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.
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.
“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.”
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
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.
“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.
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.
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!
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?
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!
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….
Is Barack Obama a Muslim or even an Islamist? Or is there another explanation for his open, heartfelt affinity for all things 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.”
And 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?
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.
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.
America 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.
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?!
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
A beleaguered House Speaker John Boehner is suddenly relying on Democrats rather than his fellow Republicans.
For the second day in a row, Wednesday, his House leadership team turned to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats to help pass major legislation and overcome determined opposition from dozens of GOP conservatives.
It’s a far cry from January, when Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress, and Boehner, R-Ohio, returned to Capitol Hill buoyed by expectations of a fruitful relationship with the new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell.
And conservatives fear it will swing the Republican agenda to the left, and push them permanently to the sidelines.
“We were hoping to move everything to the right, “Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told the Washington Examiner after casting a “no” vote on a bill authorizing spending on Amtrak, which passed with overwhelming Democratic support and substantial Republican opposition. “Looks like to me they are moving it to the Left. They’ve given up on us so they are going to the Democrats to get votes.”
The House easily passed the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act, which cuts federal funding authorization for Amtrak by 40 percent, but did not go far enough for conservatives. It also, reforms the railway’s accounting system so that the profitable Northeast corridor routes can keep and reinvest more money.
The bill passed 316 to 101, but 184 of the votes to pass it came from Democrats. The legislation, opposed by fiscal hawks at such organizations as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth, got 132 GOP votes, but 101 Republicans, including eight committee chairmen, voted against it. Those opponents came mostly from the party’s right wing, and Rep. Tom McClintock of California had earlier in the day tried to amend the bill to end federal subsidies for passenger rail entirely.
The vote came just one day after House Republican leaders pushed through a key bill with the votes of Democrats rather than of their own conference members. Tuesday’s bill funded the Department of Homeland Security until Sept. 30 without curbing President Obama’s executive order shielding millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. In that vote, too, conservatives were sidelined.
The $40 billion Homeland Security measure came to the floor after Boehner allegedly cut a deal with Pelosi, D-Calif., last week.
Boehner is looking more like the Benedict Arnold of Republican Party
“Who is really running the floor over here?” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said. “John Boehner has so lost control of the House. He has to call Nancy Pelosi.”
Republican leadership aides deny a move to shift the legislation to the left in order to win over Democrats and skirt conservative opposition.
Before agreeing to a “clean” bill, Boehner spent weeks holding out for a Homeland Security bill that defunded Obama’s executive actions.
“The speaker and our entire leadership team’s goal is always to work with the entire House Republican conference to get the best possible conservative public policy,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Examiner.
But dozens of conservative lawmakers have been making it difficult for House Republican leaders.
Last week, conservative opposition forced House GOP leaders to pull legislation from the floor that would have revamped the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act. Conservatives said it did not go far enough to free local education from federal control. Now the bill’s future is uncertain.
More conservative opposition lies ahead as lawmakers begin grappling with whether to restore spending hikes that were capped under the 2011 Budget Control Act, also known as the sequester. Conservatives don’t want to lift the budget caps imposed by the law, while other Republicans are in favor of lifting the caps to allow more government spending, particularly for defense.
Conservatives are also likely to oppose raising the nation’s debt limit once again, which will be on the table this summer.
Some Republicans say the conservative opposition means the GOP leadership has little choice but to partner with Democrats.
Boehner and Obama playing golf…. – We should have taken him out when we had the chance.
“These are difficult choices for the Republican leadership,” Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told the Examiner. “Congress has not been productive. They are trying to show the American people we can move things forward in a positive fashion. The reality of it is, sometimes you have to compromise.”
Republicans on Wednesday touted the Amtrak bill as a modernization and reform measure for the money-losing passenger rail system.
The bill authorizes a pilot program that would allow private companies to take over some rail routes and implements new taxpayer safeguards.
Lawmakers from both parties cheered the legislation on the House floor as an example of Congress steering clear of the gridlock that has become customary and passing a bill that has a chance of becoming law.
“Considering what is going on in Congress now, this bill is my idea of a perfect situation,” Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., said. “We didn’t get everything we wanted, they didn’t get some of the amendments they wanted, yet we are moving forward.”
But conservatives were fuming.
The legislation was a capitulation to Democrats, they said, because it doesn’t cut actual spending on Amtrak, (authorization merely approves funding). Amtrak funding has remained at about $1.4 billion. And the pilot privatization program involves only two routes.
The bill authorizes $7.2 billion in spending on Amtrak and other rail programs through 2019.
Conservatives said it cost too much.
“We are forgetting our core principles as a party,” Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., warned, as he headed in to vote against the bill. “And I think you need to lead with those core principles. If Boehner continues to reach out to Democrats to pass legislation, it’s going to continue to divide the party. Not just here, but across the nation.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is addressing a joint meeting of Congress; here is a running transcript of his remarks.
NETANYAHU: Thank you.
… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.
I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.
My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.
I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.
I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.
Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.
Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.
In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.
Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.
Netanyahu addresses the US Congress on March 3rd, 2015
Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.
My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.
We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.
That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”
I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.
Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.
In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.
So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.
We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.
Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.
Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
Netanyahu’s speech is interrupted with applause nearly forty times and he receives many standing ovations during his address to Congress
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.
And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.
Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.
But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.
Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.
Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.
And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors – Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.
This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks – if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.
If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.
If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.
Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.
Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.
A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…
… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.
Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.
The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.
You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.
My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”
And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.
But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.
This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.
But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.
I know that you stand with Israel.
You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.
And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”
My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.
May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.
Thankfully, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani shows no sign of backing down.
To reinforce his claim that Obama did not “love this country,” Giuliani explained his thinking to the New York Daily News.
“I don’t [see] this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t,” Giuliani told reporter Celeste Katz. “Logically, think about his background.. . . The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old.”
The communist in question, as Giuliani clarified, was Frank Marshall Davis. In fact, Obama was likely ten years old when his grandfather Stanley Dunham introduced young Barry to Davis, but otherwise Giuliani was correct. In so saying, he may well have been the first prominent political figure of either party to mention Davis in public, a testament to the dread of being branded racist that paralyzes the political class. For that matter, the New York Daily News is the rare mainstream media outpost to mention Davis, a collective oversight that flirts with conspiracy.
Obama and his mentor Communist Frank Marshall Davis
Although Obama’s mother and grandfather both leaned strongly to the left, Davis, as Giuliani suggested, was the first capital “C” Communist to influence Obama. Davis, as they say, had some “issues.” He was not only a Communist, but also a bisexual pornographer and nude photographer with at least a fictional taste for underage sex partners.
“Here are the facts and they are indisputable,” wrote historian Paul Kengor in his insightful book, The Communist — Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, “Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro-Red China, card-carrying member of Communist Party (CPUSA). His Communist Party card number was 47544.”
As Kengor observed, Obama dedicated 2500 words in Dreams to Davis, who “surfaces repeatedly from start to finish, from Hawaii to Los Angeles to Chicago to Germany to Kenya . . . from the 1970s to the 1980s to the 1990s.”
