Pages: 1  3 4 ... 16
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NYT (a.k.a. here as "Pravda on the Hudson") Hypocrisy regarding Garland Event...
on: May 12, 2015, 12:56:13 PM
This is an excellent, incisive piece, demonstrating admittedly, what we already know about The New York Times - fit only for a bird-cage liner:
‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 8, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
When it comes to rank hypocrisy and leftist-inspired double-standards, there’s nothing quite like the New York Times. Despite the reality two Islamist gunmen would have undoubtedly killed as many participants attending Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, TX, as possible, the so-called paper of record chose to excoriate  those exercising their freedom of speech.
“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times editorial board condescendingly concedes. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”
“But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the board concludes.
For the pseudo-moralists who run the Times, such indignation is highly selective. In 1989, Arts Section contributor Michael Brenson was highly effusive when it came to defending  and praising artist Andres Serrano whose ostensible cutting-edge brilliance consisted of a photograph entitled “Piss Christ,” depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. He described the photo as a “religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze.” Moreover, Brenson was upset the about ensuing uproar over the original showing of the photograph. That unveiling took place at a group show underwritten by government grants and caused the National Endowment for the Arts to change its policy to one restricting endowments for projects the agency considered obscene. “People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect?” Brenson wondered. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.” (Italics mine.)
In 1998 the paper criticized  the withdrawal of playwright Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” from the Manhattan Theater Club, due to threats of violence. Corpus Christi was about  a gay Jesus, with a plot line that included the Christian Son of God performing a same-sex marriage, and Judas betraying him due to romantic jealousy. “What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America,” the paper stated. “The practitioners and beneficiaries of religious freedom attack the practitioners of artistic freedom–freedom of speech–without seeing that the freedoms they enjoy cannot be defended separately.”
One year later, Arts Section contributor Michael Kimmelman wondered  how artist Chris Ofili’s ”Holy Virgin Mary,’’ showing the mother of Christ replete with small cutouts of vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines, and a ball of dung representing one of her breasts, “could cause so much fuss.” “One of the casualties of political debates about art is always a complexity of interpretation, both sides needing to simplify the meaning of the work because contradictory connotations would undermine their arguments even though those contradictions make art art and not a political tract,” he explains. “People want a straight answer — is it good or bad? — which misses the point about how art functions, especially in a divisive context.”
In 2011 Theater Section reviewer Ben Brantley was especially delighted  by “The Book of Mormon,” a musical dedicated to the mockery of the Mormon religion. It contains a song entitled Hasa Diga Eebowai  sung by blighted Africans in a made up Ugandan language intended to translate into “F**k you, God, in the ass, mouth, and c**t!” Brantley addresses all the “doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up,” he gushes. “I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water.”
In short, the New York Times is very much in favor, if not downright ecstatic about, overt Christian-bashing. But not just Christians. Last year the paper was equally determined to defend  the “principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures” regarding the Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists — terrorists who shot the wheelchair-bound Jewish American and tossed him overboard. The Times insisted Met general manager Peter Gelb “should not have yielded to its critics” even as Gelb himself canceled live broadcast of the opera due to what he perceived as rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Times remained resolute about the importance of freedom. “Viewers may have different reactions and responses to such an ambitious and painfully contemporary work, but the arts can only be harmed by retreating from controversy,” the editorial board asserted.
Nonetheless, the same board contends that Geller’s exercise of a far more benign expression of freedom in comparison to any of the aforementioned examples is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”
Sadly, the contemptible notion that Geller is engaged in what the Times and others define as hate speech resonates with a number of Americans. An Economist/YouGov Poll reveals  only a small plurality of Americans would be against a law criminalizing hate speech. Only 38 percent of Americans would oppose enacting such a law, while 36 percent would support it, with 26 percent of Americans undecided. When political affiliation enters the picture, the results are as follows: Independents, 53 percent opposed, 27 percent in favor and 20 percent are not sure. For Republicans its 49 percent opposed, 25 percent in favor and 26 percent unsure. Democrats are a different story. A 51 percent majority of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate” speech, while 21 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are unsure.
Perhaps the Times is playing to its core support group. Regardless, the editorial board remains oblivious to the reality they favor the very same “right” not to be offended that ostensibly animates not just Islamists, but supposedly all “offended” Muslims. The paper may differ with Islamists on how to respond to such offenses, choosing to excoriate Geller and company rather than kill them, but their insistence that some sort of anti-Constitutional line be drawn between “freedom” and “hate” is to share the same totalitarian ambitions that form the heart of Sharia Law.
And while that alignment may constitute an alliance of convenience, it is no accident. The Times would like nothing more than to crack down on America’s “bitter clingers.” Thus progressives will temporarily embrace Islamists in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. That is why the Times and other equally feckless  mainstream media outlets are now wondering aloud  where the nonexistent “fine line” between free speech ends and hate speech begins. And it is occurring even as these leftist provocateurs devote far more time to undercutting the First Amendment than they do chronicling the wholesale extermination of Christians or the oppression of gays and women in the Islamic world.
How softly do they trod? “If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” wonders  radio host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to aiding the agenda of the jihadists, there is no one the Left wouldn’t throw under the bus.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick Defends Pamela Geller in Jerusalem Post...
on: May 08, 2015, 12:18:40 PM
|Siding With The Victims of Aggression
By CAROLINE B. GLICK - Jerusalem Post
Last Sunday, two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.
The notion that a rape victim deserved to be raped because she was wearing a tight outfit lights up all our red lights.
This is the case first and foremost because it absolves the rapist of responsibility for his crime.
Then too, attempts to blame a rape victim for her victimization infuriate us because they are substantively untrue. If men are more likely to rape women in tight clothing then rape should be all but non-existent in traditional Islamic societies. Yet the opposite is the case. Rape and sexual abuse are endemic to such societies. According to the UN, a whopping 99.3 percent of Egyptian women report having suffered sexual abuse.
There is a third, more general reason that we recoil from the thought of blaming rape victims for their suffering. One of the foundations of liberal societies has always been that victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ behavior.
See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
Over the past few days, we have witnessed a dangerous erosion of this principle among American elites.
Last Sunday two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammed cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.
The goal of the contest was self-evident. The organizers wished to defend the freedom of speech – and the right to life – of critics of Islamic totalitarianism.
Rather than standing with the contest’s organizers and participants, the US media from MSNBC to Fox News attacked Pamela Geller, the event’s main organizer and accused her of responsibility for the attack.
For its part, the White House has refused to condemn the attack.
The White House failed to condemn the terror attack, and the media continued their offensive against Geller even after ISIS claimed credit for the assault, promised to “slaughter” Geller and anyone who shelters her or gives her a microphone, and announced it has a formidable infrastructure across the US it will use to launch more attacks against Americans.
To a degree, the White House’s refusal to condemn the attack, like the media’s pile-on against Geller is understandable. Most Americans ascribe to the overarching notion of “Live and let live.” And it is a good thing they do. It is impossible to maintain a liberal society without a basic tolerance of differences between its members.
But there are groups that a liberal society cannot tolerate without ceasing to be liberal.
When a group says that society as a whole must constrain its freedoms so its members can feel comfortable, it crosses a boundary that cannot be crossed. So too, when a group demands that society choose between it and another group that is not issuing a similar ultimatum, it is crossing the line. In other words, any group that demands a limit on liberty and rights of others is harming the foundations of liberal society. If a society wishes to remain liberal, it must constrain such groups.
Champions of totalitarian Islam test the strength of liberal societies because they force them to choose. Distressingly, as we see with the refusal of the White House and media elites to recognize that like the rape victim with tight clothes, Geller isn’t responsible for the jihadists’ decision to kill her and the participants at her event, elite American society is failing this test.
Geller and her colleagues aren’t the only victims that America’s elites refuse to side with against aggressors. In recent years, on college campuses across America, university authorities have failed to distinguish between tolerant and intolerant groups and so have effectively sided with the intolerant against their victims.
The primary victims of this abdication of moral responsibility on the part of administrators have not been counter-jihad activists like Geller and her colleagues. The primary victims have been Jews.
According to a study conducted by the Louis Brandeis Center in Washington last year, more than half of Jewish students at US universities suffered or witnessed anti-Semitism during the preceding year.
This week, Mosaic, the online journal of Jewish affairs published an essay by Prof. Ruth Wisse from Harvard describing the rise and spread of anti-Semitism on campuses throughout the US. To exemplify the process Wisse discussed at length the rapid rise of anti-Semitism at UCLA.
Jew hatred at UCLA burst into the headlines in March when it was reported that members of the student government initially rejected a student’s application to serve on an influential board because she was “very active in the Jewish community.”
The story caused waves of indignation and revulsion from all the right corners. But the incident was not exceptional. A similar incident occurred last month at Stanford. And more no doubt occur regularly under the radar.
These open anti-Semitic assaults are the foreseeable consequence of campus cultures sympathetic to anti-Semitism.
Wisse recalled that at the start of the year, a consortium of anti-Israel organizations asked that candidates for the student council sign a “statement of ethics.” The statement included a pledge not to participate in trips to Israel organized by Zionist groups including the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowships.
One of the candidates that signed on was elected president of the student council.
A group of pro-Israel organizations asked that UCLA’s chancellor officially condemn the so-called “statement of ethics.” Chancellor Gene Block refused, claiming it was “protected speech.”
Block’s response was shockingly hypocritical. Statements of opposition to homosexuals, women, Muslims, blacks, and any number of other groups are not considered protected speech at UCLA. His claim that anti-Jewish speech is protected when speech against other groups is not is itself a bigoted statement.
Moreover, his claim that the “statement of ethics” is protected speech is intrinsically false. The content of that “statement” was itself an assault on freedom of expression. Its authors and supporters sought to coerce candidates for student leadership into agreeing not to expose themselves to Zionist ideas, and so silence Zionist voices and prevent open debate.
Block made a mockery of free speech by claiming that the “statement of ethics” was protected speech.
A straight line connects Block’s refusal distinguish between anti-Israel aggressors and their pro-Israel victims and the student council’s rejection of a student’s candidacy for office because she is “too Jewish.”
Block made it acceptable to blame the victim at UCLA, as long as the victim is a Jew.
In campuses throughout America, anti-Semitism is legitimate. Anti-Israel goons do not always win their battles for campus boycotts of the Jewish state. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t achieving their what they have set out to accomplish. The primary purpose of anti-Israel groups on campus is not to pass boycott resolutions. Their goal is first and foremost to normalize anti-Semitism by normalizing the libelous claim that there is something intrinsically controversial if not evil about Zionism, Israel, and Jews who support Israel.
Just as the media claims that Geller is responsible for the jihadist attack against her own event, so at US universities, pro-Israel activists -- and even non-activist Jewish students and professors who refuse to condemn Israel -- are accused of racism. According to the prevailing wisdom, the Jews are the bigots and the aggressors because they refuse to condemn Israel and even dare to support it. In so doing, they hurt the feelings of the anti-Israel activists that cannot peacefully coexist with people who support Israel’s right to exist.
The opposite of course is the case.
The anti-Israel students, like the terrorists in Texas cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a liberal society. By demanding that wider society on and off campus choose between them and the Jews who make no parallel demand, they demand that American society side with intolerance and against its foundational principle of “Live and let live.”
One of the great difficulties that those who fight the anti-Semites on campuses face is the fact that a significant number of Jews have joined the anti-Semites in their quest to expel Jews from the public square. Organizations like J Street and Jewish Voices for Peace were established to give a Jewish stamp of approval to anti-Israel campaigns. And they aren’t the only Jews stymying efforts to force university administrations to side with the Jews against their attackers.
Last month, the heads of the Jewish Federation in Orange County reportedly interfered with student celebrations of Yom Haatzmaut at University of California at Irvine on behalf of Muslim anti-Israel protesters who sought to ruin the festivities. According to a report of the events at the online Frontpage Magazine, the pro-Israel students separated participants in their event from Muslim student protesters by placing a line of students waving Israeli and American flags between them.
The move was angrily opposed by Federation Director Lisa Armony and Federation President Shalom Elcott. They reportedly insisted that the Israeli flags be taken down because they were “antagonizing” the anti-Israel protesters.
Next week a consortium of Zionist groups will be demonstrating outside the UJA-Federation building in New York to protest its promotion of groups that support boycotting Israel. The President of the UJA-Federation Alisa Doctoroff is reportedly a major donor to the New Israel Fund which funds pro-boycott groups.
The American elites’ – including the Jewish elites -- willingness to accept anti-Jewish discrimination on US campuses, like their willingness to accept attacks on anti-jihad activists like Geller is devastating for the American Jewish community and for America as a whole.
Their refusal to distinguish between the victim and the aggressor, not to mention their willingness to stand with the aggressor against the victim threatens the American Jewish community and weakens the liberal foundations of American society.
The rise and spread of anti-Semitism in elite circles in the US of course also threatens Israel.
What can the government of Israel do to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in America? How can the object of the demonization defeat those who demonize it?
Although its bare 61 seat majority makes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government unstable, a narrow coalition has a clear advantage over a unity government with the Left. If it wishes to defeat this threat, Israel cannot continue to speak in two voices.
Israel cannot fight the this fight when government ministers participate in J Street conferences. It cannot defend its defenders when members of the government say that Israel is only legitimate if it works actively to cede its capital city to terrorist groups that seek its annihilation.
The government’s response to this onslaught must be clear and uncompromising: The freedom of American Jewry to be Jewish, like the ability of the US to remain a liberal democracy is dependent on restoring the ability of Jewish Americans and American elites to distinguish between victims and aggressors and on their willingness to side with the victims. www.CarolineGlick.com
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: "Je Suis Pamela Geller"...
on: May 08, 2015, 07:00:53 AM
Je Suis Pamela Geller
Posted By Robert Spencer On May 8, 2015
I was standing next to Pamela Geller just after our American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest ended last Sunday in Garland, Texas when one of our security team ran in and told us that there had been a shooting outside. As the audience was led to another area inside the building and the outside was swept for bombs and additional jihadis, Geller and I were hurried to a safe room. It was the last time since then that Pamela Geller has been safe.
The Islamic State quickly issued a communiqué that included this:
The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [actually wilayah, administrative district] in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer [pig] Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.
