Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Obama’

Federal Judge Hands Republicans ‘Historic,’ Unexpected Win Over Obama

Posted by Jack Davis September 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/federal-judge-hands-republicans-historic-unexpected-win-over-obama/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=TeaPartyNewsletter&utm_campaign=PM2&utm_content=2015-09-10

Image Credit: Flickr/Erik Drost

Constitution 1; Obama 0.

That was the score Wednesday as a federal judge gave House Republicans the go-ahead to proceed with their lawsuit to block President Obama’s budget-busting healthcare law. “This suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who said that House Republicans have legal standing to sue.

The Constitution, Collyer wrote, “could not be more clear: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ Neither the president nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent.”

Republicans had argued the Obama administration violated the Constitution by spending money on Obamacare without Congressional approval. House Democrats had called the Republicans’ suit “a political stunt.” The suit focuses on the $175 billion Obama wants to spend as part of a cost-sharing program with health insurance companies.

“The United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the power of the purse,” said Jonathan Turley, the attorney for House Republicans.

“The president’s unilateral change to Obamacare was unprecedented and outside the powers granted to his office under our Constitution,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement. “I am grateful to the court for ruling that this historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”

Arguments on the merits of the suit are scheduled to be heard in the fall, although the White House said Wednesday it will appeal Collyer’s decision.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Friends

August 31, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/08/friends

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama’s last hope for GOP support on Iran: Susan Collins

By Julian Hattem – 08/26/15

URL of the original posting site: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/251945-obamas-last-hope-for-gop-support-on-iran-susan-collins

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). Photo by Greg Nash

Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — with one exception. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has yet to take a position on the agreement, making her the last undecided Senate Republican who could conceivably side with the president. Some observers say Collins, a centrist known for bucking party convention, could go it alone next month and vote against a resolution to kill the Iran deal when it comes to the Senate floor.

“At this time, Sen. Collins is still gathering a lot of information and has not reached a final decision,” an aide said last week. The aide reaffirmed on Tuesday that Collins is still undecided. Collins “remains concerned about several aspects of the agreement, such as the lack of a good inspection regime to make sure that the Iranians are not cheating on the agreement,” the aide added, while noting that the senator has been “meeting with people on both sides of this very complex and important issue. She believes a good inspection regime is absolutely essential and is carefully weighing this issue in her decision making.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Collins’s office said that she would not announce a position on the deal until after lawmakers return to Washington in September. Collins became the last Senate Republican on the fence after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced on Friday that she would oppose the agreement. The Alaska senator said the deal does not require Iran to completely abandon its nuclear program.

Murkowski and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) — who announced earlier this month that he would vote against the deal — had been considered the only other Senate Republicans who might side with Obama.

There are reasons to think Collins is truly torn. She was one of just seven Senate Republicans who did not sign a controversial letter to the Iranian government in March that warned a nuclear deal could be revoked by the next president. Collins may also be feeling boxed in by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who came out in support of the agreement in a floor speech shortly before the August recess. Though he is officially an independent, King caucuses with Democrats.

Additionally, Collins might be hesitant to rebuff the president, given that the United States took a lead role in the multination Iran negotiations.

“Sen. Collins is quite frequently concerned with good governance and good process,” said Blaise Misztal, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s national security program. “I could see her not wanting this deal to have to go to a presidential veto.”

Still, close observers of the Iran deal remain skeptical that Collins, or any other Republican, will side with the president and vote to uphold the deal. “Given that the way votes are breaking, it might even be difficult for opponents to get the 60 votes they need in the Senate to get past cloture,” Misztal added. “I don’t think [Collins is] going to feel that compunction to have to break with her party on the deal.”

The White House likely needs the support of 34 Senate Democrats to uphold a veto of the disapproval resolution, and the support of 41 to prevent it from ever reaching Obama’s desk. So far, only two Senate Democrats have announced that they will oppose the deal, while 29 have committed to backing it. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) became the latest supporter of the deal on Tuesday.

The math is slightly different in the House, where the lack of a filibuster means Republicans will have no trouble passing the initial resolution. If the House voted on whether to override Obama, Democrats could afford to lose no more than 43 members to uphold the White House’s veto.

While supporters and opponents of the deal have been focused on the Senate, there’s also a chance that one or two House Republicans break from their party and oppose legislation aiming to kill the deal.

“It is a rare occasion when Republicans all vote together,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) — an ardent critic of the Iran agreement — told reporters earlier this week. “This will be close, I suspect,” he added. “I can’t imagine there will be too many [defectors].”

But might there be at least one? “Sure,” Pompeo answered.

Reps. Walter Jones (N.C.), Justin Amash (Mich.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) are considered to be the House Republicans most likely to oppose a resolution against the Iran deal. All three are often on the opposite side of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

However, Jones — a former Democrat — appears to be facing a primary challenge against veteran Republican operative Taylor Griffin next year, which could make a defection on Iran politically risky. Griffin came within six points of ousting Jones last year, and he criticized the lawmaker earlier this summer for being “just not a good conservative.”

Spokespeople for Massie and Amash said in recent days that the lawmakers had yet to settle on a position. A spokesperson for Jones did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The White House is not expecting any GOP support for the deal, but would surely not hesitate to use even a single Republican vote as evidence of bipartisan backing.

Yet there are risks in touting any GOP support, given opposition from top Democrats such as Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — the likely next Senate Democratic leader — as well as Reps. Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and Brad Sherman (Calif.). “Even if one or two Republicans do vote for the deal, it really matters very little because it is now virtually certain that the deal will be voted down by significant, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress,” said Jamil Jaffer, a former top aide to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and current director of George Mason Law School’s Homeland and National Security Law Program.

By voting it down, lawmakers will be “sapping the deal of all political credibility, and making it clear to European companies that they ought wait until at least November 2016 before taking any action to start trading with Iran,” he added.

This story was updated at 5:36 p.m.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama accuses Kochs of un-American campaign to undermine green energy

By Ben Wolfgang and Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Monday, August 24, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/24/obama-accuses-koch-brothers-of-un-american-campaig

President Obama is promoting a platform of executive actions and private sector commitments to accelerate America’s transition to cleaner sources of energy. Republicans, however, say his plan will ultimately bring Americans higher power costs. (Associated Press)

LAS VEGAS, Nevada — President Obama accused conservative opponents of his climate change agenda Monday night of carrying out an un-American campaign to protect their fossil fuel interests at the expense of the country. “They’re trying to undermine competition in the marketplace and choke off consumer choice and threaten an industry that’s turning out new jobs at a fast pace,” Mr. Obama said at a clean here.

The president took aim particularly at the Koch brothers, saying they represent a faction in the U.S. opposed to investment in alternative energies such as solar power. “When you start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests or conservative thinks tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards or prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding, that’s a problem,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent-seeking, and trying to protect old ways of doing business and standing in the way of the future,” he said.

But a top House Republican said Mr. Obama is trying to fool the public with an agenda that will actually raise energy prices.

“Raising utility prices by as much as $1,000 per family, which will reduce GDP by as much half a percentage point a year, is not powering progress, but instead [is] a recipe for America’s decline and continued energy dependency,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican and chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources. “Instead of spending another $1 billion of taxpayer money to prop up noncompetitive sources of energy, the president should cut barriers to energy development on federal land and offshore,” Mr. Bishop said.

The president chided congressional Republicans for fighting higher spending on his clean energy agenda and instead “chasing mindless austerity.” He also said his push for clean energy has created “strange bedfellows” in political circles. “In some states we’ve got the Green Party and the tea party teaming up to protect our freedom to choose clean energy,” Mr. Obama said. “It is rare that the tea party leaders and I are on the same side of an issue. I agree with them here. This is not, and should not be, a Republican-versus-Democratic issue.”

The president said solar and wind energy are now more cost-effective than traditional ways of generating electricity, such as coal-burning power plants.

“Solar has helped a lot of construction workers find work, while Congress was dragging its feet on funding infrastructure projects,” he said. “Now is not the time to pull back on those investments.”

Mr. Obama said big companies such as Google and Costco are purchasing solar power because it makes sense for their bottom lines. “They’re not doing this out of altruism,” Mr. Obama said. “They’re doing this because it means big cost savings. The private sector is increasingly all in. I’m all for consumers saving money. Solar isn’t just for the green crowd anymore. It’s for the green eye-shade crowd, too.”

Mr. Obama’s speech comes amid the administration’s continued push for more renewable energy, which the president hopes will fully replace fossil fuels before the end of the century. The White House on Monday also rolled out a host of new executive actions designed to spur more clean power projects across the country. The administration is guaranteeing an additional $1 billion in loans for distributed energy projects, launching a new federal program to educate homeowners on how to increase energy efficiency, handing out $24 million in taxpayer money for 11 solar projects across seven states and taking other steps.

Phasing out fossil fuels — especially coal — and replacing them with renewable power is a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s broader plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The president has pledged to the international community that the U.S. will cut its emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 — a goal that’s only achievable with a significant increase in the amount of power generated by renewable sources. Specific pieces of the president’s climate agenda, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to dramatically cut carbon emissions from power plants, are only possible through major new investments in renewable energy. Critics say that proposal, along with other steps in the president’s climate agenda, will kill jobs and slow economic growth. Federal data also show that the EPA power plant rules in particular will raise electric bills for most American families, at least temporarily.

Beyond domestic steps, Mr. Obama also is eyeing an unprecedented international deal on global warming. In December he’ll travel to Paris for a key United Nations summit on climate change in the hopes of emerging with a landmark agreement reining in the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters, including China.

• Dave Boyer reported from Washington.

California solar power station burning, killing birds in mid-air

By Nicole Mortillaro Science and Weather Reporter Global News

URL of the original posting site: http://globalnews.ca/news/1513420/california-solar-power-station-burning-killing-birds-in-mid-air

TORONTO – A solar-power generating station in central California is killing birds as they catch fire in the reflection of light from its massive array of mirrors, and now there are concerns that initial estimates of bird losses are too low. Workers at the $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which opened in December 2013, have a name for the birds unfortunate enough to be caught up in the mirrors’ light: streamers. This is due to the puff of smoke as the birds ignite in mid-air and fall to the ground. Instead of an estimated one thousand birds dying annually, that number could be as high as 28,000 a year, according to The Associated Press. And of particular concern to environmental groups is the planned project in another part of the state.

&amp;lt;img class=”story-img” src=”http://vipmedia.globalnews.ca/2014/08/bird-fried-solar-panels.jpg?quality=70&amp;#038;strip=all&amp;#038;w=512&amp;#038;h=288&amp;#038;crop=1″ alt=”This October 2013 photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a burned MacGillivray&amp;#8217;s Warbler that was found at the Ivanpah solar plant in the California Mojave Desert.”&gt;

This October 2013 photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a burned MacGillivray’s Warbler that was found at the Ivanpah solar plant in the California Mojave Desert.

BrightSource, NRG Power and Google are all investors in the massive generating station.

The solar plant doesn’t produce energy the way traditional solar cells do. Instead 300,000 mirrors are spread across 3,500 acres at the Ivanpah Dry Lake where they reflect sunlight to boilers that sit on top of three 459-foot tall towers. There they fluid in the boilers’ pipes, creating super-heated steam. That steam is then piped from the boiler to a turbine that generates power, providing electricity to 140,000 California homes.

In April the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produced a report that chronicled their findings from three solar energy facilities in California, including Ivanpah.

“Ivanpah…produces solar flux, which is intense radiant energy focused by the mirror array on the power-generating station,” the report reads. “Objects that pass through this flux, including insects and birds, encounter extreme heat, although the extent of heating depends on many variables, including the duration of exposure and the precise location in the flux beam.”

A total of 141 dead birds were collected by officials over one year and five months, which included the construction phase. Of those, 47 died due to solar flux injury. The birds’ feathers were curled, charred, melted or broken.

The second most common cause of death at Ivanpah was impact trauma, believed to be caused when many of them collided with the mirrors. It could be because the mirrors reflected the blue sky which birds may have mistaken for water in the desert area.

A truck drives through an array of mirrors at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System near Primm, Nev. The site uses over 300,000 mirrors to focus sunlight on boilers’ tubes atop 450 foot towers heating water into steam which in turn drives turbines to create electricity.

According to The Associated Press, with the new concerns raised, California’s energy commission attempting to determine whether pushing the limits of solar technology is worth the added damage to wildlife from the novel form of solar energy.

Brightsource has plans to build another plant in Palen, California, that would be twice as big as Ivanpah. “We need more data before any more of these projects get approved,” said Lisa Belenky, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. “We need to understand more about how many birds will be killed and we need to understand more about potential ways to stop that, if it’s possible.”

The proposed tower would produce a flux area that would be more than three times as large as the existing towers at Ivanpah, Belenky explained. And that could possibly pose more danger to migratory birds that travel from the Colorado River and Salton Sea.

The Palen Solar Power Project is currently in front of the California Energy Commission.

There are no projects like this in Canada.

–with files from The Associated Press

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Says Harry Reid Has Helped Him ‘Deal With the Crazies’

Aug. 25, 2015 Posted by Fred Lucas

URL of the original posting site: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/25/obama-says-harry-reid-helps-him-deal-with-the-crazies

President Barack Obama told Democratic donors Monday night that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has helped him “deal with the crazies.”

“It’s hard for me to express how much I love Harry Reid, but it’s easier to do it in a room of people who love Harry Reid,” Obama said at the fundraiser, according to the official White House transcript. “Harry and I drove over here together and we were doing a little reminiscing, and then figuring out how we’re going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems. And then we talked about riding off into the sunset together. Everything I’ve accomplished, I’ve accomplished because Harry Reid was there by my side. And I am forever grateful for his friendship and his strength, because the thing about Harry is he’s a great politician but he’s also a man with a lot of backbone and is willing to do hard things when it’s required, and that’s what you want out of a political leader.”

Reid announced his support for the Iran nuclear deal over the weekend, and a Politico story about Obama’s remarks was headlined, “Barack Obama calls opponents of Iran deal, ‘the crazies.” From the White House press pool report and official transcript, however, it is not entirely clear whether Obama was referring directly to opponents of the Iran deal. The White House did not immediately respond to inquiries from TheBlaze early Tuesday.

Obama has said Republicans who oppose the deal share “common cause” with Iranian hardliners who chant “death to America” and wish to maintain the status quo. He later attempted to walk back the characterization.

Monday night, Obama and Reid spoke at a Las Vegas fundraising event for Catherine Cortez Masto, the Democrat running for the retiring Reid’s seat, and for the Nevada Democratic Party.

Later in the same speech, Obama expressed appreciated for Reid on Iran.

“We’ve been leaders in nonproliferation, which is part of the reason why I am so insistent that Congress not block a historic diplomatic effort when it comes to making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon,” Obama said. “And I’m so appreciative of Harry Reid’s support for that effort.”

Just hours before going to the fundraiser, Obama praised Reid specifically for his support of the Iran deal during his remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

“I want to thank my dear friend, your outstanding senator, Harry Reid for holding this summit and for keeping us focused on this challenge,” Obama said. “I want to thank him by the way for his strong statement over the weekend for a deal that is going to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. That’s a top priority of my administration.”

After the energy summit, Obama and Reid rode together to the fundraiser, attended by approximately 100 people with contributions ranging up to $33,400. The event raised more than $300,000.

This post has been updated with Obama’s full quote according to the official White House transcript.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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:

From My Email Inbox

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Russian Warships Dock In Iran for War Training

BY: Adam Kredo August 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-warships-dock-in-iran-for-war-training

Hassan Rouhani, Vladimir Putin / AP

The war exercises come just weeks after Iran and global powers inked a nuclear accord that will provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief in return for slight restrictions on the country’s nuclear program. Russian and Iran have grown close in recent years, with delegations from each country regularly visiting one another to ink arms deals and other agreements aimed at strengthening Iran’s nuclear program. Russia and Iran agreed earlier this year to begin construction on several new nuclear power plants. Russia has also agreed to sell Iran a controversial advanced missile defense system that can prevent attacks by Western powers.

The Russian fleet docked in Iran’s port “carrying a message of ‘peace and friendship,’” according to Iranian officials quoted by Fars. The fleet was “welcomed by Iranian naval commanders and staff.” The Russian commander of the fleet is scheduled to hold meetings with “local political and military officials” in Iran’s northern provinces, according to Fars.

Levan Jagarian, Russia’s ambassador to Tehran, reportedly attended the docking ceremony and called for “for boosting mutual ties between the two countries in various fields,” according to the report. The two nations went on to say that “expanding bilateral economic, political, and military cooperation is among the priorities of the visit.”

A Russian fleet also docked in northern Iran in October.

Last week, a senior Iranian naval commander warned the United States against ever taking military action on Iranian interests, claiming that the response would be “unpredictably strong.” “The western media are mocking at the U.S. for speaking of ‘on the table options (against Iran)’ because the U.S. always utters some words without the ability to materialize them,” Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Naval Commander Ali Fadavi was quoted as saying by the country’s state-run press. Iran is “ready to give such a powerful response to the slightest move of the U.S. that it won’t be able to make any other moves,” Fadavi was quoted as saying. The military leader went on to claim that “Iranian Armed Forces are now at the highest level of preparedness” and that “only the dead body of the American troops realizes the power of the Islamic Revolution.”

