Ad

top-story

Posts shown in the Top Stories box.

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 262015
 

By Raymond Ibrahim — April 24, 2015

As the world continues to look on in dismay at the barbaric atrocities committed against Christian minorities by the Islamic State—the self-proclaimed new “caliphate”—today, April 24, marks the genocide of Armenian and other Christian minorities by Turkey’s Islamic Ottoman Empire—the last caliphate.

april24-600

Most American historians who have examined the question agree that what the Armenians experienced was a deliberate, calculated genocide:

“More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse. A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years [that is, 2,500 years before the Islamic Turks invaded and occupied Anatolia, now known as “Turkey”] lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century. At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000.”

One-and-a-half Armenians were eradicated. If early 20th century Turkey had the apparatuses and technology to execute in mass—such as 1940s Germany’s gas chambers—the entire Armenian population could well have been annihilated.

The atrocities suffered by Armenian and other Christian minorities are too long to list. As occurs under the current caliphate—the Islamic State—the Muslims of the Ottoman caliphate abducted, raped, and slaughtered or sold countless Christian women and children on the Muslim slave markets.

Armenian Christians were also sadistically tortured—as Christians are today under the Islamic State. On FrontPage Magazine, Lloyd Billingsley writes:

“Torture squads would apply red-hot irons, tear off flesh with hot pincers, then pour boiled butter into the wounds. The soles of the feet would be beaten, slashed, and laced with salt. Dr. Mehmed Reshid tortured Armenians by nailing horseshoes to their feet and marching them through the streets. He also crucified them on makeshift crosses.

The Muslims hacked Armenians to pieces and dashed infants on the rocks before their mothers. They burned bodies not for sanitary reasons but in search of gold coins they believed the Armenians had swallowed. The Muslims also tore apart the victims’ feces in the search for gold. U.S. consul Leslie Davis, a former attorney and journalist, documented the Islamic zeal.

Muslims butchered Armenian Christians during the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Muslims butchered Armenian Christians during the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

“We could all hear them piously calling upon Allah to bless them in their efforts to kill the hated Christians,” Davis wrote. “Night after night this same chant went up to heaven and day after day these Turks carried on their bloody work.” Around Lake Goeljik, Davis wrote, “thousands and thousands of Armenians, mostly innocent and helpless women and children, were butchered on its shores and barbarously mutilated.”

In her memoir, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described being raped and thrown into a harem—akin to the experiences of today’s non-Muslims under Islamic State authority. Unlike thousands of other Armenian girls who were killed after being defiled, she managed to escape. She recalls seeing 16 Christian girls crucified in Malatia: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands, only their hair blown by the wind, covered their bodies.”

Because there is no dearth of evidence concerning the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, 44 U.S. States have recognized it. South Dakota, which recently joined the list, passed a resolution in February 2015 calling on

“Congress and the president of the United States to formally and consistently recognize and reaffirm the historical truth that the atrocities committed against the Armenian, Greek, and other Christians living in their historical homelands in Anatolia constituted genocide and to work towards equitable, stable, and durable Armenian-Turkish relations.”

Turkey, of course, continues to deny that its forbears ever committed any genocide. As a group of American academics wrote back in 1995,

“Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide—eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors—denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.”

Check out this (rather lengthy) video for more on the Armenian Genocide.


Nor is the Islamic government of Turkey alone in denying the genocide. President Obama still refuses to acknowledge it—even though when he was running for office in 2008 he professed his

“firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable…. [A]s President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide…. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president.”

Armenian Americans Protest Genocide Denial at the Turkish Embassy

Armenian Americans protest genocide denial at the Turkish Embassy

Since taking office, Obama has refused to stand by his word. On Tuesday, April 21, the White House announced that it would again, for the seventh year since Obama’s pledge, not use the word “genocide,” thereby disappointing many human rights activists.

Writes the New York Times:

“The president’s continued resistance to the word stood in contrast to a stance by Pope Francis, who recently called the massacres “the first genocide of the 20th century” and equated them to mass killings by the Nazis and Soviets. The European Parliament, which first recognized the genocide in 1987, passed a resolution last week calling on Turkey to “come to terms with its past.”

