minister a “chickensh*t,” a “coward”  and who knows what else, using adjectives for Benjamin Netanyahu they don’t employ with Kim Jung-un, Vladimir Putin, Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar Assad or even the murderous Islamic State’s al-Baghdadi, not to mention — and this is probably crucial — the potentially most homicidal of all, Ayatollah Khamenei of the Islamic State of Iran. (One of the more sinister aspects of Jeff Goldberg’s article that generated this controversy was that one of his  leakers bragged they had scared cowardly Netanyahu into not attacking Iran’s nuclear installations, as if this were a good thing, the implication being that the administration can now look good for making an Iran deal — that would ultimately give the mullahs the bomb.)  It’s as if Netanyahu, not the aforementioned maniacs, were the administration’s worst enemy.
Meanwhile, the attempts to make nice to the Israelis over the vicious personal slurs from the article, which apparently came from two high and thus far unpunished administration officials, have been perfunctory, so perfunctory that you know they are not meant to be taken seriously, quite the contrary.  In fact, an attempted terrorist assassination of a prominent American-Israeli in Jerusalem yesterday that caused the Israeli government to put the Temple Mount on lockdown has already generated more chastisement of the Israelis from our secretary of State.  All this against an unprecedented, at least since World War II, rise in global anti-Semitism.
The administration claims  to be making these “constructive” criticisms for Israel’s sake, but the Jewish state has better allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia than they do in an Obama administration that seems to prefer Islamofascist Qatar — those same oil sheiks that bankroll Hamas, the terror organization whose charter exhorts all Muslims to kill every Jew hiding behind a tree anywhere in the world.
And you wonder why I feel like I’m living in Berlin in 1937.
Well, I do.
You will excuse me if I think my Jewish American friends that vote Democratic every year by rote are a bit sick.  I have tried to have patience with them for about a decade, tried to persuade them with reason, but now I think they’re… well, there’s an excellent Yiddish word…  ferkochta [1].  Or suffering from  a Stockholm Syndrome so massive it wouldn’t fit in all the Volvo factories in Sweden.
Yes, I know many of those same people don’t give a sh*t, chicken or otherwise, about Israel — or if they do they are highly critical of everything about it, think it’s an apartheid state, yaddayaddayadda.  (Don’t ask them to define apartheid, however.)  I will just remind those same “progressive” people that there were plenty of German Jews who felt pretty much  as they do back in, ahem, 1937.
If those “progressives” are of a Marxist tilt, I will further remind them that the man himself said, in The Eighteenth Brumaire, that history repeats, first as tragedy, then as farce.  We’re now on the tragedy part.
Not that farce is, in this instance, so reassuring and not that I didn’t know in the first place. Indeed, I suspected this would happen all along, although that doesn’t make me the slightest bit happier. Attentive readers of this site will recall that I have on several occasions called upon the Los Angeles Times to release the Khalidi tape [2].  That’s a videotape held in the LAT’s vault of a going-away party for Rashid Khalidi, the University of Chicago professor who was on his way to Columbia to replace the vehemently anti-Zionest Edward Said as head of that university’s Middle East Studies department.
The party was reported to be quite an Israel bash, probably laced with some good-old fashioned Jew hatred.  Rashid’s good friends the Obamas, Michelle and Barack, were in attendance.  How much they agreed with the tenor of the evening we will never know, because the LAT refuses to release the tape.   You would think the paper, given recent events and the decline in the Emperor’s popularity, might change its mind.
Fat chance.  To do so would go against a narrative engrained in stone since at least 1968. They wouldn’t dare look inside that vault for fear they would have to act on what they might find.  They are the real “chickensh*ts,” not Netanyahu.

Where's Bowe?

EDITORIAL: Why hasn’t Army’s report on Bowe Bergdahl been released?

An inquiry into the swap is complete, but no news until after Tuesday

Evidence of Why President Obama and Eric Holder Wanted Ferguson Missouri To Burn ?

Evidence of Why President Obama and Eric Holder Wanted Ferguson Missouri To Burn ?

Democrats are using racial ads intended to stoke racial strife with images of Ferguson and Trayvon Martin

But not all Democrats are happy with the transparent tactic. 