On top of that, instead of rallying to her defense and to that of the freedom of speech, the mainstream media, both on the Left and on the Right, has spent the week excoriating Pamela Geller for daring to “provoke” the poor jihadis, as if the two Muslim gunmen who showed up at our event would have become fiercely patriotic stockbrokers if only we hadn’t shown those cartoons.
It is therefore clear that if, God forbid, anything does happen to Pamela Geller, the talking heads will look soulfully into the cameras and say, Of course we are shocked…Of course we condemn….but…wellllll…she had it coming…she should have submitted to Sharia blasphemy restrictions like the rest of us…
The reality is that if the gunmen were “provoked” by the Muhammad cartoons, they would have been “provoked” by something else. What had the Jews in the Hyper Cacher supermarket in January done to “provoke” the Muslims? They dared to be Jews. What had the people in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Australia done to “provoke” the Muslims? Dared to be non-Muslims.
People who say our cartoon contest deliberately tried to provoke a violent reaction are under the apparent delusion that if we abide by Muhammad Atta’s advice to the passengers on his doomed plane on September 11, 2001, all will be well. Atta told the passengers, “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.”
The jihadis are already “provoked.” As I show in my forthcoming book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS , they were already planning and preparing for massive jihad attacks in the United States long before our cartoon show was ever considered. No amount of submission on our part is going to change that. In fact, the more we submit to violent intimidation, the more violent intimidation we are going to get. Why should the jihadis abandon a winning formula?
The world rallied to proclaim “Je suis Charlie” after the massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in Paris in January. But when those jihadis targeted our Muhammad cartoon event last Sunday, few were saying “Je suis Pamela Geller.” What’s the difference? The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were reliably Leftist, while Geller is identified with the Right. And now it is clear: the Leftist intelligentsia would rather see the freedom of speech restricted, and Sharia censorship imposed, rather than stand with someone whose opinions they find unacceptable.
That really isn’t any surprise. The Left in America is increasingly authoritarian, intolerant, and opposed to the freedom of speech. Leftist thinkers speak only to each other, dismissing challenges from the Right with ad hominem attacks or ignoring them altogether. It would be easy for those who live in that echo chamber to think of the Garland jihadi gunmen, Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, as ideological kin: assassins rather than character assassins, but with the same goal in mind.
Those who understand, however, that the freedom of speech, and free society in general, cannot possibly survive the imposition of censorship to avoid offending a group that reacts with murderous violence to being offended, are indeed saying Je Suis Pamela Geller today. If the free world ever remembers that obeying someone who will kill you if you disobey only reinforces your slavery, it will owe her a debt of gratitude of awesome proportions.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Pamela Geller...
on: May 06, 2015, 11:23:26 AM
Both Pamela and Robert Spencer have had "targets on their backs" for many years now. Both have received countless death threats, and have to travel with armed bodyguards routinely. As for ISIS having reach here, this is a moot point. The war IS HERE. IT IS NOW. Whether these two jihadists were directly or indirectly connected to ISIS is really irrelevant. They were following the same sick, evil and repressive ideology. Americans need to wake up and understand that despite what this President and most of our media would have us think - these people are here now, and are prepared to slaughter us at any opportunity. This incident proves the point. Take heed. Be prepared. You will be made to care about this situation. (Not that I'm implying you don't care about it, CCP - just making a general statement.)
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller's CNN Interview...
on: May 05, 2015, 11:05:16 PM
Yes I agree, Crafty - Pamela is an impressive woman and an excellent debater. She defends herself quite eloquently and without malice to her accusers such as this idiot reporter. Sadly, this is the state of our media today. I attended this event in Garland because I am as passionate about the First Amendment as Pamela. Her cause is righteous. Americans need to wake up, as Pamela says, and fight back - not submit to this savagery, as this President and our media would have us do. Freedom vs. slavery - it really is that simple. I for one, will NEVER submit. I have and will continue to support both Pamela and Robert Spencer 100%, including but not limited to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them at these sorts of events.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NY Daily News: Submit to the Jihad Bullies...
on: April 27, 2015, 03:24:06 PM
New York Daily News: AFDI ad criticizing Hamas is “outrageous drivel” that “would offend many Muslims”
APRIL 26, 2015 7:52 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER
It is no doubt guided by Society of Professional Journalists policy that requires journalists never to state or imply any link between Islam and terrorism, but for Leftist journalists (i.e., almost all of them) these days, it’s a kneejerk reaction: when they see an Islamic jihadist vowing blood and murder, they immediately frame it in their report in terms of Muslims being victimized. So when there is a jihad mass murder attack or foiled plot, we get the stories about Muslim communities fearing a “backlash” against innocent Muslims. And in this execrable New York Daily News editorial, the first and only reaction to the genocidal antisemitic statement from Hamas that is depicted in our ad is to note that “the message would offend many Muslims.”
The Daily News means they will be offended at Pamela Geller, of course, not at Hamas. They should be offended at Hamas, if what we’re constantly told about the vast majority of Muslims being moderate, democratic, tolerant and pluralistic were true. They should see the ad and call upon Hamas and other Muslim groups to stop the jihad against Israel, drop the genocidal rhetoric, and teach against Islamic antisemitism in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. The Daily News should be calling upon them to do those things. Instead, it smears Pamela Geller as a “hatemonger” (in the photo caption) for pointing out that this genocidal antisemitic statement was made, and that nothing is being done about it.
“The First Amendment train: Despite Pamela Geller’s offensive nonsense, the MTA should continue to allow political ads on buses and subways,” New York Daily News, April 24, 2015:
After being forced by a court to run an inflammatory, anti-Muslim ad on the city’s buses and subways, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority aims to get out of the political advertising business.
Hamas is a Muslim group. It made the statement that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” in a video that also said: “Repeat in the name of your Jihad: Death to Israel!” Our AFDI ad was meant to counter Hamas-linked CAIR’s cynical and deceptive campaign trying to fool Americans into thinking that jihad was romping through the daisies and blowing milk bubbles through a straw. The ad counters these comforting fictions with reality, making the point that for all too many Muslims, jihad is something more lethal. The implication is that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be calling upon Hamas and other Muslim entities to drop this hateful rhetoric. Instead, the Daily News shoots the messenger, referring to the ad as “Pamela Geller’s hateful nonsense” and as an “inflammatory, anti-Muslim ad.”
With sympathy for the MTA’s tough spot, the agency is mistaken in trying to eliminate issue-oriented ads as a way to swat one annoying gadfly.
Pamela Geller makes a habit of throwing rhetorical bombs. She’s written books like “Stop the Islamization of America” and argued that President Obama is “consistently on the side of Islamic supremacist regimes.”
What, he isn’t? Where? When?
One of her latest proposed ads quotes a Palestinian TV station run by Hamas as stating that “Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah,” alongside the image of a young man in a headscarf. “That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”
Understanding that the message would offend many Muslims and arguing that it might even incite violence, the MTA rejected the campaign.
Why would the ad offend many Muslims? Because they condemn Hamas and its genocidal rhetoric, and back up their condemnation with real action to teach against these attitudes in Muslim communities? Where? When? Do they have a different idea of jihad and consider Hamas and its antisemitic jihad to be un-Islamic? Even if that were true, Hamas presents itself as Muslim group waging jihad in cause of Islam, and justifying its actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings. Do Americans not need to know this? Does no one need to call attention to it or endeavor to counter it? Everything the ad says is true: Hamas made this statement, and did so in the context of jihad. Muslims who oppose this view of jihad and this hateful antisemitism should be siding with Pamela Geller and criticizing Hamas, not her. And the Daily News should be more concerned about the fact that there are Muslims who actually believe this than about the Muslims who claim to be so offended by it that they want it off the buses, but don’t lift a finger to counter these attitudes within Muslim communities.
And the idea that it “might even incite violence” is also nonsense. The ad ran in San Francisco and Chicago without incident. The MTA claimed it would incite violence but could not adduce even one example of its doing so. And the violence would be from Islamic jihadists who would presumably mistake it for a pro-jihad ad. You’d have to be quite dim to do that, but if someone did, the focus should be on protecting people from violence, not on curtailing speech in light of the possibility that violence could ensue — for once we do that, we enable any thug to shut down any speech he dislikes by threatening violence over it.
…It’s well and good, and constitutional, to ban ads that could reasonably incite violence — say, with mocking images of the Prophet Mohammed.
In this, the Daily News is essentially counseling surrender to the jihad. Instead of standing up against violent intimidation, the Daily News is saying, Give in to the bullies and thugs. They will kill us if we say something they dislike, so let’s not say anything they dislike. That is the coward’s way, the path of capitulation and submission. What ever happened to, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? Gone and forgotten. And so also, before too long, will be our freedom of speech, and with it our other freedoms.
Beyond that, viewpoints should be welcome. New Yorkers are big boys and girls. If swallowing some outrageous drivel is the cost of preserving other worthwhile advertising in one of the city’s most important gathering places, so be it. One hater shouldn’t spoil things for everyone else.
So it’s “outrageous drivel” now to call attention to Hamas’ genocidal rhetoric. Which only ensures that we will get more such rhetoric.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Many Former Workers Are Not Even Applying For Job Openings...
on: April 20, 2015, 09:36:52 AM
Why Are Many Former Workers Not Even Applying for Job Openings?
Patrick Tyrrell / April 20, 2015 - The Heritage Foundation - Daily Signal.
There was good news this month: private-sector job openings rose slightly in February, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Openings rose to 3.8 percent of all private-sector jobs and the job openings—the highest rate since January 2001. Other data for the month showed the unemployment rate for workers age 25-54 (often called prime age workers) ticked downward to 4.6 percent from 4.8 percent.
More people who want jobs are finding them, but there is something else going on as well. The labor force participation rate for prime age workers has continued to decline. Fewer of them are working or actively looking for work than before.
How can job openings stand at 14-year highs, but the labor force participation rate for prime age people hover around levels not seen since 1984?
University of Chicago economics professor Casey Mulligan suspects he knows why. As detailed in his 2012 book, and elaborated on more recently in his blog, and in The Wall Street Journal, Congress made major changes to anti-poverty subsidies and regulations during the Great Recession. All these changes provided more benefits that phase out as recipients earn more money.
For example, the federal Lifeline Assistance Program began to give free cell phones and free monthly cell phone usage to applicants if their income was low enough. Mortgage-assistance programs cut the mortgage payments of people if they were not working, but those with jobs still paid full price. The Obamacare health subsidies fall as earnings rise, which is a tax on labor activity.
Mulligan calculates that the marginal tax rate, that is the extra taxes paid, and government subsidies foregone on an extra dollar earned working if taking a job rose from 40 percent to 48 percent within two years of the onset of the Great Recession.
As the recession began, the labor force participation rate fell along with the job openings rate. But as job openings rebounded labor force participation remained stagnant.
People who had left the labor force did not come back. As Mulligan says, “Helping people is valuable but not free. The more you help low-income people, the more low-income people you’ll have. The more you help unemployed people, the more unemployed people you’ll have.”
Mulligan tells the story of a recruiter he met who had many people turn down jobs he offered them because “accepting a job would net them less than $2 per hour, so they would rather stay home.”
If people do not work for $2 per hour, that does not mean they are lazy. It means they are reasonable.
Unfortunately the decision to avoid work to avoid losing government benefits—while often rational in the short term—has terrible long-term effects. Skills atrophy the longer someone is out of work, and government benefits carry with them no chance for promotion or advancement.
To fix this, each existing government subsidy meant to help the poor and unemployed should be examined by lawmakers to determine whether it creates incentives to work or to stay on welfare. Work requirements should be strengthened on all means-tested assistance, and the tax system should be overhauled to ensure that it doesn’t penalize work. Moving people from welfare to the workforce is a win for individuals and a win for society as a whole. It’s time for the government to stop encouraging potential workers to stay home.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's Aide Huma Abedin - Questions Must Be Answered...
on: April 14, 2015, 09:59:01 AM
|Clinton Campaign Kicks Off as Huma Abedin Probe Begins
Posted By Matthew Vadum On April 14, 2015
At long last the Department of State is investigating why a top Hillary Clinton aide with generational ties to Islamic terrorism was allowed to work in a sensitive government position while simultaneously working for a Clinton-connected private sector consulting firm.
Hillary Clinton and the senior aide, Huma Abedin, apparently conspired to keep the sweetheart working arrangement that the Muslim Brotherhood-linked employee had at Foggy Bottom a secret. Because it involves a Clinton, the story is, of necessity, complex and convoluted. And it’s classic Hillary as she tiptoes through a minefield of ethics violations, conflicts of interests, and potential national security-related breaches.
News of the probe came two days before the Benghazi bungler finally launched her long-awaited coronation parade campaign Sunday on YouTube .
“I’m running for president,” Mrs. Clinton said in the video. “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion.”
Yes, Clinton is a champion — of Islamic expansionism. She let four Americans die in 2012 so President Obama, in the midst of his reelection fight, wouldn’t have to reconcile the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya with his dishonest boast that al-Qaeda was on the run under his leadership. That she hired someone of questionable loyalty to the United States shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Until Sunday the Clinton Foundation had served as a de facto campaign headquarters and international shakedown machine for Mrs. Clinton. With her campaign now officially on, the foundation will probably continue functioning as what the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel calls “The Clinton Foundation Super PAC.”
“Most family charities exist to allow self-made Americans to disperse their good fortune to philanthropic causes,” Strassel wrote in a recent column. “The Clinton Foundation exists to allow the nation’s most powerful couple to use their not-so-subtle persuasion to exact global tribute for a fund that promotes the Clintons.”
Abedin herself is a Muslim who is married to disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). Bill and Hillary Clinton are reportedly so close to her that they have called her their surrogate daughter. Abedin, who almost certainly played some kind of a role in the Obama administration’s myriad catastrophic foreign policy failures, currently works at Mrs. Clinton’s personal office in New York City — or at least she worked there as of last week before Hillary launched her campaign.
Very few Republican lawmakers who are critical of Abedin’s working arrangement have raised the alarm about the threat she poses to national security. Some may have been scared away after the grandstanding stunt pulled three years ago by know-nothing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He bristled with indignation when then-Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and a handful of House lawmakers raised legitimate concerns about Abedin working in such a sensitive government post. McCain thundered: Abedin’s “character, reputation, and patriotism” were unjustly attacked and “these attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit, and they need to stop now.”
State Department Inspector General Steve Linick sent a letter  to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) Thursday advising that the inner workings of the “Special Government Employee Program” at the department are now the subject of a preliminary inquiry by Linick’s office. (The document is available here .)