The Armenian National Committee of America responded by saying “The president’s surrender represents a national disgrace. It is a betrayal of the truth, and it is a betrayal of trust.” The Armenian Assembly of America said “His failure to use the term genocide represents a major blow for human rights advocates.”

But the president’s actions are consistent in other ways. Put differently, it is no marvel that Obama denies the genocide of Armenian and other Christian minorities at the hands of Muslims from a century ago, when one considers that he denies the rampant Muslim persecution of Christians taking place under—and often because of—his leadership today.

 

via Obama Breaks Promise on 100th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide | Human Events.

Apr 192015
 

by Daniel Greenfield — April 17, 2015 

“This is a place of inspiring memories. Here less than a thousand men, inspired by the urge of freedom, defeated a superior force intrenched in this strategic position,” President Herbert Hoover said.

“This small band of patriots turned back a dangerous invasion.”

But no matter how often dangerous invasions are defeated, they come again.

Monument to the Battle of Kings Mountain

Monument to the Battle of Kings Mountain

The thousand men that Hoover spoke of gained their victory at the Battle of Kings Mountain. The Spartan Regiment that fought there when, as Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “All the Southern lands lay at the feet of the conquerors” and “There was not a single organized body of American troops left” gave their name to Spartanburg, South Carolina.

And now, Spartanburg faces a dangerous invasion with only a handful of patriots inspired by the urge of freedom to stand against it.

The invasion is a silent and secret one. The soldiers come as refugees funneled through ratlines run by liberal churches and other pseudo-religious organizations. Tens of thousands of Muslim migrants come from conflict zones to small towns and cities across the country just like Spartanburg each year.

Muslim invasion taking place under Obama's watch and by his order.

Muslim invasion taking place under Obama’s watch and by his order.

But Spartanburg’s fighting spirit is still alive and Congressman Trey Gowdy, who represents the Spartanburg area, has challenged a plan to dump migrants, including possibly Syrians, there, inquiring whether they have criminal records and what background checks have been performed on them.

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Battle of Kings Mountain turned the tide in the Revolutionary War. Likewise the shot fired at Spartanburg may have great implications for the rest of the country. The invasion of Spartanburg is really an invasion of America through the Refugee Resettlement Program.

Most Americans know very little about the machinery of migration. They only notice that something is happening when their towns begin to change and their way of life begins to come apart. When they do think about immigration, their impression is of a massive howitzer cannon firing off new arrivals into major cities. Refugee resettlement however is more of a sniper rifle targeting places like Spartanburg with a limited number of arrivals that then begin to dramatically transform their host area through community organizations, localized welfare and the chain migration of families.

And then before you know it, what used to be Cedar-Riverside on the Mississippi is Little Mogadishu and what was Wilmar on the Great Northern Railway is Little Mogadishu and what was Lewiston of the mills is also another Little Mogadishu. And then eventually America becomes one big Mogadishu.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter signed Ted Kennedy’s Refugee Act into law. The Refugee Act used the UN definition of refugee while allowing up to 50,000 refugees to be admitted each year. The number has since increased with 70,000 refugees admitted last year alone. The ceiling for the number of refugees is determined each year. And that determination has a significant impact on the lives of Americans.

Refugee resettlement has long since become a machine bringing together an army of bureaucrats from a number of different offices with religious contractors who act as Volags, short for Voluntary Agencies, providing a pious justification for the colonization of the country while they gorge on taxpayer funds.

The list of Volags includes the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, but the refugees are rarely of their faith.

The number one language spoken by refugees admitted to the United States last year is Arabic. The third most common language is Somali.

Almost twice as many Somalis as Spanish-speakers were admitted as refugees last year. Minnesota alone has suffered under the weight of over 10,000 Somalis over the last decade. And the number of Somalis more than tripled under Obama, flooding communities and devastating entire areas of the country.

Obama has been silently bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims into American cities and towns since he first came into office in 2009.

Obama has been silently bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims into American cities and towns since he first came into office in 2009.

The number of Arabic speakers also drastically increased, going from under 10,000 to nearly 18,000. We took in four Arabic speaking refugees for every Spanish-speaking refugee.

While it might be nice to imagine that persecuted Christians or Yazidis are being taken in from Syria, the vast majority of refugees are Sunni Muslims, the same sect that birthed Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.

