Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Ann Coulter Letter: “Don’t Ask Him That! It Would Be Too Obvious”

Commentary of Ann Coulter | Wednesday Nov 11, 2015

Don't Ask Him That! It Would Be Too Obvious

Boy, that Carly Fiorina boom really took off!

At the debate Tuesday night, Fiorina slammed Donald Trump for saying he had met Russian President Vladimir Putin in the “60 Minutes” greenroom, noting that she’d met Putin at “a meeting” not a “greenroom.”

The audience, which seemed a little suspicious to me from the beginning, responded with — I’m quoting the transcript — “(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING).”

A quick Google search revealed that Fiorina had recently told Jimmy Fallon that she met Putin — IN A GREENROOM. As a big tech executive, you’d think she’d remember Google.

After boasting that American Express just boosted his credit limit, Rubio gave a series of canned speeches in response to every question, including everyone’s favorite about “the future”:

“This election is about the future, about what kind of country this nation is gonna be in the 21st century. This next election is actually a generational choice. A choice about what kind of nation we will be in the 21st century … [blah, blah, blah — seriously, he actually said the words, ‘blah, blah blah’] And so here’s the truth: This election is about the future, and the Democratic Party, and the political left has no ideas about the future.”

(Rubio proposes to be the candidate of the future with this brand-new idea: mass immigration!)

Someone needs to tell Marco that every election is about the future, not just this one. It was also the slogan for every high school graduation and prom — circa 1999.

We have now had the fourth straight Republican debate in which Rubio was not asked one question about his single legislative accomplishment: Passing amnesty in the U.S. Senate.

Rubio was Sen. Chuck Schumer’s patsy on the job-killing amnesty bill. He voted for the job-killing — and widely hated — Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. In a debate on economics, he did not get a question on either one.

Having actually asked Rubio a tough question once, Jorge Ramos remains the only immigrant willing to do a job Americans just won’t do: Ask Marco Rubio a serious question.

Rubio was practically taunting the moderators to bring up immigration with him.

– He complained about the big banks hiring “the fanciest law firm in Washington or the best lobbying firm to deal with all these regulations.”

A guy whose entire career has been dedicated to giving cheap labor to employers while driving down American wages should steer clear of complaining about “special interests.” It’s like a hooker complaining about promiscuity.

– He said the “problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough.” I wonder if the dump of millions of low-wage foreign workers on our country has anything to do with that?

– He gave a brave little speech announcing his opposition to jihadists — setting him apart from everyone else on that stage, who LOVES Islamic jihadists! — and claimed that radical terrorist groups “recruit Americans using social media.”

No, Marco, ISIS doesn’t recruit “Americans” on social media. It recruits immigrants and their children — whom you want to import more of, by the way.

Given his record, it’s too late for Rubio to take America’s side on immigration. But it’s still amazing that only Ted Cruz is smart enough to adopt Trump’s runaway, most popular position.

After coming in the lower-middle of the last three debate polls, Cruz finally made it to the No. 2 spot this week. By sheer coincidence, it was the first debate where he fully adopted Trump’s position on immigration. Too bad Cruz isn’t a natural-born citizen.

But it was good to nail down the universal Republican position on radical jihadists: OPPOSED. Wow. Did not see that coming.

Republicans also clarified their position on tax hikes: OPPOSED. We’re still waiting for a GOP consensus on child labor.

I don’t think taxes are that big a deal to most people. Reagan got all the low-hanging fruit: No one’s tax rates are in the 90 percent bracket anymore.

It was a relief to watch a debate with no snarky questions from the moderators, but it could have been more riveting. Only two minutes of the debate were at all interesting — and that was the two minutes spent on immigration.

Talking about the wall, Trump said: “The wall will be built. The wall will be successful. And if you think walls don’t work, all you have to do is ask Israel.” The cheering from the Coulter household was so loud, it could be heard in Tel Aviv, which is safer than El Paso because Israel has a wall.

Given Rubio’s special concern with Israel, you’d think he would have jumped at that invitation, but he stood dumb, like he was trying to figure out how to work in another reference to his father being a bartender.

Only John Kasich interrupted to announce that we can’t deport “11 million” illegals — with the usual rigamarole about how they’ll have to be “law-abiding” (no, they won’t) and they’ll have to “pay a penalty” (there will be no penalty, except the millions of dollars we owe them under the Earned Income Tax Credit). Kasich then sneered: “Come on, folks. We all know you can’t pick them up and ship them across, back across the border. It’s a silly argument. It is not an adult argument. It makes no sense.”

Trump replied that President Eisenhower — “you don’t get nicer, you don’t get friendlier” — managed to deport more than a million illegals back in the 1950s.

I would add that: For every illegal Ike deported, 10 more self-deported.

That was the single best part of the debate — other than the Numbers USA ad showing civil rights hero Barbara Jordan’s stirring call for a restriction on immigration: “Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”

We need to have at least one GOP debate where the only topics allowed for discussion are: immigration, trade and crime — i.e., (1) the only domestic policies Republicans disagree on, and (2) the only policies that directly affect most people’s lives.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Editorial: ‘Safe space’ fascists now rule the University of Missouri

By Post Editorial Board; November 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://nypost.com/2015/11/10/safe-space-fascists-now-rule-the-university-of-missouri

‘Safe space’ fascists now rule the University of Missouri mob rule tyranny

The Social Justice Warriors now rule at the University of Missouri — to the point that they’re bullying the press and ordering the campus police around.

A viral video shows MU protesters blocking a student journalist from taking photographs — as the radicals declare their tent city (on school grounds) to be a “safe space.”

The crowd uses their bodies to move the photographer away. Then Melissa Click — an MU professor — goes after the videographer, declaring, “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.”

The outrage prompted radical leaders to tell the troops on Tuesday that media are “allowed” on campus. Click even apologized.

That’s still some progress, as was the start of faculty voting to revoke Click’s affiliation with the Journalism Department — though not her Communications Department post.

On the other hand, campus police on Tuesday emailed the student body urging kids to report incidents of “hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions.”

The quest for “safe spaces” is starting to look a lot like fascism.

All this, after all, follows the forced resignation of the school’s president and chancellor — for acting too deliberately to a series of alleged racial incidents.

Yes, it was the strike threat from African-American members of Missouri’s football team that left the prez little choice. A forfeit of this week’s game against BYU would’ve cost MU a cool $1 million.

But that just goes to another huge problem in modern academia, one we’ve warned of for years now — schools’ addiction to the cash pulled in by marquee athletic teams.

Between the anti-democratic teachings of so many professors and the profiteering of administrators, today’s campuses look rotten to the core.

What surprise, then, that a minority of extremist students can take over — or that the Social Justice crowd is all too ready to call in the police to enforce its agenda?

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

University of Missouri and Yale Show What Mob Rule Looks Like in Higher Education

Commentary by Andrew Kloster / @ARKloster / November 09, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/09/university-of-missouri-and-yale-shows-what-mob-rule-looks-like-in-higher-education/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouvK7JZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcFjPLHYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Students gather on the University of Missouri campus to show support for Jonathan L. Butler, a 25-year-old graduate student who held a hunger strike for seven days, until his university president resigned. (Photo: Bill Greenbklatt/UPI/Newscom)

America’s universities are supposed to be places where students can get an education. The vast majority of students want that. Some, however, do not. They want a “safe space” where their strange ideas about society can be aired without criticism, and where they can unilaterally punish other students for failing to toe the mass line. These student activists want blood.

At Yale University, last week, a number of members of the Black Student Alliance physically surrounded an administrator and berated him for standing up for free speech and are now demanding his resignation. Caught on camera, one can easily see how dangerous the situation was.

In another example, the president of the University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe, has resigned. His resignation comes after more than 30 members of the football team threatened not to play unless he was forced out. Their claim was that, in unspecified ways, Wolfe failed to eradicate “structural racism” on campus.

These situations have much in common, and the story is becoming a familiar one.

First;

Both situations involve student activists disrupting education, allegedly on behalf of education. At Yale, the activists claimed that allowing free discourse and debate and challenging their assumptions threatened the “safe space” they thought Yale was.

At Mizzou, activists claimed that failing to deal with “structural racism” was harming their education. Both groups of students listed not specific harms, but rather vague interests in feeling good at their university.

Second;

Both situations involve administrators being asked to clamp down on the free expression of other students. At Yale, students were upset that Yale administrators were not clamping down on Halloween costumes. At Mizzou, students wanted more unspecified action against perceived racism on campus.

Third;

Both situations involve menacing groups of students that come very close to physical violence. At Yale, for example, students physically encircled the administrator, shouted him down, and got very close to him in a threatening manner. At Mizzou, students physically surrounded the car of Wolfe and demanded he exit the vehicle into the mob.

This pattern is becoming more prevalent on American campuses. In the name of education, education is being disrupted by intolerant student activists, harming the experience for everyone else. At my alma mater, New York University Law School, a small cadre of students is complaining about Halloween decorations that included a man hanging from a noose, because such a decoration was “harmful suicide imagery.”

These students, complaining about harmless decorations at an optional fall party, are attempting to assert disruptive political control over all aspects of educational life.

If one accepted all of the claims and agreed with the political aims of the student activists, one might think it advisable to close such unrepentantly bigoted universities down.

A more moderate response by university officials, however, would be to take their job as educators seriously. If a student seeks to disrupt the safety or education of another student, punish the disruptor.

If that were to happen, colleges would once again become “safe spaces” for free thought and expression.

This piece has been updated to state that Jonathan L. Butler’s hunger strike was for 7 days.

Different Free Speech Ideologies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “OK, Who Ordered the Mexican Heroin?”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Nov 4, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/11/04/ok-who-ordered-the-mexican-heroin/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

OK, Who Ordered the Mexican Heroin?

Heroin use in the United States increased by nearly 80 percent between 2007 and 2012 alone, and The New York Times’ main reaction to this depressing fact is to be overjoyed that the new addicts are mostly white.

The important point is not that ragingly addictive drugs are sweeping small-town America, young lives are being cut short, or that we lost one of the most talented actors of his generation to a heroin overdose. What matters is that that the drug epidemic is not having a disparate impact.

Excitedly reporting that “nearly 90 percent of those who tried heroin for the first time in the last decade were white” — yay! — the Times claimed that, with white kids dying from heroin overdoses, their parents are taking a “more forgiving approach” to heroin addiction.

Assuming that’s even true, are grieving parents the best source of public policy recommendations? If we’re basing our drug policies on the feelings of parents whose kids overdosed on drugs, how about having the parents of kids who have been raped and murdered write our death penalty laws?

Columbia professor Kimberle Williams Crenshaw lamented that if only whites had been dying of heroin overdoses sooner, “the devastating impact of mass incarceration upon entire communities would never have happened.”

The implication that black people have always had a more “forgiving” approach to drugs — and whites are finally catching up — is insane. Black leaders have been begging for more aggressive drug laws forever.

In the ’90s, members of the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly held hearings on the crack epidemic, crime and drugs. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called drug traffickers “a greater threat to our national security than communists.” Jesse Jackson demanded “a comprehensive war on drugs.” Lee Brown, Clinton’s African-American director of national drug control policy, said that “that the legalization of illegal drugs would be the moral equivalent to genocide.”

Nor did black citizens take a particularly “forgiving” approach to their children’s drug addictions. In March 1987, The Miami Herald told the story of an African-American woman who called the police on her own son, telling them to arrest him, when his drug habit led him to burglarize homes in their neighborhood.

By contrast, the Times’ big ideas for reducing heroin addiction in America are: (1) stop stigmatizing drug use; (2) stop imprisoning drug offenders; and (3) make a heroin antidote, naloxone, widely available, so Americans are prepared when their friends and relatives overdose.

The Times objects to stigmatizing behavior only when it doesn’t really mind the behavior. It never advocates a “forgiving approach” toward things the Times dislikes. There will be no “forgiving approach” to abortion-doctor killers, Catholic priests who molest children or corporate polluters — though those behaviors may also result from a “disease.”

Instead of trying to prevent abortionists from being shot, why not give them bulletproof vests?

Rather than stigmatize priests who molest kids, shouldn’t we put them in “diversion” programs, and have STD antidotes available for the molested children? And do we have to use such loaded term as “molest”?

How about “compassionate counseling” for socially irresponsible corporate conglomerates? Lets try recasting them in a less stigmatizing light — avoiding words like “polluter” or “contaminate,” and instead using terms that convey a chronic condition, like “rent seekers”?

If the Times had any genuine interest in reducing drug addiction, I suspect the paper would prefer the “stigmatizing” approach. It might even advocate policies to stop drug addiction, rather than policies to treat it.

As Rangel said in a 1992 speech to the National Press Club: “We all know that the availability of heroin and cocaine on our streets is because our borders are a sieve. I would like to believe that if the communists were still alive and well, and they were pushing bombs into communities that could cause the havoc, the pain and the cost that drugs are, that somehow the secretary of state … would be involved.”

Rangel is right. The drug problem exploded in the U.S. after we opened our southern border to one of the world’s major drug-supplying countries: Mexico. The vast majority of all drugs in America — heroin, cocaine, marijuana and, increasingly, methamphetamine — are brought in by the people of Mexico, who make our country a more diverse tapestry of cultural richness.

In 2010, 38,329 people died from drug overdoses, twice the number a decade earlier. More people died of drug overdoses than from automobile accidents (30,196), murders (13,000) or gun accidents (700).

About 90 percent of heroin in the U.S. is brought in by Mexicans. In 2013, U.S. authorities seized 2,162 kilograms of heroin coming across our southern border — compared to 367 kilos in 2007. The government has estimated that 660,000 Americans are using heroin and more than 3,000 are dying of it every year — because Mexico is boosting the supply.

And yet in a major front-page article about America’s “heroin crisis” last weekend, the Times never mentioned Mexico.

Even when Mexicans dump illegal drugs on our country, it’s America’s fault. As the Times explained in an Aug. 30, 2015, article, Mexico increased opium production by 50 percent in 2014, “the result of a voracious American appetite.”

In what other circumstances do we absolve the seller of a dangerous product because a buyer exists? It’s not the hit-man’s fault — that lady wanted her husband dead.

In any event, the “appetite” argument may work for pot, but America did not place an order for black tar heroin. According to a DEA agent quoted in The Washington Post, Mexican drug pushers stand outside American methadone clinics, selling their wares. Hey, senor, have you heard of this?

Despite the Times’ neurotic obsession with the racial breakdown of heroin users, it seems sublimely uninterested in the ethnic composition of heroin pushers. This is more than the left’s usual affection for criminals.

Contrary to the cliches, most drug dealers aren’t black: They’re Hispanic. In 2013, 48 percent of drug offenders in federal prison were Hispanic. Only 27 percent were black and 22 percent white.

All the left’s blather about drug laws being used to lock up “black bodies” is a lie. Once again, the left is using African-Americans as a false flag to push policies that help Democrats, but hurt black people.

The Times doesn’t mind black neighborhoods being seized by Mexican drug cartels. It doesn’t mind if more white people die from heroin overdoses. The Times just wants to increase the number of Hispanics out of prison, on their way to citizenship, so they can start voting for the Democrats.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

heroin overdose

The Ben Carson ‘secret’ that Democrats can’t bear to face

By Jonah Goldberg, October 30, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://nypost.com/2015/10/30/the-ben-carson-secret-that-democrats-cant-bear-to-face

Dr. Ben Carson. The ‘secret’ that Democrats can’t bear to face. Photo: Getty Images

Here’s something you may not know: Dr. Ben Carson is black.

Of course, I’m being a little cute here. The only way you wouldn’t know he’s black is if you were blind and only listened to the news.

For instance, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” — a program that often serves as a kind of artisanal boutique of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom — host Joe Scarborough expressed consternation over Carson’s popularity. “I just don’t get it,” Scarborough said more than once. Remarking on some Carson ad he didn’t like, Scarborough said, “This guy is up 20 points in Iowa? . . . It’s baffling.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski kept saying, “I just don’t get the Ben Carson . . .” before trailing off into in articulate exasperation.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson took a plausible stab at why Carson is popular. “They like him, they like him,” he repeated, referring to conservatives in Iowa and elsewhere who admire Carson’s dignified and soft-spoken demeanor.

True enough; Carson has the highest favorables of any candidate in the GOP field.

But what’s remarkable is that at no point in this conversation did anyone call attention to the fact that Carson is an African-American. Indeed, most analysis of Carson’s popularity from pundits focuses on his likable personality and his sincere Christian faith. But it’s intriguingly rare to hear people talk about the fact that he’s black.

One could argue he’s even more authentically African-American than Barack Obama, given that Obama’s mother was white, and he was raised in part by his white grandparents. In his autobiography, Obama writes at length about how he grew up outside the traditional African-American experience — in Hawaii and Indonesia — and how he consciously chose to adopt a black identity when he was in college.

Meanwhile, Carson grew up in Detroit, the son of a very poor, very hardworking single mother. His tale of rising from poverty to become the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital is one of the most inspiring rags-to-riches stories of the last half-century. (Cuba Gooding Jr. played Carson in the movie about his life.) He was a towering figure in the black community in Baltimore and nationally — at least until he became a Republican politician.

And that probably explains why his race seems to be such a non-issue for the media. The New York Times is even reluctant to refer to him as a doctor. The Federalist reports that Jill Biden, who has a doctorate in education, is three times more likely to be referred to as “Dr.” in the Times as brain surgeon Carson. If the Times did that to a black Democrat, charges of racism would be thick in the air.

Or consider the aforementioned Eugene Robinson, who routinely sees racial bias in Republicans. “I can’t say that the people holding ‘Take Back Our Country’ signs were racists,” he wrote in 2014, recalling a tea party rally four years earlier, “but I know this rallying cry arose after the first African-American family moved into the White House.”

Wrong. Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry all used the slogan incessantly when George W. Bush was in office.

How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.

Carson’s popularity isn’t solely derived from his race, but it is a factor. The vast majority of conservatives resent the fact that Democrats glibly and shamelessly accuse Republicans of bigotry — against blacks, Hispanics and women — simply because they disagree with liberal policies (which most conservatives believe hurt minorities).

Yet conservatives also refuse to adopt those liberal policies just to prove they aren’t bigots. Carson — not to mention Carly Fiorina and Hispanics Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — demonstrates that there’s no inherent contradiction between being a minority (or a woman) and supporting conservative principles. And that fact is just too terrible for some liberals to contemplate.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, But They Shouldn’t Be President”

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 28, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/28/the-meek-shall-inherit-the-earth-but-they-shouldnt-be-president/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, But They Shouldn't Be President

It took a billionaire living the glamorous New York City life to exhibit real Christian courage by going against every elite group in the nation, every media outlet, every well-heeled donor, to defend America from destruction by immigration.

Baptist leader Russell Moore, desperate for liberal approval, claims that Christian conservatives “must repudiate everything they believe” in order to support Donald Trump, who “incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly ‘us versus them’ identity politics.” (Please like me, New York Times!)

Moore is especially offended by Trump’s “boisterous confidence” and “waving arms” — as he put it in the Times, journal of respectable liberal opinion. (Do Baptist preachers ever wave their arms? Somebody Google that.)

How would Gen. Douglas MacArthur fare with today’s evangelical leaders? Ronald Reagan was a visibly devout Christian, but Richard Nixon wasn’t. Joe McCarthy wasn’t. MacArthur wasn’t.

Sometimes the country needs a man.

The idea that Christians are supposed to be milquetoasts is liberal propaganda. Ask the money-changers how meek Jesus was. (Not the Clintons; I mean the other money-changers.) God commanded the Israelites to go to certain cities and kill “every living thing.” As I recall, the Crusaders were a little rough around the edges.

When Trump attacks, he targets the rich and powerful. When the elites attack, they target the average American and everything he cares about.

When Trump boasts — about his wealth, his family, his intelligence — it’s funny, not mean-spirited. No one feels inferior. In fact, legions of political commentators who’ve never accomplished anything in their entire lives feel immensely superior to Trump.

No doubt, wisdom shall die with them. (Job 12:1 — one of many examples of sarcasm in the Bible, a rhetorical device bossy Christians tell us is un-Christian.)

By contrast, Trump’s personal style is denounced by the Piety Police with smug certitude, to showcase their superior moral understanding. I’m almost sure the Bible says nothing about arm-waving, but it says quite a bit about the sort of pride that allows a person to presume to speak for God on acceptable speaking styles. God does not mandate personality types and, if He did, I doubt it would be “lisping sycophant.”

It’s not Trump who’s displaying the sin of pride here.

Christians obsessed with ostentatious shows of religiosity in public life have basically the same disease as liberals who go around being offended all the time. It’s all posturing. Trump’s a Christian. This is a Christian country. How about helping keep it that way?

Although Trump has been winning the largest percentage of evangelical voters, evangelical “insiders” like Moore hate him. A poll of “insiders” hand-picked by anti-Trump Warren Cole Smith found only 1.1 percent of evangelical leaders supporting Trump, with 37.4 percent supporting Marco Rubio — as their betters had hoped.

Smith sent the results of his survey to media outlets under the headline: “Evangelicals do NOT support Trump.”

The problem is, they do. Evidently, the flock is not as dumb or “easily led” — in the words of The Washington Post — as evangelical leaders think.

While the Russell Moores and Warren Cole Smiths urgently warn conservative Christians that Trump is a model-marrying libertine, actual evangelicals understand that this is entirely beside the point.

This is not an election about who can check off the most boxes on an evangelical lifestyle list. This is an election about saving the concept of America, the last hope for Christianity on the planet.

A country in which partial birth abortions are freely available, but children can’t hold hands and pray in school, is not a country where Christians are winning.

What difference does it make where a candidate stands on abortion or gay marriage, when a few more years of our current immigration flow will mean no Republican can ever be elected president again and nine Ruth Bader Ginsburgs will sit on the Supreme Court?

Unless Americans stop being outvoted by foreigners, Christians — as well as libertarians, neoconservatives, fiscal conservatives and moderate Democrats — have no hope of winning anything, anywhere, anytime. The last Christian country on Earth will be no more.

Evangelicals don’t need candidates to have religious ecstasies on stage. They need a man with the courage to stand up to the infectious madness pushing Third World immigration on our country.

Marco Rubio devoted his entire Senate career to pushing amnesty — but he made a point of letting the press know that he went to church on Wednesday this week, the day of the debate.

Meanwhile, Trump’s pitch to the religious right is: Yeah, I don’t go to church that much. (At least we know he’s not lying!) But he promises to build a wall, deport illegals and end anchor babies.

Evangelicals know Trump will not go on a witch hunt against some county clerk over gay marriage or sue a high school football coach for allowing his players to pray. It’s the left that has the maniacal bloodlust of totalitarians. Only Trump will oppose them — and with gusto!

What other candidate would toss out un-PC phrases like “illegal immigrant” and “anchor babies” without breaking into a sweat? No other candidate of either party agrees with Trump on immigration — and if they say they do, they’re lying.

Even after Trump rocketed to the lead with his immigration policies, the media still refuse to discuss the issue. The demand for ever-more poverty-stricken immigrants from primitive cultures has gone beyond cheap labor and has become a mass hysteria.

Half the evangelical “leadership” in America can’t comprehend anyone who is not consumed with worldly approval. Russell Moore is afraid to disagree with The New York Times from his religious community in Tennessee. Donald Trump actually is an elite, but he doesn’t care what his friends on Fifth Avenue think of him.

Some Christians want proof that a candidate has memorized Bible verses. I want a candidate who lives by this verse: “So do not be afraid of them.”

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Cartoon: Obama’s Politcally Motivated Veto

Posted by Glenn Foden / @GlennFo / October 23, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/23/cartoon-obamas-politcally-motivated-veto/?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouv6nAZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcBqNLnYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Justin Johnson wrote earlier this week on President Obama’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act:

Instead of dealing with the bill on its merits, Obama is using the defense bill for political leverage. This is the wrong way to handle our national security.

Many Americans rightfully find Washington’s way of doing things disturbing. Instead of treating issues individually, politicians will often attach unpopular policies to popular bills in order to ram them through. For example, just this summer, members of Congress were trying to attach the Export-Import Bank reauthorization to the Highway Bill, two completely unconnected issues.

Conservatives and liberals alike find this practice of linking unconnected issues disturbing. A particular proposal or issue should be considered on its own merits. If it can’t pass alone, it probably shouldn’t pass.

Holding Defense Budgets Ransom

If Congress shouldn’t do this, than the president shouldn’t either. But that’s just what Obama is doing by vetoing the defense authorization bill. The president is not vetoing the defense bill for any policies that are in the bill, but is simply using the veto for political leverage to increase non-defense spending.

To be clear, the defense bill cannot increase non-defense spending.

In fact, the defense bill doesn’t spend any money—it just establishes authorized budgets and policies for our military. But in this case, the facts don’t matter. Obama has been clear that he wants more spending for his domestic, liberal priorities and he is willing to use the defense bill as leverage.

Important Reforms

This defense bill has a wide range of important provisions, some of which the president may not like. The bill keeps terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. It provides for lethal defensive aid to Ukraine. It cuts overgrown Pentagon bureaucracies and begins reforming the military’s retirement system.

A debate about any of the provisions in the bill is legitimate and important. But vetoing the bill for political leverage is not how Washington should operate.

