Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 10:55:35 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82538 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 30, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
Crafty,

1) The stock market and the economy are inextricably linked.  Surely you are aware of this fact.
2) Tight stops are hardly the panacea they are promoted as being by some, and will most certainly NOT protect you in the event of an economic collapse, as anything valued in dollars will be worth a tiny fraction of what it was just before the collapse.

I repeat:  play at your own risk, and choose wisely.  Your choices have consequences.
102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 30, 2014, 12:41:54 PM
Agreed, DougMacG.  Wesbury's "analysis" - such as it is - defies gravity long-term.  Yes, the market is up very significantly since Obama took office.  That is NOT, however based upon fundamental economic information and true company valuation using such real data.  

Wesbury has been correct in predicting the market would continue to rise so far.  So what?  Being invested in this market now is akin to playing roulette in a casino where one is on a winning streak, but the casino is being consumed in a roaring fire.

Play if you wish.

103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 30, 2014, 08:24:09 AM
Just a bit of sarcasm there, eh, GM?   grin
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick: John Kerry's Jewish Best Friends... on: April 30, 2014, 07:25:40 AM
John Kerry’s Jewish Best Friends

Posted By Caroline Glick On April 30, 2014

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.

John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.

In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”

Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data. As I demonstrate in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israel will maintain a strong and growing Jewish majority in a “unitary state” that includes the territory within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria. But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.

In other words, the future leaders of that state – from the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — are so imbued with genocidal Jew hatred that they insist that all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly ejected from their homes. These Jewish towns, cities and neighborhoods must all be emptied before the Palestinians whose cause Kerry so wildly champions will even agree to set up their Apartheid state.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not of outcome. It is the malign intent of the Palestinians –across their political and ideological spectrum — to found a state predicated on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing. In stark contrast, no potential Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

By ignoring the fact that every Palestinian leader views Jews as a contaminant that must be blotted out from the territory the Palestinians seek to control, (before they will even agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it), while attributing to Jews malicious intent towards the Palestinians that no Israeli Jewish politician with a chance of leading the country harbors, Kerry is adopting a full-throated and comprehensive anti-Semitic position.

It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.

Speaking to the Daily Beast about Kerry’s remarks on Sunday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was quick to use the “some of his best friends are Jewish,” defense.

In her words, “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers [Ehud] Olmert and [Ehud] Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants.”

So in order to justify his own anti-Semitism – and sell it to the American Jewish community – Kerry is engaging in vulgar partisan interference in the internal politics of another country. Indeed, Kerry went so far as to hint that if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is forced from power, and Kerry’s Jewish best friends replace him, then things will be wonderful.  In his words, if “there is a change of government or a change of heart, something will happen.” By inserting himself directly into the Israeli political arena, Kerry is working from his mediator Martin Indyk’s playbook.

Since his tenure as US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, Indyk has played fast and dirty in Israeli politics, actively recruiting Israelis to influence Israeli public opinion to favor the Left while castigating non-leftist politicians and regular Israeli citizens as evil, stupid and destructive.

Livni, Olmert, Barak and others probably don’t share Kerry’s anti-Semitic sensitivities. Although their behavior enables foreigners like Kerry to embrace anti-Semitic positions, their actions are most likely informed by their egotistical obsessions with power. Livni, Olmert and Barak demonize their political opponents because the facts do not support their policies. The only card they have to play is the politics of personal destruction. And so they use it over and over again.

This worked in the past. That is why Olmert and Barak were able to form coalition governments. But the cumulative effects of the Palestinian terror war that began after Israel offered the PLO statehood at Camp David in 2000, the failure of the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, and the 2006 war with Lebanon have brought about a situation where the Israeli public is no longer willing to buy what the Left is selling.

Realizing this, Barak, Livni and others have based their claim to political power on their favored status in the US. In Netanyahu’s previous government, Barak parlayed the support he received from the Obama administration into his senior position as Defense Minister. Today, Livni’s position as Justice Minister and chief negotiator with the PLO owes entirely to the support she receives from the Obama administration.

Neither Barak nor Livni ever lost sight of the cause for their political elevation, despite their electoral defeats.

Like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government, today Livni provides Kerry and Indyk with “Israeli” cover for their anti-Israeli policies. And working with Kerry and Indyk, she is able to force herself and her popularly rejected policies on the elected government.

Livni – again, like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government – has been able to hold her senior government position and exert influence over government policy by claiming that only her presence in the government is keeping the US at bay. According to this line of thinking, without her partnership, the Obama administration will turn on Israel.

Now that Kerry has given a full throated endorsement of anti-Semitic demagoguery, Livni’s leverage is vastly diminished. Since Kerry’s anti-Semitic statements show that Livni has failed to shield Israel from the Obama administration’s hostility, the rationale for her continued inclusion in the government has disappeared.

The same goes for the Obama administration’s favorite American Jewish group J Street. Since its formation in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential elections, J Street has served as the Obama administration’s chief supporter in the US Jewish community. J Street uses rhetorical devices that were relevant to the political realities of the 1990s to claim that it is both “pro-peace and pro-Israel.” Twenty years into the failed peace process, for Israeli ears at least, these slogans ring hollow.

But the real problem with J Street’s claim isn’t that its rhetoric is irrelevant. The real problem is that its rhetoric is deceptive.

J Street’s record has nothing to do with either supporting Israel or peace. Rather it has a record of continuous anti-Israel agitation. J Street has continuously provided American Jewish cover for the administration’s anti-Israel actions by calling for it to take even more extreme actions. These have included calling for the administration to support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council, and opposing sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program. J Street has embraced the PLO’s newest unity pact with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And now it is defending Kerry for engaging in rank anti-Semitism with his “Apartheid” remarks.

J Street’s political action committee campaigns to defeat pro-Israel members of Congress. And its campus operation brings speakers to US university campuses that slander Israel and the IDF and call for the divestment of university campuses from businesses owned by Israelis.

On Wednesday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is set to vote on J Street’s application to join the umbrella group as a “pro-peace, pro-Israel” organization.

Kerry’s “Apartheid” remarks are a watershed event. They represent the first time a sitting US Secretary of State has publically endorsed an anti-Semitic caricature of Jews and the Jewish state.

The best response that both the Israeli government and the Jewish community can give to Kerry’s act of unprecedented hostility and bigotry is to reject his Jewish enablers. Livni should be shown the door. And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations should reject J Street’s bid for membership.
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary Clinton: 66-year-old child... on: April 30, 2014, 06:30:20 AM
Hillary Clinton’s Problem Isn’t Age, It’s Experience

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 30, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

The problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy isn’t that she would take office at the age of 69. An older and more mature president is not a bad thing. It’s how little she has done in that time.

After 2008, when Hillary was beaten by an even more inexperienced candidate, most people forgot just how little experience she has holding elected office.

Hillary Clinton only won one political office and she did so in her fifties. Despite winning two elections, her Senate career only covered the period from January 2001 to January 2009.

It’s more time than Obama spent in the Senate, but that’s not saying much.

JFK was considered young and inexperienced after spending 14 years in Congress. Hillary Clinton isn’t young, but her experience in elected office at the age of 69 will be less than his was at the age of 44.

Hillary’s supporters will argue that she has plenty of experience in public life. Unfortunately it’s the wrong kind of experience.

Like Elizabeth Warren, a slightly younger and more left-wing Hillary clone, she spent a good deal of time in the corrupt intersection between leftist non-profits, corporate boards and politically connected legal positions. The bad lessons those posts taught her are evident from Whitewater and HillaryCare.

Hillary Clinton embodies the corrupt culture of Washington D.C. whose cronyism and nepotism she has far too much experience with as the other half of a power couple notorious for personal and political corruption.

When they left, Bill and Hillary trailed illegal pardons and stolen property behind them.  As recently as 2008, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote, “The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.”

Back in 2001, he had suggested that the Clintons might one day be “led away in handcuffs”.

That’s Hillary Clinton’s real experience and it’s not policy experience or foreign policy experience. It’s the politics of political corruption. Hillary Clinton’s track record doesn’t consist of policy achievements. It’s in the people she knows and owes favors to, the legion of corrupt associates of Clintonworld and the millionaires and billionaires who fund her unscrupulous political ambitions with their dirty money.

If Hillary’s last name were still Rodham, no one would have even proposed her for Senate. There is absolutely nothing in her record or her ideas that recommends her for higher office.

Not only is she inexperienced and inept, despite her many makeovers she is a colorless figure with the speaking style and fashion sense of a college registrar, and a bureaucrat’s cagey instinct for pre-emptive cover-ups that only make her look more suspicious even when she didn’t actually do anything wrong.

Hillary Clinton did nothing of note either as Senator or Secretary of State. The reason why her time in the Senate is remembered on the left for her Iraq War vote and her time as Secretary of State is remembered on the right for Benghazi is that there isn’t anything else to remember her for.

The high points of her national career are negative; terminated from Watergate after unethical behavior, a failure on government health care as First Lady, an Iraq War vote that she spent five years lying about and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi as Secretary of State.

And a track record of trying to blame her decisions on everyone else.

Despite voting for the Iraq War, Hillary blamed Bush for a “rush to war” and for “triggering” the conflict. Few on the left have forgotten that she had even more positions on the Iraq War than John Kerry and that her positions changed completely based on what was going on in America and Iraq at the time.

When it came to Benghazi, other people took the fall for a horrifying failure that she claimed to be accepting responsibility for, while her own pet committee shifted the blame onto others.

Hillary Clinton accused Obama of being unready for a 3 A.M. phone call, but does anyone believe that she would take a 3 A.M. phone call and make a quick decision in a crisis? Is there anything in her track record in the Senate or as Secretary of State that suggests that she is bold and decisive?

Anything at all?

Hillary Clinton carefully avoided a track record. In the Senate, she invariably went with the least controversial position on every issue until she began overcompensating on Iraq to win back the left.

In the Senate, she was for a ban on flag burning, Cap and Trade, nuclear power, for Israel, for  Palestine, for abortion, against abortion, for harsh criminal penalties, against harsh criminal penalties, for No Child Left Behind, against No Child Left Behind, for gay marriage, against gay marriage, for medical marijuana and against medical marijuana.

If the polls opposed gay marriage, she was against it. If the polls supported it, she was for it. The same went for everything else.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton staked out a bold position in favor of visiting other countries and shaking hands with their leaders.

This is not a woman who takes 3 A.M. phone calls. Not without polling them first and issuing a non-definitive statement in the vaguest possible language that she can’t be held accountable for in any way.

This isn’t a record that speaks of experience. It’s the record of a woman working hard to avoid ever having an experience, a position or a conscience.

JFK came into the White House having seen combat and having come close to dying many times. He had spent almost a decade and a half in Congress and taken positions on important issues.

Hillary Clinton may be almost 70 at that same point, but without a fraction of his experience, and she has tried to make up for it with childish lies like claiming to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming to have negotiated open borders for refugees in Kosovo and  claiming to have been instrumental in the Irish peace process.

It’s no wonder that the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Watergate said of her, “She was a liar.”

Hillary’s experience is as imaginary as her work bringing peace to Northern Ireland. The issue isn’t her age; it’s her lack of principles and her lack of courage. Hillary Clinton compensates for a mediocre career of political cronyism with ridiculous lies in an act of neurotic insecurity.

Hillary Clinton isn’t too old to be president. She’s too adolescent, untried and immature. She has made too few decisions that matter, taken too few risks and even less responsibility and lives an imaginary Walter Mitty life of death-defying adventures that only exist in her mind and her press releases.

Hillary isn’t just incompetent, corrupt or a liar. Like too many of her peers, she’s a 66-year-old child.
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 5 Truths the 9/11 Museum Should Tell About 9/11... on: April 29, 2014, 04:34:54 PM
5 Truths the 9/11 Museum Should Tell About 9/11

Posted By Robert Spencer On April 27, 2014


A controversy erupted last week at the National September 11 Memorial Museum over exactly how the museum should depict what happened on that fateful day. So it’s time to give them a few unsolicited suggestions.

The New York Times reported that Muslim leaders in New York are angry about a film that is slated to be shown at the museum titled The Rise of Al Qaeda because it “refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad.” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote to the museum’s director: “The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum.”

Wait – aren’t the “local Muslim believers,” as well as any given “foreign Muslim visitor,” supposed to be part of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide who abhor and reject al Qaeda? So why would a film about al Qaeda offend them? Because, Elazabawy explains, “unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

Akbar Ahmed, a professor at American University and a renowned and respected moderate Muslim, complained that people who see the film are “simply going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims.” While he acknowledged that “the terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did,” he warned that “when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”

But this is a sleight-of-hand: it is not the 9/11 Museum that is associating their religion with what they did. It was the 9/11 hijackers themselves who associated their religion with what they did. Elazabawy and Ahmed want the museum to ignore and whitewash that fact, and it will almost certainly comply: it has already begun to do so by removing mention of “Islamic terrorism” from its website.

In a just world, however, it would highlight these five truths:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

5. The 9/11 hijackers were Islamic jihadists acting in accord with Islamic imperatives.

In March 2009, the masterminds of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin As-Shibh, Walid bin ‘Attash, Mustafa Ahmed AI-Hawsawi, and ‘Ali ‘abd Al-’Aziz ‘Ali – styling themselves as the “9/11 Shura Council” –wrote a lengthy communiqué titled “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations.”

In it, they wrote:

Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion….We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god’s [sic] cause is a great duty in our religion.

They quoted numerous Qur’an verses, including one stating that “to those against whom war is waged, permission is given (to fight,) because they are wronged and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid” (22:39), and another commanding Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but be not the transgressor, Allah likes not the transgressors” (2:190). They even quoted the notorious “Verse of the Sword”: “Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush” (9:5).

To cinch their case, they used two verses enjoining Muslims to strike terror into the hearts of their foes: “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority; There [sic] place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers” (3:151); and “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the heart of the enemies of Allah and your enemies” (8:60).

Five years have passed, and no moderate Muslim authority has taken up this Islamic case for 9/11 and refuted it on Islamic grounds. This doesn’t mean that the jihadist argument is ipso facto correct, but for Elazabawy and Ahmed to pretend, and to demand that the 9/11 museum pretend, that the 9/11 plotters had no Islamic case and did not identify Islam as the motive and justification for their actions simply flies in the face of the facts.


4. The hijackers hoped to strike fear in the hearts of non-Muslims.

In accord with the Qur’anic imperative to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah, Mohammed Atta reminded himself in notes he wrote just before the attack to do just that:

When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, “Allahu Akbar,” because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: ‘Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.’ Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty, and the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, “Come hither, friend of God.” They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing.

The “Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities” quote is also from the Qur’an (47:4). The gardens and women of Paradise are also spoken of in the Qur’an (52:17-20; 55:62-76; etc.), underscoring the fact that Atta and his companions saw their mission and goal in exclusively Islamic terms.


3. The ultimate purpose of the attack was to call the U.S. to Islam.

In Osama bin Laden’s letter to the American people, which was published on November 24, 2002, he put it succinctly: “The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.” This was the ultimate purpose of the 9/11 attacks: to weaken the American economy, so that ultimately the American government would collapse. That, presumably, would end what bin Laden and his allies considered to be unacceptable American interference in Muslim countries, and pave the way for the U.S. itself to become an Islamic state.


2. Many Muslim organizations besides al Qaeda share that goal.

Not all Muslims who want to see the U.S. become a Sharia state are engaging in jihad terror groups. Some are working for the same goal by peaceful means. Islamic supremacist writer Reza Aslan, a board member of a lobbying group for the bloodthirsty and genocidally antisemitic Iranian regime, has said: “No American Muslim, zero, absolutely none, not a single one has ever, ever called for the imposition of Shariah in America.” But that is not true. Daniel Pipes has noted that the imam Siraj Wahhaj, an American convert to Islam and sought-after speaker in mosques and Islamic centers nationwide, advocated for a caliphate in a 1992 speech to a U.S. Muslim audience: “if only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” Said Wahhaj: “If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him….[T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s co-founder and longtime board chairman, told a Muslim crowd in California in 1998 that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

1. The Boston Marathon bombing, the Fort Hood massacre, and other attacks were perpetrated by people holding the same ideology and goals.

The mainstream media and the Obama administration do their best to deny and downplay the fact, but both the Boston Marathon bombing and the Fort Hood massacre were motivated by exactly the same thing that motivated the 9/11 attack: a desire to defend Islam from perceived attack and to spread it at the expense of infidel governments. CNN reported a week after the bombings that “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wounded and held in a Boston hospital, has said his brother — who was killed early Friday — wanted to defend Islam from attack.” And on the morning of November 5, 2009, the day he murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan gave a neighbor a copy of the Qur’an and told her, “I’m going to do good work for God.”

Yet on the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon jihad attack, government officials and the mainstream media barely mentioned Islam. And the U.S. government notoriously classified Hasan’s murders not as an act of terror (much less jihad), but as “workplace violence.”

As I show in my book Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, this denial and unreality is all-pervasive. And it virtually guarantees that there will be more jihad attacks.

The 9/11 Museum could strike a blow for truth and national security by speaking honestly about what happened on 9/11 and calling for greater readiness in the face of the same threat in the future. But given today’s politically correct climate, it is unlikely to withstand the pressure it is now receiving. Soon it will probably change the description of the 9/11 hijackers to “radical violent extremists,” and everyone will be happy – especially the ideological brethren of those “extremists” we dare not name, who will take happy advantage of our refusal to face realistically the threat they pose.

*****
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Real Median Income for American Men Peaked in 1973... on: April 28, 2014, 03:17:39 PM
CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American men who work full-time, year-round peaked forty years ago in 1973, according to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

In 1973, median earnings for men who worked full-time, year-round were $51,670 in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars. The median earnings of men who work full-time year-round have never been that high again.


In 2012, the latest year for which the Census Bureau has published an estimate, the real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round was $49,398. That was $2,272—or about 4.4 percent—below the peak median earnings of $51,670 in 1973.