As critical as Davis was to the formation of the fatherless Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Maraniss managed to write a 10,000-word piece for the Washington Post on Obama’s early years in August 2008 without a single mention of Davis. In the runup to the election, when the Maraniss article was published, the many Obama enthusiasts in the Post audience no more wanted to read about Davis’s unseemly hobbies than Maraniss wanted to write about them. Win-win.
Obama and his admirers in the media understood that this was a relationship best kept under wraps. Davis never renounced his Communist past. As his FBI file reveals, the Hawaiian Communist Party simply went underground and infiltrated the Democratic Party.
Maraniss could barely bring himself to talk about Davis even in his lengthy 2012 biography of Obama’s early years, Barack Obama: The Story. He suggested, in fact, that Obama included “Frank” in his memoir Dreams from My Father because he “tended to focus on characters who could accentuate his journey toward blackness.”
Given the depth of his research, Maraniss had to know what he was hiding. Davis, in fact, played such an essential role in Obama’s formation that, as Maraniss admitted in the biography, he became “a subject of some of [Obama’s] teenage poetry.” Obama has had at least two poems about Davis published. “An Old Man” appeared in his prep school’s literary magazine. “Pop” appeared in Occidental College’s. “Pop” tells how Davis and the underage Obama got drunk together and hints perhaps at a sexual dalliance as well.
Obama and Davis – At best an illicit relationship.
These poems may have been part of a trilogy. A few years prior, Davis had written a poem called “To a Young Man,” which also described the relationship of a naïve young man with a cynical old man but from the older man’s perspective. A close textual reading leads one to suspect that Davis wrote all three of these poems, including the two fronted by Obama.
When Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum showed Obama “An Old Man” in 2008, Obama responded, “That’s not bad. I wrote that in high school?” He recovered quickly, adding, “It sounds in spirit that it’s talking a little bit about my grandfather.” No, the poem in question, the “it,” was not talking about Stanley Dunham. The named author of the poem was talking about Davis. The two were that close.
In his Obama biography The Bridge, New Yorker editor and Obama fanboy David Remnick dismissed the charges of “communist” and “pornographer” against Davis as mere noise from the “right-wing blogosphere.” He preferred to introduce Davis as an “aging poet and journalist” whose relationship with Obama was of “no great ideological importance.” In one of those unguarded moments that shine a bright light on the liberal brain, Remnick described Dunham’s introduction of his grandson to this Communist, pornographer and possible pedophile as “one of the more thoughtful and consequential things Stanley did in his role as surrogate grandfather.”
Okay, enough of these irrelevancies, let’s get back to the real news, Scott Walker’s senior year at Marquette.
** Below is a video of Rudy Giuliani having to put up with that air-headed talking head at Fox News, Megyn Kelly. If you watch it to the end you will see that he is certain about his position and in spite of Fox’s agenda to cause him to recant, or at least walk back his comments, he stubbornly refuses to do it. This is a man with conviction who is willing to say out loud what the majority of the American people know to be true.
Attendees at Obama’s pro-Muslim propaganda event the Countering Violent Extremism Summit
Remember, this was supposed to be a summit to address the global jihad — the war to impose an Islamic State across the world. Instead, Muhammad is using it to spread Islam. Muhammad — that’s what they call Obama on the Muslim street.
DC: American and European citizens and journalists are spurring jihadi violence by protesting the arrival of Muslim populations into their societies, President Barack Obama declared Thursday.
“We’ve also seen, most recently in Europe, a rise in inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases, anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment,” Obama told a Feb. 19 audience of U.S. and foreign officials and advocates, who met to discuss ways to minimize jihadi violence.
Peaceful criticism of Islamic culture is bad, he suggested. ”When people spew hatred toward others — because of their faith or because they’re immigrants — it feeds into terrorist narratives. … It feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey,” he said.
So “we have to ensure that our diverse societies truly welcome and respect people of all faiths and backgrounds,” said Obama.
Obama delivering his lies at the CVE Summit
President Obama spoke on the third day of the White House three-day summit on countering violent extremism. He said the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an “ugly lie.” He also called on countries to have Muslim people in their country be more included in society. He said that when people feel marginalized that opens a door for the terrorist ideology. He called on countries to address the grievances of oppressed people because they fuel people to join with extremists.
Thanks to Kenneth (transcript of Obama’s remarks)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, distinguished guests, we are joined by representatives from governments, because we all have a responsibility to ensure the security, the prosperity and the human rights of our citizens. And we’re joined by leaders of civil society, including many faith leaders, because civil society — reflecting the views and the voices of citizens — is vital to the success of any country. I thank all of you and I welcome all of you.We come together from more than 60 countries from every continent. We speak different languages, born of different races and ethnic groups, belong to different religions. We are here today because we are united against the scourge of violent extremism and terrorism.
As we speak, ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq and engaging in unspeakable cruelty. The wanton murder of children, the enslavement and rape of women, threatening religious minorities with genocide, beheading hostages. ISIL-linked terrorists murdered Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula, and their slaughter of Egyptian Christians in Libya has shocked the world. Beyond the region, we’ve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, Paris, and now Copenhagen.
Elsewhere, Israelis have endured the tragedy of terrorism for decades. Pakistan’s Taliban has mounted a long campaign of violence against the Pakistani people that now tragically includes the massacre of more than 100 schoolchildren and their teachers. From Somalia, al-Shabaab terrorists have launched attacks across East Africa. In Nigeria and neighboring countries, Boko Haram kills and kidnaps men, women and children.
At the United Nations in September, I called on the international community to come together and eradicate violent extremism. And I challenged countries to come to the General Assembly this fall with concrete steps we can take together. And I’m grateful for all of you for answering this call.
Yesterday at the White House, we welcomed community groups from the United States, and some from your countries, to focus on how we can empower communities to protect their families and friends and neighbors from violent ideologies and recruitment. And over the coming months, many of your countries will host summits to build on the work here and to prepare for the General Assembly. Today, I want to suggest some areas where I believe we can focus on as governments.
First, we must remain unwavering in our fight against terrorist organizations. And in Afghanistan, our coalition is focused on training and assisting Afghan forces, and we’ll continue to conduct counterterrorism missions against the remnants of al Qaeda in the tribal regions. When necessary, the United States will continue to take action against al Qaeda affiliates in places like Yemen and Somalia. We will continue to work with partners to help them build up their security forces so that they can prevent ungoverned spaces where terrorists find safe haven, and so they can push back against groups like al-Shabaab and Boko Haram.
In Iraq and Syria, our coalition of some 60 nations, including Arab nations, will not relent in our mission to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. And as a result of a separate ministerial here yesterday, many of our governments will be deepening our cooperation against foreign terrorist fighters by sharing more information and making it harder for fighters to travel to and from Syria and Iraq.
Related to this, and as I said at the United Nations last fall, nations need to break the cycles of conflict — especially sectarian conflict — that have become magnets for violent extremism. In Syria, Assad’s war against his own people and deliberate stoking of sectarian tensions helped to fuel the rise of ISIL. And in Iraq, with the failure of the previous government to govern in an inclusive manner, it helped to pave the way for ISIL’s gains there.
The Syrian civil war will only end when there is an inclusive political transition and a government that serves Syrians of all ethnicities and religions. And across the region, the terror campaigns between Sunnis and Shia will only end when major powers address their differences through dialogue, and not through proxy wars. So countering violent extremism begins with political, civic and religious leaders rejecting sectarian strife.
