Ad

Obama

Apr 282015
 

by Matthew Vadum — April 28, 2015

Baltimore is burning because community organizers and various thugs are tearing the city apart in the aftermath of theTuxedo-Obama-laughing-AFP-600 strange death of a young black man who was in the custody of police — and President Obama is trying to make things worse.

In an incredible non-coincidence the rioting follows a weekend rally by the Occupy Wall Street-like Baltimore Peoples Assembly. There also was a first wave of rioting over the weekend. Outside activists have been flooding into Baltimore, according to reports. Police and civilians have been injured. A CVS store was looted and set on fire. Rioters chopped up fire hoses to prevent firefighters from doing their job. Criminal gangs have declared open season on cops. Rioters have been throwing cinder blocks, bricks, and other objects at police. And there aren’t enough cops to go around. Baltimore police are begging police officers in other states to come to Baltimore to help out. Schools are closed Tuesday.

 

Baltimore is now a war zone. Understandably, the Baltimore Orioles announced on Twitter at 6:20 last night that the game with the Chicago White Sox scheduled for 7:05 had been postponed. After Democrats dawdled, Maryland’s new Republican Gov. Larry Hogan acted last night, activating the Maryland National Guard in an attempt to restore order. Sensing things were getting out of hand fast, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), said Monday that as of Tuesday evening she will impose a one-week curfew lasting from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. It’s not clear why the curfew wasn’t to take effect last night while parts of the city were burning.

The looters and rioters have seized on a pretext. They are exploiting the case of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who was arrested the morning of April 12 in West Baltimore. At that time he was reportedly having difficulty walking. About 30 minutes later when he arrived at a police station, he was reportedly unable to breathe or talk. Somehow he suffered severe injuries to his spine but nobody can say why. He was admitted to hospital and a week later he was dead. Gray was laid to rest yesterday, an event that some took as a green-light to riot.

Thuggery reigns in Baltimore as cops stand idly by.

Thuggery reigns in Baltimore as cops stand idly by.

Gray’s death may be a genuine case of police malfeasance. Eventually investigators will figure out what happened to Gray and we can only hope justice will be done.

Pundits are weighing in on the unfolding events in Baltimore.

On last night’s “John Batchelor Show,” National Review‘s national-affairs columnist John Fund bemoaned “a level of incompetence we haven’t seen since” then-Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) botched the state’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

On Fox News Channel, Charles Krauthammer said, “There’s a total failure of leadership here. People can look at the scenes and they know that there’s a city out of control on the ground. But it’s also out of control at the level of governance.”

In the meantime, you can bet this year’s harvest of Chesapeake Bay crabs that the Obama White House is now in overdrive trying to capitalize on Gray’s death. President Obama has single-mindedly pushed hard again and again and again to reduce the country he hates to warring racial factions. This is a crisis he cannot afford to waste. His pen and phone are ready for action.

 

America’s ambulance-chasing, race-baiting, chief executive is doing his best to make the situation in Maryland’s largest city much more unpleasant than it is now. Predictably, Obama will deplore the violence in Baltimore and then out of the other side of his mouth condone it by saying he understands the anger of the mob that is ripping the city to pieces.

We know Obama is doing these things because after Eric Holder’s dreary ideological twin, Loretta Lynch, was sworn in as U.S. attorney general yesterday, she acknowledged that the Department of Justice’s Alinskyite shock troops are already goose-stepping the dangerous streets of Baltimore.

As she regurgitated the obligatory politically correct recitals, Lynch played the Gandhi card. She perfunctorily shared her hope that the protestors that the media persists in labeling “mostly peaceful” would play nice. She condemned “the senseless acts of violence.”

“As our investigative process continues,” she said in a statement, “I strongly urge every member of the Baltimore community to adhere to the principles of nonviolence.”

Alarm bells should have gone off in the heads of patriotic Americans when Lynch admitted that the Justice Department’s infamous Community Relations Service (CRS) “has already been on the ground, and they are sending additional resources as they continue to work with all parties to reduce tensions and promote the safety of the community.”

Just a little humor amid the deja-vu.

Just a little humor amid the deja-vu.

And what might those “additional resources” consist of? Al Sharpton’s favorite electronic gadget, the bullhorn, is bound to be part of the aid package from Washington.

This is what CRS does. Three years ago CRS dragged an innocent man through the muck and into court.

 

In February 2012, after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot to death during a physical confrontation with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, the Obama administration deployed government-paid community organizers to Sanford, Florida.

CRS’s mission was to foment racial tensions. It succeeded.

For a month and a half after Martin’s death, local police declined to press charges against Zimmerman, who was ultimately acquitted, because they believed the criminal case against him was tissue-thin.

But CRS burned through thousands of dollars helping to plan marches at which its organizers exacerbated racial tensions and loudly demanded that Zimmerman be prosecuted — and he was.

In theory CRS employees are supposed to try to defuse combustible situations in communities but in reality they pour gasoline on raging fires by engaging in political advocacy. It’s never advocacy for conservative causes or positions.

As a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch discovered that CRS employees were involved in “marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain”; providing “support for protest deployment in Florida”; rendering “technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31”; and providing “technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”

 

In April 2012, CRS “set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police chief Bill Lee, according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” government documents state.

This odious government-subsidized rabble-rousing is nothing new. For a half century, the Left has been using taxpayer dollars to fund efforts to advance radical, subversive causes in the United States. Changes in federal social policy in the mid-1960s helped to lay the groundwork for this insidious leftist astro-turfing. Guided by the doomed-from-the-start War on Poverty, since 1965 the federal government has been giving taxpayer money to liberal and radical groups to help them agitate against the status quo.

In the Zimmerman case, the Obama administration got rid of the middleman and in-sourced the work instead of doling out grants to left-wing street protest groups. Field agents for CRS also assisted the Occupy Wall Street and anarchist activists outside the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Again, this is what the leftist agitators of the Community Relations Service do and we can only wonder what they are doing on the ground in Baltimore.

It needs to be pointed out that it is not at all clear why Gray was arrested. David A. Graham provides a useful summary of the facts at the Atlantic‘s website. Graham wrote that:

“an officer made eye contact with Gray, and he took off running, so they pursued him. Though he’d had scrapes with the law before, there’s no indication he was wanted at the time. And though he was found with a switchblade, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said, ‘We know that having a knife is not necessarily a crime.’”

Gray did not resist arrest and officers say they did not use force, a claim that seems to be backed up video footage shot by witnesses. The young man apparently howled with pain and seemed to have been injured as he was dragged to a police van.

Off-camera a voice can be heard saying, “His leg broke and y’all dragging him like that!” Gray, who was asthmatic, requested his inhaler but it wasn’t given to him.

“Yet it’s not the leg or the asthma that killed him,” Graham observed. 

Freddy Gray sustained serious injuries while under police custody.

Freddy Gray sustained serious injuries while under police custody.

“Instead, it was a grave injury to his spinal cord. Gray’s family said he was treated for three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voice box, the sorts of injuries that doctors say are usually caused by serious car accidents. The van made at least two stops before reaching the police station, but there’s no footage to say what happened during the journey or at those stops.”

Needless to say, at this point things don’t look good for the Baltimore City police department.

 

For a multitude of reasons, left-wing city officials don’t like putting down riots. They know that social justice enthusiasts like rioters are an important voting bloc in the Democratic Party. They don’t like interfering with the spontaneous outbreaks of redistribution –for example, the smash-and-grab appropriation of consumer electronics– that looters effectuate.

Is this hyperbole? After rioting started on Saturday, Mayor Rawlings-Blake consoled violent activists and even encouraged more rioting.

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” the mayor said.

“It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.” [emphasis added]

Radical left-wingers must be comforted knowing that Rawlings-Blake has their back.

The Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie-Rawlings-Blake. Be careful what you ask for cause --- you may just get it....

The Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie-Rawlings-Blake. Be careful what you ask for ’cause — you may just get it….

And she isn’t some fringe figure among her fellow Democrats. She is currently secretary of the Democratic National Committee and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Her views are more or less mainstream in her party. The idea of leaving rioters alone is part of the Left’s catechism.

 

Marylander James Simpson, who chronicles the insanity of the Left, observes in a blistering column that the mayor is the author of her own misfortune. The mayor must be under the illusion that rioting is a constitutionally protected form of political speech.

He writes:

“Under orders, police held back and did nothing while rioters engaged in repeated acts of violence, including smashing car windows, destroying police cars and attacking individuals and private businesses … This was the mayor’s idea of respecting the rioters’ First Amendment rights.

“Predictably, they took her encouragement as opportunity for even more violence and widespread looting,” Simpson writes. “The city is burning and the governor has declared a state of emergency. Now she is calling those very same people, thugs.”

Simpson is right. Rawlings-Blake did an unexpected about-face as the situation grew more grave in Baltimore. She suddenly labeled the rioters “thugs” and said they “only want to incite violence and destroy our city.”

Baltimore riots fueled by racist hatred.

Baltimore riots fueled by racist hatred.

Despite her epiphany, Rawlings-Blake “personifies the mindless, entitlement mentality that has ruined inner cities throughout the U.S. The wild, defiant and often violent behavior of criminals in this city is enabled and encouraged by an attitude always looking to blame someone else.”


Standing down the police in the face of civil unrest has become standard operating procedure for left-wing government officials.


After race riots erupted in cities across America following the April 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Washington, D.C. mayor Walter Washington refused to use force to restore order in his city. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and others pressed the mayor to authorize police to shoot looters on sight but Mayor Washington stubbornly refused to do his duty.

A strong argument can be made that Washington betrayed his constituents by failing to take necessary steps to restore order and protect human life and property. He wandered the streets and, in his own words, “urged angry young people to go home.” His outreach efforts may have caused some to drop their baseball bats, but by wimping out, Washington condemned large stretches of the nation’s capital to decades of purgatory. Some burnt out neighborhoods took 30 years to recover; some neighborhoods still haven’t.

 

Riots, of course, are nothing new for Baltimore.

The Pratt Street Riot of April 19, 1861 took place not too far from the current disturbances. The state song, “Maryland, My Maryland,” refers to “the patriotic gore that flecked the streets of Baltimore,” which at least in the earliest days of the Civil War was a hotbed of Confederate sympathizers. Secession supporters and federal troops skirmished all day and in the end four soldiers and a dozen civilians lay dead.

This is the same Baltimore that leftist Martin O’Malley neglected when he was mayor from 1999 to 2007. O’Malley is the egomaniacal guitar-playing, bulging-biceped man who has carefully cultivated an image as one of the cool guys that you’d have to be a major-league grouch to dislike. Citing dubious figures, O’Malley claimed to be responsible for making big-time inroads on his city’s crime rates.

Now after spending eight long, truly awful tax-and-spend years in the governor’s mansion in Annapolis, O’Malley is considering challenging Hillary Clinton as she seeks the White House. Maryland lawyer Richard J. Douglas argues that O’Malley made a mess of Maryland.

“Taxpayers abandoned his state in droves during his tenure as governor, but that’s not dampening the presidential aspirations of Martin O’Malley,” writes Douglas. “In 2014, his final year in office as governor, Maryland had the second-highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Now he wants to ride this embarrassing record to the White House.”

O’Malley won’t be able to become president if Americans manage to connect the current troubles in Baltimore to the failed left-wing ideas, including the shameless race-baiting, he embraces.

And so the suffering of the people of Baltimore may serve as a national civics lesson.

If Barack Obama and his ilk get their way, Baltimore may become a cautionary tale for the ages.

 

via Baltimore Burns While Obama Plots.

Apr 192015
 

By Raymond Ibrahim — April 15, 2015

Here in the United States, where Americans are used to hearing their president always invoke Christianity as a way to silence Christians, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent Easter message was moderately refreshing.

Obama - The Anti-Christian President

Obama – The Anti-Christian President

Among other things, Cameron made it a point to say “that we should feel proud to say, ‘This is a Christian country.’ Yes, we’re a nation that embraces, welcomes and accepts all faiths and none, but we are still a Christian country.”

The context of Cameron’s statement, it should be recalled, is a UK with a large, intolerant, and aggressive Muslim populace—a populace that increasingly seeks to treat the UK’s indigenous Christians the way the Islamic world’s indigenous Christians are habitually treated, that is, subjugated, enslaved, raped, and murdered.

In fact, Cameron touched on the phenomenon of Christian persecution in mostly Muslim lands:

We have a duty to speak out about the persecution of Christians around the world too. It is truly shocking that in 2015 there are still Christians being threatened, tortured, even killed because of their faith. From Egypt to Nigeria, Libya to North Korea. Across the Middle East Christians have been hounded out of their homes, forced to flee from village to village; many of them forced to renounce their faith or brutally murdered. To all those brave Christians in Iraq and Syria who practice their faith or shelter others, we will say, “We stand with you.”

While one may argue that Cameron is all talk (you can say that again) —after all, the UK’s foreign policies, like America’s, have only exacerbated the plight of Christians in the Middle East—it is still refreshing to hear such honest talk, since here in the U.S., one seldom get even that from President Obama.

Consider what Obama—who is on record saying “we are no longer a Christian nation,” and who never notes the Islamic identity of murderers or the Christian identity of their victims, and who ignored a recent UN session on Christian persecution—had to say about Christians at the Easter Prayer Breakfast: “On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”

Obama flips the ISIS sign....

Obama flips the ISIS sign….