In one month, we took in 437 Sunni Muslims from Syria, 1 Catholic, 47 Christians and 1 Yazidi.

The Volags may invoke the Bible in defense of refugee resettlement, but they are invoking it in the service of the Koran. Whether a cross or a star dangles on the door, inside is the dark crescent of Islam.

Unlike most other forms of immigration, refugee resettlement is the most dangerous and the least likely to be questioned. Its tactic of dumping migrants into communities, which are swiftly forced to adapt to demands for interpreters, social services, welfare and violence, is clothed in the pious garb of religion.

While the government gives religious groups money, they give it moral shielding, and the local people lose their rights, their homes, their money and sometimes their lives. But the attack on Spartanburg has brought attention to the practices of this secretive and deceptive program.

Congressman Gowdy’s letter is an important first step in casting light on its shadowy practices. While many Americans who have lost jobs, homes and loved ones to this terrible tide have come to despair, the lesson of Spartanburg remains with us. A handful of patriots prevailed in South Carolina against superior odds when the cause seemed abandoned and lost, when the armies that should have stood had broken and only a handful of rebels remained from what had once been a great cause.

America was built by handfuls of patriots doing their part in the right place at the right time. We remember the pivotal movements, but we often forget the length of the road to their victories.

All the statistics and information in this article came from one site, Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch.

On July 1st, 2007, Ann debuted her first post, a fact sheet on Refugee Resettlement. Ten days later, she recorded 200 views and commented that, “If the mainstream media won’t touch this issue, won’t investigate it or debate it, guess we will be going around them directly to you.”

American.Muslim.girlToday Ann continues to drive the debate in directions the media doesn’t want. Her work has reached Gowdy’s attention and it has armed thousands of citizen activists with the information that they need to protect their homes, their communities and their country. She is an example of how we can all make a difference by tackling individual issues overlooked by many with thoroughness, clarity and depth.

“It was a little army and a little battle, but it was of mighty portent,” Hoover said of the Spartan Regiment and the Battle of Kings Mountain.

Even if we do not form great armies and fight great battles, we can all be little armies fighting little battles and it may be that we shall one day learn that these little battles were of mighty portent.

America faces battles on many fronts. The greatest of these is the battle for our identity. We fight for our right to be who we are. Who we always were. The mass migration is not immigration, it is colonization. Its goal is to destroy the American system by destroying the American spirit.

When we fight even the little battles for our way of life, we keep that spirit, the spirit of the Spartan Regiment, the spirit of Spartanburg, alive.

 

via An Invasion of Refugees.

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 132015
 

By Tim Mak –April 13, 2015

Florida activists helped propel Marco Rubio into the Senate—but many say they feel betrayed by him, and they won’t support his presidential bid.
Rubio

Marco Rubio – RINO Traitor

MIAMI—In the early days of Marco Rubio’s campaign for U.S. Senate, he spoke at one of the first Tea Party rallies in the state of Florida. As Rubio began to speak about not wanting to lose his country to socialism, lightning reportedly began to flash. It was to be either an omen of the betrayal his Tea Party supporters would later feel, or a foreshadowing of the powerful potential this young Cuban American had for higher office. It had taken a month for his hometown newspaper, the Miami Herald, to notice that the 38-year-old Miami lawyer, once a leader in the state House, had formally joined the race. He didn’t even hold a launch event when he registered as a candidate for U.S. Senate in early 2009. “It was lonely out there. He was living off the land, ” an early supporter said. “If he had held a launch event for his U.S. Senate campaign, you could have held it in a phone booth. ”It was the excitement of the Florida Tea Party movement, which exploded into the public consciousness in the spring and summer of 2009, that ultimately transformed Rubio into a serious contender. Across the board in 2010, the Tea Party played a huge role. They got people out to vote, they were active, they were knocking on doors, making phone calls. There were little spots during the campaign where you just felt the momentum,” said Anthony Bustamante, Rubio’s former statewide field director and one of the first half-dozen staffers to join the Senate campaign.
Rubio betrayed Tea Party supporters when he worked with Democrats on an amnesty bill that would screw the American worker.

