Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 28, 2016, 06:38:24 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97997 Posts in 2335 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 21
201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / World's Central Bankers Know Exactly What They're Doing... on: September 23, 2015, 01:51:24 PM
The Worst Part Is Central Bankers Know Exactly What They Are Doing

Wednesday, 23 September 2015    Brandon Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

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

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

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

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

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

203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller: Ahmed's Clock Stunt a Setup... on: September 18, 2015, 08:48:39 PM

by PAMELA GELLER  17 Sep 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 18, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raymond Ibrahim - 09-18-2015

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

How Hillary helps powerful men abuse women.

September 17, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is what she always does.

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

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

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

What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Palestinian Boy Aspires to "Blow up the Jews." on: September 17, 2015, 11:03:00 AM

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

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

Debates are no way to assess a potential President

By Dan Calabrese - Thursday, September 17, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 16 September 2015    Brandon Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By PAMELA GELLER on September 14, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts believe these numbers will only continue to increase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- See more at:
212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's Newest Campaign Ad... on: September 15, 2015, 01:46:06 PM
This really takes chutzpah.  The woman has no shame and thinks her constituents are idiots.  Kathleen Willey is rightly outraged.  Let's not forget that the FBI concluded that Juanita Broaderick's accusation that Bill Clinton raped her during his time as Governor in Arkansas was "highly credible."  The statute of limitations had passed by the time she spoke up.

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

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

Erick Erickson -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norquist getting a bloody nose is always a good thing

September 14, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 11, 2015  Bruce Thornton   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By PAMELA GELLER on September 11, 2015

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

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

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

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

Public schools are teaching our children the shahada.

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

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

14 years after 9/11 the jihad is raging.

It didn’t have to be this way.

- See more at:

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

Fourteen Years

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

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

On Tuesday, they tried to kill me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

Hillary's Self-Inflicted Drama

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

By Edward Morrissey
September 10, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Blood On Barack Obama's Hands... on: September 09, 2015, 10:00:54 PM

221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Poll: Trump Receives 25% of Black Vote... on: September 07, 2015, 01:57:14 AM
222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: September 05, 2015, 02:57:55 PM

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

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

by PAMELA GELLER  2 Sep 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the chapter titled “Mosqueing the Workplace” in my book Stop the Islamization of America to better understand this de facto imposition of sharia in America. It works this way: every accommodation gives way to more demands. Everywhere American mores conflict with sharia, it is our mores that must give way. And it is going to keep on happening, until someone, somewhere, says, “No more accommodation. We’re going to stand up for our own principles.” But no one is saying that now.
225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. Unemployment Rate is an Obscene Farce... on: September 04, 2015, 01:23:40 PM
226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: The True Nature of Europe's "Refugee Crisis"... on: September 04, 2015, 01:04:15 PM
This is not a refugee crisis - it is a hijrah - and Muslims don't want that known by non-Muslims:


“Refugees” colonize a continent.

September 4, 2015  Robert Spencer   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is also Europe’s death knell.

227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia to pass law formally dumping U.S. dollar... on: September 04, 2015, 12:45:55 PM

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


The upside of the Iran nuke deal.

September 4, 2015  Caroline Glick   

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better eight years late than never.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.

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

Thankfully, they are mistaken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, a rather glorious defeat.

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

230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia passing law to formally dump U.S. dollar... on: September 04, 2015, 08:08:33 AM

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

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

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

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

September 3, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the elephant in the room.

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

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

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

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

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

236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: August 31, 2015, 02:00:29 PM

Hillary Clinton’s worst punishment will be her failure.

August 28, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

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

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

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

Now she’s losing all over again.

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

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

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

It wasn’t a subtle message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Guardian: Central Banks Can't Save the Markets from a Crash... on: August 30, 2015, 09:45:50 AM
239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Summary of candidates' positions on Islam... on: August 29, 2015, 06:31:56 PM
This, as I told Crafty recently, is a critically important issue, and based on her position, one that eliminates Fiorina from my consideration until/unless she educates herself on the subject:

240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Latest Asinine Argument for Gun Control... on: August 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM

August 27, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   

And that's saying something.

Obama is determined to fight his gun control Jihad and attempted to exploit the racist murder of two white reporters by pushing his own political agenda in the dumbest way possible.