This is in keeping with his earlier statements calling on Americans in general Christians in particular to be nonjudgmental and instead to have “humility” and “doubt” themselves. For example, during the National Prayer Breakfast last February, after Obama alluded to the atrocities committed by the Islamic State—which include beheadings, crucifixions, rape, slavery, and immolations—he said:

I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe. And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt—not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Humility, of course, is a well-recognized Christian virtue. It is the Obama Hates Christiansexact opposite of pride; a modest if not humble opinion of oneself, one’s shortcomings. But what does that—exercising humility—have to do with our understanding of Islamic violence and terrorism, which was, after all, the topic Obama was discussing immediately before he began pontificating about humility? Are we not to judge and condemn Islamic violence—since we’re apparently no better, as the president made clear when he told Christians to get off their “high horse” and remember the Crusades and Inquisition?

Furthermore, while Christian humility encourages self-doubt, it does not encourage doubt concerning right and wrong, good and evil. The same Christ who advocated humility repeatedly condemned evil behavior, called on people to repent of their sins, and hurled tables in righteous anger.

The point here is that, whenever Obama invokes Christianity and Christian virtues, it is almost always in the context of trying to silence Christians: telling them to “love” more—that is, to never judge or condemn anything, and instead be doormats ever “turning the other cheek”; telling them to remember the historic “crimes” of other Christians—even if they are a thousand years old and no crimes at all—that is, telling Christians not to criticize Islam because they too live in glass houses.

delusionalcretinobamadefendsislam-600

This is what I have to say to that. Tell it like it is! Scream it from the mountain tops. Let the truth be heard!

This is the “liberal Christianity” which Obama and others hail, because its chief purpose is to silence Christians from condemning and combatting what are otherwise clear evils. Christians are being persecuted by Muslims all around the world? That’s okay, seems to be Obama’s response; just turn the other cheek—have some more “humility” and “doubt,” show their Muslim persecutors some more “love”—and everything will be set aright.

 

via Obama’s ‘Christianity’: A Political Tool to Silence Christians | Human Events.

Apr 082015
 

By Tom Trinko — April 8, 2015

It’s impossible to win a war with an army of weaklings, cowards, and traitors.

rino cowards

It’s time conservatives realize that the country moving to the tune of liberals, no matter who wins elections, is due not to the domination of the mainstream media (MSM), but to the weakness, dishonesty, or cowardice of Republican politicians.

Media frenzies like the recent one about religious freedom in Indiana are like push polls; they don’t last long.  How many anti-conservative MSM outbursts occurred prior to the 2014 elections, which the Republicans resoundingly won?  If MSM magic were determining elections, Republicans wouldn’t have won.

When the Republican speaker of the House surrenders to Nancy Pelosi and sets up a vote where a Democrat/RINO coalition overrides the majority of Republicans to fund something most Republicans ran against in the last election, we have to realize that it’s not the media that’s the problem.

Speaker Boehner epitomizes the modern RINO.

Speaker Boehner epitomizes the modern RINO.

Think about it: Obama, Reid, and most other Democrats claim to be conservatives at election time.  Obama was for improving the economy and being bipartisan.  No mention of socialized medicine.

The congressional sweep in 2014 resulted from Republicans articulating conservative values: lowering taxes, ending ObamaCare, opposing executive amnesty.

Why do you think that Obama has always put off his biggest liberal actions until after an election?  If the MSM had convinced the voters that liberalism is good, then Obama would have brought out the liberal moves before the election.  Instead, the Democrats realize that the voters aren’t liberal, so they hide, or lie about, what they do.

While the impact of the MSM is real, it’s not what people think it is.  The real impact of the media is on the politicians.  Living in Washington and moving with the Washington cultural “elite,” too many Republicans begin to believe that what they hear from their consultant class friends and the Washington Post is true.

oldest rino

Those politicians begin to think they can’t get re-elected unless they downplay their conservative values.  Or they, like human beings everywhere, start drifting toward the positions held by the people they see and socialize with every day.

The vast majority of people in D.C. depend on big government for their jobs and their wealth; it’s no accident that D.C. is now the richest city in the country.  For every conservative Republican politician, there are probably hundreds of nice people who need a big government to thrive.  That’s the culture Republican politicians live in; they spend far more time in D.C. than back home where their conservative values are nurtured.

Think of how many good teenagers go to liberal colleges where they transmute into irrational liberals.  It’s the same phenomenon we’re seeing with Republicans in D.C.

The problem is that too many Republicans who go to D.C. as conservatives lack the support structure or moral fiber to stick to their beliefs when immersed in the D.C. culture.

Essentially, conservatives need to ensure that Republicans don’t “go native” in D.C.

It takes a tremendous amount of courage to speak conservative truths in D.C., where doing so will result in being mocked and reviled.  Cowardly Republicans will change their stands to avoid that sort of bullying.

Weak Republicans will succumb to the constant drumbeat of liberalism they hear from their D.C. “friends” and the MSM and become liberals.

Traitorous Republicans never believed in conservatism but have no problem lying to the voters in ordno rinoser to get elected.

We’ll never end the MSM faux firestorms – emotions and lies are liberalism’s lifeblood, – but we can work to select strong people for office and build them an environment where their beliefs can be nourished, not condemned.

Three key steps need to be taken to ensure that conservative votes count:

1) Make sure we pick candidates who have the guts to stay the course.

2) Provide a conservative cultural infrastructure for Republicans in D.C.

3) Make sure Republicans realize that no matter how nice a person a liberal might be, the causes that liberal pushes are bad.

The first point means conservatives need better vetting at the primary stage.  Republican candidates have to be principled first and politicians second.  In addition, it means that we need to throw out people like Representative Ellmers who have one set of beliefs at election time and another when they vote in Congress.  It’s better to have a Democrat with Democrat baggage in office than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The second point means that conservatives have to work to create a bubble of “flyover country” in D.C., ensuring that Republican politicians aren’t constantly being bombarded by liberal “friends.”  Conservative think-tanks and other groups should get together to provide a climate where Republican politicians can go to parties, play golf, etc. without being condemned in subtle ways for their “backwardness.”

We should also get Republican candidates to eschew the MSM. Between the blurring together of reporting and editorializing and the liberally slanted selection of what news to cover, no one can know what’s really going on in the world by reading the Washington Post or any other MSM source.  With the huge staffs that congressmen have and the information revolution of the internet, there is no reason why Republicans have to use last-millennium news sources.

republicrats

Additionally, conservatives should work to find ways to keep politicians in their home states a larger fraction of the time.  It’s less likely that Republicans will be corrupted in the real America than in D.C.

The third point means that we need to realize that just as we can’t fight Islamofascism if we can’t even name it, Republican politicians can’t stay conservative and think that liberal politicians are not the enemy.

Sadly, it’s been a long time since the differences between conservatives and liberals were about things decent folks can honestly disagree about.  Liberals in D.C. want to grow poverty, keep blacks poorly educated, bring in millions of foreigners to keep wages down, kill the unborn, destroy marriage, abandon Israel and our allies, fund their cronies Chicago-style, and promote hedonism.  Sure, they’re nice to their wives and children, and to their animal companions, but so were plenty of dictators.

Republicans have to realize that even though Democrats are “nice,” they are not sources of anything trustworthy. Republicans don’t need to demonize Democrats – just view them as being less reliable than used car salesmen.

To win the war with liberals, conservatives need to elect strong people and armor them with a conservative-friendly environment in D.C.

 

via Articles: An Army of Weaklings, Cowards, and Traitors.

Apr 012015
 

by Austin Ruse — March 31, 2015

Governor Mike Pence of Indiana seems to have caved into enormous pressure and will ask the state legislature for new legislation to make it clear that Christian florists and bakers could be forced to participate in weddings that violate their religious beliefs.

Mike Pence - Governor of Indiana and spineless to boot....

Mike Pence – Governor of Indiana and spineless to boot….

Last week, Indiana joined 19 other states and the federal government by enacting a law to protect religious believers from governmental encroachment on religious freedom. Such legislation was cited in the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision that determined religious employers could not be forced to supply abortion drugs to employees under ObamaCare.

In a packed press conference this morning, Pence did not give specifics about what the new legislation would say, only that he wants it to make clear that “Indiana businesses will not be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.” He said the religion freedom bill he signed was never considered by him or the bill’s sponsors to allow a “license to discriminate.”

Such legislation has been read as supporting businesses and individuals not just to avoid supplying abortion drugs, but also allowing certain businesses to avoid serving gay weddings, usually bakers and photographers some who are now being run out of business for refusing to serve what they see as a religious ceremony that violates their own deeply held beliefs.

Pence and the state of Indiana absorbed a tsunami of protest from the main stream media, major corporations, athletes, movie stars and gay leaders after enacting the bill.

Religious freedom laws allow business and individuals to argue in court that the government is intruding upon “deeply held religious beliefs” and that they are “substantially burdened.” The government must show a “compelling goal” that cannot be met in any other way.

Advocates are calling for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as a new protected class in Indiana state law, something that is recognized in some Indiana municipalities. Pence says he does not advocate such special protections. Though Indiana does not have such broad protections of LGBTs, there are no reports of widespread discrimination against them.

Gay Mafia Nazis

Gay Mafia Nazis

Pence cited his youthful march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama with Martin Luther King as he said discrimination of any kind is abhorrent to him. “Hoosiers are a loving, kind, generous and tolerant people. We are known all over the world for that. And the idea that we would discriminate in any way is deeply offensive.”


Social conservatives, a base Pence would need if he tries to make it through the GOP primaries, were immediately upset.


Columnist Robert Knight tells Breitbart News, “Mr. Pence would do well to find out what Scott Walker had for breakfast when he faced down union mobs, the media and the ruling elites.”

Ohio activist Phil Burress adds, “What good is a religious freedom law if it does not protect religious freedom?”

One noted social conservative leader who spoke on condition of anonymity told Breitbart News,

gay mafiaPence is being forced publicly to accept the false premise of the bullies on the other side — that his bill was a license to discriminate against LGBTs. Pence is being forced to change the law to put a thumb on the scale — to change a neutral balancing test so that the gay rights lobby always gets to win.

WMAL radio host Chris Plante pointed out today that Christians are easy targets for the LGBT lobby and the left and wondered if they would be willing to force “a Muslim baker to provide a sheet cake with the image of Muhammad on it.”

 

via Pence Buckles Under Powerful Gay/Media Blitzkrieg – Breitbart.

Mar 302015
 

by Caroline Glick — March 27, 2015 

On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Municipality announced it is shelving plans to build 1,500 apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood.

Har Homa Settlements in the West Bank

Har Homa Settlements in the West Bank

Officials gave no explanation for its sudden move. But none was needed. Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama. But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.

To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening. First we need to understand that the administration’s hostility has little to do with Israel’s actions.

As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.

Obama and Iran - A twisted love story...

Obama and Iran – A twisted love story…

Over the past six years we have seen how Obama has consistently, but gradually, taken steps to advance these two goals. Toward Iran, he has demonstrated an unflappable determination to accommodate the terrorism supporting, nuclear proliferating, human rights repressing and empire building mullahs.

Beginning last November, as the deadline for nuclear talks between the US and its partners and Tehran approached, Obama’s attempts to accommodate Tehran escalated steeply.

Obama has thrown caution to the winds in a last-ditch effort to convince Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei to sign a deal with him. Last month the administration published a top secret report on Israel’s nuclear installations. Last week, Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper published an annual terrorism threat assessment that failed to mention either Iran or Hezbollah as threats.

And this week, the administration accused Israel of spying on its talks with Iran in order to tell members of Congress the details of the nuclear deal that Obama and his advisers have been trying to hide from them.

In the regional context, the administration has had nothing to say in the face of Iran’s takeover of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden this

valerie-jarrett-puppet-masterweek. With its Houthi-proxy now in charge of the strategic waterway, and with its own control over the Straits of Hormuz, Iran is poised to exercise naval control over the two choke points of access to Arab oil.

The administration is assisting Iranian Shi’ite proxies in their battle to defeat Islamic State forces in the Iraqi city of Tikrit. It has said nothing about the Shi’ite massacres of Sunnis that come under their control.

Parallel to its endless patience for Tehran, the Obama administration has been treating Israel with bristling and ever-escalating hostility. This hostility has been manifested among other things through strategic leaks of highly classified information, implementing an arms embargo on weapons exports to Israel in time of war, ending a 40-year agreement to provide Israel with fuel in times of emergency, blaming Israel for the absence of peace, expressing tolerance and understanding for Palestinian terrorism, providing indirect support for Europe’s economic war against Israel, and providing indirect support for the BDS movement by constantly accusing Israel of ill intentions and dishonesty.

Then there is the UN. Since he first entered office, Obama has been threatening to withhold support for Israel at the UN. To date, the administration has vetoed one anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council and convinced the Palestinians not to submit another one for a vote.

In the months that preceded these actions, the administration exploited Israel’s vulnerability to extort massive concessions to the Palestinians.

Obama forced Benjamin Netanyahu to announce his support for Palestinian statehood in September 2009. He used the UN threat to coerce Netanyahu to agree to negotiations based on the 1949 armistice lines, to deny Jews their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to release scores of terrorist murderers from prison.

Following the nationalist camp’s victory in last week’s election, Obama brought to a head the crisis in relations he instigated. He has done so for two reasons.

First, next week is the deadline for signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama views Netanyahu as the prospective deal’s most articulate and effective opponent.