Second, we have to confront the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence. I discussed this at length yesterday. These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that groups like al Qaeda and ISIL are deliberately targeting their propaganda to Muslim communities, particularly Muslim youth. And Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, therefore have a responsibility to push back, not just on twisted interpretations of Islam, but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations; that America and the West are somehow at war with Islam or seek to suppress Muslims; or that we are the cause of every ill in the Middle East.
That narrative sometimes extends far beyond terrorist organizations. That narrative becomes the foundation upon which terrorists build their ideology and by which they try to justify their violence. And that hurts all of us, including Islam, and especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.
Obviously, there is a complicated history between the Middle East, the West. And none of us I think should be immune from criticism in terms of specific policies, but the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. And all of us, regardless of our faith, have a responsibility to reject it.
At the same time, former extremists have the opportunity to speak out, speak the truth about terrorist groups, and oftentimes they can be powerful messengers in debunking these terrorist ideologies. One said, “This wasn’t what we came for, to kill other Muslims.” Those voices have to be amplified.
And governments have a role to play. At minimum, as a basic first step, countries have a responsibility to cut off funding that fuels hatred and corrupts young minds and endangers us all. We need to do more to help lift up voices of tolerance and peace, especially online.
That’s why the United States is joining, for example, with the UAE to create a new digital communications hub to work with religious and civil society and community leaders to counter terrorist propaganda. Within the U.S. government, our efforts will be led by our new coordinator of counterterrorism communications — and I’m grateful that my envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, has agreed to serve in this new role. So the United States will do more to help counter hateful ideologies, and today I urge your nations to join us in this urgent work.
Third, we must address the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances. As I said yesterday, poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist, any more than poverty alone causes someone to become a criminal. There are millions, billions of people who are poor and are law-abiding and peaceful and tolerant, and are trying to advance their lives and the opportunities for their families.
But when people — especially young people — feel entirely trapped in impoverished communities, where there is no order and no path for advancement, where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support families, and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption — that feeds instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment. And we have seen that across the Middle East and we’ve seen it across North Africa. So if we’re serious about countering violent extremism, we have to get serious about confronting these economic grievances.
Here, at this summit, the United States will make new commitments to help young people, including in Muslim communities, to forge new collaborations in entrepreneurship and science and technology. All our nations can reaffirm our commitment to broad-based development that creates growth and jobs, not just for the few at the top, but for the many. We can step up our efforts against corruption, so a person can go about their day and an entrepreneur can start a business without having to pay a bribe.
And as we go forward, let’s commit to expanding education, including for girls. Expanding opportunity, including for women. Nations will not truly succeed without the contributions of their women. This requires, by the way, wealthier countries to do more. But it also requires countries that are emerging and developing to create structures of governance and transparency so that any assistance provided actually works and reaches people. It’s a two-way street.
Fourth, we have to address the political grievances that terrorists exploit. Again, there is not a single perfect causal link, but the link is undeniable. When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied — particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines — when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit. When peaceful, democratic change is impossible, it feeds into the terrorist propaganda that violence is the only answer available.
And so we must recognize that lasting stability and real security require democracy. That means free elections where people can choose their own future, and independent judiciaries that uphold the rule of law, and police and security forces that respect human rights, and free speech and freedom for civil society groups. And it means freedom of religion — because when people are free to practice their faith as they choose, it helps hold diverse societies together.
And finally, we have to ensure that our diverse societies truly welcome and respect people of all faiths and backgrounds, and leaders set the tone on this issue.
Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL peddle the lie that some of our countries are hostile to Muslims. Meanwhile, we’ve also seen, most recently in Europe, a rise in inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases, anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment. When people spew hatred towards others — because of their faith or because they’re immigrants — it feeds into terrorist narratives. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society in which they reside, it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey. And we can’t allow cycles of suspicions to tear at the fabric of our countries.
So we all recognize the need for more dialogues across countries and cultures; those efforts are indeed important. But what’s most needed today, perhaps, are more dialogues within countries — not just across faiths, but also within faiths.
Violent extremists and terrorists thrive when people of different religions or sects pull away from each other and are able to isolate each other and label them as “they” as opposed to “us;” something separate and apart. So we need to build and bolster bridges of communication and trust.
Terrorists traffic in lies and stereotypes about others — other religions, other ethnic groups. So let’s share the truth of our faiths with each other. Terrorists prey upon young impressionable minds. So let’s bring our youth together to promote understanding and cooperation. That’s what the United States will do with our virtual exchange program — named after Ambassador Chris Stevens — to connect 1 million young people from America and the Middle East and North Africa for dialogue. Young people are taught to hate. It doesn’t come naturally to them. We, adults, teach them.
I’d like to close by speaking very directly to a painful truth that’s part of the challenge that brings us here today. In some of our countries, including the United States, Muslim communities are still small, relative to the entire population, and as a result, many people in our countries don’t always know personally of somebody who is Muslim. So the image they get of Muslims or Islam is in the news. And given the existing news cycle, that can give a very distorted impression. A lot of the bad, like terrorists who claim to speak for Islam, that’s absorbed by the general population. Not enough of the good — the more than 1 billion people around the world who do represent Islam, and are doctors and lawyers and teachers, and neighbors and friends.
So we have to remember these Muslim men and women — the young Palestinian working to build understanding and trust with Israelis, but also trying to give voice to her people’s aspirations. The Muslim clerics working for peace with Christian pastors and priests in Nigeria and the Central African Republic to put an end to the cycle of hate. Civil society leaders in Indonesia, one of the world’s largest democracies. Parliamentarians in Tunisia working to build one of the world’s newest democracies.
Business leaders in India, with one of the world’s largest Muslim populations. Entrepreneurs unleashing new innovations in places like Malaysia. Health workers fighting to save lives from polio and from Ebola in West Africa. And volunteers who go to disaster zones after a tsunami or after an earthquake to ease suffering and help families rebuild. Muslims who have risked their lives as human shields to protect Coptic churches in Egypt and to protect Christians attending mass in Pakistan and who have tried to protect synagogues in Syria.
The world hears a lot about the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris, but the world has to also remember the Paris police officer, a Muslim, who died trying to stop them. The world knows about the attack on the Jews at the kosher supermarket in Paris; we need to recall the worker at that market, a Muslim, who hid Jewish customers and saved their lives. And when he was asked why he did it, he said, “We are brothers. It’s not a question of Jews or Christians or Muslims. We’re all in the same boat, and we have to help each other to get out of this crisis.”
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for being here today. We come from different countries and different cultures and different faiths, but it is useful for us to take our wisdom from that humble worker who engaged in heroic acts under the most severe of circumstances.
We are all in the same boat. We have to help each other. In this work, you will have a strong partner in me and the United States of America.
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, February 12, 2015
President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.
Voting booths soon to be defiled by illegal voters.
While stressing that it remains illegal for noncitizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives.
Anyone registering to vote attests that he or she is a citizen, but Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives often aren’t able to give due attention to that part, and so illegal immigrants will still get through.
John Husted – Ohio Secretary of State
Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach said even some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote, which some noncitizens in the past have cited as their reason for breaking the law to register.
“It’s a guarantee it will happen,” Mr. Kobach said.
