Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 04:31:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Monica Lewinski Wasn't a Victim - America Was... on: May 12, 2014, 11:14:21 AM
Monica Lewinsky Wasn’t a Victim —- America Was

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On May 12, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t brought back from a cul-de-sac of the ‘90s celebrity scandal universe, where Kato Kaelin still sleeps on a couch, Amy Fisher stalks quiet Long Island streets and Tonya Harding skates around in circles, in order to hurt Bill and Hillary.

Vanity Fair brought Monica in to help them.

That’s why it’s Monica’s essay in Vanity Fair and not the essays of any of the women whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and whom Hillary Clinton tried to silence.

Hillary’s political career was built on Monica Lewinsky and cancer. Rudy Giuliani’s cancer. Without Monica and cancer, instead of running for president she would be delivering a commencement address at Bennington College and the dean would be introducing her as Hillary Rodham.

Monica made Bill and Hillary into the victims of their own misbehavior. Vanity Fair is hoping that Democrats forget the political dysfunction, sellouts and blatant corruption of the Clinton years. Its editorial staff is hoping that they’ll get angry about Ken Starr and “privacy violations” all over again.

But Bill and Hillary aren’t victims. They’re two dysfunctional people with a knack for making their personal problems into the country’s problem. They’ve done it before and they’re doing it again. They deal with their personal problems, just as they dealt with Monica Lewinsky, through abuses of power.

Monica was disposable. If it hadn’t been her, it would have been someone else. Bill and Hillary treated her the way they treated any woman who became an obstacle to their political ambitions. That’s a step up from how the Kennedy clan treated inconvenient women by drowning them, drugging them or lobotomizing them.

Feminists are debating whether Hillary was right to call Monica a “narcissistic loony toon” instead of discussing the private War on Women she waged against any woman complaining about her husband’s behavior. It’s a cheap distraction from what really matters. The outrage over the War on Women, ‘90s edition, featuring stops at the Tailhook Symposium and Anita Hill’s Department of Education digs, did not extend to abuses by powerful liberal men. There was one set of feminist rules for a drunken Navy lieutenant in Vegas and another for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

As long as he was a liberal.

Monica isn’t a victim either. Liberal feminists were hypocritical in their treatment of her, but they were far more hypocritical in their treatment of the women Bill Clinton sexually harassed. Talking about how unfair they were to Monica lets them off the hook for how unfair they were to women who did not want a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton and who demonstrated more authentic feminist creds by speaking out about it than the professional liberal feminists who smeared and demeaned them to protect Bill.

There was a power imbalance between Bill and Monica. And Bill Clinton is a compulsive manipulator, but Monica wasn’t a child. She chose to have an affair with another woman’s husband and was humiliated because that man was the President of the United States. The outcome was inevitable.

Hillary Clinton was right to call her a “narcissistic loony toon”, but Hillary, running for president on a platform of her own Monica-manufactured celebrity, is an even more narcissistic loony toon than Monica could ever aspire to be. And Bill Clinton, who chases cameras as avidly as he chases women, is the king of all narcissistic loony toons.

The real victim wasn’t any of these three repulsive characters. It was the United States of America.

The American people wanted good government and instead got a demented duo whose uncontrolled appetite for power, admiration and everything else, including White House furniture, knew no limit.

And they’re still the victims today.

There are two types of victims. There are those Americans who consented to have a political relationship with Bill and Hillary. Twice. And there are those who didn’t.

There are the Monica Lewinskys and the Juanita Broaddricks.

There are Americans who were raped by the Clinton Administration. And there are Americans who chose to be abused by it and would still be willing to be abused by it all over again.

Obama and Clinton voters have much in common with Monica Lewinsky. They caused their own problems and yet, like Monica, they whine about being unable to find work. They blame Republicans for humiliating them by revealing their disgusting relationship with a politician who is a serial liar.

And they act as if the whole thing is someone else’s fault.

They whine that if it hadn’t been for the Republicans no one would know just how disgusting their affair with the man who wrecked the country’s national defense, sold pardons like hotcakes and used his own adultery to position his wife’s presidential bid was.

They complain that if Republicans would just shut up about Benghazi, the national debt, the return of Al Qaeda, the imperial presidency and the constant lies leaking out of the White House, no one would judge them for that faded Obama-Biden sticker on the back bumper of their taxpayer subsidized Prius.

They’re not the victims. Victims don’t choose to be victims.

It’s the women who didn’t accede to Bill Clinton’s sexual demands and were smeared by Hillary Clinton for daring to complain about it… who are the victims. It’s the Americans who didn’t play Monica Lewinsky at the ballot box, surrendering to Bill Clinton’s charms while ignoring a funny little man in a cave who was threatening to attack America after bombing its embassies, who are the victims.

Monica Lewinsky is the Clinton and Obama voter, narcissistic to a fault and incapable of acknowledging fault, feeling victimized but unable to point to the real perpetrator, blaming Republicans for exposing her sordid behavior and that of the man who was taking advantage of her, and then complaining that she can’t find work.

