Venezuelan opposition parties obtained a two thirds majority in their new Assembly. But, the communist Maduro regime is trying to thwart the opposition by a judicial coup. Maduro appointed extra judges to the Suprweme Court to invalidate 9 of the elections to deprive the opposition of a super majority.
http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-opposition-warns-judicial-coup-maduro-185351061.html
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Trump solidifying lead among women and minorities.
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/11/Trump.png
Editor’s Note: This is another in a series of reports on the polling by Clout Research, a national opinion research firm in Columbus, Ohio, for WND.com.Pundits might point to billionaire Donald Trump’s huge lead in the GOP presidential primary race as being the result of his generally anti-Washington, anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-politically correct attitude.
Donald Trump
If so, it’s not just whites who are ticked at the bureaucracy, but minorities too.
Because a new poll, which still has Trump leading the race, shows 40 percent of blacks are lining up behind Trump, as are 45 percent of Hispanics, and even nearly 19 percent of Asians.
Blacks and Hispanics, in fact, even support Trump at a higher level than whites.
The results are from a new WND/Clout poll by Clout Research, a national opinion research firm in Columbus, Ohio. The telephone survey of registered voters was taken Dec. 18-27, except for the holiday, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.35 percentage points.
Only Dr. Ben Carson pulled more support from the black community than Trump, at 50 percent, and no one had more support from Hispanics than Trump. Among Asians, 37.5 percent supported Sen. Marco Rubio, with Sen. Ted Cruz matching Trump’s 18.8 percent.
Among whites, Trump was far and away the leader, with 37.7 percent of the respondents. Cruz was second at 25.1 percent.
The rankings put Trump in the No. 1 slot, Cruz second at 23.3 percent, Rubio third at 10.1, Carson fourth at 9.4 percent, and Jeb Bush fifth at six percent.
Explained Fritz Wenzel, chief of Clout Polling, “The Republican presidential primary preference nationally remains unchanged through the Christmas holiday and heading into the New Year, as Donald Trump continues to lead by double digits.
“The newish development of Sen. Ted Cruz rising and now solidifying his top-tier stature is likely going to remain for the coming weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. But the rise of Cruz signals nothing new in this race, as voters continue to voice their complete dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment. Cruz merely supplanted Carson as a more conservative outsider alternative to Trump.”
He said a key will be whether Republicans, whose divisions have been opened by Trump’s brash criticism of the establishment and refusal to go along, can come together.
“There really is just one more act to come and question to be answered before the nomination is sealed: ‘Will the establishment coalesce behind one moderate candidate and mount a serious challenge, or will they remain divided and be conquered?’” Wenzel said.
“For this challenge to develop, three of four candidates – Bush, Rubio, Kasich and Christie – would have to step aside, and given the stakes involved, it is hard to imagine that happening in time to make a difference. The clock has now become a serious factor in this race.”
He said moderates like Trump, with a sizable chunk also favoring Marco Rubio, while conservatives favor Cruz.
“Cruz does so badly among moderates that it is hard to make a case for him as the consensus candidate. Trump’s ability at this stage of the game to gain solid support among all demographic groups makes him a significant favorite to win the nomination. It is interesting to note that there is a significant gender gap inside the race for the GOP nomination – as Trump wins only 29 percent support among men but wins 47 percent support among women who will be voting in the GOP primary elections. Among conservative women voting in the GOP primaries, Trump wins 53 percent support,” Wenzel reported.
The survey shows Trump collecting nearly 40 percent of the GOP support, but also 31 percent of the independents and even 26-plus percent of the Democrats.
While Ohio Gov. John Kasich gets 31 percent of the Democrats who responded to the poll, most other candidates share tiny fractions. Only Cruz was event close to Trump, with 21 percent of the Democrats, 24 percent of the GOP and 21 percent of the independents.
It showed Trump dominates among those voters who think of themselves as very liberal or liberal, with 60 percent and 40 percent support, respectively. But he’s no slouch among the moderate and conservatives either, with support higher than 41 percent in each group.
The rest of the support was splintered among the candidates.
The question: “If you were voting today in your state’s primary or caucus election for the Republican nomination for president, and the candidates were, in alphabetical order, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?”
Among men and women, Trump also had far and away leads, with 30 percent of the men and more than 46 percent of the women. Only Cruz was within sight, with about 23 percent of support from each group.
Trump dominated, too, among the religious categories, getting 40 percent support from Protestants, 30 percent from Catholics, 40 percent of Jews and more. Trump also dominated among the age groups as well as across all geographic regions in the country
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/minorities-line-up-behind-donald-trump/#IIZgbf1vGth5Ybl1.99
Bill Bennett's perspective on Trump.
Subject: Interesting Take On Trump
A fast-paced, eye-opening morning show
featuring intelligent conversation with top guests from the worlds of politics,
media, sports and entertainment.
What is said below is exactly what is now
happening.
They will kill him before they let him be
president. It could be a Republican or
Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump. Don't be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack
Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name
just a few. It's about the unholy
dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars
from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one
another. It’s one for all and all for
one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes
everyone filthy rich — everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal
and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared.
The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the
media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely
angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened like never
before.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary,
the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice
cozy apple cart. It’s no coincidence
that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It’s because most of the other politicians
are part of the “old boys club.” They
talk big, but they won’t change a thing.
They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions,
lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations .
. . like Big Pharma or Big Oil. Or they
are owned lock, stock and barrel by foreigners, like George Soros owns Obama or
foreign governments that own Hillary with their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians
are all puppets owned by big money. But
there’s one man who isn’t beholden to anyone.
There’s one man who doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or
George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teachers’ union, or the
Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his
campaign. Billionaire tycoon and maverick
Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help.
That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites
think. That makes him very dangerous to
the entrenched interests. That makes
Trump a huge threat to those people.
Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled
slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never
tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you
wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually
try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why
Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or
Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right? First, I’d guess many key Republicans are
being bribed. Secondly, I believe many
key Republicans are being blackmailed.
Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer
money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about
that. The government even knew he was
withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other
three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political
leader. They surveil everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called “racists” . . . so they
are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his
impeachment. Fourth , why rock the
boat? After defeat or retirement, if
you’re a “good boy,” you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job
waiting. The big-money interests have
the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Obama regime sabotages fight against ISIS.