“This program is meant to be used in a limited way to give the government special expertise it can’t get otherwise,” Grassley said in a statement Friday. “Is the program working the way it’s intended at the State Department or has it been turned on its head?”
Amazingly enough, the Obama-loving media establishment has been on this case of ethical gymnastics and the potential compromise of U.S. national security for a while.
As the New York Times  reported two years ago, under Clinton the Department of State “created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.”
On her mandatory financial disclosure form, Abedin failed to disclose the setup or how much she was paid. “[T]he picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider.”
In a July 2013 letter the State Department indicated Abedin was employed full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also indicated she did not disclose outside employment when ending her full-time status. The department kept her on as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of $74.51 with maximum pay of $155,500 per year.
When Abedin returned from maternity leave in mid-2012, her role as deputy chief of staff to Secretary Clinton ended and she became what’s called a special government employee, or consultant. A State Department official told the Old Gray Lady “that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.”
It goes without saying that the Clintons have long believed that rules and laws are for the little people, not them. They live by the maxim that it is better to ask for forgiveness after the fact than seek permission before doing something awful.
In the second half of 2012 while working at State as a consultant, Abedin also worked for Teneo, a high-flying consultancy established by Doug Band, who was an adviser to President Clinton. Teneo advised MF Global, the failed brokerage of Democrat Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey and former U.S. senator.
“At the same time, Ms. Abedin served as a consultant to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and worked in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton as she prepared to transition out of her job as secretary of state,” the newspaper reported. (The foundation has since changed its name to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.)
The head of the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) at the time, Melanie Sloane, engaged in Monty Pythonesque understatement when she described Abedin’s special working arrangement as merely unusual. “If she was being held out as a deputy chief of staff, it would be highly unusual for her to be a part-time employee or a consultant,” Sloane said. “Being a deputy chief of staff at the State Department is generally considered more than a full-time job.”
So Abedin was double- or even triple-dipping, working on sensitive issues in the Obama administration while at the same time working as a consultant at Teneo and the Clinton Foundation.
Political commentators might be more outraged over the Abedin affair but for the fact that the Clintons have always been shady operators. It’s scandal fatigue.
Pick a scandal, any scandal. There’s Whitewater, Juanita Broaddrick, Troopergate, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Elizabeth Gracen, Monica Lewinsky, Bill lying under oath and being disbarred for doing so, Filegate, the senseless slaughter of religious non-conformists at Waco, Texas, and many, many others.
There are so many Clinton scandals that Wikipedia had to create an index page  to list them all. Clinton-watching is an exhausting hobby that will turn into a full-time job for multitudes of talking heads, journalists, columnists, and activists should the Clintons take up residence in the White House again.
In the meantime we are left to wonder what role Abedin played in a long list of irregularities, mishaps, scandals, and America-weakening events while serving at the Department of State.
What role, if any, did Abedin play in:
*the Benghazi massacre and the coverup of it
*the State Department’s accountability review board failing to blame Clinton for Benghazi
*the failure of the Obama administration to disclose the cause of death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who was reportedly tortured and sodomized to death by Muslim terrorists
*the Obama’s administration’s perverse embrace of America’s longtime enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran whose leaders can’t go a day without screaming “Death to America” (and “Death to Israel”)
*Iran’s conquest of its neighbors
*the ousting of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi
*the rise of Islamic State
*the removal of longstanding ally Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt followed by the installation of Muslim Brotherhood favorite Mohamed Morsi in the position
*the conversion of NASA into a Muslim outreach agency
*the odious, lie-strewn “A New Beginning” speech President Obama gave at Cairo University in 2009
All these things that happened on then-Secretary Clinton’s watch. And they happened while the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation reportedly raked in millions of dollars in donations from the governments of Muslim countries including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Algeria.
Call them anticipatory bribes thrown over the transom in case Mrs. Clinton secures the presidency. (Statistics wiz Nate Silver says  Clinton is a virtual shoo-in for her party’s nomination but gives her roughly a 50/50 chance of winning the general election.)
As Hillary was screwing up America’s foreign policy, Bill was giving highly remunerative speeches in the Islamic nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey, according to Judicial Watch.
For what it’s worth, President Obama’s Cairo speech came on the heels of his worldwide apology tour in which he begged forgiveness from the countries of the world supposedly oppressed for so long by the U.S.
The oration was a major propaganda victory for Islamism that has emboldened fanatics and terrorists worldwide. It was also jam-packed with falsehoods, according to academics Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow .
The address, of course, is a breathtaking work of fiction  that whitewashes the blood-drenched history of Islam and falsely attributes accomplishments such as printing, navigation, and medicine to the Islamic world.
Obama gave Islam credit for un-Islamic things such as the Enlightenment and religious tolerance. Islam “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for European Renaissance and Enlightenment,” and “has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” Obama said.
Grabar and Birdnow counter that in fact “the intellectual Renaissance began when Byzantine scholars, mostly Greek, fled the advancing Turks in the 14th century and settled in Italy. The Enlightenment was openly anti-theistic and would have been anathema to most practicing Muslims.”
Moreover, they add, “Muslims wiped out Zoroastrianism, they battled Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries, and they levied a special tax on Christians and Jews in their domains.”
The lies in the Obama speech would no doubt be embraced by Abedin’s family. Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin’s connections  to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep.
Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin , widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 1978 Mr. Abedin was hired by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank created by Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden.
The elder Abedins both became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”
Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.
Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” Huma Abedin was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA has extensive ties to al-Qaeda. From 1996 to 2008, she was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington. Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then surreptitiously deleted their electronic correspondence.
Were Secretary Clinton’s dealings with the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton Foundation discussed in the emails that she deleted from her now-infamous private email server? We may never know.
There is, nonetheless, some reason for hope. Yes, it is depressing that even as evidence continues to accumulate that Mrs. Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.
Republican lawmakers seem for the most part unaware of Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism, or like John McCain, remain stubbornly in denial.
But with the State Department Inspector General’s investigation set in motion, there is at least a possibility something will be discovered about Abedin that will spark the interest of the party whose elected officials now dominate both chambers of Congress.
The exposure of Huma Abedin is vitally important to the national security of the United States.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here .
Subscribe  to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube  and LIKE  it on Facebook. 
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/clinton-campaign-kicks-off-as-huma-abedin-probe-begins/
URLs in this post:
 YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0uY7gLZDmn4
 sent a letter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/10/program-that-benefited-clinton-aide-under-review-by-inspector-general/
 here: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/Response%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Grassley%20Ltr%20on%20State%20Email%20-SGE%204-8-15%20Sign....pdf
 New York Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html?referrer=&_r=0
 an index page: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
 says: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/
 Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow: http://www.amazon.com/New-Beginning-Revised-Past-Barack/dp/0986018309
 a breathtaking work of fiction: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obamas-benghazi-propagandist/
 Abedin’s connections: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556
 Saleha Mahmood Abedin: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2557
 Click here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=david+horowitz&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&qid=1316459840&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&sort=daterank
 Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFMPMG/featured
 LIKE: https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Winston Churchill's Words Ring True Today re: Iran...
on: April 10, 2015, 11:08:03 AM
Iran, the Nuclear Deal and ‘The Gathering Storm’
Posted By Francis P. Sempa On April 10, 2015
Historical analogies should always be used with care. Events of many years ago involving different statesmen and countries contending with different issues and circumstances can, at best, shed some light on current events. That being said, the current push for a Nuclear Deal with Iran bears an eerie and troubling resemblance to the Western powers’ efforts in the 1920s and 1930s to ignore and then to accommodate German rearmament. What better place to shed some light on this circumstance than volume one of Winston Churchill’s history of the Second World War, The Gathering Storm.
The theme of The Gathering Storm was “How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.” Churchill recounted how well-meaning statesmen, with a genuine and understandable fear of war and its destructiveness, pursued popular arms control policies designed to maintain peace, but which instead helped create the conditions that led to war.
A key component of the Versailles peace agreement that ended the First World War was German disarmament. Churchill called this the “one solid security for peace.” The arms control regime in place after the First World War involved the Inter-Allied Control Commission and the League of Nations. Churchill wrote that to effectively enforce German disarmament it would be necessary for the Western powers to remain sufficiently armed themselves and “to enforce with tireless vigilance and authority” the disarmament provisions of the Versailles Treaty.
German evasions of the disarmament provisions imposed by the allied powers began in the early 1920s, long before Hitler and the Nazis came to power. An expanded officer corps was created under the guise of staffing civilian departments in Berlin. Soldiers were secretly trained in numbers that exceeded treaty limits. The nucleus of an air corps was hidden in various civilian agencies, and large numbers of German citizens were encouraged to participate in “commercial” flying. Naval restrictions were similarly evaded. “U-boats were illicitly built and their officers and men trained in other countries.” Civilian factories were designed for “speedy conversion to war.” Churchill noted that “every form of deception” was used by the Germans to circumvent treaty rules and restrictions, all under the watchful eye of allied arms control agencies. Meanwhile, Churchill noted, “the virtues of disarmament were extolled in the House of Commons by all parties.”
When the Nazis came to power they continued this subterfuge until Hitler felt confident enough in German strength and Western timidity to openly violate key provisions of the treaty. All the while, Churchill in speech after speech in the House of Commons revealed grave facts about German rearmament that British leaders and most of the world chose to ignore.
Today, the Western powers, led by the United States, are pinning their hopes for peace on an arms control deal with Iran, a regime every bit as aggressive and evil as Hitler’s. Hitler’s racial ideology led him to pursue policies—the extermination of the Jews and the murder or enslavement of Slavic peoples—that were inexplicable to Western minds despite the fact that Hitler had announced his plans in Mein Kampf. The Iranian Mullahs have likewise been open about their goals of destroying the Jewish state, converting or killing infidels, and establishing a worldwide caliphate based on a religious-political ideology that is also seemingly inexplicable to Western minds. Arms control did not work with Hitler and it will not work with Iran.
But the arms control delusion persists. It is based on, in Churchill’s words, “[d]elight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, [and] genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundations . . .”
The much-touted Nuclear Deal with Iran is in reality only a “framework” for a deal. The devil will be in the details. But even the Western interpretation of the framework would leave in place the foundations of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and as Churchill noted about the arms control arrangements in the 1920s and 1930s, “[t]he opportunities for concealment, camouflage, and . . . evasion are numerous and varied.”
Our desire for a deal with Iran—any deal—is of a piece with our pullout from Iraq, lessening influence in Afghanistan, miscalculations in Libya and Yemen, fumbling response to events in Egypt, and our unwillingness to recognize the religious and ideological roots of our enemies in the Middle East. Churchill’s unforgettable description of British leaders in the 1930s rings all too true today: “So they go on in strange paradox . . . resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years . . . for the locusts to eat.”
Francis P. Sempa is the author of Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21st Century and America’s Global Role: Essays and Reviews on National Security, Geopolitics and War. He is a contributor to Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics. He has written on historical and foreign policy topics for Strategic Review, The National Interest, The Diplomat, the Claremont Review of Books, Joint Force Quarterly, the University Bookman, the Washington Times and other publications. He is an attorney, an adjunct professor of political science at Wilkes University, and a contributing editor to American Diplomacy.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Arabian Candidate...
on: April 10, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
The Arabian Candidate
Posted By William Kilpatrick On April 10, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
In The Manchurian Candidate, the son of a prominent right-wing politician is captured by the Soviets and brainwashed in a secret Manchurian location. His task is to assassinate a presidential candidate, thus ensuring the election of the demagogic vice-president. Hence, the title “Manchurian Candidate.”
The film has several parallels to current events. The main difference is that in those days, Americans had to be brainwashed into serving enemy interests by psy-ops teams. Nowadays, they come self-brainwashed with some indoctrinative assist from the American educational system.
In the film, a scary lady with leftist sympathies who looks vaguely like Hillary Clinton manipulates her husband into high political office. In real life, a scary lady with leftist leanings who looks vaguely like Angela Lansbury (only scarier) manipulates herself into high political office.
In her case, teams of brainwashers are not required, since she has brainwashed herself into believing that foreign governments are dumping truckloads of cash into her family foundation because she’s such a charming and intelligent woman. And also because Arab sovereigns like nothing better than to do their part to improve the lives of the poor, the hungry, the environmentally underserved, and kids who need braces—in short, the very causes for which the foundation was founded.
Another similarity is that in the film, the Angela Lansbury character has some sort of hypnotic power over her son, the unwitting assassin. Whenever it begins to dawn on him that something funny is going on, she flashes a Queen of Diamonds playing card and he falls into a catatonic state of complete obedience. In the present situation the Angela Lansbury look-alike has merely to flash the gender card and, presto, skeptical voters fall back into line.
There are parallels to other movies as well. Today’s Queen of Diamonds has a secret server in her home so that her exchanges with foreign dono—I mean “diplomats”—can’t be traced. I’m not sure if the server takes up only one room of the palatial house, or a whole suite of rooms. And who knows what’s in the cavern-like basement? It’s all faintly reminiscent of those James Bond thrillers in which the villain’s remote island estate sits atop a vast underground military-industrial complex.
At some point the analogy breaks down. You could still convince a sixties audience that leftists were willing to sell out the country. We, on the other hand, have convinced ourselves that we live in a brave new world where such things never happen—at least, not in modern Western societies. No one would dare to pull a fast one on us because we’re just too smart. We’ve grown up watching CSI, we went to schools that taught critical thinking, and our history texts were written by Howard Zinn. We’ve also been nurtured on relativism, so if it were discovered that Arabs controlled the White House, we would shrug our shoulders and say, “at this point, what does it matter?”
The Clinton-Arab connection actually goes back to the time when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and worked to secure a hefty Saudi contribution to a Middle-Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas. But let’s skip all that and fast forward to relatively recent times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her longtime aide Huma Abedin as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department. When it was discovered that Abedin’s family was deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, very few eyebrows were raised. After all, even President Obama had relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood. So it would have been silly to make something of it.
It’s probably just a coincidence that while working for the Clintons, Huma herself was the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs which—you guessed it—is a Muslim Brotherhood journal. Before that, and while still interning at the White House, she was an executive board member of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at George Washington University. The MSA was the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States and George Washington was the first Muslim president. Well, the latter hasn’t yet been firmly established, but it’s just a matter of time until those Saudi-funded Mid-East studies professors at the University of Arkansas and the Saudi-funded professors at Georgetown (Bill’s alma mater) discover the prayer rug in the attic at Mount Vernon. It’s also probably a coincidence that, like her boss, Huma conducted State Department business using her own personal e-mail address, connected, one supposes, to the same master server that served her master so well… er, mistress.