Who needs a special essay from Monica Lewinsky when any Obama voter will tell you the same story?

The real victims of Bill, Barack and Hillary are the hardworking Americans who do the best they can for their families and their country, who don’t make excuses for their misbehavior or the misbehavior of their politicians, who work hard at their jobs and work harder to raise their children.

They are the victims of bad governments and bad politicians they didn’t vote for. They are harassed and assaulted by a corrupt political machine, a power-mad bureaucracy and a degenerate Washington establishment. They did not consent to be abused by Bill, Barack, Hillary, the EPA, the DOJ, the BLM, the FEC, the IRS and every other alphabet soup agency out of D.C.

And they are smeared and demonized when they complain about it.

They are the real victims of the abusers, exploiters and manipulators in Washington D.C. whose lust for power knows no limits. And they are also the victims of the Monica Lewinsky voters who whine and make faces, but refuse to end their political affair with the abusers of their country.
102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Darwish: The War on Former Muslim Women... on: May 09, 2014, 10:09:47 AM
The War on Former Muslim Women

Posted By Nonie Darwish On May 9, 2014 - frontpagemag.com

It is a tragedy and a shame that it had to take the mass kidnapping and sexual enslavement of 300 Nigerian girls by Muslim jihadists for the world to finally express its outrage over Sharia’s evil deeds. Similar stories of Christian girls being kidnapped, forcibly married and converted to Islam by their Muslim captors, have been a reality for decades. But unfortunately, and tragically, they have been ignored by our mainstream media. Only a few “Islamophobic” journalists have cared enough to report on such atrocities in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere — until reality exploded to such a great magnitude that it awakened the world’s conscience.

Former Muslim women like Wafa Sultan, Ayan Hirsi Ali and myself have been writing and speaking about the oppression of women in Islamic society for a long time now. I have written a book dedicated to connecting the dots between Islamic law and such kidnappings, rapes and other forms of oppression of women. But instead of helping our voices be heard, the leftist media and academia have ignored us, called us names and done everything in their power to silence us. They have treated the American people like children who are told they should not be outraged about far away cultural practices — because all cultures are equal.

Advocates of cultural relativism who are brutal in judging conservative and Christian Americans, and call them slanderous names, have no problem in tolerating Islamic tyranny over women and other minorities.

After 9/11 Americans asked: “Where are the voices of Arab Americans who condemn Islamic terrorism?” This question led a few brave former Muslim women to stand up and speak. But when we did (at our own peril), the leftist media and academia called us “Islamophobes” and “racists.” What is Islamophobic and racist about warning America about the tyranny of the barbaric religious legal system that we lived under and came to America to escape from its vicious clutches?

Muslims have convinced the leftist elites that criticism of Islamic doctrine is a hateful phobia equal to hating all Muslim people. Students who wanted to learn the truth about Sharia and its implications on women, jihad, the Arab Israeli conflict and terrorism, have been intimidated and forced to withdraw their invitation to former Muslim women speakers.

Not only have Muslim Brotherhood front groups and the Left succeeded in silencing speech critical of Islam, but reports about Islamic atrocities around the world have been suppressed — until now, when one horrifying story of an Islamic crime against humanity could not be contained.

And so now, with the Nigerian kidnapping story, Islam’s dirty little secret has been exposed: Sharia legalizes the taking of female hostages as sexual slaves in the jihad battle against non-Muslims. And since the jihad battle against non-Muslims is taught as a permanent institution, the kidnapping, rape and enslavement can happen at any time. In fact, the Islamic Nigerian mass kidnappers, who are experts on Sharia, are bragging on camera about their actions because they are told by their books and Islamic education that what they did is holy and legal under Allah.

American students who invite experts on Middle Eastern culture and critics of Sharia, like myself, must endure horrific pressure to cancel our invitations. No matter what horror happens under Islam, we end up being dismissed by the Left as “Islamophobes.”

As a result of the suppression of the truth about Islamic oppression of women, the American public is left ignorant about what is going on in the Islamic world. Thus it takes huge acts of violence, such as the Nigeria mass girl kidnapping or 9/11 to wake Americans up. But for how long can the West afford to ignore Islamic tyranny? I hope not until Islamic jihadists do a similar kidnapping of 300 American girls.

Our culture’s suppression of speech is severely detrimental to the future of this country, which is on its way to embracing Sharia as just another set of laws that must be respected, since, as we are taught, all cultures and religions are equal.

It is high time for American leftist feminists to acknowledge the truth about Islamic oppression of women. Kidnapping of girls, sexual slavery, female genital mutilation, wife beating, legal discrimination against women in the courtroom and other forms of oppression of women, must never be tolerated under the excuse of cultural relativism.

