Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 28, 2016, 11:12:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94952 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter: Hispanics Won't Vote Republican... on: October 15, 2015, 12:54:15 PM
HISPANICS WON'T VOTE GOP

Why pandering to Latinos is a losing proposition for Republicans.

October 15, 2015  Ann Coulter


At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders bragged about getting a "D-minus" from the National Rifle Association (which was also Lincoln Chafee's GPA in high school).

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton attacked Sanders for having voted against an insane bill that would have held gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable for the behavior of anyone who uses one of their guns in a crime.

I would be open to such a law -- but only after we pass a law holding psychiatrists liable for crimes committed by their patients; lawyers for crimes committed by their clients; and sanctuary cities for crimes committed by the illegal immigrants they released in violation of federal law.

Gun dealers are a lot more careful about whom they sell guns to than psychiatrists, lawyers and sanctuary cities are about the criminals they loose on the public.

In several recent mass shootings, the psycho was at least temporarily delayed when gun shops refused to sell him guns -- such as the Colorado gun range owner who put his whole staff on red alert in case James Holmes ever wandered in, simply on the basis of having heard Holmes' strange voicemail message.

As Sanders himself once said, holding gun sellers liable for the crimes of their customers would be like holding "a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." (As happened to Lincoln Chafee.)

To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, "It's time the entire country stood up against the NRA."

Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he'd "take another look" at the gun bill.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which "enemy" he was proudest of, O'Malley said: "The NRA." (Loud applause -- especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of Democrats own firearms -- or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg.

But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

Why don't Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats' strategy for themselves.

I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the "enemies" question: "La Raza."

Republicans don't need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group.

We just have to protect Americans first -- American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants . Most voters don't think it's an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals -- and has soared to the top of the polls.

The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won't look any different on election night. Voting machines don't register angry glints in people's eyes.

On the other hand, by driving up the white vote -- to say nothing of the black vote -- we will see a difference in the Republicans' box score on election night.

The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that -- and he still lost the Hispanic vote.

It's crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won't give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.

I haven't seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it's a lot more than 8.4 percent.

Democrats know not to fritter time on constituencies they can't win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger -- but still losing -- percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.

You've been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote.

Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It's honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.



102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: I wasn't expecting this... on: October 15, 2015, 09:39:51 AM
Crafty - here is what is VERY important to understand:

While there are no doubt some Muslims who sincerely believe what this woman is expressing, her sentiments are directly in conflict with Islamic teaching and law.  If she were living in any other country than Israel, she would face death for such comments.  Secondly, I am not convinced, nor should anyone necessarily be - that she is sincere.  Taqiyya - "deception" is an integral, accepted concept of Islam.  It holds that it is not only permissible, but a duty for Muslims to lie to unbelievers to accomplish infiltration and subterfuge.  It is vitally important that one NOT be easily fooled by this tactic.

I repeat - EVERY school of Islamic jurisprudence holds that Jews are subhuman descendants of apes and pigs, and Christians are not much better.  Both deserve death if they refuse to convert to Islam.  This is simply a fact - any Muslims who deviate from this face the death penalty in Islamic countries.  Those who dare to express opinions such as this woman are a very tiny minority of the total Muslim population, and there is NO organized program in any mosque to teach these values that she expresses.  Islam is most definitely NOT a religion of peace.  It is a totalitarian political/ideological system with a god grafted onto it to lend it an air of legitimacy.  It differs from every other religion on the planet in this regard.
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israeli Disgraces Dead Terrorist with Pork... on: October 14, 2015, 10:55:02 AM
ISRAELI PUTS PORK ON DEAD TERRORIST'S BODY, DENYING HIM HIS VIRGINS

If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. "

October 13, 2015  Daniel Greenfield



Muslims murder non-Muslims confident that if they die, they'll get access to "paradise" and 72 virgins to rape in the hereafter. Muslim clerics make even more extravagant promises, claiming that dead killers will receive all sorts of added benefits. Muslims who have killed (other Muslims) or committed adultery will still get an express ticket to paradise if they die while killing non-Muslims.

As long as he doesn't come into contact with a pig.

There's a long history of people fighting Muslim Jihadis by wrapping their Jihadis in pigskin or shooting them with lard bullets. US soldiers did it not all that long ago in the Philippines. While the belief that pork on a corpse can stop someone from going to heaven is nonsense... so is the underlying belief that killing non-Muslims atones for all sins. And if it deters Muslims, it's a plus. And if it doesn't, it still shows them that people aren't as helpless in the face of their racist violence as their governments often appear to be.

This latest video takes place in Israel where, after a series of bloody terrorist attacks, a dead terrorist had pork dumped on his face by a local.

Kiryat Arba resident has lit the internet on fire over the weekend, after footage surfaced of him placing what he says is a piece of pork on the body of a dead terrorist killed by Israel Police during an attack on Israeli civiilians Friday.

In the video, Magen David Adom (MDA) medics can be seen performing resuscitation on the terrorist. In the interim, the resident succeeds in getting close to the body and placing the piece of meat upon it, sarcastically telling the terrorist to "enjoy" it.

Even the acting mayor of Kiryat Arba, Yisrael Bramson, backed the radical act.

"I was there when it happened," he said. "I think this is a very basic and legitimate response."

"I do not condemn what happened," he added. "They do not need to get their bodies back, you have to throw them into the sea at best."

"The terrorist came to slaughter the Jews and we had to treat him like he meant to treat us."

Bramson added. "The day before I was in the area and saw the intestines of the Jewish boy in a tent of Hazon David, I prefer this to that."

This had been previously done a decade ago.

Residents at Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, were the first to claim to have defiled the body of a dead Palestinian with "pigskin and lard". Residents of Efrat, a Jewish settlement near Bethlehem, said they did the same to a Palestinian building worker who tried to blow up their supermarket on Friday, but was shot dead before most of the explosives detonated.

Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, defended the practice: "If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. We should do anything to save life."

Indeed. Here's a clip from a movie about the US fight against the Moro Jihadists in the Philippines and the effect of pigskin on morale.
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some Cultures ARE Superior to Others... on: October 06, 2015, 01:53:08 PM
CHARLATANS AND SHEEP: PART III

The profound impact of culture.

October 6, 2015  Thomas Sowell   

The prevailing social dogma of our time — that economic and other disparities among groups are strange, if not sinister — has set off bitter disputes between those who blame genetic differences and those who blame discrimination.

Both sides ignore the possibility that groups themselves may differ in their orientations, their priorities and in what they are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of other things.

Back in the early 19th century, an official of the Russian Empire reported that even the poorest Jews saw to it that their daughters could read, and their homes had at least ten books. This was at a time when the vast majority of the population of the Russian Empire were illiterate.

During that same era, Thomas Jefferson complained that there was not a single bookstore where he lived. In Frederick Law Olmsted's travels through the antebellum South, he noted that even plantation owners seldom had many books.

But in mid-18th century Scotland, even people of modest means had books, and those too poor to buy them could rent books from lending libraries, which were common throughout Scottish towns.

There is no economic determinism. People choose what to spend their money on, and what to spend their time on. Cultures differ.

On a personal note, as a child nearly nine years old, I was one of the many blacks who migrated from the South to Harlem in the 1930s.

Although New York had public libraries, elite public high schools and free colleges of high quality, I had no idea what a public library was, or what an elite high school was, and the thought of going to college never crossed my mind.

Jewish immigrants who arrived in New York, generations before me, seized upon the opportunities provided by public libraries and later their children flooded into the elite public high schools and free city colleges. This was consistent with the values of their centuries-old culture.

For most of the black kids of my generation, those things might as well not have existed, because nothing in their culture would have pointed them toward such things.

There was no reason to believe that I would have been any different from the rest, except for the fact that members of my family, who had very little education themselves, wanted me to get the education that they never had a chance to get.

They had no more idea of the role of public libraries and elite quality high schools and colleges than I did.

But they knew a boy a little older than I was, who came from a better educated family, and they decided that he was somebody I should meet and who could serve as a guide to me on things they knew nothing about.

His name was Eddie Mapp, and I can still recall how he took me to a public library, and how patiently he tried to explain to me what a public library was, and why I should get a library card. He opened a door for me into a wider world. But most other black kids in Harlem at that time had no one to do that for them.

Nor did kids from various other ethnic groups in New York have someone to open doors to a wider world for them. It didn't matter how smart they were or whether opportunities were available for them, if they knew nothing about them.

An internationally renowned scholar of Irish American ancestry once said in a social gathering that, when he was a young man of college age, he had no plans to go to college, until someone else who recognized his ability urged him to do so. There was no reason to expect all groups to follow in the footsteps of the Jews.

In my later years, two middle-class couples I knew took it upon themselves to each take a young relative from the ghetto into their home and, at considerable cost in time and money, try to provide them with a good education.

One of these youngsters had an IQ two standard deviations above the mean. But both of them eventually returned to the ghetto life from which they came. It wasn't genetics and it wasn't discrimination.

The youngster with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean will probably never achieve what a Jewish or Asian youngster with an IQ only one standard deviation above the mean achieves.

Those who are celebrating the ghetto culture might consider what the cost is to those being raised in that culture. And they might reconsider what they are hearing from charlatans parading statistical disparities.



105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Ignorance & Denial of Islam's Teachings... on: October 06, 2015, 01:41:25 PM
MUSLIM MURDERS POLICE OFFICIAL, AUTHORITIES RUSH TO DEFEND…ISLAM

Just another day in the suicidal West.

October 6, 2015  Robert Spencer    


Last week a fifteen-year-old Muslim, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, went to a police station in New South Wales and shot dead a civilian police employee, Curtis Cheng. After the murder, the young murderer was, according to an eyewitness, “dancing joyously.” Outside the station, he waved his gun at police and screamed “Allahu akbar” at them before he was killed in the ensuing gunfight.

In the wake of this jihad murder, Australian officials have behaved in an utterly predictable manner – one that we have seen many, many times before in Western countries, and that we will doubtless see many more times as well: they rushed to profess ignorance of the killer’s motives and above all, to defend Islam.

None of these officials are Muslims. They have all just been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that to look too closely at the motivating ideology behind murders like that of Curtis Cheng would be “hateful” and “bigoted.”

And so Pat Gooley from the New South Wales Police Association said: “We are used to being under threat. What’s really concerning police is there’s no rhyme or reason to these current terror threats.”

No rhyme or reason? Have you ever heard of jihad, Mr. Gooley? Evidently not.

Other police officials, meanwhile, made themselves busy ensuring that Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad’s jihad murder doesn’t lead anyone to think there is anything amiss with the Muslim community. The murder “was doubly shocking because it was perpetrated by a 15-year-old boy and it underlines the importance of families, communities, leaders being very aware of whether young people are becoming radicalised,” said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, complacently assuming that Muslim “families, communities, leaders” in Australia are against this “radicalization” — but where is the evidence of that?

Turnbull also said: “We must not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community with the actions of what is, in truth, a very, very small percentage of violent extremist individuals. The Muslim community are our absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of violent extremism.”

When has the Muslim community in Australia or elsewhere in the West genuinely acted like partners in combating this type of violent extremism? And we must indeed not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community, but can we not call upon them to institute honest, transparent and inspectable programs in mosques and Islamic schools that teach against this understanding of Islam that they ostensibly reject and oppose?

Meanwhile, opposition leader Bill Shorten said: “Our thoughts are also with the family of the alleged young perpetrator. Like all Australians, they will be struggling to comprehend how someone so young could be part of such a terrible crime.” How does he know his family wasn’t involved? Has he carried out an investigation? He assumes that the family taught young Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad the true, peaceful Islam, but that he was then “radicalized on the Internet” — but why was his family’s true, peaceful Islam not able to withstand the challenge from the twisted, hijacked Internet Islam?

New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said that he and others were trying to understand “how someone so young could commit such a hideous crime.” He might wish to look into Islam’s teachings about jihad, but he won’t. He also said: “We cannot let actions such as this divide us. We cannot let hate overtake us. We have to come together and I’m sure that’s what we’ll see from this city and state.”

Indeed, we must not let hate overtake us, as it overtook Curtis Cheng. But can we do that by refusing to examine the ideology that led to his murder? By “hate,” Baird means “honest investigation into the texts and teachings of Islam that incite attacks such as this one, and the prevalence of such teachings in the Muslim community.”

And that’s the problem: every time there is another jihad attack or foiled jihad plot in the free world, our leaders just circle the wagons, trot out their Religion-of-Peace cliches again, warn us against “Islamophobia,” and refuse to look into the genuine root causes of the problem.

It’s a sure-fire path to societal suicide.

106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter: The War On America Turns 50... on: October 01, 2015, 10:07:20 PM
THE WAR ON AMERICA TURNS 50

Ann Coulter - September 30, 2015

Half a century ago, Democrats looked at the country and realized they were never going to convince Americans to agree with them. But they noticed that people in most other countries of the world already agreed with them. The solution was obvious.


So in 1965 -- 50 years ago this week -- Sen. Ted Kennedy passed an immigration law that has brought 59 million foreigners to our shores, who happen to vote 8-2 for the Democrats.


Democrats haven't won any arguments; they changed the voters. If anything, the Democrats have stopped bothering to appeal to Americans. The new feminized Democratic Party says, That's too bad about those steelworkers in Ohio losing their jobs, but THERE'S A WOMAN AT A LAW FIRM IN NEW YORK CITY WHO DESERVES TO MAKE PARTNER!


Republicans should be sweeping the country, but they aren't, because of Kennedy's immigration law. Without post-1965 immigrants bloc-voting for the Democrats, Obama never would have been elected president, and Romney would have won a bigger landslide against him in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter in 1980.


This isn't a guess; it's a provable fact. Obama beat Romney by less than 5 million votes in a presidential election in which about 125 million votes were cast. More than 30 million of Obama's votes came from people who arrived under Teddy Kennedy's immigration law; fewer than 10 million of Romney's did.


The 1965 act brought in the poorest of the poor from around the globe. Non-English-speaking peasants from wildly backward cultures could be counted on to be dependent on government assistance for generations to come.


Kennedy and other Democrats swore up and down that the new immigration law would not change the country's demographics, but post-1965-act immigrants are nothing like the people who already lived here.


As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were "almost entirely" European. But since Kennedy's immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe -- and they're probably Muslims.



Apparently, the "American experiment" is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.


As of 1970, there were only 9 million Hispanics in the entire country, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, there are well more than 60 million.


We've already taken in one-quarter of the entire population of Mexico, most of whom seem to live in Los Angeles. For the last decade, nearly half of all felons sent to California's prisons have been Hispanic, according to the Department of Corrections.


In 1970, there were only a few thousand Haitians in America. Today, there are nearly a million. Miami beaches and New York parks are suddenly littered with goat heads from Haitian voodoo rituals.


In 1970, there were virtually no Somalis in the United States. In the past 25 years alone, we've brought in more than 80,000 Somali refugees -- and more than half of those since 9/11. Recent headlines out of Minnesota: "Minnesota ISIS terror suspect pleads guilty to conspiracy," "February trial date set for Minnesota ISIS terror suspects," "The Twin Cities have an ISIS problem."


(Possible new GOP slogan: "We'll cut your taxes, as long as these voodoo priests and refugees approve it.")


In 1960, there were about 200,000 Muslims in the U.S., according to a study in the International Journal of Environmental Science and Development. Today, the U.S. census estimates that there are more than 6 million Muslims here. Muslims are expected to surpass Jews as the second-largest religion in America in about two decades.


No country has ever simply turned itself into another country like this.


With the media cheering the end of America and businessmen determined to keep importing cheap labor, Democrats don't even bother hiding what they're doing.


Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating for 20 years about how post-1965 immigration would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. They called the new emerging majority "George McGovern's Revenge."


In today's America, George McGovern would be a moderate Democrat; Jimmy Carter would be a two-term president; and we'd be holding primary debates at the Walter Mondale Presidential Museum and Library.


Any GOP candidate for president who wants to increase immigration -- i.e., all of them except Trump -- ought to be required to first pass this simple test: Be successfully elected governor of California on a platform of tax cuts and social conservatism.


The Democrats got the voters -- and the country got 9/11, Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon bombing, clitorectomies, an explosion of gang rapes, child rapes, sex tourism, slavery, voodoo, Russell Brand, billions of taxpayer dollars stolen in Medicare and Medicaid scams, an epidemic of heroin deaths, soccer, bankrupt school districts and hospitals, overcrowded prisons, and endless tax hikes to pay for all the immigrant services, as small town after small town goes all-Mexican, or all-Somali or all-Hmong.