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said the Obama administration is fundamentally misreading Iran’s intentions in light of the recently inked nuclear accord. “We’re witnessing a new great game, and Obama is so self-centered he keeps playing solitaire,” Rubin said. “Obama simply doesn’t understand that the world is full of dictators who seek to checkmate America. What he sees as compromise; they see as weakness to exploit.”

Referring to a visit last week to Russia by IRGC leader Qassem Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of Americans, Rubin said it is clear that Moscow and Tehran aim to build a tight military alliance. “Visiting Russia to talk arms purchases and now this naval visit, it’s clear that Putin and Khamenei will waste no time to really develop their military cooperation,” he said.

An axis between Russia, Iran, and North Korea is beginning to emerge Rubin said, citing official releases that a North Korean delegation is currently visiting Russia to tour war games sites. “The Russian warship visit combined with North Korea scoping out war game sites in Russia suggest a new Axis of Evil is taking shape with Russia the lynchpin between Iran and North Korea,” Rubin said. “As for the United States, rather than the leader of the free world, Obama and Kerry have transformed us in much of the world’s eyes as the pinnacle of surrender.”

Meanwhile, Obama admitted Monday that Iran’s nuclear breakout time will shrink to “a matter of months” once the nuclear accord expires in around 15 years.

Category:

International Politics

Tagged with:

Obama: Iranian oil, good. Canadian oil, bad. American oil, bad.

By Marita Noon

URL of the original posting site: http://netrightdaily.com/2015/08/obama-iranian-oil-good-canadian-oil-bad-american-oil-bad/#ixzz3iA1wNK3s

President Obama’s confusing approach to energy encourages our enemies who shout “death to America,” while penalizing our closest allies and even our own job creators.

Iran’s participation in the nuclear negotiations that have slogged on for months, have now, ultimately, netted a deal that will allow Iran to export its oil — which is the only reason they came to the table (they surely are not interested in burnishing Obama’s legacy). International sanctions have, since 2011, cut Iran’s oil exports in half and severely damaged its economy. Iran, it is estimated, currently has more than 50 million barrels of oil in storage on 28 tankers at sea — part of a months’ long build up.

It is widely reported that, due to aging infrastructure and saturated storage, it will take Iran months to bring its production back up to pre-sanction levels. The millions of barrels of oil parked offshore are indicative of their eagerness to increase exports. Once the sanctions are lifted — if Congress approves the terms of the deal, Iran wants to be ready to move its oil. In fact, even before the sanctions have been lifted, Iran is already moving some of its “floating storage.”

On July 17, the Financial Times reported, “The departure of a giant Iranian supertanker from the flotilla of vessels storing oil off the country’s coast has triggered speculation Tehran is moving to ramp up its crude exports.” The Starla, “a 2 million barrel vessel,” set sail — moving the oil closer to customers in Asia. In April, another tanker, Happiness, sailed from Iran to China, where, since June, it has parked off the port City of Dalian.

Starla is the first vessel storing crude offshore to sail after the nuclear deal was reached — which is, according to the Financial Times, “signaling its looming return to the oil market.” Reuters calls its departure “a milestone following a months-long build-up of idling crude tankers.” Analysts at Macquarie Capital apparently think the oil on Starla will not be parked, waiting for sanctions to be lifted. A research note, states that Iran is “likely assuming that either a small increase in exports will not undermine the historic accord reached or that no one will notice.” We noticed.

Already, before sanctions are lifted, global oil prices are feeling the pressure of Iran’s increased exports. Since the deal’s been announced, crude prices have lost almost all of their recent gains.

While the Obama Administration’s actions are allowing Iran, which hates America, to boost its economy by increasing its oil exports, they are hurting our closest ally by continuing to delay the Keystone pipeline — which would help Canada export its oil.

After six-and-a-half years of kicking the can down the road, and despite widespread support and positive reports, the Keystone pipeline is no closer to construction than it was on the day the application was submitted. It is obvious President Obama doesn’t like the project, which will create tens of thousands of jobs, according to his own State Department. Back in February, he vetoed the bill Congress sent him that would have authorized construction, saying that it circumvented “longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.” At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “Congress won’t stop pursuing good ideas, including this one.” But he was not able to gather enough votes to override the veto, and, since then, we’ve heard nothing about the Keystone pipeline. In Washington, DC, silence on an important issue like Keystone isn’t always golden.

There is no pending legislation on Keystone, but the permit application has still not been approved or rejected. I had hoped that the unions, who want the jobs Keystone would provide, would be able to pressure enough Democrats to support the project, to push a bill over the veto-proof line. But that didn’t happen. For months, Keystone has been silently dangling. But that may be about to change.

Reliable sources tell me that Obama is prepared to, finally, announce his decision on Keystone. According to the well-sourced rumor, he is going to say, “No” — probably just before or after the Labor Day holiday. He’ll conclude that it is not in the “national interest.” So helping our ally grow its economy and export its oil is not in our national interest but helping our sworn enemy do the same, is? It’s like the “Channeling Jeff Foxworthy” parody states, we just “might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.”

Speaking of economic growth and oil exports, what about here at home, in the good old U.S. of A.? Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) questions the deal that allows Iran to export its oil, while we cannot. “As Congress begins its 60-day review of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about whether it is in our nation’s — and the world’s — best interests. Not least among them are the underexplored, but potentially significant, consequences the deal will hold for American energy producers.”

Most people don’t realize that the U.S. is, as Murkowski says in her op-ed, “the only advanced nation that generally prohibits oil exports.” Due to decades-old policy, born in a different energy era, American oil producers are prohibited from exporting crude oil because it was perceived to be in “short supply.” (Note that refined petroleum product, such as gasoline and diesel, can be exported and is our number one export. We are also about ready to ship our first major tanker full of natural gas to Europe.) Today, when it comes to crude oil, our cup runneth over. The U.S. is now the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. Rather than short supply, we have an oversupply — so much so that American crude oil (WTI) is sold at a discount over the global market (Brent). This disadvantages U.S. producers but doesn’t benefit consumers because gasoline is sold based on the higher-priced Brent.

Murkowski argues that it is time to lift the 40-year-old oil export ban. She’s introduced bipartisan legislation that would do just that, but, if he were so inclined, President Obama could reverse the policy himself — if he found it to be in the national interest. And how could it not be?

Allowing U.S. crude oil onto the world market enhances global energy security, as it would be less impacted by tensions in the Middle East. Our allies in Europe and Asia would have access to supply from a friendly and reliable source — remember the Arab Oil Embargo crippled Japan’s economy because it had no domestic supply and was overly reliant on Arab sources. Lifting the oil export ban would allow U.S. crude to be sold at the true market price, not the discounted rate, which would help stem the job losses currently being felt throughout the oil patch due to the low price of oil and exacerbated by the drop in the price of crude triggered by the Iran deal.

So, the Obama Administration is lobbying Congress to lift the sanctions on Iran, a country that views America as The Great Satan. Lifting sanctions would allow Iran to resume full oil export capabilities and boost its economy — while refusing to give our allies and our own country the same benefit. Iranian oil will enter the world market, while Canadian and American oil is constrained. How is that in the “national interest?”

It appears we might just be living in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program, “America’s Voice for Energy,” which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama has lost it! Says Iranians chanting ‘death to America’ share ‘common cause’ with GOP

August 5, 2015 | by Joe Saunders

URL of the original posting site:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/08/05/obama-has-lost-it-says-iranians-chanting-death-to-america-share-common-cause-with-gop-233837#ixzz3i4WwBLhv

&amp;lt;img class=”alignleft wp-image-233838″ src=”http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/obamairan0805.jpg” alt=”obamairan0805″ width=”320″ height=”167″ /&gt;Comparing American politicians to Muslim mobs screaming “death to America” is an insult like no other in American politics – and President Obama hurled it Wednesday right at Republicans opposed to his nuclear deal with Iran.

Before a crowd of cheering sycophants at American University in Washington, Obama was patronizing before he became insulting. But the insult came.

“I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously,” he said, as though he was talking to third-graders.

“But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts, or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.”

And that’s when the hammer fell.

“In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

You have to see it to believe it.

&amp;lt;iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/FjY_GkhqJsk” width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”&gt;

Social media was disgusted by the outburst.

CORRECTION: This post originally stated the location of Obama’s speech incorrectly.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

President Obama Asks Liberals to Watch the GOP Debate so They See Them Ruin his Hard Work

Posted by Bethany Salgado; August 4, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.youngcons.com/president-obama-asks-liberals-to-watch-the-gop-debate-so-they-see-them-ruin-his-hardwork

If you thought only Republicans would be watching the GOP debate this Thursday, let me be the first to tell you: Masses of Obamabots will be tuning in from their very own debate watch parties!

Earlier today President Obama ensured that Fox News would receive the entire nation’s attention during the Cleveland debate after he sent an email to the Democratic National Committee requesting that fellow liberals watch the televised event.

From Cleveland.com:

Democrats need to “listen carefully to what the Republican candidates for president say, and then hold them accountable for trying to undo all of the hard work we’ve done to move this country forward,” Obama said in an email message sent today by the Democratic National Committee.

“I can’t overstate what an important difference you can make by doing this.”

All the hard work? The Golfer-in-Chief actually says stuff like that with a straight face. To be quite frank, Mr. President seems a little bitter…

“I’m gonna bet that they’ll all promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act,” he writes. “They’ll all tell us that even though they aren’t scientists, we shouldn’t believe in the science behind climate change. They’ll all want to reverse course on immigration reform and marriage equality.

“They’re going to deny all of the progress we’ve made together over these past six years,” he adds.

“But here’s the thing: While these Republicans may have bad ideas, they’re still smart politicians. They know how to make policies that will take us in the wrong direction sound like they might actually be pretty good ideas.”

Regardless of the motive behind Obama’s email, I think the Democratic viewers may be enlightened by the debate. Perhaps they’ll finally understand the logic behind some of our policies. Wouldn’t THAT be a miracle?

Thank you for the publicity, Mr. President. I know Fox appreciates you driving more viewers their way.

H/T WZ

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Fact Check: Is Obama a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

July 27, 2015 Authored by Daniel Greenfield

URL of the original posting site: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259596/fact-check-obama-state-sponsor-terrorism-daniel-greenfield

Obama made headlines by complaining that Republicans are being mean to him over the Iran deal.

“We’ve had a sitting senator call John Kerry ‘Pontius Pilate.’ We’ve had a sitting senator who also happens to be running for president suggest that I’m the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Obama said, referring to Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively. “These are leaders in the Republican Party.”

But, the president said, when he is attacked, the people who were outraged on McCain’s behalf “are pretty quiet.”

Let’s look at the facts. Here’s what Ted Cruz said.

“If this deal goes through the Obama administration becomes the leading financier of terrorism against Americans in the world. I’ve heard this referred to before as the “Jihadist Stimulus Bill.”

Is Iran a state sponsor of terrorism? Obama has admitted that it is.

“Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism,” Obama told Asharq al-Awsat.

Will the billions of dollars that Iran receives be used to sponsor terror? The Supreme Leader of Iran has stated that it will.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei gave a particularly inflammatory speech just days after the deal, stating that the Islamic Republic’s policies toward the US have not changed.

“We will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon,” he continued, referring to the Iranian terror axis in the Middle East. “Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant US will not change.”

Secretary of State John Kerry has admitted that it will.

“Now, with respect to the money, I can’t tell you that some — you know, some amount of money might not find its way to some effort.”

And that’s out of $140 billion. Some money out of that is a whole lot.

1. Obama admitted Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism

2. Kerry admitted that sanctions relief will be used to sponsor terrorism

So in fact Obama’s policies will lead to a huge sum of money flowing into a regime that he has admitted is a state sponsor of terrorism and which his Secretary of State has admitted will be used to sponsor terrorism.

Ted Cruz is clearly correct.

Obama can whine about the “tone” and the “rhetoric”, but it’s hypocritical for a guy whose proxies were accusing Republicans in the Senate of being the #47Traitors of complaining about the tone of the attacks over Iran.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Admits Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Will Help Regime Fund Terror

by Jordan Schachtel24 Jul 2015Washington, DC

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/24/obama-admits-lifting-sanctions-against-iran-will-help-regime-fund-terror

Olivier Douliery/Pool/Getty Images

President Barack Obama admitted Friday that the Iran deal, which allows Tehran to access an estimated $100-150 billion dollars in frozen assets, would let the theocratic regime better finance terrorist organizations.

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”

The President said that a “military option” is still available.

“Iran has proven that it is willing to change its priorities and its strategy,” Mr. Obama added. “We have sent a clear message to the Iranians – though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there is also a military option.”

Iran has admitted that the regime funds and arms terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen.

Separately, rumors surfaced Friday in Arabic media that the administration is considering removing a prominent Iran-backed Shiite militia from the U.S. list of recognized terrorist groups.

Recent remarks by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter during a visit to Baghdad on Thursday added fuel to the rumors spreading on the coming possibility of a U.S. de facto alliance with the Shiite militias.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Lied: There Are No Ballistic Missile Restrictions in Iran Deal

by Joel B. Pollak 21 Jul 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/obama-lied-there-are-no-ballistic-missile-restrictions-in-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a “non-nuclear” issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama’s brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no effective ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely “called upon” to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.

The old text of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), reads (emphasis added):

…Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities…

The Iran deal, as formalized by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), reads (emphasis added):

Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

In his press conference last week, President Obama claimed that he had insisted, and won, an eight-year concession from the Iranians:

But what I said to our negotiators was, given that Iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran’s activities, let’s press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that.

We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles.

Yet since the deal was passed, Iranian leaders have claimed that it agreed to no restrictions on ballistic missiles, or that the UN Security Council resolution did not apply to its missile programs, since they are ostensibly not related to nuclear weapons.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is closer to the truth than what President Obama has been telling the American people and the world.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Honors Islam Before Dead Marines Killed by Islamic Terrorist; Americans Furious

Posted By Paul Joseph Watson On July 17, 2015

Article from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-honors-islam-before-dead-marines-killed-by-islamic-terrorist-american-furious

President Obama issued a statement yesterday urging Americans to respect the religion of Islam before he even commented on a terror attack by an Islamic extremist in Chattanooga which killed four Marines, prompting widespread anger.

The White House tweeted out a statement wishing Muslims “Eid Mubarak!” as Ramadan came to a close, adding that, “the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs.”

It was only after Obama had lectured Americans about respecting Islam that he paid tribute to the four dead Marines killed by an Islamic terrorist.

Reaction to the timing was brutal.

Obama has been widely criticized for his refusal to even use the term “Islamic” when referring to Islamist terror attacks, an illustration of the stifling political correctness that surrounds discussion of Islamic-inspired atrocities.

In the aftermath of the shootings, the leftist media, which immediately exploited the Charleston attack to collectively demonize all white Americans, is noticeably shy to discuss Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s motivation.

Salon.com, which said that “white America must answer for the Charleston massacre,” has as its top story this morning a piece about drafting Al Gore. There are no mentions of Chattanooga until you scroll well down the page.

Donald Trump also took Obama to task during a Fox News appearance last night, slamming his fear of using the term “Islamic terrorism.”

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Kenyan Politician: If Obama Brings ‘Gay Agenda, We Will Tell Him to Shut Up and Go Home’

URL of the original posting site: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kenyan-politicians-obama-ahead-visit-dont-talk-about-homosexuality

Obama’s trip to Kenya, his first as president, is scheduled to take place four weeks after the White House was bathed in rainbow colors to mark the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that same-sex marriage is a right.

At a small pro-family demonstration at the parliament in Nairobi Monday, organized by the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, participants called on the American president not to raise the subject during his visit.

“It is important for us as Kenyans to know that the U.S. is not God,” local media quoted evangelical Bishop Mark Kariuki as saying, adding that Obama should not use the visit to “talk about the gay issue.”

Irungu Kangata, a lawmaker in President Uhuru Kenyatta’s The National Alliance (TNA) party, was blunter: “We are telling Mr. Obama when he comes to Kenya this month and he tries to bring the abortion agenda, the gay agenda, we shall tell him to shut up and go home.”

According to The Standard of Nairobi, Kangata said Kenyans would demonstrate against Obama over the issue during his visit. Kenya’s The Daily Nation quoted several other lawmakers’ views on the matter. “Anybody who tries to come and preach to this country that they should allow homosexuality, I think he’s totally lost,” said TNA lawmaker Jamleck Kamau. “And I would also like to add, our son from the U.S., Barack Obama, when he comes here, to simply avoid that topic completely,” added Kamau, “because Kenyans will not be happy with him if he comes to bring the issue of homosexuality in this country.”

“Liberal thoughts are being entertained in some countries under the guise of human rights,” the speaker of the National Assembly, Justin Muturi, told an Anglican Church congregation. “We must be vigilant and guard against it. We must lead an upright society and not allow obnoxious behavior as we have a responsibility to protect our children.”

Rose Mitaru, one of 47 female lawmakers representing counties across the country, said that allowing same-sex marriage in Kenya would open “floodgates of evil synonymous with the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.”