The same leftists who ignore Islamic Sharia tyranny are also the ones who support anti-Semitism also spreading on college campuses.  The offensive annual Israel Apartheid Week must end, otherwise pro-Israel students must be free to invite speakers to counter the anti-Israel propaganda.

Just in the last month, I was cancelled twice after being invited to speak on college campuses due to intimidation by leftists and Islamic groups. Muslim radical groups brag about our cancellation like a badge of honor, the same way the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt brags about silencing the opposition. Suppression of speakers who expose the atrocities of Islamic law has become a shameful chronic condition on American campuses. It is true that Sharia forbids the criticism of Islam, but we should never forget that the US Constitution does not.

The situation in America today is upside down, where we see the American Left tolerating Islamic intolerance and protecting Islam’s dirty little secrets from coming to light. We are not doing Muslims and Islam a favor with this cover-up and appeasement. Blatant atrocities against women by Muslims around the world must be exposed and rejected.

It is time for the West to condemn Islamic Sharia law by name.
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: May 08, 2014, 08:36:46 PM
A status-of-forces agreement may have helped for a short time, but the inescapable reality is that Sharia Law, which was enshrined in that constitution, is INCOMPATIBLE with individual freedom.  No democracy can be maintained by a people who hold fast to Sharia (Islamic) law.  The two are mutually exclusive.

The best we could have hoped for would have been that Iraq would be kept somewhat in check from assisting in training terrorists and cooperating with Iran.  This would have been an improvement over what we have, granted - but G.W. still wasted lives and treasure after removing Saddam by engaging in this fantasy of statecraft.  Unless the U.S. were to OCCUPY Iraq indefinitely this "democracy" would never have lasted in any event.

And no - the Shah did NOT oversee a state run by Sharia.
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: May 08, 2014, 12:35:10 PM
I think getting rid of Hussein was a good thing, and needed to be done.  We should have stopped short, however - of trying to implement a democracy there.  THAT was G.W.'s mistake.
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 08, 2014, 10:59:20 AM
Democrats and leftists (now one and the same) have zero interest in truth.  They care only about how they can manipulate the public into doing their bidding.  It's all about centralized control.  There is clearly no lie which Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama will not spout - knowing full well it is in fact a lie - to influence low-information voters.

I honestly don't know how this situation can possibly be fixed without the country splitting into constitutionally conservative and social democratic fragments.  Far too many of our citizens are ignorant and disengaged.  This will not end with the nation's borders as we know them now.  Secession and quite possibly violent resistance are all but inevitable at this point, IMHO.
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: May 08, 2014, 10:53:42 AM
Good points, Doug - I would add a couple:

1)  G.W.'s screw-up was thinking that we had any business (let alone any chance of success) in trying to institute a democratic, human-rights-based government in Iraq.  This is a society which has been governed by Islam, which is inherently anti-individual, and until and unless this changes, instituting a democracy there, or in any other Middle Eastern society is a fool's errand.  It simply will not happen.  As our Founders correctly observed - a civilized society and government depends upon a moral people.  Islam's explicit teachings fly in the face of this.  Precious few in our government understand this.

2) There is not necessarily a need to commit troops to an arena to have a powerful influence on the despotic leaders there who would make trouble for their own citizens, neighbors and for us.  What IS necessary is that those leaders have a healthy respect for the US, knowing that we back up our words with action, and will take a leadership role in punishing bad behavior with economic sanctions and whatever diplomatic tools at our disposal, with our allies.  BUT - we do reserve and are not afraid to use our military if necessary.  Putin and every other world leader knows that this is NOT presently the case, and they can ignore our wishes with impunity.  This is a recipe for disaster.  It is in fact a green light to despots the world over which may in fact lead to WWIII.  Thank you Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Saving Barack Obama" parody posters in L.A... on: May 07, 2014, 12:18:58 PM
http://pamelageller.com/2014/05/saving-barack-obama-steven-spielberg-ploy-parody-obama-movie-posters-la.html/
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim L.A. Public School Superintendent Claims He Received Death Threats... on: May 07, 2014, 10:17:51 AM
After, of course - it was discovered that a teacher assigned students to write an essay debating the veracity of the Holocaust.  Spencer rightly asks: "Were these death threats even real - or was this another attempt by a jihadist Muslim to deflect attention from his agenda?"  See below:

www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/la-public-school-district-superintendent-mohammed-z-islam-assigns-students-to-debate-veracity-of-holocaust?utm_source=Jihad+Watch+Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=57ec1c5ac0-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffcbf57bbb-57ec1c5ac0-123440437#
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: May 07, 2014, 08:03:47 AM
Glick's point exactly.  Taken as a whole, Rand Paul is a friend to Israel.
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick: Rand Paul's Support for Israel... on: May 07, 2014, 07:44:31 AM
EXCELLENT analysis - as usual - by Glick.  Rand Paul is a complicated character, indeed. See her article below:

Rand Paul’s Support for Israel

Posted By Caroline Glick On May 7, 2014

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Republican Senator Rand Paul is an isolationist. This ought to make him a natural ally for appeasers like Steve Walt and John Mearshimer and the whole blame Israel first crowd.