All of the evidence in the Mike Brown shooting case was/is directly copied and transferred to the DOJ since the DOJ opened an official inquiry three days after the shooting on August 11th 2014.
According to both CNN and The New York Times, the leaks to their outlets have come from inside the federal Department of Justice.   Also, Chris King, an editor for a black audience newspaper in Saint Louis admitted the contact source, willing to leak him information, was a federal official.
The Anger Games
History Repeats – One of the lessons learned following the 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting, which created the George Zimmerman case, was to do a better job tracking the up-stream leadership for their motives and agenda.
We learned from that experience and began cataloging the up-stream leadership discussions on the dates they took place.
We began saving screen shots, articles, tweets, and media reports showing discussions between President Obama and Eric Holder. While they don’t hold value at the moment they are captured, those captures hold value in reflection (once the information is released).
With the factual evidence released we are able to look back in the discussions and identify when DC officials knew the details contained in the information.  That allows us to identify the reality of what they knew, and, more importantly, what they did with ‘what they knew’.
Consider this meeting held on 8/18/14 against the recent release of the Mike Brown autopsy, and you can identify with certainty President Obama and DOJ head General Eric Holder knew the content of the forensic and toxicology results.
potus and Holder president obama and eric holder
When President Obama met with Eric Holder (during the weekend respite of his Martha’s Vineyard vacation) it was 9 days after the shooting and a week after the DOJ had arrived in Saint Louis.
The federal authority knew:
• The official statement of Officer Darren Wilson, written and two interviews; • the initial witness statements that both corroborated and questioned Officer Wilson; • the autopsy and toxicology report results which supported Officer Wilson; • and they knew the forensic analysis of the physical evidence which staged the scene of the shooting itself.

They knew all of this stuff on August 18th.

Nothing which has been released after that date is divergent from the information they held on August 18th, other than: • a conformational interview of Darren Wilson (recorded) with the FBI, • and the official witness statements as delivered to the Grand Jury.
Those are the only factual additions, albeit some of them made more official via Grand Jury transcript etc.
Later Officer Darren Wilson sat down with the Grand Jury for four hours and answered questions (without an attorney).
potus and Holder president obama and eric holderSo when you look at that picture of President Obama and Eric Holder discussing the known evidence of 8/18/14, think about what they did, or actually what they didn’t do, between then and now.
Including the Mike Brown funeral which was a week later (8/25/14).
Think about President Obama and Eric Holder watching the Scheme Team pontificate about the “family autopsy”, which was coincidentally printed in the New York Times 8/17/14 and press conference 8/18/14.
Think about that performance knowing that Obama and Holder had in their hands the official results from the Saint Louis autopsy on the same date.
mike brown autopsy presser
Eric Holder knew the “Hands Up – Don’t Shoot” meme was false on the day the scheme team was selling it. Eric Holder and President Obama knew the “execution style” shot to the head was false, on the day the scheme team was selling it.
Obama/Holder knew about the TWO SHOTS in the car, the Mike Brown blood on Officer Wilson, the injuries to Wilson, the gunshot wound to Big Mike’s hand, and Obama/Holder knew of the eight African American corroborating witness statements which supported Officer Wilson.
They knew all of this on 8/18/14 as they watched the Scheme Team on TV.
Yet what did they do to stop Ferguson Missouri from burning, looting and chaos?
Now ask yourself…. “WHY” ?
What was the benefit to Obama by watching events spiral out of control – yet knowing there is no factual basis for the underlying anger and outrage?
dnc flyer 3
dnc flyer 2
DNC flyer 1

Seeing the DNC specifically use the manufactured Ferguson outrage as a political tool for the 2014 election – the motive behind the Obama strategic decision not to diminish the rage is crystal clear.

holder and obama

 It was all about the 2014 Election !