As Obama sees it, Netanyahu threatens his nuclear diplomacy with Iran because he has a unique ability to communicate his concerns about the deal to US lawmakers and the American people, and mobilize them to join him in opposing Obama’s actions. The letters sent by 47 senators to the Iranian regime explaining the constitutional limitations on presidential power to conclude treaties without Senate approval, like the letter to Obama from 367 House members expressing grave and urgent concerns about the substance of the deal he seeks to conclude, are evidence of Netanyahu’s success.

The second reason Obama has gone to war against Israel is because he views the results of last week’s election as an opportunity to market his anti-Israel and pro-Iranian positions to the American public.

If Netanyahu can convince Americans to oppose Obama on Iran, Obama believes that by accusing Netanyahu of destroying chances for peace and calling him a racist, Obama will be able to win sufficient public support for his anti-Israel policies to intimidate pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers into accepting his pro-Iranian policies.

Obama and Iran's Rouhani

Obama and Iran’s Rouhani

To this end, Obama has announced that the threat that he will abandon Israel at the UN has now become a certainty. There is no peace process, Obama says, because Netanyahu had the temerity to point out that there is no way for Israel to risk the transformation of Judea and Samaria into a new terror base. As a consequence, he has all but made it official that he is abandoning the peace process and joining the anti-Israel bandwagon at the UN.

Given Obama’s decision to abandon support for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modes of appeasement aimed at showing Israel’s good faith, such as Jewish building freezes, are no longer relevant. Scrapping plans to build apartments in Jewish neighborhoods like Har Homa will make no difference.

Obama has reached a point in his presidency where he is prepared to give full expression to his plan to end the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.

He thinks that doing so is both an end to itself and a means of succeeding in his bid to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.

Given this dismal reality, Israel needs to develop ways to minimize the damage Obama can cause.

Israel needs to oppose Obama’s policies while preserving its relations with its US supporters, including its Democratic supporters. Doing so will ensure that it is in a position to renew its alliance with the US immediately after Obama leaves office.

With regards to Iran, such a policy requires Israel to act with the US’s spurned Arab allies to check Iran’s expansionism and nuclear progress. It also requires Israel to galvanize strong opposition to Obama’s goal of replacing Israel with Iran as America’s chief ally in the Middle East and enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.

As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to view Obama’s abandonment of the peace process as an opportunity to improve our diplomatic position by resetting our relations with the Palestinians. Since 1993, Israel has been entrapped by the chimerical promise of a “two-state solution.”

By late 2000, the majority of Israelis had recognized that there is no way to achieve the two-state solution. There is no way to make peace with the PLO. But due to successive governments’ aversion to risking a crisis in relations with Washington, no one dared abandon the failed two-state strategy.

Obama and Iran's Supreme Leader - Khamenei

Obama and Iran’s Supreme Leader – Khamenei

Now, with Obama himself declaring the peace process dead and replacing it with a policy of pure hostility toward Israel, Israel has nothing to gain from upholding a policy that blames it for the absence of peace.

No matter how loudly Netanyahu declares his allegiance to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Obama will keep castigating him and Israel as the destroyer of peace.

The prevailing, 23-year-old view among our leadership posits that if we abandon the two-state model, we will lose American support, particularly liberal American support. But the truth is more complicated.

Inspired by the White House and the Israeli Left, pro-Israel Democrats now have difficulty believing Netanyahu’s statements of support for the establishment of a Palestinians state. But those who truly uphold liberal values of human rights can be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s conviction that peace is currently impossible and as a consequence, the two-state model must be put on the back burner.

We can maintain support among Republicans and Democrats alike if we present an alternative policy that makes sense in the absence of an option for the two-state model.

Such a policy is the Israeli sovereignty model. If the government adopts a policy of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in whole – as I recommend in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, or in part, in Area C, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, our leaders will be able to defend their actions before the American people, including pro-Israel Democrats.

Israel must base its policy of sovereignty on two principles. First, this is a liberal policy that will ensure the civil rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike, and improve the Palestinians’ standard of living.

Second, such a policy is not necessarily a longterm or permanent “solution,” but it is a stable equilibrium for now.

Just as Israel’s decision to apply its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past didn’t prevent it from conducting negotiations regarding the possible transfer of control over the areas to the Palestinians and Syrians, respectively, so an administrative decision to apply Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria will not block the path for negotiations with the Palestinians when regional and internal Palestinian conditions render them practicable.

The sovereignty policy is both liberal and strategically viable. If the government adopts it, the move will rebuild Israel’s credibility and preserve Israel’s standing on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Indeed, until 2009, the very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei’s Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states was never even considered. But here we are.

Our current situation is unpleasant. But it isn’t the end of the world. We aren’t helpless. If we act wisely, we can stem Iran’s nuclear and regional advance. If we act boldly, we can preserve our alliance with the US while adopting a policy toward the Palestinians that for the first time in decades will advance our interests and our liberal values on the world stage.

 

via Managing Obama’s War Against Israel

Mar 302015
 

By Ted Belman — March 29, 2015

President Obama is insisting on the creation of Palestine with a border separating it from Israel based on the ’67 lines plus swaps.

Obama continues to push for a two-state solution that would result in the destruction of Israel

Obama continues to push for a two-state solution that would result in the destruction of Israel

In doing so he is ignoring United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which grants Israel the right to secure and recognized borders and does not demand a full retreat to the ’67 lines. He is also threatening to allow the UNSC to impose such borders on Israel, thereby circumventing his oft-stated insistence that all matters are to be negotiated between the parties.

Ben-Dror Yemini, writing in YNET, which is left of center and Netanyahu’s arch enemy, makes the case, “Given the upheaval in the Arab world, Obama needs to ask himself why he thinks a Palestinian state is viable right now; meanwhile, Israel’s right needs to understand that its actions are leading to a bi-national state.”

“According to Hamas’ official television station, ‘Christians, Communists and Jews must be eliminated down to the very last man.’ Hamas has the support of 61 percent of the Palestinians. Even if we assume that support for Hamas will fall, Hamas will take a violent stand against its opponents. Some of the Hamas leaders are talking about ‘the conquest of Rome and Andalusia.’

Obama with Mahmoud Abbas the head of the Palestinian Authority (terrorist organization Hamas).

Obama with Mahmoud Abbas the head of the Palestinian Authority (terrorist organization Hamas).

“Is Obama listening? Does Obama know that Hamas won the last election? Is it hard for Obama to understand that a Palestinian state would mean, in all likelihood, another Jihad state and more bloodshed? What gives him the illusion that a Palestinian state will become a model of stability? Where is there stability under one of the Jihad movements?

“Will Qassem Soleimani sit by quietly and allow peace to flourish? And what kind of agreement could be achieved anyway? Is there a Palestinian leader – even just one – who is willing to accept the peace proposals submitted by Obama, J Street or Meretz? After all, over the past decade or two, the Palestinians have rejected every offer of a two-state solution. So what agreement is Obama talking about?

“What is needed, therefore, is a reevaluation. We don’t need another failure. And this reassessment must take place both in Washington and in Jerusalem. A sober look at the situation will lead to the obvious conclusion – that under the current geopolitical circumstances, talk of a Palestinian state, which is likely to turn into a Hamas state, is delusional and evidence of a detachment from reality.”

Sounds a lot like the case that Netanyahu always makes. But contrary to Netanyahu, Yemini avers that “A peace settlement is a necessity.”

Ben-Dror Yemini

Ben-Dror Yemini

Yes, given Israel’s increasing defamation and de-legitimation, a peace settlement is needed but it is not available even on Obama’s terms. Furthermore any “peace settlement” would not be bankable or dependable. As Bibi never tires of repeating, although in another context, no deal is better than a bad deal. And that’s why he prefers to manage the conflict, rather than to solve it.

Yemini continues:

“The Palestinians need to be given a political horizon and hope – by means of an agreement that will be implemented gradually and cautiously, in keeping with changing circumstances. But for now, a Palestinian state is a recipe for endless bloodshed.”

How blind can Yemini be? The only political horizon the Palestinians will accept is one which wipes Israel off the map. Their goal is not to found a state, but to destroy a state. It is a total lie to say that that “Palestinians need to be given a political horizon and hope”. What they need is to abandon their goal of destroying Israel and to be liberated from their leadership who misdirects them and steals them blind. Even so he writes, “But for now, a Palestinian state is a recipe for endless bloodshed.”

Nevertheless, he argues that this doesn’t make the Right, right.

“Does this mean that the Israeli right is right? Far from so. The right is leading Israel into a reality of one large state. Rather than a Jewish state, Israel would become a bi-national one. Mixing populations that demand an expression of national independence – with each population group having a different ethos, a different language, a different religion, a different culture – is a recipe for bloodshed.

“This is what is happening in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe. This is exactly what is happening now in eastern Ukraine. This is what happened in the 1990s in Yugoslavia. A brotherhood of nations was a nice idea in theory. But Yugoslavia split up, after years of bloodshed, into seven entities. It doesn’t work and it didn’t work in the heart of Europe.

“Why does the right want to force this mixture onto Israel?”

Martin Sherman shares this belief and accordingly, he is adamantly against giving citizenship to qualified Arabs in Judea and Samaria, were Israel to extend sovereignty to these lands as proposed by Caroline Glick and originally proposed by Mike Wise.  He writes “The only thing more dangerous, delusional and disastrous than the Left’s proposal for a two-state solution, is the proposal now bandied about by the Right – for a one-state solution.”

Instead he advocates for The Humanitarian Solution, as opposed to the Two State Solution which he calls “the political solution.” In it he proposes to pay the Arabs to leave voluntarily.

Yes, it’s time for a reevaluation.

In Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech of 2009, in which he supported “two states for two peoples”, he argued “The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been – and remains – the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland…. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People.” In addition, he adds the caveats that Obama ignores, namely that the state be demilitarized and that Israel retains defensible borders.

Obama two state solutionWithout this recognition, there can be no peace. That is why Israel insists on it.

Some progress seems to have been negotiated between Obama and Netanyahu pursuant to which the United States provided a cool reception on Friday to a new French initiative on a new Security Council resolution to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

“We’re not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the UN Security Council,” a U.S. official told AFP, hours after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced the plans.

“We continue to engage with key stakeholders, including the French, to find a way forward that advances the interest we and others share in a two-state solution,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Of course this wasn’t a freebie.  Netanyahu’s announcement canceling the proposed 1500 units in Har Homa, in Jerusalem, and his announcement releasing the withheld tax money to the PA were probably the price paid.

 

via Articles: Let’s Get Real: Re-evaluating the Two-State Approach.

Mar 262015
 

By Pamela Geller — March 26, 2015

Three of the Taliban Five swapped for the deserter and traitor Bergdahl have already returned to the jihad.

The Taliban Five - Would you bring them home to meet your Momma?

The Taliban Five – Would you bring them home to meet your Momma?

So for the Obama administration, yes, the swap was “absolutely” worth it. Watch here how Psaki pretends that this desertion charge comes after a year of investigation, as if Obama had no way of knowing that Bergdahl was a deserter when he brought him home and praised him at the White House.

Bowe Bergdahl - Deserter!

Bowe Bergdahl – Deserter!

She is lying. AP reported: “A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.”This official said that the evidence that Bergdahl had deserted was “incontrovertible.”

** Watch Jen Psaki of the State Department (another one of Obama’s utterly corrupt government agencies) lie about it all below….

 

via State Dept’s Psaki: Trading 5 Taliban for deserter Bergdahl “absolutely” worth it | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs: Islam, Jihad, Israel and the Islamic War on the West.

Mar 242015
 

By Brian C Joondeph — March 24, 2015

Starbucks’ latest offering, after the recently introduced flat white, is their Race Together initiative.

Starbucks Race Together initiative dead on arrival....

Starbucks Race Together initiative dead on arrival….

“As racially charged events unfolded across our country, we felt a responsibility to act,” says Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. While the campaign was short lived, dropped soon after initiated, its very premise is still worth exploring.

Undoubtedly, the Starbucks initiative is due to recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, where according to the Starbucks store locator, there are no Starbucks coffee shops. For that matter, there are no Starbucks in Selma, Alabama either, ground zero for the civil rights movements and “racially charged events.”

Why doesn’t Starbucks have coffee shops in these “racially charged” cities? Especially if they have a “responsibility to act.” What about Starbucks itself? Does Howard Schultz and company practice what they preach? Are they racing together? Let’s look at the Starbucks leadership team.

Starbucks has nineteen executives, including Mr. Schultz. Of the 19, only 1, or 5 percent of the leadership team, is African American, far less than the rest of country, where African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Three women are Starbucks leaders, or 16 percent of their team, hardly reflective of females making up half the population.

The names and faces on the Starbucks corporate webpage reflect no Hispanic Americans, which comprise 17 percent of the U.S. population. Unless of course there are some George Zimmerman type “White Hispanics” lurking. But there is one Indian American executive. What’s striking is that Starbucks, at the corporate level, is run by a bunch of white guys. 14 of the 19 in fact, almost 75 percent of their executives.

starbucks-corporation-ends-race-together-initiative-600

 

The “Race Together” initiative was introduced by Howard Schultz, along with USA Today Publisher and President Larry Kramer. They wrote their op-ed rolling out the initiative, extolling the need for diversity. “Elevating diversity is the right thing to do, but it is also a necessity,” they wrote.