And indeed, he has taken positions, like opposing additional sanctions on Iran that placed him in their camp.

But Paul is a mixed bag.

Last week, following the PLO’s unity deal with terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Paul introduced the Stand With Israel Act. If it had passed into law, Paul’s act would have required the US to cut off all funding to the Palestinian Authority, including its security forces. The only way the administration could have wiggled out of the aid cutoff would have been by certifying that the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had effectively stopped being the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Paul’s conditions for maintaining aid would have required the President to certify to Congress that the PA – run jointly by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PLO –formally and publicly recognized Israel as a Jewish state; renounced terrorism; purged all individuals with terrorist ties from its security services; terminated all anti-American and anti-Israel incitement, publicly pledged not to engage in war with Israel; and honored previous agreements signed between the PLO and Israel.

Paul’s bill was good for America. Maintaining financial support for the Palestinian Authority in the aftermath of the PLO’s unity-with-terrorists deal constitutes a breach of US anti-terror law.

Financing the PA also harms US national security. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are financed by Iran. So by funding the PLO’s PA, which just united its forces with theirs, the US is subsidizing Iran’s terror network.

Ending US financing of the PA would certainly be good for Israel. Indeed, just by sponsoring the bill Paul has helped Israel in two critical ways. He offered Israel friendship, and he began a process of changing the mendacious narrative about the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel to one based on the truth.

By extending his hand to Israel, Paul gave Israel an opening to build relationships with political forces with which it has not traditionally had close ties. Because most of Israel’s supporters in Washington support an interventionist US foreign policy, isolationists like Paul have generally either stood on the sidelines of the debate, or in light of their desire to beat a quick retreat from the region, they have been willing, even happy to support the Arabs against Israel and blame Israel’s supporters for getting the US involved in the Middle East.

The hard truth is that while American isolationism is bad for the US, it isn’t necessarily bad for Israel. To date, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, there has been a direct correlation between the level of US involvement in Israel’s affairs and US hostility towards Israel.

Paul’s pro-Israel detractors note that he also supports cutting off US military aid to Israel. But that doesn’t necessarily make him anti-Israel.

Despite the protestations of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, it is far from clear that Israel would be worse off if it stopped receiving US aid. Indeed, it is likely that Israel’s economy and military strength would both be enhanced by the strategic independence that an aid cut-off would bring about.

Yes, Paul is a complicated character. But that doesn’t make him Israel’s enemy. His bill was an act of friendship. And Israel can use more friends in Washington who actually do things that help it rather than suffice with declaring their support for Israel while standing by as its reputation is trashed.

And that’s the thing of it. The Obama administration can’t stop trash talking Israel. And more than ever before, Israel needs allies who are willing to take real action to defend it.

Israel received yet another reminder of this basic fact last Friday when Yedioth Aharonoth’s senior writer Nahum Barnea published an interview with unnamed “senior American officials” involved in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Those “officials,” it quickly became apparent, turned out to be the one and only Martin Indyk, Secretary of State John Kerry’s senior mediator.

In that interview, Indyk showed that among members of the Obama administration, Israel is friendless. Indyk’s interview, like serial anti-Israel statements made by Kerry, (most recently his anti-Semitic “Israel apartheid” remarks to the Trilateral Commission), and by President Barack Obama himself, was notable for its utter hostility to Israel and its Jewish leaders.

Not only did Indyk blame Israel for the failure of Kerry’s “peace process.” Like Obama and Kerry, Indyk insisted that Israel’s failure to bow to every PLO demand has opened it to the prospect of a renewed Palestinian terror war against it, to international isolation and to European trade embargoes.

Like Kerry, Indyk casually employed anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish cleverness and greed.

From the perspective of continued US aid to the PA, by far the most important part of Indyk’s remarks, like those that Kerry made to the Trilateral Commission, was his claim that the Palestinians will likely respond to the failure of Kerry’s peacemaking by initiating another terror war against Israel.

Indyk’s assertion – or was it a threat? – was notable because the US government is training and financing the Palestinian forces that would be directing the terror war.

Since 2007, the US has spent billions of dollars financing and training Palestinian security services and transforming them into a professional military. Trained using US doctrine, they are the strongest military force the Palestinians have ever fielded against Israel.

These forces – commanded by Abbas – share his supportive view of the terrorist mass murder of Jews. They share his position that Israel has no right to exist, that Jews have no history and are not a nation.

Since 1996, every Palestinian terror campaign has been directed by these security services. And as US Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who served as the first commander of the US training mission has stated publicly, these US trained forces can be expected to turn their guns at Israel.

While the PLO was competing with Hamas for leadership, Abbas deployed these US trained forces against Hamas. Now that the PLO and Hamas are unified, these operations will necessarily end.