Abedin also worked until recently for the Clinton Foundation. Again, this is no doubt a pure coincidence and, as the old saying goes, it has nothing to do with Islam. Although CSI investigators would have a field day with such coincidences, today’s government officials seem curiously lacking in curiosity. In 2012, Michelle Bachmann and four other House members wrote letters to the Inspector Generals of several government agencies asking them to conduct an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the government. They were particularly concerned about Human Abedin in view of her family connections and influential position. They noted  that the Clinton State Department had “taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”
The request was dismissed by numerous congressmen and senators as “offensive,” “insensitive,” and even “hurtful.” By that time the machinery of the “Islamophobia” industry was already in high gear and it was deemed prudent even by Republicans to defend Abedin and to damn her accusers as McCarthyites.
Still, the case for an inquiry seemed strong. As one McCarthyite, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy , observed, even if Abedin was innocent of any wrongdoing, the State Departments own guidelines about foreign family connections would disqualify her for a security clearance for such a sensitive position.
But then, again, a lot of people in sensitive positions don’t seem to qualify for a security clearance. For example, if all your closest relatives were leftists or communists, if your chief mentors were, respectively, a member of the Communist Party and a radical left-wing preacher, and if you used to hang out with known terrorists, you probably couldn’t get a job as a night watchman at an auto parts warehouse. On the other hand, if someone with the same background throws his hat into the presidential ring, he can become Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and get to set foreign policy.
He also gets to appoint Secretaries of State. It shouldn’t be any surprise if they turn out to be the kind of people who can’t be bothered with security checks. Such people seem to live in an ethereal realm that puts them above suspicion and above conflicts of interest. Normally, when a Secretary of State receives tens of millions in donations from countries that support the spread of a radical ideology, it would be a sign that something is terribly wrong. For an analogy, ask yourself if you would keep someone on at your firm if she had access to sensitive trade secrets and yet received huge gifts from rival corporations while conducting company business on her private server.
You would probably get rid of her pronto. But that’s only if you apply the normal rules of logic—which apparently don’t apply to Secretaries of State appointed by President Obama. If you applied such logic, you might also think there was something awkward about the fact that current Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter is married to an Iranian who has extensive family ties in Iran. As Kenneth Timmerman  points out, the FBI usually won’t grant security clearance to “individuals who are married to nationals of an enemy nation or have family members living in that country, for fear of divided loyalties or, more simply, blackmail.” Of course, you would have to be some kind of conspiracy nut to think that having vulnerable in-laws in Iran would in any way compromise Secretary Kerry’s negotiations with the representatives of a country whose leaders routinely indulge in “death to America” rhetoric.
Undoubtedly, the President consulted with his senior adviser Valerie Jarrett about the matter. Since Jarrett was born in Iran and spoke Persian as a child, she would, by current standards of expertise, be assumed to have deep insight into the Persian mind. She could have assured the president that “Great Satan” and “Death to America” are typical of the rhetorical exuberance that characterizes the rich and vibrant Iranian culture. Moreover, she could have allayed any concerns about blackmail. Anyone who has studied “Cliff Notes on Islam” knows that blackmail runs counter to the deeply held beliefs of the mullahs.
Jarretts’ family left Iran when she was five, but apparently those five years were enough to qualify her as an expert on Iranian affairs. According to Discover the Networks , it was revealed in 2012 that for several months, Jarrett “had been leading secret negotiations with representatives of Iran’s Supreme leader… in an effort to normalize relations between the U.S. and Iran.”
The mind spins at the –what’s the word?—the audacity of it all. But the curious thing is not that there are people in high places willing to put self-interest ahead of the national interest. Such people are always with us. The curious thing is that the American people and the American press accept it with such equanimity. During the Obama-Clinton-Kerry-Jarrett-Abedin years, Russia seized the Crimea, ISIS seized large parts of Iraq and Syria, the Taliban re-established itself in Afghanistan, allies stopped trusting us, enemies were emboldened, the Middle East was set on fire, and the Army was drastically reduced. Oh, and the way was cleared for Iran to have nuclear bombs. Future generations—if there are any—will wonder what we were thinking.
What we were thinking, they may discover, goes something like this (in shorthand brain language): “Mustn’t think that! Mustn’t say that! Not nice! What will people think!” You’d have to go back to the Victorian era to find another society with so much concern for propriety of thought and speech. Thomas Sowell put his finger on the phenomenon in a recent editorial . When it comes to matters of survival, he observed, we have “put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.”
He’s right. A sort of suicidal etiquette that chokes off common sense has grown up in our society. Under the rules of the new etiquette, we aren’t allowed to say that the Emperor has no clothes. We dare not even point out that the Emperor and his ministers appear to be throwing open the gates to the enemy.
Let’s see: The people of the United States elect as president a man they know very little about. When it becomes obvious that he has deep leftist sympathies combined with deep Islamist sympathies, they elect him again. He, in turn, appoints one Secretary of State who is beholden to Arab largesse, and then, after she steps down, he replaces her with a man who practices folk-song diplomacy and has close family ties with Iran.
The Manchurian Candidate? On one level, the current situation is so full of farce, that a serious drama like The Manchurian Candidate couldn’t do it justice. If you were to make a movie of the current mandarin mess, it might be better to play it for laughs—an Austin Powers-type spoof or something along the lines of Abbott and Costello meet the Manchurian Candidate.
On another level, the situation is so fraught with apocalyptic dangers that only a deadly serious doomsday film—something along the lines of Fail Safe—could bring home the enormity of our current folly. In any event, there’s a title ready made for it. If the first Obama election could be called Death Wish I, and his re-election, Death Wish II, then the election of Hillary Clinton would deservedly merit the title, Death Wish III—The Final Chapter.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Renewed Questions Regarding Huma Abedin...
on: March 31, 2015, 03:56:55 PM
Revived Questions about Huma Abedin
Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 31, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
Republican lawmakers are probing why Hillary Clinton’s longtime Islamist aide Huma Abedin was allowed to work at the State Department under a special, part-time status while simultaneously working at a politically-connected consulting firm.
Demands for information are coming from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) after the public learned both women used Clinton’s private Internet server and email accounts for Department of State correspondence.
But that’s only part of the endless sleaze and intrigue surrounding Clinton.
The media has also reported that Sidney Blumenthal, the Clinton administration damage-control expert known for his relentless attacks on Clinton family enemies and for being the father of Israel-hating pseudo-journalist Max Blumenthal, was apparently doing freelance work for Mrs. Clinton. Clinton tried to hire the elder Blumenthal at State but the Obama White House nixed the appointment because of Blumenthal’s aggressively slimy attacks on Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.
After Blumenthal’s email was hacked in 2013, it was revealed that “starting weeks before” the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, “Blumenthal supplied intelligence” to then-Secretary Clinton that was “gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer.”
Reports got some of the details wrong, according to the Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto.
“The reporters asked the most obvious question and got a partial answer: ‘A Clinton spokesman told Gawker and ProPublica . . . that she has turned over’—meaning to the State Department—’all the emails Blumenthal sent to [Mrs.] Clinton,'” he writes.
That is incorrect, Taranto notes. “n reality she turned over no emails, only printouts,” which are of limited value as evidence.
Meanwhile, as evidence continues to accumulate that Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin, who has known ties to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.
Instead of examining Abedin’s disturbing family ties that make her employment by the U.S. government a threat to national security, Grassley is honing in on the sweetheart arrangement that allowed the operative to get on the public payroll while raking in money from private consulting.
Well, it’s a start, at least.
Grassley complains that many previous requests to the Department of State for information have gone unanswered, so now he is sending requests to the agency’s inspector general and to Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry.
It was about two years ago that Grassley demanded information about Abedin after she moved from being a full-time deputy chief of staff for Clinton to part-time status and then began working at Teneo, a politically connected consulting firm that claims to bring “together the disciplines of government and public affairs.”
In a July 2013 letter the State Department indicated Abedin was employed full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also indicated she did not disclose outside employment when ending her full-time status. The department kept her on as an adviser-expert, apparently at the hourly rate of $74.51 with maximum pay of $155,500 per year.
“A number of conflict-of-interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company (is) Teneo,” Grassley wrote in a March 19 letter to Kerry.
Grassley asked in the letter “what steps the department took to ensure that … Abedin’s outside employment with a political-intelligence and corporate-advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department.”
“She converted from a full-time employee … with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities,” he wrote. In essence Abedin retained the same job and was later hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative.
“It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley’s questions also come after the House Benghazi Select Committee learned that the former secretary of state deleted all the emails investigators were interesting in looking at.
On Friday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement, “We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary [Hillary] Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server.”
Destroying the electronic correspondence could be a federal crime since the documents were under congressional subpoena. As Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner,
“There’s no doubt Clinton withheld information that Congress demanded she turn over, and some Republicans believe the documents she destroyed were covered under a subpoena as well. But a look at the story behind the subpoena and other document requests from congressional Benghazi investigators is a tale of obstruction, delay and frustration that underscores the limits of Congress’ power to investigate Benghazi. Clinton and her aides had the means to make life very difficult for Republicans trying to learn the full story of the attacks in Libya, and they did just that.”
Disturbingly, Republicans have yet to focus on Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism.
Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep. (She is also reportedly just as haughty and unpleasant to deal with as Clinton herself.)
Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin, widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania.
In 1978 the Abedins moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Omar Naseef, then-vice president of Abdulaziz University, hired Mr. Abedin, a former colleague of his at the university, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank Naseef was then in the process of establishing. Mr. and Mrs. Abedin became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”
Naseef himself was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.
Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” IICWC promotes strict Sharia Law and advocates the rescission of Egyptian laws that forbid female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape.
Mrs. Abedin is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian opposition newspaper Al-Liwa Al-Arabi has reported that Muslim Sisterhood members: “smuggle secret documents”; “spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes”; “fulfill the interests of the Brotherhood”; and “organiz[e] projects which will penetrate [the Brotherhood’s] prohibited ideology into the decision-making in the West … under the guise of ‘general needs of women.’” Nagla Ali Mahmoud, wife of Mohammed Morsi, the Islamist who was elected president of Egypt in June 2012, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.
When Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. and was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA had extensive ties to al-Qaeda.
From 1996 to 2008, Abedin was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Her brother, Hassan Abedin, an associate editor at the journal, was at one time a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. During his fellowship, the Center’s board included such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef. Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin, is an assistant editor with the journal.
Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington.
Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then erased their electronic correspondence.
What are these two women hiding?
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Krauthammer...
on: March 28, 2015, 10:30:03 AM
He said, paraphrasing - on "Special Report with Bret Baier," regarding Ted Cruz's announcement of his candidacy on Monday, that "We've tried having a one-term Senator as President and it didn't work out so well. We don't need to try it again." Essentially dismissing Cruz as a serious candidate for this reason alone. I found it idiotic.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Comparisons of Obama to Cruz, Rubio...
on: March 27, 2015, 11:58:15 AM
This infuriates me, as well, Doug. For someone as intelligent as Charles Krauthammer to make such an idiotic comparison based on Obama being a "one-term Senator" is beyond stupid. Obama is not who he is as a result of having one term (or zero, or 4) in the U.S. Senate. He is who he is as a result of his ideology, which is informed by his father and mother's hatred of America and what they considered to be its corrupt founding. He is an Alinskyite and communist to the core. His hatred of America and of Jews and Israel knows no bounds. To equate this in any way with Cruz or Rubio is completely mindless.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Leaks Israeli Nuke Secrets...
on: March 27, 2015, 07:15:03 AM
Obama Leaks Israeli Nuke Secrets
Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 27, 2015
President Obama ratcheted up his personal war on the State of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by leaking Israel’s nuclear secrets to the media.
This betrayal of one of America’s most loyal allies took the form of the Pentagon’s quiet declassification of a 386-page top-secret memo, titled, “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations.” The report from 1987, released just before Netanyahu’s address March 3 to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, goes into intricate detail about the Israeli nuclear weapons program and explains how Israel became a nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s.
Israel is “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs,” according to the report by the taxpayer-funded Institute for Defense Analysis. “That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level.”
By the 1980s Israelis were close to being able to produce bombs a thousand times more powerful than atomic bombs, the report states.
Israel’s nuclear infrastructure is “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories,” it states, noting that research facilities in Israel “are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,” which have been essential to the development of the U.S. nuclear arms program.
The reports indicates that in some cases, Israeli military technology “is more advanced than in the U.S.”
Israel has never officially acknowledged it possesses a nuclear arsenal, reportedly in order to avoid a regional arms race. By releasing the memo, the U.S. government has breached an informal agreement with Israel to not communicate publicly about its nuclear weapons.
Given the Obama administration’s well-documented hostility to the Jewish state, there can be little doubt that the release of the report was a malicious act calculated to undermine Israel’s security. Remember that red diaper baby Obama was a close friend of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi and that he is now putting forward a maximal effort to help the murderous mullahs of totalitarian Iran develop a nuclear weapons capability.
And when not golfing, appearing on late night TV shows, or berating Republicans as “enemies,” America’s Marxist president has spent much of his time in the Oval Office sticking it to Israel. It is hardly exaggeration to say that beating up on Israel is the cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy.
The sections of the report about Israel were declassified but the Pentagon “kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document,” according to Israel National News.
All of this means that the Obama administration, which is notorious for dragging its heels and failing to comply with even the most trivial of Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests, suddenly opted to declassify an ally’s vital military secrets while the media’s attention was focused on Netanyahu and his approaching speech. It used a dusty old FoIA request, which it could easily have stonewalled for years, as a pretext for the document dump.
The three-year-old request came from anti-Israel activist Grant F. Smith, director of something called the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), in Washington, D.C. He has written two histories of AIPAC and was editor of the book Neocon Middle East Policy, according to his official biography.
Breitbart News reports that Smith’s IRmep “organizes an anti-Israel conference each year in Washington, D.C. Last year, the conference featured speakers from anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist publications. During the Q & A session, a speaker openly called for education about the supposed ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration’ during the Holocaust, while another endorsed the possibility that ‘Israel had a hand in 9/11.'”