Mr. Kramer has a similar problem to Mr. Schultz in terms of preaching and practicing. The Gannett Company publishes USA Today. How does the Gannett leadership team look under the lens of diversity? It’s a leadership team of 8. One woman and 7 men. All quite white. How’s that for diversity, Mr. Kramer and Mr. Schultz?

Let’s look at CNN, another organization fond of telling us all how to think and act. CNN columnist John Sutter wrote about the recent University of Oklahoma fraternity video. In his article he quotes a University of Connecticut sociology professor, “The U.S. fraternity and sorority system is a form of American apartheid.” Not only fraternities and sororities, but also “the rest of us and our country’s racist history.” Painting with a broad brush.

Is CNN practicing what it’s preaching? Time Warner, parent company of CNN, has 7 senior corporate executives. Two women on the team but all white. How’s that for diversity? War on women, anyone?

The CNN writer wants universities to force Greek organizations, “To report their demographics so we can see exactly how segregated this system really is?” Great idea. Why not show us how it’s done by starting with CNN, USA Today, and Starbucks?

Let’s not leave out the New York Times, another schoolmarm preaching tolerance, diversity, and other feelgood virtues. They too have an executive team of nine. One woman, one African American, and seven white guys. The same NY Times that opines about racial disparities in Ferguson and the war on women falls short on practicing what it preaches. Do as I say, not as I do.

Finally, let’s see how the Washington Post, another publication similar to the NY Times, fond of reminding us how bigoted and intolerant we are as a society, fares in terms of diversity. Their leadership team of 14 consists of two women, one Indian American, and 11 white guys. Much like the NY Times, CNN, Gannett, and Starbucks.

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, defends Race Together initiative.

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, defends Race Together initiative.

The Washington Post is not practicing what it preaches. “Benefiting from white privilege is automatic. Defending white privilege is a choice,” writes one Washington Post contributor. There’s no shortage of white privilege among the paper’s leadership team. The elites know better and are happy to remind the rest of us of this.

American society is racist, sexist, and bigoted, according to the smart set at major media outlets, happy to throw the stones of “Race Together” and other initiatives at the rest of us while they themselves live in glass houses.

We are the problem, you see. The self-appointed arbiters of all things race have all the answers. CNN wants to know, “Are certain organizations more integrated than others?”

Is this a question they really want asked and answered? The answers might indeed be interesting. And hypocritical. They remind us, “Racial inequality is not a topic we readily discuss. It’s time to start.” How about starting by looking in the mirror?

 

via Articles: Starbucks — Practice What You Preach.

Mar 182015
 

By Daniel Greenfield — March 18, 2015 

If you believe Hillary Clinton, her email scandal happened because she couldn’t figure out how to do what every American of working age knows how to do; juggle a work and personal email account.

Hillary-email-press-conference-620x435

 

The Clinton vaporware bridge to the 21st century turned out to be a private email server that kept out the media, but not foreign spy agencies. When Hillary finally had to turn over some emails, she printed out tens of thousands of pages of them as if this were still the 20th century.

But like the rest of her party, Hillary is very much a 20th century regulator, not a 21st century innovator.

Despite claiming to have invented the internet, the Democratic Party isn’t very good at technology and doesn’t like technology. Everything from the Healthcare.gov debacle to the VA death lists happened because this administration was completely incompetent when it came to implementing anything more complicated than a hashtag. The success rate for exchanges managed by its state allies isn’t much better. The only databases it seems able to handle are for its incessant election fundraising emails.

Democrats not only didn’t invent the internet, but they’ve been trying to kill it ever since it existed. The latest attempt to hijack the internet under the guise of net neutrality follows multiple attempts to implement CDA laws censoring it back in the Clinton days. Obama’s rhetoric over reclassifying the internet is a carbon copy of Clinton’s own rhetoric over the Telecommunications Act.

Obama and Clinton are not innovators, at best they’re marketers, at heart they’re regulators. They don’t want ‘open’ anything. Regulators seek to define and classify everything before freezing it into place. It’s the same control freak impulse at the heart of Hillary’s private email server. They want to enforce a comprehensive ruleset without regard to functionality that privileges their own communications.obama-fcc-control-the-internet

 

It’s a short leap from Hillary’s private email server to Obama’s private internet. Both want their own communications to be unseen, witness the way that the White House deals with Freedom of Information requests, but they want oversight of what everyone else can and does say online.

Innovators disrupt. Regulators control. The left’s hysteria over companies like Uber and Airbnb is typical of the regulator mentality. The left’s propaganda operations have boomed thanks to the internet, but rather than celebrating open technology, it responds by trying to closely regulate the internet instead.

The American left understands that it cannot market itself as progressive without embracing technology, but culturally it is a reactionary movement whose embrace of organic food, no vaccines and paranoia about technology causing Global Warming reveals a deep unease about the technology it claims to love.

Democrats like technology the way that they like science in general, as an inspiring progressive idea, not as the messy uncertain reality that it really is. But applying their logic of “settled science”, in which a thing is assumed to work because their ideology says it should, to technology leads to disaster. Technology is a real life test of ideas. Its science is only settled when it can be objectively said to work.

Healthcare.gov was an example of the GIGO principle that governs information technology and life.

If you put garbage in, your output will be garbage. ObamaCare was a garbage law. The policies it offers are garbage and its website, produced through the same corrupt and dysfunctional processes as the rest of it, was also garbage. The left has to deny that its productive output is garbage because recognizing that would mean having to admit that its ideological input was garbage.

obamacare-website-down-testify

 

If you try to set up a website for a law whose actual functioning no one understood designed in part by bureaucrats who were better at writing mandates than making things that work and by an assortment of corporations that got the job because of who their executives knew in the White House, the other end was bound to be a giant pile of garbage that worked as well as the law it was based on.

That’s why Democrats hate technology. Real science doesn’t give you the results you want. It doesn’t care about your consensus or how you massaged the numbers. It gives you the results you deserve.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Obama wasted billions on Green Energy because his people couldn’t be bothered to examine the vested claims of special interests. His people insisted that Ebola wasn’t an infectious disease because that would interfere with immigration policy. Science and technology don’t come first. They’re just there to serve the same empty marketing function as the ‘smart’ part of his smart power which led to ISIS.

Green Energy and ObamaCare had to work because they were shiny and progressive. The messy reality of the technology or the business models for making them work didn’t matter to Obama.

Progressives mistake this brand of ignorant technophilia for being on the side of progress, when really it’s just the flip side of technophobia. The technophobe raised in a push button world in which things just work doesn’t necessarily fear technology; instead he fears the messy details that interfere with his need for instant gratification.

The new lefty Luddite loves gadgets; he just hates the limitations that make them work. He wants results without effort or error. He wants energy without pollution, consensus without experiment and products without industry. The same narcissism that causes him to reject the fact that he has to give something to get something in human affairs leads him to also reject the same principle in technology.

He wants everything his way. He thinks that makes him an innovator, when it actually makes him a regulator. Innovators understand that every effort comes with risk. Regulators seek to eliminate risk by killing innovation. The progressive Luddite believes that he can have innovation without risk. But that’s just the classic progressive fallacy of confusing regulation with innovation and control with results.

Selling regulation as innovation is just marketing. And that’s all that progressives like Obama are. Their openness is pure marketing. Their need to control everything is the regulatory reality underneath.

Bill Clinton’s idea of innovation was censoring the internet. His wife’s idea was setting up a private email server with terrible security to shut down information transparency. Obama’s idea of innovation is regulating the internet while golfing with the CEO of the cable monopoly being used as an excuse for those regulations.

This isn’t the party that invented the internet. It is the party that’s killing it.

The innovator knows that reality is messy. He lands a probe on a comet while wearing a tacky shirt. The regulator however can only see the shirt. Technology only interests him as a means of controlling people. The shirt matters as much as the comet because both are ways of influencing people.

The left wants technology only as a means of achieving its utopian visions. The technology itself is push button; it means nothing except as a means to an end. The regulator is not thrilled by the incredible ingenuity it takes to link together the world, just as the comet means nothing to him. The technology either serves his political goals or it does not. It lives under his regulations or it does not.

To the left, skill and ingenuity are just forms of unchecked privilege. The only achievement that matters is power over people. The revolutionary exploits technology, but his revolution is that of the regulator, his machine is collective; its ultimate design is to end ingenuity and abort progress. His communication is not a dialogue, it is a diatribe, and his vision of the internet is only meant to be open until he can close it.

The technological vision of the Democrats is just the same old central planning in a shinier case.

 

via Why Democrats Hate the Internet | FrontPage Magazine.

Mar 162015
 

By James Lewis — March 16, 2015

We are financing the jihad against us.

By far the largest funding source for Jihad is oil sales.

By far the largest funding source for Jihad is oil sales.

Jihad war is paid for by OPEC oil regimes, including the Saudis and Iran, and by mandatory “charitable” contributions from fundamentalist Muslims.  In the case of the soi-disant Palestinians, jihad is paid for by our own tax dollars, through the kindly United Nations.

We are financing the jihad against us.

bloodforoil-xGulf oil has been the biggest source of jihad blood money for forty years.  Our dollars go to the Gulf, to prop up war preachers in Iran and Arabia, with billions coming back to sabotage and corrupt our politicians and media, driving massive Muslim immigration, and of course giving the world a steady flow of throat cutting barbarians.

But – we are beginning to see the shape of an answer.

The biggest untold story today is that the Arabs and Iran are losing power over the lifeblood of the industrial world.

The United States is fast becoming energy independent – no thanks to Obama and the Democrats.  We are now net exporters of oil and natural gas, all due to the miracle of new oil extraction methods.  It’s a Texas success story, because Texas is where engineer George P. Mitchell modernized the technology of shale oil extraction.

What’s more, you and I, as individuals, now have a clear shot at squeezing Gulf oil-dependent economies to the point of surrender.

The answer is a grassroots Buy American Oil & Gas campaign, so that millions of consumers can keep their money from going to our primitive enemies in the Jihad War.  Just don’t buy Gulf oil and gas.  It used to be impossible, but today it can be done.

Buying only American Oil and Gas will bring the world Jihad machine to its knees.

Buying only American Oil and Gas will bring the world Jihad machine to its knees.

Oil marketeers might tell you that oil is “fungible” – you can swap a tankerful of heavy crude in the Gulf for a equal tankerful in the Pacific, just by means of an electronic transaction.  Oil is oil.  There’s no practical difference between American and Qatari crude.

The answer is to change that, using existing technology.  Today we can easily mark oil by its origin.

The United States – and our few remaining allies – can “brand” our oil and natural gas, exactly the way ranchers brand their cattle – as a mark of ownership and origin.  If you order a U.S. Prime steak in a restaurant, you can bet that traders in the beef supply chain have ways of making sure they’ve got the right product.  If that steak doesn’t taste right, they will lose their customers.

Chemical engineers know dozens of ways to add tiny amounts of chemicals to oil and gasoline, including nanoparticles that are too small to harm your car.  The same kind of tech has been used for decades to give that distinctive odor to natural gas, to make sure people can smell a gas leak in their homes.syria_oil

With a Republican majority in both houses, the U.S. Congress can pass a law today, making it a legal requirement that domestic oil and gas be doped with tiny amounts of a safe chemical tracer.

Americans and Canadians could then voluntarily choose to use our own oil and gas.  Right now, you do it for fresh milk.  Don’t tell me it can’t be done for fuel.

If Republicans passed a bill today, we could watch Obama try to justify a veto.  Nothing would show more clearly what kind of man we have today in the White House.

It’s a perfect campaign slogan: Who vetoed U.S. oil and gas independence?

Or, in the presidential race, “Who kept the Jihad War fueled up?  Hillary!” 

If GOP candidates run a strong campaign to kill off the jihad money supply, they can beat the Democrats hollow in 2016.  Just think – wouldn’t it be well-deserved?  The Democrats could use forty years dwelling in the desert, to reconsider their hate-America strategy.

Once oil companies see consumers rising up against Suicide Oil, they will stop selling it, if they can find alternative sources – in Montana and Canada.  Gulf oil could be sold to Egypt or Japan, but not here.  As long as we are energy independent, we don’t care where that oil goes.  It will not be as profitable to the gulfies, because the price will stay low as long as more and more nations embark on shale exploitation.

Qatar may become a ghost town, which would be a kind of divine justice for their funding of ISIS mass killers.  Or they might simply choose to purge their war preachers.Not a single U.S. soldier’s life would have to be put at risk.

saudi-oil-production

Gulf regimes would still own big oil fields, but the price would be controlled by the market.  Oil companies stay in business by predicting next year’s sales, and if they see a vigorous consumer boycott of Gulf Suicide Oil, along with a big consumer campaign for Buy American Oil & Gas – they will make the right choice.

When that happens, we can watch the Islamic war preachers turn their rage on each other.

And because they are still trying to kill us, a reverse embargo is an historic opportunity for payback.

  Let them go back to the Dark Ages.  Simply starve their ability to make war on us.

 

via Articles: Buy American Oil: How to Starve the Jihad War of Money.

Mar 132015
 

By Billy Blanco — March 12, 2015

Poor Hillary!  She had a plan:

Leave the White House and become the junior senator from New York, and then jump from there back into the White House…but this time as the star, with Bill doing the dishes and her doing the interns. 

Clinton_Libya_0abb3

Yes Hillary had a plan… How is that working out now?

Barack Obama got in the way.  But those Clintons, you can’t hold them down.