Moreover, these US trained forces are already involved in terrorism. Over the past six months, IDF commanders have repeatedly pointed fingers at PA security forces claiming that the steep rise in terrorist attacks against Israelis in Judea and Samaria is being organized and directed by them.

This is brings us to the second reason why Paul’s initiative is so important. While it is important for Israel to find new friends in Washington, it is even more important for it to change the narrative about the Palestinians and their conflict with Israel.

The false narrative, which claims that the PLO is moderate and that Mahmoud Abbas is a statesman and a man of peace, has made Israel’s old friends in Washington unable to understand reality. So unlike Paul, these friends are incapable of taking actions that actually advance Israel’s interests and strengthen its alliance with the US.

The false narrative of PLO moderation has monopolized the discourse on the Palestinians to the point where adherence to the two-state policy has more in common with a religious faith than a policy preference.

Indyk’s hysterical assault on Israel is textbook behavior of a believer lashing out at a person who exposes the utter falsity of his faith.

The believer cannot disown his phony messiah. So his only option is to present the party that unmasked the lie as the devil.

Hence, Indyk’s vulgar assault on Israelis.

But while Indyk’s faith is fanatical, many others share it in more moderate, but still devastating forms. And they too lash out at anyone who exposes their irrationality.

Case in point is the pro-Israel community’s opposition to Paul’s bill.

The day after Paul introduced his bill, AIPAC came out against it. AIPAC opposed the bill, according to the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, (who herself violently opposed it), because its leadership believes that the PA security forces play a key role in fighting Hamas.

So a week after the Israeli government formally ended negotiations because the PA supports terror, AIPAC opposed ending US aid to the PA because, AIPAC claimed, it fights terror.

For her part, Rubin railed against Paul’s initiative claiming that it was “a phony pro-Israel bill.”

Paul submitted his bill for unanimous consent in order to fast track it to a vote and into law. AIPAC convinced some senators to vote against Paul’s bill, and so killed it.

In an interview with Newsmax’s Steve Maltzberg after the vote, Paul attacked AIPAC saying, “I think the American people, if they knew that [AIPAC opposed his bill], would be very, very upset and think, you know what, those people are no longer lobbying in favor of America and Israel if they’re not willing to put restrictions on aid to Palestine.”

In other words, Paul was saying, it is time to move on, and those who insist on acting as though nothing has changed since 1994 are not behaving as one would expect Israel’s friends to behave.

And he is right.

Paul may be a cynical opportunist. But that’s better than a messianic that prefers to believe that Israel is the devil than accept that the Peace Fairy doesn’t exist.

And yes, his refreshing embrace of the truth as the basis for US policymaking makes him a better friend to Israel today than AIPAC that refuses to accept the truth, (and like him, failed to support additional sanctions against Iran).

Rand Paul told Fox News after his bill failed to pass that he will not abandon the fight against US aid to the PA. We must hope that he is true to his word.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spielberg Presents Award to Barack Obama... on: May 06, 2014, 07:13:29 AM
Sad and disgusting at the same time.  Is there no end to liberal Jews' propensity for denial???


STEVEN SPIELBERG 'JUST DOESN'T GET IT'

Critics blast 'Schindler's List' filmmaker for Obama award
Published: 11 hours ago

author-imageby BOB UNRUH Email | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.


The news that Barack Obama will accept an award Tuesday from filmmaker Steven Spielberg for his humanitarian work on behalf of the Jewish people is evoking a strong reaction from Israel supporters and critics of the president.

Spielberg’s decision to honor Obama shows he is out of touch with the problems the Jewish people face, according to commentator and author Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs.

“With all the work Steven Spielberg has done in increasing awareness of the Holocaust, and not just ‘Schindler’s List’ but his Shoah project as well, he just doesn’t get it. It’s astonishing,” she told WND.

She contends Obama has allowed Iran, which has vowed to wipe out Israel, to continue to pursue its nuclear-weapon ambitions, “paving the way for the next holocaust.”

Her comments, and others joining her perspective, came after it was announced that Spielberg, through the USC Shoah Foundation, will honor Obama with its Ambassador to Humanity Award.

Read Pamela Geller’s brilliant books, all highlighted in WND’s Superstore!

The Hill reported the foundation was created by Spielberg after he finished “Schindler’s List.” The organization collects and preserves the video testimonies of survivors and witnesses to the Holocaust.

Nearly 52,000 such testimonies already have been recorded.

Spielberg was one of the top donors to Obama’s political advancement, with $1 million given in 2012.

“President Obama’s commitment to democracy and human rights has long been felt,” he said. “As a constitutional scholar and as president, his interest in expanding justice and opportunity and all is remarkably evidence.”

Geller said the attitude “is illustrative of the willful blindness of liberal Jews.”

“They have traded their religion for their politics. They have traded G-d (and their morality) for whomever is carrying the torch for human secularism. And now it is Obama,” she said.