“It breaks my heart every time you read about or hear about these kinds of incidents,” Obama said. “What we know, is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.”

Since the set of people killed by guns includes terrorist attacks, this is a stupid and meaningless thing to say.

Obama could have equally said that more people are murdered than are murdered by terrorists. Or that more people died in wars than in WW2.

The various statistical attempts to minimize 9/11 that the left has been pushing all these years (more people die in car accidents in a year, etc) are obnoxious enough, but this is really aimed at liberals so stupid they have trouble walking upright.

Since gun-related incidents include suicides, Obama is giving us the incredible news that the total number of ways in which people are killed by guns is greater than any specific way they can be killed by guns.

Also the total number of ways in which people can die is greater than any specific way people can die, including gun-related incidents, therefore we shouldn't take them seriously, because despite Obama's Ivy League education, he has no concept of logical reasoning.

I'm not clear on the number of people who have been killed by carbon dioxide, but Obama has been turning the country upside down and destroying jobs even faster than usual fighting it. But if it kills fewer people than all the other gases combined, including it, we don't need to worry about it.

That's Obama logic. It's close enough for government work. Unfortunately.
241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brandon Smith: Wesbury is Either Outright Lying, or Smoking Crack... on: August 27, 2015, 12:57:12 PM
Lies You Will Hear As The Economic Collapse Progresses

Thursday, 27 August 2015    Brandon Smith

It is undeniable; the final collapse triggers are upon us, triggers alternative economists have been warning about since the initial implosion of 2008. In the years since the derivatives disaster, there has been no end to the absurd and ludicrous propaganda coming out of mainstream financial outlets and as the situation in markets becomes worse, the propaganda will only increase. This might seem counter-intuitive to many. You would think that the more obvious the economic collapse becomes, the more alternative analysts will be vindicated and the more awake and aware the average person will be. Not necessarily...

In fact, the mainstream spin machine is going into high speed the more negative data is exposed and absorbed into the markets. If you know your history, then you know that this is a common tactic by the establishment elite to string the public along with false hopes so that they do not prepare or take alternative measures while the system crumbles around their ears. At the onset of the Great Depression the same strategies were used. Consider if you've heard similar quotes to these in the mainstream news over the past couple months:

John Maynard Keynes in 1927: “We will not have any more crashes in our time.”

H.H. Simmons, president of the New York Stock Exchange, Jan. 12, 1928: “I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool’s paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future.”

Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist, The New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929: “There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash.” And on 17, 1929: “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.”

W. McNeel, market analyst, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, Oct. 30, 1929: “This is the time to buy stocks. This is the time to recall the words of the late J. P. Morgan… that any man who is bearish on America will go broke. Within a few days there is likely to be a bear panic rather than a bull panic. Many of the low prices as a result of this hysterical selling are not likely to be reached again in many years.”

Harvard Economic Society, Nov. 10, 1929: “… a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall.”

Here is the issue – as I have ALWAYS said, economic collapse is not a singular event, it is a process. The global economy has been in the process of collapse since 2008 and it never left that path. Those who were ignorant took government statistics at face value and the manipulated bull market as legitimate and refused to acknowledge the fundamentals. Now, with markets recently suffering one of the greatest freefalls since the 2008/2009 crash, they are witnessing the folly of their assumptions, but that does not mean they will accept them or apologize for them outright. If there is one lesson I have learned well during my time in the Liberty Movement, it is to never underestimate the power of normalcy bias.

There were plenty of “up days” in the markets during the Great Depression, and this kept the false dream of a quick recovery alive for a large percentage of the American population for many years. Expect numerous “stunning stock reversals” as the collapse of our era progresses, but always remember that it is the overall TREND that matters far more than any one positive or negative trading day (unless you open down 1000 points as we did on Monday), and even more important than the trends are the economic fundamentals.

The establishment has made every effort to hide the fundamentals from the public through far reaching misrepresentations of economic stats. However, the days of effective disinformation in terms of the financial system are coming to an end. As investors and the general public begin to absorb the reality that the global economy is indeed witnessing a vast crisis scenario and acknowledges real numbers over fraudulent numbers, the only recourse of central bankers and the governments they control is to convince the public that the crisis they are witnessing is not really a crisis. That is to say, the establishment will attempt to marginalize the collapse signals they can no longer hide as if such signals are of “minimal” importance.