Ministry accuses Pentagon of imitating fight against Islamic State Russian Politics & Diplomacy December 28, 15:39 UTC+3 MOSCOW
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman thus commented regarding the recent statement by the Pentagon spokesperson who confirmed that the US didn't intend to share the information on IS targets with Moscow . The Pentagon, refusing to transfer the data on terrorist targets in Syria to the Russian military, continues to fight against the Islamic State terrorist group "in word only", Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told reporters on Monday. He thus commented on a recent statement by the Pentagon spokesperson Michelle Baldanza who confirmed that the US military did not intend to share with Moscow the information on IS targets until Russia changes its policy towards Syrian President Bashar Assad. "We are not going to cooperate with Russia on Syria until they change their strategy of supporting Assad and instead focus on ISIL (IS)," Baldanza said. "The hackneyed thesis has once again confirmed that the Pentagon will fight against IS in word only, instead of taking real action," Konashenkov said. "The statement by the US Defense Department spokesperson Michelle Baldanza about the [US side’s] refusal from any cooperation in the fight against Islamic State is a broken record, and it’s high time to change it," he said. The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said that at last week’s news briefing of the chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, General Sergey Rudskoy, the military presented data on changes in the routes of illegal transportation of oil by the Islamic State militants.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the new routes run through the north-western regions of Iraq, which "are in the focus of constant attention of the United States." "We publicly told our American colleagues that it is necessary not to discuss the IS activities in Iraq, but to take real action to block the terrorists’ sources of income in the region," Konashenkov said. Read also Ministry: Western media use Russian footage to illustrate US military success in Syria Russian Foreign Ministry: US "surgical strikes" on IS shouldn't result in plastic surgery US to use all capabilities to fight Islamic State terrorists — Obama German politician blames West for emergence of Islamic State US congressman says Russia is delivering more strikes at IS positions than United States On December 25, Sergey Rudskoy told journalists that Russian intelligence found almost 12,000 tank/delivery trucks on the Turkish-Iraqi border near Zakho, where the ‘eastern’ oil smuggling route used by the Islamic State terrorist group runs. "As of the time the imagery was shot, there were 11,775 tank and delivery trucks on both sides of the Turkish-Iraqi border in the vicinity of Zakho, with 4,530 of them in Turkey and 7,250 in Iraq," he added. "It is worth mentioning that oil extracted both in Iraq and in Syria is smuggled via the checkpoint there," he added. The Defense Ministry had said previously that the Russia-banned Islamic State’s eastern oil smuggling route led from the oilfields in Syria’s northeast and Iraq’s northwest to Turkey via the border towns of Kara Chokh, Cham Khanik, Tavan and Zakho. Since the beginning of the operation in Syria, Russian aircraft have taken out around 2,000 tank trucks operated by the militants. "Thirty-seven oil wells and refineries operated by the terrorists and 17 tank truck convoys hauling oil products have been eliminated over the last week," Rudskoi said. The Russian military launched an air operation against the militants with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria on September 30 by request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Russian air task force in Syria included over 50 aircraft, including Su-34 (NATO reporting name: Fullback) and Su-24M (Fencer) tactical bombers, Su-25 (Frogfoot) attack aircraft, Su-30SM (Flanker-H) multirole fighters and Mi-8 (Hip) and Mi-24 (Hind) helicopters. The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement in mid-November that it would focus its strikes on the oil production, storage, refining and transportation facilities controlled by Islamic State militants.More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380
More:
http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380
AJ adds: The Obama regime is in bed with ISIS from the beginning. Obama's henchmen sent weapons to Al Qaeda, allowing the cancer in Syria to metastasize as ISIS. Now, Obama operatives routinely sabotage our troops efforts. They call the sabotage "rules of engagement."
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman thus commented regarding the recent statement by the Pentagon spokesperson who confirmed that the US didn't intend to share the information on IS targets with Moscow . The Pentagon, refusing to transfer the data on terrorist targets in Syria to the Russian military, continues to fight against the Islamic State terrorist group "in word only", Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told reporters on Monday. He thus commented on a recent statement by the Pentagon spokesperson Michelle Baldanza who confirmed that the US military did not intend to share with Moscow the information on IS targets until Russia changes its policy towards Syrian President Bashar Assad. "We are not going to cooperate with Russia on Syria until they change their strategy of supporting Assad and instead focus on ISIL (IS)," Baldanza said. "The hackneyed thesis has once again confirmed that the Pentagon will fight against IS in word only, instead of taking real action," Konashenkov said. "The statement by the US Defense Department spokesperson Michelle Baldanza about the [US side’s] refusal from any cooperation in the fight against Islamic State is a broken record, and it’s high time to change it," he said. The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said that at last week’s news briefing of the chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, General Sergey Rudskoy, the military presented data on changes in the routes of illegal transportation of oil by the Islamic State militants.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the new routes run through the north-western regions of Iraq, which "are in the focus of constant attention of the United States." "We publicly told our American colleagues that it is necessary not to discuss the IS activities in Iraq, but to take real action to block the terrorists’ sources of income in the region," Konashenkov said. Read also Ministry: Western media use Russian footage to illustrate US military success in Syria Russian Foreign Ministry: US "surgical strikes" on IS shouldn't result in plastic surgery US to use all capabilities to fight Islamic State terrorists — Obama German politician blames West for emergence of Islamic State US congressman says Russia is delivering more strikes at IS positions than United States On December 25, Sergey Rudskoy told journalists that Russian intelligence found almost 12,000 tank/delivery trucks on the Turkish-Iraqi border near Zakho, where the ‘eastern’ oil smuggling route used by the Islamic State terrorist group runs. "As of the time the imagery was shot, there were 11,775 tank and delivery trucks on both sides of the Turkish-Iraqi border in the vicinity of Zakho, with 4,530 of them in Turkey and 7,250 in Iraq," he added. "It is worth mentioning that oil extracted both in Iraq and in Syria is smuggled via the checkpoint there," he added. The Defense Ministry had said previously that the Russia-banned Islamic State’s eastern oil smuggling route led from the oilfields in Syria’s northeast and Iraq’s northwest to Turkey via the border towns of Kara Chokh, Cham Khanik, Tavan and Zakho. Since the beginning of the operation in Syria, Russian aircraft have taken out around 2,000 tank trucks operated by the militants. "Thirty-seven oil wells and refineries operated by the terrorists and 17 tank truck convoys hauling oil products have been eliminated over the last week," Rudskoi said. The Russian military launched an air operation against the militants with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria on September 30 by request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Russian air task force in Syria included over 50 aircraft, including Su-34 (NATO reporting name: Fullback) and Su-24M (Fencer) tactical bombers, Su-25 (Frogfoot) attack aircraft, Su-30SM (Flanker-H) multirole fighters and Mi-8 (Hip) and Mi-24 (Hind) helicopters. The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement in mid-November that it would focus its strikes on the oil production, storage, refining and transportation facilities controlled by Islamic State militants.More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380More:http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380
More:
http://tass.ru/en/politics/847380
AJ adds: The Obama regime is in bed with ISIS from the beginning. Obama's henchmen sent weapons to Al Qaeda, allowing the cancer in Syria to metastasize as ISIS. Now, Obama operatives routinely sabotage our troops efforts. They call the sabotage "rules of engagement."