The people coming in aren't the ones exulting about "the browning of America." It's smug liberals who want America to be humbled and destroyed. The cultural left is overjoyed at the remaking of our society into one that is poorer, browner and less free.


These changes are entirely the result of government policies that were never debated, much less put to a vote. Americans have not been consulted on the question of whether to turn our country into some other country. Never mind what we're doing. You'll thank us later.


I know it's gauche to consider what Americans want, but how about the immigrants? Presumably some didn't come only for the welfare, crime and terrorism opportunities. They decided to move to the United States -- not Mexico or Somalia or China -- because they wanted to live in America. If our current immigration policies aren't stopped, they're going to wonder why they bothered.


COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary Worked to Silence Bill's Sexual Assault Victims... on: September 28, 2015, 12:32:46 PM
ROGER STONE: ‘PETS KILLED, TIRES SLASHED, LATE NIGHT PHONE CALLS’ TO SILENCE BILL CLINTON’S SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS

by ROBERT WILDE  27 Sep 2015

Long time political operative and strategist Roger Stone appeared on Breitbart News Sunday, broadcast on SiriusXM patriot radio channel 125, with Breitbart’s senior investigative political reporter Matt Boyle.

Stone who cut his political teeth working for Richard Nixon’s infamous Committee to Re-elect the President, later campaigned for Ronald Reagan, and until recently worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, shared a few nuggets from his new book The Clintons’ War on Women, which he co-wrote with Robert Morrow.

Stone told Boyle that Hillary Clinton promoting herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy. The author reminded Breitbart News Sunday listeners that as recently as last week Hillary spoke about the rape issue and that raped victims should be believed.

“Unfortunately, this doesn’t match her own history,” Stone pointed out. “She has been an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.”

Stone stated that there were “many, many others who were not known publicly.” He charges that the main stream media is protective of the Clintons and supressed the other incidents to the public.

In The Clintons’ War on Women, Stone told Boyle that “We have laid out Hillary’s real record on women.”

Stone accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically and that Hillary came to his rescue and hired detectives, to gather information on the women. She then used the information to “run a terror campaign to intimidate Bill’s victims into silence.”

According to Stone, Hillary’s motivation is clear. She does not want  anything to get in the way of growing their power and wealth.

Stone added that the book includes not only the serial rapes committed by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s cover up, but the “horiffic things” that were done to his victims. “Pets Killed. Tires slashed. Windshields Smashed in and bullets left in the front seat of cars. Late night phone calls: We know where you’re children go to school,” all of these threats were part of the Clintons intimidation tactics.

“This is very sick stuff.  It is the psychological abuse of women and Hillary is responsible for it. Women voters need to know her real record,” the political firebrand asserted.

Ironically, Stone observes, that Hillary advocates for equal pay, but that “in no job where she was the boss did women make as much as the men.”

“Hillary is really not a friend to women,” he insists. “That is really what this book is about.”
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Perspective on the VW Scandal... on: September 26, 2015, 08:08:38 PM
The VW “Scandal”

by eric • September 23, 2015

This could kill VW – until recently (until last week) the world’s largest car company.

But unlike say the exploding Pinto fiasco this is not a story about defective cars. It is a story about defective public policy.

None of the VW cars now in the crosshairs are unreliable, dangerous or shoddily built. They were simply programmed to give their owners best-case fuel economy and performance. Software embedded within each vehicle’s computer – which monitors and controls the operation of the engine – would furtively adjust those parameters slightly to sneak by emissions tests when the vehicle was plugged in for testing. But once out on the road, the calibrations would revert to optimal – for mileage and performance.

Now, the hysterical media accounts of the above make it seem that the alteration via code of the vehicles’ exhaust emissions was anything but slight. Shrill cries of up to “40 times” the “allowable maximum” echo across the land.

Well, true.

But, misleading.   

Because not defined – put in context.

What is the “allowable maximum”?

It is a very small number.

Less than 1 percent of the total volume of the car’s exhaust. We are talking fractions of percentages here. Which is why talk of “40 percent” is so misleading and, frankly, deliberately dishonest.

Left out of context, the figure sounds alarming. As in 40 percent of 100 percent.

As opposed to 40 percent of the remaining unscrubbed  1-3 percent or .05 percent  or whatever it is (depending on the specific “harmful” byproduct being belabored).

The truth – explained rarely, for reasons that will become obvious – is that the emissions of new cars (and recent-vintage cars) have been so thoroughly cleaned up they hardly exist at all. Catalytic converters (and especially “three way” catalytic converters with oxygen sensors) and fuel injection alone eliminated about two-thirds of the objectionable effluvia from the exhaust stream – and they’ve been around since the 1980s. Most of the remaining third was dealt with during the ’90s, via more precise forms of fuel delivery (port fuel injection replaced throttle body fuel injection) and more sophisticated engine computers capable of real-time monitoring and adjustment of parameters, and of alerting the vehicle’s owner to the need for a check (OBD II).

Since the late ’90s/early 2000s, the industry has been chasing diminishing returns. The remaining 3 percent or so of the exhaust stream that’s not been “controlled.”

You may begin to see the problem here.

Internal combustion is always going to produce some emissions. The engineers have picked the low hanging (and mid-hanging) fruit. But the EPA insists on what amounts to a zero emissions internal combustion engine.

Which, of course, is impossible.

Which may be just the point.

Set unattainable standards – then denounce the victim for “noncompliance.”

VW’s sin was trying to get diesels that people would want to buy into the showrooms. These would be diesels that went farther than an otherwise-equivalent gas-engined car on a gallon of fuel to offset the higher up-front cost of buying the diesel-powered vehicle. Or at least, far enough – relative to the gas-engined equivalent – to justify the price premium.

People also expected – demanded – that the vehicles perform. That they accelerate when the accelerator is pushed.

VW set the calibrations to deliver those things. The operating characteristics its customers want.

VW is in hot water because of that. Because it put customers – rather than government – first.

No one has alleged that any of the “affected” vehicles runs poorly. The fact is they run better than they would have if VW had set the calibrations to appease the implacable EPA.

Which will never be appeased until we’re all driving $60,000 “zero emissions” electric cars we can’t afford. Which will put most of us into public (that is, government) transport. If we’re transported at all. Probably, we’ll be herded into urban cores, stacked like proles – for the sake of “the environment.”

It is a tragedy of stupidity and maliciousness and engineering ignorance.

Consider, for instance,  the fact that if it were not for federal “safety” mandates, VW (and other car companies) would be able to sell vehicles hundreds of pounds lighter than the current average. Which, in turn, would allow for smaller engines – which burn less fuel. Which, in turn produce a lesser volume of exhaust. Even if a hypothetical 1,600 pound ultra-light vehicle’s exhaust stream were, let’s say, 2 percent “dirtier” than a current 2,300 pound EPA (and DOT) approved “safety” car’s, if the ultra-light burns 40 percent less fuel, its total output is still much lower than then government-approved car’s.

But such cars (the ultra-lights) have – effectively –  been legislated out of existence.

At the same time, the cars that may still be manufactured are required to meet increasingly unattainable standards, putting the manufacturers (like VW) in the position of manufacturing government-compliant cars that cost too much and perform poorly that few will want to buy… or “cheating” the government, in order to build cars people will actually want to buy.

What’s happening to VW could have come right out of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s cumbersome but nonetheless predictive novel of 50 years ago. VW cast as the real-life version of Rearden Steel.

Some inside baseball: Mazda has been trying to get its Sky-D diesel engine EPA-compliant (while also customer-viable) for the past two years, without success so far. You are denied this 50-plus MPG (and extremely clean) diesel because of the particulate jihadists in Washington.

Remember: In neither case (VW or Mazda) are we talking about a return to the LA of the early ’70s, a feasting on lead chip paints and bathing in DDT. It’s all a bogey at this point. A straw man. A phantom, meant to scare you. But it has no reality.

The “emissions problem” has been solved – decades ago. But the EPA, et al, cannot admit this.

Because then there’d be no need for the EPA.   
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Central Banks Engineering Collapse... on: September 25, 2015, 09:09:04 PM
The Worst Part Is Central Bankers Know Exactly What They Are Doing

Wednesday, 23 September 2015 Brandon Smith


The best position for a tyrant or tyrants to be in, at least while consolidating power, is tyranny by proxy. That is to say, the most dangerous tyrants are those the people do not recognize: the tyrants who hide behind scarecrows and puppets and faceless organizations. The worst position for the common citizen to be in is a false sense of security and understanding, operating on the assumption that tyrants do not exist or that potential tyrants are really just greedy fools acting independently from one another.

Sadly, there are a great many people today who hold naïve notions that our sociopolitical dynamic is driven by random chaos, greed and fear. I’m sorry to say that this is simply not so, and anyone who believes such nonsense is doomed to be victimized by the tides of history over and over again.

There is nothing random or coincidental about our political systems or economic structures. There are no isolated tyrants and high-level criminals functioning solely on greed and ignorance. And while there is certainly chaos, this chaos is invariably engineered, not accidental. These crisis events are created by people who often refer to themselves as “globalists” or “internationalists,” and their goals are rather obvious and sometimes openly admitted: at the top of their list is the complete centralization of government and economic power that is then ACCEPTED by the people as preferable. They hope to attain this goal primarily through the exploitation of puppet politicians around the world as well as the use of pervasive banking institutions as weapons of mass fiscal destruction.

Their strategic history is awash in wars and financial disasters, and not because they are incompetent. They are evil, not stupid.

By extension, perhaps the most dangerous lie circulating today is that central banks are chaotic operations run by intellectual idiots who have no clue what they are doing. This is nonsense. While the ideological cultism of elitism and globalism is ignorant and monstrous at its core, these people function rather successfully through highly organized collusion. Their principles are subhuman, but their strategies are invasive and intelligent.

That’s right; there is a conspiracy afoot, and this conspiracy requires created destruction as cover and concealment. Central banks and the private bankers who run them work together regardless of national affiliations to achieve certain objectives, and they all serve a greater agenda. If you would like to learn more about the details behind what motivates globalists, at least in the financial sense, read my article 'The Economic Endgame Explained.'

Many people, including insiders, have written extensively about central banks and their true intentions to centralize and rule the masses through manipulation, if not direct political domination. I think Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, presents the reality of our situation quite clearly in his book “Tragedy And Hope”:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

This "world system of financial control" that Quigley speaks of has not yet been achieved, but the globalists have been working tirelessly towards such a goal.  The plan for a single global currency system and a single global economic authority is outlined rather blatantly in an article published in the Rothschild owned 'The Economist' entitled 'Get Ready For A Global Currency By 2018'.  This article was written in 1988, and much of the process of globalization it describes is already well underway.  It is a plan that is at least decades in the making.  Again, it is foolhardy to assume central banks and international bankers are a bunch of clumsy Mr. Magoos unwittingly driving our economy off a cliff; they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Being the clever tyrants that they are, the members of the central banking cult hope you are too stupid or too biased to grasp the concept of conspiracy. They prefer that you see them as bumbling idiots, as children who found their father’s shotgun or who like to play with matches because in your assumptions and underestimations they find safety. If you cannot identify the agenda, you can do nothing to interfere with the agenda.

I have found that the false notion of central bank impotence is growing in popularity lately, certainly in light of the recent Fed decision to delay an interest rate hike in September. With that particular event in mind, let’s explore what is really going on and why the central banks are far more dangerous and deliberate than people are giving them credit for.

The argument that the Federal Reserve is now “between a rock and a hard place” keeps popping up in alternative media circles lately, but I find this depiction to be inaccurate. It presumes that the Federal Reserve "wants"  to save the U.S. economy or at least wants to maintain our status quo as the “golden goose.” This is not the case.  America is not the golden goose.  In truth, the Fed is exactly where it wants to be; and it is the American people who are trapped economically rather than the bankers.

Take, for instance, the original Fed push for the taper of quantitative easing; why did the Fed pursue this in the first place? QE and zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) are the two pillars holding up U.S. equities markets and U.S. bonds. No one in the mainstream was demanding that the Fed enact taper measures. And when the Fed more publicly introduced the potential for such measures in the fall of 2013, no one believed it would actually follow through. Why? Because removing a primary support pillar from under the “golden goose” seemed incomprehensible to them.

In September of that year, I argued that the Fed would indeed taper QE. And, in my article “Is The Fed Ready To Cut America’s Fiat Life Support?” I gave my reasons why. In short, I felt the Fed was preparing for the final collapse of our economic system and the taper acted as a kind of control valve, making a path for the next leg down without immediate destabilization. I also argued that all stimulus measures have a shelf life, and the shelf life for all QE and ZIRP is quickly coming to an end. They no longer serve a purpose except to marginally slow the collapse of certain sectors, so the Fed is systematically dismantling them.

I received numerous emails, some civil and some hostile, as to why I was crazy to think the Fed would ever end QE. I knew the taper would be instituted because I was willing to accept the real motivation of central banks, which is to undermine and destroy economies within a particular time frame, not secure economies or kick the can indefinitely. In light of this, the taper made sense. One great pillar is gone, and now only ZIRP remains.

After a couple of meetings and preplanned delays, the Fed did indeed follow through with the taper in December of that year. In response, energy markets essentially imploded and stocks became steadily more volatile over the course of 2014, leading to a near 10% drop in early fall followed by foreign QE efforts and false hints of QE4 by Fed officials as central banks slowed the crisis to an easier to manage pace while easing the investment world into the idea of reduced stimulus policies and reduced living standards; what some call the "new normal".

I have held that the Fed is likely following the same exact model with ZIRP, delaying through the fall only to remove the final pillar in December.

For now, the Fed is being portrayed as incompetent with markets behaving erratically as investors lose faith in their high priests. This is exactly what the bankers that control the Fed prefer. Better to be seen as incompetent than to be seen as deliberately insidious. And who knows, maybe a convenient disaster event in the meantime such as a terrorist attack or war (Syria) could be used to draw attention away from the bankers completely.

Strangely, Bloomberg seems to agree (at least in part) with my view that the taper model is being copied for use in the rate hike theater and that a hike is coming in December.

Meanwhile, some Federal Reserve officials once again insinuate that a hike will be implemented by the end of the year while others hint at the opposite.

Other mainstream sources are stating the contrary, with Pimco arguing that there will be no Fed rate hike until 2016.  Of course, Pimco made a similar claim back in 2013 against any chance of a QE taper.  They were wrong, or, they were deliberately misleading investors.

Goldman Sachs is also redrafting their predictions and indicating that a Fed rate hike will not come until mid-2016. With evidence indicating that Goldman Sachs holds considerable influence over Fed policy (such as exposed private meetings on policy between Fed officials and banking CEO's), one might argue that whatever they “predict” for the rate hike will ultimately happen. However, I would point out that if Goldman Sachs is indeed on the inside of Fed policy making, then they are often prone to lying about it or hiding it.

During the taper fiasco in 2013, Goldman Sachs first claimed that the Fed would taper in September. They lost billions of dollars on bad currency bets as the Fed delayed.

Then, Goldman Sachs argued that there would be no taper in December of that year; and they were proven to be wrong (or disingenuous) once again.

Today, with the interest rate fiasco, Goldman Sachs claimed a Fed rate hike would likely take place in September. They were wrong. Now, once again, they are claiming no rate hike until next year.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

How could an elitist-run bank with proven inside connections to the Federal Reserve be so wrong so often about Fed policy changes? Well, losing a billion dollars here and there is not a very big deal to Goldman Sachs. I believe they are far more interested in misleading investors and keeping the public off guard, and are willing to sacrifice some nominal profits in the process. Remember, these are the same guys who conned nations like Greece into buying toxic derivatives that Goldman was simultaneously betting against!

The relationship between international banks like Goldman Sachs and central banks like the Federal Reserve is best summed up in yet another Carroll Quigley quote from “Tragedy And Hope”:

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."

Goldman Sachs and other major banks act in concert with the Fed (or even dictate Fed actions) in conditioning public psychology as much as they manipulate finance. First and foremost, globalists require confusion. Confusion is power.  What better way to confuse and mislead the investment world than to place bad bets on Fed policy changes?

Heading into the end of 2015, we are only going to be faced with ever mounting mixed messages and confusion from the mainstream media, international banks and central banks. It is important to always remember, though, that this is by design. A common motto of the elite is “order out of chaos,” or “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Think critically about why the Fed has chosen to push forward with earth-shaking policy changes this year that no one asked for. What does it have to gain? And realize that if the real goal of the Fed is instability, then it has much to gain through its recent and seemingly insane actions.