What makes this move by Obama even more concerning is that non-defense spending has been steadily increasing, while defense spending has been steadily decreasing. Since 2008, non-defense discretionary spending has increased by 7 percent while defense discretionary spending has decreased by 14.6 percent.

If you include the major entitlement expansions under Obama, the numbers are even more striking. Social and economic spending has increased 37 percent from 2008 to 2015.

In short, the president’s domestic priorities have been seeing significant funding increases while defense has been cut, but the president wants more and is willing to hold defense at risk.

Obama should not be using our military for political leverage. The budgets for the president’s liberal priorities have gone up significantly while he has been in office, but the president isn’t satisfied and is willing to use a national security bill as leverage for more. Vetoing the defense bill in order to increase domestic spending is wrong and is Washington at its worst.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

National Defense Authorization Act

Ann Coulter Letter: “Save Us From Paul Ryan And The Kemp Boys”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 21, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/21/save-us-from-paul-ryan-and-the-kemp-boys/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Save Us From Paul Ryan And The Kemp Boys

After Paul Ryan helped Mitt Romney lose the 2012 election by doing the impossible — losing a debate to Joe Biden — he went on an intimate tour of poverty. It was a journey so personal, Ryan brought reporters, writers and documentary producers with him.

So far, he’s gotten one book and one documentary out of The Paul Ryan Intimate Poverty Tour — we’re still waiting for the tote bags — and is currently promoting a major poverty-fighting initiative that he brainstormed during private moments of reflection, somehow captured by the press: “The Kemp Forum on Expanding Opportunity.”

Appropriately for an event named after Ryan’s mentor, Jack Kemp, the forum will allow Ryan to showcase his deep concern for the poor without doing a thing to help them. This is the hallmark of the “empowerment” crowd. What matters is their own self-regard and favorable press notices, not doing anything useful.

In the 1996 vice presidential debate, Al Gore repeatedly praised Kemp for not being a racist — unlike the rest of his party. After Gore called Kemp a “lonely voice” in the GOP, “who says we ought to be one nation,” Kemp did not say:

MY PARTY? YOUR PARTY HAS A FORMER KLAN MEMBER IN THE SENATE! YOUR FATHER VOTED AGAINST THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT! YOUR PARTY DESTROYED THE BLACK FAMILY!

No, Kemp’s response was: “Well, I thank you, Al. I mean that very, very sincerely.”

For all Kemp’s claims to being black America’s truest friend, he didn’t actually help any minorities. His famed “enterprise zones” were a renowned flop.

By now there have been approximately 1 million studies on the effect of “enterprise zones,” “empowerment zones” and — Obama’s version — “promise zones.” The conclusion: Every single penny has been wasted. Businesses game the system, relocate shops from just outside the zone to just within it, or take tax credits for doing nothing that they weren’t already planning to do.

The principal result of Kemp’s enterprise zones was to double HUD’s budget.

But Kemp, like his protege Ryan, was everything big corporations and Wall Street love in a Republican: He’d give them tax cuts, cheap labor and moral self-righteousness. Washington is full of these Kemparatchiks, churning out documents and admiring quotes about one another to willing reporters.

The Kemp boys think they’re a big hit with poor minorities — especially Hispanics. Ryan, for example, is a huge supporter of driving down Hispanic wages by endlessly dumping low-wage workers on the country. Empowerment!

Two years ago, Ryan bragged to a Catholic radio station: “I actually campaigned with Jack Kemp against a thing called Prop 187.”

That “thing” was an overwhelmingly popular initiative to prevent illegal aliens from collecting government benefits. It gave Republicans their biggest victory in California in the last 30 years, was supported by a majority of blacks, a majority of whites, a majority of Asians and 31 percent of Hispanics.

Two years later, the Dole-Kemp ticket got only 21 percent of the Hispanic vote. That’s worse than Romney! (These empowerment types really have their finger on the pulse of ethnic America!)

Like Kemp, Ryan acts as if he’s the tribune of blacks and Hispanics, chastising Republicans for “preaching to the choir.” He prefers to preach to the mariachi band — one of which serenaded him on his visit to an immigrant rights group in Chicago, a few months after his failed vice presidential bid.

How about Ryan run for mayor of Los Angeles? After he wins, he can lecture us about how his Jack Kemp message resonates with Hispanics.

Ryan’s big idea on poverty is indistinguishable from Kemp’s: “Get money and capital and credit into the inner cities of America and the barrios and ghettos of America.” This will “empower people”!

The best thing I ever heard about Dick Cheney is that, after listening to Ryan drone on about how Republicans needed to create “a real ownership society” at a meeting with members of Congress, Cheney said, “Yeah, we’re not going to do that,” and then turned to a different representative.

Imagining a photo of himself on the mantle of every black household in America, Ryan touts his forum on poverty, saying, “There are few challenges tougher than the fight against poverty, and we need all hands on deck.”

Wow. What a caring person. No one’s ever talked about poverty before! (Have they?)

About a decade ago, I met an actor, the hot new thing, at an agent’s party. He excitedly told me his big idea: A war on poverty! I told him to look up “LBJ,” but he earnestly persisted, saying, yeah, sure, maybe LBJ talked about poverty, but no one had ever called for “a war on poverty.” See, that was the key — the war part.

That was a mentally impaired actor. Now a decade later, I’m hearing the same thing from the man House Republicans want to make their speaker.

All of human experience has already taught us how to fight poverty, and it doesn’t involve the words “opportunity,” “empowerment” or “zone.”

Effective: Don’t pay people not to work. The 1996 welfare reform act, with its time limits and work requirements, reduced welfare caseloads by an astronomical 65 percent, as former recipients entered the workforce.

Ineffective: Self-flattering politicians jabbering about how much they care about poverty, then creating behemoth government programs that give corporations tax breaks for pretending to help the poor.

Effective: Stop dumping millions of low-wage workers on the country to drive down wages. America’s booming, prosperous middle class arose in the 40-year period after immigration was virtually shut down in 1924 — until Teddy Kennedy opened the floodgates to the Third World in 1965.

Ineffective: Demanding an endless supply of cheap immigrant labor favored by your corporate donors, subsidized by the long-suffering middle class, while strutting around like you’re Martin Luther King.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Paul Ryan

Using Biden to Block the Clintons from Regaining the White House Barack Obama’s last act

By Kevin D. Williamson — October 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425752/obama-2016-joe-biden-hillary-clinton

As he approaches the end of his career in elected office, Barack Obama is in a truly precarious position: He is going to exit the White House having accomplished almost nothing substantive on the policy front — his health-care program is not going to survive, Gitmo is not going to be closed, we are not leaving Afghanistan, and he is sending troops into Iraq — and outside of his perch at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his party is in ruins: In Congress and the states, the Democrats are in their weakest position in modern political history. If the Democrats do not win the presidency in 2016, there are going to be some very uncomfortable questions about what exactly Obama & Co. accomplished, and at what price.

What to do? Throw Herself to the wolves, of course.

Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.” Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants “The secretary shall issue.”

Progressives understand this. Conservatives sometimes fail to.

For conservatives, policy matters above all: You can be Rick Perry or a Marco Rubio or a Scott Walker, but if you deviate from the true path on a single issue, we’ll cast you into the outer darkness as a phony conservative. Progressives invert that: Personnel is what really counts. They operate on the assumption (which turns out to be well founded) that as long as they get their people into positions of power, they’re going to get their way most of the time when it really counts. That’s why Barack Obama could run for the presidency to the right of Dick Cheney on gay marriage — twice, while citing the Bible for justification — without hearing a peep. And it’s why he could subsequently name to the Supreme Court Elena Kagan, who insisted that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” When the time came, Obama’s people were going to give Obama’s people what Obama’s people wanted, and everybody knew it.

But the Clintons aren’t Obama’s people. Bill Clinton thinks of Obama as his own political Stepin Fetchit, the guy who only a few years ago would have been “carrying our bags.” Herself was Obama’s main obstacle to power. (No, Senator McCain most certainly was not.) Obama did not build this machine to hand it over to the Clintons on a cold winter morning in 2017. That puts him in a double bind: He has to make it beyond question that he and his clique now own the Democratic party — that the Clintons are just weird sad old 1990s relics like those ancient AOL CDs that some youngsters ironically collect — but he also needs the Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 in order for the party to be worth owning. And of the candidates in the race, only Herself has a plausible shot at being elected president of these United States. Senator Sanders vs. Senator Rubio? Republicans would have their best year since 1988.

#share#The anti-Clinton element in the Democratic party currently describes itself as the “Warren wing,” and there is among the Sandersnistas a distinct impression that their guy isn’t really their guy, that they’re behind Senator Sanders only because Senator Warren isn’t in the running. She’d do better than Senator Sanders, but she’ll have a hard time of it, too, when her time comes. She’s the Ted Cruz of the Left: She’s exactly the sort of thing you like if you like that sort of thing. But put her in front of an audience that isn’t instinctively on her side and she’s going to have a hard time bridging that gap. She’s a partisans’ partisan. Put Mike Huckabee on a debate stage and I find myself thinking: I don’t want to like this guy, but I like this guy. Get Marco Rubio talking about his family and you cannot help but like him. I’ve seen Elizabeth Warren in action, and you can help liking her.

If President Obama really were the bloodless Machiavellian his critics sometimes think he is, he’d see to it that Herself and a few of her top staffers were indicted under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 for their improper handling of classified documents, and then put out the word that the time has come to choose sides. That she should be indicted is beside the point, politically; it would, however, be the last anybody ever heard of the Clintons. Or he may calculate that her troubles will continue to deepen and decide to simply watch quietly as she goes under with no assistance from him.

The problem is that there is no one in the field to swoop in and lead the Democrats to victory in 2016. Obama has a personnel problem.

And that’s where Joe Biden comes in. Biden is the Obama guy who isn’t really an Obama guy — he was elected to the U.S. Senate when Barack Obama was eleven years old. He had a life and a political career before he hitched his wagon to the teapot messiah from Chicago, and though his is not the keenest mind in politics, he surely gets the game: If he gets in, he is to be reduced to a purely instrumental condition, an enabler of Obama’s last and most important political play, a placeholder keeping the chair warm until Obama’s people have settled on a real president. Biden doesn’t seem like a man who minds being used so long as the deal is a square one, but he is also old and tired and has recently suffered the loss of a child, which must be nearly unbearable. There are three possible outcomes for him: He could get in the race, win, and become a figurehead. He could get in the race, lose, and retire with the stink of defeat upon him.

Or he could just keep smiling.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.

Category:

Opinion

DEAR EUROPE & AMERICA: Those ‘Poor Refugees’ Sure Look And Act Like Radical Muslims To Me

By Doug Giles

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/dear-europe-america-those-poor-refugees-sure-look-and-act-like-radical-muslims-to-me

A couple of weeks ago I got a flurry of appeal letters from ministries asking me to financially help them help the “refugees” fleeing the crap-hole called Syria.

The ministries hit me with the normative guilt-trip noise about “what would Jesus do?”; that “any good Christian worth their salt would definitely help the suffering refugees”; and that if the reader/me didn’t help these “refugees” then they/I suck as a Christian.

That’s not exactly what the letter said, but that was the gist of it.

Now, I know my tightly wound evangelical bros out there don’t think that I’m “saved” because I own a cigar company, openly enjoy alcohol and I, occasionally, can and do out cuss a stevedore, but I do try to please Jesus as much as a fallen critter can.

In addition, I’m well aware that my Catholic amigos think I have the soul of a heretic because I’m a fan of Calvin’s TULIP, but I too would like to inform them that, believe it or not, I’m sold, lock-stock-and-two-smokin’-barrels, on following the rebel from Galilee.

With all of that said … I would love to help people, especially folks suffering under the ignoble muck storm which is Islam, but from my perch these “poor refugees” look like psycho-terrorists, who are not “fleeing for their lives” but purposefully infiltrating Western Civilization in order to make it sink like Bruce Jenner’s new hooters soon will.

Matter of fact, ever since this mass migration to Europe from Syria has occurred, we’ve been following it over at my outfit ClashDaily.com quite religiously.

From what I’ve been able to deduce from the various news feeds from all over the planet, minus CNN, MSNBC and Glenn Beck’s show, is that these “poor refugees” don’t seem like they’re looking too arduously for help with a willingness to assimilate into their “saving” nation.

For instance, here’s what I have had a problem with:

The “poor refugee” pics I’ve seen seem to be filled with 18-45 year old, miffed Muslim men who look bat-crap crazy, entitled and angry at their receiving country.
Pardon me for being a skeptic, but when the “refugees”… “convert” … to Christianity, simply to appease and receive the perks — namely food and money — from the nation in which they’re currently flooding, I question their sincerity.
What’s up with these “refugees” being at the center of massive rape allegations? That seems weird.
I also have a hard time feeling pity for “refugees” when they scream “Allah Akbar” with pipes and sticks during rallies in Germany.
In addition, what “poor refugees” do you know that savagely attack a mother and her daughter?
Another thing I’m finding it hard to wrap my mind around is the “poor refugees’ ” talking trash to cops, screaming “f-ck you” and throwing their relief aid to the ground?
To add to this list, why would these “needy souls” orchestrate an attack in the Eurotunnel? That’s a strange choice, eh?
I hate to be negative, but I have to ask, how come these “suffering folks” overrun a hospital and stab doctors in their host country? Also, why haven’t we seen this on CNN and FOX NEWS? That’s also wa-wa-weird.
And finally, why doth the “unfortunate” file lawsuits against their welcoming governments for not coughing up cash quick enough?

Look, I’m all for helping people who wish to flee from some Suckistan and live free instead of with peeps stuck in the 7th century who believe that if they blow up innocent people that Allah is going to award them 72 chicks who don’t know to get their groove on; but the vast majority of what I’ve seen screams the opposite.

Are they indeed “poor refugees”? Well … I believe they’re poor in this sense of being morally bankrupt. In relation to their being persecuted “refugees”, I got to call BS on the vast majority of those supposedly “fleeing”. Looks more like “infiltrators’ ” preying on westerners’ multi-culti stupidity to this old redneck.

But I digress. Let’s go back to WWJD, shall we?

From what I’ve read of Jesus’ teachings, I don’t see him shaming good folks into helping murderous and religiously implacable hordes. Nay, I do not believe for one holy second that Jesus would let these enemies of humanity into any place other then hell for their delusions and deadly intent.

How do I draw such a conclusion? Well … it’s from this thing called reading “The Gospel” and drawing a conclusion, based on the entirety of Christ’s teachings regarding his nature and character. When I read, say, Matthew 23 I see Jesus’ being divinely intolerant of rude, bigoted, divisive, self-righteous, and murderous religious people who were a fraction of what Islam is. Yay, if the Jesus of the scripture poured anathemas upon the Pharisees, I’m guessing he would really lambaste impenitent Islam. But then again … that’s just me and my read of the scripture.

Oh, and by the way, in case you need proof regarding all the atrocities I lined out about the “poor refugees” in the aforementioned bullet points, well here it is. Enjoy.

One last thing: Weren’t the Boston Bombers also considered “poor refugees” at one time?

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Where’s the Diversity, Democrats?

October 16, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/16/where_s_the_diversity_democrats

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Open Line Friday. So Mary Jo in Grand Rapids. It’s great to have you with us. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I’m calling about the presidential Democratic candidates, and I am — Democrat candidates. And they are constantly speaking about a life of “equality” and “diversity.” But ultimately, they are living a life of elitism. As I watched those five candidates up on the stage — all over 60, white, one female — I compared that to the Republican candidates who are numerous candidates under 60, Indian, Cuban, an Italian female. It’s… The difference is staggering. And if people would just stop and think. But the problem is that those who follow the Democrats are exactly that: They’re followers. They’re told not to question.

RUSH: Well, they react to what they hear. The Democrats preach a good game of diversity and fairness, equality, and all that, and the people eat it up. And they mean it, and they also believe it when they are told the Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. And as you say, when you look at the Republican debate field you see practically an element of every possibility in this country, ethnically. You’re right. You have Cuban and Canadian ethnicity. He have African-American. You have white rich, you have white poor, you have white middle class.

You have African-American middle class. It covers the gamut. There’s all kinds of diversity. And yet the reality of what people see is over shadowed it might not have by years and years and years of the Democrats in the media accusing the Republicans of not being diverse and hating everybody who isn’t white. Yet when you look at the Democrats all you see is white. All you see is aged — seasoned citizens in most cases. You don’t see minorities, ethnic or otherwise, and you can’t say Hillary is minority because women…

There’s no way that she could be tagged as a minority. She had five people up there: Four men, one woman, all white, all over 60, not exactly diverse. But you want to hear the piece de resistance on this? I am not making this up. The Washington Post watched the same debate you and I did. They saw Bernie Sanders: Aged white guy. They saw Lincoln Chafee: Dumb, close-to-aged white guy. They saw Hillary Clinton: Aging, obviously, white woman. They saw Jim Webb, and in Jim Webb, you kind of say, “What’s he doing here?”

But still you saw an upper-middle class, almost-aging white guy. And then Bernie Sanders: An obvious seasoned citizen, bitter and angry white guy. The Washington Post saw all of that, too, and it didn’t register. The Washington Post wrote a story going after CNN for not having diversity in the moderators! No. I’m not making this up. The Washington Post went after CNN in an article on Wednesday titled, “Where were CNN’s black and Latino moderators all night?” The Washington Post accused CNN of “talking a big game about equality and inclusion but broadcasting just the opposite.”

original So when the Washington Post saw the same debate you and I did they missed the fact that every Democrat was old and white. And instead they focused on CNN and they saw Dana Bash, and they saw Anderson Cooper. Hell, CNN had more diversity than the Democrat candidates had. They had a woman, they had a gay/homosexual. Besides, there was Anderson Cooper and Dana Bash and who…? Did they have somebody else that was moderating or just those two? Seems there were three people last… Oh, there was an Hispanic guy. There was an Hispanic guy asking Hispanic-related questions.

Oh, yeah, Don Lemon, a black guy. He got in… Well, he got to read a question off Twitter or Facebook. But at least he got some face time. That’s exactly right. So the Washington Post sees Don Lemon, black guy; Anderson Cooper, Dana Bash, white; Hispanic guy. You had homosexual in that group. And they accused CNN of not being diverse, and they miss entirely the Democrats on the stage. You’ve gotta be trying to get that story. I mean, how do you…? I mean, ridiculous. But they go after CNN and give every Democrat on that stage a pass. Mary Jo, I appreciate the call.

This is Tom in Baltimore, you’re next. Great to have you on Open Line Friday. Hello.

CALLER: Hi there. It’s great to be on the show again. I talked to you as a Rush Baby, and I just wanted to say what an honor it is as a Rush Baby to be able to talk to you.

RUSH: Thanks very much. I appreciate that.

CALLER: My point here is this. After watching the Republican debate I saw that many of them did have good conservative points to make. But overall there was a lot of infighting and a lot of areas where they were not presenting themselves as conservatives. There were many that stayed conservative the whole debate. But they overall were not unified. They did not present themselves as an ideologically pure conservative party. But if you compare the Republican debate to the Democrat debate, they all presented themselves as supporters of big government or reduction in individual freedom, redistribution of wealth. They all presented themselves as that. And in that way, I feel like Democrat Party is very ideologically pure and unified, and they use that power to their advantage when they’re trying to create legislation.

RUSH: Well, there’s no question. Look, this cuts both ways. I mean, you can say the Democrats are in lockstep, and they are. On the Republican side, you could say they’re not monolithic. There’s all kinds of different points of view welcome in the Republican Party, i.e., the big tent, that we’re not exclusionary of people. But that doesn’t seem to persuade anybody. It doesn’t seem to say to people, “You know, the Republican Party is pretty good. They allow all kinds of different ways of thinking.” That doesn’t seem to work. The Republican Party’s actively trying to suppress conservatives, Tom. And the Democrats are indeed unified on the fact that you and I are not qualified to lead our lives. They must do that for us.

END TRANSCRIPT

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “Hispanics Wouldn’t Vote GOP If You Held a Gun To Their Heads”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/14/hispanics-wouldnt-vote-gop-if-you-held-a-gun-to-their-heads/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Hispanics Wouldn't Vote GOP If You Held a Gun To Their Heads

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

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

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

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

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

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

To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, “It’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.” Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he’d “take another look” at the gun bill.

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

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of Democrats own firearms — or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O’Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg. But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

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

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

Republicans don’t need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group. We just have to protect Americans first — American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants. Most voters don’t think it’s an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals — and has soared to the top of the polls. The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote. Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It’s honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up

Written by Bethany Blankley

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/will-the-real-americans-please-stand-up

Jeremy Dodge is an American songwriter and defender of the U.S. Constitution who recently began speaking out about basic constitutional principles that continue to be ignored, violated, or forgotten.

He mentions that several years ago he didn’t know what or how he personally could positively improve any of the numerous challenges facing America. But a breaking point arrived when it seemed to Dodge that no end was in sight to the rapidly increasing deterioration of American socio-economic life. He said,

“I just knew I couldn’t sit down any longer and watch as my country, my America was being changed into something that I didn’t even recognize. It was then that I realized, I was falling for the lie that I couldn’t make a difference, that I was just one voice in a sea of millions but that never has been nor ever will be the truth.”

He cites perhaps America’s greatest leader and first president, George Washington, who affirmed, “The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.”

This commitment to defending the Constitution is one Dodge shares with many Americans, and his growing fan base on social media. Millions of concerned American citizens are increasingly troubled by local, state, and federal government officials who blatantly ignore the most basic “shall not be infringed” prohibitions clearly outlined in the Constitution.

Dodge decided to take action and began writing, singing, and producing music videos to encourage Americans to “stand up” to restore America’s foundational principles of liberty, freedom, and unity. He tells Americans, “this is your country, our voices do matter but if we choose to remain silent, if we choose not to stand up, then we lose by default.”

From singing about being proud to be an American to belting out “God bless America,” Dodge identifies the liberties that are systematically being stripped away by media elites and fascist leaders.

His most recent song, “Stand Up, 2nd Amendment Style,” addresses the ongoing and largely false claims made by gun control advocates.

In-between sound bites of Ronald Reagan and JFK, he sings:

“… when politicians take from you and me the very liberties that set us free – so stand up and fight – for this “democracy” is you and me

“will the real Americans please stand up – divided we’ve fallen but united we’ll stand.”

Who will stand for America?

Dodge has been asking this for years. Addressing his own thoughts about “stepping out of his comfort zone,” he says:

“We need to get out of our comfort zones, we need to be bold and open our mouths and speak the truth in love. It is the knowledge of the truth that will set our country free. For far too long we have been silent, while the outspoken minorities have slowly changed the God ordained direction our country was created to head. No one in history who has stood up and made a difference was comfortable doing so, but that didn’t stop them. The love that they had for their country was greater than the fear of man’s opinion of them and so they stood. Where do you stand? You are either for America or not. There is no in between. We can no longer shift between two opinions on the back of apathy or fear, we must stand up and stand our ground without fear and full of love.”

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Brain of a Liberal Democrat vs a Conservative Republican

By Steve Straub

URL of the original posting site: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/brain-of-a-liberal-democrat-vs-a-conservative-republican

First, here’s an inside look at the socialist brain of a liberal Democrat:

Versus the brain of a Conservative Republican:

See the difference?

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Liberal/Socialist Brain

25 QUESTIONS: That We Should Demand Be Answered By Our Leaders

Posted on October 9, 2015 by Les Weaver, Clash Daily Contributor

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/25-questions-that-we-should-demand-be-answered-by-our-leaders

Our governments from municipal to federal have grown exponentially since our country’s founding. That growth is not just in quantity but also in percent of population. Laws and regulations have increased to an uncountable level with many thousands obsolete but not repealed. Like a cancer, for decades government has even begun to feed on itself. That cancer first begins by the big fish, (federal) devouring the small fish, (municipal), and then works its way to bigger fish; i.e. County and State Governments.

Every day, more and more questions arise that can be defined as political self-cannibalism of the Federal Government. The Federal Government just can’t get enough to satisfy its appetite for more power and control. The menu to satisfy that appetite totally ignores the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the superior law of the land. To label the Federal Government as “out of control” is itself an understatement of the fearful obvious.

Our Constitution was intended to guarantee equal justice for all under the law. The problem is that laws, regulations, ethics and political correctness create confusion about what is or is not permitted on any given day or under a particular circumstance.