In 1960, the earliest year for which the Census Bureau has published this data, the median earnings for men who worked full-time, year-round were $36,420 in 2012 dollars. Between 1960 and 1973 that increased $15,250—or about 41.9 percent.


By comparison, the real median earnings of American women who work full-time year-round peaked in 2007, when women who worked full-time earned $38,872 in constant 2012 dollars. From 1960 through 2007, the real income of American women who work full-time increased $16,774 or about 76 percent. From 2007 to 2012, the real earnings of women who work full-time declined $1,081, or about 2.8 percent.

By “earnings,” the Census Bureau means money someone earns as an employee, which “includes wages, salary, armed forces pay, commissions, tips, piece-rate payments, and cash bonuses earned, before deductions are made for items such as taxes, bonds, pensions, and union dues.” It also includes “net income” from self-employment.

The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: April 28, 2014, 01:43:03 PM
I think GM's comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.  As with Caroline Glick's earlier piece with which I agree - I think any rational person who observes the history of civilization can see that weakness is, in fact, provocative.  In this age of ICBMs, it's suicidal to adopt a weak, isolationist stance - which is exactly what Obama, and I might add the Democrat Party has done.  The Democrat Party has been contemptuous of the military ever since JFK.  Their actions and statements during the war in Iraq were downright treasonous - politically calculated as they were to damage G.W. without regard to our national security or the safety of our soldiers.  John Kerry is a quisling who has no business being Secretary of State, because he, like Obama - has contempt for America as founded.
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Lies from CAIR... on: April 28, 2014, 09:58:03 AM
Florida: Hamas-linked CAIR attacks Republicans for featuring “extremist anti-Muslim speakers”

Robert Spencer    Apr 27, 2014 at 5:06pm

And true to form, this entire article doesn’t mention CAIR’s ties to Hamas, or its fascist pattern of trying to get any and every speaker canceled if he or she dares to speak the truth about jihad and Islamic terror. Shelby Webb doesn’t see fit to mention, and may not even know, that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed the poster above telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

Note also their use of the term “extremist,” which is the same word they use of jihad terrorists — thus equating the resistance to jihad terror with jihad terror itself, a particularly repulsive exercise in moral equivalence that the mainstream media has accepted with alacrity.

“Islamic group accuses Republicans of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment,” by Shelby Webb, Herald Tribune, April 24, 2014:

A Florida Islamic group is accusing some Republican Party lawmakers and local party organizations of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, sent letters to almost every Republican Club or party extension in the state, asking the groups to stop bringing speakers who espouse anti-Islamic views. The letter said it represented the interests of more than 150,000 registered Florida Muslim voters.

Hassan Shibly, executive director for CAIR, based in Tampa, said such speakers not only inflame anti-Islam tensions but have also led to discriminatory legislation: namely Senate Bill 386, which would ban foreign laws from being enacted in Florida; and House Bill 921, which allows school districts to select textbooks instead of adhering to the statewide curriculum.

Shibly said the textbook debate came about after a parent in Volusia County became uncomfortable with the number of pages in a history textbook that described Islam and organized a protest to persuade the school district to stop using the book. The Volusia School District noted that there are many more references to Christianity in the textbook than there are to Islam.

Shibly said the letters were only sent to Republican lawmakers and groups because Republicans drafted and support these two bills and because no other party has invited anti-Islam speakers to give presentations.

“Our office has documented a pattern of local GOP organizations inviting extremist anti-Muslim speakers who promote fear and hatred of the entire Muslim faith and community, often under the pretense of targeting ‘radicals,’ ” Shibly wrote in the letter.

Sen. Nancy Detert, who represents Sarasota County and part of Charlotte County, refused to comment on the two bills and the letter sent out by CAIR.

“Why should I care about a letter sent out by someone I know nothing about? Is that really worth a story?” Detert said….
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Muslim Easter... on: April 25, 2014, 09:34:40 AM
Obama’s Muslim Easter and Willful Ignorance

Posted By Robert Spencer On April 25, 2014

In his Easter message last Saturday, Barack Obama asserted that the “common thread of humanity that connects us all – not just Christians and Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs – is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.”

Even though he was registered as a Muslim in primary school in Indonesia and recounts in his first autobiography that he got in trouble there for making faces in Qur’an class, Obama apparently recalls little of the contents of the Qur’an. For if he did, he would know that it tells Muslims “take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors” (5:51), calls them “the most vile of created beings” (98:6), and calls the patriarch Abraham an “excellent example” for telling his unbelieving relatives: “There has arisen between us and you enmity and hatred forever unless you believe in Allah and Him alone” (60:4). It also says: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, and harsh to the unbelievers” (48:29).

Enjoining mercy to those who share one’s religious beliefs and harshness to those who do not is hardly tantamount to loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and this sharp dichotomy between believers and unbelievers is not just found in some random Qur’an passages to which no one pays attention. It runs all through Islamic scripture, doctrine and law. It is even an accepted principle in Islam that the life of a non-Muslim is worth less than that of a Muslim: a manual of Islamic law certified by Cairo’s prestigious al-Azhar university (from which Obama addressed the Islamic world in June 2009) as “conforming to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” declares: “The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o4.9)

The Iranian Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh echoed and amplified that point in his Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim — then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” 

While this devaluing of the non-Muslim’s life is based on teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, there is nothing in Islam that teaches that non-Muslims should be accorded the same rights and dignity as Muslims in an Islamic state.

There is no indication that Obama knows about such Islamic teachings, but even if he did, it is unlikely that he would say anything, since, after all, he has said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” – and in Islamic law, “slander” is not telling a falsehood about someone, but telling a truth about someone that he does not want known. And after over five years of Obama’s presidency, it is abundantly clear that one thing he does not want Americans to know is that there are texts and teachings of Islam that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, and that jihadis are still trying to murder Americans in accord with those teachings.

As I detail in my book Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, this willful ignorance at the highest levels has endangered Americans more than once, making for murderous attacks that could have and should have been prevented. The most notorious of these are the Boston Marathon bombing and the Fort Hood massacre.

Two years before the Boston bombing, Russian intelligence agents told the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a “follower of radical Islam” who had tried to join “underground groups” in Dagestan. That is tantamount to saying that Tsarnaev was an Islamic jihadist, which should have been enough for the FBI to keep him under constant or at least regular surveillance. It did not – and not coincidentally, right around the time the Russians gave the feds this information, the Obama administration (under pressure from Muslim groups with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood) mandated the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad (and the dismissal of FBI trainers who spoke about the motives and goals of jihad terrorists, including me). Agents who still knew how to evaluate the Russian intel were probably afraid that to do so, in the prevailing politically correct climate, would have been career suicide.

In the same way, Fort Hood jihad murderer Nidal Malik Hasan rose through Army ranks even as he justified suicide bombing and spouted hatred for America, and he did so with extraordinarily positive recommendations. In an evaluation dated March 13, 2009, just short of eight months before his jihad attack, Hasan’s superiors said that he should be put into a position “that allows others to learn from his perspectives” and declared that his “unique insights into the dimensions of Islam” and his “moral reasoning” could be of “great potential interest and strategic importance to the U.S. Army.”

And indeed, Hasan’s insights into Islam are of great strategic importance to the U.S. Army, but not in a way that Army brass is inclined to accept or admit. To do so would harm “diversity” in the military. And that, apparently, is more important than making sure that there isn’t another jihad massacre.

A large-scale change in the political and media culture is vitally necessary for the U.S. to deal realistically with the jihad threat. But it is not on the horizon. Instead, the willful ignorance and wishful thinking that Obama manifested yet again in his Easter message rule the day. And that means only that there will be more jihad massacres.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Reza Aslan: Fraud... on: April 24, 2014, 09:51:01 AM
Reza Aslan: Idea of resurrection “absolutely has no basis in 5,000 years of Jewish history, scripture or thought”

Robert Spencer    Apr 23, 2014

In today’s politically correct culture, marching in the establishment lockstep, not ability, is what gets you ahead. The mainstream media lionizes people not because of their particular acumen, talents or intelligence, but because they parrot the establishment line that the media wants the public to adopt: contempt for America, hatred for Israel, disdain for Christianity and the Judeo-Christian tradition, and endless justification for Islamic supremacists and jihadists.

A prime example of this is our old friend Reza Aslan, the arrogant, foul-mouthed media darling who keeps revealing his abysmal ignorance in interview after interview, making howling errors of fact and then, when caught out, dismissing them as “typos.” The latest “typo” from Aslan is his statement, in yet another of an endless series of fawning interviews by besotted Leftists (this time in Salon), that the idea of resurrection “simply doesn’t exist in Judaism. The idea of an individual dying and rising from the dead absolutely has no basis in five thousand years of Jewish history, scripture or thought. So, that’s the thing: No matter what you think about the resurrection, the thing that’s kind of fascinating from an historical perspective is that there is simply no Jewish context for it.”

Well, let’s see. The first thing that sprang to mind when I read this was the famous Dry Bones passage in Ezekiel, which begins: “The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me round among them; and behold, there were very many upon the valley; and lo, they were very dry. And he said to me, ‘Son of man, can these bones live?’ And I answered, ‘O Lord GOD, thou knowest.’ Again he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD.’” (Ezekiel 37:1-6) For individual resurrection, there is the passage that has always loomed large in Christian exegesis: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” (Psalm 16:10)

There are many other passages (here are two, courtesy of Jihad Watch reader “Rod Serling”): “Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For thy dew is a dew of light, and on the land of the shades thou wilt let it fall.” (Isaiah 26:19) “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)

This is by no means Aslan’s first “typo.” In another interview, he referred to “the reincarnation, which Christianity talks about” — and later claimed that one was a “typo.” In yet another howler he later insisted was a “typo,” he claimed that the Biblical story of Noah was barely four verses long — which he then corrected to forty, but that was wrong again, as it is 89 verses long. Interviewed at the BBC about Obama’s meeting with Pope Francis, Aslan claimed that the “founding philosophy of the Jesuits” was “the preferential option for the poor.” In reality, the Jesuits were founded in 1534. According to the California Catholic Conference, “the popular term ‘preferential option for the poor’ is relatively new. Its first use in a Church document is in 1968 from a meeting of the Conference of Latin American Bishops held in Medellin, Columbia.” So Aslan was only 434 years off — recalling when he called Turkey the second most populous Muslim country, which was only about 100 million people off.

Reza Aslan is such an intellectually formidable scholar that he writes “than” for “then”; apparently thinks the Latin word “et” is an abbreviation; and writes “clown’s” for “clowns.” Aslan is less a “religious scholar” than he is a marginally literate, unevenly educated charlatan with a talent for telling the mainstream media what it wants to hear. His big secret is that he is really not all that bright, and is in way over his head, asked to comment all the time on matters that are way beyond his competence — and he knows it, which is why he lashes out so ferociously against anyone who dares to challenge him.

This matters because this clown is given such adoring treatment in the mainstream media as he propagates these falsehoods, and because his agenda his insidious: he is a Board member of a lobbying group for the bloodthirsty and genocidally antisemitic Iranian regime. Aslan tried to pass off Iran’s genocidally-minded former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a liberal reformer and has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with the jihad terror group Hamas. Aslan has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as “the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon,” and has also praised the anti-Semitic, misogynist, Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” Aslan wrote: “The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing.” Millions of Egyptians obviously disagree. He has also applauded and called for the forcible shutdown of the free speech of those who hates — a quintessentially fascist impulse.

“‘You want people like that to hate you’: Reza Aslan on Glenn Beck, that Fox News interview, and who gets to speak for Jesus,” by Michael Schulson, Salon, April 20:

…As you note in the book, much about this portrait is pretty typical: There were a lot of messianic preachers wandering around first-century Palestine, Jesus among them. You argue that it’s the story of resurrection that really set Jesus apart. What made resurrection such a novel idea?

Well, it simply doesn’t exist in Judaism. The idea of an individual dying and rising from the dead absolutely has no basis in five thousand years of Jewish history, scripture or thought.

So, that’s the thing: No matter what you think about the resurrection, the thing that’s kind of fascinating from an historical perspective is that there is simply no Jewish context for it. The resurrection was one the earliest credo statements in this new movement. They wholeheartedly believed that Jesus rose from the dead very, very early on, and to be perfectly honest, historians who will admit as much don’t know what to do with that statement.

We can’t just ignore it. In other words, we can’t just simply say, “Oh, it was just some mass delusion,” or “It was all just some big scam.” I don’t think those answers are sufficient in explaining the experience [of believing in the resurrection] and how that experience transformed this, as I say, small ethno-nationalistic movement into the largest religion in the world….

I feel like you’ve given us a Jesus for the era of income inequality and Occupy Wall Street.

I think that’s a good way of putting it.

So should Congress raise the minimum wage to celebrate Easter?

I think that would a perfect way of celebrating what Jesus actually stood for. This is a man who was not about income equality; this is a man who was about the reversal of the social order….

On your Twitter feed, the background picture is of Glenn Beck looking distressed. I have to ask: Do you enjoy being the bane of these right-wing media personalities?

Am I allowed to say yes? I mean, look, when someone like Glenn Beck puts you on his chalkboard of crazy, I think it’s a moment to be proud of. When designated hate-group leaders like Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller spend all of their days Googling you and writing articles about things you’ve said or written, I think you should be proud of that, because these guys are clowns. They are racist, bigoted individuals, and you want people like that to hate you.

So, listen, I’m guilty of baiting these guys sometimes; it’s not a professional thing to do, I’m not proud of it, to be honest with you. At the same time, there is something to be proud of when Glenn Beck and Pamela Gellar [sic] and Robert Spencer and magazines like First Things hate you.

Thanks for the shout-out, Reza. Good to know we are on your mind, and that despite your shilling for Islamic supremacism and the Iranian mullahs you have enough of a conscience left to know that accusing us of murder and sending me vile adolescent emails full of gay slurs is “not a professional thing to do.” But I am afraid you flatter yourself: I have never Googled your name even once. People send me your nonsense on a more or less regular basis; it’s low-hanging fruit.

Anyway, he says Pamela Geller and I are “designated hate-group leaders,” without mentioning that the designator is the far-Left cash machine known as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which smears numerous conservative groups with this label, and has never seen an Islamic supremacist group it didn’t like. He adds that we are “racist, bigoted individuals”; what race is the jihad mass murder of innocent civilians again? I keep forgetting.

Meanwhile, so fawning is this interview that I am surprised that Michael Schulson didn’t start kissing Aslan’s feet, or perhaps anointing them with oil and drying them with his hair, before it was over. He even likens Aslan to the four Gospel writers: “Aslan may be the world’s most famous living biographer of Jesus (the most famous dead biographers, of course, go by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).” “The world’s most famous living biographer of Jesus” is Reza Aslan? Yet another illustration of the utter intellectual poverty of our age.
112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 23, 2014, 07:09:40 PM
So go ahead and ignore all the negative indicators regarding our staggering debt and faltering economy, and stay fully invested in the market along with Wesbury until you lose it all - or most of it - in the coming crash.  The choice is yours to make.
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Kroger Manager Fired After He Slams Knife-Wielding Shoplifter to Ground... on: April 19, 2014, 06:22:47 PM
From the 'no good deed goes unpunished' department.  Hey, it's company policy.
 

Kroger manager fired after he slams a knife-wielding shoplifter to the ground
By Will Lerner5 hours agoOdd News
 
 

If you’re an employee of a chain store and you see a shoplifter, don’t confront them. It’s been proven again and againand again and again that no matter how noble your intentions are, you can be fired from your job. As KDFW FOX 4 Newsreports, this is exactly what happened to one Kroger grocery store manager in Arlington, Texas.

 
View gallery
.
<image001.png>
The manager is seen here, after having slammed the suspected shoplifter to the ground. (KDFW)
A customer in the parking lot of the Kroger recorded the incident on their cellphone. In the video, you can see the unnamed manager approach the shoplifting suspect. The suspect appears to have a knife in his hand. The manager shoves him into a parked car and gets the knife out the suspect’s hand before eventually slamming him down to the ground.

 
View gallery
.
<image002.png>
Claude Medlock (KDFW)
The alleged shoplifter is 51-year-old Claude Medlock. According to KDFW, Arlington Police say that Mr. Medlock has a, “lengthy criminal history that includes theft and robbery convictions.” They didn’t consider the manager’s actions a crime, but that didn’t matter to Kroger. Kroger sent a statement to KDFW, which read in part:

“The incident…is not a reflection of our company’s fraud prevention protocol, procedures or training…He is no longer employed by our company.”
The manager told the station that he had worked in loss prevention for 13 years, and “believed he handled the situation properly.”
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Disappearance of U.S. Will... on: April 18, 2014, 11:29:48 AM
The Disappearance of US Will

Posted By Caroline Glick On April 18, 2014

Originally published at the Jerusalem Post.

The most terrifying aspect of the collapse of US power worldwide is the US’s indifferent response to it.

In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East and beyond, America’s most dangerous foes are engaging in aggression and brinkmanship unseen in decades.

As Gordon Chang noted at a symposium in Los Angeles last month hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, since President Barack Obama entered office in 2009, the Chinese have responded to his overtures of goodwill and appeasement with intensified aggression against the US’s Asian allies and against US warships.

In 2012, China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Washington shrugged its shoulders despite its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. And so Beijing is striking again, threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.

In a similar fashion, Beijing is challenging Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and even making territorial claims on Okinawa.

As Chang explained, China’s recent application of its Air-Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace is a hostile act not only against those countries but also against the principle of freedom of maritime navigation, which, Chang noted, “Americans have been defending for more than two centuries.”

The US has responded to Chinese aggression with ever-escalating attempts to placate Beijing.

And China has responded to these US overtures by demonstrating contempt for US power.

Last week, the Chinese humiliated Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during his visit to China’s National Defense University. He was harangued by a student questioner for the US’s support for the Philippines and Japan, and for opposition to Chinese unilateral seizure of island chains and assertions of rights over other states’ airspace and international waterways.

As he stood next to Hagel in a joint press conference, China’s Defense Chief Chang Wanquan demanded that the US restrain Japan and the Philippines.