TNA lawmaker Cecily Mbarire urged the government to reject any foreign aid tied to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

On Sunday, Deputy President William Ruto delivered a church sermon in Nairobi in which he said homosexuality was “against the plan of God.” “God did not create man and woman so that men would marry men and women marry women,” The Daily Nation quoted him as saying. “Those who want to engage in those businesses, they can do it in their countries, and they can do it wherever it is they want. In Kenya, we will stand firm.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest indicated Monday that Obama would not avoid the topic during his visit. “We have been clear that when the president travels around the world, he does not hesitate to raise concerns about human rights,” he told a press briefing, in response to a question on the Kenyan criticism.

“I’m confident the president will not hesitate to make clear that the protection of basic universal human rights in Kenya is also a priority and consistent with the values that we hold dear here in the United States of America,” Earnest said.

‘Everybody has to be treated equally’

Obama is scheduled to visit Kenya later this month to open the sixth Global Entrepreneurship Summit, an Obama initiative aimed at promoting entrepreneurship, particularly in Muslim societies. He will then visit Ethiopia for bilateral and African Union meetings. It will be his fourth trip to sub-Saharan Africa during his presidency.

Homosexuality is frowned on in many African countries, both Christian and Muslim. The Obama administration’s State Department has made promotion of LGBT issues a foreign policy priority.

Obama’s last visit to the continent coincided with the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the LGBT question came up during a joint press appearance with Senegalese President Macky Sall. Asked about the issue of homosexuality in Africa, Obama said he believed that “every country, every group of people, every religion have different customs, different traditions.” “But when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally,” he said. “I don’t believe in discrimination of any sort. That’s my personal view.”

In his response, Sall said Senegal was not ready to change to decriminalize homosexuality, and that countries should respect each other’s choices. He also said Senegal “does not discriminate in terms of inalienable rights of the human being.”

According to data compiled by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), same-sex sexual acts are illegal in 76 countries around the world, 36 of them in Africa.

In May 2014, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, which reports to the African Union, passed a resolution calling on African countries to “end all acts of violence and abuse … including those targeting persons on the basis of their imputed or real sexual orientation or gender identities, ensuring proper investigation and diligent prosecution of perpetrators, and establishing judicial procedures responsive to the needs of victims.”

Category:

International Politics

Tagged with:

Yes really: Obama is about to END the 4th of July as we know it

Written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on July 3, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://allenbwest.com/2015/07/yes-really-obama-is-about-to-end-the-4th-of-july-as-we-know-it

We’ve written here previously about the draconian restrictions the EPA is quietly implementing in our nation. In fact WE were skewered by the liberal media for mentioning barbecue grills. Well, hate to say we told you so, but it’s about to get even more absurd. And once again, it goes right the heart of something most Americans treasure.

Per the Daily Caller, enjoy Independence Day while you still can. If President Obama gets his way, this could be the last Fourth of July worth celebrating.

New ground-level ozone standards being pushed by Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency would result in widespread bans on fireworks shows, backyard grilling and other Independence Day traditions. Because the proposed ozone rule is set so low, things as harmless as a few backyard chefs grilling burgers in the same area at the same time, or even festive fireworks being launched during an Independence Day celebration, could cause an area to violate federal ozone standard thresholds. Such a violation of the EPA’s unreasonably low ozone limit would result in fines and other penalties for local governments from federal regulators.

In an attempt to steer clear of punishment, local lawmakers will have to respond to the new EPA rules by enacting municipal grilling bans and canceling fireworks shows from sea to shining sea.

Yep, another one of those great ideas that will increase prices of goods sold, eliminate jobs and once again, assault one of our most cherished traditions.

Recent studies by the National Association of Manufacturers and other groups have shown that the EPA’s new directive would be the most expensive regulation ever enacted, costing the economy $140 billion annually. Even the EPA’s own cost estimates acknowledge the economic hit from the proposed regulation would be well into the tens of billions of dollars a year

Oh, and here’s the best part of all. Despite the damage this will do to our economy and American way of life, it will do almost NOTHING to improve air quality, reducing ozone to a level barely above naturally occurring levels.

Excuse me for a moment. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Okay. I’m better now.

Even the EPA doesn’t really understand why the rule is needed. While testifying before Congress earlier this year, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy indicated that ozone levels would go down without this rule in place.

My friends, we are frogs in that pot of water and the temperature is ever so slowly being turned up, almost imperceptibly. As the Daily Caller says, this new guideline will make it so difficult to comply, whole regions of the country will have to pay fines and face other penalties, without any realistic hope of meeting the standard short of banning cars and forcing businesses to close.

Enjoy your smoke-belching pick-up with the gun rack and the American flag waving off the railing while you can folks, because don’t think for a second they’re not ALL in Obama’s sights.

I am personally astonished by the speed in which he is destroying this nation and our deeply-held fundamental beliefs and traditions. It is the now the final act in the tragic drama of the Obama presidency and we haven’t even seen the grande finale.

[Note: this article was written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief]

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

What founders want to teach Obama this July 4

Posted By Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015

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

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/what-founders-want-to-teach-obama-this-july-4

I commend President Obama for giving the eulogy at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down along with eight other precious souls during a Bible study at their Charleston Church. Obama said some honorable and moving words about the fallen. He also spoke at length about amazing grace – and even sang about it.

But then he stirred what I call the nebulous and confusing religious pot by stating: “If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we contacted that grace – can tap that grace, everything can change.”

“If we can find”? “If we contacted … can tap”? “If”?

The president is right that “anything is possible” and “everything can change” with God’s amazing grace. But he ought not to have spoken with such ambiguity, doubt and conditionality as “if” finding grace were wishing upon a star or discovering a needle in a haystack.

America’s founders – as well as most presidents throughout history – were unequivocally certain about the role of faith in our republic. They were without hesitation or doubt when they spoke about the bedrock of religion in society and human hearts. Our founders knew without it, they were sunk as well as our nation.

On the eve of another Independence Day, I think it’s critical that we reconsider exactly how our founders expected religion to breathe life into our nation and play out in society. If we don’t, we run the risk of crippling our country and shredding it at its seams. Indeed, we’ve already traveled too far down the road of religious degradation by omitting God from classrooms to historic monuments. We have also bastardized our founders’ first tenet of religion (First Amendment) and totally abandoned their understanding and call for its primary purpose in our republic. Let me explain.

Our founders’ first tenet of religion is captured in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, religious liberty will reign in our new nation. Congress shall protect individuals from forced sectarianism unlike it was done in England, and choice and freedom are to be protected and secured from the tyranny of government.

Well, that isn’t our First Amendment today, or at least how most secular progressives interpret it. They explain and use it solely as a buffer from keeping religious opinion or discussion – in any way, shape or form – out of every governmental or public arena. But that is the polar opposite of the First Amendment’s very purpose, which was to protect and preserve religious practice and liberty in any place, including in the halls of government.

As I wrote in my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” though Jefferson is generally hailed as the chief of church-state separation, proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from these facts: He endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church’s priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the “wall of separation between Church & State,” he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation’s government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress’ website notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.”

President John Adams spoke about how central God was to be in our republic, when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And to what religion was Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.”

Our Founders believed religion (specifically Christianity) would serve as the basis for morality and decency. They warned us specifically that, to abandon that foundation for our ethics, would leave society in civil unrest—just as we see today in run amuck classrooms and homes across the nation and people treating one another with such malevolence.

George Washington also warned future Americans of this very problem in his presidential farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Well, the present leaders of our nation (including the Supreme Court) have turned a deaf ear to Washington’s warning and taken him up on his challenge to try to maintain “morality … without religion.”

America is now like it was in the time of the Judges in the Old Testament: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). That’s how it is today – with God being abandoned, so is our moral basis, and everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. We’ve lost our moral compass, and that includes our president.

As a result, the president is as lost as the most wayward and rebellious youth. Instead of conveying any form of positive Washington conviction about the role of religion, President Obama casts conditional clauses (“If”) and doubt. He might have sounded like a preacher this past week in Charleston, but the truth is he is a charlatan chameleon when it comes to religion and specifically Christianity. Indeed he’s been known to mock it as he did in 2006 when he gave the following secular progressive diatribe against it.

As my friend and editor of WND, Joseph Farah, noted in 2012, Obama’s speech was given before an audience led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, when Obama first made the point publicly that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Obama went on, “Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama asks rhetorically. “Would it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”

Regarding Obama’s words, I conclude not with my comments but those of John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (1768-94; now Princeton University), who said, “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”

(Next week, I’ll expand on my thoughts here in my Independence Day weekend column, “In God we still must trust.” In the meantime, I highly encourage your reading of my New York Times bestseller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” where you will find loads more about what our founders actually thought, practiced, and wanted for our country)

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

White House unveils hostage policy review, takes heat for opening door to terror ransoms

Published by FoxNews.com June 24, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/24/enriching-enemy-administration-under-fire-for-opening-door-to-terror-ransoms

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

The Obama administration was accused Wednesday of giving terrorists an incentive to kidnap as it unveiled a hostage policy overhaul allowing families of U.S. hostages to pay ransom — and allowing the U.S. government to help families communicate with captors. “This doesn’t fix anything,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a leading critic of the administration’s hostage policy, told Fox News. “The money that we’re going to be paying ISIS is going to be used to buy arms and to buy equipment to fight Americans and to fight the Iraqis.”

But the White House said the changes are being unveiled with the families and victims in mind. “We’re not going to abandon you. We’re going to stand by you,” Obama said of hostages’ families, speaking at the White House on Wednesday. The policy review was formally released shortly before noon, and includes a host of changes beyond the clarifications on ransom discussions — notably, the creation of a new bureaucratic structure for handling hostage cases. The White House plans to establish a Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell responsible for coordinating the recovery of hostages; a Hostage Response Group responsible for coordinating hostage policies; and the position of “special presidential envoy for hostage affairs.” Obama said this is being done to sync up various efforts, citing past coordination problems.

This framework is also being met with mixed reviews, but much of the attention is on the newly clarified policies for communicating with terrorists. The White House sought the policy review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones’ release.

In response, the administration made clear Wednesday that officials will no longer threaten hostages’ families with prosecution for dealing with and paying ransoms to terrorist captors. The Justice Department said in a written statement: “The department does not intend to add to families’ pain in such cases by suggesting that they could face criminal prosecution.” There is not expected to be any formal change to the law. However, the administration made clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that will continue to be the case. The White House said in a statement that the government still takes a “no concessions” approach, and it continues to be U.S. policy to “deny hostage-takers the benefits of ransom.” But the same statement says this policy does not “preclude engaging in communications with hostage-takers.”

The White House made clear the U.S. government may, then, help facilitate communications with terrorists on behalf of the families. The directive said the U.S. “may assist private efforts” to communicate with hostage-takers, and may even “itself communicate with hostage-takers” to try to rescue hostages. White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco said the U.S. government, though, would not specifically facilitate ransom payments.

The announcements still amount to a shift in the U.S. approach to hostages. It was considered a major break from past practice last year when the Obama administration traded five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The latest policy changes could open the door to more deals, even if they are only struck with families of hostages.

Critics worry they could also encourage more kidnappings, while effectively aiding the enemy.

“The concern that I have is that by lifting that long-held principle [of not paying ransoms], you could be endangering more Americans here and overseas,” House Speaker John Boehner said. “You’re going to have to have the government now facilitating payments from the families here to the terrorists there while at the same time we have troops on the ground … fighting the same people that we’re paying money to,” Hunter said Wednesday. “You’re worth more captured now than you would be otherwise.” Former House intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers also voiced concern on a local talk radio station Tuesday evening that this would encourage more hostage-taking and ransom demands.

Obama, though, stressed Wednesday that the U.S. government itself would not be paying ransoms.

Four Americans have been killed by the Islamic State since last summer: journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and aid workers Peter Kassig and Kayla Mueller. After the release of gruesome videos showing the beheadings of some hostages, Obama approved an airstrike campaign against the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria.

The families’ anguish has been deepened by the fact that European governments routinely pay ransom for hostages and win their release. The U.S. says its prohibitions against the government and private individuals making any concessions to terrorist demands are aimed both at preventing more kidnappings and blocking more income for terror groups. However, the Obama administration did negotiate with the Taliban last year to win the release of Bergdahl. White House officials say those negotiations were permissible because Obama sees a special responsibility to leave no American service member behind on the battlefield.

Elaine Weinstein, whose husband Warren Weinstein was accidentally killed by a U.S. drone strike in April while being held hostage by Al Qaeda, argued Tuesday against the government making such distinctions between U.S. citizens. “The people who take American citizens working abroad as hostages do not discriminate based on their job or employer, and neither should our government,” Weinstein said in a statement.

The White House invited the families of 82 Americans held hostage since 2001 to participate in the review, and 24 agreed to do so. The National Counterterrorism Center, which oversaw the review, also consulted with hostage experts from the U.S. and other countries. As part of the review’s findings, the White House announced the creation of a hostage recovery “fusion cell” that will coordinate the multiple government agencies involved in such issues. The new office aims to address family frustrations about getting contradictory information from different agencies by creating a single point of contact.

The administration is not acquiescing to the requests of some families to house the fusion cell in the White House’s National Security Council. Instead, the office will be at the FBI, and the director will be affiliated with the FBI. The cell will include representatives from the State Department, Treasury Department, CIA and other key agencies.

Obama also announced the creation of a State Department special envoy post that will head the administration’s dealings with foreign governments on hostage matters.

Fox News’ James Rosen and Doug McKelway and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Myth of Muslim Radicalization

Published by BarbWire; on 21 June, 2015

After some of its quarter of a million Muslims headed to join ISIS, Quebec decided the answer was a $2 million anti-radicalization center headed by a specialist in cultural sensitivity. But if you’re about to be beheaded by a masked ISIS Jihadist, a specialist in isn’t going to help you much. Western governments nevertheless keep rolling out their culturally sensitive approaches to fighting ISIS.

The key element in Obama’s strategy for fighting ISIS isn’t the F-15E Strike Eagle, it’s a Twitter account run by a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer which claims to “Counter Violent Extremism” by presenting moderate Islamists like Al Qaeda as positive role models for the Islamic State’s social media supporters. So far 75% of planes flown on combat missions against ISIS return without engaging the enemy, but the culturally sensitive State Department Twitter account has racked up over 5,000 tweets and zero kills.

Cultural sensitivity hasn’t exactly set Iraq on fire in fighting ISIS and deradicalization programs here start from the false premise that there is a wide gap between a moderate and extremist Islam. Smiling news anchors daily recite new stories about a teenager from Kentucky, Boston or Manchester getting “radicalized” and joining ISIS to the bafflement of his parents, mosque and community. And who is to blame for all this mysterious radicalization? It’s not the parents. It certainly can’t be the moderate local mosque with its stock of Jihadist CDs and DVDs being dispensed from under the table.

The attorney for the family of Usaama Rahim, the Muslim terrorist who plotted to behead Pamela Geller, claims that his radicalization came as a “complete shock” to them. It must have come as a truly great shock to his brother Imam Ibrahim Rahim who claimed that his brother was shot in the back and that the Garland cartoon attack had been staged by the government.

It must have come as an even bigger shock to Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, the Imam linked to Usaama Rahim and his fellow terrorist conspirators, as well as the Tsarnaev brothers, who had urged Muslims to “grab onto the gun and the sword.” The culturally insensitive truth about Islamic ‘radicalization’ is that it is incremental.

There is no peaceful Islam. Instead of two sharply divided groups, peaceful Islam and extremist Islam, there is a spectrum of acceptable terrorism. Muslim institutions have different places on that spectrum depending on their allegiances and tactics, but the process of radicalization is rarely a sharp break from the past for any except converts to Islam. The latest tragic victim of radicalization is Munther Omar Saleh; a Muslim man living in New York City who allegedly plotted to use a Tsarnaev-style pressure cooker bomb in a major landmark such as the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. Saleh claimed to be following orders from ISIS.

Media coverage of the Saleh arrest drags out the old clichés about how unexpected this sudden radicalization was, but what appears to be his father’s social media account shows support for Hamas. Likewise one of Usaama Rahim’s fellow mosque attendees said that Rahim and another conspirator had initially followed the “teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood” but that he had been forced to cut ties with them when they moved past the Brotherhood and became “extreme”.

Despite the media’s insistence on describing the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate organization, it has multiple terrorist arms, including Hamas, and its views on non-Muslims run the gamut from the violent to the genocidal. A year after Obama’s Cairo speech and his outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood, its Supreme Guide announced that the United States will soon be destroyed, urged violent terrorist attacks against the United States and “raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” Despite this, Obama continued backing the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power across the region.

There are distinctions between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, but the latter is a splinter group of the former. Al Qaeda’s current leader came out of the Muslim Brotherhood. A move from one to the other is a minor transition between two groups that have far more in common than their differences. And since the Brotherhood controls much of the Islamic infrastructure in the United States, the idea that Munther Omar Saleh or Usaama Rahim became radicalized because they went from a Jihadist group that takes the long view in the struggle against the infidel, putting political structures into place to make a violent struggle tactically feasible, to a Jihadist group that focuses more on short term violence, is silly.

Radicalization isn’t transformational; it’s incremental.