Meanwhile, an unnamed senior Israeli government official explained Obama’s hostile actions to the Times of Israel.
“The White House is driven by three main motives,” said the official. “The first is revenge [over the Congress speech]. The second is frustration: It’s no secret that they were involved in an attempt to bring down the Netanyahu government – something that we have clear knowledge of – and failed. The third [motive] is the administration’s attempt to divert attention from the negotiations with Iran to the Palestinian issue.”
Earlier this week President Obama sent his cadaverous White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to blast Israel in a speech to the Israel-hating leftist group J Street, which the top Obama aide referred to as “our partner.”
McDonough indicated the White House was less than pleased with Netanyahu’s efforts in recent days to explain what he was trying to say when he vowed there would be no Palestinian state while he is prime minister.
“We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made,” McDonough said. He added disingenuously, “The United States will never stop working for a two-state solution and a lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians so richly deserve.”
If there is no two-state agreement, Israel will experience “further isolation,” which a Politico article interpreted to mean there will be “more divestment, boycotts and efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international community.”
McDonough received a standing ovation when he said, “An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end.”
The Obama administration’s efforts to defeat Netanyahu in the March 17 Knesset elections flopped spectacularly.
Two weeks after Netanyahu’s March 3 address to Congress which 58 Democratic lawmakers boycotted, the prime minister’s Likud party went on to win a historic victory. Obama refused to attend the speech and with anger in his voice claimed he didn’t even watch it on television. The president, always the sore loser, also took his sweet time congratulating Netanyahu.
The Obama administration funneled U.S. taxpayer dollars to a radical anti-Israel group that aimed to drive Netanyahu from office. The U.S.-based group receiving the money, OneVoice International, in turn worked with V15, an “independent grassroots movement” in Israel, according to Ha’aretz. V15’s unofficial motto was said to be “anyone but Bibi,” a reference that includes the prime minister’s nickname.
Obama operatives temporarily relocated to Israel to try to give Netanyahu the boot. OneVoice hired Obama campaign aides such as Jeremy Bird of political consulting powerhouse 270 Strategies. Bird was national field director for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.
Even though Obama lost this fight, that doesn’t mean he is finished with Israel.
Before Obama leaves office on that glorious day in January 2017, he will have many more opportunities to do injury to the Jewish state that his insidious ideology requires him to despise.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Left's Ted Cruz Freakout...
on: March 24, 2015, 07:49:47 AM
This man represents our last, best hope of beginning the hard work of restoring this nation. The Left is simply telegraphing its abject fear of Cruz with its snarky commentary. I don't believe anyone is able to avert an inevitable economic collapse at this point, and we may be in for another massive terrorist attack on American soil before long thanks to Obama and Congress's inaction, but I don't see anyone as qualified - let alone better qualified - to take over the helm at this point of crisis than Ted Cruz. The Left ought to be afraid. Cruz is the crucifix to the Dracula that they represent.
The Left’s Ted Cruz Freakout
Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 24, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
Much of the political world went into full freakout mode yesterday as crusading conservative Ted Cruz became the first candidate from either of the major parties to formally announce he is running for president in 2016.
The ritual denunciations of Cruz, the junior Republican senator representing Texas, from all across the fruited plain quickly piled up. Since he assumed office in January 2013, Cruz has come under intense fire from the Left and from a few corners in the GOP. Some of the criticism is well thought out but much of it doesn’t rise above the level of schoolyard taunts. Some consider it a negative that Cruz, like Barack Obama, began running for president soon after becoming a U.S. senator.
His willingness to buck members of his own party –and to openly criticize other Republicans– when his conservative principles require it has won him legions of admirers across America, but few friends in official Washington. GOP leaders don’t like him because he questions what they stand for, tries to force them to honor their promises, calls them “squishes,” and works to derail their legislative priorities. He has even tried to engineer mini-rebellions in the House by whipping House members to vote against GOP leadership. Finding sympathetic lawmakers is like shooting fish in a barrel because Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) disappoints conservatives nearly every day.
To some, Cruz’s strengths are really weaknesses. His brash air of rectitude is arrogance. His eloquence is unctuousness. His unquestioned brilliance is viewed with suspicion.
Cruz put his oratorical gifts to use yesterday. In a moving, headline-grabbing speech at Liberty University in Virginia, unaccompanied by a teleprompter, Cruz talked about “reigniting the promise of America.”
“For so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant. What is the promise of America? The idea that — the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty. And that the purpose of the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government. The incredible opportunity of the American dream, what has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to America with nothing and to achieve anything. And then the American exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world, a shining city on a hill. That’s the promise of America. That is what makes this nation an indispensable nation, a unique nation in the history of the world.”
To the delight of the conservative audience, Cruz promised to repeal Obamacare, abolish the Internal Revenue Service, oppose immigration amnesty, respect First and Second Amendment rights, fight for traditional marriage, repeal Common Core and embrace charter schools, combat Islamic terrorism, and steadfastly support Israel. “I believe in you,” Cruz said.
“I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America, and that is why today I am announcing that I’m running for president of the United States. It is a time for truth. It is a time for liberty. It is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States. I am honored to stand with each and every one of you courageous conservatives as we come together to reclaim the promise of America, to reclaim the mandate, the hope and opportunity for our children and our children’s children. We stand together for liberty. This is our fight. The answer will not come from Washington. It will come only from the men and women across this country, from men and women, from people of faith, from lovers of liberty, from people who respect the Constitution.”
The speech was well-received, even by many of Cruz’s detractors who acknowledge the former debating champion’s speaking skills.
It is no surprise that Democrat-turned-Republican political strategist Mark McKinnon has dubbed Cruz “the Republican Barack Obama.”
In 2013 Democratic strategist James Carville called him “the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years.” Cruz is “perhaps the most influential freshman senator in American history. He’s going to run for president, and don’t be fooled — he is going to wreck [sic] havoc for years to come.”
The reaction to Cruz’s announcement largely mirrored reactions to Cruz’s first few months in the Senate — intense and overwhelmingly negative.
The media and other left-wingers spent all day yesterday mocking Cruz. At least one Republican office holder joined the ridicule fest.
On CNN Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who himself is considering running for president, blasted Cruz, calling him a “big mouth” who “basically led the Republican Party over the cliff.”
“We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify,” the congressman said of Cruz. “Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn’t carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates … he doesn’t provide leadership and he has no real experience.”
King released a separate statement on Cruz’s famous talkathon in which he held the Senate floor for 21 hours in a long-shot bid to defund Obamacare.
“Shutting down the federal government and reading Dr. Seuss on the Senate floor are the marks of a carnival barker not the leader of the free world,” King wrote.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a fellow Texas Republican, didn’t badmouth Cruz but made it clear he won’t be supporting him, at least not initially.
“You know, we’ve got a lot of Texans who are running for president, so I’m going to watch from the sidelines,” said Cornyn when asked if he would get behind Cruz. Cornyn, a member of the GOP establishment Cruz loves to hate, may have been referring to Rick Perry, a former Texas governor, who is also thinking about running for the presidency again.
Cornyn, who has amassed a huge campaign war chest, said “nope,” when asked if he would help Cruz financially. “You got a lot of people involved, and I don’t see any benefit to them or to me.”
A pro-amnesty, open borders group assailed Cruz, going as far as questioning his authenticity as a Latino.
“We reject Ted Cruz, which is sad, because while he is the first Latino to declare his candidacy, he may be the most anti-immigration candidate on stage during the debates,” said Cesar Vargas and Erika Andiola, co-directors of the Dream Action Coalition. “While Ted Cruz has a Latino name and immigration in his past, that’s where the similarities between him and the Latino community end.”
Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg News dismissively compared him to the late Sen. Joe McCarthy and labeled Cruz “a loudmouth loser.”
“Fortunately, Tailgunner Ted’s chances of winning the Republican nomination are extremely slim at best,” he wrote.
“The bottom line: Opposition from Republicans who care about winning in 2016 will doom the chances of a senator whose tactics (his role in the 2013 government shutdown, for example, and the recent Homeland Security funding fight) have established him as a loudmouth loser. They might look past the loudmouth part, but not the losses.”
On TV’s “The View,” guest co-host Michelle Collins declared herself a “Ted Cruz birther” and demanded to “see the birth certificate.” Cruz “was not born in America. He was born in Canada. So how can he run — how can he run for president? I actually don’t get it. I know he has to go to court.”
At the New Republic, Danny Vinik ridiculed the Texas senator in a piece titled “Ted Cruz Cannot Be Serious.”
“His positions, regardless of where they fall within the Republican Party, are ill-conceived fantasies,” he wrote.
Then Vinik engaged in what the Internet-savvy call “concern-trolling,” offering dubious campaign advice. Cruz wants to repeal the Obamacare law “and then basically see what happens … [this is] unacceptable as a presidential candidate’s health care agenda,” he pontificated. Repeal and replace is the only sensible route to take, he counseled.
Vinik pilloried Cruz for promising to abolish the IRS and not providing a detailed plan to reporters like him on the very first day of his official campaign. “A Cruz government would eliminate the agency but it would still collect taxes—somehow. Cruz has never said how that would work.”
Well, that’s what a campaign is for.
In a snotty column, John Cassidy of the New Yorker, called Cruz the “Texan terror” and wrote off his candidacy.
“The conventional wisdom is that Cruz hasn’t got a chance, and, as far as the Presidency goes, it’s probably accurate. To many Americans, he is the uppity loudmouth who, in the fall of 2013, less than a year into his first term as a senator, helped bring the federal government to a halt. Noted for railing against President Obama and denying the existence of climate change, he holds views that, according to an analysis by the Web site FiveThirtyEight, make him ‘more conservative than every recent G.O.P. nominee, every ’12 contender and every plausible ’16 candidate.'”
At Gizmodo, Adam Clark Estes implied Cruz was an idiot because he didn’t believe in the leftist fantasy known as manmade global warming.
“‘Ted Cruz is a climate change denier?’ you ask. Yes, he sure is. (Ted Cruz is also, very unfortunately, the overseer of NASA.) And just because the loud-mouthed Texan thinks he’s fit for the nation’s highest office doesn’t mean he’s going to yield his absurdly misled beliefs about the planet Earth.”
A New York Times article knocked Cruz’s performance as senator.
“Cruz has not been much of a law maker: He sponsored or co-sponsored 112 pieces of legislation, only one of which became law. Rather, he has made his mark trying to undo or gut administration policies with which he disagrees.”
But in a column on the same newspaper’s website, Jonathan Martin opined that Cruz has a serious shot at winning the presidency.
“By virtue of his strong rhetorical skills, biographical appeal and uncompromising conservatism, Mr. Cruz is the most logical nominee in a party that has turned sharply to the right. In a general election, fatigue toward the Obama years and the difficulty any party has in holding the White House for three consecutive terms could vault him to victory.”
Washington Post leftist Greg Sargent was amazingly restrained and thoughtful.
“But how different is Cruz from other Republicans on the issues themselves? How much of an outlier is Cruz in today’s GOP? Those are not rhetorical questions. A Cruz run will be a good thing, because it will bring clarity to them,” Sargent wrote.
“It’s good that Cruz is running,” he concluded. “We’ll hopefully find out soon enough how much of a conservative outlier Cruz really is in today’s Republican Party.”
It was just two years ago that Sargent was calling Cruz a demagogic nutjob.
Cruz “keeps untold numbers of base voters in a state of perpetual delusion,” he wrote soon after Cruz was sworn in as a member of the Senate.
He does this with “the hints about creeping socialism, the suggestions that Dems are anti-American, the notion that Obama’s modest executive actions reveal him as an enemy of the Constitution, etc.”
One of the co-founders of the modern American conservative movement, Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, cheered Cruz’s early entry into the presidential contest.
The rest of the candidates will have to “move right to respond to Cruz, or be left behind by a grassroots conservative electorate fed-up with Republican candidates who are merely principle-free messengers for an out of touch Washington elite.”
Is America really ready for a swing to the right, Ted Cruz-style?
After eight years of Obama’s catastrophic presidency, voters just might be.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Turning from Wesbury back to reality...
on: March 22, 2015, 09:14:34 PM
|One Last Look At The Real Economy Before It Implodes - Part 3
Wednesday, 18 March 2015 Brandon Smith www.alt-market.com
In the previous installments of this series, we discussed the hidden and often unspoken crisis brewing within the employment market, as well as in personal debt. The primary consequence being a collapse in overall consumer demand, something which we are at this very moment witnessing in the macro-picture of the fiscal situation around the world. Lack of real production and lack of sustainable employment options result in a lack of savings, an over-dependency on debt and welfare, the destruction of grass-roots entrepreneurship, a conflated and disingenuous representation of gross domestic product, and ultimately an economic system devoid of structural integrity — a hollow shell of a system, vulnerable to even the slightest shocks.
This lack of structural integrity and stability is hidden from the general public quite deliberately by way of central bank money creation that enables government debt spending, which is counted toward GDP despite the fact that it is NOT true production (debt creation is a negation of true production and historically results in a degradation of the overall economy as well as monetary buying power, rather than progress). Government debt spending also disguises the real state of poverty within a system through welfare and entitlements. The U.S. poverty level is at record highs, hitting previous records set 50 years ago during Lyndon Johnson’s administration. The record-breaking rise in poverty has also occurred despite 50 years of the so called “war on poverty,” a shift toward American socialism that was a continuation of the policies launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 'New Deal'.
The shift toward a welfare state is the exact reason why, despite record poverty and a 23 percent true unemployment rate (as discussed here), we do not yet see the kind of soup lines and rampant indigence witnessed during the Great Depression. Today, EBT cards and other welfare programs hide modern soup lines in plain sight. It should be noted that the record 20 percent of U.S. households now on food stamps are still technically contributing to GDP. That’s because government statistics make no distinction between normal grocery consumption and consumption created artificially through debt-generated welfare.
This third installment of our economic series will be the most difficult. We will examine the issue of government debt, including how true debt is disguised from the public and how this debt is a warning of a coming implosion in our overall structure. National debt is perhaps one of the most manipulated fields of economics, and the layers surrounding what our country truly owes to foreign creditors and central banks are many. I believe this confusing array of disinformation is designed to discourage average Americans from pursuing the facts. Here are the facts all the same, for those who have the patience...
First, it is important to debunk the mainstream lies surrounding what constitutes national debt.