Rubio betrayed Tea Party supporters when he worked with Democrats on an amnesty bill that would screw the American worker.

But don’t count on many of those original Florida Tea Party supporters to be in the crowd Monday evening when Rubio is expected to launch his bid for the White House with dramatic fanfare at Miami’s Freedom Tower, converted in the 1990s as a monument to Cuban refugees.

Six years after the movement’s initial rallies, marches, and demonstrations, Tea Party activists feel let down and betrayed by their native son.

“I’m through with him. He will never get my vote. ‘Disappointed’ would mean that he has an opportunity to restore his credibility, and there is no opportunity for that,” said KrisAnne Hall, an attorney and Tea Party activist from north-central Florida. “The overwhelming perception is that Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party candidate.”
Some Florida Tea Party supporters still wax nostalgic about the early, hopeful days of the Rubio Senate campaign.“When he was first running for Senate, I was a big fan… He walked the neighborhood both inside and outside his district, knocked on doors and asked what people’s needs were, what their issues were.

I smell a rat.... A Rubio rat!!

I smell a rat…. A Rubio rat!!

I was so impressed with that,” said Lisa Becker, who helped run A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots, a Tea Party group geared toward mothers.“Then,” Becker continued, “he got into office.” “Once he got into Washington, he had his sights set early on higher office,” said Jason Hoyt, a Tea Party organizer from central Florida. “He surrounded himself with people who were going to help him navigate Washington to get there, and in that process he disconnected from his base.” Becker still acknowledges Rubio’s charisma and oratorical abilities. But now she thinks she might have been played. “Now I wonder if he was ever listening or it was just a ploy to get votes… He says all the right things to the audience he needs, and we in Florida are no longer his audience. His new audience is national voters who might elect him president,” she said.“ We were hungry for leadership on our principles and values, but it didn’t come from Marco,” Hoyt added. “I thought it would.”
rubio-opportunityMany Tea Partiers point to Rubio’s work in the Senate as part of the so-called Gang of Eight, who tried to come to a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive immigration reform. It ultimately failed, but many on the right will not forgive what they disdain as the senator’s support for “amnesty.” At the Conservative Political Action Conference this year, Rubio tried to distance himself from his work on immigration, saying he had learned his lesson — that broad-based reform was only possible after complete border security. Some libertarian-leaning Tea Party activists also point to foreign policy and national security as issues on which he let them down. Hall, the attorney from north-central Florida, listed off the offenses: Rubio’s support for indefinite detention, support for arming the Syrian rebels, support for the war against ISIS without explicit congressional approval, and support for the NSA. “If he had been listening when he was knocking on those doors, he would have found out what matters. Being in perpetual war matters to families,” Becker said. Bustamante, Rubio’s former statewide field director, plays down any discontentment Florida Tea Party activists feel about the Florida Republican senator. “I don’t think there’s a rift. The Tea Party embraced Marco. I think they still hold them up as one of their own,” he said.Tom Gaitens, who knew Rubio in the state House and formerly worked for the conservative group FreedomWorks, said he had forgiven Rubio for the sin of working with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform.“The only perfect guy I ever met was Jesus Christ, in my heart. What I care about is that they stand up and show courage, and I think Marco has done that every step of the way,” Gaitens said.

Marco Rubio showing how much he appreciates those who put him in office!

Marco Rubio showing how much he appreciates those who put him in office!

And Rubio is still an insurgent. He is far from the front-runner in the large Republican presidential field.

It’s a position where he has thrived: Bustamante recalled the early “startup” days of the Rubio Senate campaign, where they drove 10 hours round trip to Jacksonville just to make $900.

Rubio is not running a startup anymore. He’s running a full-fledged business that hopes to raise millions to elevate him to the White House.

 

This time, though, he’ll do it without the support of many of the grassroots activists who propelled him to the Senate hoping for a Tea Party champion.

 

 

via Tea Partiers Rage Against Rubio 2016 – The Daily Beast.

Apr 132015
 

By Colin Flaherty — April 13, 2015

Louisville has a new hero: A black judge unafraid to stand up to the relentless white racism that is everywhere, all the time, and explains everything.