 
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Treason... on: September 25, 2015, 10:05:50 AM
This President will be responsible - via this Iran deal - for the deaths of millions - including Americans.  I believe he is aware of this, and doesn't care - because his main goal is the diminution of the United States as a world power.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: September 24, 2015, 12:49:45 PM
Donald Amongst the Eggheads

They don’t like him for some strange reason.

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. – 9.23.15 - The American Spectator.

Hold on to your toupees, the conservative intellectuals are in a stew.

One candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination is not playing by the rules. He is rude and crude and having a very good time of it. Oh, and by the way, he is leading the field by a lot. He has 29 percent of the vote among Republicans, according to an NBC online survey the other day. His next closest opponent is Dr. Ben Carson with 14 percent and after that Carly Fiorina with 11 percent. Both, incidentally, are new to politics as is the target of the conservative intellectuals’ wrath, Donald Trump. Interestingly the intellectuals are markedly out of touch with the conservative rank and file.

Trump’s rambunctious presence in the race is responsible for a miracle. The conservative intellectuals have finally thrown in with the left intellectuals. Both disrelish Trump, and, if truth be known, they are not very happy with Carson or Fiorina, who with Trump account for over 50 percent of the Republican vote. A year ago these three would be sitting in the politicians’ audience.

Meanwhile Trump is flying around the country having a great time discomfiting the intellectuals and gathering abundant support from conservative voters, independents, and even from the left. How is this happening? Well, Trump speaks boldly. He has taken the measure of the political class and finds it wanting. And he has identified issues that most of the other candidates are too timid to tackle. He is an optimist. Like Ronald Reagan he sees America as a shining city on a hill, and it does not make him wince. My guess is that Trump likes movies starring John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. He is a regular American.

The think tank eggheads bring to politics neatly tailored plans to address such problems as income distribution or the immigration conundrum. Trump clarifies issues. To income distribution he brings plans for economic growth and jobs. To the immigration question he identifies the problem. It is illegal immigration, and the illegals leap to supply him with evidence by murdering and raping the citizenry. Trump’s solution is to build a wall and to return the illegals. As for those immigrants who arrived here legally, they can continue to prosper. There is evidence the legals approve.

Aside from identifying and clarifying issues, Trump spots as issues matters that the establishment politicians hardly notice, for instance, political correctness. Somehow he has perceived that political correctness rankles average Americans. It angers them when political correctness intrudes into school curricula, political discourse, and how government treats its citizens. When Trump speaks out against it, the ordinary American discovers that Trump is their kind of guy. He is also their kind of guy when he speaks out against tax loopholes and for fairness in the tax code. Trump has his finger on the pulse of average Americans. His touch for markets that has made him billions he applies to finding constituencies, and it appears he has been brilliant at finding constituencies or, as he says, “The Silent Majority.” He, and for that matter the other late arrivals to politics Carson and Fiorina, have caused anxiety in the establishments of both parties, to say nothing of the intellectuals.

How is it that Trump anticipates the issues better than the establishment politicians? Well, despite his fortune, Trump is a regular American. I think a lot of Americans recognize this. The best of America is like Trump, optimistic, self-confident, energetic, can-do, and they enjoy a good laugh. Trump has made running for political office fun again, much as Ronald Reagan made running for office fun again after the lugubrious Jimmy Carter. Reagan spoke of “Morning in America.” Trump has trademarked “Make America Great Again.”

How is Trump going to do when the voting begins? I can see him getting at a minimum 25 percent of the vote going into the convention, maybe more. It depends on his ability to develop an organization to get out the vote, his continued anticipation of issues, and his continued ability to address them boldly. If he succeeds, as I think he will, he will have a strong hand to play in the convention. I suspect his strongest opponent will be Jeb Bush, but Carson and Fiorina will also be candidates to reckon with. Then the players will sit down and cut a deal, but remember they will be dealing with the billionaire who wrote The Art of the Deal. I am looking forward to an exciting summer in 2016.
112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wesbury, Grannis, et. al.... on: September 24, 2015, 08:46:05 AM
The capacity for human denial in the face of obvious evidence everywhere one turns never ceases to astonish me.
Shades of Jews in Europe circa 1938 insisting that despite the Nazis clear targeting of them, "The Germans won't do anything to hurt us - we're too important to the economy."  We know how that turned out...
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / World's Central Bankers Know Exactly What They're Doing... on: September 23, 2015, 01:51:24 PM
The Worst Part Is Central Bankers Know Exactly What They Are Doing

Wednesday, 23 September 2015    Brandon Smith


The best position for a tyrant or tyrants to be in, at least while consolidating power, is tyranny by proxy. That is to say, the most dangerous tyrants are those the people do not recognize: the tyrants who hide behind scarecrows and puppets and faceless organizations. The worst position for the common citizen to be in is a false sense of security and understanding, operating on the assumption that tyrants do not exist or that potential tyrants are really just greedy fools acting independently from one another.

Sadly, there are a great many people today who hold naïve notions that our sociopolitical dynamic is driven by random chaos, greed and fear. I’m sorry to say that this is simply not so, and anyone who believes such nonsense is doomed to be victimized by the tides of history over and over again.

There is nothing random or coincidental about our political systems or economic structures. There are no isolated tyrants and high-level criminals functioning solely on greed and ignorance. And while there is certainly chaos, this chaos is invariably engineered, not accidental. These crisis events are created by people who often refer to themselves as “globalists” or “internationalists,” and their goals are rather obvious and sometimes openly admitted: at the top of their list is the complete centralization of government and economic power that is then ACCEPTED by the people as preferable. They hope to attain this goal primarily through the exploitation of puppet politicians around the world as well as the use of pervasive banking institutions as weapons of mass fiscal destruction.

Their strategic history is awash in wars and financial disasters, and not because they are incompetent. They are evil, not stupid.

By extension, perhaps the most dangerous lie circulating today is that central banks are chaotic operations run by intellectual idiots who have no clue what they are doing. This is nonsense. While the ideological cultism of elitism and globalism is ignorant and monstrous at its core, these people function rather successfully through highly organized collusion. Their principles are subhuman, but their strategies are invasive and intelligent.

That’s right; there is a conspiracy afoot, and this conspiracy requires created destruction as cover and concealment. Central banks and the private bankers who run them work together regardless of national affiliations to achieve certain objectives, and they all serve a greater agenda. If you would like to learn more about the details behind what motivates globalists, at least in the financial sense, read my article 'The Economic Endgame Explained.'

Many people, including insiders, have written extensively about central banks and their true intentions to centralize and rule the masses through manipulation, if not direct political domination. I think Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, presents the reality of our situation quite clearly in his book “Tragedy And Hope”:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

This "world system of financial control" that Quigley speaks of has not yet been achieved, but the globalists have been working tirelessly towards such a goal.  The plan for a single global currency system and a single global economic authority is outlined rather blatantly in an article published in the Rothschild owned 'The Economist' entitled 'Get Ready For A Global Currency By 2018'.  This article was written in 1988, and much of the process of globalization it describes is already well underway.  It is a plan that is at least decades in the making.  Again, it is foolhardy to assume central banks and international bankers are a bunch of clumsy Mr. Magoos unwittingly driving our economy off a cliff; they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Being the clever tyrants that they are, the members of the central banking cult hope you are too stupid or too biased to grasp the concept of conspiracy. They prefer that you see them as bumbling idiots, as children who found their father’s shotgun or who like to play with matches because in your assumptions and underestimations they find safety. If you cannot identify the agenda, you can do nothing to interfere with the agenda.

I have found that the false notion of central bank impotence is growing in popularity lately, certainly in light of the recent Fed decision to delay an interest rate hike in September. With that particular event in mind, let’s explore what is really going on and why the central banks are far more dangerous and deliberate than people are giving them credit for.

The argument that the Federal Reserve is now “between a rock and a hard place” keeps popping up in alternative media circles lately, but I find this depiction to be inaccurate. It presumes that the Federal Reserve "wants"  to save the U.S. economy or at least wants to maintain our status quo as the “golden goose.” This is not the case.  America is not the golden goose.  In truth, the Fed is exactly where it wants to be; and it is the American people who are trapped economically rather than the bankers.

Take, for instance, the original Fed push for the taper of quantitative easing; why did the Fed pursue this in the first place? QE and zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) are the two pillars holding up U.S. equities markets and U.S. bonds. No one in the mainstream was demanding that the Fed enact taper measures. And when the Fed more publicly introduced the potential for such measures in the fall of 2013, no one believed it would actually follow through. Why? Because removing a primary support pillar from under the “golden goose” seemed incomprehensible to them.

In September of that year, I argued that the Fed would indeed taper QE. And, in my article “Is The Fed Ready To cut America’s Fiat Life Support?” I gave my reasons why. In short, I felt the Fed was preparing for the final collapse of our economic system and the taper acted as a kind of control valve, making a path for the next leg down without immediate destabilization. I also argued that all stimulus measures have a shelf life, and the shelf life for all QE and ZIRP is quickly coming to an end. They no longer serve a purpose except to marginally slow the collapse of certain sectors, so the Fed is systematically dismantling them.

I received numerous emails, some civil and some hostile, as to why I was crazy to think the Fed would ever end QE. I knew the taper would be instituted because I was willing to accept the real motivation of central banks, which is to undermine and destroy economies within a particular time frame, not secure economies or kick the can indefinitely. In light of this, the taper made sense. One great pillar is gone, and now only ZIRP remains.

After a couple of meetings and preplanned delays, the Fed did indeed follow through with the taper in December of that year. In response, energy markets essentially imploded and stocks became steadily more volatile over the course of 2014, leading to a near 10% drop in early fall followed by foreign QE efforts and false hints of QE4 by Fed officials as central banks slowed the crisis to an easier to manage pace while easing the investment world into the idea of reduced stimulus policies and reduced living standards; what some call the "new normal".

I have held that the Fed is likely following the same exact model with ZIRP, delaying through the fall only to remove the final pillar in December.

For now, the Fed is being portrayed as incompetent with markets behaving erratically as investors lose faith in their high priests. This is exactly what the bankers that control the Fed prefer. Better to be seen as incompetent than to be seen as deliberately insidious. And who knows, maybe a convenient disaster event in the meantime such as a terrorist attack or war (Syria) could be used to draw attention away from the bankers completely.

Strangely, Bloomberg seems to agree (at least in part) with my view that the taper model is being copied for use in the rate hike theater and that a hike is coming in December.

Meanwhile, some Federal Reserve officials once again insinuate that a hike will be implemented by the end of the year while others hint at the opposite.

Other mainstream sources are stating the contrary, with Pimco arguing that there will be no Fed rate hike until 2016.  Of course, Pimco made a similar claim back in 2013 against any chance of a QE taper.  They were wrong, or, they were deliberately misleading investors.

Goldman Sachs is also redrafting their predictions and indicating that a Fed rate hike will not come until mid-2016. With evidence indicating that Goldman Sachs holds considerable influence over Fed policy (such as exposed private meetings on policy between Fed officials and banking CEO's), one might argue that whatever they “predict” for the rate hike will ultimately happen. However, I would point out that if Goldman Sachs is indeed on the inside of Fed policy making, then they are often prone to lying about it or hiding it.

During the taper fiasco in 2013, Goldman Sachs first claimed that the Fed would taper in September. They lost billions of dollars on bad currency bets as the Fed delayed.

Then, Goldman Sachs argued that there would be no taper in December of that year; and they were proven to be wrong (or disingenuous) once again.

Today, with the interest rate fiasco, Goldman Sachs claimed a Fed rate hike would likely take place in September. They were wrong. Now, once again, they are claiming no rate hike until next year.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

How could an elitist-run bank with proven inside connections to the Federal Reserve be so wrong so often about Fed policy changes? Well, losing a billion dollars here and there is not a very big deal to Goldman Sachs. I believe they are far more interested in misleading investors and keeping the public off guard, and are willing to sacrifice some nominal profits in the process. Remember, these are the same guys who conned nations like Greece into buying toxic derivatives that Goldman was simultaneously betting against!

The relationship between international banks like Goldman Sachs and central banks like the Federal Reserve is best summed up in yet another Carroll Quigley quote from “Tragedy And Hope”:

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."

Goldman Sachs and other major banks act in concert with the Fed (or even dictate Fed actions) in conditioning public psychology as much as they manipulate finance. First and foremost, globalists require confusion. Confusion is power.  What better way to confuse and mislead the investment world than to place bad bets on Fed policy changes?

Heading into the end of 2015, we are only going to be faced with ever mounting mixed messages and confusion from the mainstream media, international banks and central banks. It is important to always remember, though, that this is by design. A common motto of the elite is “order out of chaos,” or “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Think critically about why the Fed has chosen to push forward with earth-shaking policy changes this year that no one asked for. What does it have to gain? And realize that if the real goal of the Fed is instability, then it has much to gain through its recent and seemingly insane actions.
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hoax: Muslim Boy Didn't Build Clock - Put Existing One in Box... on: September 20, 2015, 08:22:44 AM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/hoax-muslim-clockmaker-didnt-build-clock-just-put-existing-one-into-pencil-box

115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller: Ahmed's Clock Stunt a Setup... on: September 18, 2015, 08:48:39 PM
AHMED MOHAMED AND THE ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ CLOCK

by PAMELA GELLER  17 Sep 2015

A Muslim teen, fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, bought a strange ticking device to his school, MacArthur High School. His device caused alarm and fear, and he was detained for having what his teacher perceived as a bomb. Police officers said the electronic components and wires inside his Vaultz pencil case (which is the size of a briefcase) looked like a “hoax bomb,” according to local news station WFAA.

When questioned about what the device was, Mohamed wouldn’t answer. Now terror-tied Islamic groups like the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), their media lapdogs, and even Barack Obama are waging jihad against the school and the local police.

When police questioned the boy, WFAA reports, they said he was “passive aggressive” and didn’t give them a “reasonable answer” as to why he had brought his contraption to the school. “We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn’t offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school,” said James McLellan of the Irving Police Department.

This whole thing smells like a setup. With ISIS in America, and young moderate Muslims fleeing to Syria to join the terror group, the response of MacArthur High School officials was rational and reasonable. At my website, PamelaGeller.com, I run news stories on a weekly basis of American Muslim teens who have been arrested for trying to join ISIS. Just this week, a Muslim teen from Philadelphia was arrested for an alleged plot to assassinate the Pope during his visit to the United States.

Every day we are warned of new terror threats, increased threat levels. But trying to protect school children is “Islamophobic.” And President Obama agrees, of course. Yes, he has weighed in; Barack Obama himself got into the act, tweeting to Ahmed: “Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.”

When I first heard about this story, I wrote at my website that it smelled fishy. Now, as more details have emerged, it positively stinks. The plot has considerably thickened. In what has become one of the most egregious of the faked hate narratives, the bomb hoax clockster turns out to come from a family that has a history of supremacist stunts.

The New York Daily News reported this Wednesday about Ahmed Mohamed’s father, Mohamed ElHassan Mohamed:

One of the earliest instances of the standout citizen making national news was in 2011, when he sensationally stood up to an anti-Islamic pastor and defended the Koran as its defense attorney. That mock trial at a Florida church ended with the book’s burning, to ElHassan’s claimed shock. In an interview with the Washington Post at the time, the devoted Muslim said he’d take on Rev. Terry Jones’ challenge because the holy book teaches that Muslims should engage in peaceful dialogue with Christians.

Also in 2011, ElHassan debated Robert Spencer on the questionf of “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” Clearly, he was trying to score a victory against a famous “Islamophobe” and thus win a name for himself. ElHassan has been looking for publicity and chances to fight against “Islamophobia” for a considerable period. Now he has seized it, going so far as to claim his son was “tortured” by school and law enforcement officials.

He finally has the cause he has been seeking for so long. School officials were being prudent, protecting the children. Irving, Texas has had its share of jihad and sharia. Two Muslim sisters, Amina and Sarah Said, were honor murdered by their father, execution-style, in Irving several years ago. He is still at large. And Irving, Texas is only half an hour from Garland, Texas – the site of a jihad shooting on a free speech event last May. And the news is regularly riddled with stories of young Muslims, all lovely, sweet achievers, who suddenly — go jihad.