She warned that Obama, through his action, or inaction, regarding Iran, is “single-handedly paving the way for the next holocaust.”

“Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. When Iran goes nuclear, it’s not a question of whether there will be a war against Israel and the West, it’s only a question of when,” she said.

And yet, she said, Obama has made it possible for Iran to openly pursue its nuclear objectives.

“Obama got nothing from Iran at the Geneva summit, but Iran got everything. Netanyahu said of the agreement with Iran that it ‘is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing,’” she said.

“One Iranian nuke can take out 6 million Jews. And Speilberg thinks that Obama deserves an award for this?” she said.

Geller cited libertarian thinker Ayn Rand said, who said “evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.”

“This is good advice for Mr. Speilberg,’ she said. “Withdraw your sanction.”

Geller said for the Jewish people, it’s “the late ’30s all over again.”

“Then too, the record of the establishment American Jews was shameful,” she said. “Then, too, Jewish leadership in America went along with the delusion that keeping the Jews out of Israel was the best course – because FDR said so. The American Jews went along then and they are going along with Obama now. Shame on Steve Speilberg for rendering ‘never again’ an empty slogan, devoid of meaning.”

Several Jewish organizations declined to respond to WND’s request for comment.

Joseph Farah, a former Middle East correspondent and now CEO of WND, WND Books and WND Films, wrote in a commentary, “Not since Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize have I been so outraged about an award.”

Farah said that in making the announcement, Spielberg “seemed consciously to avoid making a connection between Obama and his work in fostering Holocaust remembrance or even a commitment to the Jewish people.”

“It’s no wonder. Obama has no track record of accomplishment in those areas. In fact, I would argue he has not been a friend to Jews or the state of Israel,” Farah wrote.

“It’s difficult to image a more inappropriate person than Barack Obama to receive an award associated Holocaust remembrance. The other names that come to mind for me would be John Kerry, Obama’s secretary of state, who recently characterized Israel as an ‘apartheid state,’ perhaps the mullahs in Iran who constantly call for Israel’s destruction, perhaps Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority or the leaders of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or Hamas.

Farah said no U.S. president since Israel was reborn in 1948 has been less of a friend to Israel or the Jewish people than Barack Obama.

“He seeks to redraw the nation’s borders in a way that would leave Israel unable to defend itself. He has sought to freeze building by Jews in and around Israel’s capital. He seeks a so-called peace agreement that would involve ethnic cleansing of Jews in a future Palestinian state. Obama is not operating in the spirit of Oscar Schindler. On the contrary, he is operating in the spirit of those who appeased Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He is operating in the spirit of those who looked the other way as six million Jews were exterminated.”

He pointed out that Obama has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, demanded Israel continue to divide the miniscule amount of land in holds among the vast stretches of the hostile Middle East, pushes Israel to make peace at any cost with neighbors who are sworn to the Jewish state’s destruction and “he sat in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s pews for 20 years and never noticed that he was a raving anti-Semite bigot.”

Laurie Cardoza Moore of Proclaiming Justice to the Nations called the honor “absolutely outrageous.”

“One need only look at Obama secretary of State John Kerry’s pathetic leadership and comments since his appointment,” she said.

Moore said Kerry “has a record of inciting ‘terrorist attacks’ against innocent Israeli’s and, just last week, suggested that in the absence of a two-state peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority, Israel would become an ‘apartheid state.’”

“The very notion that Israel should be forced by the Obama administration to negotiate with the PA after they signed a ‘reconciliation agreement’ with Hamas, a terrorist organization, is ludicrous,” she said. “Obama never publicly condemned Kerry’s comments.”

History’s darkest hour comes to life in “The Forgotten People: Christianity and the Holocaust” on DVD

Moore said that only are Spielberg’s comments “an insult to Jews around the world, but they are also an affront to the thousands of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East who are being slaughtered as a result of Obama’s failed foreign policy.”

“In giving this award to Obama, Spielberg and the Shoah Foundation have been shown to be both contemptible and irrelevant,” she said.

Evangelist Ray Comfort, whose projects include “180 The Movie,” said it’s “a tragedy beyond words that a man who produced ‘Schindler’s List,’ a producer who said ‘I ‘was put on this earth to tell the story of the Holocaust,’ would now honor a president that has done more than any other president to further the American holocaust of the killing of babies in the womb.”

“Such misdirected esteem reminds me of the words of Scripture: ‘For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God,’” he said. “The butchery of millions of children in the womb is the result of man’s greatest and yet the most obscure of sins: idolatry. It opened the door to the Nazi holocaust.

Comfort said Hitler “created his own image of God and then killed in his god’s name, and idolatry has opened the door to the taking of 60 million lives.”