That confusion has stimulated me to write out some questions. I ask my peers, am I missing something about the formation and purpose of our government? In any event, feel free to add to this list for it is far from complete. And then, pass it on. (Emphasis added by me-JB)

Why does this Administration encourage Muslim immigration but not Christian immigration?
Why does this government protect the Koran but no longer the Bible?
Why are we advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics?
Why are we constantly hearing about how Social Security is going to run out of money but we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?
Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, giving near no pay raises and cutting our military to less than pre-WWII levels but we are not cutting or reducing payments to illegal aliens such as monthly payments for each child, money for housing, food stamps, free education and also college while granting the right to covertly vote?
If Black Lives Matter, why do they treat themselves and each other so badly?
Why does the administration talk gun control over the mass shooting of ten but not use as example, the killing of 15 in the President’s home town?
Why is the motto “Black Lives Matter” but the saying that “All Lives Matter” results in a war between races seemingly stimulated by government?
Why does part of the government, (BLM, EPA, etc.) spend millions of tax dollars to protect flora, fauna and fungi while other parts of this same government, (HHS, etc.) grant and spend unaccounted millions of tax dollars to kill unborn humans?
Why is it that on the entire globe, the U.S. spends the most per student by far and yet is 20th and below on actual post-graduate knowledge and capability?
Why is the term “Domestic Terrorist” accepted but the term “Islamic Terrorist” discouraged and in government circles, even banned?
Why do so many persons lose all sense of honor, honesty and integrity once they obtain an office in Washington, D.C.?
Why do so many politicians that spew rage that illegals should not take U.S. jobs also vilify strengthening and enforcing E-Verify, and penalizing illegal employers?
Why do those congress members that voted for ObamaCare exempt both themselves and their staff from enrolling in what they voted on for the rest of us?
Why do so many citizens that claim their disgust at the government continue to perpetuate this same government by returning the scoundrels over and over again?
Why are so many blind to laws that are passed to “benefit and protect” the people but include a clause to exempt the very people that created and passed the law?
Why was the Democrat Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses because of religious objections, arrested for contempt of court but the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, Cathy Lanier, gets a pass for refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” although not required by law?
Why is Harvard considered an Acme of education when of the two alumna that occupy the White House, one believes the U.S. has 57 States and the other believes that all 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were born outside of the U.S.?
After winning an election, what is it about the trip to Washington, D.C. that turns a servant of the people into a tyrannical ruler of the people?
Why should the average High School graduate attend further academics when winning an election at any level suddenly advances your mental capacity and ability far beyond non-politicians regardless of their education or experience?
Why can members of one party lie and perjure before congress without penalty but members of another party can be jailed for years for the same offense?
What is it about the first trip to Washington, D.C. after winning an election that causes the newly elected to suddenly morph from representing constituents to self-absorbance?
Why do an increasing number of citizens that once revered this government now fear it?>>>>>>>>>>
Why is it that only the free speech that echoes the President’s agenda is accepted as having substance while contrary speech may result in arrest?
Why is the handout of copies of The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on campuses of education becoming disallowed?

Les Weaver: Born into abject poverty in 1934, he spent his teen years on farms as a foster child and was classified as a farm laborer when he joined the Navy in 1952. After that service, he had a short stint at a University but moved on to 35 years associated with the engineering and technical sciences in Aero-Space, retiring from two Aerospace giants in senior positions and a small business. Until retirement, his writing experience was limited to technical occupational reports. His wife is a German immigrant, now a proud American and together they enjoy gardening. Les takes breaks from gardening to express himself to the politicians by phone, email and now thru ClashDaily/DougGiles.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

What Really Drives Obama’s Destructive Mideast Policy?

By Selwyn Duke, October 8, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/what_really_drives_obamas_destructive_mideast_policy.html#ixzz3o1FNzJ6e

It’s not a stretch to say that what ex-president Jimmy Carter did for Iran, Barack Obama is doing for the whole Middle East and beyond. Islamic State is on the move; jihadism in general is raging and all the rage; and with the Iran deal, the man who helped enable the “Arab Spring” may give us a nuclear winter.

A Mideast policy with such results has befuddled many. Why did Obama help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and hurl Libya into turmoil? Why did he throw Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak under the bus? And why, as radio host Michael Savage asked late last week, does he have such a “vendetta” against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad?

It’s not enough to say that the Gaddafis and Assads of the world are bad men; the devil you know is often better than the devil you don’t know, and this certainly appears the case when turmoil and jihadists are the apparent alternatives to these strongmen’s rule. And Iran is governed by bad men, but Obama showed no interest in supporting dissidents there.

When analyzing the above, credulous liberals might say the president is merely interested in supporting “democracy,” some conservatives might explain it by way of incompetence, while yet others may aver that Muslim sympathies impel him to support jihadist causes. But the truth is perhaps a bit more nuanced, so let me suggest a different theory.

When discerning a person’s motivations, you must first consider what he is. Obama is a hardcore leftist, marinated in Marxism from his youth, raised by a leftist mother and grandparents and mentored by card-carrying Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. He also belonged to the socialist New Party in 1990s Chicago and, according to a 2007 study, owned the Senate’s most left-wing voting record; this means he was ahead of even that body’s only avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders (who was number two).

Now, one thing we know about hardcore leftists is that they generally consider religion the “opiate of the masses.” This brings us to the idea, embraced by 29 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Republicans, that Obama is a Muslim. Question: is it realistic to think that Obama truly believes in God and that God’s name is Allah? Does his support for the homosexual agenda (including faux marriage), women in combat and “transgenders” in the military reflect Sharia?

The reality? Obama is a de facto atheist. He deifies himself more than anyone else. But there’s an important distinction here almost universally missed by liberals and conservatives: Obama isn’t religiously Muslim.

But there’s every indication he’s culturally Muslim.

Having lived in the Islamic country of Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10 with a Muslim stepfather, it’s likely that Obama’s earliest memories are of life in a Muslim culture. He also has characterized the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset” (and recites it with an authentic accent) and has avoided Christian events while trumpeting his Muslim heritage. Yet however much this influences his thinking, it pales in comparison to something else that characterizes him and virtually all leftists.

Hatred for the West.

In Obama’s narrow universe, the West is the cause of most evil in the world. The West is oppressive, destructive and poisons everything it touches. And for justice to prevail, Western institutions and influence must be quashed.

Now consider the Middle East’s modern history. Syria’s current borders were created by the West after the fall of the Ottomans, and the CIA covertly backed the Arab world’s first military coup in that nation in 1949. Italy seized Libya from the Ottoman Empire in the Italo-Turkish War in 1911-12; in fact, the name “Libya” itself was adopted by Italy in 1934 during its colonization of the region and originated with the ancient Greeks (the birthplace of Western civilization), who used it to describe all of North Africa apart from Egypt. As for Egypt, it was part of the Cold War geopolitical tussle, first allied with the Soviet Union and then switching allegiance to the U.S. under President Anwar Sadat. Also note that the Assad dynasty has long been supported by — and Gaddafi was a longtime ally of — the Soviet Union/Russia.

But wouldn’t a leftist such as Obama welcome Soviet influence? First, the leftist line was that the Soviets’ Cold War activities were designed mainly to counterbalance Western imperialism — the Soviets wouldn’t have been in the Middle East if we weren’t. More significantly with Obama, however, I believe that in one sense he doesn’t distinguish between the West and Russia, in that he views them both as the oppressive “white world” (especially since the U.S.S.R. is no more).

You no doubt see the point. The modern Middle East is largely a Western construct, with Western-drawn borders and Western-facilitated strongmen. Obama sees Western influence and creations as the bane of humanity.

Ergo, not only is the enemy of my ideological enemy my friend, but, whatever the “Arab Street” may be, it can’t be worse than the world’s most evil force: the West.

This also helps shed light on Obama’s apparent antipathy for Israel, which he would also view as a Western invention, and his refusal to support dissidents in Iran. Remember that the Iranian theocracy, born in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, already represents the overthrow of the Western Mideast order.

This theory certainly explains Obama’s actions. No, it would not be a rational motivation, but much of what animates man is irrational. This is especially true of leftists, who, disbelieving in and disconnected from Truth, are driven by emotional attachment to misbegotten ideas.

Nor would Obama likely heed cooler heads’ counsel. He lives in the echo chamber of his own mind, considering others’ opinions superfluous; he’s the very antithesis of the saying “Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him.” Note that he arrogantly stated in 2007 not only that he’d be a better political director than his political director, but also “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. [And] I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Even more telling is a story related by economist and gun-rights advocate Dr. John Lott on Mark Levin’s radio show last Friday about the time when he and Obama were both in the University of Chicago’s employ. Obama didn’t attend the gatherings at which the staff exchanged ideas, except once, when he asked a fairly unintelligible question. Lott then saw Obama after the event and, trying to make friends and conversation, said (I’m paraphrasing), “You know, your question was interesting, but I think more people would have understood it if….” Lott never got to finish.

Because Obama, cold as ice, just turned his back.

And Obama long ago turned his back on reality and on the civilization that has given him everything. He hates the world’s Western-imposed order so much that he’s propelling the world toward disorder. And that’s the tragic result when you don’t realize that hatred is not a strategy.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Selwyn Duke

How Republicans Should Handle Donald Trump

By Chries King October 8, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/how_republicans_should_handle_donald_trump.html#ixzz3o0ucR13C

Enjoy Him

I have a confession to make: I’ve always liked Donald Trump. It’s one of those “guilty pleasures” I’ve been loath to admit for over 25 years.

I was introduced to the Donald back in the day when he was promoting his first, book and I thought his first name was really “Art,” as in Art-of-the-Deal Donald Trump. He was brash, bombastic, and charismatic. He was a teetotaler – at least at dinner parties – not because alcohol is bad for you, but because alcohol is bad for deal-making. I was impressed with him but was unwilling admit it to any of my friends – friends who insisted on calling Trump a narcissist and an opportunist (which he was – and is).

I liked Donald Trump when he and his wife Ivana (a tall version of Zsa Zsa Gabor) were on all the covers of tabloids, newspapers, and magazines. I liked him back when he was pro-choice and was, for all practical purposes, a liberal Democrat. I liked him when he was going through bankruptcy and insisted he was not bankrupt. I detest gambling, but I liked Donald Trump when he was buying land at a discount and building casinos generating astronomical profits. I never watched The Apprentice, but I always stopped whatever I was doing to watch the TV ads promoting the show, just so I could see and hear the Donald say, “Yuh fiuhed!”

I still enjoy Donald Trump. I enjoy his bombast and his perpetual Elvis-sneer. I enjoy the way he comes out swinging whenever he perceives he is being attacked. I’m gratified to see the way Mr. Trump has left the Democratic Party and has become a pro-life Republican. He’s not a classic conservative, but he’s way more conservative than he once was, and he’s way more conservative than any modern Democrat. His style is abrasive and cuddly all at the same time.

When I was a kid, there was a character on a popular TV show who was politically conservative, obnoxious, and insulting, and who had no filter between his brain and his mouth. Archie Bunker said hateful things in a way that made everyone laugh. Everyone who watched the show knew that in spite of his words and behavior, Archie Bunker deeply loved his wife, his family, and his country.

Donald Trump is Archie Bunker. He possesses no filter between his brain and his mouth. He loves his family, his supporters, and himself. Those are some reasons he remains so popular in 2015.

Embrace Him

If Donald Trump were a typical politician, he would never have said half the things he’s said. Such words would have ended the careers of other politicians. Instead of having his campaign ended over ill-conceived words, he has become more popular. Many of the “experts” have tried to explain why Trump remains popular. Most of them have it wrong.

When pollsters report Donald Trump as the top preference of Republican voters, they also tend to report a liturgy of reasons for his popularity; he has high name recognition, his supporters are seeking an “outsider,” Trump supporters are unhappy and disillusioned with inside-the-Beltway politicians. These may be valid reasons for Trump supporters to express their support in the polls. However, this “conventional wisdom” does not accurately reflect the visceral, underlying motivation behind support for Candidate Trump.

Most people who support Donald Trump are not saying, “We love Donald Trump.” They are saying, “We hate you, mainstream media!” They are saying, “We hate you, establishment Republicans and inside-the-Beltway politicians and bureaucrats!” The message Trump supporters are sending to the GOP leadership and the GOP establishment is clear: “You don’t support Trump? Well, we…hate…you…so we do support Trump!”

The mainstream media will never try to reduce the hatred Trump supporters hold for them, nor will they try to garner their affection. On the other hand, if the GOP does not in some substantive way reach out to Trump supporters, the Republican Party is in serious danger of losing another national election in 2016.

Include Him

Donald Trump rightly perceived an increasing frustration among mainstream Americans related to illegal immigration. He also perceived increasing anger among mainstream Americans directed at both major political parties in Washington, D.C. Trump is a good businessman. When he announced his candidacy this past summer, he talked about illegal immigration. He recognized he was hitting a nationwide nerve, and he has not backed off. He also is running as a political outsider. He is opportunistic, aggressive, and smart.

In 2012, I believe that Trump mistakenly thought he had an opportunity to garner a following by becoming an Obama-birther. In 2015, it’s clear he realized that his birther act was appealing only to a very small number of vocal but insane losers, and he has not brought up the subject again.

The GOP needs to seriously look at those issues raised by Trump that have connected him with his supporters in 2015. Illegal immigration is a legitimate concern shared by a majority of mainstream Americans from every racial and ethnic group. When Trump talks about crimes being committed by illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America, he is addressing something that affects everyone, but especially law-abiding American Hispanics (this may be one reason that Trump is stronger with Hispanic voters than expected).

When Trump talks like an outsider – an outsider who knows how insiders think because he hires lobbyist insiders to work for him – when he portrays himself as an outsider, he is giving voters something they want. The majority of mainstream American voters are not simply disillusioned with inside-the-Beltway business as usual politics; they are mad – fighting mad. Donald Trump (and Ben Carson to a lesser degree) has effectively tapped into that anger and expressed a willingness and a desire to fight.

The Grand Old Party and the other Republican candidates in the field running against Trump need to try to understand that a majority of mainstream Americans, who in the past have voted for candidates of both political parties, harbor an almost incalculable depth of rage and animosity toward the entrenched establishment of both major parties.

Even if Trump does not become the nominee of the Republican Party, he has shown the path to victory that needs to be followed in the general election by the eventual nominee:

Run a campaign that demonstrates clear opposition to illegal immigration and an uncompromising resolve to fix the problem.
Run as an outsider committed to fight the dysfunction that inside-the-Beltway politics has become – including going after the judiciary.
Don’t run as a Republican. Run as a mainstream American committed to fighting for mainstream American values – while smiling the whole time.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “The Problem Isn’t Guns Or White Men”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday October 7, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/07/the-problem-isnt-guns-or-white-men

The Problem Isn't Guns Or White Men

The media act as if they’re performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.

Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While I’m here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?)

There’s a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won’t work, blame it on guns.

The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don’t want to reward the fiend with publicity!

But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It’s a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?

When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.

Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness can’t be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws.

True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people.

Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness — both imminent and physical — as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards — you might almost call them “common sense” — allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.

The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings.

According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:

– Austria, 175

– Finland, 218

– Germany, 175

– Sweden, 114

– England, 93

The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. — voluntarily or involuntarily — is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.

After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here’s an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?

Liberals will howl about “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, but they sure don’t mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.

But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population — I think we’ve found the crucial ingredient!

Democrats won’t be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:

– Most mentally ill are not violent!

Undoubtedly true. BUT WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.

– The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!

I’ll wager that the percentage of the nation’s 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.

As with the “most Muslims are peaceful” canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.

How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons — and, every now and then, commit mass murder?

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

We’re Erasing Western Civilization

From the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show October 06, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/06/we_re_erasing_western_civilization

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I have three stories here. The headlines are enough. “Workers Remove Ten Commandment Monument from Oklahoma City Capitol Grounds at 10:30 p.m. to keep protesters from demonstrating.” Next headline: “Pork Products Face Workplace Ban for Being Offensive.”

The next headline: “School Cancels America Day.” Fourth headline. Do you know what the fastest growing language in the United States is? Nope. It’s Arabic. Fastest growing, not the most spoken. “Fastest Growing Language in the United States Is Arabic.” Here’s another headline: “World’s First Lesbian Bishop Calls for Church to Remove Crosses and to Install Muslim Prayer Space Instead.” There is a creep, creep, creep, creep, creep that is happening throughout Western nations, Western cultures, and Western civilization countries.

It is a creep, creep, creep, creep, creep through various means. Illegal immigration, normal immigration, intimidation, political correctness, what have you. But Western civilizations are pretty much in the process of erasing themselves, in my view, anyway. The people who wish to erase Western civilization in many cases are not even firing a shot. Some are, such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all that, but the legal immigrants are not firing a shot. La Raza’s not firing a shot. A number of the domestic upheavals in this country are happening not because of any kind of force.

They’re happening because of political correctness, fear, intimidation, you name it. First story. UK Daily Mail: “A granite monument of the Ten Commandments that has sparked controversy since its installation on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was being removed and will be transported to a private conservative think tank for storage. A contractor the state hired began removing the monument shortly after 10:30 p.m. Monday. The work comes after the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s June decision that the display violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support ‘any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.'”

We are a Christian nation with a Judeo-Christian ethic. Were founded and established that way, and we are erasing ourselves. We are allowing it to happen under the guise of religious freedom, except it’s not religious freedom that’s making this happen because the religious freedom is also under assault and could be said to be suffering defeats. Try employing your religious freedom if you’re a county clerk in Kentucky. Try using your religious freedom if you’re a pizzeria or a bakery or what have you in Indiana, southern California, or Colorado.

You’ll find that your religious freedom doesn’t mean anything. But in the name of religious freedom, the Ten Commandments monument must come down so as not to offend anybody who doesn’t believe in them. It used to be our country. I mean, this is how the United States was founded. The melting pot. I guess the people who believe this country was founded in an immoral way, is immoral, is unjust, and has been for over 200 years, must engage in all this to erase its history of racism, slavery, discrimination, or whatever.

In other words, the United States has been flawed from the get-go, and it’s time now to fix it. And every precept and principle on which the nation was founded was discriminatory, bigoted, or what have you, and so must not stand. The melting pot used to be people coming here wanting to become Americans. Now it seems like people are coming here trying to erase America — and many who live in America are actually doing the erasing. Next headline, Breitbart: “Communal Workplace Kitchens…” Communal workplace kitchen?

large What is a “communal workplace kitchen”? Does that mean like our little kitchen in here? I mean, we’re a workplace. It’s the “communal” that has… What is that, communal? Does it mean we have to open it up to people outside the office here? (interruption) Well, whatever it means, here’s the story. “Communal workplace kitchens may soon face a ban on pork products like sausage rolls and ham sandwiches over fears that they are offensive to certain faiths.” See how guilty we are, folks? Ham sandwiches is a sign of the bigotry that this nation is, always has been, and has become.

“New guidelines posted by…” This is I think a UK story, but whatever. It doesn’t matter. I mean, the things happening at Western nations in Europe are tantamount to happening here, too. “New guidelines proposed by CoExist House, a US- and UK-based interfaith group,” which means it’s a leftist group disguised as religious group. “CoExist House, a US- and UK-based interfaith group, urge employers to consider the rules of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Sikhism, as well as new religions like Scientology. It warns bosses to be sensitive to worker’s religions before allowing ham products to be stored or prepared alongside other products.”

You know whose jealous about this is the vegans. The vegans! They’ve had to share refrigerators with meat-eaters — and all of this time, all they would have had to do was make a religious argument about it, and the meat people would have had to remove their stuff, leaving the fridge exclusively for the use of the vegans. Now here come these other religions, saying, “We don’t like pork. We don’t like ham. You gotta get it out of the fridge. You can’t even have it in the kitchen if we’re gonna be there!”

And we’ll say, “Okay, okay. We’ll get rid of it.” The Brits are saying, “Fine, we don’t want to offend you. Instead saying, “Screw you, what you do…? Screw you!” They’re taking it out. “The group also suggests that alcohol should not be served at corporate events in case it upsets the feelings of members of certain faiths. Andy Dinham, professor of faith and public policy at Goldsmiths, University of London, is preparing the guidelines that will be put forward to employers this week.

“Prof Dinham told the Sunday Times: ‘It would be good etiquette to avoid heating up foods that might be prohibited for people of other faiths. ‘The microwaves example is a good one. We also say, ‘Don’t put kosher or halal and other … special foods next to another [food] or, God forbid, on the same plate.'” You cannot do that. October 5, 2015, Fox News: “Patriotic teenagers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming showed up to class Wednesday waving American flags in defiance of educators who canceled ‘America Day’ over fears it might upset students who don’t consider themselves to be American.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want you to listen to this lead again. “Patriotic teenagers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming showed up to class Wednesday waving American flags in defiance of educators who canceled ‘America Day’ over fears it might upset students who don’t consider themselves to be American.” I guess, ladies and gentlemen, it’s too late to ask what non-Americans are doing at a school in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, or why American taxpayers are paying to educate non-Americans and then why we are deferring to non-Americans who are offended by the American flag in an American school?

large You know what this really epitomizes? This illustrates the difference between immigrants in the past and those of today. Immigrants in the past came here to be Americans. They loved the American flag. They wanted that flag to fly above them. They revered, respected, and on the other hand that flag. They could not wait to assimilate. They could not wait to become citizens. They could not wait to wave that flag as their own.

They would have jumped at the chance to engage in an America Day. Why do we even need an America Day in the first place? Well, regardless, immigrants of old would have jumped at the chance to participate in a day celebrating America, but today immigrants students who are not Americans are offended, don’t want to see the flag, and what do the school administrators do? “Okay, okay, okay, okay! Don’t shoot! We’ll take it down. Don’t bomb! We’ll take it down.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One little tidbit about Jackson Hole, Wyoming, America Day was part of a homecoming tradition at the high school. Students would show up to class either waving American flags or wearing red, white, and blue clothing. And many different students felt singled out, odd, they’re not American, and they just felt weird, and they felt inferior. They felt here’s Americans celebrating, very unfortunate. So the school says we’re trying to be inclusive and safe and make everybody feel welcome.

Safe? I tell you what, without — well, I can’t say they’re not firing shots, but it’s fear. We’re in a total defensive, fearful position. “Okay, okay, okay,” and we engage in this under the guise of being open-minded and politically correct, but it’s fear. Anyhow, from Breitbart, world’s first lesbian bishop. By the way, folks, all this other political stuff, we got the political news, we got Biden talking to Maureen Dowd about his son saying, “Run for president.” It seems to be big news. It’s captivated the attention here of the Drive-Bys. Donald Trump dropping in the polls got everybody, I mean you wouldn’t believe the orgasms in the Republican establishment and the media taking place over that, and some other things out there.

You know, all of that really — I know it’s important. It’s secondary to me that this stuff — I mean, we can sit around and debate, you know, what people say running for president and all that, but while all that’s happening this cultural deprivation and rot and the erasing of Western civilization is happening right under our nose, right in front of our eyes. I mean, we’re looking at it. We’re not only looking, we’re enabling it.

“The Bishop of Stockholm has proposed a church in her diocese remove all signs of the cross and put down markings showing the direction to Mecca for the benefit of Muslim worshippers. Eva Brunne, who was made the world’s first openly lesbian bishop by the church of Sweden in 2009, and has a young son with her wife and fellow lesbian priest Gunilla Linden, made the suggestion to make those of other faiths more welcome.”

A, she cannot have a son with her wife. But I’m the one that’s gonna get in trouble for pointing that out. It’s not biologically possible. But, anyway, again, don’t want to make a big deal out of that. Is this what Muslims do in their mosques? Do they take down all references to Mecca and put up the cross with directions, say, to the Holy Land? Can you go into a mosque and see the cross with directions to Jerusalem or Bethlehem? I don’t think so.

“The church targeted is the Seamen’s mission church in Stockholm’s eastern dockyards. The Bishop held a meeting there this year and challenged the priest to explain what he’d do if a ship’s crew came into port who weren’t Christian but wanted to pray.” Okay, fine, as though they couldn’t find a place.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What happened? What happened to the woman that just…? (interruption)You just took her off the board. What was she gonna talk about? (interruption) Is that what it was? (interruption) No, it was something else. It was something else. Well, I wish she hadn’t gone away. I should have said she was coming up next. It was Fast and Furious. I’ve got a story here in the Stack that was gonna relate to what it was she was gonna talk about. Anyway, David in Santa Barbara, we’ll go to you. How are you doing, sir? Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush, and mega dittos from the liberal bastion of the left.

RUSH: Great to have you with us. Hi.

CALLER: Thank you. My point is that I think what should happen next with canceling the America Day, is that the parents should go to the school board and demand that the principal or whoever else was involved in canceling this be terminated, because there’s nothing that scares a politician more than thinking that their constituency is going to turn on them.

RUSH: You know, I totally agree. Let me tell you, it’s not gonna happen, and this is one of the problems. I have told this story I don’t know how many times. The reason it’s not gonna happen is because the parents are afraid that when they leave, that the teacher is gonna give their kid a bad grade and ruin their future. That’s the leverage and control the schools have over the parents. I’ve told you all about this. A woman told me often that her daughter went to a school who had an American history class, and there was no history taught.

This course every day was nothing more than this teacher, a woman, bashing George W. Bush. It was “current events” right from NBC, ABC, CBS. It was nothing but bashing conservatives, bashing Bush. There was no history. It was nothing but current events. And the teacher, in order disguise what was going on, gave the students… She had to give history exams ’cause there have to be tests and so forth. She gave them the answers to every history exam that supposedly was given. The students didn’t complain because, hell, they were given the test!

large All they wanted was get the A and get out of there. I asked this woman, “Why didn’t you do something! I mean, this is outrageous what’s happening. You’ve got an activist that’s taken over a history course. Why do you do something about it?” “I don’t want my daughter penalized. Nothing’s gonna happen to that teacher. All of these parents can go in; nothing’s gonna happen to that teacher. The school board’s gonna defend the teacher. The principal’s gonna defend. All that’s gonna happen is that my daughter is gonna get F’s.”