Nuclear Energy: The Once and Future Power Source

Nuclear Energy: The Once and Future Power Source

By Brandon Ott - October 31, 2014

The fifth in a series of articles this week on energy innovation and the American economy
To say the nuclear industry has had highs and lows in the last 35 years is an understatement. The “atoms for peace” that were intended to wean Planet Earth off fossil fuels, make Western nations energy independent, and provide a clean environment all but screeched to a halt after the disasters at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986.  Add in 20 years of weapons of mass destruction talk and sensational sci-fi movie explosions -- all before a tsunami overwhelmed a reactor on the coast of Japan -- and nuclear energy was on the verge of going full dodo.
In the United States, nearly all of the currently active nuclear power plants were built 40 years ago or more. We’d gone almost 30 years without seeing any new ones built. Now, five reactors are under construction, with one close to coming online, and many more are receiving licenses to operate for another 20 years. After four plant closures since 2013, the United States has 100 working reactors with clear support from the American public.
Yet growth has been sluggish, for several reasons. First, the revolution in hydraulic fracturing technology dramatically expanded the supply of oil and natural gas while driving the price of natural gas to historic lows.  Utility companies looking to build new power plants are looking at a third the cost per kilowatt-hour if they employ “nat-gas.”
In the past 10 years alone, the cost per installed kilowatt for nuclear power has risen by a factor of eight.  Years-long delays and plant cost overruns to the tune of billions of dollars hamper both its political and economic viability.  Perhaps most troubling for environmentalist and federal lawmakers alike, the problem of nuclear waste storage has yet to be resolved, as epitomized by the $15 billion (to-date) Yucca Mountain morass.  However, France reprocesses all its spent fuel, stores it and has been a leading innovator in this field.  And then there was Fukushima, which brought to mind every worst-case scenario about the safety of nuclear power in the public’s mind.
But Fukushima’s fatal flaw was its shoddy design.  Psychology, more than policy or science, might be the biggest stumbling block facing nuclear in the years ahead.
Despite those drawbacks, nuclear energy has many advantages.  It’s a 24-7 form of energy that doesn’t conk out when clouds roll in or the wind stops blowing. Planned closures of nuclear facilities have the potential to disrupt a reliable power source and increase the greenhouse gases put into the air.  It already provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity and 60 percent of the clean energy we use.  That’s right.  Nuclear is a (virtually) renewable energy source that produces no carbon emissions.  Throw in some nice subsidies from Mother Government and you’ve got an industry that’s regaining its sea legs.
Nuclear might even garner support from a corner that is ostensibly against its use.  Many Democrats and environmentalists, the so-called “nuclear greens,” are warming to the idea that nuclear power is essential for the well-being of the country.  Former Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner, as recently reported in The Hill, says it would be “irresponsible” to neglect nuclear. James Hansen, former NASA head and staunch Keystone pipeline opponent, made many mainstream environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace see red with his pro-nuclear position, according to a report in Grist.  Their focus is on mitigating the effects of climate change, but their support could be critical in furthering the expansion of nuclear power -- and not just in the U.S.
Countries around the world are meeting more of their energy needs by refurbishing old and building new nuclear reactors.  France, despite voting to reduce nuclear’s share of electricity generation from a world-leading 75 percent to 50 percent, has depended on the cheap energy source for nearly half a century and will continue to do so going forward.  The U.K. got approval from the European Union’s executive commission for two new reactors at the massive new Hinckley Point project.  Prime Minister Narenda Modi of India has asked his country’s nuclear agency to triple nuclear power in 10 years.  Ditto China’s leaders. Even Japan, which closed all 48 of its nuclear reactors after Fukushima, is on the path to restarting the industry.
Leading this resurgence are three technologies that stand out as the potential next-generation of nuclear energy.
Molten salt reactors (MSR) are smaller nuclear reactors that employ a liquid, not solid, fuel as a coolant. With MSR, the fuel is dissolved right in the sodium moderator and coolant so there is no chance of a meltdown or escape of radioactive steam. They’re also safer in many aspects than traditional systems (think of an automatic “off” switch), are more efficient and produce much less waste that then needs to be stored for tens of thousands of years. And they are much cheaper.  Commercially available molten salt reactors have yet to be built and the technology is still experimental.  The upside, though, is enough to make an energy nerd’s heart flutter.
The second promising innovation is thorium, a chemical element that has been on nuclear physicists’ minds ever since the earliest days of nuclear research. There was nothing magical about uranium. It was the element of choice because it meshed with the weapons program. Enrico Fermi, the father of nuclear, preferred thorium for commercial development. It’s safer and more powerful.  It alone can’t be used to make weapons, and is more easily handled than uranium.  Plus, thorium is also twice as abundant as uranium.  And it can be used in the nuclear reactors we already have.  India, which has the world’s largest thorium deposits, and China are starting to experiment with the technology.  
Finally, the energy world is atwitter with recent assertions by Lockheed Martin that nuclear fusion may be just around the corner. Fusion, a concept that’s been around for decades, smashes two atoms together, safely creating a ton more energy than nuclear fission (the process our reactors utilize now) more cheaply and with miniscule amounts of radioactive waste.
Lockheed hopes its compact reactor, which can fit on the back of a truck, is operational in 10 years. The world has heard this before, however, so skepticism in the scientific community is the norm, rather than the exception. “I’m highly skeptical that they have anything interesting to offer,” Ian Hutchinson, a professor of nuclear science and engineering, recently told Technology Review, “It seems purely speculative, as if someone has drawn a cartoon and said they are going to fly to Mars with it.”
Let’s hope Lockheed’s project, and similar ones around the globe, aren’t just another “cold fusion” bust.
But if someone had said only five years ago that the United States would be a world leader in the production of oil and that the cost of solar panels would plummet seven-fold, he or she would have been escorted out of the room wearing a warm, white jacket.  Today, nuclear has revived from its nadir in the 1970s and 1980s and enjoys generous funding from governments, institutions of higher learning and global investors all in search of the energy Holy Grail.  Given its position today, betting on nuclear is no longer foolish. It may prove eminently wise.