In addition to its flaccid responses to Chinese aggression against its allies and its own naval craft, in 2012 the US averred from publicly criticizing China for its sale to North Korea of mobile missile launchers capable of serving Pyongyang’s KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missiles. With these easily concealed launchers, North Korea significantly upgraded its ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons.

As for Europe, the Obama administration’s responses to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and to its acts of aggression against Ukraine bespeak a lack of seriousness and dangerous indifference to the fate of the US alliance structure in Eastern Europe.

Rather than send NATO forces to the NATO member Baltic states, and arm Ukrainian forces with defensive weapons, as Russian forces began penetrating Ukraine, the US sent food to Ukraine and an unarmed warship to the Black Sea.

Clearly not impressed by the US moves, the Russians overflew and shadowed the US naval ship. As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News on Monday, the Russian action was not a provocation. It was “a show of contempt.”

As Krauthammer explained, it could have only been viewed as a provocation if Russia had believed the US was likely to respond to its shadowing of the warship. Since Moscow correctly assessed that the US would not respond to its aggression, by buzzing and following the warship, the Russians demonstrated to Ukraine and other US allies that they cannot trust the US to protect them from Russia.

In the Middle East, it is not only the US’s obsessive approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel that lies in shambles. The entire US alliance system and the Obama administration’s other signature initiatives have also collapsed.

After entering office, Obama implemented an aggressive policy in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere of killing al-Qaida operatives with unmanned drones. The strategy was based on the notion that such a campaign, that involves no US boots on the ground, can bring about a rout of the terrorist force at minimal human cost to the US and at minimal political cost to President Barack Obama.

The strategy has brought about the demise of a significant number of al-Qaida terrorists over the years. And due to the support Obama enjoys from the US media, the Obama administration paid very little in terms of political capital for implementing it.

But despite the program’s relative success, according to The Washington Post, the administration suspended drone attacks in December 2013 after it endured modest criticism when one in Yemen inadvertently hit a wedding party.

No doubt al-Qaida noticed the program’s suspension. And now the terror group is flaunting its immunity from US attack.

This week, jihadist websites featured an al-Qaida video showing hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen meeting openly with the group’s second in command, Nasir al-Wuhayshi.

In the video, Wuhayshi threatened the US directly saying, “We must eliminate the cross,” and explaining that “the bearer of the cross is America.”

Then there is Iran.

The administration has staked its reputation on its radical policy of engaging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. The administration claims that by permitting Iran to undertake some nuclear activities it can convince the mullahs to shelve their plan to develop nuclear weapons.

This week brought further evidence of the policy’s complete failure. It also brought further proof that the administration is unperturbed by evidence of failure.

In a televised interview Sunday, Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akhbar Salehi insisted that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 90 percent. In other words, he said that Iran is building nuclear bombs.

And thanks to the US and its interim nuclear deal with Iran, the Iranian economy is on the mend.

The interim nuclear deal the Obama administration signed with Iran last November was supposed to limit its oil exports to a million barrels a day. But according to the International Energy Agency, in February, Iran’s daily oil exports rose to 1.65 million barrels a day, the highest level since June 2012.

Rather than accept that its efforts have failed, the Obama administration is redefining what success means.

As Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz noted, in recent months US officials claimed the goal of the nuclear talks was to ensure that Iran would remain years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent remarks, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the US would suffice with a situation in which Iran is but six months away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In other words, the US has now defined failure as success.

Then there is Syria.

Last September, the US claimed it made history when, together with Russia it convinced dictator Bashar Assad to surrender his chemical weapons arsenal. Six months later, not only is Syria well behind schedule for abiding by the agreement, it is reportedly continuing to use chemical weapons against opposition forces and civilians. The most recent attack reportedly occurred on April 12 when residents of Kafr Zita were attacked with chlorine gas.

The growing worldwide contempt for US power and authority would be bad enough in and of itself. The newfound confidence of aggressors imperils international security and threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

What makes the situation worse is the US response to what is happening. The Obama administration is responding to the ever-multiplying crises by pretending that there is nothing to worry about and insisting that failures are successes.

And the problem is not limited to Obama and his advisers or even to the political Left. Their delusional view that the US will suffer no consequences for its consistent record of failure and defeat is shared by a growing chorus of conservatives.

Some, like the anti-Semitic conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, laud Putin as a cultural hero. Others, like Sen. Rand Paul, who is increasingly presenting himself as the man to beat in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, indicate that the US has no business interfering with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Iran as well is a country the US should be less concerned about, in Paul’s opinion.

Leaders like Sen. Ted Cruz who call for a US foreign policy based on standing by allies and opposing foes in order to ensure US leadership and US national security are being drowned out in a chorus of “Who cares?” Six years into Obama’s presidency, the US public as a whole is largely opposed to taking any action on behalf of Ukraine or the Baltic states, regardless of what inaction, or worse, feckless action means for the US’s ability to protect its interests and national security.

And the generation coming of age today is similarly uninterested in US global leadership.

During the Cold War and in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the predominant view among American university students studying international affairs was that US world leadership is essential to ensure global stability and US national interests and values.

Today this is no longer the case.

Much of the Obama administration’s shuttle diplomacy in recent years has involved sending senior officials, including Obama, on overseas trips with the goal of reassuring jittery allies that they can continue to trust US security guarantees.

These protestations convince fewer and fewer people today.

It is because of this that US allies like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, that lack nuclear weapons, are considering their options on the nuclear front.

It is because of this that Israeli officials are openly stating for the first time that the US cannot be depended on to either secure Israel’s eastern frontier in the event that an accord is reached with the Palestinians, or to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is because of this that the world is more likely than it has been since 1939 to experience a world war of catastrophic proportions.

There is a direct correlation between the US elite’s preoccupation with social issues running the narrow and solipsistic gamut from gay marriage to transgender bathrooms to a phony war against women, and America’s inability to recognize the growing threats to the global order or understand why Americans should care about the world at all.

And there is a similarly direct correlation between the growing aggression of US foes and Obama’s decision to slash defense spending while allowing the US nuclear arsenal to become all but obsolete.

America’s spurned allies will take the actions they need to take to protect themselves. Some will persevere, others will likely be overrun.

But with Americans across the ideological spectrum pretending that failure is success and defeat is victory, while turning their backs on the growing storm, how will America protect itself?
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Latest on IRS Scandal Makes Nixon look like a shoplifter at a dollar store. on: April 17, 2014, 12:18:36 PM
Truly horrifying, treasonous behavior by this administration and colluding Democrats.  Meanwhile - the Republicans sit on their asses...

http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/documents-irs-leadership-colluded-holder-justice-department-jail-political-opponents-obama.html/
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DeBlasio Disbands NYPD Muslim Spying Unit... on: April 16, 2014, 08:14:39 AM

De Blasio’s Gift to Jihadists: Disbands NYPD surveillance unit, vows to go after the “real bad guys”

Posted by Pamela Geller at pamelageller.com - April 15, 2014.
   
During the election for Mayor in NYC, I warned of de Blasio’s pro-terror allegiances. I submitted the ad (below) to run on NYC subway platforms.New York enemedia didn’t like it — read this. A de Blasio spokeswoman called my ad “hateful and offensive.” What exactly is hateful and offensive? He did exactly as I predicted. He has disbanded the NYPD counter-terror program and vowed to go after the “real bad guys.”

Who dat, Herr Wilhelm?

Check out the first bullet of our ad: "He will endanger New Yorkers by disbanding anti-terror surveillance units."

Sleep fitfully, dear New Yorkers. And don’t worry your pretty little heads that NYC is the number one target for jihadists here and across the world.

“NYPD disbanding Muslim spying unit,” NY Post, April 15, 2014 (thanks to Baneshah Zand)

The NYPD has abandoned its controversial and secretive surveillance program that sent plainclothes police officers into Muslim neighborhoods for the purposes of gathering information on possible terrorist plots, officials said.Marking a dramatic change of course for the department, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton agreed to disband the largely inactive Demographics Unit, which was started in 2003 in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.The unit was intended to root out threats by identifying pockets of Islamic radicalization and locations where potential terrorists might gather.The covert program sent plainclothes officers into restaurants, mosques and just about anywhere else Muslims gathered, to eavesdrop on people’s conversations and gauge people’s feeling toward the United States.The unit worked in secret until 2011, when the Associated Press published an expose chronicling the NYPD’s exploits in Muslim neighborhoods, causing a rift between the department and minority communities.“Our administration has promised the people of New York a police force that keeps our city safe, but that is also respectful and fair,” Mayor de Blasio said in a statement.“This reform is a critical step forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they serve, so that our cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real bad guys.”

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/de-blasios-gift-jihadists-nypd-disbanding-muslim-spying-unit.html/#sthash.qfwTaj0h.dpuf
117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The FBI Could Have Stopped the Boston Bombing on: April 15, 2014, 08:11:03 AM
The FBI Could Have Stopped the Boston Bombing

Posted By Robert Spencer On April 15, 2014

To order Robert Spencer’s just-released new book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, Click Here.

With the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings approaching, the New York Times made yet another attempt to exonerate the Obama Administration of responsibility for one of its manifest failures, claiming that an inspector general’s report on the bombings was an “exoneration of the F.B.I.,” as it showed that “the Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack.”

See? The bombing was all the fault of that scoundrel Putin. It had nothing to do with the FBI, because of fecklessness and political correctness, failing to act properly on information the Russians gave them.

Full disclosure: I used to give FBI agents and other law enforcement and military personnel training on the teachings of Islam about jihad warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, so that they would understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the United States as a free society, and be better equipped to counter them. I provided this training free of charge, out of a sense of patriotic duty, and it was well received: I received certificates of appreciation from the United States Central Command and the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group.

But as I explain in detail in my book Arab Winter Comes to America, all that ended on October 19, 2011, when Islamic supremacist advocacy groups, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that FBI counter-terror trainers (including me) and training materials that referred to Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism be discarded, and agents educated by them be retrained. John Brennan, then the U.S. Homeland Security Advisor and now the director of the CIA, readily agreed in a response that was written on White House stationery – thereby emphasizing how seriously the Obama Administration took this demand.

Subsequently, as I detail in the book, politically correct willful ignorance then took hold in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – to the extent that after the Boston Marathon bombing, then-FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that the bureau had not investigated the Islamic Society of Boston, where the Tsarnaev brothers attended mosque, and had not even visited it except as part of an “outreach” program – despite the fact that it was founded by Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is currently in prison for financing al Qaeda, and was attended by convicted jihad terrorists such as Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddiqui.

Accordingly, the FBI was harshly criticized for not doing all it could to prevent the Boston bombing, and that criticism was bipartisan, coming not only from Texas Republican Representative Louie Gohmert, but from Massachusetts Democrat Representative William Keating and South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham. And the inspector general’s new report shows how justified that criticism was. According to the Times, the Russians told the feds that Tamerlan Tsarnaev “was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer” and that he “had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”

Those “underground groups” could in this context only have been a reference to jihad groups. And so that means that the Russians essentially told the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a jihadi. Why wasn’t that enough for the FBI to keep him under close surveillance? It has now become clear that Tsarnaev murdered three Jews – his former friends – on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the day that jihad came most bloodily to the United States. The victims’ friendship with Tsarnaev was known to many – why didn’t those murders, even if law enforcement officials couldn’t charge him with them at the time, lead the FBI to think it might be worth watching him?

The Times says that the FBI didn’t pursue watching him and his brother because they hadn’t “found anything substantive that ties them to a terrorist group.” The possibility that they could have pulled off a lone wolf jihad attack apparently didn’t occur to these intel experts. And because of the Obama/Brennan scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of information about Islam and jihad, agents probably had no idea of the deep roots or virulence of Islamic anti-Semitism, so they had no idea of the implications of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s close acquaintance with the 9/11/11 murder victims, despite the fact that the Russians had told them he was a “radical.”

The FBI clearly failed in this case and bears some responsibility for the Boston bombing, but ultimately the responsibility lies with Barack Obama and John Brennan, who made sure that agents would be abysmally ignorant of Islam and jihad when they scrubbed all mention of both from counterterror training — so how could the FBI properly evaluate what the Russians told them?

The FBI’s failure wasn’t the Russians’ fault. It was the fault of the Obama Administration’s politically correct unwillingness to face the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. Meanwhile, the media stigmatizing of all resistance to jihad terror and Islamic supremacism as “Islamophobia” only abets this willful ignorance, and leaves us all less safe. The one lesson that is clear one year after the Boston Marathon jihad bombing is that, unless there is a massive change of thinking at the highest levels of government and media, there will be many more such bombings.
118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Takkiya... on: April 11, 2014, 12:22:40 PM
This is actually a well-accepted doctrine in Islam - that it is OK to lie to unbelievers to advance the cause of Islam.  Robert Spencer and others have written about this extensively.  It's actually encouraged.
119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Myths & Lies About Israel... on: April 08, 2014, 08:26:37 AM
Israel’s Worst Enemy: Lies and Myths

Posted By Bruce Thornton On April 8, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

The Washington Post reports that some members of Secretary of State John Kerry’s senior staff think it’s time to say “enough” of Kerry’s futile and delusional attempts to broker peace between the Israelis and Arabs and implement the “two-state solution.” That’s a revelation one would think the chief diplomat of the greatest power in history would have experienced decades ago. Since the failed 1993 Oslo Accords, it has been obvious to all except the duplicitous, the ignorant, and the Jew-hater that the Arabs do not want a “Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Israel,” something they could have had many times in the past. On the contrary, as they serially prove in word and deed, they want Israel destroyed.

As Caroline Glick documents in her new book The Israeli Solution, the “two-state solution” is a diplomatic chimera for the West, and a tactic for revanchist Arabs who cannot achieve their eliminationist aims by military means. But the “Palestinian state” is merely one of many myths, half-truths, and outright lies that befuddle Western diplomats and leaders, and put the security and possibly the existence of Israel at risk.

First there is the canard that Israel is somehow an illegitimate state, a neo-imperialist outpost that Westerners created to protect their economic and geopolitical interests. In this popular myth, invading Jewish colonists “stole” the land and ethnically cleansed the region of its true possessors, the indigenous “Palestinian people.” This crime was repeated after 1967 Six Day War, when Israel seized the “West Bank,” occupying it as a colonial power and subjecting its inhabitants to a brutally discriminatory regime. The continuing power of this lie can be seen in the frequent comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa. And this false historical analogy in turn drives the “Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions” movement, which is attempting to make Israel even more of a pariah state in order to duplicate the success of those tactics in dismantling white rule in South Africa.

Every dimension of this narrative is false. The state of Israel came into being by the same legitimate process that created the other new states in the region, the consequence of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Consistent with the traditional practice of victorious states, the Allied powers France and England created Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, and of course Israel, to consolidate and protect their national interests. This legitimate right to rewrite the map may have been badly done and shortsighted––regions containing many different sects and ethnic groups were bad candidates for becoming a nation-state, as the history of Iraq and Lebanon proves, while prime candidates for nationhood like the Kurds were left out. But the right to do so was bestowed by the Allied victory and the Central Powers’ loss, the time-honored wages of starting a war and losing it. Likewise in Europe, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled, and the new states of Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia were created. And arch-aggressor Germany was punished with a substantial loss of territory, leaving some 10 million Germans stranded outside the fatherland. Israel’s title to its country is as legitimate as Jordan’s, Syria’s and Lebanon’s.

Then there is the melodrama of the “displacement” of the “Palestinians,” who have been condemned to live as stateless “refugees” because of Israel’s aggression. This narrative of course ignores the fact that most of the Arabs fleeing Palestine left voluntarily, the first wave, mainly the Arab elite, beginning in November 1947 with the U.N. vote for partition. At the time it was clear to observers that most of the Arabs chose to flee their supposed ancestral homeland. In September 1948 Time magazine, no friend of Israel, wrote, “There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors [explaining the Arab flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Committee urging the Arabs to quit.” These were followed in 1948 by 300,000 others, who either were avoiding the conflict, or were induced by the Arab Higher Committee with the promise that after victory they could return and find, as Arab League Secretary-General Azza Pasham said in May 1948, “that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean.” Indeed, the withdrawal of Israelis from Gaza in 2005 confirmed the prediction that failed in 1948. The Gaza greenhouse industry, which American Jewish donors purchased for $14 million and gave to the Palestinian Authority in order to help Gaza’s economy, was instead destroyed by looters.

But from a historical perspective, it is irrelevant how the Arabs became refugees. When in 1922 the Greeks lost their war they fought against the Turks in order to regain their sovereignty over lands their ancestors had lived in for nearly 3000 years, 1.5 million Greeks were transferred out of Turkey in exchange for half a million Turks from Europe. After World War II, 12 million Germans either fled or were driven from Eastern Europe, with at least half a million dying. In both cases, whether justly or not, the wages of starting a war and losing included the displacement of the losers. Yet only in the case of the Palestinian Arabs has this perennial cost of aggression been reversed, and those who prevailed in a war they didn’t start been demonized for the suffering of refugees created by the aggression of their ethnic and religious fellows.

In still another historical anomaly, in no other conflict have refugees failed to be integrated into countries with which they share an ethnic, religious, and cultural identity. Most of the some 800,000 Jews, for example, driven from lands like Egypt and Iraq in which their ancestors had lived for centuries, were welcomed into Israel, which footed the bill for their maintenance and integration into society. The Arab states, on the other hand, kept their brother Arabs and Muslims in squalid camps that have evolved into squalid cities, their keep paid for by the United Nations Relief Works Agency, the only U.N. agency dedicated to only one group of refugees. Thus the international community has enabled the revanchist policy of the Arab states, as Alexander Galloway, head of the UNRWA, said in 1952: “It is perfectly clear that the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

This brings us to the chief myth: that there exists a distinct Palestinian “people,” the original possessors of the land who have been unjustly denied a national homeland. In the quotes above notice that no Arab ever refers to these people as “Palestinians,” but as “Arabs,” which is what most of them are, sharing the same religion, language, and culture of their Arab neighbors in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. In fact, as Sha’i ben-Tekoa documents in his book Phantom Nation, the first U.N. resolution referencing “Palestinians” instead of  “Arabs” occurred 3 years after the Six Day War, marking international recognition of a “Palestinian people” and nation as yet another Arab tactic in gaining support in the West by exploiting an idea alien to traditional Islam. Before then “Palestinian” was a geographical designation, more typically applied to Jews. Numerous quotations from Arab leaders reveal not a single reference to a Palestinian people, but numerous one identifying the inhabitants of the geographical entity Palestine as “Arabs.”