It’s the Pakistani kid down the block deciding that instead of joining the Muslim Students Association and then CAIR to build Islamist political structures in America, he should just cut to the chase and kill a few cops to begin taking over America now.
Radicalization is the moderate Imam who stops putting on an act for PBS and the local politicians and moves to Yemen where he openly recruits terrorists to attack America instead of doing it covertly at his mosque in Virginia.
Radicalization is the teenage Muslim girl who forgets about marrying her Egyptian third cousin and bringing him and his fifty relatives to America and goes to join ISIS as a Caliphate brood mare instead.

It’s not pacifism giving way to violence. Instead it’s an impatient shift from tactical actions meant to eventually make Islam supreme in America over many generations to immediate bloody gratification. ISIS is promising the apocalypse now. No more waiting. No more lying. You can have it tomorrow. Radicalization does not go from zero to sixty. It speeds up from sixty to seventy-five. It builds on elements that are already there in the mosque and the household. The term “extremism” implicitly admits that what we are talking about is not a complete transformation, but the logical extension of existing Islamic beliefs.

Omar Saleh seemed cheerful enough about Hamas dropping Kassam rockets on Israeli towns and cities. Would he have supported his son setting off a bomb in the Statue of Liberty? Who knows, but his son was already starting from a family position that Muslim terrorism against non-Muslims was acceptable. Everything else is the fine print.

When Usaama Rahim followed the way of the Muslim Brotherhood, he was with a moderate group whose spiritual guide, the genocidal Qaradawi was the godfather of cartoon outrage and had endorsed the murderous Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie. The slope that leads from Qaradawi’s cartoon rage to trying to behead Pamela Geller isn’t a slippery one; it’s a vertical waterfall. And this is what radicalization really looks like. It doesn’t mean moderates turning extreme. It means extremists becoming more extreme. And there’s always room for extremists to become more extreme which turns old extremists into moderates while mainstreaming their beliefs.

In the UK, Baroness Warsi, Cameron’s biggest mistake, blamed Muslim radicalization on the government’s refusal to engage with… radicals. Or as she put it, “It is incredibly odd and incredibly worrying that over time more and more individuals, more and more organisations are considered by the government to be beyond the pale and therefore not to be engaged with.” The reason why the government is refusing to “engage” with these organizations is that they support terrorism in one form or another. Warsi is proposing that the UK fight radicalization by mainstreaming it.

Mainstreaming extremism is also Obama’s policy. It’s the logic behind nearly every Western diplomatic move in the Middle East from the Israel-PLO peace process to the Brotherhood’s Arab Spring. And these disasters only created more Islamic terrorism. The Muslim teenagers headed to join ISIS did not come out of a vacuum. They came from mosques and families that normalized some degree of Islamic Supremacism and viewed some Muslim terrorists as heroes and role models. It’s time for Western governments to admit that the ISIS Jihadist is more the product of his parents and his teachers than of social media Jihadis on YouTube and Twitter.

Radicalization doesn’t begin with a sheikh on social media. It begins at home. It begins in the mosque. It just ends with ISIS.

First published at Sultanknish Blog

Category:

Islamic News

Tagged with:

Obama intent to toughen gun laws, with or without Congress’ help

At the state level, gun control advocates are advancing gun regulations in at least 31 legislatures.

Gun rights groups point out that the administration is pushing several restrictions at the Justice Department, ranging from rules on gun storage and high-powered pistols to a renewed effort to prohibit gun ownership by people who have been convicted of domestic abuse.

“Without a doubt, President Obama is making good on his promise to use his ‘phone’ and his ‘pen’ to circumvent Congress and the will of the American people,” said the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action in a statement prior to the church shootings in Charleston. It said Mr. Obama’s attempt “to act unilaterally on gun control is a real and continuing threat to Second Amendment liberties.”

In late May, the Justice Department said it plans to issue regulations expanding the criteria for barring certain people from gun ownership. The disclosure was in the administration’s Unified Agenda, a semiannual publication of proposed rules that the government intends to implement. For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms and wants to finalize a rule by November to block domestic abusers from owning guns. The proposal pertaining to domestic abuse has been considered periodically since the Clinton administration.

The ATF proposed a rule earlier this year to ban “M855 green tip” rifle ammo, but withdrew the proposal in March after an outpouring of opposition from gun owners and the manufacturing industry. While the NRA’s lobbying arm said the details of various proposals in the Unified Agenda “are indeed alarming the collection itself is actually a welcome (and rare) bit of transparency” from the administration. “Browsing the Unified Agenda can give Americans a better idea of what federal agencies are doing, plan to do, or have been trying to do but have not yet finished,” the group said.

The administrative actions on guns are taking place even as the president complains with visible frustration about the failure of his gun control efforts. In several comments about the church massacre, Mr. Obama chided Americans for the availability of guns but said the political climate in Washington leaves him essentially powerless to move any new gun laws through Congress. “The politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now,” Mr. Obama said. “Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”

A spokesman for Gun Owners of America said last week that Mr. Obama was overlooking recent gun massacres in other countries, such as the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France, the Anders Breivik murders in Norway in 2011 that left 77 dead and a mass shooting in England in 2010. The group said concealed carry laws could have helped to prevent those attacks and the one in South Carolina. “In each of these cases, the armed perpetrators ignored strict gun control laws in acquiring and carrying their weapons,” said GOA spokesman Erich Pratt. “One of the biggest problems at [the] South Carolina church is that the potential victims were disarmed by law.”

Mr. Pratt said in the Palmetto State, a concealed carry permit holder can carry a firearm in places of worship with permission from a church official. “Unfortunately, the pastor [the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was killed] was an anti-gun activist,” he said. “As a state senator, the pastor had voted against concealed carry. But the president completely misses all of this. He ignores the fact that this was yet another example where a massacre took place in a ‘Gun Free Zone.’”

Gun control activists say such laws won’t help, pointing to studies such as one by the Harvard School of Public Health indicating that “where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

The president’s assessment of Capitol Hill is widely shared: Gun rights groups say Congress is more pro-gun than at any time in recent memory.

The NRA said the appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies approved by the House this month contained several pro-gun measures, including;

an amendment to bar the ATF’s “discretion to arbitrarily reclassify ammunition for political reasons”;
a prohibition on the use of federal funds for “Operation Choke Point,” a program that curtails some gun shops’ access to banking services;
a prohibition on the use of funds to maintain any record or gun registry on multiple rifle or shotgun sales to law-abiding citizens;
and a prohibition on the use of funds for collecting data regarding a person’s race or ethnicity when purchasing a firearm.

“All show Congress asserting its role as the peoples’ representatives against a president and administrative state that has embarked on a lawless crusade to suppress the right to keep and bear arms,” the NRA said.

Mr. Obama hasn’t sought major new gun laws since the Senate blocked the administration’s proposal in 2013 to impose background checks on guns sales after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. “We commenced a significant lobbying campaign to Congress, and we fell short,” said White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz. “Congress fell short.” Advocates for stricter gun laws say that’s because too many lawmakers are beholden to the gun industry. “The bottom line is Congress has failed to act because it’s filled with too many craven and irresponsible lap dogs for the corporate gun lobby,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a statement to The Washington Times. “They hide behind deceptive and dangerous rhetoric and sell out the safety of the people they are supposed to represent.”

After previous mass shootings, Mr. Obama usually spoke about the need for gun control action in vague terms. Last week he sharpened his rhetoric, saying in America “it remains far too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.” Law enforcement officials say suspect Dylann Roof purchased the weapon used in the shooting at a gun shop in Charleston.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized the president for his anti-gun rhetoric. “This is the M.O. of this administration. Anytime there is an accident like this, the president is clear [that] he doesn’t like for Americans to have guns, and so he uses every opportunity — this being another one — to basically go parrot that message,” Mr. Perry said. Mr. Perry, a Republican, was criticized himself for referring to the church massacre as an “accident.”

Another 2016 presidential candidate, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, weighed in on the issue Friday by telling supporters that he is “pissed” by congressional inaction on guns. “I’m pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control — laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers — Congress continues to drop the ball,” Mr. O’Malley wrote in an email. Mr. Gross, of the Brady Campaign, said Americans should be pressuring Congress more to enact new gun laws. “It’s up to the American people to make their voices heard and hold elected officials accountable,” he said. “Legislation to expand Brady background checks to online and gun show sales is sitting on the desks of members of Congress. That legislation would not prevent every tragedy, but it would make us all significantly safer by preventing guns from falling into dangerous hands every day. Yet Congress has done nothing.”

With scant prospect of new gun laws in Congress, gun control groups are taking their fight to state legislatures. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said the most prevalent efforts at the state level this year are bills that would;

bar domestic abusers from owning firearms (19 states),
would require background checks on private gun sales (11 states),
would impose stricter regulations on gun storage (13 states)
and would allow families or law enforcement officials to seek gun-violence protective orders for people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others (nine states).

“The states are sending a loud and clear message to Congress: It’s time to finish the job and save lives by expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales,” Mr. Gross said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

While Your Attention Was Diverted to Charleston, House Passed Unconstitutional TPA

Posted by Tim Brown 5 hours ago

In a 218-208 vote (previous vote was 219-211), with 28 Democrats and 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill, the House advanced the fast track bill which would illegally delegate authority to the Executive Branch to work out trade agreements. As I’ve pointed out before, trade agreements involve tariffs (taxes). As such, those must originate in the House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…

This is not a treaty, it’s a trade agreement. Too many people are confusing the TPA with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a treaty. I do believe confusion is exactly what is being perpetrated on the American people at this point in order to advance the agenda.

The Hill reports:

The House on Thursday took the first step toward resuscitating the White House’s trade agenda by passing legislation granting President Obama fast-track authority.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the White House and GOP leaders are seeking to strike a deal with pro-trade Democrats.

The Senate is now expected to vote on the legislation, but that is presumed to pass since they have already passed before. “This is a vote to re-establish America’s credibility,” said Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Previously, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) attempted to justify such actions by saying that the TPA wouldn’t give Obama more authority and chastening others that said such legislation would undermine the law. But it does, in fact, do that. Furthermore, if this is passed through the Senate and the TPP is approved, there is no doubt that American jobs will be lost, which is, in part, why the TAA was also attempting to be pushed through.

All of this is setting America up for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There is no question about that. RT reports:

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) is a vocal critic of the deal because of a provision called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The provision would mediate disputes between foreign investors and a government, which Warren believes will inhibit regulation and pose a threat to American sovereignty.

ISDS is designed to address the problem of uneven national economic policies in an interconnected global economy. Foreign investors have to deal with the risk of having their investments seized if and when a new government comes to power and decides to nationalize the businesses of foreign industries. While this isn’t a risk in a stable company with a strong judicial system like the United States, it is a genuine risk in other countries without such stability. ISDS is an arbitration process that uses sanctions to put pressure on governments who have unfairly seized property.

That means that ISDS would allow foreign investors to make complaints against the United States, which is a point that many take issue with. Warren argues that the agreement could “tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations.”Many opponents of the TPP worry that multinational corporations could argue that environmental, financial and minimum wage regulations could qualify for a dispute under ISDS, potentially costing the United States expensive damages.

Sorry conservatives, but Republicans are once again selling us out right along with many Democrats. They are selling out American jobs, sovereignty and most of all they are not following the rules of the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. The push is on now to see if Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) will take to the Senate floor and provide a filibuster for this unconstitutional legislation.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter: Obama Has ‘Backup Amnesty’ in Secretive Trade Agreement

By Kyle Becker

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/343723-ann-coulter-obama-has-backup-amnesty-in-secretive-trade-agreement

In the potential trade agreement, per Wikileaks, there is a provision known as the “TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons.” As Conservative Review put it, the agreement that President Obama is rushing off to Capitol Hill to save would relax visa restrictions for guest workers from a number of nations, including Pakistan:

One very disturbing aspect of TISA is the document uncovered by WikiLeaks revealing an entire section on immigration, referred to as “Movement of Natural Persons.” This section discusses commitments by the parties not to place undue burdens on visas and singles out face-to-face interviews as an example of “overly burdensome procedures.” [see the footnote on page 7]

Pakistan, Turkey and Mexico are all parties to TiSA. Hundreds of organizations are opposing TiSA through a petition, and more fundamentally, fast-track authority for President Obama to ink a sweeping trade deal. “See, this is their backup plan, defended by all the usual suspects: George Will, Paul Ryan,” Coulter commented. “All the conventional wisdom, ‘oh, those hysterics,’ no, this is the elites ganging up on Americans. It is not very good for Americans, which is why Americans have never been consulted on whether we should turn our country into Mexico,” Coulter said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Admin Seeks to Repeal Second Amendment Apart from Congress Via Executive Order

Posted by Tim Brown

The Obama administration is preparing new, unconstitutional gun regulations. The Department of Justice, headed by newly confirmed, property grabbing, racist Loretta Lynch is working on “more than a dozen” new gun regulations that will be sought to be implemented by November completely apart from Congress. Other regulations will be attempted by the end of the Obama administration.

The Hill reports:

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.

…

The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.

Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete.

That’s not all. Gun Owners of America‘s Michael Hammond warned that the above reference to “criteria” could bar someone from owning a gun “who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband.” “The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,” he added.

As for the mental health, I have been warning “conservatives” since before the time of Sandy Hook not to fall for that line of thinking because, again, no authority has been given to the feds to restrict arms in any way (Yeah, I know I sound like a broken record, but this is part of the problem of arguing about something that is unconstitutional without bringing in the Constitution to stop the debate.).

At least now the NRA gets it and recognizes such measures are “snares [for] masses of mostly harmless individuals.”

“Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” the NRA said.

Let’s get one thing straight. I don’t care how many people are calling on the federal government to regulate guns, they have never been given authority to do so. Furthermore, since Congress is the legislative body, not the Executive Branch, then neither the President nor the Justice Department has any authority to write the law as they see fit.

National Association for Gun Rights’ Vice President of Political Affairs Luke O’Dell said, “It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest, law-abiding citizens through executive force.”

If you recall, following the Sandy Hook shooting Barack Obama came out in classic taqiyyah-style and claimed to be able to “respect the Second Amendment” while at the same time ignoring and undermining it.

“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale,” he said.

No, Obama, you cannot. As soon as you write and enforce executive orders on a subject which you have not been given authority over, you are not respecting the Second Amendment. You are breaking the law, and as such, you should be impeached, then charges should be brought against you for breaking the law and a just punishment rendered.

However, Congress is of no help in this matter. We have too many would-be leaders running around more concerned with their sound bytes and political fundraisers than engaging in impeachment.

This move by the Obama administration has absolutely nothing to do with stopping crime. In fact, their fingerprints are all over the crimes in Baltimore and Ferguson, as well as a plethora of crimes in Washington, from Operation Fast and Furious (Talk about keeping guns out of criminals hands… this administration was placing them in their hands!) to the IRS being used as a political weapon against political dissent, to Benghazi and Extortion 17.

Complicit in all of this will be the unconstitutional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), whose fast track to ban the highly popular M855 “green tips” ammunition was immediately pushed back against by the American people, which later Democrats wanted to revive. With or without Congress, these would be unconstitutional as the Second Amendment is clear that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms are not to be infringed. For those who don’t understand English, that also includes regulations.

Additionally, we have these ten Republican senators for putting a constitution violator in the position of Attorney General: Kelly Ayotte (NH), Orrin Hatch (UT), Lindsey Graham (SC), Susan Collins (ME), Jeff Flake (AZ), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Thad Cochran (MS), Ron Johnson (WI) and Mitch McConnell (KY).

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Caruba: Obama’s Middle East Debacle

May 18, 2015 By Alan Caruba

Cartoon - Obama No Islamic Threat

I had to laugh when I heard that the new King of Saudi Arabia, Salmon, told the White House he wasn’t going to attend Thursday’s photo-op get together of Arab leaders. Some lesser Saudi officials will attend. The message is clear enough, so long as Obama continues to make nice with Iran, the center of the problems in the Middle East, the Saudis and the others are going to be wary of any proposal that comes out of the White House.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, Obama seems to have no idea of the history or the dynamics that affect all the actions there. His Secretary of State, Kerry, is no better. He met with Arab officials last Friday and they told him they want a defense treaty in the event they were attacked by “external forces”, something that the Congress will not approve so long as Obama is in the White House.

One would think that any President at this point would have concluded that the Palestinians have no intention of signing onto a peace treaty with the Israelis.

Writing in The New York Times on May 8, Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, put it bluntly, “It doesn’t matter what these politicians think now or have said in in the past. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not happening in the next two years.” That’s how long we all have to wait until Obama leaves office.

Saudi Arabia's King Salman

David P.Goldman, a Senior Fellow of the Middle East Forum, writing in Asia Times Online on May 10, spelled it out.

“It is inconvenient for diplomats to say so, but the Palestinian Authority collapsed quite some time ago,” noting that “President Mahmoud Abbas’ term in office began in 2005 and ended six years ago, and he has not called new elections for the simple reason that Hamas—the Palestinian branch of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood—would win those elections.” These days the Egyptians label Hamas a terrorist organization and have taken steps to eliminate the Brotherhood. At least they know who the enemy is.

Obama has been antagonistic to Israel from before he was elected and has made little effort to hide it. Consider this, as Goldman notes, “Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israel in 2014, prompting Israeli counterstrikes during the summer.” Its declared intention and the reason for its existence is to eliminate the State of Israel. Why are we surprised to hear that Obama wants to take the statehood issue to the United Nations, a hotbed of anti-Semitism, and has little to say of the Palestinian Authority’s assertion that it wants to drag Israel in front of the International Criminal Court for having defended itself against the attacks by Hamas!