This story is pure agitprop most fatal. “If you see something, say something” is now racism. And for destroying this simple principle of self-protection, young Ahmed Mohamed is a media star. Not only has Barack Obama invited him to the White House, but NASA has also invited Ahmed to meet with them, as has Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. The whole thing has clearly been a setup, and its effect will be to make Americans less safe. If you ever see a Muslim with a suspicious object, remember the lesson of Ahmed Mohamed: to say something would be “racism.” That could end up being the epitaph of America and the free world.
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / It's Not the Job of Republicans to "Correct" People Who Hate Obama... on: September 18, 2015, 12:35:45 PM
IT'S NOT THE JOB OF REPUBLICANS TO "CORRECT" PEOPLE WHO HATE OBAMA

Since when is it the job of Republicans to defend Obama?

September 18, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


Recently MoveOn, an organization close to Obama, accused senators opposed to Iran getting nukes of being traitors. It also attacked the Jewish Schumer by claiming, "We don't need another Lieberman in the Senate." (It might be gratifying if all the liberals calling out Ann Coulter's Tweets were as willing to call out blatant anti-Semitism by one of their own organizations.)

I don't recall Obama condemning MoveOn. Instead he added to the chorus by accusing opponents of being behind the Iraq War.

Obama plays dirty. But that's politics. What's obnoxious is when the media cheers on Obama and the left for ugly tactics and then whines when Scott Walker won't praise Obama and when Trump won't defend Obama.

Since when is it the job of Republicans to defend Obama?

We've thrown out civility and all of the rules a while back. Obama began his campaign with a planted viral video accusing Hillary Clinton of being 1984's Big Brother. Hillary responded by having her people accuse Obama of being a Muslim.

Let's recall that Hillary pal Sidney Blumenthal, who invented the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" was pushing material from conservative sites accusing Obama of the same things that they now find unacceptable.

That kind of stuff doesn't get talked about much. But the media is all outraged because Trump won't interrupt his campaign to defend Obama against charges that he's a Muslim.

That's not Trump's job. It's Obama's job to defend himself against accusations. Maybe if he showed some civility in his political conflicts, he would be entitled to expect some civility from Republicans. But this is the guy whose proxies constantly accuse critics of being racists or traitors or warmongers.

Republicans should make it clear that it's not their job to defend a nasty campaigner like Obama against the hostile atmosphere his political tactics have created. They are here to campaign for themselves and their party.

Obama already has numerous political organizations formed to promote his agenda, not to mention a vast network of leftist non-profits and the entire media. If they can't protect him against the anger of the American people, maybe he should just recognize that he is part of the problem.


117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Western Nations Should Only Accept Christian Refugees... on: September 18, 2015, 10:00:50 AM
Why Western Nations Should Only Accept Christian Refugees

Raymond Ibrahim - 09-18-2015
RaymondIbrahim.com


As refugees from the Middle East flood the West, a number of countries—including Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Australia—are defying political correctness by wanting to accept Christian refugees only.



While more “progressive” voices cry “racism,” the fact remains: there are several objective reasons why the West should give priority, if not exclusivity, to Christian refugees—and some of these are actually to the benefit of European host nations.

Consider:

Christians are true victims of persecution.  From a humanitarian point of view—and humanitarianism is the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees—Christians should receive top priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East—well before the Islamic State phenomenon came into being.  As Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop put it, “I think that Christian minorities are being persecuted in Syria and even if the conflict were over they would still be persecuted.”

Indeed.  While they are especially targeted by the Islamic State, before the new “caliphate” was established, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims—Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.)—and for the same reason: Christians are infidel number one.  See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians.

Conversely, Muslim refugees—as opposed to the many ISIS and other jihadi infiltrators posing as “refugees”—are not fleeing direct persecution, but chaos created by the violent and supremacist teachings of their own religion, Islam.  It’s not for nothing that Samuel Huntington famously pointed out that “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.”  This means that when Muslims enter Western nations, chaos, persecution, and mayhem follow.  Take a look at those West European cities—for example, Londonistan—that already have a large Muslim population for an idea.

Muslim persecution of Christians has been further enabled by Western policies, especially those of the Obama administration.  In other words, Western nations should accept Christian refugees on the basis that Western meddling in the Middle East is directly responsible for exacerbating the plight of Christian minorities.  After all, Christians did not flee from Bashar Assad’s Syria, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Muamar Gaddafi’s Libya.  Their systematic persecution began in earnest after the U.S. and others interfered in those nations in the name of “democracy.”  All they did is unleash the jihadi forces that the dictators had long kept suppressed. Now the Islamic State is deeply embedded in all three nations, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering countless Christian “infidels” and other minorities.

Vladimir Putin’s thoughts on the refugee crisis are plainly true:

This is a crisis which was absolutely expected….  We in Russia and your humble servant said several years ago that there would be massive problems if our so-called western partners conduct what I have always called the “wrong” foreign policy, especially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and north Africa, which they continue practically to this day.

The Russian leader correctly adds that “people are running away not from the regime of Bashar Assad, but from Islamic State, which seized large areas in Syria and Iraq, and are committing atrocities there. That is what they are escaping from.”

Thus if the West is responsible for unleashing the full-blown jihad on Christians, surely it is the latter that the West should prioritize, from a humanitarian point of view.

Unlike Muslims, or even Yazidis, Christians are easily assimilated in Western countries, due to the shared Christian heritage.  As Slovakia, which prefers Christian refugees, correctly points out, Muslims would not fit in, including because there are no mosques in the Slavic nation. Conversely, “Slovakia as a Christian country can really help Christians from Syria to find a new home in Slovakia,” said an interior minister.

This too is common sense.  The same Christian teachings that molded Europe over the centuries are the same ones that mold Middle Eastern Christians—whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.   As San Diego’s Father Noel said in the context of the Iraqi Christian refugees who managed to flee ISIS but are now rotting in a U.S. detention center, Mideast Christians “who come here [America] ‘want to be good citizens’ and many who came here a decade ago are now lawyers, teachers, or other productive members of society.”

Meanwhile, Muslims follow a completely different blueprint, the Koran—which condemns Christians by name, calls for constant war (jihad) against all non-Muslims, and advocates any number of distinctly anti-Western practices.   Hence it is no surprise that many Muslim asylum seekers are anti-Western at heart, if not members of jihadi organizations.

Mideast Christians bring trustworthy language and cultural skills that are beneficial to the West.  They understand the Middle Eastern—including Islamic—mindset and can help the West understand it.  Moreover, unlike Muslims, Christians have no “conflicting loyalty” issues: Islamic law forbids Muslims from aiding “infidels” against fellow Muslims (click here to see some of the treachery this leads to in the U.S. and here to see the treachery Christians have suffered from their longtime Muslim neighbors and “friends”).  Indeed, an entire book about how “double agent” Muslims have infiltrated every corner of the U.S. government exists.  No such threat exists among Mideast Christians.  They too render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Finally, it goes without saying that Mideast Christians have no sympathy for the very people and ideology that made their lives a living hell—the very people and ideology that are also hostile to everything in the West.  Thus a win-win: the West and Mideast Christians complement each other, if only in that they share the same foe.

—-

All the above reasons—from those that offer humanitarian relief to the true victims of persecution, to those that offer benefits to the West—are unassailable in their logic and wisdom.  Yet, because Western progressives prioritize politically correct ideals and fantasies over stark reality, there is little chance that they will be considered.

Quite the reverse: in America and Britain persecuted Christians are “at the bottom of the heap” of refugees to be granted asylum. Muslims receive top priority.  Since January 2015, the U.S. has granted asylum to approximately six Muslims for every Christian it takes in.

The reason for this is simple: for the progressive mindset—which dominates Western governments, media, and academia—taking in refugees has little to do with altruism and everything to do egoism: It matters little who is really being persecuted—as seen, the West is directly responsible for greatly exacerbating the sufferings of Christians.

No, what’s important is that we “feel good” about ourselves.  By taking in “foreign” Muslims, as opposed to “siding” with “familiar” Christians, progressives get to feel “enlightened,” “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “multicultural”—and that’s all that matters here.

Meanwhile, reality quietly marches on: The same Islamic mentality that slaughters “infidel” Christians in the Middle East is now welcomed into the West with open arms.


 

The reproduction of any material or information originating on this website
must include either a link to this website or cite the name of this website
(RaymondIbrahim.com) as the source of the material or information reproduced.
Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Special Spot in Hell for Hillary Clinton... on: September 17, 2015, 04:52:33 PM
A SPECIAL SPOT IN HELL FOR HILLARY CLINTON

How Hillary helps powerful men abuse women.

September 17, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton told a cheering Silicon Valley audience, “There is a special spot in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

If there is such a place in hell, Hillary has reserved parking there. It’s hard to think of any other politician who has done as much to exploit women while doing so little for them. Except maybe her husband.

While Hillary pontificated about the glass ceiling, the tabloids were filled with new allegations of sexual abuse about Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein by one of his former “slaves”. Bill Clinton had taken frequent rides on Epstein’s private jet which had been nicknamed the “Lolita Express” because of its transportation of underage girls for the use of Epstein and some of his friends and associates.

Hillary Clinton was lecturing on feminism while new allegations were coming out about the former slave’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the “Lolita Express” and the favors that Bill owed Epstein.

Jeffrey Epstein was good at cashing in his favors. Despite buying girls as young as twelve, he served a year in the private wing of a Palm Beach prison with “work release” for six days a week and sixteen hours a day which he used to fly the Lolita Express back to his private island.

That island was a special place in hell for some little girls, but not one that Hillary Clinton was interested in doing anything about.

Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.

“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”

But the right to be believed didn’t extend to the twelve-year-old Arkansas girl who was beaten into a coma and raped.

Hillary Clinton defended her rapist by hurling false accusations at the little girl, claiming that she was mentally ill and sought out older men. She accused the girl, who had been beaten into a coma, of romanticizing “her sexual experiences”.

On tape, Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing about her client failing a lie detector test. She had known all along that it was the rapist who was lying.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said."You are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

If there’s a special spot in hell, Hillary belongs there.

Hillary’s right for rape victims to be believed doesn’t apply once she is being paid to lie about them. And she still continues to break new ground for her special spot in hell by covering up her donors’ rapes.

When one of her donors, Howard Gutman, was made ambassador to Belgium in exchange for his generous donations and fundraising for Hillary and Obama, whistleblowers who reported that he had escaped his security detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children” were targeted.

Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, oversaw a cover-up of the Gutman case, just as she had on Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton stood with the abuser as she had always done in her personal life and her political life.

Kathleen Willey, one of her husband's victims, responded to Hillary's “Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault," ad by saying, “She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”

“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”

Hillary didn’t stand with victims then. Instead she ran a “war room” targeting the women her husband had harassed in a repulsive political cleanup operation. But for her, the agenda has always come first. And women have come last. When Senator Bob Packwood was facing sexual harassment charges, Hillary told a friend that she was “tired of all those whiney women” because she needed HillaryCare to pass.

To Hillary Clinton, victimized women are just “whiney”. That’s the way it was. That’s the way it is.

Hillary Clinton is trying to win back the female voters abandoning her sinking campaign by promising to fight for women the way she claims to have done as Secretary of State. But if there’s a special hell for women, it’s Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia was Hillary’s own special spot in hell.

Hillary Clinton traveled to a lot of countries, but one of her favorite destinations was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis weren’t just allies; they had donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary would be using to help launch her presidential campaign.

The constant visits to Saudi Arabia, a country where little girls are married off, gang rape victims go to jail and women can’t travel without permission from their male guardians, were in sharp contrast to the image of an advocate for women that the Clinton Foundation was buying for her using Saudi money.

A kingdom where women can’t even drive was helping fund Hillary Clinton’s fake image as a feminist.

But Saudi rape problems didn’t just stay in Saudi Arabia. When Hillary Clinton visited Saudi Arabia in 2012, a rape trial against a member of the entourage of a Saudi prince had just wrapped up in New York. The victim, who had been drugged and raped, later sued the prince claiming that the rapist had been hired to lure women to the hotel.

The Plaza Hotel, where the assault took place, was more concerned for the rapist than his victim. But then it was owned by yet another Saudi prince who had also had a rape accusation leveled against him.

In 2010, Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary aide Huma whose organization supported child marriage, female genital mutilation and marital rape, welcomed Hillary Clinton to her college in Saudi Arabia.  Abedin assured Hillary that “no goats or sheep or camels will be offered for the lovely hand of your daughter, Chelsea”.

Hillary responded by praising Abedin and the Saudi king for recognizing “the fundamental importance of the education of women.” Then Hillary blamed the “American media” for its “unidimensional view of Saudi women.” Instead of challenging the Saudi king, Hillary Clinton blamed America.

And that is what she always does.

Whether it’s Bill Clinton or the Saudi King, Howard Gutman or some Arkansas rapist, Hillary Clinton panders to male abusers at the expense of the women and girls they hurt. It’s what she has always done to take her career to the next level.

Hillary Clinton is not here because of her talents. She’s here because she helped powerful men cover up their crimes, from her husband to the Saudi royal family. She has only gotten power by serving power and sacrificing other women to its demands.

She isn’t here to help women, men or children.  Not unless they can get her closer to what she wants. Hillary is no philanthropist. She doesn’t do anything without a reason. Every move is calculated to get her a check or a favor owed.

What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Palestinian Boy Aspires to "Blow up the Jews." on: September 17, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/16/palestinian-boy-wants-engineer-can-blow-jews/

120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Performance art is no way to assess a potential President... on: September 17, 2015, 08:46:55 AM
Of course - Dan Calabrese is correct here.  Unfortunately, precious few Americans will ever take the time to research the candidates' positions themselves, and the ONLY impressions they get of these candidates are what they see during these debates, and what is then said about them by the media.

Most American voters are incredibly lazy and ignorant.  That's just a sad fact.

Debates are no way to assess a potential President

By Dan Calabrese - Thursday, September 17, 2015.

I realize how furiously I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Let's start with a fact that has nothing to do with what happened last night on CNN, or what happened a month ago on Fox News: You can tell pretty much everything you need to know about every presidential candidate by spending a few hours on Google.

You can look up their policy positions and their backgrounds. You can find video clips of them speaking. You can find articles by their critics containing lots of arguments against them. You can do this and, if you're a serious voter, you should do this.

And if you do, then nothing you see in a media-contrived "debate" should change the assessment you arrived at as a result of your own research. You should not reject a candidate who has all the attributes you're looking for because he "looked small" on stage (whatever that means) or because he "disappeared for 45 minutes at a time" or because he said "oops".

Your initial research pertains to the actual policy positions and governing capabilities of a prospective president of the United States. Stuff that matters. Stuff that reflects what this person might do in office, and how well that person might do it.
What happens on stage at a media-contrived "debate" allows you to assess that person's skill in the realm of performance art, which apparently is quite fascinating to Americans, but is almost completely irrelevant to the attributes required to be a good president.

Americans are drawn for reasons unknown to very big televised events. Baseball fans are drawn to the World Series. Football fans are drawn to the Super Bowl. Some people like American Idol and Dancing With the Stars for reasons that I cannot explain to you. And apparently the run-of-the-mill political junkie likes to watch these debates - assessing moment-by-moment who did well, who uncorked a memorable line and who "moved the needle" or some such thing.

This has become relevant in the parlance of American politics precisely because the hardest thing about running for president is not to become qualified or to develop solid positions. It's to get people's attention. And the debate serves as an opportunity for candidates to get your attention because the media don't cover them unless they're insulting another candidate's face or doing some other thing deemed newsworthy by the guardians of the First Amendment - the very same people asking the questions at these reality shows for political junkies.

And because the only value of the debate is to provide attention for candidates who are otherwise not getting it - even though they may very well deserve to get it - the goal of every candidate is to do something that makes you remember them, which is understandable but again is completely irrelevant to the challenges inherent to the presidency.

Ultimately, the importance of the debates represents a failure of the electorate. Failing to do your homework, then sitting down to watch this two-hour Vaudeville act and making up your mind on that basis, reveals you to be an unserious voter. And if you want to watch it for the purpose of providing your own on-the-spot analysis, that's fine, but you too are providing something more akin to a theater review than you are a serious assessment of who would make the best president.

I know this is what none of you want to hear because everyone wants to talk this morning about who did well, who helped themselves, who landed a blow, etc. Do what you want. None of it is really important.
121  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Skobelev's Principle - Why Is The West Not Heeding Its Obvious Truth? on: September 16, 2015, 10:53:53 AM
Skobelev’s Principle

SEPTEMBER 15, 2015  BY MICHAEL DEVOLIN

“I hold it as a principle that the duration of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict on the enemy.” –Gen. Mikhail Skobelev, 1881


General Mikhail Skobelev’s words above were in reference to his defeat of the walled citadel of Geok-Tepe and his army’s complete depredation of the Tekke Turkmen, “a fierce, slave-taking people…” of Central Asia. “The Emperor’s orders were explicit,” writes Karl Meyer and Shareen Brysac in their book Tournament of Shadows: “Under no circumstances was Skobelev to take a single step backwards, ‘for this would be for Europe and Asia a sign of our weakness, would inspire still greater boldness on the part of our adversaries’.”