Remember Bill?  That whole intern thing would be funny, except for the fact that it ruined that poor girl’s life.  In fact, Clinton, Inc. put a great deal of effort into destroying her. 

You have to give Ms. Lewinsky credit, however – she held her head high throughout the entire ordeal and every day since.  It could not have been easy; in the end, only she paid a price.  But that’s what happens when you run with the Clintons: they get new Air Jordans, and you get athlete’s foot.

bill and monica

Bill and Monica; Can you say presidential disgrace….

With Bill, it’s been a lifetime binge of rape, pillage, and plunder, all on the public’s dime.  What he will pay for the choices he has made as a human being will be decided at the pearly gates, and his presidential legacy defined by historians long after he has shuffled off this mortal coil. 

Bill still likes the pretty girls...

Bill still likes the pretty girls…

For now, he lives like a king, with poor Hillie Joe his somewhat grubby queen, but people love them.  They used to say Reagan was made of Teflon because nothing stuck to him.  In reality, the true Teflon president has always been Bill.  Those of us too new and shiny, or too unaware to remember any of the Clinton presidency, will get the opportunity to watch Hillary strive for the same deference – the “Whatever I did, wrong or illegal, it’s no big deal” treatment.

Wasn’t that her attitude at her press conference?  And having the Turkish News pose the first question, implying that this would not have been as big a deal if she were a man, was brilliant.  It got the “Vagina Defense” out there without her people having to bring it up.  It’s called “pimping the question”; Lois Lerner would have been proud.  It also shows that nothing is beneath Hill and Bill.

After all, what difference, at this point, does it make? hilary

And, like her husband before her, it could all have been avoided.  If Bill had just said from the beginning, “Hey, I like pretty girls,” America would have forgiven him – even the Republicans, because they like pretty girls, too.  The world would have been spared the tawdry spectacle of a futile impeachment endeavor and a sitting president committing perjury.

What was Hillary thinking?  She had to know that people would recognize an e-mail address that didn’t end in .gov as not being official.  No, she expected that people would recognize that whatever the rules were, they didn’t apply to her.  Because, you know, she’s a Clinton. 

The only reason to have a server in your basement and your own internet domain is to control what can and cannot be seen by the public.  She recently released 55,000 pages of e-mails, but only after her best team of men scoured her server and deleted anything that might be embarrassing, or perhaps even criminal. 

That’s not 55,000 e-mails, by the way; that’s 55,000 pages.  Try printing an e-mail from a lawyer.  With all the disclosure drivel at the bottom, some e-mails can be many pages – even the ones that only ask, “Hey, how’s it going?”  Yet Hillary’s crack team of obfuscators use the number of pages as a descriptor, because it looks better than saying they released 100 e-mails.  I wonder how many pages the 32,000 e-mails that were deleted would have amounted to if printed.  We’ll never know – they were deleted.

Pop quiz: name anything Hillary did in her four years as secretary of state.  For extra credit, name anything – I mean anything – this woman has done or accomplished since she came on the scene as Bill’s first lady.

hillary_oldOh, Hillary!  She flew a million miles, accomplishing nothing more than setting up a private e-mail account and maybe directing funds to her non-profit, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation

Ah…the Clintons’ foundation/charity, or non-profit, if you prefer, is fronted by the HilBilChel triumvirate, and it’s said they do a lot of work in Haiti.

Haiti…now there’s a place.  The Clintons have been fixing that country for decades, yet it still looks the same.  They have diligently devoted time and money to improving the lot of people who live in what is one of the poorest countries on Earth.  

And those poor Haitians have been rewarded by having the opportunity to live in one of the poorest countries on Earth.  Like Hillary, some things never change.

Again, poor Hillary – a million miles traveled as secretary of state, and a non-profit with 250 million dollars in the bank, and not a blessed thing has changed.  Except, having left the White House in January of 2001 (apparently with the furniture, spoons, and plates secreted away), “dead broke,” with God as her witness, Hillary would never go hungry again.  She now gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for 45-minute speeches, and I would be willing to bet each new one is almost that same as the last.

When I was a younger man in the 1980s, a non-profit was a license to steal.  Guys I knew of in Brooklyn used to advertise for junk car donations to help the blind.  They would then sell the cars for quick cash and, as CEO, hire their wives, children, and any other family members and pay them as much money as sales of donated cars could support.  As long as they had a dollar left at the end of the year to donate to the blind, they were a non-profit.

Now, I’m not saying that Bill and Hillary would ever do something like that (nah…not them), but scale the hell out of it, dress it up, put a little lipstick on it, and the business model still works.

Poor Hillary!  We all know how she grew up: a strong woman with twelve siblings in a one-room shack, having to share the outhouse with those filthy Republicans.  She struggled through adversity, and when true love called, she was there ready to marry Bill and take on the challenge of making the world a better place…and, of course, make a ton of money in the process.hillaryclinton-300x250

Her hero, however, is not her husband.  It is Barack Obama.  Her husband is a big man with big ideas, who did best when he caved and adopted the Republican platform while shutting his mouth.  But Barry was right – Bill wasn’t transformational.

No, she admires Barry, who is a small man standing athwart history screaming, Go ahead!  We deserve it anyway.  Whatever Barry’s done, she will do better, and when the both of them are finished with our precious republic, it will no longer be precious or a republic.  There will be flames and ashes, because even though the Iranians have been threatening to kill us since 1979, we did not believe them.  Or rather, Barry and Hillary didn’t believe them.

Yet you have to admire Barry.

Bill Clinton is the type of guy who hits on your underage daughter at a party and then has his friends forestall the beating while he makes his getaway, inevitably on his way out the door picking up the plump girl with a heart of gold, who believes all his lines.

Now Barry…he’s the kind who sleeps with your wife (or husband, not that there’s anything wrong with that); steals your business, while destroying every other aspect of your life; and then says nice things about you at your funeral, while releasing a picture of himself with your family to show how broke up he is about your death.

Obama-Hillary-and-Rice-all-lied

Ambassador Chris Stevens blood is on their hands.

The saddest statement you can make about America today is that so many people take these clowns seriously. 

For my money, I wouldn’t care if they all jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge.  For Hillary, it might be a good career move.  And as I said, what difference, at this point, does it make?

 

via Articles: An Ode to Hillie Joe.

Mar 112015
 

By Victor Volsky — March 11, 2015

Is Barack Obama a Muslim or even an Islamist? Or is there another explanation for his open, heartfelt affinity for all things Muslim?

577-obama-muslim

There is a veritable mountain of indirect evidence that he is indeed an acolyte of Islam. His late father was a Muslim. At the tender age of six, little Barack was taken by his mother to her new Indonesian husband’s homeland where he spent four crucial, formative years in a Muslim environment.

As president, he openly indicates his reverence for Islam — from a carefully mimicked Arabic accent when pronouncing the word the Muslim Scripture, the Quran, invariably preceded by the obligatory qualifier “Holy”, and a dewy-eyed reference to “one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth at sunset”, the muezzin’s call to prayer, to his declaration from the U.N. General Assembly rostrum that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”. Obama’s long-time spiritual guide, the Reverent Jeremiah Wright, interviewed by Ed Klein for his book, related that when Obama had joined his church, he “was steeped in Islam, but knew nothing about Christianity.”

Obama012And what about his public tirades about America’s sins and apologies for its “crimes?” What about his ridiculous statement that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding” or that Muslims have made a tremendous impact on American history and culture? What about his order to reorient NASA from space research to building bridges to the world of Islam and extolling the (imaginary) contributions of Muslims to space exploration?

Obama’s first telephone call to a foreign leader was to the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas; his first trip abroad was to several Muslim countries; his first public speech during that trip delivered in Cairo was an appeal to the Muslims of the world to be friends. When Obama broke the tradition and rules of etiquette by slavishly bowing to Saudi King Abdullah, was he honoring a monarch or the keeper of the greatest sacred sites of Islam? muslim-obama_gi

He took an active part in overthrowing Egyptian President Mubarak, an old, loyal friend of the United States, and eagerly supported the Muslim Brotherhood – so much so that to this day he refuses to forgive the Army and people of Egypt who threw Islamist President Mohamed Morsi out of office. Likewise, he helped destroy Col. Qaddafi, destabilizing Libya with grave consequences for the entire Middle East. His half-hearted aerial campaign against ISIS, a reluctant response to public pressure, is a joke, and he refuses to help Egypt and Jordan repel the Islamist threat.

He has been trying to ingratiate himself with Iran at the expense of America’s old Arab allies, but ignores the genocide of Christians in the region. He doesn’t like Israel, to put it mildly, and during last year’s Gaza War he all but openly took the side of Hamas even though it shows up on the State Department list of terrorist organizations. He demanded that Israel agree to a ceasefire on terms tantamount to capitulation; in the midst of fighting he instituted a partial embargo on military supplies to Israel and on a ludicrous pretext banned U.S. aircraft from using the Ben Gurion Airport, in effect declaring economic war on the Jewish state.

Watch the liar-in-chief tell us all about Islam’s greatness.

 

And to add insult to injury, he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the worldwide Islamist terrorist campaign has anything to do with Islam or even that terrorism exists. At least that’s the impression from the administration’s official vocabulary which bans such words as “terrorist”, “jihad” and the like. It’s always “violent extremism” or “workplace violence” or some such ludicrous euphemism. His Middle East policy can be summed up as antagonism toward America’s friends and appeasement of if not collusion with her enemies.

Worse, he insists that we have no right to get high and mighty about ISIS in view of the awful crimes committed in the name of Jesus Christ during the Crusades and Inquisition. The implication is that the 900-year-old campaign to liberate the Holy Sepulcher from the clutches of the Muslims is equivalent to the Jihadists enslaving and killing women and children, beheading Western journalists and “people of the Cross,” burning and burying prisoners alive. This is a page straight out of the Islamist playbook. 

Barack-Obama-is-a-Muslim

So there is no escaping a highly plausible conclusion that Obama is indeed a Muslim, right? Not so fast. A pretty strong case could be made that rather than an acolyte of Islam, he is in fact a far-left radical with a destructive, anti-American agenda.

He was raised by his mother, a fanatical America-hater, and leftist grandparents. His early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist. He attended three colleges, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, all known hotbeds of student radicalism. He admits in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, that in college he sought out the company of the most radical professors and students. Upon graduation, he went to Chicago, Frank Marshall Davis’s old stomping grounds and home of the country’s most powerful black political machine, where he again fell in with the revolutionary crowd. As president, he brought with him a large retinue of like-minded radicals, such as Eric Holder, Van Jones, etc. And the mainstay of his domestic policy is “social justice,” a barely disguised revolutionary program to radically transform America that he openly advocated running for president.

obama-Muslim1America is the source of all evil in the world; her prosperity was built on the sweat of black slaves and exploitation of the oppressed peoples of the Third World. America is the enemy of mankind and must be destroyed and her wealth returned to the rightful owners: African-Americans and the oppressed masses of the Third World. Israel is America Lite and likewise must be wiped off the face of the world. Muslims are part of the Third World and thus are always beyond reproach. They are innocent victims of U.S. imperialism; anything they do is justified by their suffering. Terrorism is a legitimate response to the depredations of America — in short, she deserves her fate.

And then there is a time-honored tradition of American revolutionaries colluding with their country’s enemies, from the North Vietnamese communist regime to the Muslim Brotherhood that openly describes its activities in America as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”  What’s not to like, if you are an American revolutionary? And so Obama and his circle are very cozy with this outfit and with its U.S. offshoot, CAIR, which the White House views as the go-to organization on all matters Muslim.

Hillary Clinton's deep connection to the Muslim Brotherhood through Huma Abedin.

Hillary Clinton’s deep connection to the Muslim Brotherhood through Huma Abedin.

Another case in point is Hillary Clinton’s long-time, confidential aide Huma Abedin (Mrs. Anthony Weiner) who belongs to an activist family with extensive Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabist connections. By all accounts, Huma Abedin is extremely close to Hillary and was privy to the nation’s highest secrets when her boss was secretary of state. Thus it is likely that the Muslim Brotherhood was fully informed about the decision-making process behind the U.S. Middle East policy. Yet it appears that Secretary Clinton was not at all concerned about the penetration of the U.S. government by the Islamists. Huma Abedin still enjoys the prospective presidential candidate’s full confidence. On at least one occasion Hillary Clinton, at Huma’s behest, personally intervened to allow prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan to enter the United States, overturning the ban imposed by the previous administration.

So tell me the difference between the Islamist enemies of the United States and its radical foes of the home-grown variety as far as their attitude toward America is concerned? Their ultimate goals dovetail to such an extent that from where I sit, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. Whether as a Muslim or a far-left radical, Obama is indifferent to the national interests of the country he swore to defend when taking an oath of office. His sympathies clearly lie with the world of Islam and his foreign policy for all intents and purposes boils down to the support of Islamism.

So is Barack Obama a Muslim or a Communist? What difference, at this point, does it make?! 

 

via Articles: Birds of a Feather: Obama, the Left, and Islam.

Mar 072015
 

By Jack Kerwick — March 6, 2015 

In spite of what Barack Obama would have us believe, he was as much in tune to Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress this week as was anyone and everyone else in the world. 

Christian persecution by Muslims is evident in this map showing incidents of persecution around the world.

Christian persecution by Muslims is evident in this map showing incidents of persecution around the world.