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Europe's anti-immigration parties.
Europe's elites are similarly disposed toward their population as are our elites are to us. Namely, they despise Christianity and are multiculturalists. So, it is no surprise that they embrace the idea of welcoming the Muslim invasion of Europe. After all, as far as they are concerned, all cultures are equivalent and we do not have the right to cling to ours. And especially not thing that ours may be better.
Not surprisingly, the European population is becoming aware of the dire consequences of the Muslim invasion and is beginning to respond to parties that are opposed to it. A brief summary of the anti invasion parties of Europe follows along with a more detailed analysis of where they stand.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629022/EU-migration-crisis-far-right-parties-Europe-Germany-Sweden-France
Please note that the Express is written by Socialists, so to them "far right" means anyone not Socialist, maybe Christian and those opposed to the Muslim invasion.
Europe's anti invasion parties are as varied as the leadership and founders of these movements. Some are Socialist, some are not. Some have tinges of anti-Semitism, most do not. What is clear is that the Muslim invasion (ultimately the consequence of the Obama regime's embrace of radical Muslims in the Middle East and Egypt) has created a political convulsion in Europe that has serious political consequences. How this convulsion will play out is not clear now.
The parties in question are:
France: The National Front(FP). There are two parts to this led by a Mother-Daughter combo.
Austria: The Freedom Party (FPD).
Denmark: People's Party (DP).
Finland: Finnish Party(PS).A Leftist Party.
Germany: Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD).
Greece: Golden Dawn.
Hungary: FIDESZ and Jobbik.
Italy: Northern League.
Netherlands: Party for Freedom (PVV).
Sweden: Swedush Democrats (SD).
Switzerland: Swiss People's Party (SVP).
When Hungary refused to tolerate the invasion and built a razor wire fence on its Southern border, European elites responded with investigations and threats of sanctions. Remember that Hungary is the same country that opened its boarders to German refugees as they fled East Germany toward West Germany. It ultimately brought down the Communist world. Let's hope that Hungary's courageous stand against the Muslim invasion will bring down the anti-Christian Socialist Elite of Europe.
Not surprisingly, the European population is becoming aware of the dire consequences of the Muslim invasion and is beginning to respond to parties that are opposed to it. A brief summary of the anti invasion parties of Europe follows along with a more detailed analysis of where they stand.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629022/EU-migration-crisis-far-right-parties-Europe-Germany-Sweden-France
Please note that the Express is written by Socialists, so to them "far right" means anyone not Socialist, maybe Christian and those opposed to the Muslim invasion.
Europe's anti invasion parties are as varied as the leadership and founders of these movements. Some are Socialist, some are not. Some have tinges of anti-Semitism, most do not. What is clear is that the Muslim invasion (ultimately the consequence of the Obama regime's embrace of radical Muslims in the Middle East and Egypt) has created a political convulsion in Europe that has serious political consequences. How this convulsion will play out is not clear now.
The parties in question are:
France: The National Front(FP). There are two parts to this led by a Mother-Daughter combo.
Austria: The Freedom Party (FPD).
Denmark: People's Party (DP).
Finland: Finnish Party(PS).A Leftist Party.
Germany: Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD).
Greece: Golden Dawn.
Hungary: FIDESZ and Jobbik.
Italy: Northern League.
Netherlands: Party for Freedom (PVV).
Sweden: Swedush Democrats (SD).
Switzerland: Swiss People's Party (SVP).
When Hungary refused to tolerate the invasion and built a razor wire fence on its Southern border, European elites responded with investigations and threats of sanctions. Remember that Hungary is the same country that opened its boarders to German refugees as they fled East Germany toward West Germany. It ultimately brought down the Communist world. Let's hope that Hungary's courageous stand against the Muslim invasion will bring down the anti-Christian Socialist Elite of Europe.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
The definition of schlonged.
"If Donald Trump was still running the Miss Universe Pageant, Steve Harvey would have been schlonged by now." -Mark Steyn
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Radical America through racial transformation.
AJ begins: The American Left is borrowing from the Venezuelan experience in transforming the US into a Communist state. In Venezuela a charismatic leader of Indian descent was able to mobilize racial minorities and Leftists and took power. What followed was NOT atypical of a Communist state: economic chaos, the ruin of agriculture and food distribution and the ultimate symbol of the failure of Communists in power: A SHORTAGE OF TOILET PAPER. The people of Venezuela finally rebelled at voted the Communists out of power by a two thirds majority. But, will the Communists hand over power?
Obama and his regime and its followers are trying to duplicate the Venezuelan experience. Hence the opening of the border to the influx of Central Americans and the settlement of Syrians. Here is an analysis of the direction of what the American Left is doing to transfer the US.
"You have a secretary of state who's unafraid to acknowledge that he'd be perfectly willing and is looking forward to seizing Exxon's assets, a worldwide multinational corporation, simply because of the way they talk about global warming. How in the world can we still have Republicans or conservatives thinking that all this is something akin to a debate in the faculty lounge at Harvard or Yale? How can it be that so many people still fail to come to grips with what we're up against? And that all of this in the country, support for Trump or anybody other than an establishment candidate, is patriotism? It's not racism or sexism or bigotry or any of these things. It's people who love their country, who see it being snatched away from them, who see it being transformed before their very eyes.
How can you not, with the borders wide open and the influx of people who in no way, shape, manner or form even understand where they're coming except for the fact that it's a welfare state, or it's something to undermine. If you happen to be a terrorist sleeper cell member, it's a place to come to undermine, it's a place to come to get even with, it's a place to come because you think it's guilty of all these atrocities around the world for 200 years. We have made a joke of the whole concept of any new arrivals assimilating and becoming Americans because to this current crop of liberal Democrats, America is a dirty word now. America equals the white male patriarchy that has to change. We have to get rid of it. And if you think that that is an exaggeration, hang in there and be tough, because I have found a piece -- you might think it's written by a kook and a wacko and an old ball, and it is, but that's the point. The kooks and oddballs and wackos have become the mainstream; the radicals are now the mainstream.