“Official” national debt as of 2015 is currently reported at more than $18 trillion. That means that under Barack Obama and with the aid of the private Federal Reserve, U.S. debt has nearly doubled since 2008 — quite an accomplishment in only seven years’ time. But this is not the whole picture.
Official GDP numbers published for mainstream consumption do NOT include annual liabilities generated by programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These liabilities are veiled through the efforts of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reports on what it calls “debts” rather than on the true fiscal gap. Through the efforts of economists like Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale, understanding of the fiscal gap (the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts) is slowly growing within more mainstream circles.
The debt created through the fiscal gap increases, for example, because of the Social Security program - since government taxes the population for Social Security but uses that tax money to fund other programs or to pay off other outstanding debts. In other words, the government collects "taxes" with the promise of paying them back in the future through Social Security, but it spends that money instead of saving it for the use it was supposedly intended.
The costs of such unfunded liabilities within programs like Social Security and Medicare accumulate as the government continues to kick the can down the road instead of changing policy to cover costs. This accumulation is reflected in the Alternative Financial Scenario analysis, which the CBO used to publish every year but for some reason stopped publishing in 2013. Here is a presentation on the AFS by the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. Take note that the crowd laughs at the prospect of the government continuing to “can kick” economic policy changes in order to avoid handling current debt obligations, yet that is exactly what has happened over the past several years.
Using the AFS report, Kotlikoff and other more honest economists estimate real U.S. national debt to stand at about $205 trillion.
When the exposure of these numbers began to take hold in the mainstream, media pundits and establishment propagandists set in motion a campaign to spin public perception, claiming that the vast majority of this debt was actually “projected debt” to be paid over the course of 70 years or more and, thus, not important in terms of today’s debt concerns. While some estimates of national debt include future projections of unfunded liabilities in certain sectors this far ahead, the spin masters' fundamental argument is in fact a disingenuous redirection of the facts.
According to the calculations of economists like Chris Cox and Bill Archer, unfunded liabilities are adding about $8 trillion in total debt annually. That is $8 trillion dollars per year not accounted for in official national debt stats. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion of this amount.
Kotlikoff’s analysis shows that this annual hidden debt accumulation has resulted in a current total of $205 trillion. This amount is not the unfunded liabilities added up in all future years. This is the present value of the unfunded liabilities, discounted to today.
How is the U.S. currently covering such massive obligations on top of the already counted existing budget costs? It’s not.
Taxes collected yearly in the range of $3.7 trillion are nowhere near enough to cover the amount, and no amount of future taxes would make a dent either. This is why the Grace Commission, established during the Ronald Reagan presidency, found that not a single penny of your taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service is going toward the funding of actual government programs. In fact, all new taxes are being used to pay off the ever increasing interest on current debts.
For those who argue that an increase in taxation is the cure, more than 102 million people are unemployed within the U.S. today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Current Population Survey (CPS), 148 million are employed; about 20% of these are considered part-time workers (about 30 million people). Around 16 million full time workers are employed by state and local government (meaning they are a drain on the system whether they know it or not). Only 43 percent of all U.S. households are considered “middle class,” the section of the public where most taxes are derived. In the best-case scenario, we have about 120 million people paying a majority of taxes toward U.S. debt obligations, while nearly as many are adding to those debt obligations through welfare programs or have the potential to add to those obligations in the near future if they do not find work due to the high unemployment rate that no one at the BLS wants to acknowledge.
Looking at reality, one finds a swiftly shrinking middle class paying for an ever larger welfare class. Do the math, and an honest person will admit that no matter how much taxes increase, they will still never make up for the lack of adequate taxpayers.
Another dishonest argument given to dismiss concerns of national debt is the lie that Domestic Net Worth in the U.S. far outweighs our debts owed, and this somehow negates the issue. Domestic Net Worth is calculated using Gross Domestic Assets, public and private. It's interesting, however, that Domestic Net Worth counts 'Debt Capital' as an asset, just as GDP counts debt creation as production. Debt Capital is the “capital” businesses and governments raise by taking out loans. This capital (debt) is then counted as an asset toward Domestic Net Worth.
Yes, that’s right, private and national debts are “assets.” And mainstream economists argue that these debts (errr… assets) offset our existing debts. This is the unicorn, Neverland, Care Bear magic of establishment economics, folks. It’s truly a magnificent thing to behold.
Ironically, debt capital, like the official national debt, does not include unfunded liabilities. If it did, mainstream talking heads could claim an even vaster supply of “assets” (debts) that offset our liabilities.
This situation is clearly unsustainable. The only people who seem to argue that it is sustainable are disinformation agents with something to gain (government favors and pay) and government cronies with something to lose (public trust and their positions of petty authority).
With overall Treasury investments static for some foreign central banks and dwindling in others, the only other options are to print indefinitely and at ever greater levels, or to default. For decades, the Federal Reserve has been printing in order to keep the game afloat, and the American public has little to no idea how much fiat and debt the private institution has conjured in the process. Certainly, the amount of debt we see just in annual unfunded liabilities helps to explain why the dollar has lost 97 percent of its purchasing power since the Fed was established. Covering that much debt in the short term requires a constant flow of fiat, digital and paper. Not only does REAL debt threaten our credit standing as a nation, it also threatens the value and full faith in the dollar.
The small glimpse into Fed operations we received during the limited TARP audit was enough to warrant serious concern, as a full audit would likely result in the exposure of total debt fraud, the immediate abandonment of U.S. Treasury investment, and the destruction of the dollar. Of course, all of that will eventually happen anyway...
I will discuss why this will take place sooner rather than later through the issues of Treasury bonds and the dollar in the fourth installment of this series. In the fifth installment, I will examine the many reasons why a deliberate program of destructive debt bubbles and currency devaluations actually benefits certain international financiers and elites with aspirations of complete globalization. And in the sixth and final installment, I will delve into practical solutions - and practical solutions only. In the meantime, I would like everyone to consider this:
No society or culture has ever successfully survived by disengaging itself from its own financial responsibilities and dumping them on future generations without falling from historical grace. Not one. Does anyone with any sense really believe that the U.S. is somehow immune to this reality?
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's True Allegiances...
on: March 20, 2015, 08:52:50 AM
The Question of Obama’s Allegiances
Posted By David Meir-Levi On March 20, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
Since before his first term, our President’s words and deeds regarding the Middle East, Jihad, and the Israel-Arab conflict have been confusing.
At first some thought him an incompetent amateur, especially regarding his heavy-handed “reset” of America’s relationship with the Muslim world and with Russia. But many of our presidents have made errors at the onset and then later matured into office.
Then he seemed to be merely a self-absorbed ego-centric narcissist, especially regarding his proclivity for golf vacations during crises. But most of our presidents seem to have been able to separate their personal predilections from their role as leader of the free world.
Then some opined that he was blinded by political correctness, especially regarding his ex-cathedra pronouncements about not implying any connection between Islam and terrorism. But many seemed to think that his concern for the well-being of our Muslim-American citizens, and for the otherwise globally besmirched reputation of supposedly peace-loving Islam, was an appropriate and necessary position in order to uphold American values of tolerance and protection for minorities.
Then he appeared to be simply ignorant of the historical realities of Islam’s commitment to global jihad “…until there is no worship except for Allah,” or perhaps too easily swayed by the gaggle of advisors who surround him. But here one must stop and ask the obvious question: How ignorant about Islam could he be, having himself grown up as a Muslim in a majority-Muslim country?
And one must also note that it was he who selected those advisors.
Nearly a dozen of his appointees to important and even critical government posts are people with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition there is Huma Abedin, a very close confidant to Hillary Clinton, and her connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are well documented. And then there is Valerie Jarrett, “Obama’s Rasputin” (who is neither Iranian nor Muslim, but seems to hold unconscionable sway over the Obama White House and may be the real brains behind Obama’s current policy toward Iran). How deeply have they penetrated, what secrets do they know, how badly has our country’s security been compromised?
And he appointed them. No “guilt by association” here.
The confusion regarding our President’s lax and accommodating attitude and policy toward individuals, terrorist organizations and governments that are unequivocally aligned with our nation’s enemies, some of which have declared war on us, can be dispelled if we analyze his behavior over the last two years.
During the “Arab Spring” he promptly abandoned Hosni Mubarak, a long-time American ally. Then he supported Mohammed Morsi who became President of Egypt in 2012, even though Morsi represented the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas and other Arab anti-American and anti-Israel terror organizations, and which has as its eternal mission the subjugation of all non-Muslim nations and peoples to Islam, via jihad. He then did his best to undermine Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, who took over from Morsi in a wildly popular coup, even though el-Sisi quickly proved himself the enemy of the Brotherhood and of the Al-Qaeda and of the ISIS forces that had ensconced themselves in the Sinai Peninsula.
He retreated repeatedly from his “red lines” in Syria, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians and facilitating the extension of Iranian hegemony from Iraq to Syria and the Mediterranean Sea, thus bringing into Iran’s cross-hairs the countries of North Africa, Israel, Turkey, Eastern Europe and even the eastern flank of Western Europe.
As quickly as he abandoned Mubarak in Egypt, he abandoned the Yemeni government to a Houthi victory. The Houthi are supported by Iran, whose victory in Yemen means the extension of Iranian control to both sides of the Persian Gulf, the waterway through which half of the world’s oil flows.
In July, 2014, during Israel’s defensive operation against Hamas, Obama telephoned Netanyahu to announce that he wanted an unconditional “humanitarian” cease-fire that would lead to a permanent one. The terms of such a cease-fire would include opening Gaza’s borders with Egypt and Israel and ending Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza coast. Such terms would allow Hamas to quickly rebuild its arsenal, starting with $47 million dollars of US financial support, purchase more missiles from North Korea, and import more building materials to reconstruct its tunnels. In short, Obama sided openly, intentionally, willfully, and forcefully with Hamas, against Israel, and against America’s long-time Sunni Arab allies – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Such an agreement means that Hamas wins big-time; and Israel, America’s ally, loses.
This past February, our President openly supported Qatar despite Qatar’s long history of supporting Hamas with arms and money, hosting al-Jazeera, and recently supplying arms to ISIS terrorists in Libya. But John Kerry said that he was aware of Qatar’s history, so Obama must also be aware, and chooses to support Qatar anyway. That is a choice in favor of America’s enemies.
And our President has made a similar choice in his prolonged negotiations with Iran, even as the Ayatollahs crossed one after another of Obama’s “red lines” and announced repeatedly their intention to develop their nuclear capacities and their missile delivery system. Rather than preventing Iran’s quest for deployable nuclear arms, Obama has facilitated it.
And now he is further facilitating Iran’s ascension to regional hegemony and nuclear power by ignoring Iran’s backing of the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and the growing number of Iranian generals and military experts who are operating in the Golan Heights along the border with Israel. That is another choice in favors our allies’ enemy.
Finally, his recently proposed strategy to combat global Jihad’s threat to Western Civilization offers the last and perhaps most important insight into what Obama is really doing. A full-jihadist-employment program that will bring “Hope and Change” to the world’s worst psychopathic murderers, even as they extend their hegemony over Libya which they promise will be their launching pad for their invasion of the rest of Western Europe, is not his “..lamest attempt at some sort of strategy.” It is not his “entry into the twilight zone.” Rather it is an overt statement of his true ideology, an ideology of which he gave only an obscure hint in a speech last year in which he warned us all that America must be careful to always be “…on the right side of history…” when it comes to our dealings with the Muslim world; but in Muslim parlance the right side of history is Allah’s side.
His is an ideology that requires that he whitewash the most horrific manifestations of Islamofascism, explain them away, excuse, or deny their very existence in order to direct our attention away from the dire existential threat that they pose. But whitewashing evil is complicity with evil, and complicity with evil is evil. How can our Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the Western World, the single most powerful person on the planet, collude so openly with those who are working so furiously to obliterate us?
He cannot be so naïve or so ignorant that he does not know that ISIS is indeed an Islamic terrorist organization, that Islamic terrorism arises not from unemployment but from Islamic ideology, and that an Iran armed with nuclear warheads and a 2,500-kilometer missile delivery system poses a threat to the entire world: a threat that has already begun to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could end in “mutually assured destruction,” the threat of which reined in the world’s nuclear powers during the Cold War but seems irrelevant to the Armageddon mentality of the Ayatollahs. And if he is neither naïve nor ignorant about the dangers to our country and to the world that his policy toward Islamic fascism has helped to create, then why does he support those who pose that threat?
Caroline Glick came the closest to connecting the dots to their terrifying but undeniable conclusion when she opined that Obama may be acting out of anti-Semitism, or perhaps even out of sympathy for Islamic fascism. But “acting out of sympathy” does not quite connect us to that final dot. Sympathy alone is inadequate to explain his facilitating, enabling, obfuscating, whitewashing, and congenially interacting with Islamofascist extremists. There can be only one explanation for his otherwise unexplainable series of decisions and statements that have supported or even facilitated Islamic fascism’s expansion.
What other explanation can there be other than that he wants the Jihadists to win?
What other explanation can there be but that he actually wants Iran to achieve nuclear capacity, to surround Sunni Islam in the Fertile Crescent, to reign as a supreme regional hegemon, armed with atomic weapons, controlling the Straits of Hormuz, and equipped to fulfill the jihadist dream of obliterating Israel and annihilating another 6,000,000 Jews?
What other explanation can there be but that he does not merely sympathize with Islamic fascism, but that he is at one with the ideologically driven psychotic murderers who seek to destroy all of western civilization and replace it with the 7th century barbarism that they call “true Islam”?
What other explanation can there be but that our president is fighting on the side of our enemies, and that he is, therefore, committing treason?
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Nixon vs. Obama...
on: March 17, 2015, 10:10:14 AM
What Obama has been permitted to get away with by our press today makes what Nixon did look like shoplifting a 5-cent gumball.
It's breathtaking that our press has VOLUNTARILY become "state-run media" as Rush Limbaugh refers to them.
This isn't going to have a pretty ending. I don't believe the Founders ever conceived of such a treasonous press.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller's Ads to Run in Philly...
on: March 17, 2015, 07:48:12 AM
Pamela Geller Wins Right to Run Ads in Philly
Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 17, 2015
A federal court has struck a blow for the First Amendment by ordering Philadelphia’s public transit system to accept an eye-opening ad that spotlights Islamic Jew-hatred and urges the United States to cut off foreign aid to Muslim countries.