Colombia's Farc admits civil war 'impact' on civilians. The legacy of the Communist revolution = 220,000 dead civilians

Colombia's Farc admits civil war 'impact' on civilians

Colombia's largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), has acknowledged its actions "have affected civilians" during 50 years of internal conflict.
"We are expressly responsible for all acts of war carried out by our units," said Pablo Atrato, a Farc leader.
In the first admission of its kind, he said the rebels were ready to take "responsibility" for these actions.
Latin America's longest running war has killed 220,000 people.
More than five million others have been displaced.
The Marxist rebel group joined negotiations in Cuba with the Colombian government in November 2013.
The talks in the capital, Havana, are aimed at getting the 8,000-strong Farc to sign an agreement renouncing its armed struggle in order to join the legal political process.
Victim reparations
"We explicitly recognise that our actions have affected civilians at different times and under different circumstances throughout the conflict," Mr Atrato said.
He added the Farc would "assume the responsibility that concerns us," but did not give any further details as to what responsibility they would take.
The Farc's statement comes as both sides discuss the issue of victim reparations as part the peace talks.
The two sides have reached agreement on three key issues: land reform, political participation of the rebels and illicit drugs.
They are now working towards agreements on disarmament, victims' rights and the eventual implementation of the peace deal.
They are expected to attempt to negotiate an amnesty as part of the deal but correspondents say it would face opposition from conservative politicians in Colombia.
President Juan Manuel Santos recently said his government and the rebels were getting closer to an agreement.
The Farc, Colombia's largest guerrilla group, controlled nearly a third of the country a decade ago, but now mostly operates in remote rural areas.

Another African tyrant gone.

Burkina Faso general takes over as Compaore resigns

People celebrate in Ouagadougou, 31 OctPeople celebrate after the news of the resignation was announced in Ouagadougou