Democrats disputed that it was an issue at all, saying Mr. Obama’s new policy, which could apply to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, doesn’t change anything in state or federal law.
“The president’s executive order gives immigrants the right to stay — immigrants who have been here for years, immigrants who have been working hard and whose labor we have needed,” Ms. Norton said. “The Republicans may want to go down in history as the party who tried once again 100 years later to nullify the right to vote. Well, I am here to say they shall not succeed.”
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, said he doubted illegal immigrants would risk running afoul of the law — which could get them deported — just to be an insignificant part of an election.
The hearing was the latest GOP effort to dent Mr. Obama’s executive action, announced in November, which grants tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 4 million illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The president also expanded a 2012 policy for so-called Dreamers, or illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, granting them tentative legal status and work permits as well.
Republicans say there are a host of unintended consequences, including the chances of illegal voting, a perverse incentive created by Obamacare that would make newly legalized workers more attractive to some businesses than American workers and complications with the tax code.
The newly legalized workers can apply for back refunds from the IRS even for years when they didn’t file their taxes, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday.
Mr. Koskinen said the White House never spoke with him about potential consequences before Mr. Obama announced his policy changes. The secretaries of state who testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday said they too never heard from Mr. Obama ahead of time.
Mr. Husted has written the Obama administration asking for help in identifying the name and date of birth of all noncitizens who get Social Security numbers, which he said would allow states to go back and clear illegally registered voters from their rolls.
He said the administration hasn’t responded.
“Why I wrote the letter is I want to comply with federal law,” he said.
Matthew Dunlap, Maine’s secretary of state, said he believed the laws already on the books are good enough to stop any voting mischief in his state, and he doubted illegal immigrants had incentive or intent to try to interfere with U.S. elections.
“My experience is they don’t come here to vote, and they don’t come here to drive. They come here for a better life,” he said.
Mr. Kobach countered with a story about a legal permanent resident who had not yet become a citizen but who registered and voted nonetheless, and who said she wanted to support candidates who would help her earn citizenship faster.
Only four states require proof of citizenship before someone registers to vote, Mr. Kobach said. And even in those states, the federal government offers voter registration cards that don’t require proof of citizenship, giving determined illegal immigrants a way to circumvent checks.
[Watch Obama in the video below lying through his teeth about his true agenda and telling us that he would not do any of the very things he has done and continues to do to this day.]
Once again, under the guise of “World History,” children across the country are being proselytized and recruited to Islam.
Pro-Islam Textbook in Florida Schools
Children being forced to say the shahada is a form of abuse and a violation of their religious rights. Further, reciting the shahada is required to convert to Islam. The public schools are indoctrinating our children into Islam.
The Five Pillars of Islam taught in our public schools – So much for separation of Church and State.
The father is grilled in this News 9 video, but he does a very good job. Kudos.
This is going on in public schools across the country. We are under siege — and our children are being held hostage by the left/Islamic elites in our taxpayer funded schools.
Of course, you’ll note, the media goes directly to terror group CAIR operative Hassan Shibly for comment, who invokes our freedom …. to kill our freedom.
“Dad protests Islamic lessons at school,” WFLV, February 9, 2015 (thanks to Creeping)
SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. —
A history book used in school districts across the state is sparking controversy in Seminole County.
A parent called 9 Investigates after finding out his son was learning too much about the Islamic religion in a public classroom.
Ron Wagner read from part of his son’s world history book, “There is no god, but God. Muhamad is the messenger of God.”
Raw: Dad discusses thoughts on Islamic lessons
Raw: School district spokesman storms out of interview
Raw: Full interview with school district
Wagner is not reading the Five Pillars of Islam from the Quran, but rather his son’s 10th-grade world history book from Lyman High School.
“Students were instructed to recite this prayer as the first Pillar of Islam, off of the board at the teacher’s instruction,” Wagner claims.
Wagner, who is not religious, said he had no idea the public school was teaching so extensively about religion until he spotted a text on his son’s phone from a teacher reminding him to complete a prayer rug assignment and study an Islam packet.
“For it to be mandatory and part of the curriculum and in the textbooks, didn’t seem right,” Wagner said.
Inside of the book is a chapter dedicated to the “Rise of Islam,” including prayers and scriptures from the Quran. What’s more disturbing for Wagner is that the first 100 pages discussing Judaism and Christianity are missing. The district blames a manufacturer defect in 68 books that are only a year old.
According to Wagner, Dr. Michael Blasewitz, who oversees the high school curriculum, said, “The Pillars of Islam are benchmarks in the state curriculum.”
Wagner’s concerns prompted a district investigation that found the teacher never tried to indoctrinate or convert students. (of course not….)
Some other students interviewed by administrators said they were not required to recite the prayer aloud. They did discuss a video played during class about the religion, but Blasewitz got frustrated and stormed out when 9 Investigates asked whether the district is considering changes to the curriculum.
Dr Michael Blasewitz -Pushing the Islamic agenda in America
“You’re just going to walk away from our interview when we’re trying to get information,” said investigative reporter Daralene Jones.
Before Blasewitz walked out, he further justified the curriculum, saying students learn specific Judaism doctrine, the Bible and its scriptures, in earlier school years.
“If anything, it’s a little imbalanced toward Christianity and Judaism,” Blasewitz said.
Federal law allows schools to teach about religion, because it’s part of history. But public schools may not teach religion.
“There’s a difference between teaching of the significance or the impact of a religion and teaching the specific tenets of a religion,” Wagner said.
9 Investigates was told the district will reconsider this book when the contract is up in three years. Some districts in South Florida have requested the publisher rewrite portions because of the controversy.
WFTV received the following statement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida:
“In a diverse society, young people should be taught about a wide variety of beliefs, cultures and faiths, and particularly about a faith practiced by millions of Americans and more than one fifth of the world’s population.
“Denying all students access to vital information based on the biased political or religious agenda of Islam phobic groups or a handful of misinformed parents does a disservice to our school system, our state and our nation. History is not kind to those who censor information or ban books.”
It is hardly a surprise that immediately after news came out that ISIS had burned a captured Jordanian pilot to death that Barack Hussein Obama absolved Islam of the crime.
Burning alive of the Jordanian pilot by ISIS is nothing else but another practice inspired by Muhammad in the Sunna.
ISIS released a video on Tuesday of its execution-by-incineration of the pilot, who was captured in December after his plane crashed in ISIS controlled territory. ISIS had been threatening to execute him if their zealots jailed in Jordan were not released.
CNN immediately reported Obama’s reaction to the news of the horrific slaying: “Should, in fact, that video be authentic,” Obama stated, “it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization, and I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. And it also just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt.”
Obama’s phraseology is an exercise in denial that Islam had anything to do with it. By referring to ISIS as “this organization” and using a clunky circumlocution like “whatever ideology they are operating off of,” he has made it clear he believes that Islam has nothing to do with terror. The cruel burning of the man was the action of a bankrupt “whatever.”
This of course is absurd. ISIS is Islam 101. Islam has a 14-century history of using terror to impose itself, starting with Muhammad, the creator of Islam. Usually it was just matter of cutting throats, lopping off heads, running people through with spears and swords, or shooting them with arrows. Islam is known as the “religion of the sword,” which was the weapon of choice. But even this particular mode of killing by fire has precedents in Muhammad’s behavior, his Sunna, and therefore it is allowable to the people of ISIS, who strictly model their behavior on Muhammad’s example.