For example, in 1937, Arab Higher Committee Secretary Auni Abdel Hadi said, “There is no such country as Palestine. ‘Palestine’ is a country the Zionists invented. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us.” The Christian Arab George Antonius, author of the influential The Arab Awakening, told David Ben-Gurion, “There was no natural barrier between Palestine and Syria and there was no difference between their inhabitants.” Later in his book he defined Syria as including Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. In testimony to the U.N. in 1947, the Arab Higher Committee said, “Politically the Arabs of Palestine are not independent in the sense of forming a separate political identity.” Thirty years later Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, told Newsweek, “Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.” After the Six-Day War a member of the Executive Council of the PLO, Zouhair Muhsin, was even more explicit: “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity… Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.”

Such examples can be multiplied, which makes all the talk of a separate Palestinian “people” deserving of their own nation nothing but propaganda supported by a bogus history that claims the Arabs who came to Palestine in the 7th century A.D as conquerors and occupiers, or later as migrant workers and immigrants, are the “indigenous” inhabitants descended from Biblical peoples like the Canaanites or the shadowy Jebusites––a claim unsupported by any written or archaeological evidence. Meanwhile, of course, abundant evidence exists showing that the Jews have continuously inhabited the region since 1300 B.C. Once more the logic of history is turned on its head, with the descendants of the original inhabitants deemed alien invaders, while the descendants of conquerors and occupiers are sanctified as victims.

Such an inversion is worthy of Orwell’s 1984. Yet these lies and myths––and there are many more–– have shaped and defined the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, and set the parameters of diplomatic solutions. But we should heed the Biblical injunction about the liberating power of truth. And the truth is, for a century fanatics filled with genocidal hatred have violently and viciously attacked a liberal-democratic nation legitimately established in the ancient homeland of its people. Until our diplomacy and foreign relations in the region are predicated on this truth, the “two-state solution” will continue to be a dangerous farce.
120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Left Isn't Pro-Gay - It's Pro-Power... on: April 07, 2014, 08:20:34 AM
The Left Isn’t Pro-Gay — It’s Pro-Power

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 7, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

Libertarians and liberal Republicans have been proposing a truce on social issues in order to be able to concentrate on fiscal issues, but there is no such thing as a truce on any issue with the left.

Brendan Eich offered the left a truce on gay marriage. He talked about tolerance and diversity and he got his head handed to him. His forced departure from the Mozilla Foundation, which is behind the Firefox browser, should be a wake up call to anyone on the right who still thinks that social issues can be taken off the table and that we can all agree to disagree.

Those on the right who insist that conservatism should be reduced to fiscal issues imagine that the culture war is a fight that the right picked with the left. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The left does not care about gay marriage. In most left-wing regimes, homosexuality was persecuted. It was illegal in the USSR. Gay men were locked up in Cuba and are still targeted in China. Nicolas Maduro, the current hero of the left, openly uses homophobic language without any criticism from his Western admirers. It goes without saying that homosexuality is criminalized throughout the Muslim world.

Engels viewed homosexuality as a perversion born out of the bourgeois way of life that would be eliminated under socialism. The Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States stated that homosexuality “is a product of the decay of capitalism” and vowed that once the revolution took place, a “struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals.”

The left’s shift on this issue, as on many issues, was purely tactical. The left’s leading lights were racists who jumped into civil rights. They were sexists who became feminists. They were advocates for the working class who despised the idea of working for a living.

The culture war does not emerge from the left’s deeply held beliefs. Its leaders could care less about the things that they pretend to care about. It emerges instead from the need to maintain a constant state of domestic conflict.

You can’t have a truce when the other side wants a war.

Did the activists who claimed Eich’s scalp care about him or his $1,000 donation to defend marriage? They’re already forgetting his name and moving on to the next target. Eich just happened to make a good target. The Mozilla Foundation is shaky, its board was insecure, and once an online dating company cynically came out with a publicity stunt to keep the news cycle churning, the scalp of the man behind Javascript was claimed. If he had hung on for another few days, the whole thing would have gone away.

Next week it will be someone else. And then the week after that.

Opting out of the conflict means standing by while men like Eich are torn down, not because they did anything wrong, but because destroying them allows the left to feel the thrill of its power over people.

Every gang needs to hurt and terrorize people in order to feel its power. Unlike a Chicago street gang which goes in for an honest mugging or beating, the online activists of the left do their dirty work in this way. Afterward there is no blood and there are no bruises, but lives are destroyed and its social justice activists chortle to themselves coming off an adrenaline high before going after someone else.

The purpose of these purges is not to make the country more tolerant, but to make it more afraid. The message of the Eich purge is not, “accept gay marriage,” it’s “don’t question us.” As many have pointed out, Eich had the same view of gay marriage at the time he made that donation as Obama and Hillary.

But Eich wasn’t “us.” He wasn’t a member of the club.

Members of the club can and do make racist jokes. They can oppose gay marriage. They can sexually harass female employees, pay them less and even kill them. They can do all these things because the “club” is not about gay marriage or equal rights for race or gender.

It’s about the supreme power of the club.

You can call the club, liberalism, progressivism or simply “the left.” You can call its members Marxists, Socialists or anything else you like. They go by many names, some real and some fake, but they are the “club”; a totalitarian organization dedicated to absolute power in the name of any available lie.

The left is a totalitarian movement that inverts everything it touches. It fights against poverty by making more men poor. It helps black people by keeping them down, and it promotes tolerance through displays of intolerance. Its endgame is simply raw power. It wants as much of it as it can get its hands on.

We can stand aside, but it will affect us sooner or later. Even if we don’t get picked to be the teachable moment of the day, we will find ourselves in a country that is less free and more oppressive every year.

The idea that any part of the left’s agenda can be delinked and ignored is wishful thinking. The left’s incessant accusations of racism show that the refusal to engage an issue does not take it off the table. It’s the left that determines the content and the context of the conflict. And that’s why the right is losing. It imagines that it can unilaterally retreat to more favorable ground.

That’s a strategy that has yet to work.

The left doesn’t do truces. If the right cedes gay marriage, all it will have won is the right to be called homophobes for the next hundred years. And the culture war will move on to the next issue and the one after that. The purges will continue and more criminals guilty of thought crimes will be paraded for the virtual cameras. Yesterday’s commonplace idea will be tomorrow’s act of unspeakable bigotry that prevents you from being employed, opening a business or even staying out of prison.

You may be in the clear today, but you won’t be tomorrow.

Wars aren’t won by constantly retreating. They’re won by taking a stand for what you believe in.

The left constantly takes stands, but it believes in nothing. Like all totalitarian movements, it worships at the feet of the bronze bull of power. It believes in the virtue of its outrage, the might of its rhetoric and the pleasure of trampling an enemy underfoot. Every one of its beliefs are baseless and expendable in the name of its true god of power.

The right has sold its moral birthright in the hopes of being tolerated by a movement with no morals or beliefs except in the virtue of its own intolerance. It strategically embraces the left’s ideas and hopes that this process will eventually lead to a truce.

It can’t and it won’t.

The left does not hate the right because of gay marriage. It does not hate the right because it thinks that the right is racist, sexist, transphobic, semaphoric or plasmatic. It hates the right because it is not of the left. The right stands in the way of its absolute power. These two things are enough to be hated.

Totalitarian movements are destructive. They feed off conflict and desire absolute power. They cannot be compromised with, reasoned with or appeased. Instead they have to be exposed for what they are.

The only way to beat a totalitarian movement is to expose the dirty little secret that it is not pro-black, pro-gay, pro-woman or pro anything except pro-power. It is a greedy, corrupt and selfish movement that does not stand for a better world tomorrow, but for unlimited abuses of power in the world today.
121  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The Left Isn't Pro-Gay - It's Pro-Power... on: April 07, 2014, 08:19:24 AM
The Left Isn’t Pro-Gay — It’s Pro-Power

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 7, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

Libertarians and liberal Republicans have been proposing a truce on social issues in order to be able to concentrate on fiscal issues, but there is no such thing as a truce on any issue with the left.

Brendan Eich offered the left a truce on gay marriage. He talked about tolerance and diversity and he got his head handed to him. His forced departure from the Mozilla Foundation, which is behind the Firefox browser, should be a wake up call to anyone on the right who still thinks that social issues can be taken off the table and that we can all agree to disagree.

Those on the right who insist that conservatism should be reduced to fiscal issues imagine that the culture war is a fight that the right picked with the left. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The left does not care about gay marriage. In most left-wing regimes, homosexuality was persecuted. It was illegal in the USSR. Gay men were locked up in Cuba and are still targeted in China. Nicolas Maduro, the current hero of the left, openly uses homophobic language without any criticism from his Western admirers. It goes without saying that homosexuality is criminalized throughout the Muslim world.

Engels viewed homosexuality as a perversion born out of the bourgeois way of life that would be eliminated under socialism. The Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States stated that homosexuality “is a product of the decay of capitalism” and vowed that once the revolution took place, a “struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals.”

The left’s shift on this issue, as on many issues, was purely tactical. The left’s leading lights were racists who jumped into civil rights. They were sexists who became feminists. They were advocates for the working class who despised the idea of working for a living.

The culture war does not emerge from the left’s deeply held beliefs. Its leaders could care less about the things that they pretend to care about. It emerges instead from the need to maintain a constant state of domestic conflict.

You can’t have a truce when the other side wants a war.

Did the activists who claimed Eich’s scalp care about him or his $1,000 donation to defend marriage? They’re already forgetting his name and moving on to the next target. Eich just happened to make a good target. The Mozilla Foundation is shaky, its board was insecure, and once an online dating company cynically came out with a publicity stunt to keep the news cycle churning, the scalp of the man behind Javascript was claimed. If he had hung on for another few days, the whole thing would have gone away.

Next week it will be someone else. And then the week after that.

Opting out of the conflict means standing by while men like Eich are torn down, not because they did anything wrong, but because destroying them allows the left to feel the thrill of its power over people.

Every gang needs to hurt and terrorize people in order to feel its power. Unlike a Chicago street gang which goes in for an honest mugging or beating, the online activists of the left do their dirty work in this way. Afterward there is no blood and there are no bruises, but lives are destroyed and its social justice activists chortle to themselves coming off an adrenaline high before going after someone else.

The purpose of these purges is not to make the country more tolerant, but to make it more afraid. The message of the Eich purge is not, “accept gay marriage,” it’s “don’t question us.” As many have pointed out, Eich had the same view of gay marriage at the time he made that donation as Obama and Hillary.

But Eich wasn’t “us.” He wasn’t a member of the club.

Members of the club can and do make racist jokes. They can oppose gay marriage. They can sexually harass female employees, pay them less and even kill them. They can do all these things because the “club” is not about gay marriage or equal rights for race or gender.

It’s about the supreme power of the club.

You can call the club, liberalism, progressivism or simply “the left.” You can call its members Marxists, Socialists or anything else you like. They go by many names, some real and some fake, but they are the “club”; a totalitarian organization dedicated to absolute power in the name of any available lie.

The left is a totalitarian movement that inverts everything it touches. It fights against poverty by making more men poor. It helps black people by keeping them down, and it promotes tolerance through displays of intolerance. Its endgame is simply raw power. It wants as much of it as it can get its hands on.

We can stand aside, but it will affect us sooner or later. Even if we don’t get picked to be the teachable moment of the day, we will find ourselves in a country that is less free and more oppressive every year.

The idea that any part of the left’s agenda can be delinked and ignored is wishful thinking. The left’s incessant accusations of racism show that the refusal to engage an issue does not take it off the table. It’s the left that determines the content and the context of the conflict. And that’s why the right is losing. It imagines that it can unilaterally retreat to more favorable ground.

That’s a strategy that has yet to work.

The left doesn’t do truces. If the right cedes gay marriage, all it will have won is the right to be called homophobes for the next hundred years. And the culture war will move on to the next issue and the one after that. The purges will continue and more criminals guilty of thought crimes will be paraded for the virtual cameras. Yesterday’s commonplace idea will be tomorrow’s act of unspeakable bigotry that prevents you from being employed, opening a business or even staying out of prison.

You may be in the clear today, but you won’t be tomorrow.

Wars aren’t won by constantly retreating. They’re won by taking a stand for what you believe in.

The left constantly takes stands, but it believes in nothing. Like all totalitarian movements, it worships at the feet of the bronze bull of power. It believes in the virtue of its outrage, the might of its rhetoric and the pleasure of trampling an enemy underfoot. Every one of its beliefs are baseless and expendable in the name of its true god of power.

The right has sold its moral birthright in the hopes of being tolerated by a movement with no morals or beliefs except in the virtue of its own intolerance. It strategically embraces the left’s ideas and hopes that this process will eventually lead to a truce.

It can’t and it won’t.

The left does not hate the right because of gay marriage. It does not hate the right because it thinks that the right is racist, sexist, transphobic, semaphoric or plasmatic. It hates the right because it is not of the left. The right stands in the way of its absolute power. These two things are enough to be hated.

Totalitarian movements are destructive. They feed off conflict and desire absolute power. They cannot be compromised with, reasoned with or appeased. Instead they have to be exposed for what they are.

The only way to beat a totalitarian movement is to expose the dirty little secret that it is not pro-black, pro-gay, pro-woman or pro anything except pro-power. It is a greedy, corrupt and selfish movement that does not stand for a better world tomorrow, but for unlimited abuses of power in the world today.
122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: April 03, 2014, 03:57:38 PM
Crafty,

Not exactly.  The two articles are somewhat in accord, in the sense that Coulter is suggesting we buy the END PRODUCT (food) from other countries, if that's where it can be most efficiently produced, and the other is arguing that if a company is going to EMPLOY workers in this country - they need to be citizens, and not imported foreign nationals.
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ann Coulter: Farmers' Lies regarding immigration... on: April 03, 2014, 08:32:41 AM
Millionaires Need Your Help

Posted By Ann Coulter On April 3, 2014

Last Sunday, The New York Times published a front-page article about the heartfelt need of California farmers for more illegal aliens.

The first tip-off that heinous public policy ideas were coming was that the Times introduced farmer Chuck Herrin, owner of a farm-labor contracting company, as a “lifelong Republican.” That’s Times-speak for “liberal.”

Herrin admitted that he employs a lot of illegal aliens and bitterly complained that they lived in fear of “Border Patrol and deportations.” (But, apparently, he doesn’t live in fear of admitting he’s violating our immigration laws.)

Sorry that running a country inconveniences you, Chuck.

He said his illegal alien employees deserved amnesty because if “we keep them here and not do anything for them once they get old, that’s really extortion.”

As the punch line goes, “What’s this ‘we,’ paleface?”

Taxpayers have been subsidizing Chuck Herrin’s underpayment of his illegal labor force for decades, with skyrocketing taxes to pay for schools, roads, bridges, food stamps, health care and so on. Now Herrin thinks “we” are supposed to support his illegal employees in their old age, too.

Here’s another idea: How about a federal law mandating that employers of illegal aliens take responsibility for the people they hire? Why is the taxpayer on the hook for illegal aliens’ food, housing and medical care, when Chuck Herrin got 100 percent of the profit from their cheap labor?

We don’t allow chemical companies to dump pollutants in rivers, walk away and then say, “If we dump chemicals in rivers and we don’t clean them once the plant is gone, that’s really criminal.”

No, you dumped the chemicals — not “we.” And you, Chuck Herrin, got the cheap labor — not “we.”

“We” got hospital emergency rooms jammed with illegal aliens when we came in with heart attacks. “We” got the crime, drunk-driving and drug trafficking associated with illegal aliens. “We” got the overcrowded schools filled with kids whose illegal alien parents don’t pay property taxes. “We” got to press “one” for English.

This is even worse than the Wall Street bailouts — another example of fat cats pocketing 100 percent of the profits when business is good, but demanding a taxpayer handout when their investments go south. At least the Wall Street bailouts didn’t alter the country forever by giving the Democrats 30 million new voters.

According to the California Hospital Association, health care for illegal aliens is costing state taxpayers well over $1 billion a year.. Eighty-four hospitals across California have already been forced to close because of unpaid bills by illegal aliens.

Last year alone, California taxpayers paid $32 million for indigents’ health care at hospitals located in Fresno County– which happens to be where Chuck Herrin’s company is based. How about submitting a portion of that cost to Herrin?

Here’s your bill for $13 million.

What’s this for?

The county hospital. You’ve been paying your employees $20 an hour, and that’s just not enough to pay for their measles and tuberculosis treatments, not to mention delivery of their premature babies. No one’s saying it’s your fault, but it’s not the county hospital’s fault either.

Luckily, you’ve got deep pockets, Chuck – several hundred million dollars a year, we understand – thanks in part to how little you pay your workers, who are burdening our local services.

Not only should employers of illegal aliens be responsible for their employees’ becoming public charges, but they ought to be legally responsible for any crimes their illegal workers commit, just as parents can be for the crimes of their minor children, and bars can be for the behavior of their over-served customers.

Why should employers of illegal aliens be allowed to externalize their costs, while keeping 100 percent of the profits?

The very fact that the American taxpayer is required to subsidize illegal alien farm labor — to say nothing of anti-competitive marketing orders, tariffs and subsidies given to farmers — proves that we’re propping up an industry the country doesn’t need.

If Mexican farm labor is so much cheaper, maybe we should be growing our fruits and vegetables in Mexico. There’s absolutely no reason to import Mexicans to do something they could do at home and then sell to us. I believe this is what economists call “competitive advantage.”