So nothing’s done about it.

A lot of people complain.

That’s not the only story. I hear countless examples of this kind of thing happening in school, and your example here out in Wyoming of what needs to happen is, “Somebody needs to go and tell the principal X, Y, and Z if this doesn’t stop.” They’re not gonna do it, because they think their kids are gonna get harmed — which is ironic because their kids already are being harmed by what’s going on in the classroom. But grades are everything. Grades is how you get into Harvard or whatever college you want, grades is how you end up impressing other people in town. “My kid gets A’s,” or whatever, and the near afraid of grade punishment.

So they just don’t say anything.

And the leftists continue to get away with it all.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Even if the parents go to the school board members who are elected, and the school board then tells the administration and principal, “You gotta stop this,” the kid whose parents show up is still gonna get punished. That’s what the parents think; that’s why they don’t do anything.

END TRANSCRIPT

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

A CONCEALED HANDGUN: Is ‘Peace Through Strength’ For The Common Man

Written by Wes Walker on October 6, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/a-concealed-handgun-is-peace-through-strength-for-the-common-man

If nothing else, we can call Obama consistent.

Have you noticed that the most infuriating things about the President’s foreign policy, and his domestic agenda have the same end-game?

When we look at his foreign policy, what do we see? We see someone who watched a NATO ally get invaded by our old Cold War adversary… and did nothing to interfere.

He publicly blessed the “Arab Spring” and cheered its spread.

He’s reestablished relations with Cuba and Iran, while instructing US officials not to attend Netanyahu’s UN Address.

In short? The strategy seems to be: embolden our adversaries, and fail our friends.

What about domestically? He tends to be on the wrong side of those issues, too.

From as early as the “Beer Summit” he demonstrated his startling tendency to make judgments about right and wrong, absent any relevant facts. “If I had a son…”

His pattern? Be sympathetic to recognized Progressive darlings, and conveniently forget the presumption of innocence for the rest.

Now we’ve got gun violence. Who is to blame? The NRA and lawful gun owners (naturally). All these shootings are their fault.

Pay no attention to gang-bangers slaughtering victims almost at will in cities with the strictest gun regulations. We need to target lawful gun ownership.

That’s pretty rich, coming from the team whose resume includes the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

Curtail gun ownership among law abiding citizens, but sell guns to drug dealers in Mexico. Brilliant.

Which takes us to where Domestic and Foreign policy overlap.

The personal firearm and the strong military are both tools of the same goal: Project credible strength, so that actually administering lethal force becomes unnecessary. We already know this is true. What happens when the nation or neighbour with evil intent believes you lack either the tools, or else the will to oppose him? The answer is obvious. He will act with impunity, daring you to stop him. He will force your hand; will MAKE you stop him — usually paying a high price in the process.

What happens when he sees that you do not lack either of those things? It will make him think twice before tangling with you. Notice how the guy with the Doberman isn’t bothered by trespassers? That’s the same principle in action.

So here we have the recipient of a Peace Prize, signaling weakness to regimes with dubious, or even hostile intent, all while telling Americans that he intends to confiscate the very tools responsible citizens use to stop bad men.

All in the name of “making us safer”.

Hero Chris Mintz took seven bullets while challenging that UCC shooter. How many would still be alive today if someone like Chris had a weapon?

Good citizens like Chris are the ones Obama’s utopia would ultimately disarm. The psychos? They have an annoying tendency of disregarding such laws in the first place.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

gun control

Obama On Confiscating Guns: Then And Now

Posted by Jim Treacher, Blogger // 10/02/2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/02/obama-on-confiscating-guns-then-and-now/#ixzz3nRm9rUGR

Clearly, he’s “evolved” on the subject. After all, back in 2008, nobody had ever shot anybody else in the history of the world. This phenomenon has only developed over the course of Obama’s two glorious terms in office, for some reason, and it’s about damn time he grabbed those guns you yahoos keep clinging to.

Umpqua Community College is a gun-free zone. Obviously, this shooting proves that we don’t have enough of them.

Once again, I call on President Obama to disarm the Secret Service. Make the White House a gun-free zone. Show everyone that we can make this world a better place if we openly declare ourselves to be utterly defenseless.

Oh, and pass more gun laws. Lots more gun laws. “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the least gun deaths,” said the Greatest President in History. Sure, this isn’t factually true, but it’s emotionally true. It feels good to say it. So keep saying it.

Ignore reality. It’s the only thing keeping us from achieving Utopia.

(Hat tip: Ed Driscoll)

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “The War on America Turns 50”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday September 30, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/30/the-war-on-america-turns-50/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The War on America Turns 50

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

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

Democrats haven’t won any arguments; they changed the voters. If anything, the Democrats have stopped bothering to appeal to Americans. The new feminized Democratic Party says, That’s too bad about those steelworkers in Ohio losing their jobs, but THERE’S A WOMAN AT A LAW FIRM IN NEW YORK CITY WHO DESERVES TO MAKE PARTNER!Republicans should be sweeping the country, but they aren’t, because of Kennedy’s immigration law. Without post-1965 immigrants bloc-voting for the Democrats, Obama never would have been elected president, and Romney would have won a bigger landslide against him in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter in 1980.This isn’t a guess; it’s a provable fact. Obama beat Romney by less than 5 million votes in a presidential election in which about 125 million votes were cast. More than 30 million of Obama’s votes came from people who arrived under Teddy Kennedy’s immigration law; fewer than 10 million of Romney’s did.

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

Kennedy and other Democrats swore up and down that the new immigration law would not change the country’s demographics, but post-1965-act immigrants are nothing like the people who already lived here.As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were “almost entirely” European. But since Kennedy’s immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe — and they’re probably Muslims.

Apparently, the “American experiment” is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.As of 1970, there were only 9 million Hispanics in the entire country, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, there are well more than 60 million.

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

In 1970, there were only a few thousand Haitians in America. Today, there are nearly a million. Miami beaches and New York parks are suddenly littered with goat heads from Haitian voodoo rituals.
In 1970, there were virtually no Somalis in the United States. In the past 25 years alone, we’ve brought in more than 80,000 Somali refugees — and more than half of those since 9/11. Recent headlines out of Minnesota: “Minnesota ISIS terror suspect pleads guilty to conspiracy,” “February trial date set for Minnesota ISIS terror suspects,” “The Twin Cities have an ISIS problem.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrats got the voters — and the country got

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

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

These changes are entirely the result of government policies that were never debated, much less put to a vote. Americans have not been consulted on the question of whether to turn our country into some other country.

Never mind what we’re doing. You’ll thank us later.

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

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “Useless Idiots”

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Sep 23, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/23/useless-idiots/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Useless Idiots

Good grief. Scott Walker can’t even drop out of the presidential race without invoking Ronald Reagan! He began his exit speech, “As a kid, I was drawn to Ronald Reagan …” then went on to read a statement written for him by GOP donors, calling on the other one-percenters (in the polls) to get out, so that the party can nominate a “conservative alternative to the current front-runner.”

A true admirer might have recalled that the front-runner terrifying Republican insiders in the summer of 1979 –– was one Ronald Reagan. (And surely, everyone remembers how Reagan’s constant droning on about Dwight Eisenhower propelled Dutch to victory and allowed him to crush the Soviet War machine and usher in 20 years of peace and prosperity.)

Which reminds me: Perhaps Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are soaring in the polls not because they’re “outsiders,” but because they’re not dumb. I notice that, other than Ted Cruz, they’re the only GOP candidates for president who went to top schools.

I think we want a president who’s better than us.

Marco Rubio’s grandfather seems to have been cheering the little fellow up when he told Marco that, in America, “even I, the son of a bartender and a maid, could aspire to have anything, and be anything,” including president! At least since the late-1960s when the SATs, rather than geography or social class, began to determine college admissions, it seems very unlikely that a community college student could be elected president.

This is the problem with using the word “elites” to refer to Republican Party apparatchiks: They’re all such utter mediocrities.

I don’t mean to be unkind. It’s simply a fact.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Business and went on to make $11 billion. Carson went from Yale to the University of Michigan Medical School and was the first man to separate twins conjoined at the brain. Fiorina graduated from Stanford University and then earned $80 million in business.

By contrast, look up the educational achievement of the average pundit sneering at Trump’s idiocy and the ordinariness of his supporters. I won’t be as nasty as they are, but wow! – people who went to bush league schools shouldn’t throw stones. There’s nothing wrong with attending a bush-league college. But maybe ease up on holding yourself out as a great intellectual appalled by the dirty masses if you went to a third-rate college in the era of need-blind admissions.

These guys damn well better be good at what they do. But, to the contrary, Republican insiders are the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters. They enjoy being good losers. That’s their job.

The consultant class wants a neat, static world, where nothing ever changes. They produce an occasional tepid victory to create the illusion of a two-party system. But like Arafat with the PLO, Republican insiders don’t actually want to govern. The organization itself has become the cause — not the purported goals of the organization. Just keep the donations rolling in.

A majority of elected Republicans, their advisers, conservative magazines and newspapers are nothing but junior partners to the left. They go on TV and repeat prepackaged conventional wisdom, hoping to get at least a small ovation. Trump is popular because we now live in a Kardashian nation and are one big cult of celebrity!

By mounting only impotent opposition, professional Republicans win the admiration of The New York Times, as they turn our country over to the left. All that matters is that they get to keep their offices, their salaries and their friends.

It’s important for them to think of themselves as better than other people — especially those yahoo proletarian conservatives.

Ironically, it’s the Ivy League billionaire living a glamorous New York City life who has rocked the political world by speaking for ordinary Americans and insulting the powerful. Meanwhile, depressingly average Washington insiders insult ordinary Americans and suck up to the powerful.

When someone like Trump comes along and is actually serious about winning the very causes the GOP purportedly seeks to advance, he is seen as a disruptive force.

Most alarmingly, Trump brought up immigration. The Democrats thought they had this one in the bag — they’d worked it all out with Republicans! Both sides had agreed: I won’t talk about it if you won’t.

The decision has already been made: We aren’t going to ask the American people what they think. We’re just going to do this because we think we’re right, and at a certain point it will be impossible to reverse, because Republicans will never be able to win another national election.

The transformation of our country has been a deliberate, methodical process, carefully hidden from the public.

Until Trump started talking about immigration, most Americans had no idea that immigrants take more government assistance than natives, that we are allowing nearly half a million anchor babies a year to force their way into citizenship and a lifetime of welfare, and that we’re bringing in rapists, murderers and terrorists. Immigration is an easy argument to win. But if you talk about it, the media will cut your mike.

Once the Democrats get the voters they want through immigration, they will be like kids in a candy store. What will they do first? Ban private ownership of guns? Strip Christian churches of their tax exemptions for being “homophobic”? Release criminals from prison? Imprison the police? It will be the LBJ and Carter administrations rolled into one for all time, without end.

All the debates we have now on talk radio and cable news will be completely irrelevant. The most left-wing policies imaginable will be enacted, with no opposition — as they are today in California.

You might think California would wake up even the utter mediocrities in the Republican Party. But their predictable little lives have been disrupted. That’s why Trump has them in a panic.

Category:

Opinion

America Needs Informed Voters!

By: Press Release / Posted: Wednesday, September 16, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/america-needs-informed-voters

“There’s plenty of time to learn about the candidates, and now is a good time to start.”

– AFA President Tim Wildmon

Americans will hear from 11 presidential hopefuls tonight, each of whom will share their plans for the nation, as a long election season is fully under way.

With the second GOP presidential debate airing at 8 p.m. ET tonight (Wednesday, Sept. 16) on CNN, the American Family Association is calling on all Americans to educate themselves on where candidates from all parties stand on the issues that have reshaped, and in some cases, divided the country over the past several months. Four additional candidates will square off in an earlier debate at 6 p.m. ET.

“In this presidential election especially,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon, “all Americans must educate themselves on where the candidates from any party stand on important societal issues such as the sanctity of life—both for the unborn and at the end of life—traditional marriage and family, health care, the solidification of a nuclear deal with Iran, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, as a 10th disturbing video has been released. These issues are too important to ignore or gloss over, especially as we head to the voting booth. There’s plenty of time to learn about the candidates, and now is a good time to start.”

A new study by the American Culture and Faith Institute found that nearly two-thirds of spiritually active Christian conservatives want their churches to be more active in the upcoming election than they had been in the past couple of election cycles, principal researcher George Barna told OneNewsNow, the news service of AFA.

“And two out of three of them (67 percent),” Barna continued, “said that they want their church to provide them with more information—more biblical teachings—about the issues that are so important in this election.”

Those issues, Barna’s research found, included abortion, religious freedom and persecution, sexual identity issues and same-sex marriage, how to think about and respond to Israel, poverty and cultural restoration.

Category:

Opinion

Ann Coulter Letter: “Donald Trump: The Only People Who Like Him Are The Voters”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday September 16, 2015

Trump speaks at GOP dinner Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday spoke to the Arkansas Republican party’s Reagan-Rockefeller dinner. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Unfortunately, they seem to remember nothing about Reagan apart from the media-created caricature of a slightly addled old man who somehow mesmerized an imbecilic public with his sunny optimism.

Jeb! goes around saying, “I believe we’re on the verge of the greatest time to be alive.”

Marco Rubio answered a question in the first debate about God and veterans, saying: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. … And I believe God has blessed our country. This country has been extraordinarily blessed. And we have honored that blessing. And that’s why God has continued to bless us.”

John Kasich responded to a question at the New Hampshire presidential forum about why he was running, saying: “Well, Jack, look, we’re all — we — I’ve received blessings. Most of us here have been very, very blessed, and when you get that way, you have to figure out what your purpose is in life to make the world a little better place.”

They all sound like Barney, the purple dinosaur, singing, “I love you, you love me!”

The other problem with the Be Reagan strategy is: It’s not 1980 anymore. Reagan’s election is as far away today as the defeat of Hitler was then.

Gov. Scott Walker’s answer to whether he’d invade Iraq, knowing “what you know today,” was: “I’d point out that in the overall issue of foreign policy, I’d say in my lifetime, the most impressive president when it came to foreign policy was a governor from California.”

What does that even mean? Is he going to invade Grenada, fund the Contras and put missiles in Western Europe? Back in 1996, when Bob Dole said, “I’m willing to be another Ronald Reagan, if that’s what you want,” at least people laughed.

When Moammar Gadhafi was under siege in 2011, Rick Santorum said: “Ronald Reagan bombed Libya. If you want to be Reaganesque, the path is clear.”

On the other hand, in the quarter century since Reagan bombed Libya, Bush invaded Iraq, prompting Gadhafi to end his WMD program, invite in U.N. weapons inspectors, and pay the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.

Nonetheless, “bomb Libya” is exactly what our feckless commander in chief did. Obama sent American troops to participate in the NATO bombing of Libya — which helped oust Gadhafi, which led to Islamic lunatics running the country, which led to the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, in 2012, and the refugees flooding Europe today.

Formulaic applications of Reagan’s policies from the 1980s don’t always work the same way they did in the 1980s. (Similarly, Duran Duran’s new single was kind of a dud.) I used “What Would Reagan Do?” as a joke back in 2005; these guys think it’s an actual governing philosophy.

When Reagan was running (three and a half decades ago), there was a real fight in the Republican Party over abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, guns and foreign policy. Reagan had to face down elements in his own party to be pro-life, anti-ERA, pro-gun and to pursue an aggressive anti-Soviet foreign policy.

Reagan won. It’s over. The ERA is gone. The Soviet Union is gone. The GOP is unquestionably the party of life and the Second Amendment. (If only fetuses could get their hands on a gun!)

Ever since the hero of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, couldn’t get out of the starting gate in his presidential bid because he was pro-abortion and anti-gun, no serious Republican candidate is ever going to waver on those two issues again.

So why did Marco Rubio find it necessary to stress that he opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest at the first GOP presidential debate? Did he not live through that whole Todd Akin thing, like the rest of us?

Today, the fight in the Republican Party isn’t over abortion, guns or the Sandinistas; the dividing line is immigration. Will we continue to be the United States, or will we become another failed Latin American state?

On this, it’s Donald Trump (and the people) vs. everyone else.

Trump announced his presidential campaign by talking about Mexican rapists. Immigration is the only policy paper he’s put out so far — and he’s been crushing the polls. He got his one sustained standing ovation from 20,000 cheering fans in Dallas Monday night when he talked about stopping illegal immigration.

But James B. Stewart gasses on in The New York Times about Trump’s “namecalling, personal attacks and one-liners that have vaulted him to the top of the polls.” In the entire article, Stewart never mentions immigration.

Perhaps some minority of people will vote for Trump because of his personality. But I notice that it’s his position on immigration that gets thousands of people leaping to their feet.

The media will talk about anything but Trump’s specific, detailed policies on immigration — all while claiming he doesn’t have any “policy details.” The very fact that the entire media — including most of the conservative commentariat — obdurately refuse to acknowledge the popularity of Trump’s immigration plans is exactly why Trump is exploding in the polls.

Trump isn’t trying to imitate anyone. He’s leading on the seminal issue of our time while the rest of the field practices looking optimistic in front of the mirror.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “Refugees: Another One for the “Not Our Problem” File”

Author by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Sep 9, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/09/refugees-another-one-for-the-not-our-problem-file/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Refugees: Another One for the "Not Our Problem" File

Among the benefits of Donald Trump’s proposed immigration moratorium is that we won’t have to keep importing hordes of Third World “refugees,” such as the ones currently swarming across Europe.

For decades, the United States has taken in far more refugees than the entire rest of the world combined. Nearly half of the refugees we take in are Muslim.

And it’s worked out great!

Fazliddin Kurbanov, or “Idaho man,” as he is dutifully described in the American media, was brought to the U.S. as a refugee in 2009, joining hundreds of other Uzbeks in Boise, Idaho. He came with his wife and young child, his sister and his two ailing parents. (What an economic powerhouse that family must be. Marco Rubio is right: We’re making all kinds of money off of immigrants!)

So grateful was Kurbanov to America for rescuing his entire family from “persecution” that he spent the next few years conspiring to commit jihad against us. As he cheerfully told his terrorist buddies back in Uzbekistan: “We are the closest ones to infidels. We have almost everything. What would you say if, with the help of God, we implement a martyrdom act? … There are military installations right here, targets, and vehicles are available as well.”

Kurbanov had plenty of time on his hands to plot terrorist attacks in the U.S. because he was being supported by you, taxpayer. As the Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho) reported: He was “struggling” to find a job — preferably something that involved either marketing or killing all the Jews.

Last month, Kurbanov was convicted of various terrorism charges, based on his possession of Tannerite, ammonium nitrate, bullets and aluminum powder, as well as his stated intention, in conversations recorded by the FBI, to bomb military bases in Idaho and Texas.

For the cherry on top, the whole welfare-dependent, Islamic terrorist-nurturing family won refugee status in America by claiming they were persecuted in Uzbekistan for being Christians.

I am 100 percent sure there will be no thought given to deporting the rest of this useless family. To the contrary, we’re probably bringing in their cousins. You wouldn’t want to separate families, would you?

A few years ago, the FBI realized we’d let in scores of Iraqi terrorists as “refugees,” including Mohanad Shareef Hammadi and Waad Ramadan Alwan — the latter of whose fingerprints were found on boxes of IEDs seized in Iraq. On FBI surveillance tapes, the men bragged about having used a sniper rifle to kill American soldiers north of Baghdad, blowing up Bradley tanks and building more than a dozen bombs for use against U.S. troops.

After being happily “resettled” into public housing in Bowling Green, Kentucky, they continued their war against America, including one specific Army captain. Soldiers who had survived an IED attack that killed four troops in Iraq were warned by the FBI that their comrades’ murderers had been relocated to America — courtesy of the U.S. government — and might be coming for them.

The Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had received asylum in the U.S., before launching the 2013 attacks that left four dead and thousands injured in Boston. That’s not including the three Jewish men whose throats Tamerlan slit in Waltham, Massachusetts, a few years earlier.

The entire extended Tsarnaev family got asylum based on Russia’s brutal crackdown on Chechnyan Muslims — persecution so unspeakable that various family members continued to vacation there.

Hundreds of “refugees” from Somalia and elsewhere, who have been granted fast-track U.S. citizenship because of their sworn fear of persecution in their home countries, seem to forget all about that “credible fear” as soon as the time comes to go back and engage in jihad.

To be sure, not all our beloved refugees are Muslim terrorists. Some are Hutu terrorists. A few years ago, we took in a genocidal Rwandan, Beatrice Munyenyezi, as a “refugee.”

Only after Munyenyezi was granted citizenship did we find out that, as the federal court put it, she had “personally participated in the mass killing of innocent women, men and children merely because they were called Tutsi.”

Although her American citizenship was revoked, Munyenyezi remains a legal U.S. resident, whom we are supporting in prison for the next decade. Only an immigration court can order her deportation. Which it will not.

A few other heart-warming humanitarian stories:

– Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, or “the Blind Sheik,” imprisoned for life in the U.S. for his participation in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: Asylee.

– Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: Asylee.

– Egyptian Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot up the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport, killing two: Refugee.

And the list goes on …

Even the refugees who don’t specifically come here to murder Americans aren’t fleeing persecution. They’re fleeing countries with less generous welfare policies than we have in the West. Which won’t exist anymore, if we don’t turn off the spigot from the Third World.

For at least half a century, the U.S. has taken in the vast majority of the world’s refugees. Isn’t it somebody else’s turn, now?

How about Mexico take in a few “refugees”? Why not El Salvador or Honduras? Could the pope have a word with his co-religionists about the suffering in Syria? How about Vatican City? Talk about the perfect place to build some low-income housing projects!

Maybe it’s time the world gets used to life without the United States. If our current immigration policies aren’t stopped, this country will soon be nothing more than another failed Latin American state.

Speaking of which, I note that our allies, Japan and Israel, aren’t taking in any Syrian refugees. Japan is pretty far away, but Israel is even closer to Syria than Sweden is! Evidently, Japan and Israel aren’t as gung-ho about destroying themselves as our European friends are. Donald Trump’s soaring popularity suggests that America may not be ready to commit suicide yet, either.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Sound observations from Paula Williams.

Conundrum

Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.   (Think this one over and over…makes sense!)

“A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.”

The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century.   Makes you wonder who is doing the math.


These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering…

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.  But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money!  What’s interesting is the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t.

Think about it…

…and Last but not least :

3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

Am I the only one missing something?

“If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.” – Plato

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Paula Williams

Dear Oprah, I’m confused about Kim Davis

By Steve Deace – – Tuesday, September 8, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/8/steve-deace-dear-oprah-im-confused-about-kim-davis

I’m writing to you because you’re obviously, like, the smartest woman in America and I am confused about Kim Davis. You know, that woman down in Kentucky who might be the first Christian ever imprisoned in American history for following their faith.

In between reading Eckhart Tolle’s latest I’ve been following a lot of the debate and coverage of her story, and it’s left me even more confused than I was before I first heard about it. Although I admit since I’m a product of our government schools I am easily befuddled (a new word I learned today).

Since I know of no greater champion for womankind than yourself, I’m hoping you might be able to answer at least a few of these questions for me (and I even used spell-check to correct any typos/errors):

I am confused which “law” this woman disobeyed when I can’t find anything in either the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code or Kentucky state law that says homosexuals are allowed to obtain marriage licenses.

I am confused how a woman can be kept in jail indefinitely without a trial when she didn’t violate any law on the books that anyone can cite anywhere.

I am confused how one Kentucky clerk threatens the rule of law but unelected judges who rewrite the Constitution from the bench don’t.

I am confused how a divorced Kentucky clerk doesn’t have integrity to stand for marriage but rich elitists like Hillary Clinton – who is paid more for one speech than most Americans make in a year – get to play class warfare.

I am confused why someone who isn’t perfect can’t uphold a standard when the people accusing her of imperfection are imperfect themselves.

I am confused why cities can declare themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens but one county can’t be a “sanctuary” for lawful marriage.

I am confused why illegal aliens who openly protest our immigration laws in public aren’t in jail, but this woman is and we know of no “law” she’s actually violated.

I am confused how Planned Parenthood officials caught red-handed on camera violating federal laws forbidding the peddling of dead baby parts for profit aren’t in jail, but this Kentucky woman is.

I am confused why a president and an attorney general who refused to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional weren’t in jail for violating “the law,” but this county clerk is when the Constitution doesn’t allow courts to make law.

I am confused why some people are mocking a woman for not behaving as a Christian before she became one.

I am confused why a county clerk must resign if she doesn’t want to enforce “laws” she disagrees with, but a president doesn’t.

I am confused why Carly Fiorina would call for this Kentucky clerk to resign for not enforcing pretend laws she doesn’t agree with, but she won’t demand a president resign for not enforcing actual laws he doesn’t agree with. Including the ones which even bear his name, like all the times he refused to implement “Obamacare.”

Oprah, since you know our magnificent president personally I’m sure you can get answers to these questions. I’m sure there are simple explanations here that I probably just haven’t had the time between the kids’ soccer practices to get from watching Rachel Maddow. Like so many others I’m at a bit of a loss now that Jon Stewart is no longer on the air, so I’m turning to you for help.

However, I know you’re very busy so if you don’t get back to me by tomorrow I’ll send this over to those brilliant ladies on “The View.”