Just as occurred during the onset of the Great Depression, the lies will be legion the closer we come to zero hour. Here are some of the lies you will likely hear as the collapse accelerates...

The Crisis Was Caused By Chinese Contagion

The hypocrisy inherent in this lie is truly astounding, to say the least, considering it is now being uttered by the same mainstream dirtbags who only months ago were claiming that China's financial turmoil and stock market upset were inconsequential and would have “little to no effect” on Western markets.

I specifically recall these hilarious quotes from Barbara Rockefeller in July:

“Something else that doesn’t matter much is the Chinese equity meltdown—again. China may be big and powerful, but it lacks a retail base and fund managers experienced in price variations, never mind a true rout...”

“Doom-and-gloom types have been saying for a long time that we will get a stock market rout when the Fed finally does move to raise rates. But as we wrote last week, history doesn’t bear out the thesis, not that you can really count on history when the sample size is one or two data points...”

Yes, that is a bit embarrassing. One or two data points? There have been many central bank interventions in history. When has ANY central bank or any government ever used stimulus to manipulate markets through fiat infusion and zero interest fueled stock buybacks or given government the ability to monetize its own debt, and actually been successful in the endeavor? When has addicting markets to stimulus like a heroin dealer ever led to “recovery”? When has this kind of behavior ever NOT created massive fiscal bubbles, a steady degradation of the host society, or outright calamity?

Suddenly, according to the MSM, China's economy does affect us. Not only that, but China is to blame for all the ills of the globally interdependent economic structure. And, the mere mention that the Fed might delay the end of near zero interest rates in September by a Federal Reserve stooge recently sent markets up 600 points after a week-long bloodbath; meaning, the potential for any interest rate increase no mater how small also has wider implications for markets.

The truth is, the crash in global stocks which will undoubtedly continue over the next several months despite any delays on ZIRP by the Fed is a product of universal decay in fiscal infrastructure. Nearly every single nation on this planet, every sovereign economy, has allowed central and international banks to poison every aspect of their respective systems with debt and manipulation. This is not a “contagion” problem, it is a systemic problem to every economy across the world.

China's crash matters not because it is causing all other economies to crash. It matters because China is the largest importer/exporter in the world and it is a litmus test for the financial health of every other country. If China is failing, it means we are not consuming, and if we are not consuming, then we must be broke. China's crash portends our own far worse economic conditions. THAT is why western markets have been crumbling along with China's despite the assumptions of the mainstream.

China's Rate Cuts Will Stop The Crash

No they won't. China has cut rates five times since last November and this has done nothing to stem the tide of their market collapse. I'm not sure why anyone would think that a new rate cut would accomplish anything besides perhaps a brief respite from the continuing avalanche.

It's Not A Crash, It's Just The End Of A “Market Cycle”

This is the most ignorant non-explanation I think I have ever heard. There is no such thing as a “market cycle” when your markets are supported partially or fully by fiat manipulation. Our market is in no way a free market, thus, it cannot behave like a free market, and thus, it is a stunted market with no identifiable cycles.

Swings in markets of up to 5%-6% to the downside or upside (sometimes both in a single day) are not part of a normal cycle. They are a sign of cancerous volatility that comes from an economy on the brink of disaster.

The last few years have been seemingly endless market bliss in which any idiot day trader could not go wrong as long as he “bought the dip” while Fed monetary intervention stayed the course. This is also not normal, even in the so-called “new normal”. Yes, the current equities turmoil is an inevitable result of manipulated markets, false statistics, and misplaced hopes, but it is indeed a tangible crash in the making. It is in no way an example of a predictable and non-threatening “market cycle”, and the fact that mainstream talking heads and the people who parrot them had absolutely no clue it was coming is only further evidence of this.

The Fed Will Never Raise Rates

Don't count on it. Public statements by globalist entities like the IMF on China, for example, have argued that their current crisis is merely part of the “new normal”; a future in which stagnant growth and reduced living standards is the way things are supposed to be. I expect the Fed will use the same exact argument to support the end of zero interest rates in the U.S., claiming that the decline of American wealth and living standards is a natural part of the new economic world order we are entering.