The Times quotes a report by two pro-amnesty farmers groups, Partnership for a New American Economy and the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, complaining that American consumption of foreign-grown produce has increased by 80 percent since the late 1990s.

I see why rich farmers are alarmed by that, but why should Americans care? If food can be grown cheaper in other countries, isn’t it the very essence of libertarian free trade principles to buy it from them?

No. Apparently, we’re required to wreck the country by bringing in millions upon millions more poor people so we can save the buggy whip industry.

We didn’t do that with oil. We didn’t do it with steel. We must be “Fortress America” only when it comes to asparagus!

Hey! Where’s the Cato Institute on this? Busy drafting another philippic against our drug laws?

I care more about my fellow Americans who can’t get well-paying jobs than I do about multimillionaire farmers, demanding that the rest of us pay to support an industry that claims it can’t compete without taxpayer-subsidized illegal alien labor.
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The IT Industry's Job-Shortage Lies... on: April 03, 2014, 08:26:46 AM
The Tech Industry’s Immigration Lies

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On April 3, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

One of the primary narratives associated with comprehensive immigration reform has nothing to do with the millions of low-skill workers that would be granted an opportunity to compete against Americans for jobs. As a letter sent to the president and Congressional leaders signed by more than 100 chief executives of major tech companies and trade associations indicates, there is a shortage of highly-skilled American labor that drives reform as well. Yet as The Atlantic’s Michael S. Teitelbaum reveals, that narrative is a lie.

“A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute,” Teitelbaum explains. ”No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher…All have concluded that U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.”

He then introduces the 800-pound gorilla of Economics 101, as in the reality that a genuine shortage of high-skill workers would pressure those seeking an ostensible scarcity of talent to offer higher levels of compensation to potential workers. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is occurring. “Most studies report that real wages in many—but not all—science and engineering occupations have been flat or slow-growing, and unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations.”

How does this reconcile with the claims of people like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer? “Because labor markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields, industries, and time periods, it is easy to cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in specific years and locations,” Teitelbaum explains. And while he concedes that high-skill occupations have unemployment rates lower than those of the workforce in general, “surprisingly high unemployment rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious ‘shortages’ such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science (7.8 percent) and information systems (11.7 percent).”

The Economic Policy Institute (ECI) also hammers home reality about the so-called shortage of foreign workers, revealing that in 2011, the number of college-educated “guest workers” under the age of 30, comprised 66 percent of the 166,000 new college-educated Information Technology (IT) job holders under the age of 30. They further note that this reality is discouraging many Americans students in the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields from entering IT.

With good reason. Americans colleges already graduate 50 percent more computer science majors than are finding jobs in IT. The ECI further notes that if comprehensive immigration reform and/or the Skill Visa Act promoted by Republicans Darryl Issa (R-CA) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) become reality, the conservative estimate of 180,000, “new IT guestworkers and STEM green card beneficiaries will be greater than the number of new hires of young IT college graduates in 2011.”

At the heart of this sellout is is the H-1B visa program. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) does its best to obscure reality, stating that most of those visas are used to fill “entry level” positions. Yet EPI confirms Teitelman’s assessment of flat or slow-growing wages, revealing that such workers are not only competing with recent U.S. graduates, but providing a supply of lower-wage guest workers that can take jobs from older workers as well.

Computerworld, which on April 1 received the latest data regarding H-1B visas from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), explains there is such heavy demand anticipated, all of them will be claimed by the end of this week. They further note that the majority claimants will be firms “that use visa holders to displace U.S. workers.” ”The offshore outsourcing firms are once again getting the majority of the visas,” said Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York. “The program continues to promote the offshoring of high-wage American jobs.”

The top three companies on the list of visa approval in 2013 were Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Cognizant. Other players include IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Google and Oracle. Many of these firms hire IT workers for offshore outsourcing contracts. Domestic workers who are replaced as a result often have to train their replacements as a condition of their severance package. Companies such as Cognizant insist they maintain a robust effort to hire American workers, but they do not disclose data to support that contention. Moreover, in 2013, Infosys agreed to pay $34 million to resolve a claim by the federal government: they had accused the firm of running an unlawful visa scheme. Infosys also refused to release data on its U.S. workforce.

Food and agricultural producer Cargill is another company outsourcing its IT jobs, sending them to TCS. Cargill’s home base is in Minnesota, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), along with Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) were developing the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013. The bill aims to initially raise the current H-1B cap of 85,000 visas, comprised of 65,000 H-1Bs, plus an additional 20,000 set aside for advanced degree gradates of American universities, to 115,000. It also includes an increase in the cap based on demand, until it reached 300,000 visas every year thereafter., even as it exempts advance degree STEM students from the total. In addition, the bill won’t apply employment-based green card quotas to foreign students earning a master’s or doctorate in STEM fields at a U.S. university, or their spouses and minor children.

The bill passed in the Republican-controlled House on Dec. 5, 2013. It has yet to be taken up by the Democratically-controlled Senate.

Even as this amounts to dream legislation for high-tech companies, they are keeping up the pressure on lawmakers. In March, Goodlatte, who is the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, held a high-dollar fundraiser in Silicon Valley with pro-amnesty forces who ponied between $10,000 and $40,000 apiece for the privilege. Ron Conway, a prolific angel investor and venture capitalist, expressed the kind of arrogance one expects from those who seemingly believe government should be particularly responsive to high rollers. “In this case, because there’s been mixed messages from the Republicans, before I write my check, I wanted some assurances that Bob Goodlatte would be prepared to discuss immigration reform and what the timetable is for immigration reform, because we’re coming down the wire here with the [2014] elections and we need accountability,” he declared.

If genuine accountability is wanted–as opposed to the fulfillment of an agenda–getting the facts right would be a good place to start.

Both Teitelbaum and Michael Anft, senior writer for John Hopkins magazine, reveal that stores about a shortage of STEM workers are nothing new. Teitelbaum refers to five “alarm/boom/bust” cycles, each lasting about 10 to 15 years. From just after WWII through 2003, each cycle was initiated by alarms about a worker shortage, followed by policies to increase the supply of STEM workers, followed by the inevitable busts characterized by “mass layoffs, hiring freezes, and funding cuts that inflicted severe damage to careers of both mature professionals and the booming numbers of emerging graduates, while also discouraging new entrants to these fields.”

Anft speaks to the same phenomenon, noting that prior to Americans worrying about the current emergence of China and India as the primary challengers to our status as the world’s preeminent innovator, “there were ruckuses caused by an increase in foreign auto and electronics imports (Japan) in the 1970s and 80s, a fear that someone else (the U.S.S.R.) would win the space race in the 50s and 60s, and the wartime emergency (Nazi Germany) that led to the Manhattan Project in the 40s.”   

Hira, who has testified before Congress regarding the issue, notes the hypocrisy of high-tech firms like Microsoft who advocate for more IT visas, even as they lay off thousands of Americans with comparable skills. Norman S. Matloff, a professor of computer science at the University of

California at Davis, is far more direct. “This is all about industry wanting to lower wages,” he contends.

Toward that end, high-tech companies are making contingency plans, in case their current push for comprehensive immigration reform proves unsuccessful. As Silicon Valley attorney John Bautista reveals, some companies with solely domestic operations are exploring the idea of opening offices overseas so they can hire people and bring them back to America on visas that allow for internal transfers of existing employees. ”Before [corporate boards said], ‘We’ve got someone we want to hire, what’s the best way to bring him over?’” he explained. “Now it’s, ‘We have a hiring problem, let’s use the immigration laws to come up with an overall strategy to bring teams of people on board.’”

Part of that overall strategy includes the oldest strategies of all: pumping loads of cash into political campaigns and lobbying efforts. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the computer and Internet industries showered Democrat and Republican candidates for federal office, as well as political committees, with $62 million during the 2012 election cycle. That same year tech companies spent a record-setting $132.5 million on Washington lobbying efforts, running their ten-year total in that regard to over $1 billion.

In 2013, the tech sector combined forces with the agricultural sector. They were joined by the Chamber of Commerce, which added another $52.7 million to reform lobbyists’ coffers. ”We’re determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted,” said Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue in January.

By any means necessary it seems. Whether they get across the finish line remains to be seen. Likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) is the latest Republican to drink the comprehensive Kool-aid, insisting that his party has to get ”beyond deportation to the rest of the issues,” if they want to compete for Hispanic votes. Those would be the same Hispanic votes that have never accrued to Republicans in more than three decades of elections. Furthermore, alienating both low-skill and high-skill American workers as a tradeoff is a fool’s errand. 

Unfortunately, for un- or under-employed Americans, the outright lie that there’s a shortage of high-tech workers apparently take precedence over their well-being. For Democrats, virtually anything the expands the dependency of Americans has become, rather than a badge of shame, an integral part of their party platform. For Republicans, it the sop of accommodating their business allies, and siren song of possibly newfound Hispanic fealty that drives their ambitions. In a better world, the efforts by both parties would be seen as the contempt for the rule of law and the utter lack of concern for Americans they truly represent. In this one, the narrative, no matter how duplicitous and despicable, rules the roost.
125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 01, 2014, 10:50:56 AM
Crafty - No, saying there is no rational economic basis means that, while something may in fact be happening, it is not consistent with a rational long-term analysis. Lots of irrational things happen in markets on a short-term basis.  I don't buy into the B.S. that I was taught in college business courses that the market incorporates all available information accurately and behaves accordingly. That's what I meant to convey.  Sorry for the lack of precision.
126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 01, 2014, 09:38:36 AM
Crafty,

I never denied anything to be possible.  I'm simply stating my educated opinion.  I also agreed in my last post that your analysis (in the short term) is rational.  I'm not one to gamble and try to profit from short-term moves in any market.  I have always been oriented toward the long-term, and fundamentals, rather than technical analysis or short-term movements.
127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 01, 2014, 07:11:25 AM
Crafty,

I do not dispute your statements regarding the current declining gold price from a short-term, rather myopic perspective.  However - I think if one honestly takes a long-term, more comprehensive view of the current situation with regard to the massive expansion of the US money supply, our wholly unprecedented and rapidly expanding debt, and the fact that China and Russia are in the process of moving away from the US dollar as a reserve currency (all of which Wesbury, et. al. either refuse to acknowledge or dismiss as no big deal) it's clear to me that the price of gold and silver in real terms ought to be two to three times - maybe even higher - its present level.  The US dollar is of value now ONLY because of its reserve status.  Once that collapses, so will its value - RAPIDLY.
128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Expert says U.S. Stock Market is "Rigged"... on: March 31, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Really???  Tell us (other than Crafty) something we don't already know... smiley

I'll add that I am convinced the precious metals market is being kept artificially low, and has been for some time.  There is absolutely no rational economic reason for gold and silver prices to be FALLING now.  See below:

www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-us-stock-market-rigged/

129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Valerie Jarrett's Influence on Obama... on: March 26, 2014, 10:32:04 AM
Valerie Jarrett’s Influence on Obama

Posted By Jamie Glazov On March 26, 2014 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dr. Paul Kengor, a professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. His latest book is 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative.

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about Valerie Jarrett, her background, her relationship with Barack Obama, and her influence in the Obama White House.

Let’s begin first with who Valerie Jarrett is — and her relationship with Barack Obama.

Kengor: Thanks Jamie.

Valerie Jarrett is President Obama’s single most important and influential adviser. No one else in the White or the entire administration is as close to Obama. She has been described as everything from his “right-hand woman” to like a sister and even a mother to Obama. To cite some mainstream/leftist sources: The New York Times says she’s Obama’s “closest friend in the White House,” his “envoy,” his “emissary,” and his “all-purpose ambassador.” The Times calls her the “ultimate Obama insider.” Dana Milbank says her connection to Obama is “deep and personal” and that she’s “the real center of Obama’s inner circle.”

Obama himself calls her one of his “oldest friends” and says “I trust her completely.”

As for Jarrett, she says that she and Obama have a “shared view of where the United States fits in the world.” She says they “have kind of a mind meld.” She’s says that “chances are, what he wants to do is what I’d want to do.”

FP: Ok, so that begs the next question: What is it exactly that they want to do?

Kengor: That’s a very good question. I think the best I can say, which is admittedly at times vague from a policy standpoint, is that both favor some form of leftist “fundamental transformation.”

In domestic policy, we can expect them to desire and pursue the kinds of policies that Obama was able to implement in 2009-10 when he had a leftist Pelosi-Reid Congress. The current Republican majority in Congress gets a lot of heat from conservatives, but at least it has slowed the radical push to the left that occurred under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid during those first two years of the Obama presidency. Those first two years were an Obama-Jarrett policy fest. That what an Obama-Jarrett agenda looks like.

In terms of foreign policy, here again it’s difficult to track down precise ideological statements and actions from Jarrett, though she has said unequivocally that her worldview fully reflects Barack Obama’s. It may even be worse than Obama’s, if the reports of her intervention on Osama Bin Laden are correct.

My sense is that both Obama and Valerie Jarrett prefer a weaker America on the world stage. The pandering to Putin in the first term was probably a reflection of Obama-Jarrett thinking, and thus so is the humiliation at the hands of Putin in the second term.

I’m also suspicious of Valerie Jarrett’s possibly having provided negative input into Obama’s statements on Iran, including his terrible Carter-like reaction to the initial uprising in the Iranian “street” in June 2009. Did Obama’s behavior in that period, which was initially so weak that even Democrats were aghast, reflect Valerie Jarrett’s input? I can’t say, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

FP: How much influence does she actually have on policy?

Kengor: Her influence is highly significant. She has her hands in every major decision, if not every small one. She’s constantly monitoring things, inserting her input and protecting her Barack. I could give a bunch of examples, but here are two.

Valerie Jarrett pushed for the HHS mandate requiring all religious believers and groups, including institutional churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, to fund abortion drugs and contraception. According to the New York Times and Politico, she did so even as the likes of Joe Biden and Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley urged the White House to carefully consider the backlash from the Catholic Church. Biden and Daley lost out to Valerie Jarrett and Kathleen Sebelius. No surprise. Obama usually sides with Jarrett.

Especially interesting to readers here, it was reported some time ago that Jarrett repeatedly urged Obama not to take out Osama Bin Laden, prompting Obama to cancel the mission as many as three times. That has been reported by a number of sources, most notably in a book by Richard Miniter. About a year before Miniter’s book, I had written a lengthy feature article for American Spectator on Valerie Jarrett. One piece of information that was out there, but I couldn’t confirm, was this Obama-Osama report.

FP: Jarrett is clearly a leftist, but you have stated that some of the mainstream media sources have tried to suggest otherwise.

Kengor: Yes. When I first researched her, trying to pin down her politics was very difficult. The liberal media’s job is to first and foremost protect Barack Obama. They are reporters second and partisan Democrats first. And so, reporters portrayed Valerie Jarrett in soaring, gushing, hagiographic tones, exalting her as Solomon-like in her almost-unearthly wisdom. Her reasoning skills and mind were the world’s finest ever assembled in a woman (other than, perhaps, in the person of Hillary Clinton). When she and Obama sit together in the Oval Office, it’s like having all the accumulated knowledge in human history right there at once. Naturally, too, of course, the same media portrayed her as a centrist, a moderate. Here’s one of my favorite examples, from a February 2011 Chicago Tribune profile: “She is a consensus builder who reinforces Obama’s tendency toward centrism.”

Yes, of course!

I had to really dig to find examples of her early policy influence. Since then, I’ve found more. She’s precisely what we’d expect of someone who is an Obama kindred soul: a leftist.

FP: Speaking of being a leftist, what are her roots?

Kengor: She was born in Shiraz, Iran in November 1956, the time of the Suez crisis. She was born Valerie Bowman to American parents—Dr. James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman. Her father was a pathologist and geneticist at a children’s hospital in Shiraz as part of a U.S. aid program to assist developing countries. The family eventually returned to America, specifically Chicago, in 1963. Her mother was a child psychologist who helped establish the Erikson Institute, which (Hillary Clinton-like) specialized in “child advocacy.” The Erikson Institute got funding from the Woods Charitable Fund. If that sounds familiar to readers here, it’s because Barack Obama and Bill Ayers eventually served together as board members at Woods.

Now her Chicago roots are more disturbing — and indicative of her ideology. They also connect her to Obama and his ideological roots.

Valerie’s maternal grandparents were Robert Rochon Taylor and Dorothy Taylor. Robert was the first African-American head of the Chicago Housing Authority. Dorothy, a native of Berkeley, was active in early Planned Parenthood. That’s ironic, given Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project,” her 1926 speech to a KKK rally in Silverlake, New Jersey, and her championing of racial-eugenics. Then again, Sanger’s penchant for “race improvement” has never halted liberals’ veneration of her.

FP: There is a fascinating connection that you’ve detailed between Jarrett’s grandfather and Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, who you’ve written a book about.

Kengor: That’s correct.

The book is titled, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. Frank Marshall Davis was an African-American born in Kansas in 1905 who eventually moved to Chicago and joined Communist Party USA. Notably, he joined the party after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, a time when many American communists, particularly Jewish-American communists, left the party. They left because Stalin’s signing of the pact facilitated and enabled Hitler’s invasion of Poland and start of World War II. Frank Marshall Davis, however, was undeterred. He joined after the pact.

Worse, Davis, in Chicago, worked for one of the most egregious communist fronts in the history of this country: the American Peace Mobilization. Congress called the American Peace Mobilization “one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized in this country” and “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States.” The group’s objective was to stop the United States from entering the war against Hitler—again, because Hitler and Stalin were allies. American communists were allows loyal Soviet patriots. They literally swore allegiance to the USSR and its line.

In my book Dupes, I publish the original Soviet Comintern document acknowledging that the American Peace Mobilization was founded on the Comintern’s initiative in Chicago in September 1940. There, the Comintern and Communist Party USA attempted to organize a coalition of leftists and “progressives” who would keep America out of the war and out of any support for Britain or anyone opposing Hitler and Stalin—who, again, were allies.

Okay, how does this involve Valerie Jarrett? Jarrett’s grandfather, Robert Taylor, was involved with the American Peace Mobilization, as was Frank Marshall Davis.