Judge Olu Stevens - Racist Judge

Judge Olu Stevens – Racist Judge

And the racist at the receiving end of Judge Olu Stevens’ courageous scorn? A three-year-old girl.

This profile in courage began two years ago when two black men burst into the home of Jordan and Tommy Gray, parents of the aforementioned offender. They held the family at gunpoint, making all the required threats about hurting them if they did not turn over all the valuable things that were probably hiding in their modest domicile.

The little girl was watching the Sponge Bob Square Pants cartoon show which, as any capable observer would know, is just another example of the embedded and unconscious racism that is buried so deeply is so many white people, to borrow a phrase from the President of the United States.

Not buried so deeply were the family’s valuables: The home invaders left with a cell phone and $1000 cash the family had been saving for vacation.

This of course was strike two: According to the Seattle public school district, saving is example of “future time orientation,” and that is a white thing.  Only racists would expect black people to “exhibit” that.

Just in case you are not up on the full definition of “racism,” here it is, courtesy of Seattle Public Schools:

“Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard.”

Soon after the robbery, the little girl told her mother that she was afraid of black people.  And the mother told the judge in her victim’s statement.

Judge Stevens did not care for that.

Like justice coming down like rain, Judge Stevens poured his righteous indignation down on them. The family, that is. Not the criminals. All on video.

 

“There’s a victim impact statement here that bothers me, to be honest with you,” said Judge Stevens. “I assume the victims in this case are white?” he asked the prosecutor, who was hoping for a 20-year sentence for the miscreant. (The gun-toting home invader, not the infantile racist.)

“It troubles me greatly,” said the judge, as he read the mother’s account of how this robbery has traumatized her child. Again, just for the sake of clarity, the judge was not troubled at the trauma the little girl experienced, he was troubled at the trauma he was experiencing that anyone would could be aware that black crime and violence in Louisville is wildly out of proportion.

The mother and child’s reaction was similar to what the Reverend Jesse Jackson said about black crime: “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Quotation-Jesse-Jackson-life-Meetville

“Really?” Judge Stevens asked after reading the mother’s account of her daughter’s fear of black men following the robbery.

“I want to make that part of the record, I am offended by that,” said the judge.

And just in case anyone did not get the message the first several times, the judge took it to a new level: “I am deeply offended by that.”

He blamed the child’s racism on the parents for “fostering” it. And all of sudden the victims of the racial violence were now the perpetrators.

And the perpetrators? They were the victims.

The judge then faced the one remaining home invader that was left to be sentenced and told him he believed he could be redeemed through the saving power of probation. Not prison.

This was the second recent case of toddler racism exposed in the public square in the last two months. The first came on the floor of the Indiana State legislature when Rep. Vanessa Summers presaged the happenings in the Louisville courtroom.

“As an African American female,” explained Rep. Vanessa Summers, “I get discriminated against, you don’t,” she told a white legislator.

“I have told Representative McMillin I love his little son, but he’s scared of me because of my color. And that’s horrible. And that’s something we’re going to work on. We’ve talked about it. And we’re going to work on it.”

“I asked him ‘please, introduce your child to some people of color so that he won’t live his life as a prejudiced person.’ ”

McMillin’s 18-month old racist son was not available to confirm or deny the allegations.

I am going to invoke a bit of author’s privilege here to list my own personal favorite of how another brave black judge stood up to the forces of white racism.

Judge Wayne Bennett - Another racist judge.

Judge Wayne Bennett – Another racist judge.

The judge was Wayne Bennett who, when he is not contributing to his popular Field Negro blog, plies his trade as a jurist in the Philadelphia family court. The occasion was a newspaper column from Dr. Thomas Sowell, saying that before he read White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it (that scintillating best seller from your humble correspondent) he did not really know how bad the problem of black mob violence really was.

Judge Bennett did not like that.

“I call bull s**t,” quoth the judge. “Here is the deal, no matter how violent some young black punks act and wild out towards groups of white people — or a single white individual, it will never make up for all the violence that was practiced against people of color throughout this nation’s history.”

Translation: White people deserve it.

 

 

via Articles: Black Judge heaps Scorn on Three-year old Racist.

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 042015
 

by Ryan T. Anderson — April 03, 2015

As the loud opposition to Indiana’s religious freedom law subsides, plenty of confusion needs to be cleared up.