Writer Rebecca Traister: Obama and Hillary represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the United States. This was last Wednesday. And it's not in the communist Daily Worker. It's in New York Magazine. "The current election campaign pits the forces of backlash, the old and angry --" That would be the white male power structure. "-- against the forces of frontlash. That would be the new and different." The new and different are Hillary and Obama and left-wing causes.
She posits in this piece that Obama and Hillary represent an "altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead." She said: "And while the resistance may be symptomatic of death throes, a rage at the dying of the white male light, it nonetheless presents a very real threat. ... Imagine Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in office with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court seats to fill. Voting: restricted. Immigration: halted. Abortion: banned. Equal pay: unprotected. Same-sex marriage: overturned." We can't permit this. That is the way they are mobilizing. This moment, this election, these years represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the US.
So, as far as this woman is concerned, believe me, she's not an outlier. She's mainstream. Your support for Trump or your outrage against the Washington establishment, Republican or otherwise, all it means is that you are in the white male camp, and you have always had the power, you've always been able to dictate the social norms and the political direction, you've been able to dictate everything about this country, but not anymore, because we're taking it away from you."
Obama and his regime and its followers are trying to duplicate the Venezuelan experience. Hence the opening of the border to the influx of Central Americans and the settlement of Syrians. Here is an analysis of the direction of what the American Left is doing to transfer the US.
"You have a secretary of state who's unafraid to acknowledge that he'd be perfectly willing and is looking forward to seizing Exxon's assets, a worldwide multinational corporation, simply because of the way they talk about global warming. How in the world can we still have Republicans or conservatives thinking that all this is something akin to a debate in the faculty lounge at Harvard or Yale? How can it be that so many people still fail to come to grips with what we're up against? And that all of this in the country, support for Trump or anybody other than an establishment candidate, is patriotism? It's not racism or sexism or bigotry or any of these things. It's people who love their country, who see it being snatched away from them, who see it being transformed before their very eyes.
How can you not, with the borders wide open and the influx of people who in no way, shape, manner or form even understand where they're coming except for the fact that it's a welfare state, or it's something to undermine. If you happen to be a terrorist sleeper cell member, it's a place to come to undermine, it's a place to come to get even with, it's a place to come because you think it's guilty of all these atrocities around the world for 200 years. We have made a joke of the whole concept of any new arrivals assimilating and becoming Americans because to this current crop of liberal Democrats, America is a dirty word now. America equals the white male patriarchy that has to change. We have to get rid of it. And if you think that that is an exaggeration, hang in there and be tough, because I have found a piece -- you might think it's written by a kook and a wacko and an old ball, and it is, but that's the point. The kooks and oddballs and wackos have become the mainstream; the radicals are now the mainstream.
Writer Rebecca Traister: Obama and Hillary represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the United States. This was last Wednesday. And it's not in the communist Daily Worker. It's in New York Magazine. "The current election campaign pits the forces of backlash, the old and angry --" That would be the white male power structure. "-- against the forces of frontlash. That would be the new and different." The new and different are Hillary and Obama and left-wing causes.
She posits in this piece that Obama and Hillary represent an "altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead." She said: "And while the resistance may be symptomatic of death throes, a rage at the dying of the white male light, it nonetheless presents a very real threat. ... Imagine Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in office with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court seats to fill. Voting: restricted. Immigration: halted. Abortion: banned. Equal pay: unprotected. Same-sex marriage: overturned." We can't permit this. That is the way they are mobilizing. This moment, this election, these years represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the US.
So, as far as this woman is concerned, believe me, she's not an outlier. She's mainstream. Your support for Trump or your outrage against the Washington establishment, Republican or otherwise, all it means is that you are in the white male camp, and you have always had the power, you've always been able to dictate the social norms and the political direction, you've been able to dictate everything about this country, but not anymore, because we're taking it away from you."
The Democrats quest for totaliarianism.
by Kevin D. Williamson December 20, 2015 2:00 AM @kevinNR
At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered — his remarkable words — “an enemy of the state.” He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon’s assets for the crime of “proselytizing” impermissibly about the question of global warming. An enemy of the state? That’s the Democrats’ theme for the New Year: totalitarianism. Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics. They shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people. What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities.
Hillary Rodham Clinton may do her vice-principal shtick, but Bernie Sanders is calling for “revolution,” and by “revolution” he means crushing the economic and political rights of opponents in order to prevent them from having a say in political debate. Sounding oddly like Henry Ford, he seethes as he talks about scheming foreigners and international bankers working nefariously behind the scenes to undermine American interests, while his admirers brandish such traditional symbols of totalitarianism as the hammer-and-sickle flag. They have sought to use the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of Rupert Murdoch and other political hate totems, and have long dreamt of using federal regulation to shut down conservative talk radio. They have gone to the Supreme Court to argue that they should be empowered to ban books, films, magazines, and newspapers when they desire to do so for political reasons. They are energetic suppressors of free speech. The Right cannot be indifferent to this: It is our speech that they intend to prohibit first, and it is us that they are attempting to imprison for our political views. It is possible to have a robust, energetic political discourse within the parameters of American liberalism, which cherishes freedom of speech and of inquiry, which distinguishes between public and private spheres, which relies upon the rule of law and the Bill of Rights while placing limits on the reach of the state. But if you reject that, as our so-called liberals have, then you cannot have genuine political discourse, or genuine democracy. When he was asked about having fabricated a story about Mitt Romney’s not paying taxes, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid made a straight-up might-makes-right argument: “Romney didn’t win, did he?” You cannot have much of an argument without some level of honesty, which is a problem for a country that probably is going to be subjected to yet another Clinton campaign. You cannot have much of an argument without freedom of speech, and you cannot have democracy if political activism is criminalized. The Democrats are seeking to restrict speech, and they already have criminalized politics: Ask Rick Perry about that, or Tom Delay. RELATED. The Right cannot be indifferent to this, because we simply do not have that option: It is our speech that they intend to prohibit first, and it is us that they are attempting to imprison for our political views. But the Left should not be indifferent to this, either. There are at least a few (and, one suspects, more than that) liberals of the old-fashioned variety in the Democratic party, and it is not at all clear that they are going to wish to remain part of a political organization that is seriously attempting to create a class of political prisoners, to ban books, and to drive people from their jobs and communities for their political beliefs. John Kerry cannot quite answer the question of whether one of his political rivals should be declared “an enemy of the state.” Between now and November 2016, Americans might want to think a bit about whether they wish to invest an openly totalitarian political party with the power of the presidency. — Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016
At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered — his remarkable words — “an enemy of the state.” He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon’s assets for the crime of “proselytizing” impermissibly about the question of global warming. An enemy of the state? That’s the Democrats’ theme for the New Year: totalitarianism. Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics. They shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people. What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities.