Taylor also served with Davis on another communist front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, whose members masqueraded as civil-rights crusading “progressives.” The two served on the board together.

And there’s more. Valerie Jarrett has additional family roots in these things. Both Taylor (Jarrett’s grandfather) and Frank Marshall Davis—who would one day meet and become a mentor to a young Barack Obama in Hawaii in the 1970s—would have often encountered another politically active Chicagoan, Vernon Jarrett. In fact, Vernon Jarrett and Frank Marshall Davis worked together on the very small publicity team (a handful of people) of the communist-controlled Packinghouse Workers Union.

Who was Vernon Jarrett? He would one day become Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law.

So, to sum up, Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, worked with the literal relatives of Valerie Jarrett—her grandfather and future father-in-law—in Chicago’s Communist Party circles in the 1940s.

FP: Amazing. And it was in Chicago, of course, that Valerie Jarrett and Obama eventually met?

Kengor: They first met in Chicago in the early 1990s. During her stint as deputy chief of staff to Mayor Daley (the second Mayor Daley), Jarrett met a young lawyer named Michelle Robinson, who worked for the firm Sidley Austin. They hit it off. Michelle told Jarrett she should meet another young lawyer named Barack Obama, her fiancé. They agreed, and the rest is history.

By the way, David Remnick, a top Obama biographer, reported that Valerie said of that meeting: “Barack felt extraordinarily familiar.” How so? She said that she and Barack “shared a view of where the United States fit in the world.” As David Remnick translates, this was a more “objective” view of an America that was not “the center of all wisdom and experience.” This was not an exceptional America. Of course it wasn’t.

FP: One final question on the Chicago roots. This gets even crazier. Tell us how David Axelrod’s roots tie into this.

Kengor: David Axelrod is the political consultant who made Barack Obama president. He coined the very terms “hope and change.” He is a native New Yorker who ended up attending college and then working in Chicago in the 1970s and 1980s and on. Like Obama, and like Valerie Jarrett, he found his political calling in Chicago.

In Chicago, Axelrod was mentored by the Canter family, namely David Canter. The Canter family has not only deep communist roots in Chicago but also in Stalin’s Soviet Union. David and his family had lived in Moscow just before coming to Chicago. His father, Harry Canter, had literally worked for Stalin’s government as an official translator of Lenin’s writings. He was a hardcore American Bolshevik. Before going to Moscow, Harry had been secretary of the Boston Communist Party and ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket.

When this duty to Stalin was finished, the Canter family moved on to Chicago, which was (second only to New York) a hotbed for communism. The American Communist Party was founded in Chicago in September 1919, six months after the Comintern was founded in Moscow.

The Canters got involved in all sorts of Chicago-based communist activities and fronts: big May Day parades, the Packinghouse Workers Union, the communist Abraham Lincoln School, and in the pages of the Chicago Star, the communist newspaper founded and edited by Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. In fact, Harry Canter was one of the small group of board members that bought the Chicago Star from Davis in September 1948 as Davis bolted to Hawaii to do communist work there (and eventually meet Obama). Canter’s group of purchasers was called the Progressive Publishing Company.

Eventually, Harry’s son David Canter, who himself was involved in all kinds of wild far-left activities, met and mentored David Axelrod.

FP: So, all of these folks knew each other in Chicago?

Kengor: Obama and David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett all have common political ancestors who knew and worked with each other in communist activities and fronts in Chicago in the 1940s. The ancestors are, respectively, Frank Marshall Davis, the Canters, and Vernon Jarrett and Robert Taylor. We are today being governed by ghosts from Chicago’s Communist Party haunts of the 1940s. It’s scary.

By the way, then and still today, they call themselves “progressives.”

FP: This information is remarkable. Tell our readers where you have documented all of this.

Kengor: I’m meticulous in tying all these things together. In my books, The Communist and Dupes, especially the former, I provide copies of original materials and documentation. Nothing that I said is exaggerated. Besides, who could make this up?

The American public voted for “change.” This is a change alright.

FP: Ok so crystallize us what the “change” is exactly that Obama and Jarrett have ushered in and are ushering in. And summarize for us: Who is Valerie Jarrett and what is the meaning and significance of her close friendship with, and enormous influence, on the president?

Kengor: I think the “change” is this thrusting of America to the left, this “fundamental transformation.”

Here’s a crucial added insight into Valerie Jarrett’s thinking: There’s a video clip of her on You Tube, from early in the first Obama term, where she’s gushing about Van Jones. She lights up, aglow, as she mentions him—and as the lefties in the crowd howl in approval. She speaks of being “so delighted” with Jones’ “creative ideas” and talks of how her and Obama’s White House hopes to “capture” those ideas. She has a giant smile. That 30 seconds or so of uncensored, unfiltered Valerie Jarrett speaks volumes. At long last, there’s the real Valerie Jarrett, without the doting protection of the mainstream media that coddles her and Barack Obama.



So, in short, the meaning and significance of Valerie Jarrett’s close friendship and enormous influence on the president is an America that increasingly moves left domestically and, I suspect, becomes weaker in the world internationally.

FP: Professor Kengor, thanks for your time.

Kengor: Anytime, Jamie. I thank you, Front Page, and David Horowitz for your time and courage.
130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Malaysian Air 370 on: March 25, 2014, 08:15:11 AM
I give this explanation ZERO credence.  The Malaysian government has been under severe pressure to produce evidence/explanation of what happened.  They are extremely motivated to get this OFF their plate and turn the world's attention AWAY from them.  This is nothing more than a transparent and laughable attempt to close out the investigation and move on.  I still maintain that this plane was hijacked and landed somewhere.  There are quite a few experts that share this suspicion.
131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What a joke... on: March 20, 2014, 08:45:25 AM
These eunuch Republicans just can't seem to stand any criticism from Democrats or the media.  They consistently accept the premises of the Democrats' accusations (such as the Republicans are conducting a "war on women") no matter how ridiculous they are, and then try to prove they're not what they're being accused of by boneheaded moves like this.  How pathetic.  I MUST AGREE WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH IN ASKING "WHY THE HELL IS GOV. SCOTT WALKER'S INCREDIBLE SUCCESS IN WISCONSIN NOT BEING TRUMPETED FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS BY THE REPUBLICANS AND ADOPTED AS A WAY FORWARD FOR THE COUNTRY???"  For God's sake - PAUL RYAN represents Wisconsin!  Where the hell has he been on this issue?  Is he afraid of giving his own Governor credit?  The Republican leadership appears to be hell-bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama: Abbas has "consistently renounced violence"... on: March 18, 2014, 04:45:43 PM
Obama: Abbas has “consistently renounced violence”

Robert Spencer    Mar 17, 2014

This is not the first time that Obama has said something to suggest that he is smoking controlled substances.

“Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority, I believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas…” — Barack Obama, March 21, 2013

“As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.” — Mahmoud Abbas, March 15, 2013

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” — Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, as quoted in the Hamas Charter

“Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” — Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV

“Obama: Abbas Has ‘Consistently Renounced Violence,’” by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, March 17:

President Barack Obama welcomed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the White House on Monday in a bid to rekindle a fledgling peace process that has all but collapsed under Palestinian rejection and a massive influx of terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Obama hosted Abbas in the Oval Office for a “working lunch” and praised the Palestinian leader as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence.”

Obama omitted all references to Palestinian terrorism and last week’s rocket attacks, many of which were claimed to have been launched by a militant branch of Abbas’ own Fatah political party.

Obama also did not mention Abbas’ efforts to honor Palestinian terrorists and more recent remarks by his senior adviser calling on Allah to kill the Israelis.

The meeting comes at a critical time in the Middle East peace process, a priority for Secretary of State John Kerry.

Efforts to push both sides into signing an interim agreement that would lay the groundwork for a permanent deal have crumbled in recent weeks after Palestinian factions rejected the deal and resorted to launching nearly 200 rockets at Israeli civilians.

Obama lavished praise on Abbas during a joint press conference held before the two retreated from reporters for a one-on-one discussion.

“I have to commend President Abbas,” Obama said. “He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors.”

However, talks have in part broken down on the Palestinians ongoing refusal to publicly recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.”

Obama also did not touch on Abbas’s ongoing support for Palestinian terrorists who were released from Israeli jails last year in good faith as a precursor to the talks.

Abbas awarded in July the “highest order of the Star of Honor” to Nayef Hawatmeh, leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which has killed Israeli schoolchildren and others.

In October of last year, Abbas welcomed back home a group of 26 released Palestinian terrorists as “our heroic brothers,” according to the media monitoring site Palestinian Media Watch.

“We welcome our heroic brothers who come from behind bars to the world of freedom. We congratulate ourselves and we congratulate all of you in this great celebration that unifies and returns our sons to us,” Abbas was quoted as saying of the terrorists.

He made similar remarks in December.

Abbas said during a press conference with the president on Monday that he is looking forward to the return of another group of Palestinian terrorists, which he views as a chief priority going forward.

“We have an agreement with Israel, that was brokered by Mr. Kerry, concerning the release of the fourth batch of prisoners and we are hopeful that the fourth batch will be released by the 29th of March because this will give a very solid impression about the seriousness of these efforts to achieve peace,” Abbas said.

Obama, in his own remarks Monday, said that the United States remains the Palestinian Authority’s biggest global champion.

“The United States obviously has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian Authority,” Obama said. “We’re the largest humanitarian donor and continue to help to try to foster economic development and opportunity and prosperity for people, particularly young people like those that I met.”

As Obama struggles to put the peace process back on track, Abbas has indicated that he does not plan to negotiate past April 29, when he will revert to using the United Nations as a way to unilaterally gain recognition for a Palestinian state….
133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: March 18, 2014, 03:53:51 PM
I honestly don't think Obama would care - in fact he might consider it a benefit - if Iran nuked Israel and wiped it out.  Obama considers Israel - as does Jimmy Carter and the rest of Europe - as THE problem in the Middle East.  These fools, in addition to being clearly anti-Semitic,  think that if we could only get rid of Israel, the Middle East would be one big happy family.  What morons.
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israel: "This plane is likely intact - it was landed in a terrorist plot." on: March 17, 2014, 07:41:32 AM
Former El Al security chief: Iran likely involved in Malaysia plane disappearance

Robert Spencer    Mar 16, 2014 at 9:14pm www.jihadwatch.org

He said that “investigators were correct in honing in on the two fake-passport carrying Iranian passengers on the doomed flight, and they have wasted valuable time by exploring other leads.” Those Iranians do seem to have been dismissed rather casually. And Iran’s being involved would make perfect sense: the Iranian mullahs are bolder than ever, as they know that Barack Obama isn’t going to lift a finger to stop their jihad, and instead will continue to give them whatever they want.

“Ex-El Al expert: Iran likely involved in MH 370,” by Debra Kamin for the Times of Israel, March 16 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A former security chief for El Al said that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 points directly to Iran.

Isaac Yeffet, who served as head of global security for Israel’s national carrier in the 1980s and now works as an aviation security consultant in New Jersey, said investigators were correct in honing in on the two fake-passport carrying Iranian passengers on the doomed flight, and they have wasted valuable time by exploring other leads.

“What happened to this aircraft, nobody knows. My guess is based upon the stolen passports, and I believe Iran was involved,” he said. “They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”

In the immediate aftermath of the aircraft’s disappearance, which occurred last week during a standard night flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, Malaysian officials and the media were fixated on the story of two Iranians who had made it onto the plane with stolen passports. As the days wore on and the investigation uncovered new and confusing details, with officials admitting that the plane could have traveled for as long as seven hours without radio contact, and that its potential location could be anywhere from northern Kyrgyzstan to the southern Indian Ocean, attention has shifted to the pilots and to far-flung conspiracy theories. This is a misstep, said Yeffet, and one that would not have happened in Israel.

“This would never have happened on an Israeli plane,” says Yeffet. “An El Al aircraft was hijacked for the first and last time in 1968. Since then, there has not been a single flight where security did not check every single name.”

However, it would have taken more than just a pair of Iranians with forged documents, Yeffet said, to pull off such an astonishing crime. “I can’t believe for a second that if these people planned to hijack the aircraft, it was just them,” he said. But based upon the tried-and-true Israeli intelligence strategy of profiling, the pilots, he said, are unlikely suspects.

“We are talking about a captain who is 53 years old, who has worked for Malaysia Airlines for 30 years, and suddenly he became a terrorist? He wanted to commit suicide? If he committed suicide, where is the debris?”

Adding that the captain in question, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was known to be happily married and comfortably well-off, Yeffet said the profile simply does not fit. “From the United States to China to Japan, everybody is searching for this aircraft or piece of it. And there is no sign. So in my opinion, the aircraft was hijacked. And it was an excellent plan from the terrorists, to land in a place where they can hide the plane and no one can find it.”

Lt. Col. (Res.) Eran Ramot, a former IAF fighter pilot and the head of aviation research at Israel’s Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, however, drew other conclusions.

“It would be very complicated [for someone other than the pilot to have flown the plane],” Ramot said, based on the stunning revelations that the flight not only made a total U-turn from its planned route but also dipped in between radar points for hours and had all of its tracking systems manually turned off. “It takes somebody that knows how to operate an airplane like this.”

Like Yeffet, Ramot believes the plane was being intentionally flown to a secret location, and he went as far as to say he is holding out hope that the 239 passengers and crew who were on board are still alive.

“We don’t know any better yet,” he said. “One of my theories is that the airplane landed in Bangladesh. It could reach there, it’s very close to Afghanistan. It could have landed on airstrip there, and everybody on board is still alive. It could be done.”

Asked what would have happened if the plane – which went undetected for hours as it blipped across Malaysian radars – had entered Israeli airspace, Ramot said, “It would not go unnoticed, that’s for sure. Action would have been carried out, the least of which would have been an interception to escort it.”

That doesn’t mean that the Malaysian military wasn’t paying attention, he added. It’s simply that in Israel, the margin for taking chances is significantly reduced.

“It’s a matter of atmosphere,” he said. “Here, every blip on the screen is suspicious because that’s the way we live. That’s our daily program. I can’t imagine they pay as much attention, but if a blip runs wide or runs strange, I would expect them to notice.”

Pini Schiff, one of Israel’s top aviation security experts, said that if there is any comfort that Israelis can take from the story of MH 370, which is proving to be one of the most confounding aviation disasters of all time, it is that it could never happen to a plane flying out of Ben-Gurion International Airport.

“It simply wouldn’t happen at Ben-Gurion,” he said. “The level of security at Ben-Gurion and on all El Al planes is so high, there is nothing more they could do… Nations are not spending billions of dollars the way the Israeli government is protecting Israeli aviation, because the threat against Israeli aviation is so high. What we are doing in Ben-Gurion is an operation that is not being done in any other airport in the world. Not in the United States, not in Britain, not in Germany, not anywhere.”

Like his colleagues, Schiff said that his guess is as good as anyone’s as to the fate of MH 370, but he also believes there’s a good possibility that it has been brought down, intact, on a hidden runway in some far-flung corner of the world.

“It will be found. It may take a month or a year, but eventually, it will be found,” he said. “This aircraft didn’t vanish. It exists somewhere in the world, and it will be found, probably in one piece.”
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / France: "Dirty Jew, Go Home to Israel"... on: March 14, 2014, 12:18:29 PM
France: “Dirty Jew, Go home to Israel” — Muslim mother and daughter assault Jewish girl

Robert Spencer    Mar 13, 2014 at 9:21am

Analysts routinely think that attacks like this one happen because of the conflict between Israel and the “Palestinians,” but in reality the enmity goes much deeper than that. Hatred of Jews is deeply ingrained in the Qur’an, which calls Jews “the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers” (5:82), and says that they “have been put under humiliation wherever they are overtaken, except for a covenant from Allah and a rope from the Muslims. And they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah and have been put under destitution. That is because they disbelieved in the verses of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That is because they disobeyed and transgressed.” (3:110) It says that Allah transformed the disobedient Jews into apes and pigs (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166). It says that they say Ezra is Allah’s son, and are consequently accursed (9:30). And there are many other passages heaping contempt and scorn upon them.

“‘Dirty Jew, Go Home to Israel:’ Jewish Girl in France Attacked by Arab Mother and Daughter,” by Gidon Ben-zvi for Algemeiner, March 12:

A young Jewish woman was recently assaulted at a laundromat in a suburb of Lyon, France by a mother and daughter of Arab descent, according to Israeli daily Ma’ariv on Tuesday.

The victim, named only as Candace, told the Europe-Israel news site that the mother grabbed and held her down while the daughter hit her several times in the face.

“Dirty Jew, go home to your country, Israel,” the daughter shrieked at Candace while striking her, Ma’ariv reported.

According to Candace, the assailant had noticed that she was wearing a Star of David around her neck.

One of Candace’s eyes was badly injured in the unprovoked assault. She also said she lost some hearing in her left ear as a result of the beating.

The victim, an American expat who has been living in France for 12 years, added that none of the bystanders who witnessed the incident raised a finger to help. Following the attack Candace said she was disappointed once again by her adopted country when French police did little more than record her complaint.

Candace said she remains proud of her Jewish identity, despite the horrific thrashing. However, following the traumatic experience, the young woman said that she now finds it difficult to leave the safety of her home.
136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / An "Onslaught of White-on-Black Murder?" on: March 14, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
Al Sharpton vs. Reality...

An ‘Onslaught’ of White-on-Black Murder?

Posted By Colin Flaherty On March 14, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

Activists from around the country marched on Tallahassee Monday to protest what one writer for Salon is calling “open season on black teenagers: The onslaught of white murder.”

Speakers such as Al Sharpton reminded the crowd of the most famous example of this onslaught from two years ago, when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. A jury ruled it was self defense. The next example was last year, when Michael Dunn shot Jordan Davis after feeling threatened by Davis and his friends.

Earlier this month, a jury found Dunn guilty of three charges of second degree murder for firing several bullets into a car, but could not reach a verdict for the killing of Jordan Davis. This prompted howls of protest from black writers and activists who say these two killings form a trend.