Christians burned to death in Nigeria by guess who… Why Muslims of course!
Take for example the Dirar Mosque incident, a mosque in Medina Muhammad denounced as the “mosque of dissidence” and ordered it burned down. This occurred in A.D. 630 upon his return from the Tabuk raid at the head of 30,000 men who were disgruntled because nothing had been conquered so there was not any plunder to pay them with. The operation had targeted the Byzantines, but they were nowhere to be found. It is evident from the literature some of his people attempted to kill him on the return trip, and paranoid that dissatisfaction with him over lack of booty could get out of hand, he ordered the destruction of a recently built mosque as a warning to dissidents.
This was a mosque that had opened just prior to the march against the Byzantines and had been constructed as an extension of a home belonging to a Christian known as “The Monk,” who had fled to Syria to keep from being killed. Muhammad deemed it therefore a center of subversion and ordered it torched with occupants inside. It is recorded that one man burned to death. One of the zealots who carried out Muhammad’s orders gloated the victim had been burned “down to the scrotum.”
The video below describes the actions of Muslims in Nigeria as they continue to try to cleanse the country of Christians by burning their churches and them as well, if necessary.
Another documented burning took place just prior to the Tabuk raid. Muhammad ordered a house to be burned down where people had congregated who objected to joining the raid. Zealots surrounded the house and torched it. Most of the occupants escaped, some by jumping from the roof, but the owner, a Jew, was incinerated.
The traditions about Muhammad also contain a number of stories of him threatening to burn the houses down — occupants inside — of people who failed to show up for the obligatory prayers, and he may have actually done so on one occasion.
Islam is all about Muhammad’s Koran and his Sunna, the example of his behavior. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph of the so-called Islamic State, is supposed to have the equivalent of a Ph.D in Islamic literature, meaning that he is well versed in these burning precedents.
An ISIS propaganda video showing this barbaric execution is entitled the “Healing of the Believers’ Chests.” It is not immediately clear what ISIS meant by this, but it is likely related to Muhammad’s idea of purification through punishment, a concept that is central to Sharia law. The idea is that if the sinner repents and accepts the punishment that is due in this life under “God’s law,” then Allah will forgive him and spare him the punishment of the fires of hell. This perhaps explains the apparent calmness of the Jordanian pilot as he walks to the cage on his own and stands with resignation as the flames come toward him. He had been under ISIS control for more than a month, enough time to convince him that he was an apostate who deserved death, but that he would be spared the flames of eternal punishment through repentance and purification through the death penalty.
His judge-killers calmly watch and feel satisfaction that the fires of this world are sparing this repentant soul from the fires of hell.
Islam is indeed a bankrupt ideology. Any ideology is bankrupt that has to rely on terror to impose itself and to ensure against defection. This execution and other recent ISIS atrocities show the image of Muhammad, repugnant, corrupt, paranoid, grandiose, psychopathic. It is the image of a man who could preside with gloating satisfaction over the beheading of 900 men and boys and order the assassination of others for refusing to accept him as their prophet. A man who raided, and plundered, and enslaved . . . and burned people to death.
There is no mystery about Obama’s reaction to the ISIS atrocity. He was raised in a Muslim environment during critical years of his childhod, and his actions of the past six years show he is in alignment with the Muslim agenda. His pronouncement before the United Nations that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” is nothing if not a statement of his true belief. He is the typical product of the brainwashing of Islam, which holds that Muhammad was the greatest and most perfect man ever to exist.
If you still have eyes that can open, then open them Obama. Take a good look into the mirror that ISIS is holding up. It is holding it up to you and to the entire world.
Muslim Brotherhood call for ‘long, uncompromising jihad’
Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising jihad” in Egypt just days after a delegation of the Islamist group’s key leaders and allies met with the State Department, according to an official statement released this week.
Just days after a delegation that included two top Brotherhood leaders was hosted at the State Department, the organization released an official statement calling on its supporters to “prepare” for jihad, according to an independent translation of the statement first posted on Tuesday.
The statement also was issued just two days before a major terror attack Thursday in Egypt’s lawless Sinai region that killed at least 25.
“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom,” it states.
Preparation for jihad is a key theme of the Brotherhood’s latest call for jihad.
An image posted with the statement shows two crossing swords and the word “prepare!” between them. Below the swords it reads, “the voice of truth, strength, and freedom.” According to the statement, “that is the motto of the Dawa of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
The statement also invokes the well-known Muslim cleric Imam al-Bana, who founded the Brotherhood and has called for the death of Jews.
“Imam al-Bana prepared the jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers and the second [Supreme] Guide Hassan al-Hudaybi reconstructed the ‘secret apparatus’ to bleed the British occupiers,” the statement says.
The Brotherhood’s renewed call for jihad comes at a time when current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is cracking down on the group and imprisoning many of its supporters, who notoriously engaged in violence following the ouster of Brotherhood-ally Mohamed Morsi.
Egypt experts said the timing of this declaration is an embarrassment for the State Department.
“The fact that the Brotherhood issued its call to jihad two days after its meeting at the State Department will be grist for endless anti-American conspiracy theories about a supposed partnership between Washington and the Brotherhood,” said Eric Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). “The State Department should have foreseen what an embarrassment this would be.”
Hillary Clinton’s deep connection to the Muslim Brotherhood through Huma Abedin.
One member of that U.S. delegation, a Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom in which he held up the Islamic group’s notorious four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.
“Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone,” reads an Arabic caption posted along with the photo.
When asked on Tuesday evening to comment on the meeting, a State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon, “We meet with representatives from across the political spectrum in Egypt.”
The official declined to elaborate on who may have been hosted or on any details about the timing and substance of any talks.
The meeting was described by a member of the delegation, Maha Azzam as “fruitful,” according to one person who attended a public event in Washington earlier this week hosted by the group.
The call for jihad, while surprising in light of the Brotherhood’s attempts to appear moderate, is part and parcel of organization’s longstanding beliefs, Trager said.
“Muslim Brothers have been committing violent acts for a very long time,” Trager explained. “Under Morsi, Muslim Brothers tortured protesters outside the presidential palace. After Morsi’s ouster, they have frequently attacked security forces and state property. “
“But until now, the official line from the Brotherhood was to support this implicitly by justifying its causes, without justifying the acts themselves,” he added. “ So the Brotherhood’s open call to jihad doesn’t necessarily mean a tactical shift, but a rhetorical one.”
Terrorism expert and national security reporter Patrick Poole said he was struck by the clarity of the Brotherhood’s call.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s violent and supremacist past has strong ties to Hitler’s Nazi ideology
“It invokes the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist past, specifically mentioning the ‘special apparatus’ that waged terror in the 1940s and 1950s until the Nasser government cracked down on the group, as well as the troops sent by founder Hassan al-Banna to fight against Israel in 1948,” he said.
“It concludes saying that the Brotherhood has entered a new stage, warns of a long jihad ahead, and to prepare for martyrdom,” Poole said. “Not sure how much more clear they could be.”
Poole wondered if the call for jihad would convince Brotherhood apologists that the group still backs violence.