Butexclusive focus on American/Israeli and Israeli/Islamic relations threatens to blind us to the fierce, unrelenting oppression with which Christians throughout the world are routinely forced to reckon courtesy of their Islamic neighbors.

Throughout the Islamosphere in Africa and the Middle East, men, women, andchildren have been subjected en masse to unspeakable acts of cruelty. Jihadists, while pillaging and burning homes and churches, have laid waste to whole communities. Families have been destroyed as husbands and fathers were bludgeoned, beheaded, and burned to death; wives and mothers raped, beaten, and starved; young boys forced to convert to Islam and take up arms on behalf of their captors; and young girls enslaved and sold off to become either wives to grown men or human missiles—i.e. suicide bombers.

Muslim persecution of Christians is particularly evident in the Sudan.

Muslim persecution of Christians is particularly evident in the Sudan.

Meanwhile, stateside, the historical and theological illiterates of the left—exemplified by none other than our 44th President—spout as a matter of course vacuities designed to imply moral parity between Islam and other religions. Worse, the American left reserves not a fraction of the condemnation for Islam, or even ISIS, that it regularly unleashes on Christianity.

But there is no moral parity here.

And it is profoundly offensive for anyone, least of all self-avowed Christian leaders, to suggest otherwise. 

Muslim persecution of Christians is as old as the Qu'ran.

Muslim persecution of Christians is as old as the Qu’ran.

People like none other than the titular head of my church, Pope Francis, sought an explanation for the mass murderers that attacked Charlie Hebdo that came dangerously close to sounding like a justification. To be clear, the Pope doubtless abhorred this ghastly deed as much as anyone. But he expressed an understanding of these Islamic killers that he never would have dreamt of extending to Christians whose sins were far less grave.

That there is a glaring contrast between Christianity and Islam is gotten quickly enough when we consider just how the legions of Christian victims of Islamic persecution have responded to their tormentors.

In Niger, where ISIS incinerated 45 churches, the Christians who survived the rampages (which left at least 10 dead and roughly another 170 people critically injured) still managed to gather to worship together. According to The Voice of the Martyrs, a teenager remarked: “I guess God found us worthy.”

blood_cross

Open Doors reports that following the beheadings of 21 Coptic Christian by ISIS, churches in Egypt “united” to pray for the murderers. This organization dedicated to serving persecuted Christians shares a letter penned by an Egyptian “Christian leader” whose name remains anonymous. “The sound of prayers requesting mercy and life, not revenge and destruction, calling on God’s name to come and change the hearts of the killers, is loudly heard across Egypt.”

The letter relays that the “heartbroken wives, mothers, fathers and children of the martyrs,” while interviewed on national and other television shows, offered “simple expressions of love and forgiveness” that “brought down so many tears on air and surely delivered a mind blowing message about what the Christian faith is all about.” Pastors of Egyptian churches are “calling their congregations to wake up and pray for the persecutors of the church to come to meet with the Savior” so that “God will remove their stone hearts…and give them hearts of flesh and blood, capable of loving.”

Organizations like Open Doors and Voice of the Martyrs ask Christians around the world not to take up arms and avenge their subjugated brethren, but, rather, to pray for them.

The Christian News Wire reports that Christian Freedom International asked three Christians from three different Muslim-majority countries about their thoughts on Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast remarks. Their responses are telling. 

What else needs to be said?

What else needs to be said?

A Pakistani Christian replied: “I strongly condemn this statement by US President Obama… Christianity has always preached to love our neighbor.” The person added: “I know of no Christian extremist groups attacking people of other faiths.”

An Egyptian Christian said that he or she—the lives of these believers depend upon their anonymity—disagreed with Obama. “Coptic Christians in Egypt are very much pacifists and considered the most vulnerable minority [.]” Thus, “we cannot persecute people of other faiths. We Christians do not persecute Muslims. But we Christians are persecuted.”

A Muslim convert to Christianity living in Bangladesh had some particularly revealing things to say.

“But, the basic difference [between Christians and Muslims] is that Muslims today are being influenced and taught by their religious books to persecute the people of other beliefs.” In contrast, you can’t find “a single word in the New Testament that influences Christians to persecute others. The New Testament teaches [about] loving others.”

This convert from Islam mentions that while Christianity has produced numerous people, like Mother Teresa, who have made enormous sacrifices to serve others, “there is not a single example in the Muslim World of a Mother Teresa.” Instead, “Muslims have examples like Osama bin Laden.”

This person doesn’t stop here though. He or she identifies as the inspiration for Obama’s comments an Indian Muslim scholar by the name of Dr. Zakir Nayak. The latter, according to this irate Christian, “defends al Qaida activities by saying, ‘Christians and Jews did terrible things in the past.” Obama, he thinks, was exposed to Nayak while in India. At any rate, this interviewee poses a “challenge” to Obama to “find a single word in the New Testament that influences people to persecute others, where there are thousands [of such words] in the Muslim book, Quran.”

egyptian-christians-persecuted

If Islamic militants can be said to pose an “existential threat” to anyone today, it is to those Christians living in Islamic lands.

Only don’t expect for Obama or John Kerry to ever bring this up.

 

via Facing an Existential Threat: Christians Living in Islamic Lands | FrontPage Magazine.

Mar 062015
 

By Rob Bluey — March 06, 2015

Days after President Obama delivered his Nov. 20 speech outlining executive actions on immigration, conservatives pressed Republican leaders to wage a fight while the issue was fresh on the minds of voters.

The Capitol building is in disrepair.  Will it ever shine again as a beacon of freedom?

The Capitol building is in disrepair. Will it ever shine again as a beacon of freedom?

 

Republicans had just made historic electoral gains in the House and taken control of the Senate. Meanwhile, seven Senate Democrats were on the record voicing concerns about Obama’s unilateral move.

But when lawmakers had the opportunity in early December to stymie Obama’s moves by withholding funding, they punted. Congress approved the so-called “CRomnibus,” which funded the federal government for the full fiscal year and the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 27.

“Come January, we’ll have a Republican House and a Republican Senate—and we’ll be in the stronger position to take actions,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a Dec. 4 press conference.

The strategy, proposed by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and embraced by Republican leadership, ultimately failed to undo Obama’s actions. This week, a majority of Republicans in the House (167 of 245) and Senate (31 of 54) opposed the Homeland Security bill, forcing GOP leaders to rely on Democrats to pass the measure.

“Unfortunately, leadership’s plan was never to win this fight,” said Sen. Ted Cruz. “Since December, the outcome has been baked in the cake. It was abundantly clear to anyone watching that leadership in both houses intended to capitulate on the fight against amnesty. It was a strategy doomed to failure.”

The Texas Republican was among the most vocal critics of Obama’s immigration actions, invoking Cicero’s warning to the Romans as he railed against the president’s “lawlessness.”

 

Even though a court case could still derail Obama’s actions, conservatives voiced disappointment with the outcome in Congress. Yet not everyone walked away surprised by how it played out.

The Daily Signal interviewed several of those lawmakers to better understand how events transpired after Obama’s Nov. 20 announcement through Tuesday’s vote.

Republicans United, Then Divided

Just weeks after Republicans swept the midterm elections, Obama outlined executive actions that he would take without congressional approval to defer deportations for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

Obama’s move sparked a swift rebuke from Republican leaders. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the soon-to-be majority leader, and Boehner vowed to fight Obama using their new clout.


 “We’re considering a variety of options,” McConnell said on Nov. 20. “But make no mistake. When the newly elected representatives of the people take their seats, they will act.”


Within a matter of weeks, however, Republicans found themselves divided over the strategy.

Republican leaders settled on a plan known as the “CRomnibus” to fund the federal government. As part of the package, the Department of Homeland Security would be funded through Feb. 27, giving Republicans an opportunity to fight Obama’s actions when they controlled both houses of Congress.

“We were the ones back on Dec. 7 telling leadership not to do this,” Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, told The Daily Signal. “We were the ones who told them this was doomed for failure and we warned them this was going to lead to capitulation at the end of the fight.”

Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho exposed the doomed strategy.

Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho exposed the doomed strategy.

 

Conservatives weren’t united around a particular strategy but many of them had alternatives to the plan leadership ultimately pursued. Some wanted to have the fight in December, risking a government shutdown before Christmas, while others suggested a short-term funding plan for the whole government until early 2015.

Many conservatives didn’t like attaching the immigration fight to Homeland Security funding. Some, including Labrador, even took the rare step of opposing leadership on a Dec. 11 procedural vote that nearly failed when 16 Republicans broke ranks. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., later accused GOP leaders of misleading him into switching his decisive vote.

Had conservatives blocked the spending bill on that vote, it would have forced leadership to revise the strategy.

“From the onset, we really believed it was a poor strategy,” said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz.

Heritage Action for America, a sister organization of The Heritage Foundation, expressed similar concerns at the time.

“Some have suggested the short-term funding for DHS will provide conservatives another opportunity to block President Obama’s actions in early 2015, but that approach is problematic,” the organization noted in a key vote alert.

Among the reasons: Republicans would be approving, at least temporarily, Obama’s executive actions, and waiting 100 days until Feb. 27 would allow the administration to get the program up and running.

“The tactic in Washington, D.C., is what they call defer and delay,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told The Daily Signal. “If they can defer the decision and delay the decision, then the passion and outcry of American people lessens. They’re able to capitulate and pass something that is certainly not as representative of the people’s will as it might be when the action initially takes place.”

Disagreement Over Strategy

Several of the lawmakers who spoke to The Daily Signal voiced concerns about leadership’s strategy.

“We’ve been through this time after time,” said Rep. John Fleming, R-La. “We’ve heard the same promises and we’ve seen the same poor results. We’ve come to understand how it works. There are promises to fight but yet the process is created in a way that eventually there’s going to be a cave.”

Rep. John Fleming, R-La said that the writing was on the wall.

Rep. John Fleming, R-La said that the writing was on the wall.

 

Fleming said conservatives’ frustration led to the creation of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of 30-some members who have vowed to be united on these fights in the future.

This week’s vote was the group’s first test and members of the caucus were optimistic about their impact, even if the outcome wasn’t ideal.

Salmon noted that Republican leadership urged members to vote in favor of the “clean” Homeland Security funding bill, which included no language defunding Obama’s actions. A majority of Republicans ultimately voted against the measure Tuesday.

“When 167 Republicans ignore leadership’s recommendations, that’s got to be a big wake-up call,” Salmon told The Daily Signal. “They voted with us, not with them.”

The Freedom Caucus also put forward several ideas for GOP leaders to consider during the standoff. None of their ideas were embraced, prompting Labrador to rethink the group’s approach next time.

“We need to get our message out, not just to the media but also to the other conference members,” Labrador said. “Every time I told other Republicans about our offers, they were stunned our leadership didn’t accept them. And I’m talking across the spectrum—conservatives and moderates.”

A spokesman for Boehner said the speaker welcomed ideas from members.

“Our strategy was developed working with and listening to our members,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “This fight was won in the House. Ultimately, we’re going to have to find a strategy to put more pressure on Senate Democrats in the future.”

Will Anything Change?

“Why does our leadership always do the same thing and expect a different outcome?” asked Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. “They do the same thing knowing it’s going to be the same results.”

Huelskamp, who has been stripped of committee assignments for voting against leadership, was one of a dozen members attacked in ads from the pro-leadership American Action Network. A spokesman for the group, which supported the Homeland Security funding bill, did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Meadows, the North Carolina conservative, was also targeted by the group’s ads.

“The American people have had enough,” Meadows said. “I’ve had dozens of emails since the vote saying, ‘Why should I vote for another Republican when the results are the same?’ That’s troubling for me.”

Salmon shared a similar sentiment.

“The American people are not going to continue to be patient,” he said. “If we have any chance at all of maintaining the Senate and winning the White House, we have got to prove that we are the real deal.”

Despite the frustration, Boehner and McConnell’s jobs appear safe, even if members are displeased with their handling of the immigration fight.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, are partners in the duping of the Americans who cast their votes and empowered them to double-cross us.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, are partners in the duping of the Americans who cast their votes and empowered them to double-cross us.


 “The speaker said, I’m going to fight tooth and nail. What that means to me is no stone unturned. Every option on the table. And that’s certainly not what happened,” Salmon said.


 Huelskamp said Republicans managed to give away the only leverage they had to stymie Obama. With no more spending fights until this fall, he fears the president will be emboldened to take unilateral action on other issues.

Meadows suggested the White House is already signaling its next move.

“It doesn’t stop here with amnesty. The same day we’re debating amnesty, the White House is talking about taking action to increase taxes,” Meadows said. “It’s just a total breakdown of a wall of separation of powers of the executive branch and legislative branch.”

While the fight over Obama’s immigration actions now plays out in court, Huelskamp predicted the party’s establishment will ultimately prevail this time.

“The biggest donors to the Republican establishment, they all are happy today. They got their amnesty,” Huelskamp said. “They just hope the issue goes away and somehow they think conservatives are still going to show up and vote for whoever the presidential nominee is.”

This story was updated to include additional details about the December debate over the GOP’s strategy.

 

via Conservatives Fault GOP Leadership After DHS Funding Fight.

Mar 052015
 

By Susan Ferrechio — March 5, 2015

A beleaguered House Speaker John Boehner is suddenly relying on Democrats rather than his fellow Republicans.

john-boehner-speaker-of-the-house-spineless-sellout

For the second day in a row, Wednesday, his House leadership team turned to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats to help pass major legislation and overcome determined opposition from dozens of GOP conservatives.