Burkina Faso's President Blaise Compaore has announced his resignation, following violent protests at his attempt to extend his 27-year rule.
Mr Compaore issued a statement saying the presidency was now vacant and urging elections within 90 days.
Military chief Gen Honore Traore said he had taken over as head of state "in line with constitutional measures".
Crowds danced and cheered in the capital, Ouagadougou, after Mr Compaore's resignation was broadcast.
On Thursday, protesters angry at his attempt to amend the constitution had set fire to parliament and government buildings.
'Social peace'
Mr Compaore had earlier vowed to remain in power until a transitional government completed its work in 2015, although he had agreed not to seek another term.
Protesters in the Place de la Nation in OuagadougouThousands gathered in the Place de la Nation in the capital
Honore Traore, centre, 31 OctHonore Traore, centre, announces that he has taken over
Protest in Ouagadougou, 30 OctThursday's violent protests vented anger at Blaise Compaore's rule
However, the opposition continued to demand that he resign - a key leader, Zephirin Diabre, urged protesters to occupy public spaces.
After the resignation, Mr Diabre told the BBC's Focus on Africa radio programme: "We are all relieved by what is happening - and this is our demand for so long so we are very happy - and we need to work on the transition to take care of our country."
But the BBC's Yacouba Ouedraogo, in Ouagadougou, says that many demonstrators see Gen Traore as too close to the ousted president - he was Blaise Compaore's aide de camp - and not enough of a rupture with the past.
Mr Compaore's statement, read on television, said: "In order to preserve the democratic gains, as well as social peace, I declare a power vacuum to allow the establishment of a transition leading to free and fair elections within a maximum of 90 days."
He added: "For my part, I think I have fulfilled my duty."
President Compaore had earlier urged talks with all parties
His whereabouts now remain unclear.
However, Reuters news agency reported that a heavily armed convoy believed to be carrying Mr Compaore was travelling towards the southern town of Po.
One protester, Sam, told the BBC: "Blaise Compaore has gone away, he's running away and we are happy. The words are not coming so easy because I'm very happy, my children are going to know another president."
France welcomed the resignation, saying it "allows a solution to be found to the crisis".
In a statement, Gen Traore said: "In line with constitutional measures, and given the power vacuum... I will assume as of today my responsibilities as head of state."
He added: "I undertake a solemn engagement to proceed without delay with consultations with all parties in the country so as to start the process of returning to the constitutional order as soon as possible."
Late on Thursday, he had announced the creation of the transitional government, declared the dissolution of parliament and imposed a night curfew.
BBC's James Copnall on Blaise Compaore's career
BBC News looks back at Blaise Compaore's three decades of power
Blaise Compaore was a young army officer when he seized power in 1987, a taciturn man who became known as Beau Blaise - good looking Blaise. The nickname did not necessarily suggest he was popular. Many blamed him for the death of his predecessor, the charismatic revolutionary Thomas Sankara, who was killed by soldiers in mysterious circumstances.
Controversy would be a perpetual feature of Beau Blaise's time in power. The president was accused of stoking rebellions around West Africa. Yet over time Mr Compaore oversaw a transformation of his image, internationally at least. This inflammatory figure became a man relied upon to put out fires around the region.
Mr Compaore won a series of elections, though the opposition always complained the odds were stacked dramatically in his favour. He largely followed the economic orthodoxy prescribed by international financial institutions. But Burkina Faso did not escape the poverty trap. It remains one of the least developed countries in the world.

Any doubt the CDC is political first and health care somewhere down the line. Do you trust the CDC?

CDC pulls poster saying Ebola can spread through a sneeze

New CDC confusion over Ebola as it deletes warning that virus can spread through coughs and sneezes from its website

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has removed a warning from its website that Ebola can, in rare cases, spread from person through coughing and sneezing.
It has replaced the old language with new guidance that says there's 'no evidence' Ebola is spread through either.
According to the New York Post, the CDC also took down on Thursday a poster that said that Ebola can be transferred through 'droplets' from coughing or sneezing that land on hard surfaces, like doorknobs.
This undated handout photo provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows a kit that travelers from Ebola-stricken West African nations will be given containing information cards and a thermometer. The CDC previously suggested that Ebola can, in rare cases, spread from person through coughing and sneezing. It now says there 'no evidence' to support that claim
This undated handout photo provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows a kit that travelers from Ebola-stricken West African nations will be given containing information cards and a thermometer. The CDC previously suggested that Ebola can, in rare cases, spread from person through coughing and sneezing. It now says there 'no evidence' to support that claim
As the Huffington Post, which discovered the shift in language, noted yesterday evening, it's unclear why the CDC abruptly changed it's Ebola advisories. However, the move came a day after the New York Post reported on the existence of the poster.  
'Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose or mouth of another person,' the fact sheet reportedly stated.
Now the page says, 'The What’s the difference between infections spread through air or by droplets? Fact sheet is being updated and is currently unavailable. Please visit for up-to-date information on Ebola.'
The quiet removal of the information follows a weeks long public health campaign championed Republican Sen. Rand Paul to get the CDC to be 'forthright' about how the disease is spread.
Previously the CDC's frequently asked questions page on Ebola said: 'Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease.
Paul has pointed to the statement on numerous occasions as evidence that someone could in fact catch Ebola through the air if in close range of someone who has the virus at, say, a party.
The Kentucky senator said the CDC's claims that the deadly disease could only be spread through direct contact with an infected person's bodily fluids and the virus does not travel through the air are misleading given the guidance on coughing and sneezing.
Possibly in response to Paul's claims, the CDC has now changed its website to say, 'there is no evidence indicating that Ebola virus is spread by coughing or sneezing.
'Ebola virus is transmitted through direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who is sick with Ebola; the virus is not transmitted through the air (like measles virus).
'However, droplets (e.g., splashes or sprays) of respiratory or other secretions from a person who is sick with Ebola could be infectious, and therefore certain precautions (called standard, contact, and droplet precautions) are recommended for use in healthcare settings to prevent the transmission of Ebola virus from patients sick with Ebola to healthcare personnel and other patients or family members.'
The Senator wasn't immediately available to comment