“What remains to be seen is how this announcement will be received inside the Beltway, where the vast majority of the ‘experts’ have repeatedly said that the Brotherhood had abandoned its terrorist past, which it is now clearly reviving, and had renounced violence,” Poole said. “Will this development be met with contrition, or silence? And what says the State Department who met with these guys this week?”
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment before press time.
[Below are two videos that will give the interested reader further insight into the Islamist agenda and the Obama White House’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood]
NBC Nightly News offered two stories on Christmas in their December 25 newscast, including a show-ender about “what Christmas means to me.”
The True Meaning of Christmas
Substitute anchor Tamron Hall offered this introduction: “Finally, on this special night, a question: What does Christmas mean to you? Maybe it’s the presents, the lights, the music, or getting together with family. We put the question to people around the country and discovered once against that Christmas means something a little different to everyone.” Somehow, this perfectly pleasant three-minute segment included lot of talk about family time and presents, and even someone saying “Happy Hanukkah,” but included no one uttering the name “Jesus.” No one defined Christmas as about Christ, NBC? (Earlier, Ron Mott did find time for a corporate plug: “Christmas, of course, is a holiday for gathering, and that’s exactly what thousands upon thousands of people are doing around our iconic Christmas tree at Rockefeller Plaza.”)
The exclusion is not that surprising, since the NBC evening newscast only used the name twice in the entire last month. Somehow, the networks find Jesus talk extremely grating and sectarian to non-believers and Americans of other religions. There was a brief mention on Saturday, December 5 from anchor Lester Holt:
LESTER HOLT: There was a Christmas celebration today in the place it all began, Palestinians and pilgrims gathered to light a Christmas tree in Bethlehem, the town that`s believed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ. The lighting was held outside the Church of the Nativity and followed by a fireworks display over Manger Square.
On December 22, the name was used as “incidental sound” in a Cynthia McFadden story on healing and faith:
FATHER JOHN MURRAY: Jesus Christ.
CYNTHIA McFADDEN: It`s not shocking that a Catholic priest believes in the power of prayer, but it is a bit of a surprise that Father John Murray says he can prove it. Do you think you’re a miracle?
FR. MURRAY: Yes, oh, without a doubt.
McFADDEN: Four years ago Father Murray broke his neck in a fall.
FR. MURRAY: I was paralyzed from my chest down.
McFADDEN: Doctors told him he’d never walk again.
FR. MURRAY: “You should expect no voluntary movement,” that’s a quote.
McFADDEN: But his doctors were wrong.
CBS Evening News worked in just one J-word — on Christmas Eve from substitute anchor Jim Axelrod: “Tonight, a more solemn gathering as mass is celebrated at the Church of the Nativity, built on what’s believed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ.”
With a government shutdown looming, House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, have compromised with Democrats in agreeing on a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, a behemoth temporary stopgap that encompasses over 1,600 pages.
Boehner is hoping for a full House vote on the measure by Thursday, which breaks his pledge to give Americans “at least 72 hours” to read every bill, a promise he made on Feb. 18, 2010.
“One of my first orders of business would be to post every bill online for at least 72 hours before it comes to the floor of the House for a vote,” Boehner then promised.
Considering its massive size, it is extremely doubtful that any congressman will read the entire bill in only two days. Perhaps, Mr. Boehner is saying to the American voter, as Nancy Pelosi did in 2009, “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in the bill.”
The bill, agreed upon by both party’s leaderships, would fund the entire government through the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30, with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security, which will run out of money again on February 27, 2015.
Two-faced Boehner sobbing while he betrays the American people who put his party in power
“I think the fix is in,” Congressman Matt Salmon (R-AZ) told The Hillin regards to the establishment of both parties joining together against the will of the American citizen in ramming through the spending bill.
Rep. Salmon said that he wanted Republican leaders to bring the bill to the floor earlier with stronger anti-amnesty language, rather than waiting just days before a shutdown would occur on December 12.
“I’ve implored them [GOP leadership]. I’ve begged them. I’ve spoken in various meetings so that we wouldn’t be up against some crisis…This is not the way it’s supposed to be done,” Salmon said.
“They don’t want you to read it, that’s why! You think they want you to analyze all the mischievous items in there?” Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) told The Hill.
“That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid.” Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) added. “That’s to squeeze us [conservatives],” he concluded.
A partial government shutdown would have occurred on December 11, without the gargantuan bill.
Despite demagoguery from the leftstream media, the Democrat Party, and so-called “moderate” Republicans previous government shutdown only shut down 17% of the government, with the other 83% operating as normal.
Additional insight into the “stupid” move by Boehner and his GOP establishment can be gleaned from the following video:
Of the 17 prior government shutdowns in American history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had control of both chambers during eight of them. All lasted a matter of weeks or even a few days.
Establishment Republican leaders have refused to use the their constitutional power of the purse to stop the Obama dictatorial amnesty, stop massive government deficits, or defund the highly unpopular Obamacare.
UPDATE: At 7:36 AM ET, the Boehner’s website supposedly revealing the details of the bill were about as functional as Obamacare’s during its disastrous rollout. It had crashed and was displaying this error message:
NYPD Officer Who Killed Eric Garner Was Accused Of Misconduct Before Chokehold Death
A photo of Eric Garner is displayed at a makeshift memorial where he died during an arrest in July, in the borough of Staten Island in New York City Dec. 3, 2014.
New York police officer Daniel Pantaleo expressed remorse Wednesday for the death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old unarmed black man he killed with a chokehold in July. Pantaleo’s statement was released minutes after a Richmond County grand jury in Staten Island opted not to indict him in connection with Garner’s death.
“I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can’t protect themselves. It is never my intention to harm anyone and I feel very bad about the death of Mr. Garner. My family and I include him and his family in our prayers and I hope that they will accept my personal condolences for their loss,” Pantaleo said in a statement, according to NBC New York’s Steven Bognar.
Garner died July 17 after an altercation with a group of NYPD officers attempting to arrest him for allegedly selling cigarettes illegally. Pantaleo restrained Garner with a chokehold, a maneuver that the NYPD banned in 1993. Garner, who suffered from asthma, lost consciousness at the scene and suffered a heart attack en route to a hospital. A New York City medical examiner ruled Garner’s death a homicide by “compression of the neck.”
A Staten Island grand jury considered several possible criminal charges against Pantaleo, including criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter. “Oh my God, are you serious? Garner’s widow, Esaw Garner, told the New York Daily News after the decision. “I’m very disappointed. You can see in the video that [Pantaleo] was dead wrong.”
NYC Police officer Daniel Pantaleo – Criminal with a badge!
Pantaleo was an eight-year NYPD veteran at the time of the incident, the Associated Press reported. The NYPD stripped him of his badge and gun on July 19 and relegated him to desk duty.
New York police union president Patrick Lynch defended Pantaleo in August and said that the officer was “very distraught” over Garner’s death. “No one wants to have to deal with the fact that someone died because of something they had to do. It’s a terrible loss,” Lynch said.
Pantaleo was sued twice in the past for alleged racially motivated misconduct while on the job. Two black men accused him in 2012 of subjecting them to an illegal strip search in broad daylight. Pantaleo purportedly “tapped” each man’s testicles during the search, which he claimed was a bid to discover any contraband, the Daily News reported. The suit was settled last January.