That's right, mark my words, one day soon the Fed, the IMF, the BIS and others will attempt to convince the American people that the erosion of the economy and the loss of world reserve status is actually a “good thing”. They will claim that a strong dollar is the cause of all our economic pain and that a loss in value is necessary. In the meantime they will, of course, downplay the tragedies that will result as the shift toward dollar devaluation smashes down on the heads of the populace.

A rate hike may not occur in September. In fact, as I predicted in my last article, the Fed is already hinting at a delay in order to boost markets, or at least slow down the current carnage to a more manageable level. But, they WILL raise rates in the near term, likely before the end of this year after a few high tension meetings in which the financial world will sit anxiously waiting for the word on high. Why would they raise rates? Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that the job of the Federal Reserve is to destroy the American economic system, not protect it. Once you understand this dynamic then everything the central bank does makes perfect sense.

A rate increase will occur exactly because that is what is needed to further destabilize U.S. market psychology to make way for the “great economic reset” that the IMF and Christine Lagarde are so fond of promoting. Beyond this, many people seem to be forgetting that ZIRP is still operating, yet, volatility is trending negative anyway. Remember when everyone was ready to put on their 'Dow 20,000' hat, certain in the omnipotence of central bank stimulus and QE infinity? Yeah...clearly that was a pipe dream.

ZIRP has run it's course. It is no longer feeding the markets as it once did and the fundamentals are too obvious to deny.

The globalists at the Bank for International Settlements in spring openly deemed the existence of low interest rate policies a potential trigger for crisis. Their statements correlate with the BIS tendency to “predict” terrible market events they helped to create while at the same time misrepresenting the reasons behind them.

The point is, ZIRP has done the job it was meant to do. There is no longer any reason for the Fed to leave it in place.

Get Ready For QE4

Again, don't count on it. Or at the very least, don't expect renewed QE to have any lasting effect on the market if it is initiated.

There is truly no point to the launch of a fourth QE program, but do expect that the Fed will plant the possibility in the media every once in a while to mislead investors. First, the Fed knows that it would be an open admission that the last three QE's were an utter failure, and while their job is to dismantle the U.S. economy, I don't think they are looking to take immediate blame for the whole mess. QE4 would be as much a disaster as the ECB's last stimulus program was in Europe, not to mention the past several stimulus actions by the PBOC in China. I'll say it one more time – fiat stimulus has a shelf life, and that shelf life is over for the entire globe. The days of artificially supported markets are nearly done and they are never coming back again.

I see little advantage for the Fed to bring QE4 into the picture. If the goal is to derail the dollar, that action is already well underway as the IMF carefully sets the stage for the Yuan to enter the SDR global currency basket next year, threatening the dollar's world reserve status. China also continues to dump hundreds of billions in U.S. treasuries inevitably leading to a rush to a dump of treasuries by other nations. The dollar is a dead currency walking, and the Fed won't even have to print Weimar Germany-style in order to kill it.

It's Not As Bad As It Seems

Yes, it is exactly as bad as it seems if not worse. When the Dow can open 1000 points down on a Monday and China can lose all of its gains for 2015 in the span of a few weeks despite institutionalized stimulus measures lasting years, then something is very wrong. This is not a “hiccup”. This is not a correction which has already hit bottom. This is only the beginning of the end.

Stocks are not a predictive indicator. They do not follow positive or negative fundamentals. Stocks do not crash before or during the development of an ailing economy. Stocks crash after the economy has already gone comatose. Stocks crash when the system is no longer salvageable. Since 2008, nothing in the global financial structure has been salvaged and now the central banking edifice is either unable or unwilling (I believe both) to supply the tools to allow us even to pretend that it can be salvaged. We're going to feel the hurt now, all while the establishment tells us the whole thing is in our heads.
242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The 14th Amendment Does NOT Confer "Birthright Citizenship"... on: August 25, 2015, 07:35:28 PM

I believe you will find this particularly illuminating:

SUPERB examination and explication of this subject by Mark Levin interviewing Professor Edward Erler on this topic on Levin's radio show - August 19, 2015:

243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Doing Better Than Jeb Bush With Liberals, Moderates, Democrats... on: August 25, 2015, 03:01:26 PM

Trump and Jeb Bush get the same amount of the non-white vote

August 21, 2015  Daniel Greenfield    

The consultant class messaging is that Trump would scare away far too many moderate and minority voters. So far there's no sign of that. In matchups against Hillary, the latest CNN poll shows Trump and Jeb Bush getting the same amount of the non-white vote (very little).