Sincerely,

Call Me Caitlyn

(Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated talk show host and also the author of the new book “Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again.” You can “like” him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.)

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

WHAT A JOKE! The Real Scoop on Obama’s Trip to Look at Glaciers

4 September 2015

From IsThatBaloney.com:

1. Air Force One burns 5 gallons of fuel for every mile it travels.

2. It is roughly 4,000 air miles to Anchorage Alaska from Washington DC thus taking 20,000 gallons of expensive fuel to get there.

3. Jet fuel puts 21.1 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere for every gallon burned thus pumping out 422,000 pounds or 211 tons of CO2 to get to Alaska.

4. It costs $228,000 an hour to operate Air Force One.

5. It is roughly an 8.5 hour flight to Anchorage from DC thus costing $1,938,000 to get President Obama to Alaska.

6. Obama has to get back, so DOUBLE all those costs and impacts for a total of 40,000 gallons of fuel burned, 844,000 pounds or 422 tons of CO2 emitted costing $3,876,000, just to fly Air Force One, so Obama can look like he is doing something about climate change.

7. That does not include any military support planes, multiple gas guzzling limos, accommodations for some 50 secret service agents, local police and other resources. When you add all that in, President Obama probably costs the American taxpayers $10 million or more so he could have his picture taken.

It is beyond all rational thinking to grasp how folks are so easily swayed by the hype surrounding climate change – and the hypocritical ‘stance’ of most liberals. Obama is hypocrite number one. He could care less about the environment – the trip to Alaska actually proved that. His agenda is much greater, but these idiots are too stupid to recognize it.

This whole thing made me think of Ted Cruz’s response to some climate change activists the other day. Did you see the story on Right Scoop?

I’m going to post just Cruz’s bottom line – the point where he schools the activists on the reality of climate change. It’s BRILLIANT. Of course, Cruz isn’t going to get the attention that Obama gets jetting across the country in Air Force One to “save the planet.” Go to Right Scoop and watch the interaction, but here is Cruz’s response when asked if he believed in Climate change…

Cruz- “… Let’s step back for a second and look at this with some historical perspective. Thirty to forty years ago there were a group of political liberal and scientists who said we were facing global cooling. They said we were headed toward a global ice age and the solution to global cooling was increased was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. Then the data disproved it. It was not in fact correct that we were seeing global cooling. So that was kind of a problem. Then many of these same political liberals, and many of these same scientists they then latched on to a new theory, it’s called global warming. And the new theory of global warming interestingly enough, the solution was the exact same as the solution had been for global cooling. It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. But then the problem became the data and evidence didn’t back up global warming. In particular if you look at the satellite data. Listen I am the son of two scientists and mathematicians. It is the essence of science to look to the evidence. In the last eighteen years there has been no meaningful recorded warming according to the satellite data. So all of a sudden all these political liberals, the evidence and data didn’t back them up. So then the theory changed to a third version, it’s just been in the last few years when the theory magically transformed into climate change. And climate change from the perspective of a political liberal who wants government power climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven. Whether it’s hotter or colder, whether is wetter or drier the climate is always changing. Now you asked a question, ‘do you believe in climate change?’. Of course! From the dawn of time the climate has been changing. Until the end of time the climate will change. And yet interestingly enough the political liberals, their solution to climate change is exactly the same as it was to global cooling and global warming. Massive government control of the economy, energy sector, and our lives. And when you start to see politicians who propose the exact same solution to every problem regardless of the facts or the data you start to think these are politicians who just want power over our lives. You know what I’m interested in? I’m interested in the single moms who are working here who are struggling to feed their families and are seeing their electric bills skyrocketing because these political liberals are driving up their electric bills, driving up their energy bills, making it harder and harder to provide for their kids. We need to follow the facts and data and not just give power to a bunch of out of touch elites in Washington over our lives.”

Honestly, I love Cruz! Our nation would benefit from having a man like him as President. As for our ‘acting’ President – well, there is nothing nice to say – and that’s putting it nicely.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps”

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Sep 2, 2015 4:26 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/02/how-to-write-a-new-york-times-op-ed-in-three-easy-steps/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps

Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.

(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure.

Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form.

Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”

This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”

Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”

It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.

(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”

Examples:

– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012

(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)

– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013

– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010

I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.

(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible.

Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

Examples:

– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015

– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015

– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015

You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

One Nation Quotes

URL of the original posting site: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/26493547-one-nation-what-we-can-all-do-to-save-america-s-future

One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future by Ben Carson Preview — One Nation by Ben Carson

One Nation Quotes (showing 1-30 of 55)

“Disagreement is part of being a person who has choices. One of those choices is to respect others and engage in intelligent conversation about differences of opinion without becoming enemies, eventually allowing us to move forward to compromise.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“If Americans simply choose to vote for the person who has a D or an R by their name, we will get what we deserve, which is what we have now.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“There is no freedom without bravery.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“While wisdom dictates the need for education, education does not necessarily make one wise.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Our founders did not believe that our society could thrive without this kind of moral social structure. In fact, it was our second president, John Adams, who said of our thoroughly researched and developed governing document, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Many well-meaning Americans have bought into the PC speech code, thinking that by being extra careful not to offend anyone we will achieve unity. What they fail to realize is that this is a false unity that prevents us from talking about important issues and is a Far Left strategy to paralyze us while they change our nation. People have been led to become so sensitive that fault can be found in almost anything anyone says because somewhere, somehow, someone will be offended by it.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Because if you don’t accept excuses, pretty soon people stop giving them, and they start looking for solutions. And that is a critical issue when it comes to success.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Compassion, however, should mean providing a mechanism to escape poverty rather than simply maintaining people in an impoverished state by supplying handouts. By doing this we give them an opportunity to elevate their personal situations, which eventually decreases our need to take care of them and empowers them to be able to exercise compassion toward others.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“I believe the only thing that will correct our downward trajectory is the rekindling of the enthusiasm for individual freedom and the reestablishment of the U.S. Constitution as the dominant document of governance. Unless the majority of Americans awaken from their complacency and recognize the threat to their fundamental individual liberties imposed by continued expansion of the federal government, nothing will save us from the fate of all pinnacle nations that have preceded us, those that tolerated political and moral corruption while ignoring fiscal irresponsibility.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“I had a mother who would never allow herself to be a victim no matter what happened… Never made excuses, and she never accepted an excuse from us. And if we ever came up with an excuse, she always said, “Do you have a brain?” And if the answer was yes, then she said, “Then you could have thought your way out of it.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“The best way to respond to distracting personal attacks is to practice bringing the conversation back to the issue at hand. Never fall into the trap of engaging in personal attacks while letting the topic of conversation slip into the background. Doing so allows your opponent to escape the need to explain her position.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Anyone who writes a law that cannot be easily understood by an average citizen is not worthy of leadership. The Constitution, which was written by extremely learned men, is quite easy to understand and should serve as a gold standard for the language and size of subsequent legislation that is introduced.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“When the vision of the U.S. government included guarding the rights of people but staying out of their way, America was an economic engine more powerful than anything the world had ever witnessed.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“If we are to put an end to division, people from all political persuasions will have to stop fighting one another and seek true unity, not just a consensus that benefits one party.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Saul Alinsky advised his followers to level sharp attacks against their opponents with the goal of goading them into rash counterattacks that would then discredit them. To avoid falling into this trap, those of us who are interested in civil discussion should prepare ourselves to refrain from reacting in fear or anger to those who disagree with us or even attack us.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“If most of the people in the country believe that America is generally fair and decent, it becomes more difficult for Saul Alinsky types to recruit change agents and for those on the Far Left to undermine our Constitution. Hence the constant bad-mouthing of our nation to impressionable young people, preparing them to be ripe for manipulation at the appropriate time.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Many well-meaning Americans have bought into the PC speech code, thinking that by being extra careful not to offend anyone we will achieve unity. What they fail to realize is that this is a false unity that prevents us from talking about important issues and is a Far Left strategy to paralyze us while they change our nation. People have been led to become so sensitive that fault can be found in almost anything anyone says because somewhere, somehow, someone will be offended by it. To stop this, Americans need to recognize what is happening, speak up courageously, avoid fearful or angry responses, and ignore the barking and snarling as we put political correctness to bed forever.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“The human brain has billions of neurons and hundreds of billions of interconnections. It can process more than two million bits of information per second and can remember everything you have ever seen or heard.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Over the course of time many Americans have forgotten that “we the people” are actually at the top of the food chain as far as authority is concerned in this nation. The Republicans don’t run our nation. The Democrats don’t run our nation. We do. However, by dividing and engaging in political squabbles, we have allowed the government to grow so large and powerful that it has now become the boss, progressively taking charge of all of our lives.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“However, at the moment, I believe the more important thing that can be done with the platform I have been given is to try to convince the American populace that we are not one another’s enemies even if a (D) is by some of our names and an (R) by the names of others. Knowing that the future of my grandchildren and everyone else’s is put in jeopardy by a continuation of reckless spending, godless government, and mean-spirited attempts to silence critics leaves me with little choice but to continue to expound on the principles outlined in my prayer breakfast speech and to fight for a bright future for America.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“All citizens need to arm themselves with a basic knowledge of American history and stay abreast of current events, analyzing them with respect to history. Knowledge is power and at a time when the people are becoming increasingly impotent while the government grows larger and more powerful, it is vital that we arm ourselves with knowledge.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Margaret Mead, who said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“There have been many stories recently about the bullying epidemic that seems to be occurring in our public school system. We should not be terribly surprised by this because children emulate what they see adults doing. One does not have to look at television for very long or listen to the radio for an extended period before one sees supposedly rational and mature adults vehemently attacking one another, calling each other names and acting like third graders.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“The fact that the Republican Party in particular often seems to stand for principle, only to cave in to pressure at the last minute, has turned off a huge number of voters.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“They forbid the use of the word slavery by conservatives, the mention of Nazism by conservatives, or the mention of homosexuality in anything other than a positive context, to name a few of their rules.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“In an ideal world, both parties would desire to uphold the Constitution,”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“The only reason I can imagine that it would be a good idea for government to foster dependency in large groups of citizens is to cultivate a dependable voting bloc that will guarantee continued power as long as the entitlements are provided. The problem of course is that such a government will eventually “run out of other people’s money,” as Margaret Thatcher once famously said.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“The secular progressive movement in America has been successful in removing all vestiges of faith in God from the public square. The very fact that people hesitate to say “Merry Christmas” to strangers lets you know just how successful they have been. Why are they so determined to remove God from our lives? They recognize that if we have no higher authority to answer to than man, we become gods unto ourselves and get to determine our own behavior. In their world, “If it feels good, do it.” They can justify anything based on their ideology because in their opinion, there is no higher authority other than themselves to overrule them. They have a visceral reaction to the mention of God’s word, because it tears at the fabric of their justification system.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Political correctness has thrown a veil of silence over our important discussions. Rather than asking those with whom we disagree to clearly state their case, we set up rules of political correctness that mandate that their perspective must be the same as ours. We then demonize those with whom we disagree and as a result fail to reach any consensus that might solve our problems.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

“Some feel that it is fair for those with incomes under a certain dollar amount not to pay any federal tax. They say that these people are too poor and it would be a great burden to require them to contribute to the common pot. While I appreciate their compassion, serious problems arise when a person who pays nothing has the right to vote and determine what other people are paying.”
― Ben Carson, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future

Obama’s 6 biggest lies about Iran nuke deal

Posted By Chuck Norris On 08/30/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/obamas-6-biggest-lies-about-iran-nuke-deal

President Obama has been campaigning for the Iran nuclear deal like he’s running for a third term. But, unfortunately, because of his naivety and lack of experience on foreign policy, he is completely wrong.

Let me highlight six Obama statements about the Iran nuclear agreement that are complete exaggerations.

1) President Obama said, “I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It’s not even close.”

“Not even close”?

He just said Friday, “the vast majority of experts on nuclear proliferation have endorsed this deal. The world is more or less united …”

But 200 retired generals and admirals completely disagreed as they sent a letter to Congress last week urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they said “would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States.”

Are we to assume that most of them are not in any respect “experts on nuclear proliferation”? And are we gullible enough to believe that the commander in chief knows more about military strategy and American security than 200 retired generals and admirals?

And what about other notable experts who disagree? As one editorial piece noted: “Michael Hayden, former CIA director; Dennis Ross, longtime Mideast negotiator; Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; David Albright, former nuclear weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security; and Olli Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s former deputy director general for safeguards, have all expressed reservations about the deal.”

Chuck Norris provides real solutions to our county’s problems and a way to reawaken the American dream in his best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism.”

2) President Obama said, “Because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly – with the exception of the Israeli government – has expressed support.”

But the Wall Street Journal reported that “Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – are just as distraught” as Israel about the Iran nuclear deal.

Mishaal al-Gergawi, managing director of the Delma Institute in Abu Dhabi and a prominent Emirati political commentator, explained: “A lot of the Gulf countries feel they are being thrown under the bus. The Gulf thought it was in a monogamous relationship with the West, and now it realizes it’s being cheated on because the U.S. was in an open relationship with it.”

Obama’s “with the exception of the Israeli government” comment is not only a ginormous snub to our greatest ally in the Middle East but an affront to the fact that Israel has been threatened repeatedly with genocide by Iranian leaders.

Jerusalem is 970 miles from Tehran, which is roughly the distance between Washington, D.C., and the islands of the Bahamas – just 50 miles off the Florida coast. If the Bahamas were a hostile state to Washington with a long history of threatening to eradicate the U.S. capital from the planet, do you think anyone in Washington would concede to give the Bahamas nuclear power?

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is absolutely right when he calls the Iran deal a grave travesty and threat for not only Israel but also a “historic mistake for the world.” He said, “The desire to sign an agreement was stronger than everything else. … Wide-ranging concessions were made in all of the areas which should have prevented Iran from getting the ability to arm itself with a nuclear weapon.”

3) The president initially said International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, inspectors would be allowed to “access any suspicious location” in Iran. He then backpedaled and limited it, saying, “Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access, even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours’ notice.”

But the truth is, Obama’s “anytime, anywhere” inspections is a bunch of smoke-and-mirror sales pitches to get the American public and legislators to buy the agreement.

First, even the president confessed: “And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.”

However, the Wall Street Journal did an investigation into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration and it “reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.”

Now, imagine what a drug dealer could do with a warning 90 days before a law-enforcement raid.

The White House noted: “Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years.”

Ten years?! That’s two-and-a-half presidential terms or cycles. And we expect the No. 1 terrorist-recruiting Islamic nation in the world to comply and not play a shell game with centrifuges over that 10-year period?

The White House again was wrong when it stated, “International inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will not only be continuously monitoring every element of Iran’s declared nuclear program, but they will also be verifying that no fissile material is covertly carted off to a secret location to build a bomb. … Basically, from the minute materials that could be used for a weapon comes out of the ground to the minute it is shipped out of the country, the IAEA will have eyes on it and anywhere Iran could try and take it.”

So, we are supposed to believe that, despite not being on the ground full-time, the IAEA, will be omniscient and omnipresent so as to detect any movement of any materials at any time outside the country, even though it will fight to get into the country to inspect anything in less than three months? Can you say, pipe dream?!

And if you think the preceding sounds bogus, consider that the Associated Press just discovered a “secret agreement” between the IAEA and the United Nations and reported this about the discovery: “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work.”

And, to add injury to insult, guess who will pay for those Iran inspectors to investigate their own nuclear facilities? You guessed: the American taxpayers have to pay more than $10 million a year.

Reuters reported, after the IAEA said it has a severe funding shortfall and would need extra monies, the U.S. mission in Vienna said in a statement: “The United States is committed to working with all (IAEA) member states to ensure the agency has the resources it needs to verify Iran’s nuclear-related commitments under the (July 14 agreement).”

The State Department echoed similar sentiment back in April: “The United States is committed to working with other IAEA member states to provide the agency the resources it needs to continue carrying out this [Joint Plan of Action]-related work.”

Imagine: Washington agreeing to force American taxpayers to pay for a rogue and terrorist-funding Islamic republic to inspect its own nuclear facilities while ignorantly hoping it doesn’t develop a nuclear bomb behind our backs.

We really have forgotten Sept. 11.

Write your representatives today and demand they reject the Iran nuclear agreement.

(Next week in Part 2, I will give three more examples of Obama’s misguidance and more evidence that the Iran nuclear agreement is bad news for the U.S. and world, how Iran will continue to build a nuclear bomb despite a signed agreement, and, grievous among all the fallout, even if Congress does not sign an agreement, Iran will still be rewarded with at least $50 billion and up to $150 billion additional revenue to continue to fund terrorism against Israel, the West and the U.S. And Obama agrees it is best. Yes, you read that right!)

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

An Open Letter to Congress

Aug 24 | Posted by: Charlie

URL of the original posting site: http://www.charliedaniels.com/posts/08-24-15/open-letter-congress

I am a proud American who believes that America has held – and still holds – a very sensitive and special place in the affairs of mankind on Planet Earth. I believe that America has been divinely blessed and protected in our two centuries plus of existence.

I believe that America has been a counter balance that has cancelled out a lot of tyranny, evil and conquest and, admittedly, we have made a lot of mistakes, but on balance we have exerted a certain Pax Americana in the international affairs of mankind.

It took a lot of old fashioned guts for the Continental Congress to stand up to the world’s mightiest military and tell them that we demanded our independence, even at the peril of going up against a far superior force on land and sea with a ragtag army of untrained citizens, many who had to supply their own firearms.

It took courage above and beyond for Abraham Lincoln to push the country into a Civil War that he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt would divide this nation for decades.

It took guts to give the order for American troops to storm the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, straight into the face of artillery and machine gunfire, wave after wave being cut to ribbons by German shore emplacements.

The history of this nation is written in the blood and courage of men who stood in the face of overwhelming odds, politicians, soldiers, statesmen and ordinary citizens who sought to do the right thing regardless of the cost or the consequences.

Well, ladies and gentlemen of the United States Congress, it seems that that particular pen has run out of ink. The courageous politicians that once championed this nation have been replaced, for the most part, by a breed of milksop, politically correct, scared of their own shadow, pushover, pathetic excuses for public servants who are supposed to be representing a constituency of citizens who have to live with the circumstances of their timid folly.

You don’t even have the courage to face down an out of control president, even when he makes a deal with the devil. Don’t you bunch of timid capons even care what kind of world you’re leaving to your children and grandchildren, not to even mention the rest of us? Are you really party partisans before you’re parents and grandparents or even human beings?

Be honest with yourselves a minute, go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and ask the person you see this question.

“Do I really believe that Iran will not use the money we’re releasing to them to finance terrorists to kill Americans, and, when, not if, but when, the Iranians develop their nuclear device, will they really use it against America and Israel?”

You can’t hide from the truthful answer to that question forever, an answer will be required of you one day.

You have allowed Obama to tilt the Supreme Court so far to the left that they’re little more than a shameful extension of the Executive Branch.

You have talked for decades about the porous southern border but have done absolutely nothing about it.

You have allowed cities in this nation to declare themselves sanctuary cities where they protect the worst of the worst criminal aliens, American citizens paying an awful price for your silence.

You watch an impossible National Debt balloon completely out of control knowing full well that a day of reckoning is coming that will seriously curtail the quality of life for coming generations.

You allow corrupt government agencies like the IRS to run over the very people you are sworn to protect and allow the entitlement society to expand exponentially while you actually entertain the idea of raising taxes on those who still work and shoulder the burden.

You compose a third of the constitutionally mandated ruling system and you shirk your duty
and allow this nation to move a little closer to the edge every day.

I wish you bunch of sold-out, jaded, burned-out hacks would just go home and let some people who still have some vision and whose consciences haven’t been seared past the point of reminding them when they’re wrong take over and start to claw this nation back on to the path of sanity,

Your ratings are in the single digits, your morals are in the gutter, your minds are on self-preservation and somewhere along the way you traded your honor for political expediency.

You’ve violated your oaths, you’ve betrayed your country you’ve feathered your nests and you’ve sat on your hands while an imperial president has rubbed your noses in the dirt time after time.

You’re no longer men, you’re puppets, you’re caricatures, jokes, a gaggle of fading prostitutes for sale to anybody who can do you a political favor.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Category:

Opinion

Michelle Obama to jump in race for president?

Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/19/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/michelle-obama-to-jump-in-race-for-president

Could the 2016 race for the Oval Office get any crazier?

On the GOP side, there’s a long list of experienced politicians with long lists of accomplishments to their names seeking the presidency – senior governors, senators and statesmen – and they’re all trailing Donald Trump, a shoot-from-the-hip billionaire with a knack for saying what many people across the country are feeling.

And on the Democrat side, there’s surging support for a self-avowed socialist who is challenging Hillary Clinton, who thought she was the anointed candidate in 2008, only to be knocked off her pedestal by upstart Barack Obama. She considers herself anointed now, but finds her support fading quickly.

So how about the gauntlet being thrown down by … Michelle Obama? There already are some commenting on the idea.

WND commentator Star Parker told WND she was at a book signing in Washington this week and was asked about the possibility. She admitted she’s watching that possible development closely. “I’ve even seen bumper stickers that say Michelle 2016,” Parker told WND. “Until the primaries are absolutely closed, my eye is on Michelle.”

Michelle32

She suggested there’s a behind-the-scenes move developing that is turning her into a cause celebre. Washington columnist Edward Klein has reported that Michelle Obama’s plans after her husband’s presidency are big – and they don’t necessarily include her husband. “For a while, the first lady played with the idea of running for the Illinois Senate seat now occupied by Republican Mark Kirk, who was hobbled by a 2012 stroke and recently fell during a vote on the Senate floor. But she has since all but dismissed this idea,” he reported. (It was from an Illinois Senate seat that Barack Obama launched his successful bid for the Oval Office.)

But while describing how Michelle Obama “envisions” a future alongside “best friend and confidant Valerie Jarrett,” he said she also “doesn’t want to step down from that luxurious Air Force One lifestyle.”

A May Rasmussen poll found, if Michelle decided to run for president, she’d pose the most significant threat to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton than any other Democratic Party contender.

What do YOU think? Sound off on the rumor Michelle Obama may run for president

On April 30, Michelle joked about running for the White House when she was a guest on “The Late Show with David Letterman” (6:00 mark).“I’m retiring in a few weeks,” Letterman said.

“No kidding,” Michelle responded.

“And I know that your time at the White House, in a couple years, same sort of thing,” Lettterman said. “You won’t be retiring, though. But do you ever glimpse that far down the road?”

Michelle replied, “What, like when I’m going to be running for president or anything?”

“Something to consider,” Letterman said.

&amp;amp;lt;div&amp;amp;gt;Please enable Javascript to watch this video&amp;amp;lt;/div&amp;amp;gt;In his book, “Blood Feud,” Ed Klein claims Michelle and Jarrett nicknamed Hillary “Hildebeest.” In a June 21, 2014, article for the New York Post, Klein wrote about an exchange between President Obama and former President Bill Clinton:

During the golf game, Clinton didn’t waste any time reminding Obama that as president, he had presided over eight years of prosperity, while Obama had been unable to dig the country out of the longest financial doldrums since the Great Depression.

“Bill got into it right away,” said a Clinton family friend. “He told Obama, ‘Hillary and I are gearing up for a run in 2016.’ He said Hillary would be ‘the most qualified, most experienced candidate, perhaps in history.’ His reference to Hillary’s experience made Obama wince, since it was clearly a shot at his lack of experience when he ran for president.

“And so Bill continued to talk about Hillary’s qualifications … and the coming campaign in 2016. But Barack didn’t bite. He changed the subject several times. Then suddenly, Barack said something that took Bill by complete surprise. He said, ‘You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate, too.’

“Bill was speechless. Was Barack comparing Michelle’s qualifications to Hillary’s? Bill said that if he hadn’t been on a mission to strike a deal with Barack, he might have stormed off the golf course then and there.”

In March, MSNBC host Alex Wagner discussed Hillary’s continuing email scandal on her show. Panelist Adam Rapoport expressed little confidence in Hillary’s run, asking: “Who else do we have?” Columbia University professor Dorian Warren chimed in: “I want to start a whisper campaign on your show right now. I think we should draft Michelle Obama to run.” He continued, “Let’s draft the first lady right now. She is equally as talented and smart as her husband. I think she would make a great president.” However, back in 2013, Michelle told Parade Magazine that she had no plans to run.

Michelle_Obama

But at the MrConservative blog was more speculation: “Rumors are heating up that Michelle Obama will edge out Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination for president in the upcoming 2016 race for the White House. How’s that for scary, eh?” The column continued, “Rumors have been making the rounds that Barack expects to push his wife into the spotlight in order to finally destroy the Clinton machine and put himself 100 percent in charge of the American far left and its power base, the Democrat Party.” It follows speculation over the Obama years that he really doesn’t want to give up power. “Note that President Obama has built an entire campaign edifice that has not turned its resources over to the Democrat Party,” the column suggested. “Obama’s Organizing for Action (which used to be Obama for America) is still in full operation and is used solely to raise money for Obama and his personal causes as well as for pushing his own political message. This billion dollar organizing machine has not turned its gigantic email list over to the Democrat Party nor has it lent is vast online capabilities to the Democrat Party.”