Several national media outlets including Time and USA Today glommed on to the narrative: Black people are victims of white violence. Not the other way around, despite crime statistics that show white-on-black crime is a rarity compared to black-on-white crime and black mob violence.

Much of this violence is documented in White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore it.

If everything that speakers and reporters at the rally knew came from the daily newspapers, they could be forgiven for not being aware of the disproportionate nature of racial violence. So let’s fill in a few blanks with recent examples:

In Annapolis, Maryland, two black men, Devery Kelley and Cornell Robinson were arrested earlier this month for robbing a pregnant woman while she was in labor on her way to the hospital delivery room.

In Madison, Wisconsin, about the same time as the protest, police arrested six black people for the home invasion and beating of a young couple. They were also charged with sexual assault on the woman, who was six months pregnant.

In Seattle last week, police found 100 black people fighting in the street. Some were shooting guns. Some wore black ski masks. No one was arrested.

Ski masks seem to be a popular accessory this year:  In Washington, D.C. over the weekend, black people wearing ski masks fired guns and threatened a homeowner who confronted a crowd of 100 black people fighting and stomping on the hood of her car. The Washington Post reported that “someone wearing a ski mask used a racial slur, told her to shut up and threatened to kill her.”

When she pointed the offenders out to police, they refused to question or even approach the suspects.

When the woman’s husband went to the police station the next day to complain about the lack of police action toward violence in her recently gentrified neighborhood,  “he was told that officers are instructed not to engage large crowds if it might put them in danger.”

In Dayton, Ohio over the weekend, a large group of black people were fighting downtown. When police arrived to break it up, James White attacked the officers. They arrested him.

Over the weekend near Rochester, a large group of black people were fighting in a bowling alley when one man was hit in the head with a bowling ball.  Four were arrested.

In Stamford, Conn. on Saturday, a store owner tried to stop a group of black people from stealing several bottles of liquor. The alleged thieves attacked the store owners and their family, breaking a bottle over the woman’s head. Police said one of the suspects “kicked and spit on officers.”

In Dallas less than a month ago, career criminal Deyfon Pipkins was shot and killed while breaking into the home of a senior citizen. This was just the latest of several burglaries at this house. The local Fox affiliate reports Pipkins had a criminal record that was “18 pages long.”

Soon after the killing, several relatives complained about the homeowner, said the Fox affiliate. “He could have used a warning,” said Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins’ sister-in-law. “He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense.”

In Mobile, Alabama, the relatives of Adric White did not like it any better when he was shot in November at a discount store he was robbing. “If no one had a gun up to him, if no one pointed a gun at him – what gives him the right to think that it’s okay to just shoot someone?” a relative, who wished to remain anonymous, told FOX10. “You should have just left the store and went wherever you had to go in your car or whatever.”

In Milwaukee Friday afternoon, a large group of black people at a McDonald’s restaurant were fighting and destroying property. Nine black people were arrested.

On Friday in Chicago Heights, 20 black students from Bloom Trail High School were fighting and attacking security guards in what local news is calling a “massive brawl.” Some of it was caught on video. Nine were arrested.

Near Minneapolis a week ago, a group of 15 black people were fighting at an LA Fitness. They were throwing free weights and barbells at gym patrons and staff.  When police arrived, they fought them too. Some on video.

Last Thursday in Omaha, a black man shot Brandon Samuels dead.  They were at a party following a Miley Cyrus’s “Bangerz Tour” concert when Samuels tried to stop the man who was attacking a woman. The man left and returned with two friends and a gun. They shot Samuels in the neck and seriously wounded another.

In St. Louis on Sunday, dozens of black people rioted in the middle of the afternoon, in the middle of a street, in the middle of a popular business district called the Delmar Loop, in the middle of a crowd of people with cell phone cameras, in the middle of an area known for frequent and regular black mob violence often caught on video. Then they looted a nearby Family Dollar store. Police took 20 into custody and released them to their parents without arresting anyone.

In Austin, Texas on Friday, the headline tells the story: “Another brutal beating in Downtown Austin has been caught on camera — this time the victims are two women.” This time the crowd was about a dozen black people.  The women were beaten unconscious.

On Friday in Flint, again the headline tells the story: Brawl involving several teens in Flint sends two girls to hospital, police say. More than a dozen black people were involved. And yes, it happens quite often there.

On Monday in the San Francisco Bay area, a black passenger on a BART train harassed and assaulted white passengers. On video.

On Monday in Atlanta, Kenneth Temple and Rendauldos Chisolm were charged with first degree murder for beating, robbing and killing the manager of a Taco Bell.

In Denver, police are looking for 5 black people responsible for a crime spree including 18 robberies over the last seven weeks  — that they know about. So far.

Over the weekend in Manhattan, Kyle Rogers was found unconscious and bloody on the street after being attacked Sunday morning. On video. The attack left Rogers with several broken bones in his face and jaw.  Rogers is one of hundreds of victims of the spontaneous racial violence that some call the Knockout Game.

Police are looking for a black man in connection with the assault — one of dozens of such assaults in New York over the last several months. Many are directed at Orthodox Jews. After one recent attack, city council member Laurie Cumbo explained it all: Black people don’t like Jewish people that much. “The accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”

Are we clear?

In Southern Maryland early Sunday morning, 50 to 100 black people were in a convenience store parking lot, fighting and cussing out police and refusing orders to stop. Four were arrested.

Last week in Pittsburgh, Penn., police charged a black man, Allen Darell Wade, in the shooting death of two white sisters who lived next door. Wade said he is being set up.

This is a long list: All part of a pattern if you just know how to look, said Mychal Denzel Smith in The Nation magazine. “There’s nothing new under America’s racist sun,” said Smith. “The cynic in me starts to believe this is exactly what white people want. It’s as though our cries of ‘Murder! Lynching!’ only make it easier for white America to accept black death.”

The local papers in Madison, Wisconsin are calling the sexual assault of a pregnant woman the worst crime in that town in years. Perhaps they can discuss it at the 15th Annual White Privilege Conference later this month. More than 2000 people are expected to attend.

In Madison.
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Environmental Eugenics of the Left... on: March 13, 2014, 09:23:13 AM
The Environmentalist Eugenics of the Left

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On March 13, 2014 - www.frontpagemag.com

Pick up a copy of Obama’s $3.9 trillion budget and there among the TSA fee hikes, Medicare payment cuts and the $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to fight global warming is a curious little item.

On Page 930 of the budget that never ends is $575 million for “family planning/reproductive health” worldwide especially in “areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”

The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.

PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.

PHE had been baked into congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability.”

Obama’s budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the budget explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.

The budget is a blunt assertion of post-human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.

When Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals.”

Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.

Ducks don’t talk, but environmentalists do, and they had vocally opposed helping the people of King Cove. Jewell had received the Rachel Carson Award, named after an environmentalist hero whose fearmongering killed millions. Compared to the Carson malaria graveyards of Africa, nineteen dead Eskimos slide off the post-human conscience of a fanatical environmentalist like water off a duck’s back.

USAID, which played a key role in the war on DDT, has openly embraced PHE. The arguments against DDT often focused not on saving lives, but on taking them. PHE prevents children from being born, but environmentalists don’t stop with the unborn. Malaria was an even more effective tool for reducing populations.

Environmentalist population reduction activists originally cloaked their real agenda in claims about worldwide famine. Paul Erlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” had predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and the end of England by 2000. Today Global Warming activists set empty dates for the destruction of mankind that they themselves don’t believe in.

The post-human left seeks to maintain a state of perpetual crisis so that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even the most horrifying solutions to avoid the end of mankind. What it does not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.

In February, Population Action International and the Sierra Club sponsored a congressional briefing on PHE post-2015. Population Action International was originally founded as the Population Crisis Committee in the sixties. Its preceding organizations included the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace which claimed that population control was necessary to defeat Communism.

Like the Communists, the post-human activists were adept at disguising their agenda in the concerns of the moment, shifting from national security, feminism, the coming Ice Age, mass starvation and now Global Warming.

Environmentalists are even attempting to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda as the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone to global warming.

Environmentalist fearmongering has never been about saving people. Its activists, like Sally Jewell, are too busy playing duck whisperer to care about people.

Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA, and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.

Not only do environmentalists kill, but they also profit from the deaths of their victims.

Elliot Morley, UK Labour’s Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, had directed that flooding in Somerset should be promoted because “wildlife will benefit from increased water levels.” Baroness Young, an environmental activist, who had become the chief executive of the UK’s Environment Agency, took steps to increase the possibility of flooding.

As she said, the formula was “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water.’”

When the flooding came, children were trapped on buses, 7,000 homes were flooded and many residents lost everything. Environmental activists blamed global warming and “careless farming” for the floods that they themselves had engineered.

Survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia which killed 173 people blamed environmental regulations for worsening the fires by preventing residents from clearing trees. The environmentalists blamed global warming and sent around an editorial suggesting that people “who don’t like to end up in flames” should read the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report.

California’s drought was likewise engineered by environmental activists who then blamed their own handiwork on global warming.

Environmentalists wield unprecedented power over the lives of millions and yet they claim that each engineered disaster could have been averted if they had only been given even more power.

The left is not only becoming post-American or post-Western, but post-human, applying the same tactics that they used to target majorities in Western countries to the human race as a whole. Class war and race war are giving way to species warfare. And since the ducks cannot talk, ultimate power rests with the duck whisperers, those who speak for the animals, the fish and the trees.

The post-human left takes social justice to its natural conclusion, going beyond all the human categories to level mankind with the polar bear, the duck and the microbe. Total equality for the post-human left is not the equality of the rich and the poor, of men and women, of blacks and whites, or even of the First World and the Third World, but the equality of man and microbe, of a pregnant woman in a small Alaskan fishing village with a duck and a hungry California child with the Kangaroo rat.

The post-Human left seeks to put the species in its place. That is the final endgame of the environmentalist movement. It isn’t out to save mankind; it’s out to destroy it.
138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Pravdas re: Israel... on: March 12, 2014, 04:05:20 PM
Let us not forget that The New York Times actively covered for the Nazis during the Second World War, and reported that the stories of death camps were "fables."  I don't know my history specifically with regard to the LA Times, but in modern times, it has not been exactly what I would call a friend or supporter of Israel, either.  Both papers have abysmal records when it comes to accurate reporting about Israel, and before the establishment of the modern state, the Jews of Europe.

They are not to be trusted.
139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Scary Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg re: Israel, etc... on: March 03, 2014, 11:13:02 AM
The man is dangerous:

www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/if-he-believes-it-it-must-be-so_783721.html
140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: March 03, 2014, 10:51:08 AM
LOL!!  Now THAT is something a snarky gay man would say, Crafty!  cheesy
141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: March 03, 2014, 10:00:21 AM
You are exactly correct, G M - gay activists, many black race-mongers, and sadly, many liberal Jews, including those in leadership positions at organizations like the ADL - are frankly - SUICIDAL.
142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Cold War Denial... on: March 03, 2014, 08:08:35 AM
Obama’s Cold War Denial

Posted By Joseph Klein On March 3, 2014

President Obama was AWOL on Saturday when his national security team met to discuss the rapidly unfolding events in Ukraine, including Russia’s expanded military presence in the Crimea portion of Ukraine. Only a day before, President Obama had warned Russia that there would be “costs” if it violated Ukraine’s sovereignty. Saturday morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his answer. He thumbed his nose at Obama. Once again, the Obama administration’s vaunted button to “re-set” relations with Russia in a more positive direction has blown up in its face, as Putin continues to play by the rules of realpolitik while Obama flounders. This detached president did not even attend a key national security meeting called to figure out how to best deal with Putin’s latest maneuvers.

Ironically, during the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama mocked the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for warning about Russia’s “geopolitical” threat. During one of the presidential debates Obama remarked condescendingly about Romney’s warning, “You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”

In words that Obama should repeat to himself every night before he goes to sleep, Romney responded: “Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe…and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin…”

Romney was right on both counts. Iran, as it pursues its nuclear arms ambitions, is the greatest national security threat that we face. And, as Russia’s willingness to run interference for the Syrian regime at the UN and its present provocative actions in Ukraine prove, Russia under Putin represents a significant geopolitical threat. Obama unfortunately continues to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Iran, as he pursues fruitless negotiations that the Iranian regime is exploiting. And he is now just maybe beginning to take off his rose-colored glasses with respect to Putin’s Russia, as it increasingly flexes its muscles.

Former President George Bush also mistakenly had given Putin the benefit of the doubt back in 2001 when he said, after meeting with Putin, that he thought he could trust the Russian leader. But that was nearly thirteen years ago. Obama has had all the intervening years to observe Putin in action. It became obvious to anyone with his or her eyes wide open that the Russian president operated solely on the basis of realpolitik and was very expert in doing so, as Putin has shown in taking advantage of Obama’s perceived weakness and indecision time and time again.

With respect to the Ukraine crisis, at Putin’s request, the upper house of the Russian Parliament formally granted him the authority to use military force, not just in Crimea but throughout Ukraine. The Russian parliamentary approval for Putin’s use of military force merely ratified the facts on the ground that had already been occurring, as thousands of armed Russian soldiers, often wearing masks and uniforms without any national insignia, reportedly surrounded the regional parliament building and other government facilities in the Crimean capital city of Simferopol. They also effectively closed the region’s two main airports and took control over key communications hubs.

President Obama’s response to Putin’s maneuvers was to call the Russian leader on Saturday and urge him to pull back his military forces or risk isolation in the international community if he refused. Obama also laid out the initial “cost” of Russia’s provocative actions – the U.S. is suspending its participation in preparations for the upcoming Group of 8 economic summit in Sochi, Russia.

“President Obama expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” the White House said in its readout of the call. “The United States condemns Russia’s military intervention into Ukrainian territory. The United States calls on Russia to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing its forces back to bases in Crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine.”

The Kremlin provided its own readout of the call. It said that Putin pointed out to Obama the “real threat to the lives and health of Russian citizens” currently in Ukraine, and referred to “the provocative and criminal actions on the part of ultranationalists who are in fact being supported by the current authorities in Kiev.”

Meanwhile, at United Nations headquarters in New York, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was held on Saturday afternoon to discuss the Ukrainian crisis – the second such meeting in two days. For the first two hours, the Security Council members wrangled behind closed doors on whether they should hold their discussions in public or in private consultations. They reached a compromise of sorts – a brief public meeting followed by much lengthier closed door consultations.

During the open meeting, UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson called for restoration of calm and dialogue among all concerned parties. “Now is the time for cool heads to prevail,” he advised. His advice was promptly ignored. The verbal sparks were flying, reminiscent of Cold War sparring in the Security Council that had often paralyzed the UN body from taking any effective action.

The Ukrainian ambassador to the UN, Yuriy Sergeyev, who was invited to attend the open meeting on Saturday, accused Russia of “an act of aggression” in “severe violation of international law.”  He added that the “Russian Federation brutally violated the basic principles of Charter of the United Nations obliging all member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” He called for the members of the Security Council to take a stand against Russian aggression that interfered with Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He repeated these themes in remarks to the press after his Security Council statement. He also defended the legality of the Ukrainian parliament’s removal of the ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who has sought refuge in Russia.

Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the Security Council that Russia had acted at the request of the regional authorities in Crimea, making a dubious distinction in claiming that Russian troops could be deployed “on the territory of Ukraine,” but not “against Ukraine.” In response to calls for Russia to refrain from intervention to protect its interests, he said that “[W]e can’t agree with this at all.” Churkin lashed out at the “radicals” in the “illegal” government in Kiev who were allegedly threatening peace and security in Crimea. He questioned the legality of the manner in which Yanukovych was removed from office, noting that Yanukovych had been democratically elected.

Churkin did not speak to reporters on Saturday, but the previous day he had told reporters that the new government in Kiev was not representative of all political factions of Ukraine and was trying to impose its political will on the rest of the country. He accused the European Union of treating Ukraine as its “province” and charged that it was the West’s interference that had helped cause the Ukrainian crisis in the first place.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power expressed the strong support of the U.S. for the new government of Ukraine in her remarks to the Security Council on Saturday. Russia’s “intervention is without legal basis – indeed it violates Russia’s commitment to protect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of Ukraine,” she said. “It is time for the Russian intervention in Ukraine to end.” Ambassador Power also accused the Russians of double standards with regard to its position on national sovereignty. “It is ironic that the Russian Federation regularly goes out of its way in this Chamber to emphasize the sanctity of national borders and of sovereignty,” she said, “but Russian actions in Ukraine are violating the sovereignty of Ukraine and pose a threat to peace and security.”

Ambassador Power proposed that international monitors and observers – including from the UN and OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in which Russia and Ukraine are members] be sent to Ukraine. “That’s the best way to get the facts, monitor conduct, and prevent any abuses,” she said.  Russia so far has shown little inclination to accept this proposal.

In remarks to the press after the completion of the Security Council’s closed door consultations, Ambassador Power said that Russia’s “military presence in Crimea is a violation of international law.”

While the situation on the ground in Ukraine continues to deteriorate, including the Ukrainian naval chief’s pledge of allegiance to the Crimean pro-Russia authorities who are defying the authority of the new central government in Kiev, the war of words from the Obama administration continued to escalate on Sunday. Secretary of State John Kerry warned on “Meet the Press” that Russia was facing isolation and opprobrium from the international community, which could result in trade and investment penalties, asset freezes, denial of visas, and even possible expulsion from the G-8. He accused Putin of “possibly trying to annex Crimea” and said that Russia was displaying 19th century behavior in the 21st century by committing “aggression” on a “phony pretext.” That said, any military option by the U.S. in response to Russia’s actions appears to be off the table at least for now.

What is evident from this serious crisis is that President Obama’s attempt to reset relations with Russia at the outset of his first term has been a dismal failure. He demonstrated weakness when he dropped plans to locate missile interceptors and a radar station in Poland and the Czech Republic without getting anything in return. In March 2012, Obama was overheard on an open mike telling outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, since he would not be running again for president after the 2012 election, he would have “more flexibility” in dealing with Russia on such matters as missile defense. Medvedev replied: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” a reference to the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, who would soon re-assume the presidency. Putin has taken Obama’s measure and is out-maneuvering him at every turn.