The Russians have always been known to upstage the West in regards to dealing with enemies. There is the story of two KGB agents kidnapped by a gang of quite imprudent Islamic Liberation Organization (ILO) operatives in Beirut. The story goes that the ILO kidnappers, after hiding the hostages away, then sent a message to the Russian embassy in Beirut demanding the release of certain ILO members (if I remember correctly) at that time incarcerated by the Lebanese government of the day.

Unbeknownst to the impulsive terrorists was the fact that the KGB was aware not only of where the two Russian citizens were being held captive, but also of the identities of the kidnappers. As a response to their demands the Russians sent to the safe house a box with the head of the leader of that particular ILO unit inside and the warning that if the two KGB agents were not released in a matter of hours, the next box they received would contain the heads of the kidnapper’s mothers. Needless to say, the KGB agents were released posthaste and the ILO never again harmed or threatened Soviet citizens anywhere.

There are also recent accounts about the Russian Navy mercilessly dispatching Somali pirates on the high seas. As a result, Somali pirates steer clear of all vessels flying the Russian flag. The lesson is obvious: deal harshly with your enemies and they will avoid you like the plague. “An angry countenance turns away a back-biting tongue.”

My point here is about dispassionate Russian wisdom being so broadly and ultimately contrary to Western liberalism and the insane and constrictive notion that we have no choice but to lay down our weapons, suspend punitive sanctions, and propose peace initiatives to enemies whose religiously cultivated arrogance has continually induced their leaders to mock Western peace initiatives, no matter how compromising.

The contradistinction between the two extremes—the wisdom of the former and the foolishness of the latter—seems to go unnoticed these days. President Obama plays nice with the Republic of Iran; Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and vying to become the next Prime Minister of Canada promises that, if elected, he will call off Canada’s participation in air strikes against ISIS targets and restore diplomatic relations with Iran. Tom Mulcair, leader of the NDP Party of Canada, promises near the same.

There seems to be an extremely imprudent, oscillating duality infecting Western political leaders these days (with the notable exception of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper). I see traditional political parties—Liberal, NDP, and Conservative in Canada, Republican and Democrats in the United States—exhibiting harmful traits eerily similar to those that brought down the mighty Spartans long ago; a duality, as pointed out in Paul Cartledge’s historical work The Spartans, that “led inevitably to divided counsels—dynastic rivalries, succession anxieties, faction fighting.” Three paragraphs later Cartledge writes, “The adage of Lord Acton—absolute power corrupts absolutely—applied vigorously in this case.” And isn’t this so in the case of Western democracies?

We have the leaders of European democracies condoning the influx of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, many of whom leave a trail of trash and excrement (and damaged iPads) in their wake; many of whom have probably little or no interest in assimilating the traditions of their host countries; some of whom may likely turn out to be ISIS operatives. The so-called “opposition parties” applaud this gross imprudence from the other side of their respective parliament floors like a hired audience for a game show.

Compare these flabbergasted political sycophants with Putin and his answer to a question posed him by a Le Monde reporter about the war in Chechnya, “If you are a Christian, you are in danger. Even if you are an atheist, you are in danger, and if you decide to convert to Islam, this will not save you, either, because traditional Islam is inimical to the conditions and objectives set by the terrorists. If you are prepared to become a most radical Islamist and are prepared to circumcise yourself, I invite you to come to Moscow. I will recommend having the operation done in such a way that nothing will grow for you there anymore.”

When another reporter suggested that Putin negotiate with Chechen terrorist leaders following the Beslan massacre, he replied, “”Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers? No one has a moral right to tell us to talk to childkillers.”

I am in no way espousing Russia’s expansionist behaviour of late. I am suggesting that the West begin dealing with our terrorist enemies in similar fashion as the Russians have been dealing with theirs. Justin Trudeau’s suggestion that the “refugee problem” would be mitigated by calling off airstrikes against ISIS is a prime example of a tendentious Leftist politician choosing the exact opposite course of action as that which mere reason would implore, regardless the injurious ingredients those choices (like allowing Syrian refugees into Canada without security restrictions) would obtrude upon what would become by then a victimized, albeit self-deceived, Canadian populace.

The “refugee problem” facing Western democracies in Europe and North America is a catastrophe that should be dealt with by Middle Eastern Islamic countries instead of Western democracies.

That these Muslim refugees are seeking safe haven in an infidel-ruled Western Europe instead of the oil-rich countries of their fellow religious says everything about the finer points of Islam and those nation-states where it has long ago gained preponderance. Where is the love? The one sure way—the stratagem invoked by mere reason—to obviate this refugee crisis emanating out of Syria and beyond is the total elimination, from the air and on the ground, of ISIS and their supporters.

The fact that ISIS has, by violently brutal conquest, been continually gaining new territory should be profiled by so-called “experts” not as a failure of Western military forces in halting their advance but rather a failure on the part of Middle Eastern Islamic states and their armed forces to deal with a danger that has, from the very beginning of this human tragedy, been far more approximate to their existence, both politically and religiously, than it has ever been to Western democracies.

So why are we fighting their war? And if we are forced to fight their war simply because they refuse to fight it themselves, let us be efficient and militarily laconic in disposing of this enemy.

Let us acquire a “duration of peace,” its anticipated longevity measured only by the level of destruction we inflict upon this enemy of all humanity. And afterward, after we dispose of ISIS, let us hold these Islamic nations to account for turning their backs on their fellow Muslims, on a humanitarian crisis that was always theirs, not ours; that was spawned out of the bowels of the religion of Islam and the imperialism it advocates and from nowhere else.

Let us point this out to them, just as they are so ever wont to point out our sins. Let us apply Skobelev’s principle to our enemies in the same way they apply Islamic jihad to us.



122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Real Reasons The Fed Will Hike Interest Rates... on: September 16, 2015, 07:35:59 AM
The Real Reasons Why The Fed Will Hike Interest Rates

Wednesday, 16 September 2015    Brandon Smith

For the past several months, the chorus of voices crying out over the prospect of a Federal Reserve interest rate hike have all been saying essentially the same thing – either they can’t do it, or they simply won’t do it. This is the same attitude the chorus projected during the initial prospects of a QE taper. Given the trends and evidence at hand I personally will have to take the same position on the rate hike as I did with the taper – they can do it, and they probably will do it before the year is over.

I suppose we may know more after the conclusion of the Fed meeting set for the 16th and 17th of this month. August retail sales data and industrial production numbers have come in, and they are not impressive even with the artificial goosing such stats generally receive. However, I do not expect that they will have any bearing whatsoever on the interest rate theater. The Fed’s decision has already been made, probably months in advance.

The overall market consensus seems to be one of outright bewilderment, so much so that markets have reentered the madness of "bad news is good news" as stocks explode on any negative data that might suggest the Fed will delay. The so-called experts cannot grasp why the Fed would even entertain the notion of a rate hike at this stage in the game. Hilariously, it is Paul Krugman who is saying what I have been saying for the past year when he states:

"I really find it quite mysterious that the Fed is eager to raise rates given that, they’re going to be wrong one way or the other, we just don’t know which way. But the costs of being wrong in one direction are so much higher than the costs of being the other."

Yes, why does the Fed seem so eager? Every quarter since the bailouts began no one has been asking for interest rates to increase. No one. Only recently has the Bank for International Settlements warned of market turmoil due to the long term saturation of markets caused by low interest policies, yet it was the BIS that had been championing low rates and easy money for years. The IMF has warned that a U.S. rate increase at this time would cause a market crisis, yet the IMF has also been admonishing low rate policies, policies that they had also been originally supporting for years.

Confused yet? The investment world certainly seems to be. In fact, the overall market attitude towards a rate hike appears to be a heightened sense of terror, and I believe this has been amply reflected in global stock behavior over the past three months in particular. With thousands of points positive and negative spanned in only a couple of trading sessions, stock market indexes around the world are beginning to behave like seizure victims, jerking and convulsing erratically.

This has, of course, all been blamed on China’s supposed economic “contagion.” But you can read why that is utter nonsense in my article “Economic crisis goes mainstream – What happens next?”

The bottom line is, the Federal Reserve has been the primary driver of the massive financial bubbles now in place in most of the world’s markets, and much of this was accomplished through ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). Hopefully many of the readers here can recall the tens of trillions of dollars of overnight lending by the Fed to international banks and corporations that was exposed during the initial TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program – aka bailout) audit. You know, the trillions in lending that mainstream naysayers claimed was "not" contributing to the overall debt picture of the U.S. Well, reality has shown that ZIRP and overnight lending has indeed directly and indirectly created debt bubbles in numerous areas.

The most vital of areas at this time is perhaps the debts accrued by major banks and companies that have relied on overnight loans to facilitate massive stock buybacks. It has been these buybacks that have artificially supported stocks for years, and whenever ZIRP was not enough, the Fed stepped in with yet another QE program to give particular indicators a boost. The main purpose of this strategy was to ensure that markets would NOT reflect the real underlying instability of our economic system. The Fed has been pumping up banks and markets not only in the U.S., but across the globe.  Why?  We'll get to that, but keep in mind that it takes time and careful strategy to wear down a population and condition them to accept far lower living standards as the "new normal" (and it takes a sudden crisis event to convince a population to be happy with such low standards given the frightening alternative).

Even with near zero interest, companies have still had to utilize a high percentage of profits in order to continue the stock buyback scam. We have finally arrived at a crossroads in which these companies will be forced to either stop buybacks altogether, or await another even more comprehensive stimulus infusion from the Fed. A rate increase of .25 percent might seem insignificant, until you realize that banks and companies have been cycling tens of trillions of dollars in ZIRP through their coffers and equities. At that level, a minor increase in borrowing costs swiftly accumulates into untenable debts. A rate increase will kill all overnight borrowing, it will kill stock buybacks, and thus, it will kill the fantasy that is today's stock market.

This is why so many analysts simply cannot fathom why the Fed would raise rates, and why many people fully expect the introduction of QE4. But we need to ask some fundamental questions here…

Again, as Krugman ponders (or doesn’t ponder, since I believe he is an elitist insider with full knowledge of what is about to happen), why does the Fed seem so eager to raise rates if the obvious result will be a drawn out market crash? Is it possible, just maybe, that the Fed does not want to prop up markets anymore? Is it possible that the Fed’s job is to destroy the American economy and the dollar, rather than protecting either? Is it possible that the Fed is just a useful tool, an institutionally glorified suicide bomber meant to explode itself in the most populated area it can find to cause maximum damage for effect? Wouldn’t this dynamic go a long way in explaining why the Fed has taken every single action it has taken since its underhanded inception in 1913?

Will the Fed raise rates this week? I still think the Fed may "surprise" with a delay until December in order to give one more short term boost to the markets, but as I read the mainstream economic press I find the newest trend indicates I could be wrong. The trend I am speaking of has only launched in the past couple of days in the mainstream media, as outlets such as the Financial Times and CNN are now publishing arguments which claim a Fed rate hike is a “good thing”.  While it may be a "good thing" in the long run as it is vital for everything that is over-inflated in our economy to fall away and leave that which is real behind, a return to true free markets without ZIRP manipulation is NOT what the mainstream media is promoting.

The mainstream pro-rate hike arguments are in most cases predicated on completely fabricated notions of economic recovery. CNN states:

"At a time when the U.S. economy is chugging along at over 2% growth and the unemployment rate reflects almost full employment, there’s not much of a case for the Fed’s key interest rate to remain at historic lows…"

As I outlined in my series written at the beginning of this year titled “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,” any growth in gross domestic product (GDP) is a farce driven primarily by government debt spending and inflation in particular necessities rather than recovery in the core economy and on main street. And, unemployment numbers are the biggest statistical con-game of all, with more than 93 million Americans not counted on the Labor Department’s rolls as unemployed because they no longer qualify for benefits.

For a couple of months, some of the mainstream has pulled its head out of its posterior and actually begun asking the questions alternative analysts have been asking for years about the potential risks of returning market volatility and “recession” (which is really an ongoing program of hyperstagflationary collapse) in the wake of a world without steady and open fiat stimulus.  Yet, suddenly this week certain MSM establishment mouthpieces are claiming “mission accomplished” in the battle for fiscal recovery and cheerleading for a rate hike?

What this tells me is that the narrative is being shifted and a rate hike is indeed on the way, perhaps even this week.

It is important to note that this stampede over the edge of the cliff is not only being triggered by the Federal Reserve. Most central banks and China's PBOC in particular is definitely part of the bigger problem, but only because China is working alongside international bankers to further their goal of total economic interdependence and centralization. China’s avid pursuit of SDR (special drawing rights) inclusion and its close relationship to the IMF and the BIS must be taken into account if one is to understand why the current fiscal crisis is developing the way it is.

China has recently announced it will be opening its onshore currency markets to foreign central banks, which essentially guarantees the inclusion of the yuan into the IMF’s SDR global currency basket by the middle of next year. The IMF’s decision to delay China’s inclusion until 2016 was clearly a calculated effort to make sure that they did not receive any blame for the market meltdown they know is coming; a meltdown that will accelerate to even more dangerous proportions as central banks begin to move away from the dollar as the world reserve and petro-currency.

In preparation for the global shift away from the dollar, China has begun dumping dollar denominated assets at historic levels while Chinese companies have begun reducing the amount of dollars they borrow for international transactions. Is this selloff designed to liquidate assets in order to support China’s ailing markets? No, not really.

China has been planning a decoupling from the U.S. dollar since at least 2005 when it introduced yuan denominated “Panda Bonds”, which at the time the media laughed at as some kind of novelty. In only ten years, China has slowly but surely spread yuan denominated instruments around the world in order to make China an alternative economic engine to the U.S.  China, working with the BIS and IMF, have set the dollar up for an extreme devaluation and the U.S. Treasury has been set up for inevitable bankruptcy; and guess who will ride to our rescue when all seems lost?  That's right - the IMF and the BIS.

Will the Fed’s rate hike make U.S. bonds more desirable? Probably not.  After a short term initial boost U.S. debt instruments will return to the path of de-dollarization. In the end, I believe the Fed rate hike will encourage more selling by the largest bond holders who will seek to make as much profit as possible until the bottom begins to fall out of the dollar. As China continues to sell off their treasury and dollar holdings, there will come a time when other global investors will feel forced to sell as well to avoid being the last idiot holding the bag when extreme devaluation takes place.

The Fed rate hike is a kind of openly engineered trigger event; one which will likely occur before the end of the year. The major globalist players within the BIS and IMF are separating themselves from this trigger as much as possible today, while warning of a coming crisis they helped to create.

The Fed seems to be a sacrificial appendage at this point, a martyr for the cause of globalization and centralization. Bringing down the U.S. and the dollar, or at least greatly diminishing the U.S. to third world status, has the potential to greatly benefit the Fabian socialists at the top of the pyramid. Such a crisis makes the idea of centralization and global economic administration a more enticing concept.

With a complex and disaster-prone system of interdependence causing social strife and chaos, why not just simplify everything with a global currency and perhaps even global governance? The elites will squeeze the collapse for all it’s worth if they can, and a Fed rate hike may be exactly what they need to begin the final descent.
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Federal Data: US Admits 250,000 Muslims Annually... on: September 15, 2015, 02:09:33 PM
Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants

By PAMELA GELLER on September 14, 2015


Obama’s Trojan horse. In 2013, Obama imported 350,000 Muslim ‘migrants.’ Is it any wonder there has been a spike in jihadi attacks in the U.S. in recent years? And now he has called for increases in that enormous number even as ISIS has vowed to send jihadis in with the “migration’.

The Twin Cities already has a huge ISIS problem. Garland, Chattanooga, Key West, Phoenix ….. and it’s only going to get worse. Much worse.

Obama says he wants to assist Europe. Why? Do they take Mexicans and Central Americans they emigrate to the USA?



Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants,” Breitbart, September 14, 2015

A Breitbart News review of State Department and Homeland Security data reveals that the United States already admits more than a quarter of a million Muslim migrants each year. President Obama intends to add another 10,000 Syrian migrants on top of that.

In 2013 alone, 117,423 migrants from Muslim-majority countries were permanently resettled within the United States— having been given lawful permanent resident status. Additionally in 2013, the United States voluntarily admitted an extra 122,921 temporary migrants from Muslim countries as foreign students and foreign workers as well as 39,932 refugees and asylees from Muslim countries.