Hillary Rodham Clinton may do her vice-principal shtick, but Bernie Sanders is calling for “revolution,” and by “revolution” he means crushing the economic and political rights of opponents in order to prevent them from having a say in political debate. Sounding oddly like Henry Ford, he seethes as he talks about scheming foreigners and international bankers working nefariously behind the scenes to undermine American interests, while his admirers brandish such traditional symbols of totalitarianism as the hammer-and-sickle flag. They have sought to use the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of Rupert Murdoch and other political hate totems, and have long dreamt of using federal regulation to shut down conservative talk radio. They have gone to the Supreme Court to argue that they should be empowered to ban books, films, magazines, and newspapers when they desire to do so for political reasons. They are energetic suppressors of free speech. The Right cannot be indifferent to this: It is our speech that they intend to prohibit first, and it is us that they are attempting to imprison for our political views. It is possible to have a robust, energetic political discourse within the parameters of American liberalism, which cherishes freedom of speech and of inquiry, which distinguishes between public and private spheres, which relies upon the rule of law and the Bill of Rights while placing limits on the reach of the state. But if you reject that, as our so-called liberals have, then you cannot have genuine political discourse, or genuine democracy. When he was asked about having fabricated a story about Mitt Romney’s not paying taxes, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid made a straight-up might-makes-right argument: “Romney didn’t win, did he?” You cannot have much of an argument without some level of honesty, which is a problem for a country that probably is going to be subjected to yet another Clinton campaign. You cannot have much of an argument without freedom of speech, and you cannot have democracy if political activism is criminalized. The Democrats are seeking to restrict speech, and they already have criminalized politics: Ask Rick Perry about that, or Tom Delay. RELATED. The Right cannot be indifferent to this, because we simply do not have that option: It is our speech that they intend to prohibit first, and it is us that they are attempting to imprison for our political views. But the Left should not be indifferent to this, either. There are at least a few (and, one suspects, more than that) liberals of the old-fashioned variety in the Democratic party, and it is not at all clear that they are going to wish to remain part of a political organization that is seriously attempting to create a class of political prisoners, to ban books, and to drive people from their jobs and communities for their political beliefs. John Kerry cannot quite answer the question of whether one of his political rivals should be declared “an enemy of the state.” Between now and November 2016, Americans might want to think a bit about whether they wish to invest an openly totalitarian political party with the power of the presidency. — Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016
Monday, December 21, 2015
The Republican elite strike back.
The Republican elite is losing its mind over Trump. Essentially, the elite consists of mostly "moderate" Republicans, politicians and intellectuals who are moderately Republican. Yes, there are the "Chamber of Commerce Republicans" who want to flood the Country with low-skilled Hispanics to keep wages down. But for the most part, the elite wants to continue the slow march to Socialism and the sexual depravity championed by the Democrats. They are not the full Dollar Leftists, just the 95 cents variety.
We have not forgotten the Jeb Bush goals of getting the nomination without the base. So. Jeb Bush has sunk quite low and people turn off his commercials.
The elite is getting desperate. They are now saying that if Trump is the nominee, they will promote a third party effort from within the Republican Party:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449
People are getting sick of the Republican elite. The cowardly caving to Obama on the budget is just the latest example of how the GOP has lost its way. I suspect that the elite would be just as freaked out if Sen Cruz was nominated.
Just as an aside, the cycle predictions of Larry Edelson predict a ride through Hell between now and 2020. The elite do not care if they elect Hillary and we do take that ride. Have you noticed that when the elite nominate one of theirs (Dole, McCain and Romney come to mind) we are supposed to hold our nose but when they do not get their way, they threaten a third party suicide?
We have not forgotten the Jeb Bush goals of getting the nomination without the base. So. Jeb Bush has sunk quite low and people turn off his commercials.
The elite is getting desperate. They are now saying that if Trump is the nominee, they will promote a third party effort from within the Republican Party:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449
People are getting sick of the Republican elite. The cowardly caving to Obama on the budget is just the latest example of how the GOP has lost its way. I suspect that the elite would be just as freaked out if Sen Cruz was nominated.
Just as an aside, the cycle predictions of Larry Edelson predict a ride through Hell between now and 2020. The elite do not care if they elect Hillary and we do take that ride. Have you noticed that when the elite nominate one of theirs (Dole, McCain and Romney come to mind) we are supposed to hold our nose but when they do not get their way, they threaten a third party suicide?
Sunday, December 20, 2015
What is happening in Puerto Rico?
It's a mess. Lots of people have a finger in the pie. Basically, PR is bankrupt. And it is attracting some of the worst kind of vulture capitalists and government hacks. But, it is a laboratory of what happens with people who spend too much for what they earn:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/puerto-rico-money-debt.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/puerto-rico-money-debt.html
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
The fifth Republican debate.
CNN taped out how this debate would go: it was to be an all out attack on Trump, a cage match, as one pundit put it. That's not what happened. While there was some sniping at Trump by Jeb Bush and a war between Rubio and Cruz, everyone agreed that Barack Obama was a disastrous President.
There were divisions: 1. Rand Paul made an impassioned defense of Libertarian values, while Rubio and Christie were arguing for a more robust federal program of spying; 2. Rubio and Cruz sparred over who wanted legalization of illegals and Cruz fought off Rubio by pointing out that Rubio was twisting the facts; 3. Attempts to paint Trump as wanting to shut off the Internet fell flat as Trump told what his position really was.
There were memorable moments as well: 1. Kasich whining about lack of unity between Dems and Republicans shows that Kasich is not up to snuff as a Republican candidate (compromising with people who agenda is stupid at best and evil at worst is no basis for a Presidential candidacy); 2. Chris Christy suggesting that the US declare a 'no fly zone' in Syria and shoot down any Russian plane that violates it even if we have to go to war with Russia shows that Gov Christy has not thought this through. My favorite moment was when Cruz recounted how he would secure the border with Mexico, build the wall and make Donald Trump pay for it. That broke up everyone and help defuse the tense atmosphere CNN tried to maintain.
In the end CNN did not accomplish its aim. Several candidates mentioned that the real problem was Barak Obama and his lack of strategy to deal with ISIS and instead of fighting each other the candidates unloaded on Obama.