A Michelle Obama campaign for 2016 would allow to continue “the destruction of America,” the column said, “along Barack’s ideological basis with eight years of a ‘historic’ first black, female president.”

WND had reported in 2013 there were comments about a Hillary Clinton-Michelle Obama “dream ticket” in 2016. “All due respect for President Obama and Vice President Biden, but that would truly be a dream team for America,” former Clinton spokeswoman Karen Finney said at the time, shortly after the 2012 results, according to the Washington Examiner. “Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children, so dealing with Congress would be a snap!”

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane told the paper then, “More than anything else, this reflects the growing awareness that it is time for the glass ceiling of the last old boys club to be firmly shattered.”

There already were bumper stickers in the marketplace with messages such as “2016-Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama,” and “Hillary-Michelle 2016 First First Lady Ticket For President.”

See one here:

HillMichsticker

But as WND reported in 2009, an online poll by CNN had viewers overwhelmingly saying Michelle Obama should never run for president. The question specifically asked: “Should Michelle Obama run for president in 2020?” With 200,000 votes tallied in the unscientific poll, 83 percent of respondents answered no, with a ratio of over 165,000 against the idea to only 35,000 in favor.

Talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh also said, when asked in 2013 about the prospect of a Michelle Obama campaign, he didn’t think it would happen. “I don’t think that Mrs. Obama wants the job. I don’t think that’s in the cards,” he said. “I could be wrong.” He said the Obamas probably both think the job is “beneath them.” “They want the world,” Limbaugh explained. “When Barack finishes this, it’s on to the United Nations, or whatever new organization they come up with.” Although, he did note, Michelle Obama, “would be immune to criticism.” “Imagine the first black female president. Anything can happen.”

&amp;amp;lt;a style=”color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;” href=”http://license.icopyright.net/3.16633?icx_id=2340675″ target=”_blank” title=”Main menu of all reuse options”&gt; &lt;img height=”25″ width=”27″ border=”0″ align=”bottom” alt=”[Reuse options]” src=”//d2uzdrx7k4koxz.cloudfront.net/images/icopy-w.png”/>Click here for reuse options!</a>

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter; “Fox News Anchored In Stupidity on 14th Amendment

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Aug 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/19/fox-news-anchored-in-stupidity-on-14th-amendment/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Fox News Anchored In Stupidity on 14th Amendment

Based on the hysterical flailing at Donald Trump — He’s a buffoon! He’s a clown! He calls people names! He’s too conservative! He’s not conservative enough! He won’t give details! His details won’t work! — I gather certain Republicans are determined to drive him from the race.

These same Republicans never object to other candidates who lack traditional presidential resumes — Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, to name a few. I’m beginning to suspect it’s all about Trump’s opposition to mass immigration from the Third World.

Amid the hysteria, Trump is the only one speaking clearly and logically, while his detractors keep making utter asses of themselves.

By my count — so far — Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and the entire Fox News commentariat are unfamiliar with a period of the nation’s history known as “the Civil War.” They seem to believe that the post-Civil War amendments were designed to ensure that the children of illegal aliens would be citizens, “anchor babies,” who can then bring in the whole family. (You wouldn’t want to break up families, would you?)

As FNC’s Bill O’Reilly authoritatively informed Donald Trump on Tuesday night: “The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!”

I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”

Still, how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

Damn straight they should!

We’ve got to codify that.

YOU MEAN IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

No, it isn’t, but that amendment will pass like wildfire!

It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1) I didn’t; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst.

Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War — and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to — I quote — “make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”

Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

The “main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained — and not for the first or last time — “was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black … should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.

Of course it’s easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”

Yeah, Trump’s the idiot. Or as Bream said to Napolitano after his completely insane analysis, “I feel smarter just having been in your presence.”

The only reason the 14th Amendment doesn’t just come out and say “black people” is that — despite our Constitution being the product of vicious racists, who were dedicated to promoting white privilege and keeping down the black man (Hat tip: Ta-Nehisi Coates) — the Constitution never, ever mentions race.

Nonetheless, until Fox News’ scholars weighed in, there was little confusion about the purpose of the 14th Amendment. It was to “correct” — as Jack Nicholson said in “The Shining” — the Democrats, who refused to acknowledge that they lost the Civil War and had to start treating black people like citizens.

On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O’Reilly haranguing Donald Trump: “YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU’RE BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!” (No, Bill — there’s no period. More like: “comma,” to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.”)

But on the other hand, we have Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who despite not being a Fox News legal expert, was no slouch. He wrote in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that:

“Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.”

It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.

The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic — the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation’s history known as “the American Revolution.”

Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography — as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with this country. Thus, under the majority’s logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects.

As ridiculous as it was to grant citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants under the 14th Amendment (which was about what again? That’s right: slaves freed by the Civil War), that’s a whole order of business different from allowing illegal aliens to sneak across the border, drop a baby and say, Ha-ha! You didn’t catch me! My kid’s a citizen

– while Americans curse impotently under their breath.

As the Supreme Court said in Elk: “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”

The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.

Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”

In a statement so sane that Posner is NEVER going to be invited on Fox News, he wrote: “We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”

Forget the intricate jurisprudential dispute between Fox News blowhards and the most-cited federal judge. How about basic common sense? Citizenship in our nation is not a game of Red Rover with the Border Patrol! The Constitution does not say otherwise.

Our history and our Constitution are being perverted for the sole purpose of dumping immigrants on the country to take American jobs. So far, only Donald Trump is defending black history on the issue of the 14th Amendment. Fox News is using black people as a false flag to keep cheap Third World labor flowing.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

From My Email Inbox

THE NEW AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE?!?!?!?!

For a guy and his girlfriend with two kids all you have to do is follow these proven steps:

Don’t marry her!
Always use your mom’s address to get your mail.
The guy buys a house.
The guy rents out house to his girlfriend with his 2 kids.
Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.
Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn’t have to pay for family insurance.
Girlfriend gets to go to college for free being a single mother
Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps.
Girlfriend gets a free cell phone.
Girlfriend get free utilities.
Guy moves into home, but continues to use moms address for his mail.
Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims the other kid on their tax forms. Now both get to claim head of household at $1800 credit.
Girlfriend gets $1,800 a month disability for being “crazy” or having a “bad back” and never has to work again. This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 pell grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from pell grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits!

Any idea why the country is $18 trillion plus in debt and half the population is sitting on their butts letting the other half pay their way???

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

A LYNCH MOB: Is What You Can Expect If You Offend the Left

Written by Wes Walker on August 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/08/mob-justice-2015-whos-wearing-the-white-sheets-now

Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 10.16.16 AM Unquestionably, in it’s day, Billie Holiday’s Strange Fruit, brought attention to a shocking aspect of human nature which — from time to time — rears its ugly head.

Lynch mobs.

Horrible things — crowds of ordinary people gathering together for one malevolent purpose: to destroy an “enemy”. And by “enemy” what we really mean is “outsider”. They are a blight on human society. Horrible as it was, by no means should we think that it is unique in human history, or relegated only to the remote past.

Still, today, such scenarios recur around the world. Groups of armed thugs pick out an outsider, killing, harassing or harming them some other way.

The obvious worst offenders are ISIS, and their “fellow travelers” like Boko Haram. Footage of civilian captives beheaded, forces even the most willfully blind to acknowledge that bad men continue do unspeakable things. We can’t dismiss this as a diseased feature of Radical Islam, either. Short years ago, mobs of villagers in rural India rose up and attacked “outsiders” (in this instance, targeting Christians), burned their homes and businesses, cut down young and old alike with machetes, and chased survivors into the jungles. Since they have body counts, these are obviously extreme varieties of aggressive mob behavior.

But, to be brutally honest, the root of these murderous instances of “mob justice” is not limited to people distant from us in history or geography.

If we look deeper than the slaughter in these examples, the underlying motive taps into something which — in varying degrees — is socially acceptable even among “civilized” society.

Long before arriving at the murderous rampage, a shift has to take place. In the murderer’s mind, the victim must be stripped of any privileges and compassion society naturally gives other people.

To destroy someone, you must be convinced that they are so completely different from you that his or her life doesn’t really matter. This can be done by cheapening all life together — or else just one class of people. Nihilism cheapened all life in 20th Century Europe. Similarly, the blurring of lines between animal and human life elevates animal lives (ie: Cecil) at the expense of the distinctive worth of human lives.

Clever use of formal language or slang can also keep harsh truths at arm’s length. Example:

Saying “The legal Abortion of 57 Million fetuses in America” has a far different tone than saying “The 57 Million American Babies murdered in their mother’s wombs since Roe V Wade”. (Which statistically is at least 2.5x the death rate in Nazi Death Camps.)

The second method of stripping away humanity is to apply adjectives to groups. To invent flaws, and magnify them until that’s all you can see. Refuse to believe that group might be composed of some mix of decent people and nasty ones — instead paint them all with the same brush. Make them cruel. Make them dangerous, and out to destroy everything you value. Make them into a problem that needs to be solved.

From there, it’s easy for people to be mobilized into destructive action. Someone first justifies their actions to themselves, and then sways others to accept his views.

Because of our own history, we tend to associate these things with race or religion. (And it is true that these have — at times — been leveraged to incite violence.) But these are by no means the only offenders. We’ve seen it with political rivals, their supporters and with economic class warfare.

> Recent news events have fueled “justified” antagonism toward Law Enforcement. Guilt is assumed, long before evidence is examined. (This leads to public outcry or worse.)

> Remember the bagful of Chick-Fil-A on the shooter who targeted the Family Research Council? FRC was targeted for having the “wrong” opinion in LBGT issues. (Maybe Dan Savage could try telling the unarmed security guard that “it gets better”?)

> A dentist goes on safari, and hires a guide to hunt big game. He came back to America, and had to go into hiding. Why? Death threats. These were incited by some who take issue with the killing of “noble beasts”. Let’s let that irony hang in the air for a moment.

> We saw incitements and threats for the Zimmerman case. Riots and threats in Baltimore. People taking law into their own hands.

> Guys like Farrakhan literally incite crowds to violence, facing no consequence, but “Thought Crimes” (like holding a politically unpopular view) can be grounds for firing, or sometimes even legal action.

Trial by media is already an epidemic in our culture. If someone brought up charges against you, which would you want? Rules of evidence in a courtroom where you could face your accuser? Or some nameless, faceless, unaccountable mob? And if you would want it for yourself, you must insist on the same for everyone else, however distasteful the mob makes him look, or how serious his alleged crimes.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “‘Immigrant’: The New N-Word”

Ann Coulter Wednesday Aug 12, 2015 4:29 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/12/immigrant-the-new-n-word/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

'Immigrant': The New N-Word

Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting “illegal” into any discussion of immigration. After I pointed out on “Fox News” that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on “Americans” was entirely a problem of immigration, “Fox Insiders” put these two sentences together:

“[Coulter] explained that halting illegal immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. ‘Don’t make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we’ll have a lot less of a national security problem,’ Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga.” (Emphasis added.)

Were those guys illegals? Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev swim across the Rio Grande to get to Boston? Did Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez hire coyotes to sneak him across the border so he could shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga?

No. Our government invited them in.

Some of our other beloved legal immigrants include:

– Anwar al-Awlaki, the man whose death in Afghanistan provoked Rand Paul to stage a 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the use of drones against — I quote — “American citizens”;

– the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan;

– the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad;

– all those Somali immigrants living in Minnesota, bloc-voting for Al Franken before flying to Syria to fight with ISIS;

– Sirhan Sirhan;

– the 9/11 hijackers;

– the Pakistani terrorist Daood Sayed Gilani, American anchor baby, responsible for four days of bombings in Mumbai in 2008;

– the New York subway bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi;

– Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who shot a U.S. Army captain in 2010;

— the “local man” arrested this week for trying to organize an army of ISIS fighters in New York and New Jersey, Nader Saadeh — anchor baby “American citizen.”

ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN! Why were any of them in this country? What are we getting out of this?

It’s not just the Fox website. Wherever I go on this book tour, I find people injecting “illegal” into the discussion, as if they’re being polite, like saying “Jewish” instead of “Jew.” But all these “homegrown,” “American” terrorists aren’t Americans, at all — except as a result of recent government policy.

This week, Sens. Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz have sent a letter to the Obama administration asking how many “non-citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and natural-born U.S. citizens have been involved in terrorist-related activity since 1993.” National Review’s headline? “Cruz, Sessions: How Many ‘Homegrown’ Terrorists Were Illegal Immigrants?” (The headline was later changed, after complaints.)

It’s a national neurosis! People simply refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces.

Admittedly, the media hide the evidence, but did anyone read this 2010 New York Times headline, “2 New Jersey Men in Terrorism Case Go Before a Judge,” and think, Oh my gosh! What is America coming to?

The “New Jersey men” were Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. Alessa, born to legal immigrants from Jordan and the Palestinian territories, told his Boy Scout troop, “Osama bin Laden is a hero in my family” and expressed a desire to mutilate homosexuals and subordinate women. (He was the first member of his troop to earn a merit badge in female circumcision.) Alessa’s co-conspirator, Almonte, is a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. (Raising suspicions, he doesn’t play baseball.) He could be heard on a wiretap saying that he wanted U.S. troops to come home “in caskets.”

He also attended an anti-Israel rally with a large sign reading “DEATH TO ALL JUICE,” which he posted to his Facebook page — a social media platform created by a juice. (Naturalization officials must have high-fived one another when they got that guy.)

CNN was so relieved to have a “homegrown” terrorist who wasn’t a Muslim, the network abandoned its own rule book and identified Almonte as the child of “Latino immigrants” — amid fulsome descriptions of him as “an all-American kid” and an “all-American altar boy.”

So the good news is: Not all “American” terrorists are Muslim immigrants. Some are Latino immigrants — who typically become radicalized after coming into contact with one of our prized Muslim immigrants.

In addition to “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” Almonte, there was Bryant Neal Vinas, whose parents were legal immigrants from Argentina and Peru. Vinas fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and, in 2008, plotted to bomb New York’s Penn Station.

At least he’s not one of those icky illegal immigrants!

I have a word limit, so I’ve limited today’s discussion of legal immigrants to the terrorists. But I note that the big news this week is about an illegal immigrant, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, who raped, then murdered 64-year old Marilyn Pharis with a hammer at her home in Santa Maria, California. Has anyone noticed that Martinez Ramirez’s co-conspirator in the rape-torture-murder was legal immigrant Jose Fernando Villagomez?

It’s getting to the point where we’re going to need cattle prods and shock collars to break people of the neurotic compulsion to slip “ILLEGAL” in front of the word “immigrant.” The reality of legal immigration cannot make a dent in the elite’s make-believe world, where legal immigrants are only hot Swedish models, Rupert Murdoch and Sergey Brin.

Instead of Christie and Paul sparring over government policy on search warrants in a post-9/11 world, could we reconsider the government policy of admitting legal immigrants who need to be spied on?

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

As Multiple White House Lies About the Iran Deal Emerge, the Regime Unleashes Bigoted Attacks on Chuck Schumer

August 11, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/08/11/as_multiple_white_house_lies_about_the_iran_deal_emerge_the_regime_unleashes_bigoted_attacks_on_chuck_schumer

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH; Big news from the Middle East about the Iran deal. It turns out that we were negotiating with the Iranians before Kerry was secretary of state. We were negotiating with the Iranians beforethe election of the “moderate”Rouhani. We were negotiating an Iranian nuke deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when nobody knew what was happening. The Regime was telling us that they couldn’t do anything ’cause Ahmadinejad was such a radical extremist goofball.We had to wait for a “moderate” to win, which was Rouhani, and after he did, that’s when we got serious. It turns out none of that’s true. We had been negotiating with the Iranians long before then and signaling our willingness that they can nuke up. This latest news is from MEMRI, which is a credible Middle East news source. Details coming up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What the Obama administration and the Democrat Party are doing to Chuck Schumer… They are treating Chuck Schumer as though he is a Republican, ’cause he is opposed — come out opposed to — the Iran deal. The attacks they are mounting on him are bigoted — some might even say racist or ethnic — highlighting in every report “Chuck Schumer, noted Jew,” it says in the New York Times, “Chuck Schumer, noted Jewish senator from New York,” Washington Post.

They’re saying that Schumer voted against the deal because he’s in bed with the big money Jewish lobby. They usually reserve that for Republican Jewish people. But Schumer is getting it all from sides, led by the White House.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me give you the latest here on the Iran story, because this is stunning. The American people have been lied to about another three issues regarding this deal, this so-called nuclear deal with Iran. First, it turns out that negotiations did not start because of Iran electing a “moderate,” “some guy we could do business with,” i.e., Rouhani. It turns out that the negotiations between the United States and Iran began when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president.

But we were told by the administration that there’s no way we could talk to Iran with Ahmadinejad in there because he’s a nutcase, he’s an extremist, he’s a lunatic. That was one of the excuses the Regime gave for not doing anything on Iran at that time. And there was pressure to do something, because the news coming out of Iran was they were bragging about how much progress they were making toward the discovery, creation, development of a nuclear power.

And the Regime was saying, “We can’t talk to ’em. There is no reason to get into negotiation with this guy ’cause he’s such a madman. We have to wait for them to have their next presidential election. Hopefully they’ll elect a moderate,” which they did. There’s no such thing, by the. This is another thing. There’s no such thing as a “moderate” Iranian leader, and there’s no such thing as a “conservative” Iranian cleric. The guy that runs Iran is the supreme leader.

His name is the Ayatollah Khamenei, and he is the heir to the first Ayatollah Khomeini. They spell their names differently. One is K-h-o, that would be the original Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and this guy spells his name with an A, other than that they’re identical. Anyway, he is the supreme leader, and whoever the “president” is a figurehead. Whoever the president is has to clear everything with the supreme leader.

The supreme leader is the genuine radical that runs this country and is state sponsor of terrorism all over the Middle East and parts of the world. The guy leading the chants “Death to America!” is the supreme leader, and he’s standing there with his Kalashnikov while doing it. He’s written a book on how to trick and how to fool the US and how they’re gonna wipe out Israel, after the deal has been effected between us, the other five nations, and Iran.

So who their “president” is matters not in terms of what the policy of the country is going to be. It is a genuine theological, religious dictatorship, and it’s run by the mullahs. The Ayatollah Khamenei has his buddy ayatollahs, and they make up the supreme leadership council. But the president is merely an office for the rest of the world to observe and think that Iran’s just like every other country.

“It has an elected president! It has a parliament! It’s a democratic process!” None of that is true. So the idea that we had to wait for Ahmadinejad to go? Why do you think they got rid of Ahmadinejad? Why do we even get Rouhani in the first place? Isn’t it amazing that we’re sitting around waiting for a “moderate,” and they deliver one? How’s that happen? They got rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because the guy was too open and honest about what the intentions of the extreme leader are.

Every time he opened his mouth, it was “Death to America! Death to Israel!” There was no Holocaust, whatever was it. Every time he opened his mouth. He made it tough for the supreme leader to put forth the false image that Iran is a moderate, harmless country simply wanting to move into the twenty-first century. So Obama says, “Well, we can’t negotiate with some nutcase like that! We gotta wait for a moderate.”

Bammo! They give us Rouhani as a moderate, we start negotiate — the point is we were negotiating with Ahmadinejad, because whenever you’re negotiating with your negotiating with supreme leader. Negotiating with the Ayatollah Khamenei. There isn’t a single one of these people over there can make a deal or any agreement within a deal without the approval of the Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader.

Now, the second thing we were lied about, even before the negotiations began, is John Kerry — who was a senator at the time — acting on Obama’s orders, had already recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium on their own soil. This was known and reported all the way back in 2007. I think it is huge, because the United States has been trying for more than a decade to make Iran stop its uranium enrichment program. That involved the centrifuges and all that.

It turns out even before he was secretary of state, Senator John Kerry, as emissary of the Regime, green-lighted Iran’s right to go ahead and enrich uranium on their own soil. Now, the entire purpose… To illustrate the focus or the magnitude of this lie, the entire purpose of the economic sanctions that we slapped on Iran was to get them to stop their enrichment. Not only were the sanctions designed to get them to stop, they were designed to prevent them from being able to.

Because with the sanctions in place, they wouldn’t have the money, the capital, or access to materiel that they needed in order to move forward. And yet all of it did move forward while we had sanctions placed on them, while Ahmadinejad was the president — who we said we couldn’t negotiate with, who we said we couldn’t negotiate with. By the way, it’s been reported by that great Middle Eastern news service, MEMRI, M-E-M-R-I. All of this was a charade. The third thing, the third lie, third issue we were lied to about.

The Iranians are already pumping and selling their oil like crazy. Now, the Obama administration claims that sanctions are not yet been lifted on Iran as it relates to their oil. MEMRI is the Middle East Media Research Institute. The headline of the story: “Iranian Senior Officials Disclose Confidential Details From Nuclear Negotiations.” So the source for all this is a bunch of braggadocios Iranians who feel that it’s apparently okay now ’cause the deal’s done and Obama’s on his way to making sure the world and everybody else ratifies this thing.

“Iranian officials recently began to reveal details from the nuclear negotiations with the US since their early stages. Their statements indicate that the US initiated secret negotiations with Iran not after President Hassan Rohani, [supposedly] of the pragmatic camp, was elected in 2013, but rather in 2011-2012, in the era of radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” Again, folks, there’s no difference in the two. Don’t doubt me on this. Because whoever’s “president” is nothing more than a placeholder.

He’s a public figurehead that’s designed to create or produce or present an image of Iran as your normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill nation that has a president, has a parliament, that has elections and so forth. “The disclosures also indicate that, already at that time, Iran received from the US administration a letter recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil,” while we supposedly had sanctions in place. President Barack Obama has wanted Iran to be able to move forward on their nuclear program.

He made it possible for this to happen even while sanctions were supposedly in place. “Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to the Majlis speaker, specified that the letter had come from John Kerry, then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iranian vice president and top negotiator Ali Akbar Salehi said that Kerry, while still a senator, had been appointed by President Obama to handle the nuclear contacts with Iran.” Kerry was assuring the Iranians they had the right to enrich uranium on their soil since 2007.

Now, what’s happening here is Chuck Schumer has come out in opposition to the deal, and the administration is unloading on him. The administration and its buddies in the media are unloading on Chuck Schumer. They accuse him… Washington Post, New York Times, they accuse him of being “a Jew who is in bed with the Jewish lobby, wealthy interests.” All of the code words it had usually use to attack conservatives they are using here to attack Chuck Schumer.

James Taranto, Best of the Web, Wall Street Journal: “Bigotry, Pure and Simple — The ugly attacks on Senator Chuck Schumer.” Now, say what you want, Senator Chuck Schumer is getting a taste of his own tactics. I mean, he’s not a stranger to these tactics. He has used them himself. I just find it fascinating he’s on the receiving end of them now. And, by the way, other Jewish members of Congress are also getting to one degree or another the same kind of treatment as Chuck-U Schumer is getting from the administration, from the Regime.

Basically the attacks are all, “He’s not a loyal American! He’s a Jew first! He’s an Israeli Jew and he’s supporting the Jewish lobby.” It’s despicable. It really is. It’s the kind of stuff that when a conservative Republican comes out and supports Israel, that’s the kind of stuff they say about him. And now they’re accusing Chuck Schumer, but it goes worse than that. Now they’ve got McCain coming out, actively opposing this deal for his own reasons. McCain is saying the Senate is not gonna pass this; the Senate is not gonna make this reality.

Obama is saying, “I don’t need you! I already got the UN. It’s gonna happen. I don’t care. You guys are just exercising your own folly here. I don’t need you guys to vote for this. It’s already a done deal.” I gotta tell you, like I said yesterday, I really misjudged this whole Schumer thing. I thought that Schumer coming out for the deal meant that they had enough Democrat votes to pass this thing and that Schumer could thus vote against it and remain loyal to his base in New York.

Which, in majority (I guess) position opposes the deal. But it turns out that’s not the case. It turns out his opposition to it is real and substantive, and it’s extensively documented and written. But I tell you, folks, this is the kind of in-the-weeds stuff that I know that the low-information crowd couldn’t care less about; they’re not gonna understand it when they hear it.

But it’s huge, to me, the things that we’ve been lied to about and the objective that these lies reveal. All along we have been facilitating Iran’s quest? All along we have been helping them make it possible? It now puts… You know, people have analyzed the deal and said, “Yeah, Iran’s gonna get a deal in two years, 10 years.” It all makes sense now.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Stan in Winlock, Washington. Great to have you on the program Stan. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hello and thank you very much for taking my call. I’ll get right to my point. I think Obama’s brilliant. He put Israel in a no-win situation when he got the UN to approve the Iran nuke deal. If Israel unilaterally destroys Iran’s nuke capability, it will be condemned by the UN and they become the outlaw nation, not Iran. If Israel does nothing, Iran gets the bomb and Israel is toast. And all this was done while framing himself as seeking peace.

RUSH: Let my let me ask you a question, and I’m not per se disagreeing with that other than your claim that Obama’s brilliant. He may be a brilliant deceitful political tactician. Do you think Israel cares? On one hand, Israel destroyed and vaporized. On the other hand, the UN thinks Israel is mean. Which do you think they would choose?

CALLER: Oh, I think they have no choice. I think they will react militarily.