It’s a far cry from January, when Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress, and Boehner, R-Ohio, returned to Capitol Hill buoyed by expectations of a fruitful relationship with the new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell.

And conservatives fear it will swing the Republican agenda to the left, and push them permanently to the sidelines.

“We were hoping to move everything to the right, “Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told the Washington Examiner after casting a “no” vote on a bill authorizing spending on Amtrak, which passed with overwhelming Democratic support and substantial Republican opposition. “Looks like to me they are moving it to the Left. They’ve given up on us so they are going to the Democrats to get votes.”

The House easily passed the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act, which cuts federal funding authorization for Amtrak by 40 percent, but did not go far enough for conservatives. It also, reforms the railway’s accounting system so that the profitable Northeast corridor routes can keep and reinvest more money.

The bill passed 316 to 101, but 184 of the votes to pass it came from Democrats. The legislation, opposed by fiscal hawks at such organizations as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth, got 132 GOP votes, but 101 Republicans, including eight committee chairmen, voted against it. Those opponents came mostly from the party’s right wing, and Rep. Tom McClintock of California had earlier in the day tried to amend the bill to end federal subsidies for passenger rail entirely.

The vote came just one day after House Republican leaders pushed through a key bill with the votes of Democrats rather than of their own conference members. Tuesday’s bill funded the Department of Homeland Security until Sept. 30 without curbing President Obama’s executive order shielding millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. In that vote, too, conservatives were sidelined.

The $40 billion Homeland Security measure came to the floor after Boehner allegedly cut a deal with Pelosi, D-Calif., last week.

Boehner is looking more like the Benedict Arnold of Republican Party

Boehner is looking more like the Benedict Arnold of Republican Party

“Who is really running the floor over here?” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said. “John Boehner has so lost control of the House. He has to call Nancy Pelosi.”

Republican leadership aides deny a move to shift the legislation to the left in order to win over Democrats and skirt conservative opposition.

Before agreeing to a “clean” bill, Boehner spent weeks holding out for a Homeland Security bill that defunded Obama’s executive actions.

“The speaker and our entire leadership team’s goal is always to work with the entire House Republican conference to get the best possible conservative public policy,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Examiner.

But dozens of conservative lawmakers have been making it difficult for House Republican leaders.

Last week, conservative opposition forced House GOP leaders to pull legislation from the floor that would have revamped the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act. Conservatives said it did not go far enough to free local education from federal control. Now the bill’s future is uncertain.

More conservative opposition lies ahead as lawmakers begin grappling with whether to restore spending hikes that were capped under the 2011 Budget Control Act, also known as the sequester. Conservatives don’t want to lift the budget caps imposed by the law, while other Republicans are in favor of lifting the caps to allow more government spending, particularly for defense.

Conservatives are also likely to oppose raising the nation’s debt limit once again, which will be on the table this summer.

Some Republicans say the conservative opposition means the GOP leadership has little choice but to partner with Democrats.

Boehner and Obama playing golf.... - We should have taken him out when we had the chance.

Boehner and Obama playing golf…. – We should have taken him out when we had the chance.

“These are difficult choices for the Republican leadership,” Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told the Examiner. “Congress has not been productive. They are trying to show the American people we can move things forward in a positive fashion. The reality of it is, sometimes you have to compromise.”

Republicans on Wednesday touted the Amtrak bill as a modernization and reform measure for the money-losing passenger rail system.

The bill authorizes a pilot program that would allow private companies to take over some rail routes and implements new taxpayer safeguards.

Lawmakers from both parties cheered the legislation on the House floor as an example of Congress steering clear of the gridlock that has become customary and passing a bill that has a chance of becoming law.

“Considering what is going on in Congress now, this bill is my idea of a perfect situation,” Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., said. “We didn’t get everything we wanted, they didn’t get some of the amendments they wanted, yet we are moving forward.”

Fire Boehner1But conservatives were fuming.

The legislation was a capitulation to Democrats, they said, because it doesn’t cut actual spending on Amtrak, (authorization merely approves funding). Amtrak funding has remained at about $1.4 billion. And the pilot privatization program involves only two routes.

The bill authorizes $7.2 billion in spending on Amtrak and other rail programs through 2019.

Conservatives said it cost too much.

“We are forgetting our core principles as a party,” Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., warned, as he headed in to vote against the bill. “And I think you need to lead with those core principles. If Boehner continues to reach out to Democrats to pass legislation, it’s going to continue to divide the party. Not just here, but across the nation.”

 

via Has Boehner taken left turn? | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Mar 032015
 

By Robert Spencer — March 3, 2015

Netanyahu is a statesmen and a leader. Obama and Cameron are weak, self-serving, compromised, ignorant, slogan-spouting pygmies by comparison.

“Full text: Netanyahu’s address to Congress,” by Terri Rupar, Washington Post, March 3, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is addressing a joint meeting of Congress; here is a running transcript of his remarks.

 

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you…

(APPLAUSE)

… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

 

Netanyahu addresses the US Congress on March 3rd, 2015

Netanyahu addresses the US Congress on March 3rd, 2015

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.

My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

 

Netanyahu's speech is interrupted with applause nearly forty times and receives a long standing ovation at the end of his  address to Congress

Netanyahu’s speech is interrupted with applause nearly forty times and he receives many standing ovations during his address to Congress

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

 And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors – Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks – if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…

(APPLAUSE)

… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You’re wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

 

via Video and transcript: Netanyahu’s historic speech to Congress.

Feb 262015
 

by Pamela Geller — February 26, 2015

The internet is already open. The internet is already free.

Is-internet-censorship

But this is how the left operates. They use the very thing they are trying to kill as their slogan.
The Zionist Union, a left-wing political party in Israel, is viciously anti-zionist.
Anti-Fascist (Antifa) groups in Europe are most definitely fascist. They are the brownshirts of yesteryear.
The Democrats are anything but democratic.
The New Israel Fund is anti-Israel and pro-BDS.

Atlas reader writes, “As an attorney, I’m dumbfounded by the fact that the Federal Administrative Rules are not being followed. Any Agency (FCC) is obligated to publish proposed Rules and hold publicized hearings regarding those Rules where testimony for and against is given and recorded. Yet, we find “secret” rules being adopted without those requirements being fulfilled. Not only the FCC but other agencies as well. Where’s the outrage? It doesn’t take the DOJ to stop this. Any citizen or group can file suit to block this malfeasance. I would but can’t afford the expense. Where’s the conservative groups that constantly whine about this stuff but do nothing about it?”

It’s a banner day for Obama. Internet and bullets (by executive action)

net-neutrality-censored


FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For ‘Open Internet’ NPR, February 26, 2015

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure “that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet.”

The policy helps to decide an essential question about how the Internet works, requiring service providers to be a neutral gateway instead of handling different types of Internet traffic in different ways — and at different costs.

“Today is a red-letter day,” Wheeler said later.

The dissenting votes came from Michael O’Rielly and Ajut Pai, Republicans who warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority and interfering in commerce to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. They also complained that the measure’s 300-plus pages weren’t publicly released or openly debated.

The new policy would replace a prior version adopted in 2010 — but that was put on hold following a legal challenge by Verizon. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last year that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory power over broadband.

After that ruling, the FCC looked at ways to reclassify broadband to gain broader regulatory powers. It will now treat Internet service providers as carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which regulates services as public utilities.

Update at 1:22 p.m. ET: Rules Will Apply To Mobile

“The landmark open Internet protections that we adopted today,” Wheeler says, should reassure consumers, businesses and investors.

Speaking at a news conference after the vote, Wheeler says the new policy will “ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid-prioritization fast lanes,” adding that “for the first time, open Internet rules will be fully applicable to mobile.”

Update at 1 p.m. ET: FCC Adopts Net Neutrality

By a 3-2 vote, the FCC votes to adopt net neutrality rules to “protect the open Internet.”

Update at 12:50 p.m. ET: Wheeler Draws Applause

Chairman Tom Wheeler is speaking, meaning a vote is looming.

“The action that we take today is an irrefutable reflection of the principle that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, drawing applause and whoops of approval from some of those in attendance.

Update at 12:01 p.m. ET: A Dissenting Vote

Saying the FCC was seizing power in “a radical departure” from its earlier policies. Commissioner Ajut Pai, a Republican, spoke against the proposal. He accused the FCC of “turning its back on Internet freedom.”

Pai said that the commissioners were backing the new measure for only one reason: “because President Obama told us to.”

Seeing the new policy as an attempt to intrude on the Internet, Pai predicted higher costs for consumers and less innovation by businesses.

Update at 11:25 a.m. ET: ‘Open Internet’ Portion Has Begun

After dealing with another issue (of municipalities being able to control broadband service), the FCC has turned to the new proposal.

The FCC has just made history by placing broadband under Title II regulation in an attempt to permanently safeguard net neutrality. The 3-2 vote was the culmination of months of back-and-forth between net neutrality advocates — determined to keep the internet free and open — and ISPs, who have accused the federal government of unjustly overstepping its bounds. As the FCC’s huge moment sinks in, we’ll be collecting responses to today’s vote below and updating as more come in.

And reaction:

AT&T hints at litigation and Congress undoing everything

Instead of a clear set of rules moving forward, with a broad set of agreement behind them, we once again face the uncertainty of litigation, and the very real potential of having to start over – again – in the future.  Partisan decisions taken on 3-2 votes can be undone on similarly partisan 3-2 votes only two years hence.  And FCC decisions made without clear authorization by Congress (and who can honestly argue Congress intended this?) can be undone quickly by Congress or the courts. This may suit partisans who lust for issues of political division, but it isn’t healthy for the Internet ecosystem, for the economy, or for our political system.  And, followed to its logical conclusion, this will do long-term damage to the FCC as well.

For our part, we will continue to seek a consensus solution, and hopefully bipartisan legislation, even if we are the last voice seeking agreement rather than division.  And we will hope that other voices of reason will emerge, voices who recognize that animosity, exaggeration, demonization and fear-mongering are not a basis on which to make wise national policies.

Read AT&T’s full statement

Verizon mocks FCC with typewriter font and warns of internet “throwback Thursday”

Screen_Shot_2015-02-26_at_1.11.17_PM.0

Read Verizon’s full statement

 

via Obama Putsch: Without authorization by Congress, FCC approves Net Neutrality rules For ‘Open Internet’ | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.

Feb 262015
 

By Paul Bedard — February 26, 2015

It’s starting.

atfammoban

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

obama-gun-confiscationWednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter can be downloaded here.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.ammo-600

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

 

via Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Feb 232015
 

By Jack Cashill — February 23, 2015

Thankfully, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani shows no sign of backing down.

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani

To reinforce his claim that Obama did not “love this country,” Giuliani explained his thinking to the New York Daily News.

“I don’t [see] this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t,” Giuliani told reporter Celeste Katz. “Logically, think about his background.. . . The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old.”

The communist in question, as Giuliani clarified, was Frank Marshall Davis. In fact, Obama was likely ten years old when his grandfather Stanley Dunham introduced young Barry to Davis, but otherwise Giuliani was correct. In so saying, he may well have been the first prominent political figure of either party to mention Davis in public, a testament to the dread of being branded racist that paralyzes the political class. For that matter, the New York Daily News is the rare mainstream media outpost to mention Davis, a collective oversight that flirts with conspiracy.

Obama and his mentor Communist Frank Marshall Davis

Obama and his mentor Communist Frank Marshall Davis

Although Obama’s mother and grandfather both leaned strongly to the left, Davis, as Giuliani suggested, was the first capital “C” Communist to influence Obama. Davis, as they say, had some “issues.” He was not only a Communist, but also a bisexual pornographer and nude photographer with at least a fictional taste for underage sex partners.

“Here are the facts and they are indisputable,” wrote historian Paul Kengor in his insightful book, The Communist — Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, “Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro-Red China, card-carrying member of Communist Party (CPUSA). His Communist Party card number was 47544.”

As Kengor observed, Obama dedicated 2500 words in Dreams to Davis, who “surfaces repeatedly from start to finish, from Hawaii to Los Angeles to Chicago to Germany to Kenya . . . from the 1970s to the 1980s to the 1990s.”

As critical as Davis was to the formation of the fatherless Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Maraniss managed to write a 10,000-word piece for the Washington Post on Obama’s early years in August 2008 without a single mention of Davis. In the runup to the election, when the Maraniss article was published, the many Obama enthusiasts in the Post audience no more wanted to read about Davis’s unseemly hobbies than Maraniss wanted to write about them. Win-win.

Obama and his admirers in the media understood that this was a relationship best kept under wraps. Davis never renounced his Communist past. As his FBI file reveals, the Hawaiian Communist Party simply went underground and infiltrated the Democratic Party.

Maraniss could barely bring himself to talk about Davis even in his lengthy 2012 biography of Obama’s early years, Barack Obama: The Story. He suggested, in fact, that Obama included “Frank” in his memoir Dreams from My Father because he “tended to focus on characters who could accentuate his journey toward blackness.”

Given the depth of his research, Maraniss had to know what he was hiding. Davis, in fact, played such an essential role in Obama’s formation that, as Maraniss admitted in the biography, he became “a subject of some of [Obama’s] teenage poetry.” Obama has had at least two poems about Davis published. “An Old Man” appeared in his prep school’s literary magazine. “Pop” appeared in Occidental College’s. “Pop” tells how Davis and the underage Obama got drunk together and hints perhaps at a sexual dalliance as well.