Not only has the Saudi King sent Obama a message, but so did the Israelis when they overwhelmingly reelected Benjamin Netanyahu as their Prime Minister. “The Israelis look around the Middle East and see nothing but conflict, carnage, instability and danger,” said Schanzer. “The Obama doctrine—which includes a deliberate contraction of American power in the Middle East—has undeniably made Israel less safe.”

It has made the U.S. and the world less safe too.

One of the most obscene aspects of the Obama obsession with Iran is that, in return for any deal—which Iran would ignore and cheat—they are ready “to provide as much as $120 billion in sanctions relief to satisfy the narrow technical parameters of a nuclear deal, which would legitimize Iran as a threshold nuclear state. These funds,” said Schanzer, “will flow to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Iran terror proxies dedicated to Israel’s demise.”

To put all this in perspective, as Goldman reminds us, “From Israel’s standpoint, the Palestinian Authority was offered 95% of Judea and Samaria in return for a final peace agreement, and both times (at Camp David in 1999 under Ehud Barack and in 2008 under Ehud Olmert) the offer was rejected.”

“The U.N. Security Council,” said Goldman, “will punish Israel for the failure of negotiations that were meaningless to begin with, and establish a Hamas-controlled state within nine miles of the Mediterranean coast. Iran has already promised to arm West Bank Arabs, just as it armed Hezbollah and Hamas.”

Israel which has enjoyed the support of the United States since it declared its independence in 1948 is now put at risk by the first administration to deliberately turn its back on it in preference for a deal with the leading terror-sponsor, Iran, in the Middle East.

You cannot make a greater mess of the mess that already exists in the Middle East, but Obama is doing his best to add to it. What else should we expect from a President who refuses to utter words like “Islamic terrorism”?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Christian Genocide in Full Swing – Where Are Obama and Our Leaders?

Authored by Dr. Laurie Roth, on 15 May, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://barbwire.com/2015/05/15/1000-christian-genocide-in-full-swing-where-are-obama-and-our-leaders/

The global slaughter of Christians is growing in leaps and bounds at the hands of Muslims and their supporters. ISIS or ISIL and other murderous Islamic relatives consider the daily torture and murder jobs of Christians simply obeying Muhammad and their pagan god Allah. Sometimes they offer the victim before they are murdered, the 3 choices stated in Chapter 9 of the Koran – 1) Forcibly convert to Islam 2) Give them great amounts of money as a high tax to stay alive 2) or be killed. Many times they don’t even offer them those options. Instead they just cut right to the torture and murder part – slow and gruesome.

Each week I interview on my national radio show, experts who have tasted the real horror offered up by Islam and are involved with exposing and confronting the real Islamic agenda. It is most clear that there is a real Christian genocide happening all around the world. Ted and Whalid Shoebat have long exposed the slaughterhouses in Syria, where Christians are kidnapped, tortured, hung by their feet like cows, then butchered.

This is a regular occurrence along with ISIS and Islamic rebels wiping out whole Christian neighborhoods and villages.

Not only has America and Obama not helped the victims or confronted the Islamic murderers, but instead, Obama has been complicit in creating ISIS – ISIL by sending them (through Lybia) thousands of lethal and high-end weapons and money.

Not only did America, under Barack Obama’s leadership, weaponize the Islamic rebels, growing and creating ISIS and its offspring, but the weapons pathway and illegal activities lead to the murder of Ambassador Stevens and staff. We are still awaiting justice and untangling the cover up that has followed for many years now. I pray Rep. Trey Gowdy pushes through the wall on this investigation and gets it right.

The genocide is funded and organized all around the world. All through Africa, where villages are torched; young girls are captured and used as sex slaves, husbands and fathers are murdered in front of their families and torture and kidnappings are daily staples. Iraq is a growing horror show as well and once again Obama says nothing except for Christians to get off their ‘high horse’ and be ashamed because of our involvement in the Great Crusade over 600 years ago. I am ashamed all right…I’m ashamed that Christians took so long to rise up at the hands of Muslim aggression, torture and stealing of their land. Will today in America end up being another place in history where we were ‘too little – too late’?

Several have screamed very loud, making desperate appeals to stop the madness and get help from the US and our Government to save lives, but Obama is nowhere on this. He just looks the other way as hundreds of thousands of American citizens and Christians are murdered in the name of Allah and Muhammad. Obama has gone way behind being another Neville Chamberlain horror. Obama knows that the tortures and blood letting is happening all over to Christians and does nothing about it. Chamberlain could hardly believe Hitler would be capable of such evil so imposed denial on himself.

Sister Dian Momeka of the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena has spoken before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She has described in Technicolor what is going on to Christians throughout Iraq. She describes it as mass genocide and has begged Obama and America for help. Her comments were covered in a Newsmax piece by Cathy Burke.

“As this horror spread throughout the Nineveh Plain, by Aug 6, 2014, Nineveh was emptied of Christians, and sadly, for the first time since the seventh century A.D., no church bells rang for Mass in the Plain of Nineveh,” she said, adding that since then, more than 120,000 people found themselves “displaced and homeless” in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. “The current persecution that our community is facing is the most brutal in our history.”

Cardinal Dolan and others have weighed in and warned Obama and America about our skewed lack of protection of Christians in the Mideast, yet nothing is done and Obama plays more golf.

It appears as if by his brazen lack of action and even words against Christians, that Obama is in full support of the Islamic caliphate and murderous genocide of Christians worldwide. If he isn’t in support of this then he must do more than ‘sound bite’ theatre and brief empty statements reflecting no action.

We find ourselves in another Nazi Germany horror show of extermination again. This time it is the Christians and we have a President who not only looks the other way, he funds and weaponizes the murderous Islamic groups that are doing it all.

About the Author: Dr. Laurie Roth

Dr. Laurie Roth hosts a popular and growing national radio talk show called The Roth Show. It airs from 7-10pm PAC Mon-Friday http://www.therothshow.com. She is known as ‘The Annie Oakley of the Airwaves’ a name given her by her listeners and is also a regularly published commentator and speaker at conservative conferences. In 2010 Laurie was nominated for the Ronald Reagan Award by CPAC for breaking a national story on Obama and his many connections with William Ayers.

Join me for my live show each day from 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM PST. You can listen in at http://www.therothshow.com. When you are taken to http://www.usaradionetworks.com click on Channel 2 and you will be on board. Call in at: 1 877 999 7684.

Category:

Islamic News

Tagged with:

Soviet Intelligence Officer: Liberation Theology was Invented by the KGB

Reported by Gordan Runyan May 14, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/soviet-intelligence-officer-liberation-theology-was-invented-by-the-kgb/#VsZGCDQCCb4ZZW40.99

Ion Mihai Pacepa served as a general in the USSR’s intelligence service before defecting to the United States in the late 70’s. He recently gave an interview to the Catholic News Agency in which he claimed that the Liberation Theology that has been so prevalent in Latin America for the last generation was a disinformation campaign that had its genesis at the highest levels of the Kremlin.

So what is Liberation Theology? Picture Karl Marx skipping around in priestly robes, sprinkling holy water all willy nilly, while calling for the oppressed poor to honor God by slaughtering those who have a dime more than they do. It’s what you hear out of Obama and HRC and Pelosi when they decide to wax Christianly. Communism in its Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes.

Pacepa’s claims are fascinating, if not easily verifiable. Some of the takeaway thoughts from the interview include:

Krushchev believed that Liberation Theology would be the vehicle that allowed him to go down in history as the man who successfully exported Communism to Central and South America.
The KGB was enamored with the word “liberation,” and that’s how it came to be in the forefront of the National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)–all of which had their origins in KGB headquarters and whose leaders were all KGB puppets (Fidel Castor, Che Guevera, and Yassar Arrafat, respectively).
The ecumenical, international church organizations known back then as the Christian Peace Council and the World Peace Council were pure KGB inventions. The plan for exporting Liberation Theology also involved taking over the World Council of Churches (WCC).

As interesting and historically important as I find this to be, it must be said that none of it represents something new under the Sun. It is a common mark of all governmental tyrannies that they have seen religion as a double-edged sword: dangerous to their own dominance on the one hand, but a very useful tool for their purposes on the other.

Most of us are familiar with the stories about Hitler’s attempt, not merely to silence the churches in Germany, but to actually change Christian theology altogether. We are also familiar with the stories of the Nazi practice of sending agents in to church services to monitor the sermons. I have heard recently, from an organization working on behalf of persecuted Christians in North Korea, that the believers there have a darkly humorous saying amongst themselves: “Wherever two or more are gathered in His Name…one of them is a government agent.”

Will we see this in America? Hear me out with my answer here. I say, no we won’t, not in any systematic fashion.

And the reason that we won’t is because the federal government in America needs no program, needs to send out no agents, needs to develop no disinformation campaigns…because our churches routinely do what the tyrants are hoping for, with no government prodding at all.

A recent survey among Evangelical pastors showed that ninety percent of them know full well that the Bible speaks to every problem we now face in America, including economics, domestic politics, education, foreign policy, etc. But out of those pastors, who represent nine out of every ten, eight of the nine purposely decide not to speak or teach about any of those things.

Instead, they focus on things like Three Steps to a Great Marriage, or Five Point Strategies for Getting Ahead. Or, on the more “serious” side, they preach the Gospel to the saved week after week, and focus purely on the condition of your trembling little heart before the Lord. For these, the whole point of the Bible is you and Jesus off in your own corner somewhere, sharing warm fuzzies together over the Psalms.

The feds don’t need to invent a subversive theology and smuggle it into your church. They don’t need a disinformation campaign to get your pulpits to tell you to bend over and take whatever the government wants to give you. That theology is being preached voluntarily already, as I show in my book, Resistance to Tyrants: Romans 13 and the Christian Duty to Oppose Wicked Rulers.

You will not hear from these pulpit-puppets about men of faith, like the rogue, bastard, gang-leader Jephthah, who slaughtered the enemies of God, including a king and queen, and counted it a measure of his zeal for the Lord to do so; whose name is eternally enshrined in the Hall of Fame of Faith in Hebrews 11. Mr. Obama would be worried about Jephthah. He’d send agents to watch him. He doesn’t need to send agents to watch your pastor. Strained peas look at your pastor and say, “Dude, congrats. You’ve taken bland to a whole new level.”

They don’t need to scheme to take our inheritance. We’ve sold it already for a mess of pottage in the form of popularity, convenience, big crowds, and bigger paychecks.

Are there faithful pastors still? Sure. One in ten, if the numbers bear out. Which means that for every Christian reading these lines, there is a ninety percent chance that your pastor is one of the useful, duped sheeple the government loves. “Not my guy!” you say. “My guy is great. I love my guy!”

Has your guy ever stood in the pulpit and pointed out that both abortion and sodomy ought to be capital crimes? Even more telling, has he ever made any public waves about these things? Has he ever given you Biblical reasons why socialism is wrong? You love your guy, and that’s a good thing. But if the answers are honestly “No” to those questions, the government loves him too. They don’t need to worry about him.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

String of Group Attacks has St. Paul Police on High Alert, Businesses on Edge

Updated: 01/30/2015 2:53 PM, Created: 01/29/2015 9:18 PM KSTP.com , By: Jay Kolls

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://kstp.com/news/stories/s3692160.shtml

These are the mobsters Imperial President Obama and Al Sharpton are defending. Tell me how’s it’s working for you?

A string of group attacks has taken place in downtown St. Paul in recent weeks. Last Monday, a 23-year-old man and his 56-year-old friend were brutally assaulted by six people in a skyway downtown near Cedar Street.

According to police, a restaurant near the new St. Paul Saints stadium was also rushed by a group of about nine people who started eating and drinking from the customers’ tables. 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS obtained security video that showed a woman in the group suddenly throw a glass of water at another customer. Another man she was with grabbed a cell phone off the table, and then the entire group bolted out the door and down the street, police officials said.

Back in September, a St. Paul police sergeant emailed other officers informing them about a group of nearly 50 juveniles that attacked a juvenile female at the light rail platform near Fifth and Minnesota Street in St. Paul. In the email, the sergeant said the female was beaten unconscious and the fight spilled into a nearby hotel where the group then interrupted and assaulted a wedding party. Some of the wedding party members told officers they would never visit St. Paul events again because of the incident, the email said.

: How can anyone say that we are not at the beginning of a Race War? Thanks to Obama/Sharpton/Jackson/Holder stirring the “RACE-POT” so hard and long, the anger is only beginning in it’s growth.

The sergeant concluded his email by saying that these attacks by the group of assailants were “shocking” at their level of violence.

SEE THE NEWS REPORT BELOW:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Conservatives Are Greatest Threat To Nation, Obama Suggests

Neil Munro

White House Correspondent

Political conservatives are the greatest threat to the nation, President Barack Obama suggested in a kid-glove interview with the New York Times.

“The president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us,” said the interviewer, Thomas Friedman.

“Our politics are dysfunctional… societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions,” said Obama, who repeatedly claims to be a moderate stymied by the GOP’s supposed obstructionism and radicalism.

“And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions,” Obama added.

That comment about diversity was likely a warning to conservatives, who are expected by many Democrats to lose power as the nation absorbs more foreigners who do not share conservatives’ small-government ideals.

“Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you,” Obama warned.

The GOP was first on the list of causes that Obama blamed for the political divisions that are blocking his agenda, such as increased immigration. However, his list also included a series of subsidiary causes that are actually consequences of underlying ideological conflicts and economic factors.

“While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so many potential compromises, Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the Balkanization of the news media and uncontrolled money in politics — the guts of our political system today — are sapping our ability to face big challenges together, more than any foreign enemy,” said Friendman, who is an Obama supporter, and a champion of progressive-style expansive government.

Obama and Friedman did not put any blame on the Democratic Party or Obama himself, whose own aggressive use of big-government to promote the progressive goal of social diversity caused voters in 2010 to give the Republicans a majority in the House.

Obama’s complaints come as the GOP and public opinion have blocked his top priority for the second term — increasing immigration. That failure — despite near-universal support from Democrats, media, big business, Wall Street and many billionaires — recently prompted Obama to say he plans to provide an unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work-permits. That’s a high-risk threat, because many recent polls shows that the public very strongly opposes illegal immigration, and gives him very low ratings for his immigration policy.

But Obama didn’t suggest he’s responsible for the nation’s political divides.

Obama’s claim of moderation is contradicted by much evidence.

For example, in October 2013, during the dispute over the 2014 budget, Obama used one speech to describe Republican legislators in the House as akin to arsonists, kidnappers, deadbeats, butchers, lunatics and extortionists, obsessives, out-of-touch hostage-takers, nuclear-armed bombers, and unserious irresponsible extremists. (RELATED: Obama Offers To Fairly Negotiate With GOP Terrorists)

“I’ve shown myself willing to go more than halfway in these conversations,” he also told the TV cameras during the same speech.

SEE INTERVIEW VIDEO BELOW:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

White House: Migrants’ Privacy Trump Americans’ Right To Know [VIDEO]

Neil Munro

White House Correspondent

The White House won’t reveal where it is housing thousands of Central American juvenile migrants because their privacy rights trump Americans’ right to know what‘s happening in their neighborhoods, press secretary Josh Earnest declared July 16.

“The public does have a right to know what’s happening… [but] at the same time, there are privacy rights that are included in the law that this administration is committed to enforcing and following,” Earnest told Ed Henry, Fox News’ White House correspondent.

“We are not surprised in the least to see the Obama administration imitate the smugglers,” William Gheen, founder of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, told The Daily Caller. “This is how smuggling operations work, this is what the smuggler-in-chief wants — secret planes and secret buses full of illegal immigrants.”

GOP governors and legislators are also highlighting the administration’s secrecy. “They don’t want the public to know what is really going on,” Nebraska Republican Rep. Lee Terry told Fox News.

Terry has introduced a bill that would require federal disclosure of details about housing. However, Senate Democrats will likely block the bill if it is passed by the House.

For months, the federal government has hidden details about the inflow of migrants, such as the number of people arriving in “family units,” the number of migrants who have been allowed to seek residency via the immigration courts, and their education levels.

Officials have revealed that 57,000 Central American juvenile migrants have crossed the border since last October. Another 30,000 crossed in 2011 and 2012. Officials also expect up to 150,000 additional migrants to arrive in “family units.”

Most of the public blames Obama for the breakdown of border security and oppose his immigration policies.

Many Americans want the immigrants sent home and few want the foreign juveniles living in their community. For example, Pew reported July 16 that 53 percent of respondents in a poll want the juvenile migrants quickly sent home. Only 39 percent of respondents said the current policy should be followed.

Communities in California, Massachusetts, Virginia and Maryland, for example, have already blocked administration plans to house juveniles in their neighborhoods.

Protests in Murrieta, Calif. successfully blocked a convoy of three buses carrying a group of migrant adults and their children.

This weekend, a series of protests are being arranged by several groups, including the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

So far, the groups’ volunteers have arranged 300 street protests, said Gheen. “It is going viral, and we’re trying to add more events as rapidly as possible,” he told TheDC.

When asked how many people will turn out, he responded “we have no idea.”