It also shows Trump having a slight lead among liberals, moderates and Democrats. The amount is within the margin of error and insignificant, but it shows that the claim that Trump will alienate middle of road voters isn't currently being reflected in polls. Or rather, Trump is not any more alienating than Republican candidates to a demographic that is thoroughly media injected.

Trump however does somewhat worse than Jeb Bush with independent voters and he appears to move a few percent of Republican leaning voters to Clinton.

Trump does much better with the 35 to 49 age group voters than Jeb Bush. His performance is terrible with younger voters though. And there is a troubling warning sign in the poll. Trump performs worse than Jeb Bush among under $50K voters, the people he's supposed to be appealing to with immigration populism.

Trump's biggest problem appears to be the South. Clinton and Bush are neck and neck there. With Trump, Hillary has a solid poll lead.

He does pick up more Tea Party support than Jeb. And Trump does significantly better in the Northeast than Bush, but that may matter less in an election. Trump is somewhat better in urban areas, but much worse in rural areas. It looks like that may be a hole in his campaign that he needs to fix.
244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: August 17, 2015, 07:24:59 PM

Thanks for the blast from the past - just put on my recording of "Nights in White Satin" by The Moody Blues - amazing...
245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Savage on Trump, Megyn Kelly, Fox anchors... on: August 16, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
Whatever you think of Savage - and often I don't think much of him - here IMHO he makes some excellent points in a hilarious manner:

246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: August 15, 2015, 09:33:58 PM
LOL.  "Everything is Awesome" should be Wesbury's and Grannis' theme song.   grin

Because everything truly IS awesome "when you're living in a dream!"
247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary is a Criminal - Time for a Special Prosecutor... on: August 14, 2015, 10:38:00 AM
The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed

Now Hillary finally hands over her server—after it's been professionally wiped clean By Sidney Powell | 08/13/15

After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled.

Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct. Anyone with knowledge of government workings has known from inception that Hillary’s communications necessarily would contain classified and national security related information. Thanks to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, it is now beyond dispute that she had ultra-Top Secret information and more that should never have left the State Department.

Equal to Ms. Clinton’s outrageous misconduct is that of the entire federal law enforcement community. It has long chosen to be deliberately blind to these flagrant infractions of laws designed to protect national security—laws for which other people, even reporters, have endured atrocious investigations, prosecutions, and some served years in prison for comparatively minor infractions. During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act.

It’s high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton’s likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws. While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and prosecute former CIA Director and national hero, General Petraeus. He was just tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance.

Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.”

But that’s not all. During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. To hell with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, even the New York Times reported that this administration prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers for “espionage” than all prior administrations put together.

Remember Fox news reporter James Rosen? The Holder Justice Department not only seized his emails immediately and without his knowledge, they suggested he was a criminal “co-conspirator” in a leak case—under the Espionage Act—which carries a ten-year term of imprisonment. And they quickly indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senator Menendez on extremely stretched or tortured views of vague criminal statutes and factual allegations of conduct that may well not be criminal.

Senator Menendez can’t vacation with his best friend but Hillary Clinton and her “Foundation” can accept millions of dollars from foreign governments seeking to curry her favor. Yet there’s been no criminal investigation of Ms. Clinton and her cabal? They couldn’t seize her server months ago while it contained all the emails? They couldn’t put a stop to it from the beginning?

Oh right, I forgot. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Ms. Clinton had declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight. And oh yes, her name is Clinton, and she has long deemed herself above the law. The rules only apply to everyone else.

But wait, there’s still more. The current Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Leslie Caldwell, and her Chief of the Corporate Fraud Section, Andrew Weissmann, destroyed Arthur Andersen and its 85,000 jobs on unfounded charges of obstruction of justice for destroying documents the Supreme Court said it had no legal obligation to keep.

The laws governing Ms. Clinton’s obligations are clear. Nonetheless, they haven’t even convened a grand jury to look into Ms. Clinton’s longstanding assertion that she wiped her server clean—of documents she was legally required to keep? On top of that, there can be little doubt that Eric Holder and other high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials themselves wrote Ms. Clinton at—not to mention countless communications with the President and “All His Muses”—Counter-terrrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and then White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler (not to mention Valerie Jarrett)—about Benghazi and all other top secret and classified issues. The DOJ hasn’t subpoenaed the emails from any of the recipients—or the internet service providers? Or looked for them on the backup government servers of the accounts of all the recipients?