There were divisions: 1. Rand Paul made an impassioned defense of Libertarian values, while Rubio and Christie were arguing for a more robust federal program of spying; 2. Rubio and Cruz sparred over who wanted legalization of illegals and Cruz fought off Rubio by pointing out that Rubio was twisting the facts; 3. Attempts to paint Trump as wanting to shut off the Internet fell flat as Trump told what his position really was.
There were memorable moments as well: 1. Kasich whining about lack of unity between Dems and Republicans shows that Kasich is not up to snuff as a Republican candidate (compromising with people who agenda is stupid at best and evil at worst is no basis for a Presidential candidacy); 2. Chris Christy suggesting that the US declare a 'no fly zone' in Syria and shoot down any Russian plane that violates it even if we have to go to war with Russia shows that Gov Christy has not thought this through. My favorite moment was when Cruz recounted how he would secure the border with Mexico, build the wall and make Donald Trump pay for it. That broke up everyone and help defuse the tense atmosphere CNN tried to maintain.
In the end CNN did not accomplish its aim. Several candidates mentioned that the real problem was Barak Obama and his lack of strategy to deal with ISIS and instead of fighting each other the candidates unloaded on Obama.
Monday, December 14, 2015
The importance of the rate rise.
The magic day is almost here when the FED has to put up or shut up. It might be of interest to review what is at stake. The junk bond market is already reeling:
Note that the high yield ETF has lost value much faster than the S&P 500. Also, note the double bottom in the S&P then the recovery and just now the double top. The Stock Market is shaky. That is not all that is shaky. The Baltic Dry Index is hitting low numbers indicating that international trade is way down. Manufacturing is limping.
Increasing bank rates may reduce housing - always a big component of the US economy.
Lest we forget every 25 point rise in interest rate will increase current Federal deficit by $35T. That is, if the FED rate goes from 0-.25 to .25-.50, the deficit will increase by $35B. Some people believe that because of the weak economy and the possible increase in deficit, the FED might postpone again.
What does Larry say? According to him, his cycles all of a sudden focus on Dec 15 as a big turning point. Tomorrow might be interesting.
Note that the high yield ETF has lost value much faster than the S&P 500. Also, note the double bottom in the S&P then the recovery and just now the double top. The Stock Market is shaky. That is not all that is shaky. The Baltic Dry Index is hitting low numbers indicating that international trade is way down. Manufacturing is limping.
Increasing bank rates may reduce housing - always a big component of the US economy.
Lest we forget every 25 point rise in interest rate will increase current Federal deficit by $35T. That is, if the FED rate goes from 0-.25 to .25-.50, the deficit will increase by $35B. Some people believe that because of the weak economy and the possible increase in deficit, the FED might postpone again.
What does Larry say? According to him, his cycles all of a sudden focus on Dec 15 as a big turning point. Tomorrow might be interesting.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Sean explains why the sky is falling.
No, it's not the FED raising interest rates. It's far worse.
Sean Broderick predicts that between the Saudis and the Chinese the world will repudiate the Petrodollars and switch to Petroyuans to do business. And that's why the economic sky will be falling. What will happen?
There are over 6T Dollars deposited in various banks to pay for oil and other products. There are also 2.3T Dollars in currency in this country. When the world switches over to using Petroyuans, that load of 6T dollars will be thrown on the Market, along with the Treasury bills. Not at once, but we will see a sharp drop in the value of US Dollars and a rise of inflation. Bonds and Treasuries will lose most of their values and the US will not be able to pay its debts. Stocks will crater and precious metals will skyrocket.
Sean is not the only one who predicts doom: Casey Research is shouting "currency failure coming" from the rooftop. And Larry Edelson predicts that gold and oil will start rising in the new year.
Sean used to work at Weiss Research, but moved to Oxford Research Explorer. He championed gold and silver miners long after Larry gave up on them but he is in sink with Larry again.
Remember the Geezer;s dictum" Alles Geht Immer Schlechter. In English: everything always gets worse.
I expect that the Republican Establishment will screw things up again and elect Hillary. That will assure that the sky will be falling. Then in 2020 we will have a total repudiation of Leftist thinking and remove the Liberal Media, Academie, judiciary and politicians. Like in Venezuela. Then the Country will be reborn.
http://oxfordclub.com/resource-explorer/
Sean Broderick predicts that between the Saudis and the Chinese the world will repudiate the Petrodollars and switch to Petroyuans to do business. And that's why the economic sky will be falling. What will happen?
There are over 6T Dollars deposited in various banks to pay for oil and other products. There are also 2.3T Dollars in currency in this country. When the world switches over to using Petroyuans, that load of 6T dollars will be thrown on the Market, along with the Treasury bills. Not at once, but we will see a sharp drop in the value of US Dollars and a rise of inflation. Bonds and Treasuries will lose most of their values and the US will not be able to pay its debts. Stocks will crater and precious metals will skyrocket.
Sean is not the only one who predicts doom: Casey Research is shouting "currency failure coming" from the rooftop. And Larry Edelson predicts that gold and oil will start rising in the new year.
Sean used to work at Weiss Research, but moved to Oxford Research Explorer. He championed gold and silver miners long after Larry gave up on them but he is in sink with Larry again.
Remember the Geezer;s dictum" Alles Geht Immer Schlechter. In English: everything always gets worse.
I expect that the Republican Establishment will screw things up again and elect Hillary. That will assure that the sky will be falling. Then in 2020 we will have a total repudiation of Leftist thinking and remove the Liberal Media, Academie, judiciary and politicians. Like in Venezuela. Then the Country will be reborn.
http://oxfordclub.com/resource-explorer/
Repudiation of the Left in Latin America.
For a while it looked like the map of South America would get to be all red. Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil had all elected Leftists bent on Socialism. After a host of economic disasters, a correction of sorts is setting in.
Argentina has elected a non Peronist and Dilma Roussef of Brazil has been impeached.
But it is Venezuela that is undergoing the biggest transition. The country had elected an Indian President (Hugo Chavez) who was an outright Communist and a follower and admirer of Fidel Castro. Chavez had nationalized industries and predictably screwed up agriculture. He was re-elected until he died of cancer, to be succeeded by his handpicked VP Maduro. The latter had continued Chavez's policies and Venezuela's plight got worse and worse.
Maduro lost the latest election. Not only that, but the opposition had gotten a 2/3 vote. That means that the new legislature can throw out the Leftist Supreme Court and even impeach Maduro, who keeps repeating that he will not allow the Chavez changes to be overturned.
Will Veneziela have a civil war? Entirely possible. The country's armed forces are riddled with Communists.
Argentina has elected a non Peronist and Dilma Roussef of Brazil has been impeached.