In a second lawsuit, a man named Rylawn Walker accused a group of NYPD officers that included Pantaleo of arresting him despite the fact that he was “committing no crime at the time and was not acting in a suspicious manner” and of including misleading data on a police report to justify the arrest, theStaten Island Advance reported. Charges against the man were ultimately dismissed.
I don’t know if Bill Cosby drugged and raped women over the past four decades.
No one in the media knows, either – not the ladies on The View, not MSNBC, not the Washington Post, and certainly not black feminists calling for his head. CNN’s Don Lemon doesn’t know, either. In a second interview with one of Cosby’s accusers, Lemon acted like a prosecutor when it came to her claims of forced oral sex, even going so far as to ask why she didn’t “bite” Cosby.
So far, the only alleged victim to file charges was paid off in 2006. Up until now, Cosby, along with his Cliff Huxtable character, has survived the occasional news reports of alleged assaults. As late as 2012, Saturday Night Live felt comfortable enough with Cosby’s public image to parody his top-rated 1980s sitcom, The Cosby Show, with their own version called The Obama Show.
Try comparing Barack Obama to Cliff Huxtable today. Due to the severity of the recently surfaced accusations, Netflix and NBC have already canceled upcoming specials, and the actor’s lawyers are in damage control mode. TV Land is pulling reruns of his long-running sitcom.
Cosby is finished. The star’s guilt or innocence will eventually work itself out, or not. But a peripheral question emerges from the barrage of coverage this story has received: why has the mainstream media suddenly come down on the 77-year-old former TV star like a proverbial ton of bricks when allegations of sexual assault have been swirling around Cosby for decades?
Cosby’s latest troubles started when a Chicago-born comic, Hannibal Buress, skewered the septuagenarian at Philadelphia’s Trocadero Theatre on October 16. Until then, the newest rape accusations weren’t getting much play in the media. At the time, Buress was riding high after a September gig at the Verizon Center in D.C. and a write-up in the Washington Post. His Philadelphia act, which included the lines below, ignited the firestorm now engulfing Cosby, and it didn’t take long for his attack on Cosby to hit the mainstream.
… And it’s even worse because Bill Cosby has the [f******] smuggest old black man public persona that I hate, “Pull your pants up black people. I was on TV in the 80’s. I can talk down to you because I have had a successful sitcom. Yeah, but you raped women Bill Cosby, so brings you down a couple of notches[.]
The comic wasn’t the only voice out there calling Cosby a rapist and dissing his sitcom. Brittney Cooper, a black feminist academic and co-founder of the Crunk Feminist Collective blog, came out with her own take on the Cosby mess. Nothing enrages a feminist like the sight of a functional nuclear family, and Cooper is no exception. Her October 24 article on CFM entitled “Clair Huxtable is Dead: On Slaying the Cosbys…” appeared a week after Buress’s stand-up. Cooper seized on the alleged victims’ cries of rape to air her personal views onThe Cosby Show – namely, that black folks like the Huxtables promote white privilege. For Cooper, the traditional nuclear, upwardly mobile family is a racist, oppressive social construct that “never was.”
Now that a Black male comedian Hannibal Burress [sic] has had the courage to take Cosby to task for his conservative, anti-poor, misogynistic respectability rants, people are listening again. …
And since Bill Cosby is a rapist, his avatar Cliff Huxtable is a representational terrorist, holding us hostage to a Black family that never was. But let him die. …
[I]t has long been time to slay the Huxtable patriarch. So Cliff Huxtable, you’re dead to me! …
[E]verybody should be clear that Clair Huxtable is dead, too.
The Cosby Show, which premiered in 1984 during the Reagan era, birthed a new paradigm in television. For the first time, an upper middle-class black family unit was seen in a positive light. Its predecessors , shows like Good Times, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons, depicted angry, boisterous black fathers, some using the N-word and calling white people “honkies.”
The Huxtable family of the Bill Cosby Show — What should be the Black American dream family.
By contrast, the highly rated Cosby Show rarely dealt with race issues or the contemporary black experience. Bill Cosby’s character, a successful physician and caring father, raised the bar and created a foundational narrative built on what black families could be – especially if they didn’t spend all their time railing against “whitey.” After 20 years of failed multi-billion-dollar government welfare programs and social justice scammers like the Children’s Defense Fund, Americans of all colors embraced the Huxtables. The show’s popularity and stellar ratings suggested that the American Dream was not dead – only dormant.
The Dream for many began in the 1950s with the rise of the middle class. By the mid-1960s, more and more blacks were moving away from poverty and into the middle class. But this upward mobility began to seriously stall with Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. As the welfare rolls rose, so did the number of single-parent black families led by females. Race-baiters, activists, socialists, and Ivy League scholars were out in force and quick to deride anyone for daring to criticize single mothers in the black community. The first female president of Howard University said, “One must question the validity of the white middle class lifestyle from its very foundation because it has already proven itself to be decadent and unworthy of emulation.” Feminists loved this kind of talk since they, like Cooper, saw the nuclear family as economically oppressive and husbands/fathers as the oppressors. In her writings, the Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison glorified the suffering single black mother as superior to a married white mother bound to one man in an unequal relationship.
By the 1980s, Americans, including blacks feeling the effects of generational welfare, were opening their eyes to the devastation caused by ivory tower-dwellers far removed from the inner-city ghettoes. No wonder The Cosby Showwas such a big hit. Its popularity reflected what the majority of Americans needed and still need – a mother and father working together to provide a better life for their children. In 1989, while Barack Obama was listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright degrade middle-class values, The Cosby Show was number onein the ratings.
Now, twenty years later, 85% of all black children in poverty live in single-mother households, there’s skyrocketing black-on-black crime, and Americans across the nation are waking up to the realization that their tax dollars have been subsidizing dependency and degeneracy for fifty years. It’s the ’80s all over again. Progressives are feeling the rumblings of mass discontent. The Huxtables must be destroyed. It’s too risky. Ferguson is looming. Black kids with no fathers and no moral compass can’t have a mythical figure like Dr. Huxtable appearing in their living rooms every night, getting their hopes up.
President Obama is poised to show his “compassion” this week by granting work cards to an estimated five million illegal immigrants through an imperial executive order.
As for the vast, untold number of law-abiding citizens whose identities have been stolen by foreign law-breakers, two words: Tough luck.
Social Security card fraudsters have made out like bandits thanks to the White House. Their victims are about to get kicked in the teeth again.
Two years ago, when Obama launched his first administrative amnesty known as “DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the White House gave aid and comfort to illegal alien applicants who were concerned that their previous felony identity theft and fraud crimes would preclude them from the new non-deportation benefits. The Department of Homeland (In)security made clear that illegal workers who wanted coveted employment documents would not have to disclose to the feds whether they used stolen Social Security numbers.
See Obama’s facebook invitation to watch the immigration anonouncement….
Center for Immigration Studies analyst Jon Feere reported at the time that ethnic lobbyists and open-borders businesses lobbied the Obama administration hard “to keep American victims of ID theft in the dark while shielding unscrupulous businesses from enforcement.” As an Obama official told The New York Times, DHS employees are “not interested in using this as a way to identify one-off cases where some individual may have violated some federal law in an employment relationship.”