Related column:

Obama’s list is not like Schindler’s by Joseph Farah

112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What's Old is New Again - NYC - 1935 - Chilling... on: May 03, 2014, 06:38:51 PM
Are we here once again?  I believe we are.  Sadly, my many Jewish friends don't get it - most of them voted for Obama and are just now waking up...

http://pamelageller.com/2014/05/100000-new-yorkers-demonstrate-downtown-nazi-jew-hatred-newsmedia-doesnt-runs.html/
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi and related matters on: May 02, 2014, 08:30:06 PM
CCP,

I heartily second your thoughts!  grin
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Black Skin Privilege... on: May 02, 2014, 12:56:37 PM
Here is David Horowitz's and John Perazzo's brilliant pamphlet detailing the corollary argument to the indeed "awesome" article Crafty posted by the young white male student:

www.amazon.com/Black-Skin-Privilege-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B00BXPIHLA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399053246&sr=1-1&keywords=black+skin+privilege
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: May 01, 2014, 10:57:30 AM
I take this poll with a grain of salt.  Number one - WSJ/NBC is not in my opinion a trustworthy polling organization.  Particularly not NBC.  I'd like to see the actual questions asked.  YES - I think most Americans with a brain can see this President is completely incompetent when it comes to foreign policy.  After all - name one - just ONE - country with whom we have better relations now than we did when Obama took office.

That does not necessarily translate into Americans believing generally in a "non-interventionist" stance.  This president's policies have been an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions both on a domestic and foreign policy stage.  Americans understandably are more concerned with their immediate financial security, but we'd be wise NOT to draw sweeping conclusions from this about the overall foreign policy stance of most Americans.  The current sentiment, such as it is - doesn't occur in a vacuum.  People see what a failure this President is, and don't have any desire to compound the damage.
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Cover-up Makes Nixon's PALE in Comparison... on: May 01, 2014, 07:30:56 AM
Benghazi Smoking Gun Exposed

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 1, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

The idea that the Obama administration willfully orchestrated a disinformation campaign with regard to the attacks in Benghazi has now been confirmed.

An email written by then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and obtained by Judicial Watch contained four bullet-point “Goals” outlined as part of the strategy to contain the political damage engendered by the murder of four Americans on September 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. One bullet-point in particular revealed the Obama administration’s deliberate crafting of a deceitful narrative following the incident.  According to the Judicial Watch emails, the objective of the Obama administration was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

The email was part of a series of 41 new Benghazi-related documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed June 21, 2013. That effort was aimed at gaining access to the documents used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for her September 16 appearance on five different  Sunday TV news programs. Rhodes’ email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012 at 8:09 PM. It contained the following subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”

“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”

Rhodes’ email was sent to several members of the administration’s inner circle. They included White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

Another critical email contained in the documents was written by former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf. It was addressed to Susan Rice and sent on Sept. 12, 2012, at 5:42 PM. It provided a brief summary of the attack, and further revealed that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland had characterized the compound assault as “clearly a complex attack.” This characterization undermined Rice’s contention that the attacks were “spontaneous.”

Nonetheless when Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN she insisted, as she specifically stated on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that “based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.”

Sen. John McCain, who immediately followed Rice’s appearance, revealed the utter nonsense of her assertion. “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration,” he explained. “That was an act of terror, and for anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is really ignoring the facts.”

Not ignoring the facts. Making them up. As Judicial Watch explains:

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy.  On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

This revelation appears to contradict written testimony given by Morell to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last April, during which he insisted that “there is no truth to the allegations that the CIA or I ‘cooked the books’ with regard to what happened in Benghazi and then tried to cover this up after the fact.” Morell also claimed it was Rice, not the CIA, who linked the video to the attack. “My reaction was two-fold,” he told Committee members, “One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.”

Rhodes’ email blows Morell’s allegation out of the water, but a critical question remains unanswered: who did brief Rice in the aforementioned “prep call”?

A letter sent Monday night to the House and Senate foreign affairs committees from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and John McCain (R-AZ) addresses that issue. It asks both committees to compel the Obama administration to explain who briefed Rice for her talk show appearances, and whether anyone from the State Department or White House was involved. “How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor,” the letter inquired.

Graham characterizes the latest emails as “a smoking gun,” indicating White House efforts “to shape the story” of the Benghazi attacks and “to put a political stance on a disaster six weeks before an election.”

The White House says otherwise. In an explanation that strains credulity, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed the White House withheld Ben Rhodes’ email from Congress and the media because it didn’t deal directly with the Benghazi attack. “This document was explicitly not about Benghazi, but about the general dynamic in the Muslim world at the time,” he insisted. “The overall issue of unrest in the Muslim world and the danger posed by these protests … was very much a topic in the news.”