But it is Venezuela that is undergoing the biggest transition. The country had elected an Indian President (Hugo Chavez) who was an outright Communist and a follower and admirer of Fidel Castro. Chavez had nationalized industries and predictably screwed up agriculture. He was re-elected until he died of cancer, to be succeeded by his handpicked VP Maduro. The latter had continued Chavez's policies and Venezuela's plight got worse and worse.
Maduro lost the latest election. Not only that, but the opposition had gotten a 2/3 vote. That means that the new legislature can throw out the Leftist Supreme Court and even impeach Maduro, who keeps repeating that he will not allow the Chavez changes to be overturned.
Will Veneziela have a civil war? Entirely possible. The country's armed forces are riddled with Communists.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Conspiracy theories.
1. The Trump/Hillary Conspiracy (floated by Bush, Fiorina and CNN).
This one goes like this: Trump wants Hillary elected. So, he pretends to run for the Presidency as a Republican, but AT SOME POINT he will start a third party effort and syphon off enough votes to elect Hillary.
One of the FOX commentators noted that Trump is already running a third party.
The theory shows the desperation of the Bush campaign. Millions being spent does nothing for Jeb.
2. The Trump is NOT serious conspiracy.
According to this conspiracy theory, Trump is running to make a joke of the GOP (as if that is necessary). When he had his laugh, he will drop out.
What is clear is that the Media has become unhinged.
3. The radicalization conspiracy.
Some peaceful Muslims become "radicalized" by evil forces. That they support Sharia law (which denies everyone the right to NOT practice Islam) is ignored. This cartoon illustrates the principle:
This one goes like this: Trump wants Hillary elected. So, he pretends to run for the Presidency as a Republican, but AT SOME POINT he will start a third party effort and syphon off enough votes to elect Hillary.
One of the FOX commentators noted that Trump is already running a third party.
The theory shows the desperation of the Bush campaign. Millions being spent does nothing for Jeb.
2. The Trump is NOT serious conspiracy.
According to this conspiracy theory, Trump is running to make a joke of the GOP (as if that is necessary). When he had his laugh, he will drop out.
What is clear is that the Media has become unhinged.
3. The radicalization conspiracy.
Some peaceful Muslims become "radicalized" by evil forces. That they support Sharia law (which denies everyone the right to NOT practice Islam) is ignored. This cartoon illustrates the principle:
Thursday, December 10, 2015
What happened to the third shooter?
Odd Man Out: What Happened to the Third Shooter?
The curious case of the incurious press… and FBI investigation.
From the American Spectator.
Wikimedia Commons
This is one American who does not have high expectations for our mainstream media. Yet, is it too much to expect a moderate level of curiosity about a critical part of a major story… even if it isnot in line with the progressive agenda? Apparently so, as two nagging questions about the terrorist attack in San Bernardino remain unanswered.
Worse, they remain unasked!
First, what ever happened to the third shooter? Using several search parameters, one can find a substantial number of media reports on the day of the shooting indicating that police were searching for three suspects. In addition Sally Abdelmageed, an employee at Inland Medical Center where the attack occurred, insisted as much during an interview with CBS News.
“I heard shots fired and it was from — you know — an automatic weapon,” Abdelmageed stated, adding that it was all “very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on. They were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”
In describing the assailants Abdelmageed admitted she “couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”
The reporter then asked Abdelmageed again, “You are certain you saw three men?”
“Yes,” she insisted. “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”
A second witness, Juan Fernandez, corroborated Abdelmageed’s account, telling reporters he also saw “three white men in military fatigues” who “took off” in a “black Impala or SUV.” Moreover, after the police killed Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook in a shootout, the media were still reporting the “house-to-house” search for a third suspect being conducted by police.
Since then? Nothing. Certainly eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but isn’t that precisely the reason one might expect the media to clarify the discrepancies between their original reporting and the current status quo?
As bad as that lack of closure is, the second question is far more troublesome: why did the FBI abandon their investigation of the townhouse rented by the terrorists and allow media access to it only two days after the shooting—and leave shredded documents behind? Former NYPD Det. Harry Houck illuminates the insanity. “This apartment clearly is full of evidence,” he explained. “I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected to these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place — you’ve got shredded documents that need to be taken out of there and put together to see what was shredded,” Houck added. “You have passports, driver’s licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene.”
The explanation offered by David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, strains credulity. “Once the residents have the apartment and we’re not in it anymore, we don’t control it,” he said. “Once we turn that location back over to the occupants of that residence or once we board it up, anyone who goes in at that point, that’s got nothing to do with us.”
Houck wasn’t buying it. “I tell you I am so shocked. This is detective 101 for crying out loud,” he insisted. “It looks like there are dozens of people in there totally destroying a crime scene which is still vital in this investigation because we don’t know how many other people that they were connected with in this thing. There might be tons of fingerprints in there that we need to look at to see if there is any kind of connection to those fingerprints or some people that may be on a watch list or something else.”
Today we know far more than we did on the day of the attack. “A $28,500 deposit was made to Syed Farook’s bank account from WebBank.com on or about Nov. 18, some two weeks before he and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out the San Bernardino massacre,” Fox News reported Monday.
In other words, it is possible many more people were involved in this attack — and just as possible that the apartment could have yielded valuable clues in that regard.
Something stinks here. Given the track record of Islamic terror denialism embraced by the Obama administration — along with innumerable examples of media malfeasance protecting that approach — the unmistakable odor of a coverup, or an orchestrated disinformation campaign, hangs heavy in the air.
Most Americans wish to discuss Islamic terror and the threat it poses to our way of life. Progressives would rather talk about gun control that would have done nothing to stop the attack, blast people for praying afterwards, and threaten people with federal prosecution for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, as U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch did last week.
If these questions remain unanswered, it is impossible to believe anything other than the most reasonable explanation for the silence: the progressive agenda of multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness must be preserved, even if truth is the ultimate casualty
Worse, they remain unasked!
First, what ever happened to the third shooter? Using several search parameters, one can find a substantial number of media reports on the day of the shooting indicating that police were searching for three suspects. In addition Sally Abdelmageed, an employee at Inland Medical Center where the attack occurred, insisted as much during an interview with CBS News.
“I heard shots fired and it was from — you know — an automatic weapon,” Abdelmageed stated, adding that it was all “very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on. They were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”
In describing the assailants Abdelmageed admitted she “couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”
The reporter then asked Abdelmageed again, “You are certain you saw three men?”