Religious Freedom is one of the most important founding principles of American thought and is at the core of American exceptionalism.

Religious Freedom is one of the most important founding principles of American thought and is at the core of American exceptionalism.

We need to explain to our friends what religious liberty is, why it matters, and what the consequences are of undermining it or, as is the case with the “fix” enacted in Indiana, restricting its protections.

Now is a good time to take a step back. As Americans approach Passover and Easter, it’s worth remembering why religious liberty matters in the first place. For that, we can turn to our Founding Fathers. After all, they were the ones who established a political society unlike any other in all of human history—meant to not merely “tolerate” the religious practice of minorities, but to protect the natural right of all Americans to liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religion.

George Washington

George Washington

George Washington, in his Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., perhaps said it best:

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

One of the hallmarks of conscience and religious liberty protections is that they protect people of all faiths, even if their beliefs seem unfounded, flawed, implausible or downright silly.

Recognition of a right to religious freedom does not, however, depend on religious skepticism or relativism. Rather, it rests on the intelligible value of the religious quest—the activities of seeking to understand the truth about ultimate questions and then conforming one’s life accordingly, with authenticity and integrity.

People have rights—including the right to pursue religious truth and, within the limits of justice and the common good, to act on their judgments of what truth demands. That’s what Religious Freedom Restoration Acts do. They prohibit the government from placing substantial burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and do so through the least restrictive means.

All people possess these fundamental rights, even when they are, in some respects, in error. Kevin Seamus Hasson, the founder of the Becket Fund, captured this in the title of his book “The Right to Be Wrong.” Hasson rightly argues that religious liberty is for A to Z, Anglicans to Zoroastrians.

This basic view of religious liberty has found a place in our civil law. James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” puts the point well: “The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.” Madison argued that it is an “arrogant pretension” to believe that “the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth.”

The right to religious liberty has its primary force precisely because of a priorduty to pursue the good of religion by seeking out the truth about God and the cosmos. As Madison explained:

What is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.

The government protects the space for citizens to fulfill this duty according to their own best judgments. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell makes just this point in an essay for the Yale Law Journal:

In the liberal tradition, the government’s role is not to make theological judgments but to protect the right of the people to pursue their own understanding of the truth, within the limits of the common good. That is the difference between “the full and free exercise of religion” (Madison’s formulation) and mere “toleration.” Toleration presupposes a “dominant group” with a particular opinion about religion (that it is “false,” or at least “unwarranted”), who decide not to “eradicate” beliefs they regard as “wrong, mistaken, or undesirable.”

The Founders got it right. Religious liberty isn’t about mere “toleration” from a dominant group that graciously opts not to coerce others. No, it’s a natural right, which all must respect within the context of justice and the common good—compelling state interests pursued in least restrictive ways. Indiana’sReligious Freedom Restoration Act would protect just that.

** See the video below to better understand why what Mike Pence did in Indiana has essentially weakened the religious freedom of Indiana citizens by weakening the very protection that the law was designed to insure.  Great job Mr Pence!

 

 

via What Would the Founders Think About Religious Liberty and Indiana?.

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 202015
 

By F. W. Burleigh — March 20, 2015

For insight into the workings of Muhammad’s mind, consider Chapter 33 of his Koran, entitled “The Confederates.” 

This is one of the chapters Muhammad composed in Yathrib (later called Medina) where he fled after his Meccan compatriots determined they needed to kill him to preserve their way of life.   mo brain

The chapter is like a wild theme park ride that races in and out of numerous topics.  In the 73 verses that make up the chapter, Muhammad covers the following, using the God-voice he adopted for the Koran: He recaps a recent battle with the Meccans and excoriates people who were afraid to fight and die for him; he gloats about his extermination of the men and boys of one of the Jewish tribes of Yathrib, the confiscation of their property, and the enslavement of their women and children; he authorizes himself to take as many wives as he likes, permits himself to marry the wife of his adopted son, forbids himself from taking any more wives after he has taken as many as he likes, but allows himself sex slaves.