The hard-hitting public service announcement, which contains a photograph of a real-life meeting between Adolf Hitler and Muslim leader and Nazi collaborator Hajj Amin al-Husseini, is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), which was co-founded by conservative leader and blogger Pamela Geller. AFDI sued and placed the ad in New York City and Washington, D.C. public transit systems after litigating the matter in court. It has also attempted to place ads in transit systems in Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Francisco, and elsewhere.
It’s just the latest in a string of legal victories for Geller.
For example, in 2012 Geller won her legal fight to post an anti-Islamist ad in the New York City subway system. Quoting Ayn Rand, the ad read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” The ad was a response to ads in the NYC subway promoting Islam and others accusing Israel of a number of things including being an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
In Geller’s view, Philadelphia desperately needs ads about the true nature of Islam because city council members there have honored Palestinian terrorist supporter Laila Ghannam. Ghannam, who is the District Governor of Ramallah for the Palestinian Authority, glorifies “some of the most horrific Palestinian terrorist murderers, presenting them as heroes and role models, and promising to follow in their path.” Ghannam has said that Islam sanctions the murder of Israeli civilians. Philadelphia also hosted the national anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions conference in 2012, which took place at the University of Pennsylvania.
It should be noted that Geller, an outspoken opponent of the Islamization of America and advocate of the State of Israel, has been the subject of over-the-top attacks from the Left for years. The more successful Geller is at warning of the dangers of Islamism, the viler the attacks on her become.
Last week the left-wingers at the Jewish Daily Forward attacked Geller for running a separate ad drawing attention to Jews that Geller believes are undermining Israel by supporting the New Israel Fund.
The New Israel Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that has served as an administrator in the Middle East for Ford Israel Fund, which is an arm of the radical left-wing Ford Foundation. As FrontPage contributor Ronn Torossian has written, the New Israel Fund has “granted nearly $27 million to left-wing and progressive NGOs in Israel” and “systematically works to destabilize Israel.”
Criticizing left-wing Jewish leaders who back the fund constitutes “McCarthyism,” in the eyes of oped authors Deborah Lipstadt, Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, and David Ellenson, Chancellor Emeritus of the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. They write:
Unfortunately, McCarthy’s tactics are apparently still alive and well in the Jewish community today. Ronn Torossian and Pam Geller have attacked Karen Adler, Alisa Doctoroff, Edith Everett, and Carol Zabar — among the most prominent leaders of our community — as supporters of the BDS campaign against Israel who seek to undermine the Jewish state. Torossian did so in a New York Post opinion piece and Geller’s group has sponsored bus ads repeating the charge.
Attacks from Geller and others “on these outstanding Jewish leaders reflect a disturbing new development in contemporary Jewish life,” Lipstadt and Ellenson write.
“Rather than disagree civilly and engage in polite and constructive debate there is name-calling and defamation. This is character assassination of the worst kind. Our community should not tolerate it,” they write. And then, after denouncing defamation, they engage in it, implying Geller and others are “the true enemies of the Jewish people.”
Meanwhile, AFDI’s black and white ad in Philadelphia reads “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran.” It continues: “Two Thirds of All US Aid Goes To Islamic Countries. End All Aid To Islamic Countries. IslamicJewHatred.com.”
It features a photograph of a 1941 get-together between Adolf Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who is described as an ally of Hitler and a Palestinian leader. The photo caption reads, “Adolf Hitler and his staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world, Hajj Amin al-Husseini.”
Al-Husseini helped the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. Waffen-SS members committed many war crimes, deporting Jews from Eastern Europe, guarding concentration camps, and massacring Jews and others.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) argues the ad runs afoul of “minimal civility standards” and the authority’s “anti-disparagement” policy and may appeal the ruling rendered last week by U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg.
Gino J. Benedetti, SEPTA’s general counsel, previously explained that he rejected the ad because he believed it “put every single Muslim in the same category [of] being a Jew hater.”
SEPTA concluded the ad is not protected speech
“because it utilizes deliberate or reckless falsehoods in order to demean a group based on its religion, uses intentionally provocative language and images in the hope of eliciting a violent response, and embraces the very hatred of religious groups it purports to condemn.”
But Judge Goldberg found that the Constitution’s free speech protections trump SEPTA’s efforts to prevent hurt feelings. SEPTA has carried ads promoting viewpoints on issues such as birth control, animal cruelty, fracking, and religion, he noted.
“It is clear that the anti-disparagement standard promulgated by SEPTA was a principled attempt to limit hurtful, disparaging advertisements,” Goldberg found. “While certainly laudable, such aspirations do not, unfortunately, cure First Amendment violations.”
The Philadelphia office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that is associated with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, maintains that the ad is “dishonest.”
“The court did what it had to do under the Constitution,” said Jacob Bender, executive director of CAIR-Philadelphia. “Now it is on all of us, Philadelphians of all faiths, to find a way to respond to these ads in a way that promotes truth and dialogue over ignorance and division.”
Except that the ad is entirely truthful. Antipathy towards Jews has been deeply ingrained in Islam since it began in the 7th century A.D.
The Koran demonizes Jews at length. The Islamic holy book attributes the following negative qualities and behaviors to Jews: dishonesty, argumentativeness, hypocrisy, wishing ill on others, taking pleasure in others’ suffering, arrogance, haughtiness, opportunism, impoliteness, murderousness, mercilessness, heartlessness, cowardice, and miserliness.
And an infamous hadith urges the mass slaughter of Jews by Muslims.
According to Sahih Muslim 6985, nature itself will rise up and help the followers of Mohammed exterminate the Jews:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a Hadith is a “record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, revered and received as a major source of religious law and moral guidance, second only to the authority of the Qurʾān, the holy book of Islam.”
The entry continues,
It might be defined as the biography of Muhammad perpetuated by the long memory of his community for their exemplification and obedience. The development of Hadith is a vital element during the first three centuries of Islamic history, and its study provides a broad index to the mind and ethos of Islam.
A survey even found that 73 percent of 1,010 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza agreed with the hadith “quoted in [the] Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.”
Clearly, Pamela Geller is onto something.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glenn Beck tells NRA: "It's Grover Norquist or Me."
on: March 16, 2015, 08:06:07 AM
Glenn Beck to NRA: It’s Norquist or Me
Posted By Robert Spencer On March 16, 2015
Glenn Beck has declared that he will leave the National Rifle Association (NRA) if Republican Party kingmaker Grover Norquist remains on the Board of Directors.
This is long overdue: it has now been over eleven years since FrontPage Magazine first published revelations about what David Horowitz described as Norquist’s “alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities.” Horowitz added:
“Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.”
Nothing has changed in the intervening years. Norquist has dismissed concerns about his ties to Islamic supremacists as “bigotry” and “hatred,” and this has apparently satisfied the Republican establishment and prominent conservative spokesmen – until now, with Beck breaking ranks.
Beck’s peers and Republican leaders could have and should have ended Norquist’s baneful influence on the Republican Party and the conservative movement years ago. The November 1, 2001 issue of The New Republic (hardly a “right-wing” organ) noted that right after 9/11, President Bush met with several Muslim leaders with unsavory ties to the global jihad:
To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush’s new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”
Why didn’t he? Because of Norquist, who
“helped orchestrate various post-September 11 events that brought together Muslim leaders and administration officials…Indeed, when Jewish activists and terrorism experts complained about the Muslim invitees to Adam Goldman, who works in the White House public liaison’s office, Goldman replied that Norquist had vouched for them.”
In 1999, the prominent American Muslim leader Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is now in prison for financing al-Qaeda, wrote two $10,000 checks to Norquist’s Islamic Institute (aka the Islamic Free Market Institute). Alamoudi is also notorious for proclaiming to a Muslim rally in Washington in 2000: “I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support Hamas here? … Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. I wished they added that I am also a supporter of Hizballah.” There is no indication that Norquist denounced Alamoudi, or returned his checks, after Alamoudi’s open embrace of jihad terror groups.
Even closer to Norquist is Suhail Khan, Norquist’s American Conservative Union (ACU) colleague. The ACU hosts the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, and many observers have charged that Norquist and Khan have foreclosed on any honest discussion of the jihad threat at CPAC. Investigative journalist Paul Sperry revealed in the New York Post in January 2011 that Khan accepted an award from Alamoudi in 2001, commenting: “Abdurahman Alamoudi has been very supportive of me. . . . I hope, inshallah, we can keep working together.”
Sperry also noted that
“in September 2001, four days before the 9/11 attacks, Khan spoke at the Islamic Society of North America’s convention….At the event, Khan shared his experiences from ‘inside’ the White House, and praised his late father, Mahboob Khan, for helping found ISNA — which the government now says is a front for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and has raised money for jihad….Khan vowed in his speech to carry on his father’s ‘legacy.’”
There is much more on Norquist’s unsavory associations and activities, as you can see in these articles on Norquist by Daniel Greenfield, Pamela Geller, Patrick Poole, Jamie Glazov (interviewing Paul Sperry), and David Horowitz. Conservatives have suffered from being in Norquist’s shadow for too long. Particularly in these dark latter days of the Obama Administration, it is imperative that conservative candidates establish themselves as a genuine loyal opposition formulating a realistic and coherent alternative to Obama’s disastrous pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies.
Grover Norquist is the biggest single obstacle preventing that from happening. Glenn Beck is to be commended for being the first major figure on the Right to stand up and say that Grover must go. We can only hope that others will soon follow suit.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media whitewashing of Muslim terrorism...
on: March 09, 2015, 11:13:05 AM
Never Mind the Terrorism, Find the Toyota
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On March 9, 2015
When Julissa Magdalena Maradiaga-Iscoa rammed her car into a police vehicle while trying to drive through the Miami airport entrance and was then arrested after shouting in Arabic about a bomb, the media did its best to get all the important details right.
The AP made sure to mention that she was driving a silver Toyota. It failed to mention that she was Muslim or that her Facebook page describes her as a Shaheeda, a holy warrior, a term Muslims use to refer to their terrorists. A few American media outlets did report that she was an illegal alien, but only the Spanish language ones told their readers that she had converted to Islam.
Such minor details have become the first casualties of the War on Terror.
That Maradiaga-Iscoa chose to rename herself Shaheeda Hadee tells us more about her state of mind than the color of the car that she was driving. The make of her car is far less important than that her social media likes and follows included Zakir Naik, who said “Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State John Kerry had ducked a question about Zakir Naik receiving an award from the Saudi King. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki condemned Naik’s views, but defended Saudi Arabia as a “key partner.” This doublethink on Islam has become typical of our Islam policy.
Other of Maradiaga-Iscoa’s follows included Yasir Qadhi, a Holocaust denier and a favorite of the Christmas bomber, whose media company featured lectures by Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar Al-Awlaki. Also listed was Bilal Philips, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who was caught on video defending the Islamic rape of prepubescent girls.
No actual bomb was found on Maradiaga-Iscoa. Her family claims that she’s mentally ill, and perhaps she is, but the media still chose to censor highly relevant information about her ideology. The same media that chose to blow up atheist quotes by Richard Dawkins used by the Chapel Hill man who shot three Muslims over a parking spot has buried her enthusiasm for figures with actual terrorist links.
And it’s not the first time that this has happened.
Last year two Muslims carried out attacks against NYPD officers. Both of them invoked Jihad. One of the cases was even classified as terrorism. But most people don’t even know who the perpetrators were.
The media spent more debating whether the first attacker used a hatchet or an axe.
The media has dogmatically covered up the terrorist ties of Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, while insisting that Anders Behring Breivik was a Christian and Zionist anti-Muslim terrorist despite the fact that he had contemplated carrying out terrorist attacks on behalf of Muslims, denied belief in any deity and stated that his only interest in Israel was as a “deportation-port for disloyal jews.”
Breivik, like Maradiaga-Iscoa, was probably mentally ill. Unlike Maradiaga-Iscoa, the media spun the story the other way despite plenty of evidence of delusions in Breivik’s manifesto. But the media did insist that Nidal Hassan may have somehow contracted PTSD from the soldiers at the base.
It’s not just that the media covers up Islamic affiliations in violent incidents, but that it exaggerates non-Muslim affiliations to make Islam seem victimized even when the evidence points the other way.
That’s what happened at Chapel Hill. That’s what happened in Miami.
None of this is news. It’s a narrative. When it comes to violence involving Muslims (and any number of other subjects) the news is shaped to fit the narrative. The Chapel Hill killer’s atheism was important because it could be twisted to make it seem that his killings had a religious motive. Had he shot three Christians, that angle would never have been played up. Maradiaga-Iscoa’s religion and her interest in a man who said “Every Muslim should be a terrorist” cuts against the narrative and is cut out of the news.
The narrative is simple and straightforward. Islam can never be a motive for violence. Other religions, and even lack of religion, can always be assumed to be a motive for violence against Muslims.
We have heard far more about the Chapel Hill killer’s atheism than we ever did about Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Islam. And yet the prosecution’s case is that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev saw himself as a Shaheed, a holy warrior, bent on killing Americans on behalf of the Muslim Ummah.
We have mass media coverage of the trial of a terrorist mass murderer in which the prosecution’s argument is not mentioned. But we do get lots of irrelevant “Silver Toyota” details about the killer.
Christians and Jews are taunted in the media with Timothy McVeigh and Baruch Goldstein, men whose actions are over twenty years old, but we still can’t discuss the Islamic motivations of a killer from a few years ago or from last week. And if it’s not McVeigh and Goldstein, then it’s the Crusades. It can be anything and everything as long as it distracts us from dealing with a culture of Muslim violence today.
The one ideology that is involved in violence around the world is also the one we can’t discuss. It exists only as a shadow. We see it in the news only in the constant defamation of Jews, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists and Hindus and any other group suffering from the ravages of Muslim violence that are smeared as violent bigots to make Islam look better. Those lies are the shadow of Muslim violence.
The Washington Post recently responded to the call by Republicans that Obama address “Islamic Extremism” by accusing the GOP of being infested with “Islamophobia.” This comes from the same paper which had suggested that ISIS rapists and butchers were “victims”.
The only way to make such a warped point of view palatable is to demonize non-Muslims while labeling critics of Islamic terrorism as bigots. Discussing Islamic intolerance is intolerant. If you talk about Islamic Christophobia or Judeophobia, then you’re being Islamophobic. Intolerance toward Christians and Jews however is a sign of tolerance.