Of course Obama ignores this woman and family the story doesn't fit the narrative.


Mary Ann Mendoza, whose son, Brandon, was killed by an illegal immigrant slammed President Obama for having “no concern” for her or the families of others who have lost their loved to ones to crimes committed by illegal immigrants on Wednesday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

“There seems to be no concern for what we're going through and the issues that we want to bring to him [Obama]. Thousands of us are waiting for at least an acknowledgment from him that he understands the pain that we are experiencing losing a loved one at the hands of repeat illegal criminals. He has taken the time to meet with them. He has addressed their issues, and he’s now doing something about it in this amnesty move that he’s going to make. When is he going to meet with the American people who have been affected by this? He is ignoring us completely, and this is what I want. I have met with other families who have been affected by illegals killing their loved ones. I mean, horrific accidents and horrific crimes, and we deserve acknowledgment just like these illegals who he is now going to do something for them.”
Mendoza added that tragedies like her son’s death are “going to keep happening because they're rereleased out on to our streets to commit more crimes. and the more of them that enter this country and realize that the stiff penalties are not going to apply to them and they'll be released out on our streets without jail time and not being deported, it's only a matter of time that they're going to repeat the crime.”

Government workers enjoying freebies on your tax dollars...secret purchases.

Federal Government Made $20 Billion in Secret Purchases in Recent Months

I-Team review finds $30,000 in one agency’s Starbucks purchases kept confidential from public