Most of the border-crossing juveniles are temporarily housed by the Department of Health and Human Services before they are released to parents or relatives living in the United States.

The juveniles — few of whom speak English, and some of whom speak only Indian languages — are entitled to federal medical care, and to attend local schools, regardless of their impact on American kids.

They migrants come from countries with very high crime rates, partly because many youths are members of drug gangs, such as MS-13.

Progressives are bitterly criticizing the immigration protests.

“In places like Murrieta, California and Vassar, Michigan, we have seen ugly reminders of racism and hatred directed toward children,” said a July 15 statement by Richard Trumka, the pro-immigration head of the AFL-CIO union group.

“The spewing of nativist venom, the taking up of arms and the fear-mongering about crime and disease harken back to dark periods in our history and have no business taking place under the banner of our flag,” said Trumka.

So far, progressives have not established groups of volunteers to house the migrants in their own homes.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Is Obama Tired Of Being President?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/16/is-obama-tired-of-being-president/#ixzz34plai1vt

10:42 AM 06/16/2014

Jim Treacher

If he is, it’s not his fault. It’s never his fault. It’s your fault, America.

Amie Parnes and Niall Stanage, The Hill:

Is President Obama done with Washington? …

The president twice went for unscheduled walkabouts last week, taking a trip to a Starbucks near the White House with his chief of staff Denis McDonough on Monday and, the next day, turning up at a burger joint in Alexandria, Va…

Last Tuesday, Obama was asked about gun control during a question-and-answer session hosted by the social networking website Tumblr. He didn’t try to assert that progress on legislation was realistically possible, instead launching into a personal broadside, permeated with a sense of resignation, against “this town…”

The couple have also never sold their family home in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, a fact that prompts speculation they will return there after his White House tenure ends.

If he’s so miserable, he could end that tenure right now. Today. He could get out before his ineptitude and dishonesty cause even more problems for the world, and, most importantly, for himself.

But he won’t, because his ego won’t let him. He’s willing to destroy the Democrats’ brand just to hold onto his power, no matter how miserable it makes him. No matter how many times he screws everything up, and part of him can’t push away the shame.

Even now, there are people with an emotional investment in this guy. They believed in him, and no matter how he disappoints them, no matter how many outrageous lies he tells them, they can’t bring themselves to abandon him.

There’s nothing the rest of us can do but laugh at them. You can point at them as you do so, but either way works. Just laugh at them. They hate it. And the more they seethe, the better it gets.

History will remember what this man did to America, and who stood by him. There’s nothing we can do to change that now, but at least we can stand clear and sneer.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

President Clinton and President Obama Promised to Protect Disarmed Ukraine

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/05/president_clinton_and_president_obama_promised_to_protect_disarmed_ukraine

March 05, 2014

Windows Media

RUSH: This is getting out of hand now. Hillary Clinton is saying that Vladimir Putin is a Nazi, and Putin is saying that the Ukrainians are Nazis, and Tony Kornheiser says that the whole state of Arizona is Nazis. The only person that’s not a Nazi anymore is me. This is progress, ladies and gentlemen. It’s like a Mel Brooks movie. I mean, everybody is just throwing this name out. And of course Putin is acting like Hilter did. You gotta give Hillary that, with what he’s doing here. I mean, it’s gonna irritate some progressives who think that Putin has the right to do whatever he wants to do.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this is hilarious. CNN, the rest of the Drive-Bys are all in hysterics that a United Nations envoy was supposedly almost kidnapped and threatened by an armed man in Crimea and told to get out of the country. “A UN envoy! That’s unacceptable! Who do they think they are, threatening to kidnap and kick out of the country a UN envoy?” I’m not kidding. The media is just beside themselves over this kind of an insult.

I want to mention something here that came up late in the program yesterday, and I’m repeating it here at a different time in the program hoping to reach more people with this ’cause the Drive-Bys are not talking about this. I mentioned yesterday that Bill Clinton in 1994 (and then the Obama administration in 2009, reaffirmed it) gave official diplomatic assurances to Ukraine that their borders would be safe in exchange for the Ukrainians gutting their army and completely doing away with their sizable nuclear deterrent.

This has not been reported other than the UK Daily Mail has now published an article that reminds us that that wasn’t all Obama did for Ukraine. But the point is… Because the media isn’t telling you, I want to stress this again. As you’re watching what happened, as you watch us act outraged that Putin would do this, there were the number of signatories to this agreement. The UK, John Major and the Ukrainian prime minister. It was Boris Yeltsin for the Russian Federation, and Bill Clinton, and there was the ChiCom leader.

There were five of them, and they signed. They promised. They promised Ukraine that their borders would not be attacked, that their sovereignty would not be challenged, and that they would be considered for admission to the European Union. There was all this stuff dangling carrots if they would just gut their army and do away with their nuclear deterrent — and Ukraine did. That agreement was reaffirmed in 2009 by Barack Obama.

So the Ukrainians cannot defend themselves against this encroachment by Russia, which is a violation of that agreement, by the way.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to close the loop on this Ukraine thing, get into the IRS, and then come back to Ukraine with more details on what’s happening. But just to remind you, ’cause I think this is huge. I think Ukraine bought it hook, line, and sinker. They gave up their military. They had a nuclear arsenal. They gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded and their sovereignty would remain intact.

Putin wasn’t a signatory, but Boris Yeltsin was, and he signed for the Russian Federation, which is still the governing body before Putin puts the Soviet Union back together. It was Bill Clinton that got the whole thing started, and this whole thing was reaffirmed in 2009. Now, the UK Daily Mail today adds information to this. Their headline is: “Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 TONS of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms and 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Ukraine.”

In addition to the gutting of the military and getting rid of the nukes, it was Obama as a senator who pushed legislation that further weakened Ukraine. From the article: “As a US senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition — weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.”

Because they don’t really have an army, not much of one. They gutted it. They didn’t get rid of it; they just gutted it — all on the assurance, reaffirmed again in 2009 by Obama. Obama reassured them. This was as president. It was as a senator that he engaged in legislation that further weakened them. In 2009 he reaffirmed, “Don’t worry, we will protect you — and so will the ChiComs, and so will the UK, and the Russians have promised that they will not invade you.”

That’s all out the window now, and the media is not reporting that.

“In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site. The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.”

Obama and Luger “returned to Washington and declared that the US should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.” Obama’s been disarming United States as quickly as he can, but he offered money, $48 million to Ukraine to downsize. At the time, Obama said, “We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.”

Now, stop and think. Folks, this kind of thing really matters when you’re a guy like Putin and you’re sizing up your advisory, and you’re looking at a guy, and you see Barack Hussein Obama doing this. Now, I have in my Stack of Stuff that Obama was at an elementary school recently. I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the pictures, and Obama’s latest photo op shows why the global community doesn’t take him seriously.

He’s sitting on a blue, oval-shaped rug, and he’s holding a young student with the teacher sitting nearby, 10 or so other little kids. He’s in the classroom. While all this is going on, if you’re Vladimir Putin and you look at this… Remember how a picture of George W. Bush reading to a third grade class? Remember how that was portrayed as, “My God, what kind of guy is this? The World Trade Center’s attacked, and this guy’s reading to kids, and he still reads?”

And look at this. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’m gonna zoom in on the Dittocam, turn off to do it, zoom out. I’ll just show you this, just so you know. The reason that I think that this is important is because you always have to look at the way our enemies see this. The camera’s back on, and there’s be the picture. In fact, the picture below it is Obama then with his press conference, announcing some things about Ukraine at the same place.

He’s standing on the same rug there that he is sitting on with those kids. It’s an exact replay of what happened with Bush in the classroom in Florida. Now, the point is if you’re Vladimir Putin and you know that your adversary is Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has personally traveled to Ukraine to disarm them — if you know that your adversary’s Barack Obama who as senator pushed legislation to disarm Ukraine.

He paid money, $4 million to do it, and reaffirmed a 1995 agreement or ’94 agreement pour basically Ukraine to disarm — what are you gonna do? You know who your adversary. You know he’s not gonna stop you. All you have to do is look at Syria or anywhere in the world. Look at the way Obama’s handling Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama’s running around getting us out of every country. Look at Chuck Hagel proposing downsizing US military to pre-World War II levels.

What would you do if you’re a bad guy bent on reassembling your giant Soviet Union? So the Ukrainians have no way to stop this militarily, if they were inclined. And Obama after traveling to Kiev and not only affirming the Clinton agreement in ’94, but taking it further by eliminating 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition and then says we need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people. Now, stop and think. If you are Vladimir Putin and you hear the leader of the United States equate disarmament with safety, you have gotta be rubbing your hands together so fast that you can’t believe your good luck. You are up against an adversary who thinks that safety is you disarming.

Let me put it a different way. You’re Putin, you’re watching Obama, and you’re up against a guy, Obama, who believes his safety is related to him getting rid of his military. He goes over there and doubles down on Ukrainian weakness, disarmament, and then claims Ukraine is safer. If you’re Putin, what are you gonna do? This is absolute lunacy. This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force; not doctors, nurses, and clean water. It’s not governed by bipartisanship and UN resolutions and all that happy horse manure. This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, and Obama is celebrating he’s just made Ukraine stronger and safer by completely disarming it.

Forget Putin’s view; what does that tell you about Obama? And then this little statement: We need to eliminate these stockpiles in Ukraine for the safety of the Ukrainian people. What, are they gonna shoot themselves? By keeping these stockpiles and the Ukrainians out of conflicts around the world. So I guess it’s the Ukrainians were who Obama thought might begin a worldwide march toward domination. So he had to disarm them, take every means of defense away from them, after promising ’em they wouldn’t need it, then this happens. Now, I wanted to go through this all again, because you are not being told this. If your only source of news is the Drive-Bys, you are not being told any of this.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Russia Threatens To Abandon US Dollar And Start Dumping US Debt

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/russia-threatens-abandon-us-dollar-start-dumping-us-debt/#OAJegu8HQKe25kmx.99

Posted by Michael Snyder

The Obama administration and the hotheads in Congress are threatening to hit Russia with “economic sanctions” for moving troops into Crimea. Yes, those sanctions would sting a little bit, but what our politicians should be made aware of is the fact that Russian officials are promising “to respond” if economic sanctions are imposed on them. As you will read about below, one top Kremlin adviser is even suggesting that Russia could abandon the U.S. dollar and start dumping U.S. debt. In addition, he is also suggesting that if sanctions are imposed that Russian companies would not repay the debts that they owe U.S. banks. Needless to say, Russia could do far more economic damage to the United States than the United States could do to Russia. The U.S. financial system relies on the fact that the rest of the planet is going to use our currency to trade with one another and lend gigantic piles of it back to us at super low interest rates. If the rest of the world starts changing their behavior, we are going to be in a massive amount of trouble. Those that believe that the United States is “economically independent” are being quite delusional.

In order for U.S. economic sanctions against Russia to be effective, Europe would also have to get on board.

But that simply is not going to happen.

As I noted yesterday, Russia is the largest exporter of natural gas on the planet. And Russia is also Europe’s largest supplier of energy.

There is no way that Europe could risk having Russia cut off the gas, especially considering the economic condition that Europe is currently in.

To get an idea of just how incredibly dependent the rest of Europe is on Russian natural gas, check out the chart in this article. A whole bunch of European nations get more than half their natural gas from Russia.

And according to the Telegraph, even the UK has already completely ruled out economic sanctions…

Europe would be pushed back into recession, Russia into financial meltdown. This is not the sort of self harm Europe is prepared to contemplate right now. Indeed, thanks to the indiscretion of a UK official, who was snapped going into Downing Street with his briefing documents on display for all the world to see, we know this to be the case. Trade and financial sanctions have already been ruled out.

So the U.S. can do whatever it wants, but Europe is not going to be any help. Perhaps Canada will stand with the U.S., but that will be about it.

On the flip side, the Russian Foreign Ministry is promising “to respond” if the United States does impose economic sanctions…

Russia said on Tuesday that it would retaliate if the United States imposed sanctions over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

“We will have to respond,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement. “As always in such situations, provoked by rash and irresponsible actions by Washington, we stress: this is not our choice.”

So what would the response look like?

Lukashevich did not say, but top Kremlin adviser Sergei Glazyev is suggesting that Russia could abandon the U.S. dollar and refuse to pay back loans to U.S. banks…

“In the instance of sanctions being applied to stated institutions, we will have to declare the impossibility of returning those loans which were given to Russian institutions by U.S. banks,” RIA quoted Glazyev as saying.

“We will have to move into other currencies, create our own settlement system.”

He added: “We have excellent trade and economic relations with our partners in the east and south and we will find a way to reduce to nothing our financial dependence on the United States but even get out of the sanctions with a big profit to ourselves.”

Glazyev also stated that Russia could start dumping U.S. debt and encourage other nations to start doing the same. The following comes from a Russian news source…

“We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner,” he said. “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.“

Clearly Russian officials understand the economic leverage that they potentially have. In fact, Glazyev seems fully convinced that Russia could cause “a crash for the financial system of the United States”…

“An attempt to announce sanctions would end in a crash for the financial system of the United States, which would cause the end of the domination of the United States in the global financial system.”

On that last point Glazyev is perhaps overstating things.

On their own, the Russians could do a considerable amount of damage to the U.S. financial system, but I doubt that they could completely crash it.

However, if much of the rest of the world started following Russia’s lead, then things could get very interesting.

Just yesterday, I wrote about how China has chosen to publicly stand in agreement with Russia on the Ukrainian crisis.

If China also decided to abandon the U.S. dollar and start dumping U.S. debt, it would be an absolute nightmare for the U.S. financial system.

And keep in mind that the Chinese were already starting to dump a bit of U.S. debt even before this latest crisis. In fact, China dumped nearly 50 billion dollars of U.S. debt in December alone.

The only way that the current bubble of debt-fueled false prosperity in the U.S. can continue is if the rest of the world continues to lend us trillions of dollars at ridiculously low interest rates that are way below the real rate of inflation.

If the rest of the world stops behaving in such an irrational manner, interest rates on U.S. government debt would rise dramatically and that would also mean that interest rates on virtually all other loans throughout our financial system would rise dramatically.

And if that happened, it would be a complete and utter nightmare for our economy.

Unfortunately, most Americans have no understanding of these things. They just assume that we are “the greatest economy in the world” and that nothing is ever going to threaten that.

Well, the truth is that we are rapidly approaching a “turning point”, and after this bubble of false prosperity pops things will never be the same in the United States again.

Get a look at the future of America: The Beginning of the End

About Michael Snyder&lt;img alt=” src=’http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/ba3c38a4d6c6902586b62d60fe58e94f?s=68&amp;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D68&amp;r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-68 photo’ height=’68’ width=’68’ />

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the University of Florida law school and he worked as an attorney in the heart of Washington D.C. for a number of years. Today, Michael is best known for his work as the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog. Michael and his wife, Meranda, believe that a great awakening is coming and are working hard to help bring renewal to America. Michael is also the author of the book The Beginning Of The End

View all posts by Michael Snyder →

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

President Harry Reid

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/02/president-harry-reid/

by KEITH KOFFLER

Is Harry Reid running the country? Is President Obama a nonessential employee sidelined by the sequester?

Everything you see going on with respect to the shutdown must be viewed through a single prism: the Senate, 2014. Democrats probably won’t win the House – it’s a midterm election in a president’s second term, which is usually bad news for the president’s Party. But they could lose the Senate.

This is why there aren’t any negotiations, and it’s the real reason why the “suffering” attending the shutdown will occur. Harry Reid wants to ensure he remains as Senate Majority Leader. To do that, he hopes to try to implant in the minds of voters that if Republicans take charge of both Houses of Congress, the lunatics will be running the asylum.

And so, preforming his self-appointed role as Nurse Ratched, Harry won’t negotiate. He won’t even appoint “conferees” to hash out differences between House and Senate bills. He WILL let Ted Cruz take the floor for 21 hours, hoping the public recoils in disgust. And he WILL let the shutdown play out as long as possible, hoping a public denied entrance to Yellowstone blames Republicans and hardens in grim anger against them.

Meanwhile, Obama runs out to play golf. He’ll make a bunch of speeches. He skipped into the Rose Garden Tuesday to serve up some meandering chatter that rehashed every charge he’s already lodged against the GOP. He’s never had a serious legislative affairs operation, and now he doesn’t need one, because Harry’s in charge.

Harry’s even giving orders. According to Politico, when Obama was considering huddling with House Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, Reid said he wouldn’t be attending, thank you, and told Obama it was a bad idea. Obama nixed the meeting.

Republicans are fighting back, hoping to lay blame for the shutdown on Reid and Obama for refusing to negotiate or even consider the piecemeal funding bills the House is going to start sending to the Senate. It could work.

The president is down with Reid’s strategy because he is either too lazy or too disinclined by character – or both – to build relationships on Capitol Hill and enter into sustained, serious negotiations on anything. Instead, he’ll be doing the one thing he seems to have real energy and enthusiasm for – giving speeches to adoring crowds.