And the State Department still today is making statements defending her? Not only did Ms. Clinton deliberately demonstrate disdain for the Federal Records Act and nullify the protections of the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Espionage Act by having information relating to the national defense on her server at all. And her deliberate disregard for national security made the job of all hackers that much easier.

As Andy McCarthy explained it in the National Review: In fact, the espionage act—which regulates the handling of intelligence by government officials — does not refer to classified information; it refers to information relating to the national defense. Moreover, it does not prohibit solely the transmission of such information; it criminalizes the communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; causing communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; permitting the removal of that information from its proper place of custody through gross negligence; permitting that information to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed through gross negligence; or, failing to make a prompt report to superiors in the government when an official knows that the information has been removed from its proper place of custody, communicated to someone not authorized to have it, lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

See also Title 18 United States Code Section 2071 (prohibiting destruction of records). The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community has advised Congress that even in the few emails he has reviewed, there was top secret information—in the form of digital satellite imagery and signals intelligence. Regardless of how it was marked, and no doubt Ms. Clinton will blame others, even a neophyte would have known that such information was of the highest secrecy.

Not surprisingly, the first seeds of Ms. Clinton’s deflecting the blame to underlings were sown by her protectors in the State Department itself last night. Aside from that, her knowledge and intent do not matter under some of these statutes and are indefensible under others. General Petraeus certainly had no criminal intent, and neither did any of the reporters. Ms. Clinton, however, established her entire system to avoid the law and in violation of the Espionage Act—as she and her co-conspirators removed all records from the State Department from its inception. Compounding her crimes, she knowingly and willfully destroyed whatever she wanted to destroy—despite or more likely because of—the incriminating information it contained and in the face of the Benghazi investigation.

There’s still more. The countless false statements are crimes under 18 United States Code Section 1001—both by Ms. Clinton to Congress (“no classified information”) and in writing by Cheryl Mills to the State Department and just filed with Judge Sullivan—in which she states: “On matters pertaining to the conduct of government business, it was her practice to use the officials’ government email accounts.”

We already know that Ms. Clinton used her personal server exclusively. Title 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a crime for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” falsify, conceal, or cover up “a material fact,” or make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation,” etc. Countless people are convicted felons under this statute—some for offenses that would never occur to anyone even to be a crime. And these are just a few of the possible statutes that it would appear to any federal prosecutor that she and her corrupt cabal violated.

As Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had the guts to say last night on FoxNews, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal.” Military heroes who have risked their lives for this country have gone to prison for less. The Department of Justice’s selective prosecutions have been well-documented. Its favoritism and targeting practices must end.

As discussed on NewsMaxTV’s Hardline last night, it’s time for a national outcry for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and indict Ms. Clinton’s flagrant violations of some of our most important laws. Anyone else would have been arrested by now.

Until there is a massive change in this country, justice is a game.

248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Administration Decided to Support Al-Qaeda? on: August 13, 2015, 10:56:02 AM

Dare anyone call it treason?

August 12, 2015  Robert Spencer   

Editor's note: The following is the first article in the FrontPage series "Obama's Betrayals," which will explore the president's record of perfidy, malfeasance and crimes against the American people. As the Obama presidency enters its final stages, examples of this treachery are only becoming more numerous and brazen. "Obama's Betrayals" will shine the spotlight on these attacks on the American polity, the incredible damage they are inflicting on the nation, and the dangerous agenda the president intends to complete before leaving office.

It doesn’t get any more explosive than this: a high-ranking former Obama administration official charging that the administration made a conscious decision to support al-Qaeda – so where is the mainstream media?

Brad Hoff reported in Foreign Policy Journal last Friday that “in Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was ‘a willful decision.’”

When Hasan asked Flynn if “the administration turned a blind eye” to analyses explaining how the Syrian “rebels” against the Assad regime were actually Islamic jihadists who wanted to establish a hardline Sharia state in Syria, Flynn responded: “I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”

“A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?,” asked Hasan.

Flynn responded: “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.” That is, arm those Salafist, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood elements, and do all they could to enable them to succeed.

One has to pause and consider the source for all this. Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State.