Obama and Davis - At best an illicit relationship.

Obama and Davis – At best an illicit relationship.

These poems may have been part of a trilogy. A few years prior, Davis had written a poem called “To a Young Man,” which also described the relationship of a naïve young man with a cynical old man but from the older man’s perspective. A close textual reading leads one to suspect that Davis wrote all three of these poems, including the two fronted by Obama.

When Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum showed Obama “An Old Man” in 2008, Obama responded, “That’s not bad. I wrote that in high school?” He recovered quickly, adding, “It sounds in spirit that it’s talking a little bit about my grandfather.” No, the poem in question, the “it,” was not talking about Stanley Dunham. The named author of the poem was talking about Davis. The two were that close.

In his Obama biography The Bridge, New Yorker editor and Obama fanboy David Remnick dismissed the charges of “communist” and “pornographer” against Davis as mere noise from the “right-wing blogosphere.” He preferred to introduce Davis as an “aging poet and journalist” whose relationship with Obama was of “no great ideological importance.” In one of those unguarded moments that shine a bright light on the liberal brain, Remnick described Dunham’s introduction of his grandson to this Communist, pornographer and possible pedophile as “one of the more thoughtful and consequential things Stanley did in his role as surrogate grandfather.”

Okay, enough of these irrelevancies, let’s get back to the real news, Scott Walker’s senior year at Marquette.


** Below is a video of Rudy Giuliani having to put up with that air-headed talking head at Fox News, Megyn Kelly.  If you watch it to the end you will see that he is certain about his position and in spite of Fox’s agenda to cause him to recant, or at least walk back his comments, he stubbornly refuses to do it.  This is a man with conviction who is willing to say out loud what the majority of the American people know to be true.

 

 

via Articles: Was Giuliani the First to Use The F Word (as in ‘Frank’)?.

Feb 202015
 

By Pamela Geller – February 19, 2015

Obama is proselytizing and advancing Islam.

It is madness. My colleagues and I weren’t invited — we have been countering jihad for 13 plus years. But terror supporters and jihadists were in attendance.

Attendees at Obama's pro-Muslim propaganda event the Countering Violent Extremism Conference

Attendees at Obama’s pro-Muslim propaganda event the Countering Violent Extremism Summit

Remember, this was supposed to be a summit to address the global jihad — the war to impose an Islamic State across the world. Instead, Muhammad is using it to spread Islam. Muhammad — that’s what they call Obama on the Muslim street.

DC: American and European citizens and journalists are spurring jihadi violence by protesting the arrival of Muslim populations into their societies, President Barack Obama declared Thursday.

“We’ve also seen, most recently in Europe, a rise in inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases, anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment,” Obama told a Feb. 19 audience of U.S. and foreign officials and advocates, who met to discuss ways to minimize jihadi violence.

newyorkpostisis

Peaceful criticism of Islamic culture is bad, he suggested. ”When people spew hatred toward others — because of their faith or because they’re immigrants — it feeds into terrorist narratives. … It feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey,” he said.

So “we have to ensure that our diverse societies truly welcome and respect people of all faiths and backgrounds,” said Obama.

Obama delivering his lies at the CVE Conference

Obama delivering his lies at the CVE Summit

President Obama spoke on the third day of the White House three-day summit on countering violent extremism. He said the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an “ugly lie.” He also called on countries to have Muslim people in their country be more included in society. He said that when people feel marginalized that opens a door for the terrorist ideology. He called on countries to address the grievances of oppressed people because they fuel people to join with extremists.

 

Thanks to Kenneth (transcript of Obama’s remarks)

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, distinguished guests, we are joined by representatives from governments, because we all have a responsibility to ensure the security, the prosperity and the human rights of our citizens. And we’re joined by leaders of civil society, including many faith leaders, because civil society — reflecting the views and the voices of citizens — is vital to the success of any country. I thank all of you and I welcome all of you.We come together from more than 60 countries from every continent. We speak different languages, born of different races and ethnic groups, belong to different religions. We are here today because we are united against the scourge of violent extremism and terrorism.

As we speak, ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq and engaging in unspeakable cruelty. The wanton murder of children, the enslavement and rape of women, threatening religious minorities with genocide, beheading hostages. ISIL-linked terrorists murdered Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula, and their slaughter of Egyptian Christians in Libya has shocked the world. Beyond the region, we’ve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, Paris, and now Copenhagen.

Elsewhere, Israelis have endured the tragedy of terrorism for decades. Pakistan’s Taliban has mounted a long campaign of violence against the Pakistani people that now tragically includes the massacre of more than 100 schoolchildren and their teachers. From Somalia, al-Shabaab terrorists have launched attacks across East Africa. In Nigeria and neighboring countries, Boko Haram kills and kidnaps men, women and children.

At the United Nations in September, I called on the international community to come together and eradicate violent extremism. And I challenged countries to come to the General Assembly this fall with concrete steps we can take together. And I’m grateful for all of you for answering this call.

Yesterday at the White House, we welcomed community groups from the United States, and some from your countries, to focus on how we can empower communities to protect their families and friends and neighbors from violent ideologies and recruitment. And over the coming months, many of your countries will host summits to build on the work here and to prepare for the General Assembly. Today, I want to suggest some areas where I believe we can focus on as governments.

First, we must remain unwavering in our fight against terrorist organizations. And in Afghanistan, our coalition is focused on training and assisting Afghan forces, and we’ll continue to conduct counterterrorism missions against the remnants of al Qaeda in the tribal regions. When necessary, the United States will continue to take action against al Qaeda affiliates in places like Yemen and Somalia. We will continue to work with partners to help them build up their security forces so that they can prevent ungoverned spaces where terrorists find safe haven, and so they can push back against groups like al-Shabaab and Boko Haram.

In Iraq and Syria, our coalition of some 60 nations, including Arab nations, will not relent in our mission to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. And as a result of a separate ministerial here yesterday, many of our governments will be deepening our cooperation against foreign terrorist fighters by sharing more information and making it harder for fighters to travel to and from Syria and Iraq.

Related to this, and as I said at the United Nations last fall, nations need to break the cycles of conflict — especially sectarian conflict — that have become magnets for violent extremism. In Syria, Assad’s war against his own people and deliberate stoking of sectarian tensions helped to fuel the rise of ISIL. And in Iraq, with the failure of the previous government to govern in an inclusive manner, it helped to pave the way for ISIL’s gains there.

The Syrian civil war will only end when there is an inclusive political transition and a government that serves Syrians of all ethnicities and religions. And across the region, the terror campaigns between Sunnis and Shia will only end when major powers address their differences through dialogue, and not through proxy wars. So countering violent extremism begins with political, civic and religious leaders rejecting sectarian strife.

Second, we have to confront the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence. I discussed this at length yesterday. These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that groups like al Qaeda and ISIL are deliberately targeting their propaganda to Muslim communities, particularly Muslim youth. And Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, therefore have a responsibility to push back, not just on twisted interpretations of Islam, but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations; that America and the West are somehow at war with Islam or seek to suppress Muslims; or that we are the cause of every ill in the Middle East.

That narrative sometimes extends far beyond terrorist organizations. That narrative becomes the foundation upon which terrorists build their ideology and by which they try to justify their violence. And that hurts all of us, including Islam, and especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.

Obviously, there is a complicated history between the Middle East, the West. And none of us I think should be immune from criticism in terms of specific policies, but the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. And all of us, regardless of our faith, have a responsibility to reject it.

At the same time, former extremists have the opportunity to speak out, speak the truth about terrorist groups, and oftentimes they can be powerful messengers in debunking these terrorist ideologies. One said, “This wasn’t what we came for, to kill other Muslims.” Those voices have to be amplified.

And governments have a role to play. At minimum, as a basic first step, countries have a responsibility to cut off funding that fuels hatred and corrupts young minds and endangers us all. We need to do more to help lift up voices of tolerance and peace, especially online.

That’s why the United States is joining, for example, with the UAE to create a new digital communications hub to work with religious and civil society and community leaders to counter terrorist propaganda. Within the U.S. government, our efforts will be led by our new coordinator of counterterrorism communications — and I’m grateful that my envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, has agreed to serve in this new role. So the United States will do more to help counter hateful ideologies, and today I urge your nations to join us in this urgent work.

Third, we must address the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances. As I said yesterday, poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist, any more than poverty alone causes someone to become a criminal. There are millions, billions of people who are poor and are law-abiding and peaceful and tolerant, and are trying to advance their lives and the opportunities for their families.

But when people — especially young people — feel entirely trapped in impoverished communities, where there is no order and no path for advancement, where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support families, and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption — that feeds instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment. And we have seen that across the Middle East and we’ve seen it across North Africa. So if we’re serious about countering violent extremism, we have to get serious about confronting these economic grievances.

Here, at this summit, the United States will make new commitments to help young people, including in Muslim communities, to forge new collaborations in entrepreneurship and science and technology. All our nations can reaffirm our commitment to broad-based development that creates growth and jobs, not just for the few at the top, but for the many. We can step up our efforts against corruption, so a person can go about their day and an entrepreneur can start a business without having to pay a bribe.

And as we go forward, let’s commit to expanding education, including for girls. Expanding opportunity, including for women. Nations will not truly succeed without the contributions of their women. This requires, by the way, wealthier countries to do more. But it also requires countries that are emerging and developing to create structures of governance and transparency so that any assistance provided actually works and reaches people. It’s a two-way street.

Fourth, we have to address the political grievances that terrorists exploit. Again, there is not a single perfect causal link, but the link is undeniable. When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied — particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines — when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit. When peaceful, democratic change is impossible, it feeds into the terrorist propaganda that violence is the only answer available.

And so we must recognize that lasting stability and real security require democracy. That means free elections where people can choose their own future, and independent judiciaries that uphold the rule of law, and police and security forces that respect human rights, and free speech and freedom for civil society groups. And it means freedom of religion — because when people are free to practice their faith as they choose, it helps hold diverse societies together.

And finally, we have to ensure that our diverse societies truly welcome and respect people of all faiths and backgrounds, and leaders set the tone on this issue.

Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL peddle the lie that some of our countries are hostile to Muslims. Meanwhile, we’ve also seen, most recently in Europe, a rise in inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases, anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment. When people spew hatred towards others — because of their faith or because they’re immigrants — it feeds into terrorist narratives. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society in which they reside, it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey. And we can’t allow cycles of suspicions to tear at the fabric of our countries.

So we all recognize the need for more dialogues across countries and cultures; those efforts are indeed important. But what’s most needed today, perhaps, are more dialogues within countries — not just across faiths, but also within faiths.

Violent extremists and terrorists thrive when people of different religions or sects pull away from each other and are able to isolate each other and label them as “they” as opposed to “us;” something separate and apart. So we need to build and bolster bridges of communication and trust.

Terrorists traffic in lies and stereotypes about others — other religions, other ethnic groups. So let’s share the truth of our faiths with each other. Terrorists prey upon young impressionable minds. So let’s bring our youth together to promote understanding and cooperation. That’s what the United States will do with our virtual exchange program — named after Ambassador Chris Stevens — to connect 1 million young people from America and the Middle East and North Africa for dialogue. Young people are taught to hate. It doesn’t come naturally to them. We, adults, teach them.

I’d like to close by speaking very directly to a painful truth that’s part of the challenge that brings us here today. In some of our countries, including the United States, Muslim communities are still small, relative to the entire population, and as a result, many people in our countries don’t always know personally of somebody who is Muslim. So the image they get of Muslims or Islam is in the news. And given the existing news cycle, that can give a very distorted impression. A lot of the bad, like terrorists who claim to speak for Islam, that’s absorbed by the general population. Not enough of the good — the more than 1 billion people around the world who do represent Islam, and are doctors and lawyers and teachers, and neighbors and friends.

So we have to remember these Muslim men and women — the young Palestinian working to build understanding and trust with Israelis, but also trying to give voice to her people’s aspirations. The Muslim clerics working for peace with Christian pastors and priests in Nigeria and the Central African Republic to put an end to the cycle of hate. Civil society leaders in Indonesia, one of the world’s largest democracies. Parliamentarians in Tunisia working to build one of the world’s newest democracies.

Business leaders in India, with one of the world’s largest Muslim populations. Entrepreneurs unleashing new innovations in places like Malaysia. Health workers fighting to save lives from polio and from Ebola in West Africa. And volunteers who go to disaster zones after a tsunami or after an earthquake to ease suffering and help families rebuild. Muslims who have risked their lives as human shields to protect Coptic churches in Egypt and to protect Christians attending mass in Pakistan and who have tried to protect synagogues in Syria.

The world hears a lot about the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris, but the world has to also remember the Paris police officer, a Muslim, who died trying to stop them. The world knows about the attack on the Jews at the kosher supermarket in Paris; we need to recall the worker at that market, a Muslim, who hid Jewish customers and saved their lives. And when he was asked why he did it, he said, “We are brothers. It’s not a question of Jews or Christians or Muslims. We’re all in the same boat, and we have to help each other to get out of this crisis.”

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for being here today. We come from different countries and different cultures and different faiths, but it is useful for us to take our wisdom from that humble worker who engaged in heroic acts under the most severe of circumstances.

We are all in the same boat. We have to help each other. In this work, you will have a strong partner in me and the United States of America.

Thank you very much.

 

via Obama Speech at CVE Summit: Islamophobia fuels jihad | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.