RUSH: Well, do you know that Obama has told them that we will stop them if this try to do that? Do you know that in this deal in the United States and the other negotiating partners promise to protect Iran against such an Israeli attack?

CALLER: Yeah, and supposedly Obama’s saying there won’t be any war but Israel’s already said that they will have no choice.

RUSH: No, no.

CALLER: They have to defend themselves.

RUSH: Obama said there would be a war if we don’t approve the deal. Oh, really? Well, who’s gonna start that war? There won’t be a war if there…? There will be a war if there isn’t a deal? How does that work? If that’s the case, who starts that war? It must be the Ayatollah Khamenei ticked off you can’t get his nuclear power. Who would start that? If there is no deal, it guarantees a war? This is what Obama said. It’s a classic Obama tactic. “You either take my way or it’s Armageddon!”

On either health care or economy, the stimulus. Now the Iran deal. Whatever it is, “It’s either my way or it’s the end of the world! It’s either my way or hell! It’s either my way or the worst that can possibly happen.” He always creates a straw dog. And, by the way, there are always people, in Obama’s worldview, who want the worst that can happen. In this case, it would be Benjamin Netanyahu. His straw dog or straw man always has people who represent the evil that he says would naturally occur if his way doesn’t happen. Stan, I appreciate the call.

END TRANSCRIPT

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

The Poll Numbers on the Planned Parenthood Scandal CNN Left Out

Opinion by Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood / August 05, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/05/the-poll-numbers-on-the-planned-parenthood-scandal-cnn-left-out

Regardless of one’s point of view on an issue, you can usually find a poll that shows that a majority of people agree with you. I’d suggest that is exactly what we saw happen on CNN Wednesday, when anchor Alisyn Camerota interviewed Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., about the debate surrounding Planned Parenthood.

A May 2015 Gallup poll asked, “Should abortion be legal?” Here’s how the numbers broke down:
Twenty-nine percent said abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
Fifty-one percent said abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.
Nineteen percent said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

Here’s what Camerota said:

“That’s 80 percent of respondents who believe abortion should be kept legal.” (She added together the 29 percent who said abortion should be legal in any circumstance and 51 percent who said it should be allowed only in certain circumstances.)

Here’s what Camerota could have said:

“That’s 70 percent of Americans who believe there should be limits on abortion.” (Adding together the 51 percent who said it should be legal only in certain circumstances and the 19 percent who said it should not be legal under any circumstances.)

Those who identify as pro-choice are more inclined to report the poll the way CNN did, and those who identify as pro-life are likely to use the latter number—the point being, in this particular poll and many others, you can “interpret the data” to get the spin you want.

I also found interesting that while CNN chose to show questions from a Monmouth University Poll showing that a majority of respondents favored the use of fetal tissue for research and that 49 percent opposed cutting off federal funds to Planned Parenthood, they conveniently left out the response to this question: “Have you seen or heard recent news about videos that supposedly show Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of aborted fetus tissue, or not?”

Here were the responses:

Only 27 percent said they had heard a lot.
Only 21 percent said they had heard a little.
But 53 percent of respondents said they had not heard about the story at all.

I wonder how different the other answers in the poll about fetal tissue research and defunding Planned Parenthood would have been if the 74 percent of people who had heard or seen little to nothing had indeed seen the videos.

Of course, as the Media Research Center points out, the death of Cecil the lion has received more than four times the coverage in one week by the network news media than the five undercover videos released over the past three weeks showing Planned Parenthood committing potentially criminal acts.

CNN didn’t mention those numbers, either.

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

If I were Secretary of Defense, here’s the FIRST position I’d eliminate

Written by Allen West on August 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/if-i-were-secretary-of-defense-heres-the-first-position-id-eliminate

I remember when the mantra of “every kid gets a trophy” began to take hold in our youth athletic programs. Well, now that philosophy of social utopianism has permeated throughout our culture and now in a place where it absolutely has no place. In life, there are standards and no one’s entitled to “have” anything — well, besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, that is not the societal vision of the liberal progressives; theirs is based upon egalitarianism. That, however, is not consistent with the duty and mission of our armed forces.

I was sent the following article from a distinguished retired Special Forces officer, Brigadier General Remo Butler, who was and continues to be a role model for me. As reported in USA Today:

Many of the Pentagon’s elite commando units — including the Navy SEALs — are overwhelmingly led and manned by white officers and enlisted troops, a concern at the highest levels of the military where officials have stressed the need to create more diverse forces to handle future threats.

Black officers and enlisted troops are scarce in some special operations units in highest demand, according to data provided by the Pentagon to USA TODAY. For instance, eight of 753 SEAL officers are black, or 1%.

An expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces said the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win.

“We don’t know where we will find ourselves in the future,” said Army Col. Michael Copenhaver, who has published a paper on diversity in special operating forces. “One thing is for sure: We will find ourselves around the globe. And around the globe you have different cultural backgrounds everywhere. Having that kind of a diverse force can only increase your operational capability.

Special Operations forces, including SEALs and the Army’s Green Berets, are often the face of the American military in foreign hot spots where they rescue hostages, raid terrorist camps and train local troops. SEAL Team 6 famously raided Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and killed him. As the military sheds conventional forces — the Army will pare 40,000 soldiers in the next few years — special operators’ ranks continue to be filled as demand for their unique capabilities remains high.

US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) based in Tampa, does not track that information on its nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnel, said Kenneth McGraw, a spokesman. Gen. Joseph Votel, SOCOM’s commander, declined to speak to USA TODAY for this story, said Col. Thomas Davis, another SOCOM spokesman.

Votel did address the issue last month at the Aspen Security Conference and stressed the need for diverse commando units, which operate in almost 90 countries. The average enlisted special operator is 29, married with two children and has deployed four to 10 times, Votel told the audience.

What he didn’t say is that most of them are white.

“SOCOM needs diversity, we need people of color, we need men, we need women to help us solve the problems that we deal with today,” Votel said. “So we need good people; men, women, people of all colors.”

What we need is a highly trained, well-resourced military focused on defeating our enemies. What these folks fail to understand is that in the community of warriors, no one cares about pigmentation. They care about honor, integrity, character and fierceness.

What I don’t want to see is all of a sudden the focus turn to having “black faces” instead of elite warriors. Diversity is not the goal of the U.S. military; it is to fight and win the nation’s wars. On the battlefield, bullets don’t seek out someone based on skin color. This design of social egalitarianism has no place in our military.

And spare me the diatribe about the integration of blacks into the U.S. military. From the days of Crispus Attucks, black men have shown they’re brave and willing to stand and fight for one single objective: liberty. The men of the 54th Massachusetts and the Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry didn’t seek preferential treatment. As well, the 369th Harlem Hell Fighters, Tuskegee Airmen and Montford Point Marines achieved not because of their skin color, but because of their character.

There’s no need for “diversity agents” to try and manipulate the composition of our armed forces, sacrificing our effectiveness in pursuit of fairness, under the guise of enhanced increased capability. And what’s most disconcerting is the infiltration into the military of this ill-conceived mindset — namely the Pentagon joining in on this folly. The statement from an “expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces” — since when did the U.S. military need an expert on diversity of commando forces? I can tell you right now, if I were Secretary of Defense, that’s the first position I’d eliminate! The deduction of this so-called expert — “the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win” — is utterly disrespectful to the men and women serving, sacrificing and committing themselves in fighting for this nation today.

The strength of our military is we do not see color; we only see the oath we take to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, each man and woman who takes up that oath serves in their best capacity — not one based on respective differences, but rather united in the commonality of being an American.

Our elite forces are elite because of their standards — and “monkeying” around with their composition based on some insidious research about diversity is stupidity. There are things that must be earned in life, and so it is with titles such as Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, Navy SEAL, Recon Marine and Air Force PJ. These are not just little plastic trophies to be handed out by the gods of diversity. They represent time-honored impeccable standards of excellence and elitism that only a few are called to seek, and even fewer attain.

On my chest I wear three sets of wings: Army Master Parachutist, Army Air Assault and the Navy/Marine Corps Parachutist. Those were not given because I was a minority. They were earned because I sought to “Be All I Could Be.” I didn’t get these through some diversity-approved course; rather, I entered as others and proved myself worthy.

At a time when we’re facing countless global enemies from Russia, China, Iran and Islamic jihadism, it’s not about the skin color of the person pulling the trigger to send our enemies to hell. It’s about the qualifications and their ability to do so. Diversity in our Special Operations forces means committed men and women who have diversified skills and talents enabling us to defeat the enemy. The policies of our Defense Department MUST not be about meeting quota goals, but rather in placing the MOST qualified, trained and ready force on the field of battle. No one cares about skin color, save those who only care about inane statistics they can show for their own elevation.

Once upon a time, the government said every American had a right to own a home and boasted of an increase in minority home ownership. Standards were lowered and what ensued 30 years later, in 2008, was a financial collapse. The folly here will result in an even greater collapse with ramifications on the national security of this republic.

For America, it’s never been about the skin color of the warrior. It has been, and must always be, about their oath of service and commitment to victory — not diversity.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Why The Establishment Thinks Donald Trump Must Be Stopped at All Costs

Posted by Wayne Root on July 7, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2015/07/07/why-obama-and-hillary-must-stop-donald-trump-at-all-costs/#sthash.fAcDREDJ.dpuf

Someone is getting very nervous;

Obama.
Valerie Jarrett.
Eric Holder.
Hillary Clinton.
Jon Corzine…

to name just a few. And I know why.

I wrote a book entitled, “The Murder of the Middle Class” about the unholy conspiracy between big government, big business and big media. They all benefit by the billions from this partnership and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all, and all for one.

It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich. Everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies.

But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. I’ve never seen them this outraged… this vicious… this motivated… this coordinated. NEVER in all my years in politics, have I seen anything like the way the mad dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

When white extremist David Dukes ran for Governor of Louisiana even he wasn’t treated with this kind of outrage, vitriol and disrespect. When a known fraud, scam artist and tax cheat like Al Sharpton ran for President, I never saw anything remotely close to this. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened like never before.

Why? Because David Duke was never going to win. Al Sharpton was never going to win. Ron Paul was never going to win. Ross Perot was never going to win as a third party candidate. None of those candidates had the billion dollars it takes to win the presidency. But Donald Trump can self-fund that amount tomorrow… and still have another billion left over to pour into the last two week stretch run before election day.

No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business and political elite understand that Donald Trump is no joke and could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy Donald. No this is a coordinated conspiracy led by President Barack Obama himself. Obama himself is making the phone calls and giving the orders–the ultimate intimidator who plays by the rules of Chicago thug politics.

Why is this so important to Obama? Because most of the other politicians are part of the “old boys club.” They talk big, but in the end they won’t change a thing. Why? Because they are all beholden to big money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, multi-national corporations like Big Pharma or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock stock and barrel by foreigners–like George Soros owns Obama, or foreign governments own Hillary with their Clinton Foundation donations.

These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But one man–and only one man–isn’tbeholden to anyone. One man doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Autoworkers, or the Teachers Union, or the SEIU, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.

Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slavemasters.

Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why Boehner and McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet they’ve never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal Executive Action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?

Well first, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs… or secretly gay… or stealing taxpayer money… the NSA knows everything.

Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money, from his own bank account. Trust me–the NSA, SEC, IRS and all the other 3-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They know everything.

Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called “racists.” So they are scared to ever criticize Obama, or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.

Fourth, why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a “good boy” you’ve got a $5 million dollar per year lobbying job waiting.

The big money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose… they win.

But Donald Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice cozy relationship between big government, big media and big business. All the rules are out the window if Donald wins the presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides. But not Donald.

Remember Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.

Now he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do–question our relationship with Mexico… question why the border is wide open… questioning why no wall has been built across the border… questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests… questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes yet are not deported… questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

Donald Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question.
I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michele Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare web sites. By the way that tab is now up to $5 billion.
Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. He will ask if Obama himself committed fraud when he said, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records.
Trump will prosecute Hillary Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election.
How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?

Obama, the multi-national corporations and the media need to stop this. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Donald could wake a sleeping giant.

Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Donald would dare to prosecute. Donald Trump will not hesitate. Once Donald gets in and gets a look at “the cooked books” and Obama’s records, the game is over. The gig is up. The goose is cooked.

Eric Holder could wind up in prison.
Valerie Jarrett could wind up in prison.
Obama bundler Jon Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Hillary Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails… or accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State… or for “misplacing” $6 billion as head of State Department… or for lying about Benghazi.
The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison. Obamacare will be defunded and dismantled. The Obama Crime Family will be prosecuted for crimes against the American people. And Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters.

Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved… just for fun. That will all happen on Trump’s first day in the White House. Who knows what Donald will do on day #2?

That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump. That’s why we must all support Donald. This may be our only shot at saving America, uncovering the crimes committed against our nation and prosecuting all of those involved.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Wayne Allyn Root was a guy that went to Columbia University at the same time that Obama supposedly went. He has written many great articles about Obama. This article tells it the way it is! Sort of makes me like Trump more and more. (But not quite there yet.) He is a narcissist, mouthy and condescending, but this article really gives me reason to think about it from a different perspective!

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: Donald Trump: Still Right About Mexican Rapists

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Aug 5, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/05/donald-trump-still-right-about-mexican-rapists/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Donald Trump: Still Right About Mexican Rapists

There’s a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)

In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim’s illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.

“She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant — the family needed the stepdad’s paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her. When she talks about it, tears stream down her face.”

Far from “I am woman, hear me roar,” these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

Maria dismissed the firestorm of publicity surrounding the sexual precocity of her own daughter, laughingly referring to the 11-year-old rape victim as “my wild child.” She even criticized the girl’s older sisters for complaining about the young girl’s promiscuous clothing choices, saying — of an 11-year-old: “Well, she’s got the body, so leave her alone.”

In 2013, illegal immigrant Bertha Leticia Rayo was arrested for allowing her former husband, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, to rape her 4-year-old daughter, then assisting his unsuccessful escape from the police. The rapist, Aroldo Guerra-Garcia, was also aided in his escape attempt by another woman, Krystal Galindo. (Kind of a ladies man, was Aroldo.)
That same year, the government busted up a child pornography operation in Illinois being run out of the home of three illegal aliens from Mexico, including a woman. At least one of them, Jorge Muhedano-Hernandez, had already been deported once. (Peoria Journal Star headline: “Bloomington men plead guilty to false documents.”)
The Baby Hope case in New York City began when a Mexican illegal alien, Conrado Juarez, raped and murdered his 4-year-old cousin, Anjelica Castillo. His sister helped him dispose of the body. Police found the little girl’s corpse in a cooler off the Henry Hudson Parkway, but the case went unsolved for two decades, because none of the murdered girl’s extended illegal alien family ever reported her missing. Anjelica’s mother later told the police she always suspected the tiny corpse in the cooler was her daughter’s, but never told anyone.
In 2014, Isidro Garcia was arrested in Bell Gardens, California, accused of drugging and kidnapping the 15-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, then forcing the girl to marry him and bear his child. The mother had suspected Garcia, then 31 years old, had been raping her teenage daughter, but did nothing. All three were illegal aliens from Mexico, making this another case for the “Not Our Problem” file.
In 2007, Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Casarez was convicted in New Mexico for repeatedly raping a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old. During his sentencing, Casarez borrowed Marco Rubio’s talking points about hardworking illegal immigrants with roots in America. “I have been here for many years,” Casarez told the judge — incongruously, through a translator. “That’s why,” he added, “I’ve been working instead of getting involved with problems.” Other than that one thing.
Two weeks after Luis Casarez was indicted for child rape, his son, Luis Casarez Jr., was indicted in a separate case of child rape.

When the crime is this bizarre, it’s not “anecdotal.” “Child rape perpetrated by more than one family member” isn’t your run-of-the-mill crime. It’s rather like discovering dozens of cannibalism cases in specific neighborhoods.

How many fourth-generation American father-son child-rape duos do we have? How many American brother-sister teams are conspiring in child rape and murder? How many mothers are helping their boyfriends and husbands get away with raping their own children?

And how many 12-year-old American girls are giving birth — to the delight of their parents?

In some immigrant enclaves, the police have simply given up on pursuing statutory rape cases with Hispanic victims. They say that after being notified by hospital administrators that a 12-year-old has given birth and the father is in his 30s, they’ll show up at the girl’s house — and be greeted by her parents calling the pregnancy a “blessing.”

This happens all the time, they say.

And yet, in the entire American media, there have been more stories about a rape by Duke lacrosse players that didn’t happen than about the slew of child rapes by Hispanics that did because Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor. No wonder they hate Trump.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Fantastic Comment

The following is a comment I received. I hear from her often, and would like to hear from the rest of you.

Regarding the post, “Ambulance Rushed After Botched Abortion to Planned Parenthood Clinic Exposed Selling Aborted Babies”

Here is my reply;

FANTASTIC COMMENT and QUESTION. I did not see that about deliberately botching the abortion so they can sell an intact baby. I am going to share this with everyone.

The second comment was just as great. If I were a woman seeking an abortion, I think I would ask for a cut. I am very confident that some women are thinking just that.

What is your input on this? Can you see women asking for their “CUT” of the profits? How about women setting a price for their baby in order for Planned Parenthood to sell the parts? I know this sounds gruesome, but the depravity of our society is getting worse. Such disassociated thinking is already out there. It could be that it has already begun, and it is understandable that such transactions would be kept quiet.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

4 Supremes alert America: ‘Trouble is coming’

Published: 07/11/2015 by Greg Corombos

URL of the original posting site: http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/4-supremes-alert-america-trouble-is-coming/#5QldO8KEXkHFdmWU.99

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts

America needs to prepare for a major governmental assault on religious liberty in the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, but those standing against the tide can find plenty of inspiration from those who pioneered the concept of religious freedom at the American founding.

Michael Farris is co-founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and author of “The History of Religious Liberty.” The book details the fierce fight for the religious freedom provisions that eventually emerged in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Farris said history is critical to understand in the wake of the marriage decision and the brand new threats to liberty being advocated on the political left.

The day after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was handed down, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., told MSNBC she believed religious liberty was a much narrower concept than has been understood for centuries. “Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs,” Baldwin said. “But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception.”

She added, “Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled? In this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts, and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

Michael Farris’ “History of Religious Liberty” is a sweeping literary work that passionately traces the epic history of religious liberty across three centuries, from the turbulent days of medieval Europe to colonial America and the birth pangs of a new nation.

Farris is dumbfounded at Baldwin’s reading of the First Amendment. “The ignorance of members of Congress and the U.S. Senate never ceases to baffle me. How did they get there in the first place without taking a basic civics course? Or maybe they have and they just don’t believe it,” Farris said. “This senator has just simply walked away from not only the text of the Constitution and the meaning of the Constitution but our great American traditions.”

In fact, Farris believes Baldwin’s concept of religious liberty is almost completely backward. “It is an institutional right,” he said. “Churches have religious freedom, but it’s primarily an individual right. The Supreme Court – back in the day when it used to think straight – would say things like it’s not up to the government or the courts to determine which individual within a faith has correctly understood the demands of that faith. You’re allowed to go your own way.”

In response to the court decision, Govs. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, have announced their states will vigorously protect the religious liberty of the people. Farris applauds the efforts but warns those policies won’t stop all government intrusion into Americans’ lives or the practices of religious institutions. “That’s a good thing. It limits the areas where a church or a school can expect an attack. But a Christian college residing in one of those states can still expect an attack from the IRS or from the accrediting association or from the U.S. Department of Education if they don’t go along with the federal edicts on this,” said Farris, who warned schools and churches would be wise to protect themselves legally now given the dire warnings offered in the dissents to the Obergefell decision. “We have four justices on the Supreme Court effectively warning all the religious institutions, ‘You better do something about this because trouble’s coming.’ I don’t think that’s an idle speculation,” he said. “That’s about as strong of a warning from about as high a source as you can possibly get.”

&amp;lt;div&amp;gt;Please enable Javascript to watch this video&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;Farris expects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to provide federal protection for Christian individuals and organizations, but only to the extent that Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledges it.

In “The History of Religious Freedom,” Farris details the long, unlikely triumph of religious freedom in America’s founding. Just as in Europe, colonial America witnesses various denominations cracking down on others.

Modern history textbooks credit enlightenment thinking for the emergence of religious liberty in America. To Farris, that’s academic fantasy, and true scholars have actually debunked that notion. “It’s simply not true,” he said. “I lay out the historical evidence in great detail. One Harvard historian around the 1920s said the evidence that people who are indifferent to religion, that basically is the enlightenment crowd, were the cause of religious liberty is an unsustainable argument. There is simply no evidence for that point.” He added, “It was people who cared very deeply. It was grassroots kinds of Christians fighting establishment kind of Christians who gave us religious liberty for everybody. The battle for religious liberty wasn’t settled on the Mayflower.”

Protections for the free exercise of religion were anything but guaranteed in America. Farris said the colonial government of Virginia teamed with the Anglican Church to punish dissenters as late as the 1770s. In 1776, Virginia’s Declaration of Rights became the first declaration of religious liberty anywhere in the world.

In 1789, Congress approved the Bill of Rights and sent them to the states for approval. That same year, the French Revolution unfolded. The upheaval in the two countries has long been compared, especially as the U.S. moved forward with stability and France subsequently endured the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic era.

Farris said there are key reasons for the very different results of revolutions rooted in freedom, including America’s much deeper respect for personal religious liberty and vastly different views about the nature of man.

“France believed that man was perfectable and that we could create our own utopia, whereas the American Revolution followed the Christian biblical idea that all men are sinners and that’s why you needed limited government, because you can’t trust any man in government to rule faithfully forever,” he explained.

According to Farris, the greatest parallel between the colonial struggle for religious freedom and today’s cultural battles is where the battle lines are drawn. Religious freedom was not championed by the ruling class. “It was a monumental battle,” he said. “It was the common people, who believed in Jesus, who believed the Bible was the authority for their faith and their life, who really fought the war and won. Many of them paid with their lives.”

Farris said the founding generation should serve as inspiration for the religious freedom fights of this century.

“Common people armed with bravery and faith in God can turn anything around,” he said. “I’ve seen it in my own life through the homeschooling movement. We were outnumbered and outgunned by the teachers’ unions day after day after day. We won battle after battle after battle because (we were) common people armed with the Constitution of the United States and belief in the Word of God.”

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: Voters to G.O.P.: We’re Just Not That Into Immigrants

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jul 29, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/07/29/voters-to-g-o-p-were-just-not-that-into-immigrants/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Voters to G.O.P.: We're Just Not That Into Immigrants

For years, Republican candidates have been assured by their political consultants that amnesty is a runaway hit with the public. Then they always come in for a zinger of a surprise when the American people are finally able to express themselves on the subject. (Sometimes it seems as if political consultants are in the game only to make money.)

Washington has tried to sneak through three amnesties in the last decade — in 2006, 2007 and 2013. Each time, amnesty had the full support of the media, the White House, leaders of both political parties, big campaign donors and lobbyists.

And every time, as soon as the public got wind of what was happening, the politicians scattered like roaches and the loudest amnesty proponent in the room would suddenly be demanding “border security first!”

Couldn’t Republicans spare themselves the embarrassment of having to say they “learned their lesson” by learning the same lesson of the last 17 guys to push amnesty?

The McCain-Kennedy amnesty passed the Senate in 2006, instantly inspiring an outpouring of voter anger so virulent that it shut down the congressional switchboards. Despite enormous opposition from voters, lame-duck President Bush cockily told reporters, “I’ll see you at the bill signing” — the first step to ushering in a Democratic Congress in the upcoming midterm elections.

By contrast, House Majority Leader John Boehner told a group of Republicans that he had “promised the president today that I wouldn’t say anything bad about this piece of s— bill.” Weeks later, the chief sponsor of the POS bill, Sen. John McCain, voted for a fence with no hint of amnesty.

A year later, when he was running for president, immigration was the issue dominating the primaries. McCain told voters, “My friends, I learned a lesson.” What he had allegedly learned was: “We must secure the border first. We need to do these other things, but the American people want something done about the border.” McCain even cut macho campaign commercials of him walking by the southern border, saying, “Build the dang fence!” Too little, too late. McCain lost the dang election. Bush’s loss was equally monumental: He lost Congress by pushing amnesty.

Contrary to liberals’ claim that they had finally won the hearts and minds of the people in opposing the Iraq War, leading to the Democrats’ 2006 sweep of Congress, a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken about a month into Bush’s incessant yammering about amnesty showed that more Americans approved of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War than approved of his handling of immigration.

In nearly every poll on Bush’s handling of immigration that year, about 60 percent of the public disapproved and only 25 percent approved.

After Bush’s party was wiped out in the midterm elections, the Democratic-controlled Congress seemed certain to pass amnesty. Bush still wanted it. So did the Democrats. So did the media. So did the donors.

But there was one teensy problem: The public still hated the idea.

You know how people always say “you can’t beat something with nothing.” When it comes to amnesty, “nothing” outpolls “something” every time.

In early June of 2007, a Rasmussen poll found that support for “no bill” beat support for the Senate immigration bill by 5-to-3. By the end of the week, “no bill” was winning 2-to-1, with 53 percent against amnesty and only 26 percent for it.