In a prior article I theorized that perhaps Obama had decided to support the protests against the Russian-allied ousted president Yanukovych in order to put Russia on defense and “divert Putin’s attention away from the Middle East by causing him to redirect money and resources closer to home.”  If so, the strategy appears to be backfiring since Putin is proving that he is perfectly capable of deploying a few thousand troops in Crimea while still continuing to provide active support to the Assad regime. He is simply allowing the presence of Russian troops, without any full-scale Russian occupation, to catalyze a popular movement in Crimea by its Russian speaking majority to push for breaking away completely from Ukraine.

More likely, there was no real Obama offensive strategy playing out in Ukraine and no clear-eyed thinking on what real national security and geopolitical threats we face, much less on how to handle them. Instead, President Obama is reverting to his lead-from-behind, reactive approach to most major foreign policy crises he has faced. Obama owes Mitt Romney an immediate apology.
143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Uganda's Oppressive Anti-Gay Laws - Gay organizations silent... on: February 28, 2014, 10:46:15 AM
Uganda’s Anti-Gay Laws and Leftist Silence

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On February 28, 2014

On Monday, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda signed into law harsh, anti-gay legislation. The law includes provisions that would jail repeat offenders for life, outlaw any promotion of homosexuality, and require the Ugandan people to denounce it. In the face of genuine persecution of gay people, of course, the LGBT community and their supporters are conspicuously silent. And while the Obama administration has released a statement criticizing the law, most black activists remain completely MIA as well, including the man leading the charge against the anti-gay marriage agenda in America, Eric Holder.

This largely non-reaction to the far more serious developments in Uganda stands in stark contrast to the efforts by both entities on the home front. Holder, who wholeheartedly embraces the selective law enforcement agenda that has become the trademark of the Obama administration, has extended that agenda to the gay marriage debate. Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General on Tuesday, Holder advised his state counterparts that they needn’t defend the laws of their states they consider discriminatory.

Holder cited his own experience with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as the template state attorneys general should apparently follow. ”Any decisions — at any level — not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare,” Holder said at the meeting. “And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements–hinging instead on firm constitutional grounds.” He then added that his own view is that “we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation.”

One is left to wonder how those constitutional grounds are determined if a state attorney general can simply refuse to defend a challenge to any law they themselves deem to be discriminatory before a trial takes place. Moreover it is hard to see how the refusal to defend the rule of law would be anything but a political act.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange of the Republican Attorneys General Association eviscerated this dangerous nonsense. ”A state attorney general has a solemn duty to the state and its people to defend state laws and constitutional provisions against challenge under federal law. To refuse to do so because of personal policy preferences or political pressure erodes the rule of law on which all of our freedoms are founded. A government that does not enforce the law equally will lead our society to disrespect the rule of law,” he said in a statement.

Political pressure is a specialty of the LGBT community whose most recent focus has been a religious protection law proposed by the state of Arizona, which was recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer in light of an enormous public outcry. The purpose of pointing out what happened in Arizona is not to evaluate the pros or cons of Brewer’s recent veto. It is to demonstrate the enormous power of a mobilized LGBT community that apparently feels no similar compulsion to mobilize against Museveni in Uganda. Even as they remained focused on Arizona, the Red Paper, a Ugandan tabloid, published a list of 200 people it accused of being gay under the headline “Exposed!” ”Uganda’s 200 top homos named,” the paper declared. “In salutation to the new law, today we unleash Uganda’s top homos and their sympathisers,” it added, compiling a list of those who had declared their sexuality and those who hadn’t. The list included activists, priests and music stars.

Frank Mugisha, director of the group Sexual Minorities Uganda, illuminated the implications of the new law. ”We’re going to see people getting beaten on the streets, we’re going to see people thrown out by their families, we’re going to see people being evicted by their landlords, we’re going to see people losing jobs, we’re going to see people thrown out of school, because they are  perceived or not as homosexuals,” he warned. “Even the suspicion will get someone in trouble.”

It is trouble welcomed by Uganda’s Muslim leaders. “It takes a courageous leader to defy all the western powers who have gone as far a threatening to cut off aid to Uganda in case the president signs the anti-gay bill,” said Hajji Nsereko Mutumba, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) Public Relations Officer, in a statement.

Perhaps it takes no courage at all, either for Museveni or the LGBT community and Eric Holder. Forbes Magazine contributor Cedric Mohammed explains that geo-political concerns take precedence over human rights issues. “Despite the strong rhetoric coming from the Obama administration over the signing of an anti-Homosexual law by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, there is no way President Obama will allow the issue to compromise long-standing American military interests in the region and there’s little chance the LGBT political establishment will ask him to….Militarization trumps everything else as evidenced by the influential LGBT-rights group, The Human Rights Commission’s lack of lobbying on the issue,” he writes.

No doubt that decision is made easier by the left’s general contempt for Christian values and Western civilization. Yet the outpouring of vituperation against the “cartoonish” bigotry or “vile” exclusivity of Christians opposed to endorsing the gay agenda stands in odious contrast to the LGBT calculated silence surrounding Uganda’s unquestionably reprehensible — and possibly deadly — treatment of homosexuals. That hypocrisy goes double for Eric Holder, whose sense of outrage for any injustice directed at homosexuals and people of color apparently fails to extend itself beyond the borders of the United States.

Thus, barring a sudden change of heart, the genuine persecution of gays in Uganda will not be impeded by the self-professed champions of tolerance and human rights. In short, if the LGBT community and Eric Holder didn’t have double-standards, they’d have no standards at all.
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ben Shapiro Skewers Israel Boycott Resolution at UCLA... on: February 27, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Shapiro Crashes UCLA Divestment from Israel Hearing, Resolution Defeated 7-5

Posted By Paul Bois On February 27, 2014



[Visit TruthRevolt.org.]

On Tuesday night, the UCLA undergraduate student government heard public testimonies for nearly 9 hours — from 7 p.m. until 4 a.m. — on whether or not the university should go forward with a resolution to boycott and divest from businesses that allegedly “profit from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.”

The meeting, attended by over 500 people, began at 7 p.m. Tuesday night and ended 6:30 a.m. Wednesday morning. Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt.org Editor-in-Chief and UCLA alum, crashed the divestment hearing to blast both the student sponsors and those considering the anti-Semitic measure. Here’s the transcript:

My name is Ben Shapiro. I’m an alumnus of this university. I’m also a local talk show host on 870 [AM] in the morning, and I got out of bed and left my one month old baby there when I saw what was going on here tonight. I’ve never been more ashamed to be a Bruin. I’ve never been more ashamed to be an alumnus of this university than to see this divestment petition being considered at this level.

To pretend this is about occupation, to pretend this is about peace, to pretend that this anything other than vile, spiteful Jew hatred is a lie!

There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Saudi Arabia. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Iran. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing Palestine. There is only one reason we are discussing Israel and not discussing the vast bevy of human rights violations that happen every day in the Middle East, exponentially worse that what happens in Israel.

Any gay or lesbian that is targeting Israel in this room seems to have forgotten how high they hang gays from cranes in Iran. Every person of liberal bent who suggests that Israel is the problem in the Middle East seems to have forgotten that there is only one country in the Middle East that actually has any sort of religious diversity in it. The countries that are apartheid countries are those that are Judenrein – like, for example, Palestine.

So, for us to sit here and pretend that Israel is somehow on a lower moral plane is a direct manifestation of anti-Semitism. And to hold Jews to a different moral standard than any other country or group on the face of the earth represents nothing but an age-old and historic hatred for the Jewish people. All the folks here who are pretending that the B.D.S is about anything other than that, I would like to see a poll of those folks, and see how many of them actually believe in the existence of a Jewish state, qua-Jewish state, not as a state like any other, but as a Jewish state. They don’t. They don’t acknowledge that existence. They don’t believe in that existence. They don’t believe in peace. All this is about, pure and simple, is a desire to target the Jewish people.

“Judenrein” was a Nazi term to mean “clean of Jews.”

According to the Daily Bruin, the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) shot down the resolution by an anonymous vote of 7-5. Despite protestation, the USAC decided the ballots would be secret when some members voiced concern for their safety.

Students in favor of the resolution offered no comment, saying they were “too disappointed.” Video of one particular protester has circulated:
145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Texas Terror Enclave Exposed... on: February 25, 2014, 02:20:02 PM
At this point, how can any rational person believe that Barack Obama is interested in preserving the security of American citizens - even within our own borders?  He is actually harboring terrorist groups, and I believe - working in concert with them to trigger some sort of critical event that will be used as an excuse to impose martial law.  See below:

Texas Terror Enclave Exposed

Posted By Ryan Mauro On February 25, 2014

The Clarion Project just disclosed the existence of a terrorist enclave in Texas last week, bringing new attention to a network of at least 22 Jamaat ul-Fuqra “Islamic villages” across the country. Newly-declassified documents reveal that the FBI privately considers ul-Fuqra to be a terrorist group, but remains operational in the U.S. because of the State Department.

The “Islamic villages” belong to Muslims of the Americas, an extension of Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani’s Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group. Its headquarters is “Islamberg” in Hancock, N.Y and two of the group’s seized videotapes prove that these sites are used for guerilla warfare training. One recording shows women at Islamberg in military fatigue receiving such instructions.

The FBI files released by Clarion confirm that the most loyal MOA members go to Pakistan for advanced religious and terrorist training under Sheikh Gilani. This travel is apparently done through an MOA entity named the American Muslim Medical Relief Team. The website has photos of members in Kashmir. The MOA has also posted videos of members working at “Gillaniville” under Gilani’s watch.

Last week, The Blaze aired a blockbuster half-hour episode of “For the Record” titled “Sleeper Cell” about Jamaat ul-Fuqra featuring the documents obtained by Clarion. The discovery of the camp near the town of Sweeny in Brazoria County, Texas was covered on “Fox and Friends” and the Fox News website. Media Matters immediately responded with a hit piece describing me as “anti-Muslim” that was then distributed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The Texas enclave has existed since the late 1980s, according to locals interviewed by ACT For America Houston. The FBI documents show that the Bureau discovered it following a tip from an informant in New York and detected the movement of trailers to the site in December 2001.

The site is referred to as “Mahmoudberg” by MOA members. In 2010, an MOA entity named the American Muslim Ladies Club established a Texas chapter at the enclave.

A 2007 FBI document says that the enclave hosts a former leader of the 440-acre “Baladullah” commune in California that was shut down and had armed guards, U-Haul dealership and even an airstrip. Its founder was convicted in 2006 of overseeing a charter school scam at the commune. Other members of Baladullah were arrested for illegal weapons trafficking and murdering a police officer.

One of the most interesting revelations from the Clarion Project report is that a shooting incident at Mahmoudberg took the life of one resident. It was ruled an accident by the police. However, the police were denied access to the trailers and were not allowed to directly interview the women, who covered their faces in the presence of the cops.

The report is a fatal blow to the MOA’s campaign to revamp its image. For example, it established the United Muslim Christian Forum. I attended one of their events and was told by one of the commune leaders that the group was trying “not to get into the bashing business anymore” because “we’re finding that certain things are a little bit too offensive.” He said the group stands by its past statements.

The Texas enclave is also linked to the MOA’s interfaith front. I was given videotape of a United Muslim Christian Forum event in 2009 that featured then-Binghamton Mayor Matthew T. Ryan as a speaker. The Master of Ceremonies was Idris Johnson, the registered agent for a MOA front on Mahmoudberg’s premises called the Muslim Model Community.

Johnson was also arrested for interfering with public duties on February 28, 2013. So was Nuh Abdullah and Muhammed Nurriddine was charged with reckless driving.

Almost every communication I received in response to the Clarion report and coverage on The Blaze and FOX News Channel asked how Jamaat ul-Fuqra/Muslims of the Americas is able to operate in the U.S. if the FBI’s own documents identify it as a terrorist threat.

The answer is the State Department has not designated Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, though it was included in reports about domestic groups in the 1990s. On January 31, 2002, the State Department said:

“Jamaat ul-Fuqra has never been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It was included in several recent annual terrorism reports under “other terrorist groups,” i.e., groups that had carried out acts of terrorism but that were not formally designated by the Secretary of State. However, because of the group’s inactivity during 2000, it was not included in the most recent terrorism report covering that calendar year.”

The State Department’s own standards require it to label ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The three criteria are that the group must be foreign; engaging in terrorist activity or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorism and it must threaten U.S. nationals or national security.

The newly-released FBI documents blow away any argument the State Department could use to defend its negligence. Two smoking gun quotes from a 2007 file are as clear as can be:

“The MOA is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

Responsible reporters must relentlessly demand answers from the State Department in the wake of these new revelations.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy contributed to this article.
146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: FCC Wades Into the Newsroom... on: February 20, 2014, 01:52:29 PM
The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom
Why is the agency studying 'perceived station bias' and asking about coverage choices?


By AJIT PAI

Feb. 10, 2014 7:26 p.m. ET

News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
147  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Lies from CAIR... on: February 19, 2014, 11:17:46 AM
CAIR Lies in Smear Campaign Against Zuhdi Jasser

Posted By Robert Spencer On February 19, 2014

I know, I know: reporting that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is lying is like reporting that humans breathe oxygen. Still, this is a particularly egregious example, and it is important to set the record straight. Hamas-linked CAIR is now defaming Zuhdi Jasser, the nation’s premier (and virtually only) anti-jihad Muslim spokesman. I have had some differences with Jasser (you can see our 2011 debate here) about the nature of Islamic teaching and the necessity of reform in Islam, but there is no doubt that he is a strong voice against Hamas-linked CAIR and other malignant Islamic supremacist forces.

It is also highly likely that Hamas-linked CAIR is lying about Jasser’s supposed attempt to deny religious rights to Muslim military personnel, since Jasser is committed to constitutional freedoms. There is no doubt, in any case, that they’re lying about me. In the first place, I’ve never heard of the Abstraction Fund, which they say funds Jihad Watch. I am not familiar with all those who fund the David Horowitz Freedom Center, with which Jihad Watch is affiliated, and it is possible that Abstraction funds the Center, but they do not fund Jihad Watch directly. (They’re certainly welcome to do so!)

More importantly, Hamas-linked CAIR claims that the Roman Catholic diocese of Sacramento called me a “key leader in the anti-Islam hate movement in the United States.” This is almost certainly a lie, for several reasons. One is that in its initial chest-thumping about the Sacramento bishop caving in to their smear campaign last June, CAIR never mentioned this — and Hamas-linked CAIR has never been one to shy away from using a weapon that their marks hand them. What’s more, I spoke at the event in question, and the diocese of Sacramento had an information booth there — a strange thing for the diocese to have done if they really wanted to shun a leader of a supposed “hate movement.” The official statement that the diocese sent to Kolbe Academy said only this: “The Bishop didn’t think that it was in the best interest of Kolbe Academy to have a controversial speaker at a conference on education.”

See? This is how Hamas-linked CAIR operates: they (and their allies, such as Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media) mount a campaign of defamation against a counter-jihad speaker (and it isn’t just me — they do it to everyone who stands up against jihad terror). A busy and ill-informed official, such as the Bishop of Sacramento, sees this campaign and caves in immediately, not because he agrees with Hamas-linked CAIR’s defamation, but simply because he doesn’t want any “controversy.”

Groups like CAIR and Aslan Media know that it usually suffices just to stir up a spurious “controversy” over a counter-jihad speaker to get that speaker canceled, because big organizations (like the diocese of Sacramento) don’t want to be the focus of endless hysterical “news” stories and unwelcome media attention. Then when they cave, the anti-free speech fascists trumpet this as more evidence of the wickedness of the counter-jihad speaker, even though no judgment was actually made about the correctness of their charges at all: “See? He’s so hateful that the diocese of Sacramento wanted him dropped from a conference” — when actually the only thing that happened was that the jihad enabler kicked up a fuss where people didn’t want any fuss.

It’s an insidious tactic. Hamas-linked CAIR keeps using it because it works, and because the organizations that should be on to this as a tactic and ready to stand up for freedom and human rights are still unaware of it, and ready to cave at the first sign of “controversy.”

By the way, a couple of things the CAIR press release, which has been widely reported upon and picked up by Al Jazeera and other pro-jihad outfits, didn’t mention in connection with the diocese of Sacramento: CAIR and Aslan Media tried the same smear campaign when I debated a couple of Muslim spokesmen in Michigan a few months ago, at another Catholic conference. Not only did Earl Boyea, Bishop of Lansing, not cave, but he came to celebrate Mass at the event. Nor did CAIR bother to quote quote the National Catholic Register calling me “perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country,” or Catholic Insight calling me “one of the most insightful and learned scholars of Islam.” Truth doesn’t serve their agenda, doncha know. For CAIR, it never has.
148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Evasions and Secrecy at the 9-11 Museum... on: February 19, 2014, 03:46:21 AM
www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/13/Evasions-and-Secrecy-at-the-9-11-Museum
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 11, 2014, 05:07:28 PM
Good point, G M - Also, I must say it escapes me how so many take the attitude that they will continue to gamble in the face of all this reality staring them in the face.  Yes - we've had a big run-up in the market - but based upon exactly WHAT fundamentals?  There aren't any to speak of.  That this increase has been driven by factors other than increased productivity and profitability SHOULD give anyone pause.  Expecting that there will be some sort of warning signal which will give one time to exit the market safely is patently ridiculous, and ought to be evident to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the market and its history.

Plenty of fools (though not nearly so many as today) kept investing in the market prior to the crash in 1929, and I'm sure they were scoffing at naysayers back then as well.
150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Scary 1929 parallel chart... on: February 11, 2014, 11:37:16 AM
Obviously, this doesn't mean the market will continue to behave as it has - but as the author points out, many who were laughing at this chart last November are no longer doing so.  Wesbury is a fool, in my humble opinion.

www.marketwatch.com/story/scary-1929-market-chart-gains-traction-2014-02-11

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!