The extremes of Muslim violence that go beyond anything the media is capable of covering up can only be addressed with more extreme smears of their victims. That is why the media is always searching for Muslim victimization and denouncing Christian and Jewish extremism. As the media coverage of Israel’s conflict with Islamic terrorism has shown us, each Muslim terrorist atrocity leads to even more negative coverage of Israel. When Muslims appear to be perpetrators and non-Muslims victims, the media must step in to rebalance the scales to protect its narrative. A familiar symptom of this phenomenon is the ubiquitous “Muslims fear backlash” story that follows each Muslim terror attack in America or Europe.
This is not bias. Bias nudges the story. This is propaganda.
Propaganda grimly follows a narrative to the bitter end, whether it’s Baghdad Bob’s non-existent American soldiers or the Soviet newsreader cheerfully informing listeners of a 95% successful harvest. Our media’s coverage of Islamic terrorism is not biased or flawed; it’s propaganda.
It’s not enough for propaganda to have heroes; it also needs villains to justify its failures.
The worse Islamic terrorism becomes, the more the media will have to smear us. A failed ideology directs most of the blame at its critics because they are represent the alternative to its lies.
The Washington Post denouncing Republicans as Islamophobes while defending ISIS is Baghdad Bob screaming at the camera. It’s a Soviet newsreader claiming that the harvest would have been successful if not for the CIA. The lies are collapsing under the weight of Muslim violence. Christians and Jews can’t be demonized fast enough to make ISIS seem palatable. The more the media is pushed, the faster it will implode.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver
on: February 26, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
I can't speak to the reliability of the source. All I can tell you is that I've seen this reported in other places on the web - mainly sites with a vested interest in promoting gold as an investment, granted. I also know that an "appeal to authority" is the most common logical fallacy - so I'm not suggesting that even if Greenspan were on tape saying this, he would necessarily be right about it. I'm simply offering this to the community for consideration along side the verifiable facts we have at hand regarding the exponential growth of the money supply since Obama took office.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver
on: February 26, 2015, 11:38:08 AM
I suppose it depends on your definition of "hearsay." Brien Lundin is the source. I am honestly not familiar with his credentials.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Judging by ACTIONS, not WORDS...
on: February 23, 2015, 08:06:53 AM
Does Obama Love America or Islam?
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 23, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
Walk into a store and you’ll see piles of red and pink in the Clearance box. Everything from heart-shaped cards and boxes of chocolate candy to plastic flowers and teddy bears clutching plush red hearts will be 50 percent off because Valentine’s Day comes but once a year. And Valentine’s Day is over.
Obama’s love for America also comes but once a year. He tosses it into a speech in the Midwest when his poll numbers are down and then it goes into the clearance box where you can buy his love and his patriotism for 50 percent off. And it’s still expensive at the price because the heart-shaped box is empty.
Greeting card sentiments come easily to the man who will say anything. Obama promised to eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, vowed transparent open government and promised that you could keep your doctor. His words were empty promises.
Love, of a person or of a country, is not judged by what we say. It is judged by what we do.
Every politician with ambition claims to love America. Most only love themselves. Some love other things. No one can know what is it in Obama’s heart, which is why the media’s shrill demands that Scott Walker affirm Obama’s love for America are silly and cynical, but we can certainly follow his passions.
We show our passions in the things that we really care about. We all have our duties and obligations. Obama’s obligations include delivering speeches praising America, occasionally placing his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance (when he can find it) and badly saluting soldiers with a latte cup.
But are these the things he loves and cares about?
We can follow Obama’s passions the way that an adulterer’s trail to his mistress can be followed no matter how many cards or stuffed bears he gives to his wife.
What are the things that Obama is passionate about?
In his first days in office, he signed a number of executive orders. Of his first five orders, three involved Muslim terrorists captured and held in Gitmo. His third executive order was about the “humane” treatment of terrorists. His fourth executive order sought to close Gitmo. Like the man who can’t wait to get away from his wife so he can call his mistress, Obama made his priorities clear from the start.
It took Obama a month to set up the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It took him two days to set up a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition to free Gitmo terrorists.
Obama prioritized helping Muslim terrorists over the economic recovery. Why? Because that was a subject he was passionate about.
People will always prioritize what they are passionate about over what they aren’t. It’s easy to look at a mission shift and see the choice that has been made.
For example, is Obama passionate about space exploration? He told the head of NASA that his “foremost” priority was making Muslims feel good about themselves.
Obama is more passionate about Muslim self-esteem than he is about visiting other planets.
Is he passionate about god and religion? That depends on which god and which religion.
Obama left out “Under God” when reciting the Gettysburg Address. The DNC’s platform initially left out “God” and booed the reinsertion. Obama’s invocation at his inauguration also dropped “Under God”.
However Obama cheerfully recited “Allahu Akbar”, the opening of the Islamic supremacist call to prayer, and called it “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.” He had a man jailed for making a YouTube video attacking Mohammed and blamed him for Muslim acts of terror against America.
Obama’s religious beliefs, such as they are, remain locked in his head. But there is only one religion that he is passionate enough to protect by imprisoning those who blaspheme against it.
He may botch salutes and the pledge of allegiance, but he has retained the ability to chant “Allahu Akbar” with a “first-rate accent”.
He may think that the “good book” says “don’t throw stones in glass houses”, but he accurately quotes the Koran. The things that we remember are the ones that we really care about.
Obama has an obligation to reference the Gettysburg Address, to wait out the pledge of allegiance and to praise America. He has no obligation to quote the Koran or chant “Allahu Akbar”. These are things that he does because he wants to do them. They are the things that he is actually passionate about.
Does he love them more than he loves America? No one can know what is in another person’s heart.
There are married couples who have lived together for decades only to discover that the love of their life had been cheating on them all along. And who is to say that the adulterer doesn’t love? We can’t pass a final verdict on his feelings. But we can know his faithlessness by his deeds.
We can say of him and of Obama that they broke faith with the covenant that they had entered into. We can say that they betrayed those who trusted them, lied to them, used and abused them, and then feigned outrage when their actions were questioned.
Can the media’s furious talking heads denouncing Giuliani deny that Obama lied to Americans? Can they deny that he harmed them? Can they deny that he refused to take responsibility for his actions?
The facts are clear. Only the interpretation is in doubt. And the interpretation is what we are debating.
Does Obama lie to Americans because he loves them? Does he weaken America abroad because he loves it? And if Obama loves America, what does he love about it and how does he show that love? Does he love the Constitution? If he did, he wouldn’t constantly violate it. Does he love Americans? Which Americans? The ones whose health plans he took away for ObamaCare or the ones whose jobs he took away to legalize illegal aliens? The ones whose votes and wishes he ignores and snidely mocks?
Is it the Americans who no longer believe in the future under his rule that he loves? Is it the unemployed Americans he loves? Is it the Americans he jailed under his new laws and regulations that he loves?
If Obama loves Americans, then it’s a clear case of hurting the ones you love.
And if Obama doesn’t love Americans, what America does he love; the rock band or the Walt Whitman poem, the town America in the Netherlands or the Neil Diamond song?
Questioning Obama’s love for America is alleged to be unacceptable gutter politics, but accusing his critics of being racists is a standard debating tactic for those same outraged media talking heads.
It wasn’t gutter politics when Obama claimed that the national debt under Bush was “unpatriotic”. Is Obama at least as “unpatriotic” for increasing the debt by 70 percent? Is it possible that his spending spree proves that he doesn’t love America? Or is indebting our children the way that he shows his love?
Can we question the patriotism of a man who frees terrorists or only of a man who locks them up?
Is asking whether Obama loves America an unacceptable question because the answer is obvious or because it isn’t?
Obama will go on making speeches in which he claims to love America while making the country poorer, more dangerous and weaker. He will also go on making speeches praising Islam while increasing the power, influence and wealth of Muslims in America and around the world.
As the clearance box after Valentine’s Day shows, anyone can buy a card or a teddy bear. It’s the actions that count. It’s not what we say that shows love. It’s what we do that shows what we truly care about.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: "US Muslims Take on ISIS Recruiting Machine"
on: February 21, 2015, 10:16:15 AM
This is certainly a positive and hopeful development IF it is true. Since it comes from The New York Times - I am highly suspicious of the veracity of the information therein.
I'm not aware of any widespread program like this within the American Muslim community - let alone the Muslim community in Europe. Muslims with whom I have talked here in the Atlanta area are all either quietly supportive if ISIS, ignorant of the actual teachings of the Koran and Hadith (Muslims in name only) or genuinely afraid to speak out against Islamic terror for fear of repercussions from their local Mosque and community.
I take this story with a grain of salt. If I see more evidence emerge that this is actually taking place in any significant way - that will be a good thing. The NYT has no more credibility to me than any other left-leaning rag. Everything it publishes is suspect ipso facto.
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's ISIS "Strategy" Even Worse Than You Think...
on: February 19, 2015, 06:49:34 AM
Obama’s ISIS Strategy Is Even Worse Than You Think
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 19, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
“We can not win this war by killing them,” Marie Harf said on MSNBC.
Reversing thousands of years of battlefield experience in which wars were won by “killing them,” the State Department spokeswoman argued that you can’t defeat ISIS by killing its fighters.
“We can not kill our way out of this war,” she said. “We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs.”
War is one of the few things in life we can reliably kill our way out of. The United States has had a great track record of killing our way out of wars. We killed our way out of WW1. We killed our way out of WW2. The problem began when we stopped trying to kill our way out of wars and started trying to hug our way out of wars instead. Progressive academics added war to economics, terrorism and the climate in the list of subjects they did not understand and wanted to make certain that no one else was allowed to understand. Because the solution to war is so obvious that no progressive could possibly think of it.
Harf’s argument is a familiar one. There was a time when progressive reformers had convinced politicians that we couldn’t arrest, shoot, imprison or execute our way out of crime.
We couldn’t stop crime by fighting crime. Instead the root causes of crime had to be addressed. The police became social workers and criminals overran entire cities. The public demanded action and a new wave of mayors got tough on crime. While the sociologists, social workers, activists and bleeding hearts wailed that it wouldn’t work, surprisingly locking up criminals did stop them from committing crimes.
It was a revelation almost as surprising as realizing that it does take a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Addressing root causes won’t stop a killing spree in progress. (That’s another one of those things we can and do kill our way out of.)
But bad ideas are harder to kill than bad people. And stupid ideas are the hardest ideas of all to kill.
The same plan that failed to stop street gangs and drug dealers has been deployed to defeat ISIS. Heading it up are progressives who don’t believe that killing the enemy wins wars.
General Patton told the Third Army, “The harder we push, the more Germans we kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed.” That kind of thinking is passé. General McChrystal, Obama’s favorite commander (before he had to be purged for insulting Obama) had a much better plan.
“We will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill,” he said. “We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories—but suffering strategic defeats—by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people.”
Under Obama’s rotating shift of commanders, we avoided the trap of winning tactical victories. Instead of following Patton’s maxim, American casualties doubled. The Taliban struck closer to Kabul while US soldiers avoided engaging the enemy because they wouldn’t be given permission to attack unless the Taliban announced themselves openly while avoiding mosques or civilian buildings.
“We will not win simply by killing insurgents,” McChrystal had insisted. “We will help the Afghan people win by securing them, by protecting them from intimidation, violence and abuse.”
But we couldn’t protect the Afghan people without killing the Taliban. Civilian casualties caused by the United States fell 28 percent, but the Taliban more than made up for it by increasing their killing of civilians by 40 percent. Not only did we avoid the trap of a tactical victory, but we also suffered a strategic defeat. American soldiers couldn’t kill insurgents, protect civilians or even protect themselves.
We’ve tried the McChrystal way and over 2,000 American soldiers came home in boxes from Afghanistan trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans. Many more returned missing arms and legs. The Taliban poll badly among Afghans, but instead of hiring a PR expert to improve their image, a Pentagon report expects them to be encircling key cities by 2017.
Unlike our leaders, the Taliban are not worried about falling into the trap of winning tactical victories. They are big believers in killing their way to popularity. As ISIS and Boko Haram have demonstrated, winning by killing works better than trying to win by wars by winning polls.
Now the same whiz kids that looked for the root cause of the problem in Afghanistan by dumping money everywhere, including into companies linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, think that the way to beat ISIS is with unemployment centers and job training. Many of the ISIS Jihadists come from the social welfare paradises of Europe where there are more people employed to find the root causes of terrorism through welfare than there are people working to fight them. So far they haven’t had much luck either.
The Europeans were still searching for the root causes of Muslim terrorism back when Obama was smoking pot on a dirty couch. They’re still searching for them even while newspapers, cafes and synagogues are shot up. Meanwhile unarmed police officers lie on the ground and beg for their lives.
Obama’s real ISIS strategy is even worse than his Afghan strategy. He doesn’t have a plan for beating ISIS. He has a plan for preventing it from expanding while the sociologists try to figure out the root causes for its popularity. American air power isn’t there to crush ISIS. It’s there to stop it from launching any major advances and embarrassing him too much. Meanwhile hearts and minds will be won.
At least those minds that haven’t been beheaded and those hearts that haven’t been burned to ash.
We won’t be falling into the trap of winning victories. Instead we’ll be figuring out how to create jobs so that all the ISIS fighters go home to Copenhagen and Paris where they won’t be Obama’s problem.
But while it’s tempting to believe that stupid ideas like these are solely the realm of lefties like Obama, it was Mitt Romney who announced during the final debate that, “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.”
“We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism,” he insisted, calling for education and economic development.
“Killing our way out of this mess” has become an orphaned strategy. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to take it home with them. But killing our way out of wars used to be a bipartisan strategy.
Truman believed in a plan to “kill as many as possible.” Eisenhower could casually write, “We should have killed more of them.”
But why listen to the leaders who oversaw America’s last great war when we can instead listen to the architects of the social strategy that turned our cities into war zones?
What did Eisenhower and Truman know that Obama doesn’t? They knew war.
Truman cheated his way into WW1, despite being an only son and half-blind. He took the initiative and took the war to the enemy. They don’t make Democrats like that anymore. They do make Democrats like Barack Obama, who use Marines as umbrella stands and whose strategy is not to offend the enemy.
In Afghanistan, the top brass considered a medal for “courageous restraint”. If we go on trying to not kill our way out of Iraq, that medal will go well with all the burned bodies and severed heads.