So as this drags on, look for Harry Reid to be on the floor of the Senate barring the door to incoming legislation and offering to medicate Republicans. Look for Barack Obama to be coming to a high school near you.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

25 Quotes About The Coming War With Syria That Every American Should See

By Michael Snyder via TEC // http://www.officialteapartyusa.com/pt/25-Quotes-About-The-Coming-War-With-Syria-That-Every-American-Should-See.8-30-2013/blog.htm#.UiC6JlTHMw4.facebook

Aircraft-Carrier-War-With-Syria-300x300

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take “unilateral action” against Syria. But what good would “a shot across Syria’s bow” actually do? A “limited strike” is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad. Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages. Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters? There is no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn’t as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country. At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam. It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria. On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals. And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the “rebels” in Syria.

But there was a problem. The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels. So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the “moral justification” that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels. In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today. The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this…

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it. In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on “intelligence”, but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious. WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn’t we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive. As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch. They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless. They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States. I don’t think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see…

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: “The president has no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war … unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: “Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution.”

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: “I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America.”

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: “While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack.”

6. The New York Times: “American officials said Wednesday there was no ‘smoking gun’ that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation.”

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: “The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States.”

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: “I definitely believe there needs to be a vote.”

9. Donald Rumsfeld: “There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation.”

10. Robert Fisk: “If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.”

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: “So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?”

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: “We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves.”

13. A Syrian Army officer: “We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people.”

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba’ath Party official: “We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding.”

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: “A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel.”

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: “…the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war.”

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences”

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) “means the immediate destruction of Israel.”

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: “Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force.”

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength.”

21. The Jerusalem Post: “The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday.”

22. Ron Paul: “The danger of escalation with Russia is very high”

23. Pat Buchanan: “The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.”

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: “We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something.”

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: “Isn’t it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

THANKS A LOT SANDY

The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.

However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.

I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.

With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;

The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.

For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.

Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama calls Romney ‘new’ to foreign policy, recalling ’08 criticism

Published September 10, 2012: www.FoxNews.com

A little more than four years ago, Hillary Clinton suggested then-Democratic primary opponent Barack Obama was so naïve on the world stage he’d need a “foreign policy instruction manual” should he win office.

Fast forward to the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Obama, now the president, accepted his party’s nomination for a second term by touting his experience as a steady leader in the face of overseas crises and mocked his Republican challenger as “new to foreign policy.”

How times have changed.

But the president’s new tactic — to incorporate into his campaign message the sense that he is the tested leader, and that Mitt Romney is a newbie — could be a risky one. For starters, it recalls the very criticism against Obama, like the above line from Clinton, when he first ran.

“Obama had probably less foreign policy experience (when he first ran for president) than Romney has,” said Steffen Schmidt, political science professor at Iowa State University.

Schmidt also noted that Romney is hardly alone among non-incumbent candidates in not having a tremendous foreign policy background. “The truth of the matter is, presidents learn on the job,” he said.

Obama, in an official sense, may have had a bit more foreign policy experience when he first ran than Romney does today.

Obama, as a first-term senator, was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he took several foreign trips. He traveled in 2005 with Republican Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar to Russia and Eastern Europe to visit nuclear and biological weapons facilities. The following year, Obama traveled to the Middle East. Obama, the senator, made another foreign trip to several African countries in late 2006 as well.

Obama, though, downplayed the value of that experience during his 2008 primary run. “Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world,” he said in April 2008, according to an account from the time in The New York Times. “This I know. When Sen. Clinton brags, ‘I’ve met leaders from 80 countries,’ I know what those trips are like. I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do a native dance. You meet with the C.I.A. station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. … And then, you go.”

Obama instead had stressed his time living abroad, as well as a visit to Pakistan back in the 1980s.

Romney, though, also lived abroad — in France as a Mormon missionary — in the 1960s. And both Romney and Obama, as presidential candidates, conducted high-profile overseas tours to bolster their campaigns.

Obama’s, which included an address to a massive crowd in Berlin, was likely better received. Romney stumbled on his summertime tour abroad, most notably when he suggested Britain might not be ready for the 2012 Olympic Games.

Obama seized on that gaffe during his nomination address last Thursday in Charlotte, N.C.

“My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,” Obama said. “But from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly. After all, you don’t call Russia our No. 1 enemy — not Al Qaeda — Russia, unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.

“You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally,” Obama said.

Obama went on to say: “You know, I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed, and so have I. I’m no longer just a candidate. I’m the president.”

Schmidt said Obama may be trying to inject more foreign policy into the mix, not just to deflect from other issues but to defend his administration against a GOP talking point that the president is “leading from behind” on the world stage.

Indeed, the Romney campaign released a memo over the weekend that highlighted the president’s “manifold failures on foreign policy and national security.” While Obama touts the successful takedown of Usama bin Laden and the official end of the Iraq war under his watch, Republican claims he has done little to slow what they see as Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon.

Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s 2008 nominee, critiqued both Obama and Romney on the foreign policy front in an interview with the Associated Press over the weekend. In the interview, McCain said national security was largely missing from the GOP convention.

“It’s the job of presidents and candidates to lead and articulate their vision for America’s role in the world. The world is a more dangerous place than it’s been since the end of the Cold War, and so I think the president should lead and I think candidates for the presidency should lead and talk about it, and I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been more,” McCain said. He was most critical of the current administration, on issues like Iran and Syria.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

DNC Observations

If I were a stranger to American history and politics, I would have come away from this weeks speeches with the impression that the Democrats were a group of Freedom Fighters battling dictators, demonic leaders and tormentors who hated women, children, education, the military, freedom, healthcare, poor people, anyone trying to lift themselves up a level in the society hierarchy, rappers of the financial districts and haters of everything and everyone. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are liars and incapable of telling the truth. According to what I heard the Republican Party want to go backwards to some undetermined era where women had no vote, no health care, no right to her own body, no access to contraceptives and children have to go to schools that are broken down and inadequate.

I also got the impression that all Republicans are so awful that they deserved to be mocked. According to what I heard Republicans have no workable ideas, and have only caused trouble, financial ruin and disasters that the Democrats have to fix. I walked away with the idea that the Republicans could only be conquered by force even if that meant war. I heard every speaker describe a political party that owned all the good answers to life, and without them, the world as we know it would fall apart. Then I heard a commentator actually say that the DNC proved they were the only ones that cared about America’s military.

According to the leader of this DNC, he was hindered by this enemy called Republicans and was unable to fulfill the promises he made about fixing all the Republicans disasters. He claimed he need more time and everyone would have to fight to see to it that he was given that chance. I learned that only he, President Obama, and his Vice President, Joe Bidden, are the only ones possessing the intellect, reason, experience and foresight to finish fixing the malaise created by those horrible Republicans.

The people I was with explained to me that the man who offered up a prayer was a cleric of high importance. He was a Cardinal of a sect known as Catholics, who, among so many other things, have stated publicly that they hate the killing of babies, especially while they are in their mother’s womb. I thought, only monsters would deliberately kill babies. They must be Republicans. Anyway, these people were perplexed that he would honor the DNC with his presence and pray for them because the monsters that kill babies are the DNC, not those pesky Republicans. I’m confused. You American have a strange way to govern your people.

Well, it’s over. I’m told that now these two groups will go out and yell about each other, making all sorts of claims about one another. I am more confused. Why aren’t the electorate more knowledgeable about the issues facing their great nation to be able to decide who is telling the truth? Why are the American people so ignorant about their own national history, issues, reasonable solutions and who is holding to the truth?

Why is there so much hate? Where are the peacemakers? Where are the statesman that can bring peace to the entire electorate? Why all the yelling? What aren’t all the people in prayer, or have they given up on the God they claim to serve? Questions, nothing but questions.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

I have shared with you some research into words and phrases the Left throws out there hoping no one will look them up to understand the Marxist/Socialist foundational belief system. This is Part One of an article I believe everyone should read. It validates what I sent you about “Social Justice” and Collectivism”. It will take a while to read. Pleas do so with patience and understanding. What you do with it afterward is between you and your conscious.

Jerry Broussard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

September 3, 2012 by Leon Puissegur FREEDOM OUTPOST

Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

Has anyone ever been interested in President Obama’s ideological past? What were Obama’s beliefs while he was at Occidental? Several interviews by Dr. John Drew during the 2008 campaign cycle gave some insight, but few were interested at that time in what Obama really believed when he attended Occidental College. (See “Meeting Young Obama” and “Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past” at www.americanthinker.com/john_drew/). Dr. Drew wrote, “Meeting Obama”, about Obama and his ideology about taking the United States over and making it fail so the, “revolution” could in his article “Meeting Young Obama” on February 24, 2011. He clearly remembers what Obama stated, in his own words, “Like it was yesterday”. Obama espoused without hesitation, “There’s going to be a revolution,” saying, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” This is disturbing due to the fact what our nation is going through right now drives it to the edge of failure; just what the young Obama stated he wanted to accomplish in 1980: the end of capitalism in the United States.

Obama has in the last three years been declaring, the people with money are the problem with the United States. This reflects back to his Marxist/Socialist training while he was at Occidental College. Obama discussed this ideology with young John Drew during a Christmas break when Drew visited his then girlfriend, Caroline Boss. It was during his visit that he met Obama face to Face. Dr. Drew stated the man Obama had shown up with was an individual by the name of; Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a 21-year-old Pakistani student Obama hung around with along with Chandoo’s girl friend, Margot Mifflin. All of them were fervent with their ideas of Marxist and Socialist ideology. Dr. Drew gave context to his recollections with the observation he had also read other stories about how Obama had dreamed of working to bring the downfall of Capitalism. Today it looks like Obama is working very hard to obtain those 1980 dreams.

In the below interview, Dr. Drew will, of course, refer to Dr. John Drew and LP will refer to the author of this piece, Louis Puissegur.

Dr. Drew began; “I know Stanley Kurtz’s book, Radical in Chief , that Obama has ties with the Midwest Acadamy, kind of like the Socialist training ground for America. I think that most Americans don’t understand that Obama
has a longstanding tie to Marxism, that is even longer then his ties to Reverend Right.”

LP; “That’s right, he(Obama), didn’t go to Reverend Wright until after he was married.”

Dr. Drew; “Right, I mean, the way I look at it, Barack Obama was probably at least a Communist sympathizer when he came out of high school, he was definitely a Marxist revolutionary when I met him in 1980. It doesn’t look like he
changed a bit, he started hanging out with Bill Ayers.”

LP; “You saw him just before Obama went to Pakistan.”

Dr.Drew; “Exactly, the last time I saw Obama was June 1981, we had a graduation party for Occidental College. I guess he left from there and went on this tour in Indonesia, and somehow got into Pakistan, I guess you were not allowed to do that on a United States passport at that time.”

LP; “How long did you have an association with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “It is kind of complex, the actual time I spent with Obama was sort of brief and limited, but he was part of my social sphere in the sense I knew his roommate at the time, Chandoo, and Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialist Alliance at Occidental and my girlfriend, Caroline Boss was the co-president of that organization.”

LP; “Democratic Socialist Alliance?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, that was the Marxist student association on campus, Caroline hung up a huge banner of Karl Marx where the students met at the Occidental College Quad. She and I were pretty intense Marxists we had been involved in about a two-year relationship and she was the one who introduced me to Barack Obama, she knew him better then I did. I wouldn’t be saying he was a Marxist/Socialist revolutionary if it was just based with my face to face talk with him, my comments are based on knowing Chandoo, having known Caroline and the Marxist Professors and that whole culture.”

LP; “Another words, the people he was associated with were deep into the Marxist/Socialist ideology?”

Dr. Drew; “Oh yes, I had considered myself as the enemy of the American government at that time.”

LP: “At that particular time? And what made you change?”

Dr. Drew; “Well, the first thing that happened was kind of spiritual change, I just started having the religious experience, I realized that there was something out there which I now call a higher power. That was very inconsistent with Marxist ideology. Because Marxist taught that stuff like that was just the opium of the people, but to me it was very real, so very real. Then my Doctoral research ended up just confirming a lot of Marxist theory which comes to explain how welfare programs and how Capitalism deals with child labor and things like that. My research pulled me out of Marxism fundamentally but what started it was the spiritual change.”

LP; “How many actual face to face meetings did you have with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “I never had face to face after Christmas and in Partolo Valley California which is near Stanford. I basically spent the day with him, Chandoo, and Caroline Boss, I was visiting Boss from Cornell where I was studying. I graduated ahead of them but I had come back for the trip to be with Caroline. We hung out with Obama and Chandoo for that day and went out to lunch then we ended up arguing pretty late in the evening about Marxist and politics. Whether or not there would be a revolution, a Communist style revolution in the United States. The key takeaway there is that I may have been one of the first people in the world to confront Barack Obama’s kind of silly belief, Marxist idea that there was going to be an inevitable Communist revolution coming to the United States. I feel in my heart that I had persuaded him that that wasn’t in the cards and it wasn’t going to happen and at the end of that time he believed me. I think a bunch of us, Marxist Communist style people were turned off by a Communist style revolution I think that Obama would have heard that from someone else eventually, but from his reaction, I think I was the first person that he could identify as an ally, and a friend and supporter who sincerely believes that there would never be a Communist style revolution. That debate I think helped Obama intellectually, but it helped seal the end of my romantic relationship with Marxist.”

LP; “Obama was a student there the whole time?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes he was a student at Occidental College and he was taking classes from Roger Boesche, who was a political theorist on campus. Roger was definitely a Socialist. Most of the students followed him as a Marxist revolutionary, but he was kind of precise with that and did not see himself as a Marxist. I would say that 100% of the students considered him to be a Marxist/Socialist.”

LP; “Obama had to have some sort of girlfriends, or was he kind of all alone.”

Dr. Drew; “I think this is very unusual but I can say that I saw Barack Obama about 3 or 4 other times on campus and off campus at parties. As God as my witness, I can say that I never saw Barack Obama with a young woman. I never saw any romantic connections with a young woman or even any socializing with a young woman that had a romantic nature.”

LP; “So he was pretty much by himself all the time?”

Dr. Drew; “I am just a small piece of the puzzle, but if I had ever seen him with a girl, I would be happy to say that, but I did not notice that. If anything I thought that the young Obama was kind of the feminine and he seemed to have a very strong emotional tie to Hasan Chandoo.”

LP; “Now did Chandoo have a girlfriend?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo did have a girlfriend, her name was Margot Mifflin. It was kind of interesting that Chandoo had a girlfriend, Margot Mifflin, who is still in the news today, she is a professor at I think NYU. Caroline Boss had a boyfriend, me, and I am in the news about Barack Obama, but there is not a single girl out there that says she was Obama’s girlfriend.”

LP; “I seem to recall an article you wrote about Obama riding in a big fancy car with Chandoo.”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo was very wealthy and he drove a very expensive, very nice luxury car. It was ten times better then the normal Occidental student would drive. One of my theories is that Barack Obama had a good time at Occidental College because of the financial generosity of Chandoo. That was one of the places that Obama learned that rich people would give him money just because he was a nice handsome ideologically consistent person.”

LP: “Do you know or did any one say he had a Visa when he was going to Occidental?”

Dr. Drew; “That I don’t have any knowledge of I don’t I called him Barry, but I don’t remember if he was introduced as Barry Soetoro or Barry Obama. I just remember I called him Barry and I don’t know anything about his citizen
status.”

LP; “How long did he hang around with Chandoo?”

Dr. Drew; “Chandoo is a life long friend of Barack Obama. Chandoo attended Obama’s marriage to Michelle, I think that was 1992 or 1993 or something like that. Chandoo was at their marriage and he was also at a recent Ramadan Dinner at the White House. He is one of those $600,000 bundlers for Obama. Chandoo has been a part of Obama’s life at least since 1980.”

LP; “So Chandoo is a bundler for Obama too?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo would go out and raise contributions from people then put all those checks in a bundle, then deliver it over to the campaign headquarters.”

LP:” Is Chandoo a US Citizen or is he a Pakistani?”

Dr. Drew; “He is living in New York, in America.”

LP: “About how many hours had you spent with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “I would say that altogether it was about 10 to 12 hours.”

LP; “During that time did Obama display the Marxist ideology?”

Dr. Drew; “We were confiding in each other the way people fight with each other people with major historical struggles in communicating, very down to earth, very honest. Like I said, I am ashamed of my Socialist/Marxist past, I have a conversion story which explains how I became a Christian, Constitutional Conservative. Barack Obama has no conversion story. There is a story about how he stopped being a Marxist, if anything his career, life shows an alarming consistency in his ideological extremism.”

LP; “Do you see the same Marxist ideology now with Barack Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, especially when he talks about the people holding on to their guns and religion because of economic stress. That is a Marxist idea. Everything he says about it being a good idea to spread the wealth around; that is Marxist/Socialist concepts. Some of the statements Obama makes about things inevitably get better, I think that is a Marxist ideological remnants.”

LP; “I noticed in one of your articles you said it would never happen but Obama said yes it will.”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, I remember that very clearly, even some 20 years later because he thought I was nuts. He thought that I was going against everything he had been taught at Occidental College. I persuaded him, I told Obama there has never been a revolution in Italy, France, Germany, why would you expect one here in America? I said revolutions only occur in backwards raring economies, like China, Vietnam or Russia, not in America.”

LP; “How did he accept your idea?”

Dr. Drew; “I think he believed that the economic stresses would pile up worse and worse and after the stresses built up they would just build up to a breaking point where a new group would take over the country. That would be a large group of workers, students, young people, those who were enlightened by Marxist/Socialist ideology would end up running things.”