And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that? It has been well known for years that Obama has energetically supported the Muslim Brotherhood – so well known that Egyptians protesting against the corrupt and tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi in 2013 held up signs calling on Obama to “stop supporting terrorism.”

But al-Qaeda? The former head of the DIA revealing that the Obama administration made a conscious decision to aid the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 and has been waging global warfare against the United States ever since? That is something else again.

It would, however, be consistent with so many odd aspects of Obama’s behavior. The President has aroused controversy over his affinity with Islam throughout his presidency, with his extravagant praise of the non-existent Islamic role in the founding and growth of the American republic, his exaggeration of Muslim achievements, his refusal to name the global jihad threat in any accurate manner, and so much more – even small incidents such as his notorious 2008 “slip of the tongue” in which he referred to “my Muslim faith,” right up to the one that broke in February 2015, when a photo surfaced from the U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in August 2014, showing Obama passing by a group of African delegates with his right index finger raised in a gesture strongly reminiscent of the Islamic State’s now notorious one-finger salute.

That Islamic State, of course, was the direct beneficiary of Obama’s Syria policies, and now Michael Flynn has revealed that that was essentially the plan all along. So why isn’t the honking gaggle of Republican presidential candidates saying anything about this – demanding an investigation, asking Flynn for more information, imploring Obama to come clean about his Syria strategy – anything at all? In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.

Why that is so remains a mystery. Can it be that Flynn’s allegations are simply too hot to handle for everyone, and that, if taken seriously, they would bring down many more people than just Barack Obama? That seems to be the only remotely plausible explanation. But it is a deeply disquieting one.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His next book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, is coming August 24.
249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: August 12, 2015, 03:09:52 PM
With regard to Crafty's concern that Trump is secretly in cahoots with the Clintons - I find that very hard to believe at this point - since IF that were true, we never would have even heard about the phone call in the first place.  Note well that it was a CLINTON aide that leaked that story.  Highly unlikely scenario in my opinion - plus - no one seems to be able to pin down the date of this phone conversation more precisely than within a 3-month period. 

Rush addressed this specific concern on his program yesterday, as he had two callers in a row advancing Crafty's hypothesis.  His response was that he finds it highly unlikely that this is the case - that he suspects the phone call never even occurred - but that ultimately, he understands the concern that Trump is a phony (not who he says he is) and that all of this will come out in the wash before long if that is in fact the case.  We have a LONG time to go before the election.  It's still quite early, and I also believe that if Trump's candidacy is a Democrat plot, it's an almost unbelievably stupid one, and will be exposed sooner rather than later.

250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / American Imams "Shocked" to Find Terrorists In Their Mosques... on: August 11, 2015, 03:58:16 PM
Shocked, Shocked to Find That Terror Is Going On in Here!

Posted By Robert Spencer On August 10, 2015

It’s an iconic moment in American cinema, from Casablanca: Captain Renault tells Rick Blaine that he is “shocked! shocked!” to discover that gambling is going on in his establishment, and that it will be immediately closed — just as a clerk approaches and hands Renault his winnings. Muslims aren’t generally known for cinematic tributes, but mosque leaders around the country deserve Oscars for how they reenact this scene every time a jihadi is apprehended. For how long are law enforcement officials going to fall for the act?

The latest example comes courtesy of Arafat Nagi of Lackawanna, New York, who was arrested last week for recruiting for the Islamic State. According to WIVB [1], the local Muslim community is “devastated and in shock.”

In shock, eh? Dr. Khalid Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said that Nagi “had withdrawn from the community about three years ago. He had some domestic issues, some family issues.” Ah, that does explain it. Qazi is implying that Nagi was a bit unbalanced, leading to his involvement with the Islamic State, and that if he hadn’t withdrawn from the peaceful Muslim community three years ago, this wouldn’t have happened.

But wait: back in 2002, Nagi had wanted to join the Lackawanna Six [2] – six local Muslims who attended an al-Qaeda training camp.

According to Qazi, Nagi withdrew — he wasn’t expelled for his “extremism,” but withdrew — from the local Muslim community only three years ago. That means that for ten years after trying to join an al-Qaeda group, Nagi was presumably a member in good standing of the local Muslim community.