As the verses of this “revelation” continue, Muhammad imposes full body and face cover for women when outside the home, threatens people with humiliating punishment in the afterlife for annoying him, threatens to murder his critics, prohibits the practice of adoption, and dishes up images of sadistic torture in Hell awaiting people who don’t believe in him.  He also praises himself as a “lamp spreading light,” and holds his behavior as a “beautiful pattern” for people to follow if they want to score well with Allah.

Among the verses is a celestial advisory that he must be obeyed:

“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”  (Koran 33:36)  [All of the Koran quotes in this article are taken from the Yusuf Ali translation.]

Despite their tediousness, it is worth exploring some of these verses because, in addition to providing evidence of his strange mentality, they also show that his Koran was like a blog in which he commented on the happenings of the moment.  The happenings of the moment recorded in Chapter 33 had to do with war, sex, and Muhammad’s betrayal of his adopted son.

In the war part of these verses, Muhammad covers the Meccan assault on Yathrib that came to be known as the Battle of the Trench, so named because of a three-mile defensive trench he dug around vulnerable parts of the valley to fend off the attackers.  By the time of this battle, he had been waging war on the Meccans for almost five years.  The two major battles of Badr and Uhud had already  been fought.[1]

The Battle of the Trench was the third major fight, which took place in A.D. 627.  The Meccans attacked with an army of 12,000 warriors, drawn from numerous tribes who were itching for payback for all the harm Muhammad had caused them.  But they were unable to get beyond the trench and finally gave up after a fierce windstorm leveled their encampments.

Verses 9 to 25 recap the action, but most are Muhammad’s diatribe against cowardly or fake believers who he was certain would have betrayed him had been given the opportunity.  But he declares that Allah did not provide them with the opportunity because he sent the windstorm that disheartened the invaders and sent them packing.  The battle was a test of faith of the believers who held firm, and Allah knows how to reward those who hold firm in their faith.

And rewarded they were: After the invaders left, Muhammad attacked the only remaining Jewish tribe of Yathrib and ended up distributing their wealth to the faithful.  When he arrived in the valley, half of its 20,000 population was Jewish, divided among three major tribes.  By the time of the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad had forced out two of the Jewish tribes.  Hoping to escape the same fate, the remaining tribe at first insisted on not taking sides during the Meccan attack, then agreed to aid the invaders, but then backed out of it.  Muhammad used this as an excuse to behead all of the men and boys.

About this massacre, Muhammad has Allah say:

“And those of the People of the Book (the Jews) who aided them (the invaders) – Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.  And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before).  And Allah has power over all things.” (Verses 26-27)
The fundamental problem with Islam is the belief that God talked to Muhammad and dictated the contents of the Koran to him. Muslims are indoctrinated into believing this is so, and they act on the numerous incitements to violence that they find in it.

The fundamental problem with Islam is the belief that God talked to Muhammad and dictated the contents of the Koran to him. Muslims are indoctrinated into believing this is so, and they act on the numerous incitements to violence that they find in it.

 

As with much of the Koran, substitute Muhammad for Allah and the real meaning comes through. What these verses mean in plain language is that the Jews surrendered after a three-week siege, hoping Muhammad would exile them as he had done to the other Jewish tribes, but he beheaded the men and boys — somewhere between 400 and 900 with 700 being the likely number of victims.  He happily seized all of their wealth of farms, date plantations, fortresses, and homes, and he enslaved all of the woman and children. The booty was distributed among his followers who participated in the siege — minus the 20 percent cut he kept for himself.  The likely reason he attacked the Jews was to seize their wealth to pay off his followers for the hardships they had endured during the Battle of the Trench.  The fact they had briefly taken sides with the Meccans was merely the pretext.[2]

The chapter continues with blog entries concerning his marriage to Zaynab, the wife of Zayd, a slave whom he had adopted three decades earlier.[3]  Muhammad added Zaynab to his harem after pressuring Zayd to divorce her. He lusted for her and wanted her for himself, his adopted son be damned.  This marriage scandalized even some of the truest believers because it was considered taboo among the Arabs for a father to take the wife of his son.  Muhammad made use of Allah to finesse the matter.  To deal with his critics, he had Allah dissolve the practice of adoption and declared that not only was his adopted son no longer his son, but he had never been his son because adoption was a human invention and was displeasing to Allah.  Therefore, Muhammad declared he was blameless in the matter.  Moreover, Allah had granted him the right to marry Zaynab, “and Allah’s command must be fulfilled.”  (Verse 37)  When critics kept up their attacks, Muhammad threatened them with bloody murder: “They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).”  (Verse 61)

From a seraglio painting by Austro-French painter Rudolf Ernst (1854-1932). Ernst called it "The Favorite of the Farm," but for the sake of illustration, we have retitled it, "Muhammad with the Wife of his Adopted Son."