LP: “Did Obama ever mention Cloward/Pivens?”

Dr. Drew; “No never did, but he might have bumped into her when he was at Columbia because she taught at Columbia. Part of my research disconcerns the Piven and Cloward teachings that welfare programs rise in reaction to violence and rioting from the lower class. I was able to show that that was not true in America. I perceive Obama as being an out and out liar; hiding his real views from the American people. I think those views are deeply objectionable to most people and I am shocked that more media attention hasn’t been focused on vetting Obama and getting down to brass tacks about how he really is.” (see additional information at end.(1))

LP: “Did Obama ever throw money around when he was with Chandoo?”

Dr. Drew; “He hung with Chandoo, but the impression I had with Obama was that they were both very wealthy. I thought that Barack Obama was a descendent from royalty from the way he carries himself. It did turn out that he did spend his summers on the grounds of the palace of the sultan of Jakarta in Indonesia. According to David Remnick,(“The Bridge, Alfred A. Knopf, 2010, page 104”), that is where Obama would spend his summers. So he actually did grow up on the grounds of an Indonesian Palace. Through his step-father, Lolo Soertoro, he actually had ties to the royal family.” (See addition below(2).)

Now with all this stated by Dr. Drew, one has to ask, has Barack Obama moved away from his Marxist, Radical, Socialist Ideology? Has Barack Obama, the man holding the highest office in the United States “hidden” his true agenda, the one he so proudly proclaimed while at Occidental College? One must now consider: just what are the President’s motives behind producing continued debt upon the United States? Is this meant to further what Dr. Drew so clearly remembers: End Capitalism?

These questions should have been asked in 2008. They must be answered in truth today as the American people continue daily to struggle with the Marxist/Socialist ideals foist upon them by Barack Hussein Obama dedicated to them, ideals which have yet to succeed in all of human history. Some pundits state this is a propaganda used historically by Marxist and Socialist regimes, using the single word “forward” as their base. Has Obama finally given America a true reflection of his days as a revolutionary radical Marxist/Socialist?

(1.) My take on Piven and Cloward is included in my published doctoral dissertation in this book, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects. I demonstrated that there was no relationship between street violence or riots and the later rise of the Progressive Era Mothers’ Pensions movement.”

(2.) Information about how Obama’s mother lived on the grounds of the palace of the Sultan of Yogakarta is available in David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, on pages 84-88.

Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

WHEN

Looking back thru the past 4 years, many “Whens” pop up. Read them all to better understand where we are going as a country….

WHEN – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn’t matter.WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.WHEN – it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and ‘stating’ that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN –he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people woke up— but it was too late. Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is determined to turn America into a Marxist-Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an Internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.

Will it read as above or will it be a happier ending for most of America?

Don’t just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. We all need to pull together or watch the demise of a free democratic society. Pray for Americans to seek the truth and take action for it will keep us FREE. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, NorthKorea or Iran. Our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington, DC . The government will not help, so we need to do it ourselves.

Question….will you delete this, or pass it on to others who don’t know about Obama’s actions and plans for the USA , so that they may know how to vote in November, 2012 and the ensuing years?

It’s your decision. I believe it does matter. How about you? WHEN– November 2012 comes, it will matter who you vote for!

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Silence is NOT an Option

Home / 2012 Election /

Christians, Silence is Not an Option

By Clash Daily / 12 August 2012 / 35 Comments

by Matt Barber

With the exception of one column previously penned, I pray this becomes my most widely read to date.

The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.

Let’s beat them at their own game.

To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.

Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.

Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?

In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.

One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.

Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.

Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?

It’s definitely not your father’s USA.

Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?

Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.

That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”

Baloney.

If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.

So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.

But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).

“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”

“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”

Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.

Don’t let them halt the second.

We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.

Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.

Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”

Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.

Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?
The possibilities are limitless.

Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”

Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.

Because silence is not an option.

It can’t be.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

THE MASK HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

All the commentaries, all the pundit debates and all the “talking-Heads” spin has finally been unmasked to reveal the Left for what they are; Extreme Leftist Collectivist Socialist.

What we have said for a long time now has been exposed when President Obama went “off monitor”. Using his best “Black-Gospel-Preacher” style, while being stirred on by his audience of screaming followers, he didn’t stick to the script, spoke from the heart, and said;

Not anyone who started and developed a business did so without the aid of the government in one form or another.
- In reality, no politicians would have the position they have without the people they are supposed to serve elect them to office. “How about giving back to the ones that put you there?”That aid came in the form of streets, highways, rail and other transportation/shipping avenues.
The business you invested time (many times sleepless nights and 40 plus hours a week), effort and your own money to build could not have happened without the government.
Because the government and the collective population of taxpayers provided all this so you could build your business, you need to give the collective more of your earnings and profits.
- So does God. He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. Yet they are trying their best to exclude Him from society, drive Him out of all national discussions and revoke His will established in the creation of The United States of America.
In summary, “We the Leftist government, ruling over the collective, will take from you whatever we believe fair to give more ‘gimmies’ to the people who won’t work. As a result, we will have a permanent voting block greater than those who are working because we will have over 50% of the collective dependent on the government. Therefore, we will always stay in power and all other political parties can cease to exist.”

That is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they prayerfully created our government and wrote the Constitution;

They did not want the government to rule the people, but to be an extension of the citizens wills and desires.
They designed a government that SERVED the citizens and not the people serving government.
They designed the government to have as little effect on the citizens’ lives as possible.
They designed a government to provide the protection necessary against attack from foreign enemies.
They designed a government to serve the people by aiding them in their lives and commerce by building roads and transportation systems.
They designed a nation of laws to punish violence against society, the corrupt and swindlers. This served the citizens by setting up a structure that was comfortable for the pursuit of life, liberty and property.
They designed a Representative Republic (NOT a democracy) so the citizens could send to Washington, and their states, those who would work on their behalf according to the will of those citizens.
They restricted the powers of the three parts of the government so that no one could make changes in our government and nation without the citizen’s approval.
They created a government the people would own, operate by representatives, and submit to the laws established, and the forces approved, to adjudicate those laws.
They designed a government that would NOT take from the people their liberty, freedom and property.

According to the perspective of the “Obama Gang”, the original intent and design of the government does not matter. They want to recreate the United States of America in their Collective Socialist mindsets and the hell with freedom they do not approve. Listening to them as they try to explain their positions tells you how stupid and incapable THEY THINK the citizens of the United States of America are. They are convinced they are smarter that everyone outside of their Collective and therefore, can do what they want, lie to you about their actions, and force you to obey.

Their demonic hunger for power has corrupted every aspect of the Left. If they continue to win every election, they will have the insurmountable control of all aspects of government and the supporting organizations as well. They will have taken over the nation without firing a shot, redesign the government that has nothing to do with the original Constitution, and we will have a Socialist pretend democracy like Western Europe.

Everyone I listen to agrees that this election is the most important of our nation’s history. We must continue to unmask the Left and let everyone see how horrible The Left really is. I do not know that it will take another revolution. I do wonder how many patriots we do have that are willing to give their lives to regain the freedom our Founding Fathers fought to give us, in the event we do need to fight another revolution?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Say It Long Enough

I am among a growing number of people who are getting real tired of the Left spewing lies as the quote their daily required talking-points. No matter what the question, the Lefty Puppet will say what they are programmed. Of course the answer has nothing to do with the subject at hand, the question being asked or any form of sense. The Talking Points have to be repeated ad nauseam, no matter what.

Case in point: SCOTUS (Chief Justice Roberts) pulls the mask off the monster and identifies Obama-Care as a tax. That day, the Left ran around all the talk shows celebrating that SCOTUS found the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, when in fact SCOTUS did not. However, the next day, and up to this point, they determined that all the American people, not just their mind numbed robots, forgot at the tax celebration, and now insist it is a penalty for not buying health insurance. No matter who is asking any questions about the ruling, the answers are the same canned pomposity. When challenged, they over talk the interviewer and continue their diatribe.

Next point: The new focus for the Left is Mitt Romney’s finances. The running theme is, “He is an evil rich guy who does not understand you, care for you and will take everything you have and give it to his buddies.” Of course they side step any discussion of Senator Kerry, Kennedy and other super rich Democrats such as George Soros. You also notice there is never mentioning how the Democrats never want to talk about how they vote themselves exclusions to any tax law they pass? Yes, the Republicans are just as guilty of the exclusions.

The hypocrisy is rampant in Washington. Right or left. We need to get back to the real issues; the economy, jobs, close our borders and repeal Obama-care. Mitt Romney needs to get busy focusing in on how he proposes to fix things, dictate the national conversation around that, and forget all this mud-slinging.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

ARE YOU LISTENING?

The drum beats got louder today, originating in a Florida courtroom. The lead investigator, who was responsible for the charge of Second Degree Murder, testified under oath that he had no evidence or eyewitness testimony indicating who started the fight. In one answer, he undermined the State’s case for Second Degree Murder. This was following Zimmerman’s surprise taking of the witness stand to apologize to the family for the loss of their son. On cross-examination, Zimmerman remained unscathed, no matter how the unprepared Prosecutor tried to get damaging testimony out of him.

The Drum Beats of a Racial War are getting louder by the minute. With this turn in the Zimmerman case, an acquittal (because the Prosecution’s overreach for 2^nd Degree Murder) will be the excuse the Black Left needs to launch the war they have prepared. Broadcast on national television, and radio, a representative of the New Black Panther Party announced their intention of such a racial war. Are you listening? Are you ready?

Another important question looms gigantic. Why hasn’t the Black Panthers been arrested and prosecuted for making terrorist threats against Zimmerman when they went before the cameras issuing a $1 million award the arrest of Zimmerman, or his death? If any of us did that, we wouldn’t have gotten but a few feet before we would be arrested for issuing a terrorist threat, making a contract for murder and encouraging a riot. So why hasn’t Attorney General Holder done just that? “Mr. President, please explain why this hasn’t happened?”

According to the New Black Panther Party, the race war they are warning about is suppose eclipse anything the world has ever seen. They publicly forecast blood running in the streets. Their Left Wing partners have remained so silent about this, making that silence deafening. No Left Wing Pundits rushing to the cameras of their willing media partners, and when asked about it, they produce an answer that makes you think a different question was asked. No outrage, no distancing themselves from the words, threats and murder contract.

It begs the question, “If someone from the White Racist group made a similar threat, and used the same words against anyone of non-white race, what would the outcry be like from the Left?” Therefore, their obvious silence speaks volumes of their agreement and support of the New Black Party’s contract, comments and threats.

Speaking as a Christian man, I know the only answer is a genuine Holy Spirit revival in this country. Only God can change the hearts of men. All we can do is get ready for the tribulation looming in the horizon. Get our hearts right with God, and seek His wisdom on how we need to prepare our family, community and church.

It’s getting louder. Are you paying attention?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

How About That Herman Cain?

I’m nearly 65 years old and have been active follower of politics for over over 40 years. Like you I’ve heard all the various arguments, the ideology and baseless charges about the “other side”. I admit I am growing tired of all the rhetoric and aggravated with the “pundits” telling me that what I am thinking is not right, and they are smarter than the rift-raft that is anything other than themselves (i.e., Cable News Anchors and Commentators). I’m even getting fed up with O’Rielly. I am seeing a growing number of people like me. Maybe, they are underestimating our research and influence.

A perfect example is Herman Cain. Since the first time I heard him speak I have been a fan. The more I hear him, the more I like him. I’ve been thrilled at his growth in the polls, and yet all the “big-mouths” want to put us down saying he has no chance. No Chance? Let’s take a look at Mr. Cain as compared to President Obama as a candidate;

Herman Cain has years of Corporate Leadership experience employing people and delivering a great product. He has dealt with budgets, business ups and downs, and the art of negotiating. As a candidate, Barack Obama had none of this experience, and got elected.
Herman Cain’s number one attribute for me is that he is NOT, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POLITICIAN. We have had over two hundred years of what politicians can do for us. It’s time to let a business man do it right.
I get angry every time I hear someone point out his lack of experience (especially those supporters of President Obama). Do I really have to list his vast experience as a leader, as a profit maker, as an employer, as a community leader, as a local, State and National tax producer as an employer and his experience with many other business as an adviser.
His 999 plan may not be perfect, but non of the others are even understandable. Sorry pundits, and that includes you Mr. “RINO” Romney, more often than not the simple answers work out to be the longest running solution to an over complicated problem.

By the way, do I really have to explain to you that the complicated tax code is for the subjugation of the American People? In the last several years we’ve heard multiple examples of people on the left making millions of dollars and NOT paying taxes. Why is it that when they are being considered for political office, or another movie role, do these back taxes become an issue?

There is so much more I want to say, but I am wrung out now because of a major crisis that hit our family recently. However I leave you with this. Do we want another politician ignoring us for the next four years, are we ready for REAL CHANGE and give men like Herman Cain with Newt Genrich as his Vice President a chance to go in there and kick some tail?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Obama’

Posted by Jack Davis September 10, 2015

Constitution 1; Obama 0.

Share this:

Posted By Chuck Norris On 08/30/2015

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”?

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.”

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

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.

Share this:

Friends

Share this:

By Julian Hattem – 08/26/15

Share this:

By Ben Wolfgang and Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Monday, August 24, 2015

California solar power station burning, killing birds in mid-air

By Nicole Mortillaro Science and Weather Reporter Global News

A total of 141 dead birds were collected by officials over one year and five months, which included the construction phase. Of those, 47 died due to solar flux injury. The birds’ feathers were curled, charred, melted or broken.

Share this:

Aug. 25, 2015 Posted by Fred Lucas

Share this:

Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/19/2015

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 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.”

Share this:

Share this:

BY: Adam Kredo August 10, 2015

Share this:

By Marita Noon

Share this:

Share this:

Posted by Bethany Salgado; August 4, 2015

Share this:

July 27, 2015 Authored by Daniel Greenfield

“If this deal goes through the Obama administration becomes the leading financier of terrorism against Americans in the world. I’ve heard this referred to before as the “Jihadist Stimulus Bill.”

Ted Cruz is clearly correct.

Share this:

by Jordan Schachtel24 Jul 2015Washington, DC

President Barack Obama admitted Friday that the Iran deal, which allows Tehran to access an estimated $100-150 billion dollars in frozen assets, would let the theocratic regime better finance terrorist organizations.

Separately, rumors surfaced Friday in Arabic media that the administration is considering removing a prominent Iran-backed Shiite militia from the U.S. list of recognized terrorist groups.

Share this:

by Joel B. Pollak 21 Jul 2015

But what I said to our negotiators was, given that Iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran’s activities, let’s press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that.

We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles.

Yet since the deal was passed, Iranian leaders have claimed that it agreed to no restrictions on ballistic missiles, or that the UN Security Council resolution did not apply to its missile programs, since they are ostensibly not related to nuclear weapons.

Share this:

Posted By Paul Joseph Watson On July 17, 2015

Share this:

By Patrick Goodenough | July 7, 2015

“It is important for us as Kenyans to know that the U.S. is not God,” local media quoted evangelical Bishop Mark Kariuki as saying, adding that Obama should not use the visit to “talk about the gay issue.”

Irungu Kangata, a lawmaker in President Uhuru Kenyatta’s The National Alliance (TNA) party, was blunter: “We are telling Mr. Obama when he comes to Kenya this month and he tries to bring the abortion agenda, the gay agenda, we shall tell him to shut up and go home.”

‘Everybody has to be treated equally’

Share this:

Written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on July 3, 2015

In an attempt to steer clear of punishment, local lawmakers will have to respond to the new EPA rules by enacting municipal grilling bans and canceling fireworks shows from sea to shining sea.

Enjoy your smoke-belching pick-up with the gun rack and the American flag waving off the railing while you can folks, because don’t think for a second they’re not ALL in Obama’s sights.

I am personally astonished by the speed in which he is destroying this nation and our deeply-held fundamental beliefs and traditions. It is the now the final act in the tragic drama of the Obama presidency and we haven’t even seen the grande finale.

Share this:

Posted By Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015

Share this:

Published by FoxNews.com June 24, 2015

Critics worry they could also encourage more kidnappings, while effectively aiding the enemy.

Share this:

Published by BarbWire; on 21 June, 2015

Radicalization isn’t transformational; it’s incremental.

Radicalization doesn’t begin with a sheikh on social media. It begins at home. It begins in the mosque. It just ends with ISIS.

Share this:

an amendment to bar the ATF’s “discretion to arbitrarily reclassify ammunition for political reasons”;

a prohibition on the use of federal funds for “Operation Choke Point,” a program that curtails some gun shops’ access to banking services;

a prohibition on the use of funds to maintain any record or gun registry on multiple rifle or shotgun sales to law-abiding citizens;

and a prohibition on the use of funds for collecting data regarding a person’s race or ethnicity when purchasing a firearm.

Share this:

This is not a treaty, it’s a trade agreement. Too many people are confusing the TPA with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a treaty. I do believe confusion is exactly what is being perpetrated on the American people at this point in order to advance the agenda.

The House on Thursday took the first step toward resuscitating the White House’s trade agenda by passing legislation granting President Obama fast-track authority.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the White House and GOP leaders are seeking to strike a deal with pro-trade Democrats.

Share this:

By Kyle Becker

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.