Clearly his recent arrest shows that he hadn’t given up his “extremism.” Yet when Nagi is arrested, the local community is “in shock”? They knew for at least thirteen years that Nagi was a supporter of the violent jihad doctrine they supposedly reject and abhor. What was shocking about his arrest?

Qazi was, of course, posturing for the media and law enforcement authorities, and there is no indication that either didn’t wholly swallow his act. Indeed, despite the fact that this same act has played all over the country, it always gets rave reviews.

It played in Birmingham, Alabama, last April [3], when a young Muslim woman fled to the Islamic State. A spokesman for the girl’s parents — why did they need a spokesman? — said:

For them this is worse than losing the life of a child, to have them join such a horrible, horrible gang of violent extremists. Nothing can describe the pain they are facing.

The spokesman was none other than Hassan Shibly, a lawyer and the chief executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with established ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood [4].

Shibly claimed that the woman had withdrawn from the local Muslim community a year before joining the Islamic State, and added:

The reason she withdrew from the community is because the Muslim community is very vocal against groups like ISIS … she made the decision based on her communication online with them that she wanted to join them.

He didn’t bother to explain why the peaceful Islam the young woman presumably learned from the community and her shocked and devastated parents wasn’t able to withstand the appeal of a supposedly twisted, hijacked version of the religion. He didn’t have to: he could be secure in the knowledge that no one would ask him to do so.

And so it goes. After the July 16 jihad massacre of U.S. Marines in Chattanooga by Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Times Free Press [5] reported that Bassam Issa, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga:

… has said how shocked he was to find out that a young man who went to his mosque harbored radical ideas. He doesn’t see how anything Abdulazeez learned locally could have led to such thinking or to such a tragic plan.

And last April, a Muslim woman named Noelle Valentzas was arrested [6] for plotting, along with another Muslim woman, a jihad bombing on U.S. soil. Valentzas’ husband, Abu Bakr, said of his wife’s arrest:

I don’t believe any of it, period. We are all shocked, the whole community. That’s not who she is.

But back in 2007, Abu Bakr was photographed [7] at the Muslim Day Parade in New York City with the black flag of jihad. He carried it at other parades as well.

A particularly hammy version of this play-acting came in Rochester, New York, in June 2014 [8], when Mufid Elfgeeh, a Muslim local restaurant owner, was arrested for plotting to murder American soldiers. Sareer Fazili, president of the Islamic Center of Rochester, said:

Our religion is one of peace and one of submission and I think all of our friends in the faith based community know that.  … I’m very shocked, I’m very upset, very disappointed that somebody who claims they follow Islam, the same religion that has been taught for so many years would think that he is within the bounds of our teachings because nothing could be further from the truth.

He was shocked to hear that someone who professes to be a Muslim would commit an act of violence? Really?

Had Sareer Fazili never heard of 9/11? 7/7? The Bali bombing? The Boston Marathon bombing? The Fort Hood massacre? Or any of the thousands of other jihad attacks perpetrated by people who not only profess to be Muslim, but say that when they bomb and kill they are following the teachings of Islam?

Fazili also said, according to WHEC [8], that he “does not believe Elfgeeh has ever been a member of the Islamic Center.” That may be, but it is noteworthy how so many devout Muslims who turn to violent jihad — Elfgeeh had tweeted “about the prophet Muhammad and terrorist groups fighting in the name of Allah” — never seem to go to mosque.

Every time there is a jihad attack or plot in the U.S., local Muslims say that no one knew him, he never went to mosque. Yet by their own words, these people are fanatically devout and observant.

Anyway, relax: “Members of the Islamic Center say these beliefs are foreign and are not what is taught at their center.”

Great. So do they teach against these beliefs, which are so widespread as to not be shocking at all, at the Center? Do they teach young Muslims why they should reject the al-Qaeda view of Islam on Qur’anic grounds? Why are there no such programs anywhere? And why does no one ever ask why?

Khalid Qazi, Hassan Shibly, Bassam Issa, Abu Bakr, Sareer Fazili and the rest all do an admirable job playing Captain Renault, but it is time for this play to close, and for law enforcement officials and the mainstream media to get more skeptical about these professions of shock and dismay at every jihad arrest. These jihadis didn’t exist in a vacuum, much as these Qur’an-toting Renaults would have us believe otherwise. If it doesn’t stop soon, this credulity could be the death of us.

Article printed from PJ Media:
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 21
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!