Thus, twelve years after the September 11th hijackers were invited into the country on temporary visas, the U.S. decided to admit 280,276 migrants from Muslim countries within a single fiscal year.

To put these numbers into perspective, this means that every year the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebraska; or Dayton, Ohio.

The rate of Muslim immigration has been increasing since September 11. Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States. Unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Experts believe these numbers will only continue to increase.

The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students since 9/11. Arabic is now the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The large-scale importation of Muslim migrants from nations that do not share Western values has posed a series of assimilation difficulties for the United States. For instance, the importation of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries has now put half a million girls in the United States at risk of enduring a traditional anti-Western, anti-woman practice known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This means that there are more girls in the United States at risk of lifelong sexual disfigurement than there are in Uganda and Cameroon.

Moreover, the importation of Muslim immigrants through the nation’s refugee program has led to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States— as evidenced in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Dearborn, Michigan.

A review of recent terror activity– provided by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee– confirms the terror threat posed by our federal immigration policy of issuing large numbers of visas to majority-Muslim countries:

A refugee voluntarily admitted from Uzbekistan and “living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.”

A college student voluntarily admitted from Somalia, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Kazakhstan “with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Sudan, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage jihad on its behalf after having been recruited online.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Bangladesh, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship,‎ tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Yemen, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was arrested for trying to join ISIS. He was also charged with attempting to illegally buy firearms to try to shoot American military personnel.”

Yet even as the United States struggles to properly screen and assimilate the large numbers brought in each year, many Republican presidential candidates say that number should be even greater. GOP presidential hopefuls John Kasich, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jeb Bush, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have all expressed support for admitting more Syrian migrants.

“I would be open to that if it can be done in a way that allows us to ensure that among them are not people who are part of a terrorist organization who are using this crisis,” Rubio told Boston Herald Radio on September 8th. This proposal could result in the admittance of many refugees. “The vast and overwhelming majority of people who are seeking refuge are not terrorists, of course, but you always are concerned about that,” Rubio said.

By contrast, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has suggested that Muslim countries should be willing to take in some of the Muslim migrants.

“Look, from a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems.” Trump declared on the September 9 broadcast of Hannity. “We have so many problems that we have to solve… The Gulf states [are] tremendously wealthy. You have five groups of people, six groups, they’re not taking anybody. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, these are tremendously wealthy and powerful from the standpoint of money. They — they’re not taking anybody. Russia’s not taking. Nobody’s taking. [But we’re] supposed to take — we have to straighten out our own problems,” Trump said.

Some presidential hopefuls have objected to the premise of Trump’s America-first immigration proposal— arguing that greater levels of immigration would only serve to benefit America.

For instance, the I-Squared bill currently before Congress introduced by Marco Rubio— whose campaign has declared he will be in first place by February— would import even more immigrants — some Muslim — by lifting green card caps for foreign students and tripling the number of foreign workers admitted on visas. This bill is central to Rubio’s campaign platform of creating “A New American Economy.”

Several of Rubio’s business backers have already begun to implement this policy throughout the nation. In Rubio’s home state of Florida, for instance, the New American Economy is at work at corporations including Disney, which is replacing many of its current American workers with foreign low-salaried workers from developing nations. This “New American Economy” would have multiple benefits for America such as fewer English speakers, more diversity and lower wages that will allow corporations to increase their bottom lines.

Rubio’s effort to create a New American Century is supported by many prominent Republicans and Democrats who say we need to expand our refugee resettlement of Muslim migrants.

For instance, Glenn Beckand Lindsey Graham have both explicitly said that the United States needs to take in more more refugees because a poem written by Emma Lazarus now displayed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The poem, entitled “The New Colossus,” reads in part:

Give me your tired, your poor/ your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/the wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

According to the Pew Research Center, there are nearly 5 billion people world-wide living on $10 or less a day. The globally poor and low-income population is fifteen times larger than the entire population of the United States.

The Statue of Liberty was not given to the United States with any association to immigration. Rather the statue was intended to be a symbol of “Liberty Enlightening the World,” which is why the only text originally included on the statue was the year 1776 written in Roman Numerals.

Yet even when Lazarus’ poem was later added to the statue in the early 1900s, it was understood that the poem was not meant to represent the nation’s federal immigration policy– a detail underscored by the fact that shortly after that poem was added, then-President Calvin Coolidge enacted a nearly five-decades-long immigration pause to allow the influx of European immigrants to better assimilate and allow middle class wages to rise.


Ironically, the Statue of Liberty– so often invoked by advocates for large-scale immigration– was a gift from the nation of France. Yet of the one million green cards handed out last year, very few were given to the Thomas Jefferson’s second favorite nation. About 9 out of 10 of green cards issued last year went to non-European foreign nationals from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In 2013, we added more than ten times more immigrants on green cards from the Muslim countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt (48,507) than we did from the nation France (4,425).

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/federal-data-u-s-annually-admits-quarter-of-a-million-muslim-migrants.html/#sthash.4GCbLRiT.dpuf
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's Newest Campaign Ad... on: September 15, 2015, 01:46:06 PM
This really takes chutzpah.  The woman has no shame and thinks her constituents are idiots.  Kathleen Willey is rightly outraged.  Let's not forget that the FBI concluded that Juanita Broaderick's accusation that Bill Clinton raped her during his time as Governor in Arkansas was "highly credible."  The statute of limitations had passed by the time she spoke up. 

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/exclusive-kathleen-willey-doubts-hillarys-new-sex-assault-survivors-ad/

125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wall Street Panic: Trump Could Actually Win... on: September 14, 2015, 08:17:08 PM
Very interesting.  Telling that no one would go on the record criticizing Trump.  This tells me these Wall Street executives believe Trump is quite serious about what he says:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-2016-wall-street-reaction-213614

126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Erickson: Planned Parenthood Funding Issue Exposes Republican Corruption... on: September 14, 2015, 02:42:53 PM
It’s Not About a Shutdown

Erick Erickson - RedState.com

“This is a fight on principle over whether the Republican Party should stand by and let our tax dollars be used to subsidize the American Mengeles of Planned Parenthood or not.”

Republican Leaders and their friends in the Circle of Jerks that make up the Washington Press Corps are pushing a “there they go again” line against conservatives fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.

They are making this about Ted Cruz, blaming Cruz. They fear Ted Cruz. They know he is on a pretty good course toward the nomination. They have to make it about him. This is cynical Washington politics at its best.

In fact, the Washington political elite and the Circle of Jerks cannot contemplate what is happening. They do not relate to people who stand on principle. In Washington, everything and everyone is supposed to have a price. They should be able to buy off pro-life voters as they’ve done with some of the groups.

My Comment: (Which is EXACTLY why Washington insiders FEAR Donald Trump.  He doesn't have a price, and cannot be bought.)

Pay attention over the next two weeks. Notice which pro-life groups come out strongly and uncompromisingly in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood and those that stay quiet or offer only platitudes.

Children in the United States of America are being cut up and sold for scrap. That Republicans in Washington think they can excuse their way out of a fight says too much damning about them. This is not a Ted Cruz fight. This is not a Mike Lee fight. This is not a Jim Bridenstine or Jim Jordan or Tim Huelskamp fight.

This is a fight on principle over whether the Republican Party should stand by and let our tax dollars be used to subsidize the American Mengeles of Planned Parenthood or not. This is a fight about whether our tax dollars should be used to subsidize harvesting children’s brains and hearts and lungs and livers.

This is not a fight about politics. This is a fight about life and death. That Washington Republicans refuse to see that explains why they’re getting their butts kicked by a guy like Donald Trump. Their cynicism will be their death, even as they try to keep the death train rolling for Planned Parenthood.

Pay attention. Look at which pro-life groups are standing up and which are sitting in Mitch McConnell’s office.
127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Left Fears Trump Will Kill Pro-Crime "Reforms"... on: September 14, 2015, 01:58:11 PM
LEFT FEARS TRUMP COULD STOP REPUBLICANS FROM PRO-CRIME "REFORMS"

Norquist getting a bloody nose is always a good thing

September 14, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


Trump is bad news at Koch HQ for a long list of reasons. One of them is the shameful alliance with the left to free drug dealers could be in big trouble.

  Criminal justice reform, a perennial lost cause for civil rights lefties, had its surprise bipartisan moment this year. Conservative Republican voices like antitax activist Grover   
  Norquist and the Koch brothers led campaigns against mass incarceration and mandatory drug sentences. GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Rick Perry have
  embraced the pro-reform Right on Crime initiative, while Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have co-sponsored reform bills with liberal Democratic senators.

   But the Kumbaya reform moment may not survive the Summer of Trump...

Good.

It was sickening to see so many Republicans pen pieces for the Brennan Center. And Norquist getting a bloody nose is always a good thing.

Backing amnesty for drug dealers was even crazier than backing amnesty for illegal aliens. And it was a testament to how far the conservative movement had gone off the rails that so many of the candidates had even signed on to it. And that some conservative sites still continue to promote "sentencing reform".

This is one of the few areas where New York City conservatives get it more than a lot of the Red State conservatives do. Because out here you have to live with it. It's not some hypothetical problem that happens a hundred miles away.

New York City conservatism is often weak in other areas, but it's tough on crime. Which is bad news for Rand Paul, the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist who formed a bizarre alliance with the ACLU to give the pro-crime group everything it wants without actually getting anything in return.

The rest of this reads like a wish list for an angry base lashing out at the establishment. Killing TPP and Common Core top the list.

Rick Perry is gone now. Jeb Bush is in big trouble. Rand Paul's campaign is flailing badly. Scott Walker's Brennan Center piece skipped freeing drug dealers and actually offered some useful conservative solutions. That leaves fewer options for the pro-crime crowd. And that's the way it should be.

Republicans should not be pushing pro-crime policies.
128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Unlearned Lessons of September 11, 2001... on: September 13, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
THE UNLEARNED LESSONS OF 9/11

If experience is the teacher of fools, class is still in session.

September 11, 2015  Bruce Thornton   


The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 should have been a rude awakening from the dogmatic slumbers of the previous decade. Instead, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West went on a vacation from history. The seeming triumph of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism convinced many that all we had left to do was to oversee the inevitable triumph of the Western paradigm throughout the world. Unfortunately, the “world,” especially the Islamic ummah, had other plans, ones that our own bad ideas and cultural dogmas have advanced.

Most broadly, the centuries-long belief that all peoples everywhere are embryonic Westerners should have been shattered by the slaughter in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. The attacks were a horrifically graphic reminder that our core ideals––human rights, sex equality, tolerance of difference, peaceful coexistence, personal and political freedom, material prosperity, the separation of church and state, free speech, and consensual government founded on law––were historical anomalies rather than the destiny of all humanity.

The 19 murderers were acting on a radically different set of ideals and principles––the doctrines of Islam that had destroyed the mighty Byzantine and Persian Empires, and that had invaded, plundered, and occupied southern Europe for 1000 years. We should have learned that nearly a quarter of the world’s people still take seriously what we have reduced to a life-style choice––faith in a transcendent power for whose commands the believer will kill and die, and whose spiritual imperatives trump freedom, human rights, and all the other goods we desire.

At the same time we indulged this universalism, we incoherently endorsed multiculturalism, a doctrine of cultural relativism­­––the idea that all cultures and their differences are equally good and admirable, that no basis exists for judging a culture or saying one is better than another, and that to say one is better is insensitive ethnocentrism or even racism. September 11 should have exposed this superstition as a dangerous lie, and reminded us that all cultures and social practices are not equal. Islamic sharia law, which codifies beliefs founded on fossilized tradition, intolerance, sex apartheid, and justified violence against infidels, are not just “different,” but inferior, for they limit human potential and flourishing by restricting individual freedom.

The next lesson of September 11 should have been the dangerous consequences of the anti-Americanism rife not just in the Middle East and Third World, but among many Europeans and Americans themselves. In the months after the attack numerous American and European intellectuals opined that America had in one way or another “deserved” the attacks. As Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright put it, the attacks were “chickens coming home to roost,” and America was paying for its numerous imperialist and racist crimes. This fashionable superstition, whose ultimate origins lie in communist propaganda, had hardened into stale clichés and an unthinking reflex triggered by international envy and resentment of America’s success, and by self-loathing and guilt on the part of Americans who enjoy biting the hand that fattens them.

In fact, there has never been a great power with the cultural, economic, and military resources of America that has been as restrained in using that power. Muslims in particular have benefited from America’s dominance, which saved hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Balkans and Iraq, and even after 9/11, liberated millions more from the psychopathic Saddam Hussein and the vicious Taliban. Contrary to anti-American propaganda, the U.S. wasn’t targeted by al Qaeda for its alleged “crimes” against Islam, a specious pretext bin Laden cooked up to appeal to self-hating Westerners and rally disaffected Muslims, but for being the world hegemon that wields the power and influence the faithful believe Allah has destined for his believers. We should have learned on 9/11 that as a great power, we will be hated, envied, and resented merely for our existence, and that there is no number of good deeds we can perform to make like us those whose culture and traditions teach that they must hate us.

We also should have learned that our abysmal ignorance of history lies behind the demonization of the United States and our blindness to the reality of Islam. Too many of us endorse the lie that the U.S. has been a racist colonial and imperial power, oppressing and exploiting people across the globe, even as we gush over myths about Islamic “tolerance” and cultural achievements, and ignore the 1000-year record of Imperial Islam’s invasion, conquest, colonization, slaving, slaughter, raiding, and plundering of Christian lands. No better example of this ignorance has been the President, who has decried the Crusades––an attempt to liberate lands that had been Christian for over six centuries from their Muslim conquerors and overlords––and the Spanish Inquisition, whose toll of dead in its whole existence is about the same as the 5000 Jews slaughtered over a few days in Muslim Granada in 1066. Without history to provide the context for evaluating human behavior, we are vulnerable to the propaganda and duplicitous pretexts of the jihadists.

Finally, we should have connected the ignorance of history to the delusional utopianism that infects the West. The carnage on 9/11 should have restored the tragic vision of human existence, the recognition that humans flawed by destructive passions in a brutal indifferent world of chance, change, and death will never create heaven on earth. We should have relearned what our fathers and grandfather knew in World War II: that good men sometimes have to do things they’d rather not in order to keep bad men from prevailing; that the question is not whether people live or die, but whether some people die today so more people don’t die later; that hard, brutal choices have to be made in order to protect our civilization and its cherished goods like freedom and human rights. The simple fact is, if we had fought World War II the way we are fighting the war against jihadists and the states that nourish them, we would have lost.

The last decade and a half, especially the presidency of Barack Obama, has confirmed that many Americans, most on the left, did not learn those lessons. They still think the Middle East can be fixed by more democracy or economic development, since those peoples just want what we want, freedom, peace, and prosperity. Perhaps some do, but millions want more to live in obedience to Allah and restore the dominance Muslims enjoyed for 1000 years.

These Americans still practice a morally idiotic multiculturalism that idealizes the enemy, rationalizes or ignores Islam’s illiberal beliefs and sanctified violence, and proscribes as “hate speech” anybody who speaks the truth about Islam based on its 14 centuries of doctrine and practice. Even the terms “Islamic” and “jihadist” have been erased from our government’s discourse, and jihadist attacks described as “workplace violence” or their perpetrators called vague “extremists.”

These willfully ignorant Americans still indulge a self-loathing that reflexively blames America for all the world’s ills, and as such emboldens our enemies to persevere in the face of our civilizational failure of nerve. They still know nothing of history, refusing to put America’s actions in the context of what other great powers have done, and remaining oblivious to the bloodstained history of Islamic aggression. There is no better example of this cultural neurosis than Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, in which he apologized for “colonialism” and flattered the mythic achievements of Muslim Cordoba for the benefit of the jihadist Muslim Brothers sitting in the front row.

Finally, the unschooled pursue utopian ideals that claim civilizational order and peace can be maintained without brutal violence, that wars can be fought without all the permanent horrible consequences of mass violence, that conflict with inveterate enemies can be resolved with talk or material rewards, and that economic development and esteem-boosting flattery of an illiberal religion and culture can transform the faith-based identity of the jihadist into something more like us––all delusions evident in Obama’s disastrous deal with Iran.