Yesterday, in a testy exchange with ABC News White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Carney further declared that the White House urged Rice to focus on the video because her TV appearances were ostensibly supposed to address all of various protests sparked by that video, not just the murders in Benghazi. Karl ridiculed that assertion and reminded Carney that he had lied repeatedly in the past. “You stood there, time after time, and said that she was referring to talking points created by the CIA,” Karl stated. “Now we see a document that comes from the White House, not from the CIA, attributing the protests to the video.” In response, Carney continued to insist the protests outside American embassies were just as big a story, that Rice relied on CIA talking points, and the Rhodes’ email was part of the preparation to respond to the protests in general, not Benghazi.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who believes the newly released emails completely undermine President Obama’s 2012 campaign narrative (i.e. “Al Qaeda is on the run”), also believes a more thorough investigation of Benghazi is warranted. “I think the Republicans have something here that really ought to be looked at,” he said Tuesday. “I just don’t know if there’s gonna be any interest in the mainstream media. They should, because this exposes a cover-up of a cover-up. The fact that it was redacted when the documents were asked for and only revealed by a court order is telling you this is a classic cover-up of a cover-up, and that is a serious offense.”

What Krauthammer is referring to is the reality that Rhodes’ email wasn’t included in the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May, when Republicans refused to confirm John Brennan as CIA director until the “taking points” memos were released.

Yet Krauthammer’s other point about a lack of mainstream media interest is just as germane. Some of that lack may be driven by the reality that Ben Rhodes’ brother is CBS News President David Rhodes, who was not enamored with former CBS investigative report Sharyl Attkisson’s reporting on the attack, despite the fact that she had been one of the few reporters to follow the story wherever it led. Yesterday in interview with Glenn Beck, Attkisson said she was glad to see “a little more light” shed on that relationship, even as she bemoaned the incestuous relationship between Big Government and Big Media, and the increasing level of intimidation aimed at journalists who refuse to abide that collaboration.

Unfortunately, many in the media are still willing to carry water for the White House. The George Soros-funded Media Matters insists Fox News is “distorting” the use of Ben Rhodes’ memo “to falsely suggest that the administration was lying about the Benghazi attacks for political gain.” Slate’s Dave Weigel claims the email “was largely redundant” and that the talking points blaming the attacks on a video “came from the CIA,” apparently ignoring Morrel’s testimony. Politico Magazine Deputy Editor Blake Hounshell tweeted, ”Can you point me to a credible, authoritative story saying the WH knowingly pushed a false narrative?” demonstrating a willful obliviousness to the efforts undertaken by Attkisson, Karl and Fox’s Catherine Herridge.

That’s water-carrying by commission. There’s also water-carrying by omission. On Tuesday, when this story first broke, CBS This Morning was the only network broadcast to cover it. ABC, CBS and NBC completely omitted the story from their evening broadcasts.

Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) spokesman, Catherine Frazier, expresses what must occur going forward. “This administration must be held accountable to telling the truth so that we can find closure, bring our attackers to justice, and prevent future attacks — and Hillary Clinton’s regrets are not enough,” she said. “All witnesses with knowledge of the attack including administration officials should be called to testify before a joint select committee so we can once and for all know the truth about what happened.”

A select committee on Benghazi has been thwarted by House Majority leader John Boehner (R-OH), who as recently as April 7 still insisted that the four separate committees — Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight — are sufficient to investigate the matter. “There are four committees that are investigating Benghazi,” Boehner told Fox New’s Megyn Kelly “I see no reason to break up all the work that’s been done and to take months and months and months to create some select committee.” “But your own people want it,” Kelly countered. “You got 190 House Republicans whose say they need it.”

Boehner remained resolute.“I understand that,” he said. “At some point, that may — that may be required.” We are now at the point, Mr. Boehner.
117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 30, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
Crafty,

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

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

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

Play if you wish.

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

Posted By Caroline Glick On April 30, 2014

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything at all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted By Robert Spencer On April 27, 2014


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

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

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

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

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

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

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

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

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

In it, they wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Robert Spencer    Apr 27, 2014 at 5:06pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted By Robert Spencer On April 25, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Spencer    Apr 23, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So should Congress raise the minimum wage to celebrate Easter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted By Caroline Glick On April 18, 2014

Originally published at the Jerusalem Post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there is Iran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there is Syria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today this is no longer the case.

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

These protestations convince fewer and fewer people today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who dat, Herr Wilhelm?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted By Robert Spencer On April 15, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s about the supreme power of the club.

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

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

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

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

That’s a strategy that has yet to work.

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

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

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

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

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

It can’t and it won’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s about the supreme power of the club.

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

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

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

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

That’s a strategy that has yet to work.

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

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

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

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

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

It can’t and it won’t.

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

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

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

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

Posted By Ann Coulter On April 3, 2014

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

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

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

Sorry that running a country inconveniences you, Chuck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s your bill for $13 million.

What’s this for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

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

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

Kengor: Thanks Jamie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, of course!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kengor: That’s correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

FP: Professor Kengor, thanks for your time.

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

Robert Spencer    Mar 17, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He made similar remarks in December.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It will be found. It may take a month or a year, but eventually, it will be found,” he said. “This aircraft didn’t vanish. It exists somewhere in the world, and it will be found, probably in one piece.”
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!