Translation: See no identity theft. Hear no identity theft. Speak no identity theft.
A high-profile immigration attorney crowed: “Good news for deferred action applicants: If you used a false Social Security card, you need not reveal the number on your deferred action application forms. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has clarified that when the forms ask for an applicant’s Social Security number, it refers to Social Security numbers issued to the applicant. If you used a friend’s number, a made-up number or a stolen number, you should answer N/A for ‘not applicable’ where it asks for the number.”
Since then, more than 500,000 DACA applications have been approved with abysmal oversight, little public disclosure and total absolution for identity rip-off artists. The latest planned administrative amnesty will dwarf that ongoing fiasco.
Victimless crimes? Tell that to those who have been harmed by the estimated 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens who have fraudulently used Social Security cards to obtain employment. Tell it to victims in border states with the highest percentages of illegal aliens, where job-related identity theft is rampant.
My lovely wife and I shared a victory toast and a kiss in front of the fireplace in the lobby of the hotel where we are staying in
Colorado, upon the announcement that the GOP won the Senate.
Lloyd Marcus -Tea Party – American Patriot!
Our Conservative Campaign Committee team has been here for weeks, working to elect Cory Gardner for U.S. Senate. Gardner won!
Folks, please do not get me wrong: I am elated that the GOP has won control of the Senate. Despite its faults, the GOP is closest to our principles and values. Also, we desperately needed to dethrone evil madman Harry Reid as Senate majority leader.
However, I must confess that it was annoying to watch Karl Rove on TV pounding his chest in victory, proclaiming how he and his group pushed the Tea Party nut candidates out of the race. Rove had the nerve to say he and his people wanted the best electable conservative candidates. That simply is not true.
Chris McDaniel, to name one, in Mississippi was an awesome, extremely electable Tea Party conservative who was pushed out of the race with GOP dirty tricks, including race-baiting. Yes, you heard me correctly. The GOP establishment machine engaged in the Democrat-gutter, tried-and-true, despicable tactic of race-baiting to screw McDaniel.
I know. I know. You’re saying, C’mon, Lloyd, that’s in the past. We won. Celebrate and get over it. Sorry, folks. I expect better from our side.
Rove and his deep-pocketed homeys’ strategy of the GOP keeping a low profile and letting Obama hang himself worked okay. Unfortunately, exit polling revealed that the GOP is still viewed unfavorably by a majority of voters. Given the horrors and scandals of the Obama regime, the Republican wave should have been a tsunami. What if the GOP had offered an agenda inspiring people to vote for them rather than against Obama? What if the GOP boldly articulated why conservatism is the best and most direct path for each and every American to achieve his or her American dream?
Two remarkable things happened this election that strongly suggest that blacks are open to hearing what conservatism has to offer over liberalism. A video of urban blacks in Chicago trashing Obama and the Democrats went viral. And my lifelong Democrat 86-year-old black dad called from Maryland to tell me that he did not like any of the candidates, but he voted Republican. Folks, that is huge. Dad has always believed that a vote for a Republican is a vote for the KKK. So something is up.
Republicans now control the House and the Senate. Praise God! Now what? Word on the political street is that the GOP plans to give the Tea Party the finger.
Patriots, we must be more mobilized and engaged than ever. We must do everything in our power to push the GOP into doing what we worked our butts off for them to do: stop Obama’s agenda!
D.C. insiders say that the GOP strategy is not to push back too soon or too hard against Obama’s agenda, so as not to be called arrogant, aggressive, and mean by the MSM. The game plan is to play nice with Obama so as not to hinder our chances of winning the White House in 2016.
Karl Rove, GOP establishment hack and voice against the Tea Party
These D.C. insiders also say that repealing Obamacare is impossible and that the best that we in the Tea Party can hope for is for the GOP to fix it. Mitt Romney said that upon the GOP winning the Senate, an immigration bill would be top priority. You see where this is headed, folks? The GOP plans to go squishy on us and implement a Democrat-lite agenda.
We cannot and will not allow them to get away with it. I am proposing that the united forces of the Tea Party launch “Operation Hold Their Feet to the Fire.” Every individual, group, and organization must use their gifts, talents, skills, and passion to force the GOP to do the right thing.
Folks, we have brilliant minds on our side. I have met many of you traveling on over a dozen national bus tours, attending over 400 Tea Party rallies. I challenge you to think of strategic ways to turn the GOP’s agenda to our agenda: repeal Obamacare, secure our borders, return to fiscal responsibility, restore our freedom and liberty, and turn us back to one nation under God.
Ronald Reagan: “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” Patriots, I am calling for an-all-hands-on-deck drill to save our country by holding the Republicans’ feet to the fire. Frankly, I do not care which Tea Party group, organization, or individual leads the charge. Let’s just get it done!
Everyone pulling together is how we (conservatives) won big in 2010, shocking Washington, D.C., despite being ignored by the MSM.
As I said, we are in Colorado, too busy campaigning to enjoy the world-renowned hot springs. In celebration of the Republican wave, America’s push-back against socialism, we can relax a bit. Mary and I plan to enjoy a few relaxing therapeutic soaks in the sulfur-smelling hot springs.
Then we will be ready to pack our bags and hit the road on a “Hold Their Feet to the Fire Tour.” I have even written a soon to be released theme song.
I thank God for our victory. But there is still much more work to be done – miles to go before we sleep.
Congrats, patriots: taking the U.S. Senate is a major step in the right direction. Now, I don’t know why, but I feel compelled to end with this video of Kate Smith singing “God Bless America.”
Rep. Scott Rigell calls for paper ballots amidst numerous reports of irregularities in Virginia’s 2nd District
Video footage out of Virginia’s 2nd District shows a voter being forced to choose Democrat Suzanne Patrick over Republican Scott Rigell as an electronic voting machine refuses to accept his selection of the GOP candidate.
They’ll do anything to save the gravy train!
Ted Sibiga tried over 20 times to vote for Rigell but every time his vote was flipped to count in favor of his Democratic opponent.
“I asked for help and the election officials showed me how to correct it, but did NOT shut down the station. He said it was a calibration issue,” Sibiga wrote in the description to his video, contradicting Virginia Beach General Registrar Donna Patterson who said that every faulty machine was immediately removed.
A separate video (see below) from another Virginia Beach resident shows exactly the same phenomenon.
Rep. Rigell addressed the issue during a press conference earlier today, stating, “We know it’s going to grow through the day. That is not an anomaly, that’s a pattern, in each and every case it’s going against us and in favor of our challenger.”
Given the fact that the 2nd District is set to be one of the closest outcomes of the Virginia congressional race, it’s unsurprising that Rigell is drawing attention to the problem.
The Congressman even took to Twitter to warn voters to verify their selection before casting their ballot.
According to Rigell’s campaign, no less than 37 different locations have reported similar problems with electronic voting machines today.
“Rigell and the state GOP are calling on the Virginia Beach Supervisor of Elections to switch to paper ballots at the precincts where problems have been reported,” reports ABC 13.
As we reported earlier, electronic voting machines have been plagued by similar problems across the country, with the vote being flipped in most cases from Republican to Democrat.
Watch an ABC 13 report about the voting irregularities below.