From a seraglio painting by Austro-French painter Rudolf Ernst (1854-1932). Ernst called it “The Favorite of the Farm,” but for the sake of illustration, we have retitled it, “Muhammad with the Wife of his Adopted Son.”

This amazing chapter continues with details about the wedding banquet with Zaynab.  It so happened that his anger was sparked when some of the male wedding guests dallied after the banquet was over.  This irked Muhammad to no end, perhaps in part because he was eager to sleep with Zaynab, and they kept him from her, but also because he suspected the men had lingered in order to ogle his bride.  He composed Verses 28-34 that warn all of his wives to watch their behavior.  Then in verse 59, he decides good behavior is not enough.  His wives and all believing women from then on had to cover up so that no part of their body was on display outside of the home. Thus the inspiration for burka was born:

“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Verse 59)

But still sulking from the fact that some of male believers — believers in the oneness of Allah and in Muhammad as his messenger, no less! — ogled his woman at the banquet, Muhammad has Allah take time out from ruling the universe to teach such people manners.  In Verse 53, he scolds them for behaving in a way that was upsetting to him, and still fuming over it, his anger spills over into Verse 57 where he threatens hellfire as punishment for anyone who upsets him.

These verses don’t have a firm order.  A topic is taken up, then dropped, only to resume again in later verses.  It makes it difficult to follow, even for people who know the details of Muhammad’s life.

Three of the sequential verses (50-52) have to do with the wives that Muhammad allows himself, and in their blatantly self-serving way they are perhaps the most amusing lines of the Koran:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for thee, and not for the Believers.” (Verse 50) 
Muhammad with his many wives.

Muhammad with his many wives.

In the verse that follows, he allows himself to rotate among his wives however he pleases.  In Verse 52, he tells himself it is not lawful for him to marry any more women after all the above have been married “even though their beauty attracts” him, nor to change them for other wives.  However, he allows himself the option of taking slaves as wives.

The chapter is full of self-praise, selfies taken on a celestial selfie stick.  

Verse 21: “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.”  Verses 45-46: “O Prophet! Truly We have sent thee as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner.  And as one who invites to Allah’s (grace) by His leave, and as a lamp spreading light.”

More self-praise can be found in Verse 56 wherein he advises believers to bless him and “salute him with all respect,” because that is what Allah and Allah’s angels do to him.

This is followed by a suite of verses that rail against people who refuse to believe that God talks to him, salutes him, and blesses him.  He threatens infidels that they will pay for their lack of belief in him in blazing hellfire.  “Our Lord! Give them double Penalty and curse them with a very great Curse!” he says in Verse 68.

The Koran is full of such self-regard and oozes with Muhammad’s hatred for people who rejected him. But it is not necessary to read the entire book to realize it is the product on an extremely, shall we say, unusual mind.

Islam is all about Muhammad and his claim that God talked to him.  His claim of communion with the divine was quite possibly brought about by epileptic fits caused by a malformed temporal lobe.  The combination of his belief that he had a special mission, self-regard and fury towards those who do not conform to his edicts informs the faith he founded. Islam represents the institutionalized version of his vision.

All you have to do to understand the truth about the mind that created Islam and the ideology that is threatening the world is to read Chapter 33 of Muhammad’s Koran, which means “Recital.” Here is the Yusuf Ali translation of Chapter 33  (variously called The Clans, The Coalition, The Confederates)

F. W. Burleigh is the author of It’s All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet.  He blogs at www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com.


[1] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1955, pp. 450-460.

[2] Ibid., pp. 461-468.

[3] Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Darussalam, 2000, vol. 7, pp. 695-699. (The Tafsir is a 10-volume exegesis of the Koran by the 14th century scholar Ibn Kathir.)

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.