Thousands of federal workers are issued taxpayer-funded credit cards, and as long as they buy items that cost less than $3,000 -- or "micropurchases" -- they can simply swipe and buy and it's possible no one outside of some agency bookkeepers will ever know what they bought. The I-Team's Scott MacFarlane reports. (Published Thursday, Oct 30, 2014)
The federal government has spent at least $20 billion in taxpayer money this year on items and services that it is permitted to keep secret from the public, according to an investigation by the News4 I-Team.
The purchases, known among federal employees as “micropurchases,” are made by some of the thousands of agency employees who are issued taxpayer-funded purchase cards. The purchases, in most cases, remain confidential and are not publicly disclosed by the agencies. A sampling of those purchases, obtained by the I-Team via the Freedom of Information Act, reveals at least one agency used those cards to buy $30,000 in Starbucks Coffee drinks and products in one year without having to disclose or detail the purchases to the public.
A series of other recent purchases, reviewed by internal government auditors, include wasteful and inappropriate purchases by government employees -- including a gym membership and JC Penney clothing -- that were not detected or stopped until after the purchase was completed.
The I-Team’s findings have been the subject of a Congressional hearing and created scrutiny from taxpayer watchdogs for the Department of Homeland Security, which made the Starbucks purchases and declines to publicly detail them.
A “micropurchase” is a purchase costing less than $3,000 in which a government-issued purchase card is swiped. The U.S. Departments of State, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Defense, each made tens of millions of dollars of “micropurchases” in the past year, according to an I-Team review. But each agency said it does not make public an itemized list of its transactions, limiting the information to internal government reviewers and users of the federal Freedom of Information Act.
The I-Team, using the Freedom of Information Act, received a list of “micropurchases” made by the Dept. of Homeland Security at Starbucks vendors nationwide in 2013. The list includes dozens of transactions, including in Washington, D.C., and Maryland. Several of the purchases were made at an Alameda, California, Starbucks vendor and cost more than $2,400 each, just below the $3,000 threshold for which purchases need not be publicly disclosed. After reviewing the I-Team’s findings, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), chair of a U.S House Oversight subcommittee said, “When you have $10,000 being spent at one Starbucks by DHS employees in one city in six months, someone is abusing the purchasing permission that we have given them."
Anne Richards, an agency auditor, told Mica and committee members, "Most of the purchases seem to be legitimate use of the cards.” She said, “We will be looking at all of those purchase. And as part of our audit ... we will be looking at the types of purchases in which coffee shops jump out at you.”
Some of the Starbucks purchases cost less than $40, indicating a potential small-scale, individual gift-cards or drink purchases.
Brian Miller, a former Inspector General for the U.S. General Services Administration, said the coffee purchases raise concerns. “I don’t know the agency’s needs or contingencies, but going to Starbucks seems like a really hard sell,” he said.
He added, “The amount suggests that it may be an expense that could be anticipated. If so, a procurement official should think through how to best procure these items in a systematic way. The competitive process should ensure that the government does not pay too much for an item. To get the best prices, a procurement official should follow the competitive bidding process. The micro-purchase authority allows agencies to respond quickly to contingencies and unforeseen needs.”
Department of Homeland Security spokesman Sy Lee said, “These purchases were made for various reasons, following standard purchase card policy and guidance. The Department of Homeland Security is required to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulation when using appropriated funds to purchase supplies or services on behalf of the federal government. To ensure accountability, all purchase card transactions are approved in accordance with DHS purchase card policy.”
At an October hearing of the U.S. House Oversight Committee -- a hearing triggered in part by the findings of the I-Team -- federal auditors revealed instances of misuse of “micropurchase” authority by the U.S. Labor Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Labor Department audit showed a government purchase card was used for JC Penney clothing. The EPA audit showed a credit card holder used the card for a gym membership.
Miller said he unearthed instances of “micropurchase” malfeasance at the General Services Administration, too. “We’ve had a case where a high-level executive used the purchase card for hotel rooms and spas,” he said. “It was a purely personal (purchase).”
Miller said if federal agencies must make large coffee purchases, they should use the traditional federal procurement system, to ensure the best value for taxpayers.
An I-Team review of federal agency purchase records shows each major federal agency spends millions of dollars a year on “micropurchases.” The General Services Administration and Department of Interior each shared details about the “micropurchase” items bought by their agency employees.
But other federal agencies declined.
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs spokeswoman: “The VA does not publish the FY’s micropurchases as they are stored by USBank and they include personally identifying information.”
  • EPA spokeswoman: “There is no requirement for agencies to collect, report, maintain, or publicly post information on awarded micro-purchases.”
  • Department of Transportation: Micropurchase information is available through federal FOIA process
  • U.S. State Department spokeswoman: “Nearly all State Department “micro purchasing” – procurements under $3,000 each transaction – are processed using a US Government purchase card. State complies with all current Federal disclosure requirements for micro purchasing and other government data disclosures. We do not have a list of micro purchase to provide. The appropriate mechanism for requesting that information would be a FOIA request.”
  • Health and Human Services spokesman: “Bottom line is that the authorities and systems for managing and recording micropurchases (less than $3,000) are distributed widely across HHS and its ten agencies. There is no central database that collects all of this information from across the Dept. and is published publicly. We have received occasional requests over the years via FOIA for micropurchase data, and which we have provided based on the parameters of each request.”
  • Department of Homeland Security spokesman: “These purchases were made for various reasons, following standard purchase card policy and guidance. The Department of Homeland Security is required to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulation when using appropriated funds to purchase supplies or services on behalf of the federal government. To ensure accountability, all purchase card transaction are approved in accordance with DHS purchase card policy."
Miller said “micropurchases”, when not abused, benefit taxpayers. He said, “The micro-purchase authority allows front-line personnel to effectively and efficiently support the mission of the agency by allowing them to quickly acquire relatively low-dollar goods and services without the administrative processing costs, and thereby creating efficiency in the procurement process.”