Public opposition was so vociferous, the Senate didn’t even vote on the 2007 amnesty.

Then, a few years later, erstwhile tea party darling Sen. Marco Rubio burst on the scene deciding he was going to be the one to enact amnesty! Teaming up with everybody’s favorite senator, Chuck Schumer, Rubio spent a full year zealously pushing amnesty, which entailed his telling huge, whopping lies about it.

He blanketed the airwaves, convinced Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to support the bill, toured all the Sunday morning talk shows. It worked! The Senate passed Rubio’s amnesty bill. It was Rubio’s only accomplishment in Washington. But then, unfortunately for him, the public found out about it and, once again, an amnesty bill died. (When will these so-called “voters” stop with their infernal meddling?)

The next thing we knew, Rubio was swearing to attendees at the March 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference that what “I’ve learned is you can’t even have a conversation” about “immigration reform” until “future illegal immigration will be controlled,” calling it “the single biggest lesson of the last two years.” A few months later, he told The Wall Street Journal that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill if it came up again.

One-time GOP star, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, was suckered into supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty by a mere 20-minute conversation with Schumer. Not content to support the intensely hated amnesty bill, Christie also signed a bill granting illegal aliens in-state tuition. But just before announcing his run for the presidency this year, Christie claimed that he, too, had “learned” more about the issue. He now claims he considers a path to citizenship “extreme” and accused Hillary Clinton of “pandering” by supporting a path to citizenship. I’d say Christie had to eat his own words on immigration, but that would be a cheap shot.

As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee denounced a bill to require verification of citizenship before registering to vote or applying for public benefits, saying it “inflames those who are racist and bigots.” (Voters LOVE being called bigots!)

He made the weird claim that companies like Toyota or Nestle might refuse to invest in Arkansas if the bill became law, by sending the message that, “If you don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don’t want you.” It might also send the message that we don’t want foreigners voting in our elections or collecting public services meant for Americans.

But whenever he runs for president, Huckabee becomes a born-again Minuteman! His current presidential website denounces “the Washington establishment” for trying to “reward illegal immigrants with amnesty and citizenship,” adding, “Without a secure border, nothing matters.”

Instead of having to keep apologizing for their positions on immigration, maybe Republicans should stop listening to political consultants who are paid by business lobbyists to dump millions of poverty-stricken, low-wage workers on the country.

Out of nowhere, non-politician Donald Trump has shot to the top of the polls by denouncing America’s widely unpopular immigration policies. All those high-priced campaign consultants are standing around scratching their heads. Americans can see they’re being forced to subsidize people who are being brought in only to outvote them, provide cheap labor and change our culture. All the donor money in the world isn’t going to help you, Republicans, if the voters hate you.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Worth More Dead than Alive

By: Meeke Addison; Posted: Friday, July 24, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/sanctity-of-life/worth-more-dead-than-alive

“The report found, “Abortions among the ‘non-Hispanic black’ demographic were by far the highest among any racial group.” This is #blacklivesmatter at its best.”

– Meeke Addison

There must be an immediate investigation of Planned Parenthood, and it must subsequently be defunded of the tax-payers’ dollars it currently enjoys. Videos have surfaced recently revealing that Planned Parenthood is in the business of butchering babies and doing so “softly” so as to preserve valuable parts for sale. These videos have been widely circulated, and Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, has been forced to deny their legitimacy. She can now be seen making a cold, detached video statement that reduces what her organization does to making “donations for medical research.” However, the “donations” are bringing in money for Planned Parenthood.

The Center for Medical Progress is to release more videos, and that threat has Planned Parenthood shaking in their blood-stained medical gowns. In fact, according to LifeNews.com, Planned Parenthood admits “that CMP investigators may have video of actual tissue procurement at a PP facility.” And that’s not the worst of it. In a written response to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s request for a staff briefing regarding Planned Parenthood’s “tissue donation” programs, the organization alerts the committee to damaging information still yet to be revealed.

Planned Parenthood writes:

At this point, we do not know the full extent of Biomax’s illicit conduct. We believe that on at least one occasion a representative from Biomax was shown a highly sensitive area in a clinic where tissue is processed after abortion procedures. While this work is standard and essential during any abortion procedure, any filming in such an area would be an extremely serious invasion of our patients’ privacy and dignity. We also believe that in at least one interaction at a Planned Parenthood facility, the Biomax representative asked questions about the racial characteristics of tissue donated to researchers studying sickle cell anemia, apparently seeking to create a misleading impression.

As more videos surface, are we going to learn that Planned Parenthood had a particular interest in selling the body parts of aborted black babies? It certainly appears to be so. And if you consider that in 2013 in New York City alone more black babies were aborted than were born, they certain didn’t lack “specimens for donation.” According to an article published on theamericanmirror.com, Kyle Olson cites a report from, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene entitled “Pregnancy Outcomes.” The report found, “Abortions among the ‘non-Hispanic black’ demographic were by far the highest among any racial group.” This is #blacklivesmatter at its best.

We don’t know what will be uncovered about Planned Parenthood and their immoral, illegal, and heinous practices, but you can be sure that none of it will show them having veered too far away from their founding mission of nearly 100 years ago: the extermination of “human weeds.”

Meeke Addison Urban Family NetworkMore Articles

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

How Many Islamic Terrorists Are Required To Label It An Islamic Terrorist Attack?

Written on Thursday, July 23, 2015 by Franklin D. Leupp, Sr.

In times past, and especially during the Cold War era, covert means were employed by both sides in an effort to sidetrack, disable and bring to nought all efforts of the perceived enemy to gain an upper hand. Propaganda was, and still is, used to spread
lies and disinformation; and it works. Spies and moles are used to get inside information and secrets and spread discord among the enemy. All these tactics are used by many countries against their perceived enemies and even against their friends. With distrust running high around the world, no government is truly safe against hacks and attacks. So what is the solution?

Well, the way we seem to find the most interesting is to just open the gates and let the Trojan Horse in. Hire the enemy to train the guard, advise on security, place in high positions so as to grant authority to whatever devious plans he hatches. Invite them into the “inner chambers,” bless their activities and even make special honor of their “feast days.” Of course there may be something covert here, but it’s not obvious. In fact it is spread all over like a farmer who uses a very special machine to throw “stuff” all over his field; and it has a name. But in this context, it’s called Political Correctness. And it is extremely dangerous. But don’t ever mention the obvious, it might upset their own devious plans.

Profiling seems to be a dirty word, but when it comes to protecting us from a self-confessed evil in our midst, we would do well to use it with caution, but with resolve. Every Islamic terrorist who has used 9-11, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, et al, to bring terror and bloodshed to our midst has done it with the blessing and urging of his mentors, clerics and Imams. They do it by ones, twos, however many it takes and they are all
Islamic. Is it too difficult to be wary? How long does it take for this to sink in to the ruling idiots who sit twiddling their thumbs while the country burns? And citizens get slaughtered?

This country has never had a president before who didn’t love his country. It makes a big difference when one is born and raised here. He has something to love and protect. He knows where the best fishing holes are. And when he is old enough, he probably joins the military to show his/her patriotism. Only a small number make it a career, but each one now has “skin in the game.” That’s what being an American is all about: we protect our own, and offer no apologies for it. The invasion of Islamists from around the world, being invited by the United Nations to saturate our cities is a disaster waiting to happen. It is from their own creed that we are their enemies and “it is written” for them to subdue, wipe out all religion but theirs and even kill us if we don’t accept and bow down to their dictates. How far can we go before this all blows up? Dearborn and Detroit should be a red flag for all of us and we are losing control of our own country – with the President’s callous overt obeisance.

Is our Congress really asleep at the wheel? There is complicity in Washington that defies explanation and rubber-stampers who don’t seem to know what they are there for. It’s time for them all to renew their oaths of office.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “Trump Opponents Take Nuanced View of Child Rape”

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jul 22, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com

There are few sexual perversions not celebrated by our media today, but I gather, from decades of flood-the-zone coverage of even the most preposterous allegations of rape, that liberals are still on record as being against rape.

So it’s worth examining the cultures we’re introducing to America for the purpose of giving the Democrats votes and businesses cheap labor:

– Seventy-seven percent of reported sexual assaults in Lima, Peru, are against child victims, according to the Latin American and Caribbean Youth Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (REDLAC).

– A U.N. Special Rapporteur concluded that the only explanation for “the high degree of impunity for violence against women” in Guatemala was that “at least some of the violence was committed by the authorities.”

– CNN reports that 318 10-year-old girls gave birth in Mexico in 2011.

In all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined, there have been eight reported births to girls aged 10 or younger. Seven of the eight involved Third World immigrants.

– The REDLAC report said that girls between the ages of 10 and 15 accounted for more than 15 percent of all births in Argentina and 17 percent of all births in Uruguay.

By contrast, less than 2 percent of births in the U.S. are to girls in that age group — and most of those are Hispanics, who are seven times more likely to give birth between the ages of 10 and 14 than whites, according to a Centers for Disease Control study.

All peasant cultures exhibit extremely non-progressive views on women and children. Mexico just happens to have the peasant culture that lives within walking distance of the United States.

– According to North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement, illegal immigrants commit hundreds of sex crimes against children in that state every month — 350 in the month of April 2014, 299 in May, and more than 400 sex crimes against children in August and September. More than 90 percent of the perpetrators are Hispanic. I didn’t know there were that many Hispanics in North Carolina! When not providing North Carolina farmers with cheap labor, immigrant workers seem to spend all their free time raping little girls. (It’s a wonder they find the time to do all that drunk driving.)

These websites aren’t even counting legal immigrants. It’s bad enough that the government can’t stop foreign rapists from sneaking into our country. But how about the rapists the government looked over and decided to let in?

We’ll never know about their criminal predations, to say nothing of their burden on the taxpayers. The government won’t tell us, and the media would bury the information if it did. The cover-up is too relentless to be a coincidence. In February 2014, Carlos Gumercindo Crus, 42, was arrested for committing a felony sex offense on a 12-year-old girl in her home in Lexington, North Carolina. The headline was: “Man, 42, arrested for sexual offense with girl under 13.”

Two weeks later, Jose Freddy Ambrosio-Gorgonio, 32, was arrested in Vale, North Carolina, for having sex with a 12-year-old girl. Headline: “Man charged with sexual assault of a minor.” This was splashed in small, inside-the-paper items in two local newspapers, below the high school basketball scores.

In 2012, 35-year-old illegal alien Luis Perez-Valencia confessed to raping an 11-year-old girl, after she got pregnant and DNA proved he was the father. Or — as the Star-News in Wilmington, North Carolina, began the story: “Man Pleads Guilty in Child Rape Case. A Brunswick County man was sentenced to up to 20 years in prison Monday for raping and impregnating an 11-year-old girl.

This “man” has been really busy! Why doesn’t anyone arrest him?

It’s so informative being told that it was a “man” and not, say, an octopus, charged with having sex with a minor. In a surprise move, two local newspapers reported that Perez-Valencia was an illegal alien.Illegal immigrants are hard-working: One time, Perez-Valencia tried to rape the 11-year-old after taking her to work with him. (It was “Take Your Child Rape Victim to Work Day.”)

Even in Hawaii, where the population is only 2.7 percent Mexican, a Mexican child molester pops up. In 2012, 47-year-old Jose Luis Hernandez-Dominguez was sentenced to 10 years in prison for sexually molesting a 5-year-old girl over an extended period, while his wife baby-sat the girl.

But Donald Trump has come under relentless attack because he used the M-word (“Mexican”) — and it wasn’t to tell us that Mexicans work harder than Americans! He must be destroyed.

Who, exactly, is this media cover-up helping? It’s not helping American girls who have no idea they shouldn’t be cracking the door open to their parents’ landscaper. It’s not helping high school sophomores who didn’t know the risk of joining their Mexican schoolmates in a courtyard outside the homecoming dance. (See my new book Adios, America for details on these gruesome cases as well as many others.)

It’s also not helping any Latinas who immigrated to America, hoping to escape the Latino rape culture. The rapists have followed them here — and are being ferociously defended by well-heeled Americans, who strut around like they’re Martin Luther King because they want to pay their landscapers less.

Is Trump the only rich man in America who cares about rape?

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Trump is Right about Songbird McCain and here’s why

Authored by Ed Wood 8 hours ago

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/trump-is-right-about-songbird-mccain-and-heres-why/#OZYj8rdoWbwwleh3.99

I do realize that everyone from Charles Krauthammer to the recently escaped Mexican drug lord, El Chapo, is piling onto Donald Trump for his straight-forward remarks. Well, being the contrarian that I am, I am going to come down on the side of Mr. Trump!

Do I like him? No. Never have. I don’t like his swagger, his cockiness, his arrogance. And I certainly don’t care for that mop of comb-over fake hair. But they say the difference between egotism and self-assurance is the ability to produce. By any measure, he certainly wins that contest, both at home and abroad. True, he was born with a silver spoon, but he, and he alone, turned it into gold!

The first thing he did after declaring his presidential candidacy was to observe that Mexico was not sending their “best and brightest” across our southern border. Instead, in Mr. Trump’s opinion, they are sending their gang members, their druggies, their serial felons and killers. Certainly, the tragic instance in San Francisco, and others elsewhere, have borne out the truth of his statement.

But the Honorable Senator John McCain (R-AZ) picked a fight by calling him, and others like him, “crazies” for criticizing Mexican immigration. I guess when you are worth $10 BILLION of your own making, you feel free to take issue when a politician calls you crazy!

So The Donald retaliated with the statement that getting yourself captured doesn’t necessarily make you a hero. “He’s a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren’t captured.” With that, all hell broke loose in the mainstream media, as well as the Karl Rove dominated Republican establishment — and the gaggle of GOP presidential wannabes.

But it might behoove us at this point in time to wonder just why would getting captured make you a hero? And why would remaining in captivity make you a military expert, and thus qualified to currently fill the roles of chairman of both the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. And one might ask, how has his leadership in both these strategic positions of responsibility been working out for ya’?

Since Mr. Trump expressed his opinion, there is now a whole group of Vietnam veterans who have come forward with statements that highly question the Senator’s preferential treatment as the son and grandson of Navy admirals, and his loyalty to his country while in captivity. Some even place him in the Jane Fonda category. Among the allegations are:

John McCain was a below average student, getting into the Naval Academy due to his father’s and grandfather’s influence and naval careers. Both were admirals. McCain was a boozing, smoking, womanizing party animal, graduating fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis.
John McCain’s arms were broken not from being tortured by the North Vietnamese, as he has claimed, but when he improperly ejected from his plane over North Vietnam. According to his fellow prisoners, he was never tortured by the North Vietnamese.
John McCain’s nickname among his North Vietnamese captors was “Songbird,” as he was eager to tell them anything they wanted to hear to avoid torture. It is claimed that he made 32 propaganda videos for the North Vietnamese in which he blamed the United States for targeting schools, temples, orphanages, and hospitals. McCain has admitted to making one propaganda video.
And from a US Navy Aviator who served with McCain: “His “shoot down” was self-induced, as he DISOBEYED ORDERS and flew well below the ‘floor,’ getting himself shot down. There were several other jets on that particular mission and he was the only one shot down, because the others obeyed their orders.”
- Anita G Flippo Hitchcock
  
  July 18 at 4:41pm ·
  
  Shared via John A. Saia
  Truth about McCain…… From a US Navy Aviator who served with McCain: TRUE!! AND. . he LIED about it!! RESPECTFULLY, you NEED to have this conversation with some Naval Aviators and officers of that era!!! *I* am ONE of those and KNOW the “true story” of Admiral McCain’s little thug son, John!
  
  McCain was a traitor and collaborator, while being held captive. He was given preferential treatment, due to the fact that his captors felt he was ‘royalty’, due to his family ‘connections’. They didn’t understand why someone SO ‘connected’ was putting himself in ‘harm’s way’. Different culture than ours.
  
  His “shoot down” was self-induced, as he DISOBEYED ORDERS and flew well below the ‘floor’, getting himself shot down. There were several other jets on that particular mission and HE was the only one shot down, because the others obeyed their orders!
  
  His ENTIRE life has been one of disrespect of orders and authority, believing himself bullet-proof, due to his ‘family name’ and his dad and grand dad being HIGH ranking Navy Admirals!
  
  His ‘nickname’ in his HS yearbook was “Punk” and he displayed that behavior as he went on to the USNA, where he robbed someone, more deserving, of a slot in his class, due to the ‘influence’ of his father.
  
  He SHOULD have been expelled, several times, but the folks at USNA did not want to go up against dad. He graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM in his class . . but STILL ended up going to Pensacola for flight training!@! His classmates who actually ‘made the grade’ were aghast when he showed up down there.
  
  His flight grades were well below acceptable and he should have been run out of there too . . he was an ABYSMAL aviator . . crashing on base leg at Corpus for carrier qualification training. . he had been out drinking the night before and FELL ASLEEP after turning base leg and ‘configuring’ for landing . . he crashed ‘wings level’ and straight ahead into Corpus Bay . . too bad for us he wasn’t over land . . story would have ended there.
  
  He destroyed two other A/C after arriving in the Fleet . . before being shot down.
  
  His nickname in Hanoi was “Songbird”. . due to the information he willingly gave his captors. . tactical stuff. .like ‘routes, altitudes’, etc., that our guys used to fly from the boat to their targets and he got several of my fellow aviators shot down and killed. He recorded 32+ propaganda bits (a la Tokyo Rose) to be played for our enlisted troops . . to undermine their moral.
  
  The bogus ‘story’ about not coming home early, when he could have, is just common sense. He KNEW he would have been ‘court martialed’ IF he had accepted any kind of early release, based upon his ‘family connections’.
  
  After his release, his Navy ‘flying career’ SHOULD have been over, based upon his permanent injuries, but, his dad intimidated a flight surgeon and he wrongly got back his flight medical status, when ANYONE else would NOT have ‘passed’ with his ‘condition’. He was ‘awarded’ the position of XO at the Navy’s largest training squadron, VA-174 at NAS Cecil and when the CO moved on, he was ‘selected’, over MANY more qualified officers, to become CO. .he used his position as XO and CO to take young (junior) female pilots on X-Country flights and screwed their brains out.
  
  I was in the Reserves, flying around the country at that time and it WAS the talk of the flight line !! EVERYONE knew what he was doing . . THAT is ILLEGAL in the military and he SHOULD have been convicted at Court Martial for ‘fraternization’ . .INSTEAD . .daddy got him moved out of the squadron and put in charge of the Navy’s “Liaison” in DC . . along with a VERY early promotion to Captain . . the rest, as they say, is history.
  
  John McCain IS a scum bag . . a DISGRACE to the uniform we wore and his spots did not change when he became a politician!
  
  Do a GOOGLE . . there is a LOT more stuff out there. .BUT, this snippet, below, is REALLY DAMNING . . there are some ‘heavy hitter’, respected politicians and leaders on there, calling McCain the treasonous SCUM he IS!!

But if you think these opinions of Senator McCain are somewhat negative, try this one by Theodore Shoebat, Communications Director for Rescue Christians, an organization that is on the ground in Muslim lands, rescuing Christians from persecution, and the author of two books, For God or For Tyranny and In Satan’s Footsteps: The Source and Interconnections of all Evil.

“John McCain is a giant bag of scum; his mouth is a continual sewer of bile, his heart is a decayed rot of dung, his mind a river of filth, and his soul is amongst the damned. He is nothing but a murderous scumbag. His evils are so great, that the words of Trump don’t even bother me. McCain is a demon incarnate. His service in Vietnam does nothing to justify the evils he has supported and pushed for.”

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it well: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Mr. Trump expressed his opinion, twice, apparently based upon ample facts.

Was it the politically smart thing for him to do? Perhaps not, but isn’t it refreshing, for once, to see a candidate for political office speaking his mind, instead of having his thoughts evaluated by a panel of political analysts before expressing them?

At least Trump is now branded as a no-holds-barred fighter, a type of leadership our country desperately needs at this time — and could certainly have used in the recent Iranian nuclear negotiations. Can you imagine the outcome had he been there instead of “Swiftboat” Kerry?

The GOP needs for someone to break away from the pack of wilting violets currently running for the 2016 candidacy, and Trump may have just done it! As I write this, the liberally reluctant Washington Post poll shows Trump leading by 24%, followed by Walker at 13, Bush at 12, Huckabee at 8, Rubio at 7, etc., etc.

Fasten your seat belts folks, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

Trump is right. John McCain is no hero!

by Thomas Madison, July 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://powderedwigsociety.com/trump-is-right-john-mccain-is-no-

Considering John McCain’s vulnerability regarding his past, it is probably in his best interest to shut up, and certainly he would be wise to avoid insulting fellow Republicans, especially Donald Trump. Let’s review:

1. John McCain was a below average student, getting into the Naval Academy due to his father’s and grandfather’s influence and naval careers. Both were admirals. McCain was a boozing, smoking, womanizing party animal, graduating fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis.

2. John McCain’s arms were broken not from being tortured by the North Vietnamese, but when he improperly ejected from his plane over North Vietnam. According to his fellow prisoners he was never tortured by the North Vietnamese.

3. John McCain’s nickname amongst his North Vietnamese captors was Songbird, as he was eager to tell them anything they wanted to hear to avoid torture. It is claimed that he made 32 propaganda videos for the North Vietnamese in which he blamed the United States for targeting schools, temples, orphanages, and hospitals. McCain has admitted to making one propaganda video. This puts him in the Jane Fonda class.

4. John McCain’s first marriage ended in divorce after his wife left him because of his many affairs with other women.

5. John McCain was the major obstruction to the passage of key POW/MIA legislation, which would have released classified records regarding these men and their fates.

6. John McCain has been a career beltway parasite since the mid 80s.

7. John McCain supported Barack Hussein’s war in Syria, which the American people overwhelmingly rejected. He even went to Syria to hang out with the rebels, who he claimed were not terrorists. Today they go by another name – ISIS.

8. John McCain is a global warming alarmist. While the majority of the rest of the world, including most of the scientific community, has rejected the notion of global warming, McCain and fellow believers Al Gore and Barack Hussein continue to preach the gospel. Actually, we all know they don’t believe it. They just see a barrel of money there.

9. John McCain supports full amnesty for illegal aliens.

10. John McCain is stupid. He actually believes that he can attack a pit bull like Donald Trump, calling his supporters “crazies,” and there will be no response. STUPID!

It is time to go home, McCain. The Gravy Train has left the station. The good people of Arizona are far too smart to return you to Washington. I hope.

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Commentary of Ann Coulter | Wednesday Nov 11, 2015

Share this:

By Post Editorial Board; November 10, 2015

Share this:

Commentary by Andrew Kloster / @ARKloster / November 09, 2015

First;

Second;

Share this:

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Nov 4, 2015

Share this:

By Jonah Goldberg, October 30, 2015

Share this:

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 28, 2015

Share this:

Posted by Glenn Foden / @GlennFo / October 23, 2015

Holding Defense Budgets Ransom

To be clear, the defense bill cannot increase non-defense spending.

Important Reforms

A debate about any of the provisions in the bill is legitimate and important. But vetoing the bill for political leverage is not how Washington should operate.

In short, the president’s domestic priorities have been seeing significant funding increases while defense has been cut, but the president wants more and is willing to hold defense at risk.

Share this:

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 21, 2015

Share this:

By Kevin D. Williamson — October 19, 2015

Share this:

By Doug Giles

Share this:

October 16, 2015

Share this:

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 14, 2015

Share this:

Written by Bethany Blankley

“… when politicians take from you and me the very liberties that set us free – so stand up and fight – for this “democracy” is you and me

“will the real Americans please stand up – divided we’ve fallen but united we’ll stand.”

Share this:

By Steve Straub

First, here’s an inside look at the socialist brain of a liberal Democrat:

Versus the brain of a Conservative Republican:

Share this:

Share this:

By Selwyn Duke, October 8, 2015

Share this:

By Chries King October 8, 2015

Enjoy Him

Embrace Him

Include Him

Share this:

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday October 7, 2015

How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons — and, every now and then, commit mass murder?

Share this:

From the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show October 06, 2015

Share this:

Share this:

Posted by Jim Treacher, Blogger // 10/02/2015

Share this:

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday September 30, 2015

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

The Democrats got the voters — and the country got

Share this:

Ann Coulter | Wednesday Sep 23, 2015

These guys damn well better be good at what they do. But, to the contrary, Republican insiders are the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters. They enjoy being good losers. That’s their job.

By mounting only impotent opposition, professional Republicans win the admiration of The New York Times, as they turn our country over to the left. All that matters is that they get to keep their offices, their salaries and their friends.

It’s important for them to think of themselves as better than other people — especially those yahoo proletarian conservatives.

The transformation of our country has been a deliberate, methodical process, carefully hidden from the public.

Share this:

By: Press Release / Posted: Wednesday, September 16, 2015

“There’s plenty of time to learn about the candidates, and now is a good time to start.”

– AFA President Tim Wildmon

Share this:

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday September 16, 2015

Share this:

Author by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Sep 9, 2015

Share this:

Conundrum

“If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.” – Plato

Share this:

By Steve Deace – – Tuesday, September 8, 2015

I am confused why a county clerk must resign if she doesn’t want to enforce “laws” she disagrees with, but a president doesn’t.