Three thousand dead and a multi-billion dollar hit to our economy on 9/11 were not enough to school those still clinging to their delusions. But as the Romans said, experience is the teacher of fools. The implosion of the Middle East and the probability of a nuclear-armed Iran suggest that class is still in session, and more hard lessons are on the way.
129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Never Forget" morphs into "Never Mind"... on: September 12, 2015, 09:24:13 AM
9/11: Never Forget Morphs into Never Mind

By PAMELA GELLER on September 11, 2015


It is with great sorrow that I reflect back on the terrible day 14 years ago and the years that followed. For one brief moment, the nation understood that we were under attack. We were a nation at war, but before we could get our collective head around the unprecedented attack on American soil, the enemy foreclosed upon our ability to do so.

Since that fateful day, our freedoms, our very way of life has been under attack. Freedom of speech, our First Amendment, is under severe assault, as devout Muslims and their leftist lapdogs smear all those who dare to speak honestly about this threat, and work to force non-Muslims to accept Sharia blasphemy laws restricting all criticism of Islam. The enemedia has gone along readily, demonizing and marginalizing all those who note the ideology motivating the war against America.

The 9/11 Muslim terrorists extolled Allah no less than 90 times in their last letters. Bush declared Islam the religion of peace when it was his duty to explain what we were really up against. He declared, “Islam is a religion of peace” when he should have spoken honestly about what motivated the jihad. The war was clumsily named “the war on terror” and thus became the war of avoidance of the truth. Obama has been even worse, directly attacking the freedom of speech and declaring, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” And after the Garland, Texas jihad attack, most media spokesmen agreed that we should voluntarily restrict our speech to avoid offending Muslims.

I live with a fatwa on my head. The death threats come  daily.

Public schools are teaching our children the shahada.

We  as a people have (with some notable exceptions) surrendered. Many, many people have, without even realizing it, internalized the idea that it is “racist” and “bigoted” to resist jihad terror. People are used to granting Muslims special accommodations in the workplace. On campuses nationwide, Muslims are presented as victims of the American “Islamophobic” war machine. Movies studiously avoid depicting jihadis as villains.

And so, 14 years after 9/11, our freedom and our future are more under threat than ever.

14 years after 9/11 the jihad is raging.

It didn’t have to be this way.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/911-never-forget-morphs-into-never-mind.html/#sthash.5pNNm4Xo.dpuf

130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Author: "Where I Was on 9-11"... on: September 11, 2015, 03:56:56 PM
Where I Was On September 11

Fourteen Years

By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary)  |  September 11th, 2015


Until September 11, 2001, I worked in the World Trade Center, halfway up Tower One. I wasn’t doing political blogging at the time, but was writing “the Baseball Crank” as a weekly baseball column for the online edition of the Providence (R.I.) Journal. Here’s my account of that day, written for ProJo two days later while it was all still fresh. We run this every year on the anniversary.

On Tuesday, they tried to kill me.

I am ordinarily at my desk between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning, in my office on the 54th floor of one of the World Trade Center’s towers. Tuesday, I was running late – I stopped to vote in the primary election for mayor, an election that has now been postponed indefinitely. Thank God for petty partisan politics.

Around 20 minutes to 9, as I have done every day for the past five years, I got on the number 2/3 train heading to Park Place, an underground stop roughly a block and a half, connected underground, to the Trade Center. The train made its usual stop at Chambers Street, five blocks north of my office, where you can switch to the local 1/9 that runs directly into the Trade Center mall. The subway announcer – in a rare, audible announcement – was telling people to stay on the 2/3 because the tunnel was blocked by a train ahead of us. Then he mentioned that there had been “an explosion at the World Trade Center.”


Now, I grew up in the suburbs, so maybe I’m not as street smart as I should be, but after living in the city a few years, you develop a sense of the signs of trouble (like the time there were shots fired in the next subway car from mine). I didn’t know what the explosion was, maybe a gas leak or something, but I knew that I was better off getting above ground to see what was going on rather than enter the complex underground. So I got off the train to walk to work.

When I got above ground, there was a crowd gathering to see the horror above: a big hole somewhere in the top 15-20 stories of the north tower (having no sense of direction, I thought that was Number 2 at the time, not Number 1 where my office was), with flames and smoke shooting out. I quickly realized it would not be safe to go into the office, despite a number of things I had waiting for me to do, so as I heard the chatter around about there having been a plane crash into the building (onlookers were saying “a small plane” at that point) and a possible terrorist attack, I turned away to start looking for a place to get coffee and read the newspaper until I could find out what had happened. That was when it happened.

The sound was a large BANG!, the unmistakable sound of an explosion but with almost the tone of cars colliding, except much louder. My initial thought was that something had exploded out of the cavity atop the tower closer to us and gone . . . where? It was followed by a scene straight out of every bad TV movie and Japanese monster flick: simultaneously, everyone around me was screaming and running away. I didn’t have time to look and see what I was running from; I just took off, hoping to get away from whatever it was, in case it was falling towards us. Nothing else can compare to the adrenaline rush of feeling the imminent presence of deadly danger. And I kept moving north.

Once people said that a second plane had hit the other tower, and I saw it was around halfway up – right where my office was, I thought, still confused about which tower was which – it also appeared that the towers had survived the assault. I used to joke about this, telling people we worked in the only office building in America that had been proven to be bomb-resistant. I stopped now and then, first at a pay phone where I called my family, but couldn’t hear the other end. I stopped in a few bars, calling to say I was OK, but I still didn’t feel safe, and I kept moving north. In one bar I saw the south tower collapse, and had a sick feeling in my stomach, which increased exponentially when I saw Tower Number One, with my office in it and (so far as I knew) many of the people I work with as well, cave in. Official business hours start at 9:30, but I started reeling off in my head all the lawyers who get in early in the morning, and have for years. I thought of the guy who cleans the coffee machines, someone I barely speak to but see every day, who has to be in at that hour. I was still nervous, and decided not to think about anything but getting out alive. A friend has an apartment on 109th street, so I called him and kept walking, arriving on his doorstep around 1 p.m., and finally sat down, with my briefcase, the last remnant of my office. I had carried a bunch of newspapers and my brown-bag lunch more than 120 blocks. The TV was on, but only CBS was broadcasting – everyone else’s signal had gone out of the Trade Center’s antenna.

Finally, the news got better. I jumped when there were planes overhead, but they were F-15s, ours. American combat aircraft flying with deadly seriousness over Manhattan. My wife was home, and she had heard from people at the office who got out alive. It turns out that my law firm was extraordinarily lucky to get so many people out – nearly everyone is now accounted for, although you hold your breath and pray until it’s absolutely everyone. The architect who designed the towers – well, we used to complain a lot that the windows were too narrow, but the strength of those buildings, how they stayed standing for an hour and an hour and a half, respectively, after taking a direct hit by a plane full of gasoline – there are probably 10 to 15,000 people walking around New York today because they stayed up so long.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Wednesday night, the adrenaline was finally wearing off, and I was just angry. They had tried to kill me, had nearly killed many of the people I work with, and destroyed the chair I sit in everyday, the desk I work at and the computer I do my work on. And that’s before you even begin to count the other lives lost. Words fail to capture the mourning, and in this area it’s everywhere. I finally broke down Thursday morning, reading newspaper accounts of all the firemen who were missing or dead, so many who had survived so many dangers before, and ran headlong into something far more serious, far more intentional. My dad was a cop, my uncle a fireman. It was too close.

The mind starts to grasp onto the little things, photos of the kids and from my wedding; the radio in my office that I listened to so many Mets games on, working late; a copy of my picture with Ted Williams (more on that some other day); the little Shea Stadium tin on my desk that played “take me out to the ballgame” when you opened it to get a binder clip, the new calculator I bought over the weekend. All vaporized or strewn halfway across the harbor. The things can mostly be replaced, they’re just things, but it’s staggering to see the whole context of your daily routine disappear because somebody – not “faceless cowards,” really, but somebody in particular with a particular agenda and particular friends around the world – wants you dead.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There’s a scene that comes to mind, and I’m placing it in the Lord of the Rings because that’s where I remember it, but feel free to let me know if I’ve mangled it or made it up. Frodo the hobbit has lived all his life in the Shire, where the world of hobbits (short, human-like creatures) revolves around hospitality and particular etiquette and family snobbery and all the silliest little things, silly at least in comparison to the great and dangerous adventure he finds himself embarked on. Aragorn, one of the Men, has been patrolling the area around the Shire for years, warding off invading creatures of all varieties of evil. Frodo asks Aragorn, eventually, whether he isn’t frustrated with and contemptuous of hobbits and the small, simple concerns that dominate their existence, when such dangers are all at hand. Aragorn responds that, to the contrary, it is the simpleness and even the pettiness of the hobbits that makes the task worthwhile, because it’s proof that he has done his job – kept them so safe and insulated from the horrors all around them that they see no irony, no embarrassment in concerning themselves with such trivial things in such a hazardous world. It has often struck me that you could ask no better description of the role of law enforcement and the military, keeping us so safe that we may while our days on the ups and downs of made-up games.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And that’s why baseball still matters. There must be time for mourning, of course, so much mourning, and time as well to feel secure that 55,000 people can gather safely in one place. The merciful thing is that because, save for the Super Bowl and the Olympics, U.S. sports are so little followed in the places these evildoers breed – murderous men, by contrast, have little interest in pennant races – that they have not acquired the symbolic power of our financial and military centers. But that may not be forever.

But once we feel secure to try, we owe it most of all to those who protect us as well as those who died to resume the most trivial of our pursuits. Our freedom is best expressed not when we stand in defiance or strike back with collective will, but when we are able again to view Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as the yardsticks by which we measure nastiness, to bicker over games. That’s why the Baseball Crank will be back. This column may be on hiatus for an undetermined time while the demands of work intrude – we intend to be back in business next week, and this will not be without considerable effort – but in time, I will offer again my opinion of why it would be positively criminal to give Ichiro the MVP, and why it is scandalous that Bill Mazeroski is in the Hall of Fame. And then I’ll be free again.
131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: September 11, 2015, 09:05:26 AM


Hillary's Self-Inflicted Drama



Hillary’s E-Mail Lapse ... Mistake ... Responsibility ... er, 'Apology'

By Edward Morrissey
September 10, 2015

In the novel Love Story by Erich Segal, the doomed Jenny says, “Love means you never have to say you’re sorry.” The film version of the novel turned that line into the theme song. In American politics this week, we discovered something different, and a bit more cynical. Power means you never have to really be sorry, even if you might have to offer an apology after several months of evasions and deceptions.Almost seven months ago, The New York Times broke the story that Hillary Clinton had exclusively used a secret, private e-mail server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The House Select Committee on Benghazi had stumbled across the truth while trying to track communications at State that would normally have been archived in accordance with the Federal Records Act. The discovery came more than a year after Clinton left the State Department, and after a number of FOIA requests, to which in response, State claimed to find no communications from its top official.

Related: If Clinton Loses Her Security Clearance, Could She Still Be President?

After getting caught, Clinton claimed in March to have done nothing wrong, and refused to apologize – or to allow a third party to inspect the server. She also claimed that no classified information went through or was stored in the server, that the use of a private server for official business was authorized, and that her team had wiped the server clean to secure it after deleting more than half of the e-mails in the system. Those 31,000-plus e-mails, Clinton claimed, were personal e-mails relating to her daughter’s wedding and notes to her husband.

One by one, these claims were debunked by emerging information. President Barack Obama and the White House had made clear at the beginning of his term that while occasional use of a private e-mail account might be acceptable for informal business-related communications, members of his administration were expected to conduct official business over official e-mail systems, in part to provide the transparency Obama promised in 2008. Hillary Clinton never even bothered to get an official State Department e-mail account.

The Benghazi committee found fifteen e-mails between Clinton and longtime crony Sidney Blumenthal that Clinton never turned over to State, raising more questions about the 31,000 e-mails that were deleted. Most critically, subsequent inspections and audits turned up hundreds of incidents where classified information was transmitted through and stored in Clinton’s secret server.

By July, Clinton had no choice but to turn over her server to the FBI, which has opened a probe into the exposure of classified intelligence in this system. Yet she still refused to apologize, insisting that she did nothing wrong while shifting the blame for national-security damage to “overclassification.” She briefly tried using jokes on the campaign trail to belittle concerns over her e-mail system, but all that did was make Democrats panic and start getting Joe Biden warmed up in the 2016 bullpen.

Related: Democrats Are Openly Speculating About An Election Without Hillary Clinton

Last week, Clinton began sneaking up on an apology. At first, all she would say is that she was “sorry for the confusion” caused by the private server, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. That was followed by a flat-out insistence that Clinton would never apologizeover the weekend because a private e-mail server was “allowed.” By Tuesday, Clinton had reversed course again and offered an apology for the server to ABC’s David Muir . However, in an appearance the same day on Ellen DeGeneres’ eponymous show, Clinton again only apologized  for creating “confusion.”

These shifting apologies seem less than sincere and authentic, perhaps in large part because Clinton frames them – in their most expansive forms – for the “mistake” of having a private server. She talks about it as if it was an oversight or an inconsequential momentary lapse in judgment – for which one would have expected an apology seven months ago. But this was no momentary failure; the Clintons paid an IT tech out of their own pocket for years to build and maintain this system, allowing the State Department to deceive courts on FOIA requests and block Congress from their legitimate oversight into her official actions.

The insincerity of the apologies reflects the sudden decision to start offering them. Clinton only changed course, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman reports, only after focus group testing informed the campaign that Clinton’s arrogant denials of reality were burying her politically. Ironically, Clinton decided to make the shift to some kind of apology just as her campaign decided that she needed to change her approach to demonstrate more spontaneity and authenticity . And nothing says spontaneity and authenticity like a series of focus-group-driven inconsistent apologies.

Related: Clinton’s Email Problems Aren’t Going Away Anytime Soon

Neither strategy has succeeded, at least not at the moment. Mark Halperin couldn’t keep a straight face on Morning Joe when discussing the planned spontaneity campaign on Tuesday morning. An incredulous David Axelrod tweeted  that the plan sounded like something from The Onion. After the apology dance, National Journal’s Ron Fournier demanded to know what Clinton was apologizing for, but also argued that apologies don’t actually address the issues.

“By any ob­ject­ive meas­ure, the Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial front-run­ner has re­spon­ded to her email scan­dal with de­flec­tion and de­cep­tion, shred­ding her cred­ib­il­ity while giv­ing a skep­tic­al pub­lic an­oth­er reas­on not to trust the in­sti­tu­tions of polit­ics and gov­ern­ment,” he wrote. “An apo­logy doesn’t fix that. An apo­logy also doesn’t an­swer the scan­dal’s most im­port­ant ques­tions.”

All true. But Team Hillary hopes that apologies might distract from Clinton’s actions, credibility, and the important questions raised by her conduct. Power means you may have to apologize, but it doesn’t mean you have to be sorry when you do.  Call this the Self-Love Story.


       
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Blood On Barack Obama's Hands... on: September 09, 2015, 10:00:54 PM
http://www.erickontheradio.com/2015/09/the-blood-on-barack-obamas-hands/?

133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Poll: Trump Receives 25% of Black Vote... on: September 07, 2015, 01:57:14 AM
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-poll-trump-receives-25-of-black-vote-in-general-election-matchup/
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: September 05, 2015, 02:57:55 PM
Crafty:

To be clear, I don't see that there is a distinction on this point.  The job description is what it is.  If you find you cannot fulfill the duties of the job with "reasonable" accommodation (of course this is subjective, but I don't believe either of these scenarios clear that bar) then you should find another job.  The employer in such a case is completely justified in terminating your employment.
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Kentucky clerk... on: September 05, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Crafty,

Of course there is the obvious difference that this Muslim woman took this job KNOWING FULL WELL that her job would entail serving alcohol.  Wendy Davis did not expect to have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However, I think the principle is consistent in both cases.  That is - if you are not able to perform the job duties due to sincerely held reasons of conscience - RESIGN, and find another job. It is NOT incumbent upon the employer to accommodate you.  The job requirements are what they are, and no one is forced to accept employment in this country.  It is a contract "at will." 
136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim Stewardess Refuses to Serve Alcohol, Plays Victim... on: September 05, 2015, 08:11:01 AM
GELLER: MUSLIM STEWARDESS REFUSES TO SERVE ALCOHOL, THEN PLAYS THE VICTIM

by PAMELA GELLER  2 Sep 2015

A Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, claims that she was suspended from her job with ExpressJet Airlines because she refused to serve alcohol. She has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – and now the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped onto the case.

So now we have yet another Muslim workplace lawsuit from CAIR – once again designed to impose Islam on the workplace. This is what they do.

Why would a devout Muslim want to be a flight attendant in the first place, when half your job is serving alcohol?

Lena Masri of Hamas-tied CAIR declared: “We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley’s religious beliefs. Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely’s constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months after which her employment may be administratively terminated.”

What about the rights of the passengers on Stanley’s flight who just wanted to have a drink? Alcoholic beverages are still legal in the United States.

This is reminiscent of Samantha Elauf, the devout Muslima who sued soft porn retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because she wanted to wear the hijab. She won that case and got herself a healthy cash settlement – and Abercrombie and Fitch had to change the way they do business in order to accommodate her demands. That is no doubt part of the objective here as well.

There are many such cases. The EEOC is suing Star Transport for rightfully terminating two Muslims who refused to do their job. If these Muslim truck drivers don’t want to deliver alcohol, then they shouldn’t have taken a job in which part of their duties would be to deliver alcohol. It’s that simple.

But no, Islamic supremacists chip, chip, chip away at the establishment clause, and in doing so, impose Islam on the secular marketplace. Take, for example, the Hertz company. Hertz bent over backwards to accommodate its Muslim workers: they have prayer rooms, prayer times, etc. They just didn’t want the Muslim workers leaving work to pray outside of scheduled break times. Mind you, they could easily pray before or after work, but no. This imposes Islam on everyone else – just as Charee Stanley wanted to do when she refused to do her job and serve flight passengers alcohol. After the initial surrender on Hertz’s part, Muslim workers began suing Hertz, charging “Islamophobia.”

Islamic supremacists see that this legal intimidation works, so they keep on resorting to it. A Muslim woman sued Children’s Hospital Boston after being fired for refusing to get a flu shot. If you don’t want to take the necessary steps to work in a hospital and adhere to the rules to insure the health of the public at large, then don’t work in a children’s hospital.

And in New Mexico, a Muslima sued Planet Fitness over its headgear safety rules. Obviously, headgear is prohibited in this gym because it presents a safety hazard. But people’s safety be damned. This suit mirrored the melee that ensued at a New York Playland Park when park officials adhered to their safety rules in order to keep park attendees free from harm. Muslim visitors got angry that the park was enforcing its ban on headgear by prohibiting the women from wearing their traditional head coverings on some rides.

A Muslim woman who worked as a hostess at a Disneyland restaurant sued Disney. Like Abercrombie & Fitch’s Elauf, Imane Boudlal wore the hijab, but the garment violated Disney’s dress code. Disney offered up a compromise hat for her to wear, but Boudlal refused, of course. It wasn’t about hijab; otherwise the cute cowboy hat that Disneyland offered Boudlal would have been fine (everyone on the floor at Disney wears costumes). It was about imposing Islam on the secular marketplace.

You’ll notice that it is always big companies that are targeted. Hertz, Heinz, Target, Walmart, Disney, Abercrombie & Fitch, and now ExpressJet Airlines. Why? To set legal precedents they can use in yet more intimidation cases. Muslim lawsuits against Hertz, Walmart, Target, Disney and a host of other American businesses for special rights, special accommodation have been largely successful creating a special rights for a special class of people — which is an accordance with Islam (in which Muslims are superior to the kuffar).

But this goes against every American tenet of individual rights and separation of mosque and state. Someone ought to remind the EEOC that their name is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Equal,” as in no special rights for any particular class.

Read the chapter titled “Mosqueing the Workplace” in my book Stop the Islamization of America to better understand this de facto imposition of sharia in America. It works this way: every accommodation gives way to more demands. Everywhere American mores conflict with sharia, it is our mores that must give way. And it is going to keep on happening, until someone, somewhere, says, “No more accommodation. We’re going to stand up for our own principles.” But no one is saying that now.
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. Unemployment Rate is an Obscene Farce... on: September 04, 2015, 01:23:40 PM
Wesbury takes the reported 5.1% U.S. "unemployment rate" at face value.  I repeat: The man is either an idiot or a liar.  There are 93 MILLION AMERICANS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE WORK FORCE.  THAT IS PRACTICALLY 50% OF THIS NATION'S WORKING-AGE POPULATION.  WHAT PART OF THIS DOES WESBURY AND OTHERS WHO ACCEPT THIS FIGURE AS CREDIBLE NOT UNDERSTAND???
138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: The True Nature of Europe's "Refugee Crisis"... on: September 04, 2015, 01:04:15 PM
This is not a refugee crisis - it is a hijrah - and Muslims don't want that known by non-Muslims:

THE HIJRAH INTO EUROPE

“Refugees” colonize a continent.

September 4, 2015  Robert Spencer   

Approximately 104,460 asylum seekers arrived in Germany during the month of August, setting a new record. That makes 413,535 registered refugees and migrants coming to Germany in 2015 so far. The country expects a total of around 800,000 people to seek asylum in Germany this year. And that’s just Germany. The entire continent of Europe is being inundated with refugees at a rate unprecedented in world history. This is no longer just a “refugee crisis.” This is a hijrah.

Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100) The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety (and a shutdown by the government) a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants.

And now a hijrah of a much greater magnitude is upon us. Evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February, but was little noted at the time and almost immediately forgotten. The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country “has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.”

The Islamic State did not have in mind just a few jihadis crossing from Libya: it also emerged last February that the jihadis planned to flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Now the number is shooting well beyond that in Germany alone. Of course, not all of these refugees are Islamic jihadis. Not all are even Muslims, although most are. However, no effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land. Any such effort would be “Islamophobic.” Yet there are already hints that the Islamic State is putting its plan into effect: jihadis have already been found among the refugees trying to enter Europe. There will be many more such discoveries.

Eight hundred thousand Muslim refugees in one year alone. This will transform Germany, and Europe, forever, overtaxing the welfare economies of its wealthiest nations and altering the cultural landscape beyond recognition. Yet the serious public discussion that needs to be had about this crisis is shouted down by the usual nonsense: the Washington Post Wednesday published an inflammatory and irresponsible piece likening those concerned about this massive Muslim influx into Europe to 1930s Nazis ready to incinerate Jews by the millions. Hollywood star Emma Thompson accused British authorities of racism for not taking in more refugees – as if British authorities haven’t already done enough to destroy their nation.

And so it goes. If you don’t accept the brave new world that is sure to bring more jihad and more Sharia to Europe, you’re a Nazi and a racist. Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah.

This is also Europe’s death knell.

139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia to pass law formally dumping U.S. dollar... on: September 04, 2015, 12:45:55 PM
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2684-russia-is-going-to-pass-a-law-formally-dumping-the-us-dollar

140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick: The Upside of Obama's Nuke Deal... on: September 04, 2015, 12:43:26 PM
As usual, some insightful analysis by Caroline Glick:

A GLORIOUS DEFEAT

The upside of the Iran nuke deal.

September 4, 2015  Caroline Glick   

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.


Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause.

Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle.

The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna.

On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable.

Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150b. would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna.

The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council.

After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda.

So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office.

As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb.

Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads.

That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003.

The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator.

As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways.

First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike.

Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike.

There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges.

For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership.

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations.

Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country.

By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly.

Better eight years late than never.

The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear.

As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours.

By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term.

Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally.

In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted.

By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position.

Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe.

Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor.

Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic.

Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran.

Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.

Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Thankfully, they are mistaken.

Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal.

AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy.

We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections.

Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security.

If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight.

On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.”

Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel.

The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor.

All in all, a rather glorious defeat.

141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Congressional Democrats Paid By Iranian Lobby to Support Nuke Deal... on: September 04, 2015, 09:40:16 AM
This is another of the many facts NOT being reported by most of the media:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/congressional-democrats-paid-by-iranian-lobby-to-support-obamas-nuke-deal.html/

142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia passing law to formally dump U.S. dollar... on: September 04, 2015, 08:08:33 AM
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2684-russia-is-going-to-pass-a-law-formally-dumping-the-us-dollar

143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: September 03, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Ppulatie,

I agree 100%.  That is the way I feel as well.  I was just offering Greenfield's article as a response to those such as Erick Erickson who continue to slam Trump for not being "a real conservative."  It's beyond that now.  We DO know he's not a liberal.  And yes - frankly, these Republicans haven't done jack sh*t to stop Obama and the Democrats from accomplishing everything they set out to do.  The country is truly at the brink.  We're about to lose it.  Someone has to oppose and roll back this devastating agenda that has us at the precipice.  While I don't think ANY President can stop the economic collapse and resulting devastation that is coming, regardless of his/her economic policies, Trump, IMHO has the best understanding of how to mitigate the damage to whatever extent it's possible.

Further - I strongly believe that a silent majority is sick to death of political correctness.  Trump has no use for this cowardly tactic either.  This appeals to people in a way that those living inside the Washington D.C. beltway cannot understand.  They live in their own little hermetically-sealed universe where it's just politics as usual, and everything will be just fine if we are "bipartisan."
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: September 03, 2015, 02:21:10 PM
TRUMP AND "REJECTING" CONSERVATIVE VALUES

This isn't about values. It's about crisis.

September 3, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   
 

There have been numerous pieces in the conservative media that blast Trump supporters for "rejecting" conservative values.

Now conservative values have been in flux for a while and some of the same people attacking Trump supporters as RINOs claim that illegal alien amnesty and transnational trade policies are conservative values. In the battle of the RINOs, this gets very confusing.

But a key point that is being missed here is that Trump is getting support from conservatives who believe it's more important to stop and roll back the damage that Obama has done in two terms than in advocating positive conservative values.

So they're less concerned by Trump's calls for tax hikes on the rich than they are by Obama being able to ram through amnesty. It's not that they don't care about free market principles, it's that they know these will be an abstract if the left wins its demographic war on America. The common denominator among many Trump supporters is that they see this as a final conflict, a battle at the gates.

That makes them less concerned with long term value policies and just looking for an emergency solution to stop the left's takeover.

It's that sense of urgency which divides many of them from a Republican leadership that appears not to sense this emergency.

Of course their calculation assumes a lot about Trump that isn't in evidence, but they are reacting to a legitimate crisis and looking for a crisis manager. And it's a fundamental flaw in the Republican field that few politicians in it have communicated their sense of crisis.

Trump projects confidence. The ability to get things done without caring about procedure and niceties. While the analogy may make some people moan, he's tapping into Andrew Jackson type populism with its revolution against the elites. (Even if Trump lacks Jackson's common background.)

In a sense, we've been divided between those who still see a long view in which America would be viable 50 or 100 years from now, and those who don't. The polls show more people who don't believe the future will get better.

That's the elephant in the room.

A lot of Republican elites are taking the long view. So are a lot of upper rank conservatives. But the Republican base isn't. It's worried about what will happen now.

This isn't about values. It's about crisis.

 
145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Scholars catch up to Robert Spencer re: Ancient Koran Pages... on: September 02, 2015, 03:26:42 PM
As I mentioned earlier:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/scholars-catch-up-to-robert-spencer-realize-ancient-quran-challenges-islams-origins.html/

146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: WSJ Article on Trump and Clinton... on: September 02, 2015, 02:57:05 PM
The WSJ has made it clear that it despises Trump, for various reasons, I suspect most importantly because he is beholden to no one and thus the investor class fears him.  There is an absolutely vicious piece in the WSJ today that Rush Limbaugh quoted from on his radio program this afternoon.  This article makes a lot of assumptions about Trump's policies before they have even been articulated - such as his tax plan.  We simply don't know what it entails yet.  Then there is this from Dick Morris, which I happen to agree with:

www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-negatives-are-irreparable-trumps-are-not-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/


147  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: "Oldest Koran Fragments?" on: September 01, 2015, 03:46:02 PM
This claim has been seriously challenged by more than one non-Muslim scholar, and I'll have to re-visit the details and post them here.
Further - there is serious doubt among non-Muslim scholars as to whether Muhammad actually existed as an historical figure.  See Robert Spencer's  superb book: "Did Muhammad Exist?"

www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/1610171330/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441140289&sr=8-1&keywords=did+muhammad+exist

148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: August 31, 2015, 02:00:29 PM
THE LAST DAYS OF HILLARY

Hillary Clinton’s worst punishment will be her failure.

August 28, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become president. All for nothing.

The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11 million of that money came from the notoriously "flat broke" couple. This time around she was determined to take no chances.

Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything. There was no way she could lose.

Now she’s losing all over again.

Hillary has a ton of money, but can’t buy the nomination. She’s spending a quarter of a million a day on a campaign operation with no actual organized opposition to speak of. Even before Biden officially enters the race, she’s falling behind the joke candidacy of Bernie Sanders in key states.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars without making an impact. She spent almost a million on polling only to see her poll numbers drop every week. She dropped $2 million on ads about her mother to try to make women like her. It didn’t work. Nothing is working anymore.

Obama gave Biden his blessing to run. White House spokesman Josh Earnest praised Joe Biden to reporters, saying that there is “no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

It wasn’t a subtle message.

Earnest suggested that Obama might endorse a Democratic primary candidate. Despite the deal that the Clintons made in which Bill would campaign for Obama in 2012 in exchange for a Hillary endorsement, it’s looking less and less likely like that he will back Hillary Clinton. Instead Biden appears to be his man.

Biden is already polling better than Hillary in a national election. With Obama’s backing, he can strip away Hillary’s minority vote while Bernie Sanders takes the leftist vote. Hillary Clinton is already doubling down on gender politics by accusing pro-life Republicans of being terrorists, but it won’t work.

It didn’t work last time. It won’t work this time. Once again, Hillary has lost.

The only lesson that Hillary Clinton drew from her last election was to double down on all the things she did wrong. Her organization was big last time so she made it even bigger. It got so big that the different Super PACs were fighting each other over fundraising for her campaign. She had lots of money last time, so she was determined to have even more money this time. But that money has been wasted paying an army of useless people who couldn’t even do something as basic as produce a good logo.

Hillary Clinton was paranoid, controlling and dishonest last time. She decided to be twice as paranoid and dishonest this time around and it destroyed her image and her campaign.

Even before the rope lines and the interview boycotts, the media hated her. Once she began to aggressively shut out the media, its personalities gleefully reported on every email server scandal detail that her enemies in the White House fed to the New York Times and other administration mouthpieces.

It wasn’t a vast right wing conspiracy or even a more real left wing conspiracy that destroyed Hillary Clinton. If she were a stronger candidate, Obama and the left would have fallen in line behind her.

Once again, Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” If she hadn’t planned a cover-up before there was even anything to cover up and then responded to its disclosure with a series of terrible press conferences climaxing in asking reporters if they meant that she had wiped her email server with a cloth, her old reputation might have stayed buried long enough to win an election.

Now Hillary is right back where she was last time around. She has lots of money, but no one likes her. She’s trying to build a cult of personality, but none of the myriads of people who work for her will tell her the truth about her personality. She inspires no one and there’s no actual reason to vote for her.

With her popularity rapidly vanishing, Hillary is moving to her Führerbunker. Her aides plan to absorb defeats in early states and concentrate all the money and organization on crushing the opposition on Super Tuesday. They’re conceding that Hillary isn’t going to out-campaign her rivals individually, but are betting that her war machine is big enough to destroy them in eleven states at the same time.

Hillary still hasn’t learned that she can’t just buy an election. And she may not have the money to buy it. Donors lost a lot of money funding her failed campaign last time. They came on board again because they were convinced that she had a smooth ride to the nomination. Once Biden enters the race, donors will wait rather than pour more money into the struggling campaign of an unpopular candidate.

And many of the Obama donors who haven’t committed to Hillary will open their wallets for Biden.

ClintonWorld is an expensive theme park to run. All those staffers the Clintons have picked up have to be paid. And the Clintons can’t stop paying them because they have no true loyalists, only mercenaries. If their checks don’t clear, they’ll be working for Biden or O’Malley before you can say "Whitewater."

It will take that machine some time to slow to a halt. Hillary Clinton burned through $200 million fighting Obama. Elections have only gotten more expensive since then. But her donors will learn the hard way that money alone can’t make an unlikable politician with no charisma or compelling message, president.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic… but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.

After having spent much of her life trying to become president, she will leave once again a failure.

Some are hoping that Hillary will go to jail. But the anger, frustration and bitterness that will gnaw on her after wasting decades and a small fortune on two failed efforts to win the White House in which she had every advantage only to lose before even leaving the starting gate will be worse than any prison.

In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Meet NC Representative Mark Meadows... on: August 30, 2015, 12:30:14 PM
A courageous man, to be sure.  He deserves our support:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/24/home-in-north-carolina-mark-meadows-reflects-on-move-to-oust-john-boehner-with-no-regrets/

150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Guardian: Central Banks Can't Save the Markets from a Crash... on: August 30, 2015, 09:45:50 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/30/central-banks-cant-save-markets-crash-shouldnt-try
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!