A second witness, Juan Fernandez, corroborated Abdelmageed’s account, telling reporters he also saw “three white men in military fatigues” who “took off” in a “black Impala or SUV.” Moreover, after the police killed Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook in a shootout, the media were still reporting the “house-to-house” search for a third suspect being conducted by police.
Since then? Nothing. Certainly eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but isn’t that precisely the reason one might expect the media to clarify the discrepancies between their original reporting and the current status quo?
As bad as that lack of closure is, the second question is far more troublesome: why did the FBI abandon their investigation of the townhouse rented by the terrorists and allow media access to it only two days after the shooting—and leave shredded documents behind? Former NYPD Det. Harry Houck illuminates the insanity. “This apartment clearly is full of evidence,” he explained. “I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected to these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place — you’ve got shredded documents that need to be taken out of there and put together to see what was shredded,” Houck added. “You have passports, driver’s licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene.”
The explanation offered by David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, strains credulity. “Once the residents have the apartment and we’re not in it anymore, we don’t control it,” he said. “Once we turn that location back over to the occupants of that residence or once we board it up, anyone who goes in at that point, that’s got nothing to do with us.”
Houck wasn’t buying it. “I tell you I am so shocked. This is detective 101 for crying out loud,” he insisted. “It looks like there are dozens of people in there totally destroying a crime scene which is still vital in this investigation because we don’t know how many other people that they were connected with in this thing. There might be tons of fingerprints in there that we need to look at to see if there is any kind of connection to those fingerprints or some people that may be on a watch list or something else.”
Today we know far more than we did on the day of the attack. “A $28,500 deposit was made to Syed Farook’s bank account from WebBank.com on or about Nov. 18, some two weeks before he and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out the San Bernardino massacre,” Fox News reported Monday.
In other words, it is possible many more people were involved in this attack — and just as possible that the apartment could have yielded valuable clues in that regard.
Something stinks here. Given the track record of Islamic terror denialism embraced by the Obama administration — along with innumerable examples of media malfeasance protecting that approach — the unmistakable odor of a coverup, or an orchestrated disinformation campaign, hangs heavy in the air.
Most Americans wish to discuss Islamic terror and the threat it poses to our way of life. Progressives would rather talk about gun control that would have done nothing to stop the attack, blast people for praying afterwards, and threaten people with federal prosecution for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, as U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch did last week.
If these questions remain unanswered, it is impossible to believe anything other than the most reasonable explanation for the silence: the progressive agenda of multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness must be preserved, even if truth is the ultimate casualty
Trump is right: refusing entry to dangerous aliens is already law of the land.
Shame on the elites for criticizing Trump's remarks on preventing entry of Muslims. It is already the law of the US.
RUSH: Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a ton of 'em.
RUSH: Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a ton of 'em.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Why does the Obama regime call it ISIL instead of ISIS?
What do these acronyms refer to and what is the significance of using one or the other? ISIS stands for "Islamic State in Syria and Iraq" while ISIL stands for "Islamic State in Syria and the Levant." What is the Levant?
When you look at this map it is obvious that the term "Levant" includes the State of Israel. The Obama regime is telegraphing its friends in the Middle East that Obama does consider Israel as just part of the Levant, rather than a legitimate State.
Far fetched? Hardly. Remember the deep bow of Obama to the King of Saudi Arabia? It was an expression of obeisance.
Let us remember that it was Obama's policies that allowed Al Qaeda to merge into ISIS and it was Obama's arms shipments to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that allowed it to absorb other groups into ISIS. Now, Obama sabotages efforts to subdue ISIS.
That is not all the pro-Islamic efforts of the Obama regime. The regime is allowing Muslims to settle in the US while deporting Christians:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees
Even Republicans who should know better are falling under the Obama spell: consider the hysteria of some Republicans when considering the Donald's suggestion to halt accepting Muslims into the US. Some Democrats go further. Seattle's Mayor and some supporters are trying to introduce Sharia law principles into the buying of houses.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/07/seattle-mayor-offers-plan-to-help-followers-of.html
When you look at this map it is obvious that the term "Levant" includes the State of Israel. The Obama regime is telegraphing its friends in the Middle East that Obama does consider Israel as just part of the Levant, rather than a legitimate State.
Far fetched? Hardly. Remember the deep bow of Obama to the King of Saudi Arabia? It was an expression of obeisance.
Let us remember that it was Obama's policies that allowed Al Qaeda to merge into ISIS and it was Obama's arms shipments to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that allowed it to absorb other groups into ISIS. Now, Obama sabotages efforts to subdue ISIS.
That is not all the pro-Islamic efforts of the Obama regime. The regime is allowing Muslims to settle in the US while deporting Christians:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees
Even Republicans who should know better are falling under the Obama spell: consider the hysteria of some Republicans when considering the Donald's suggestion to halt accepting Muslims into the US. Some Democrats go further. Seattle's Mayor and some supporters are trying to introduce Sharia law principles into the buying of houses.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/07/seattle-mayor-offers-plan-to-help-followers-of.html
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Will rising interest rates keep gold prices down?
According to Larry, gold is bottoming and is about to embark on a new bull market that will take it to at least $5K. Not at once and not without correction, but up there.
The FED is thinking of raising interest rates. Some people think that the FED has to. The conventional wisdom is that rising interest rates pump up the Dollar which then keeps gold down since gold is quoted in Dollars.
Are these relationships true? Let's see what happened when the fed raised rates the last time.
The FED is thinking of raising interest rates. Some people think that the FED has to. The conventional wisdom is that rising interest rates pump up the Dollar which then keeps gold down since gold is quoted in Dollars.
Are these relationships true? Let's see what happened when the fed raised rates the last time.
What we see is that gold bottomed a month before the rise in interest rates and kept rising with the rising interest rates. We see that this time gold hit a new low in November and is getting ready to go higher as the rate hikes happen.
Monday, December 7, 2015
How the Left sabotages America over Islam.
The Left declares that Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, they 'reason,' terrorists can not be Islamic. It is willfull self-deception at best and treason at worst.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Saturday, December 5, 2015
The clash of civilizations.
It takes some reading to understand the source of friction between Islam and the Western world. This is not to say that the friction we witness today is limited to Christian thought and Islam; in fact Islam is at war with every other tradition and wars even within itself.
The Christian tradition holds (at least as expressed in the Bible) that Man is a sinful creature, unable to remedy his condition. Sin is defined as disobedience of God's commands. Man can only be saved through Faith: accepting Christ as a Savior and it is His work on the cross that counts as the price for being saved (i.e. reconciled to God). Jesus told us that Man can come to God only through Him (Jesus) and can come to Jesus only if God is willing. The Christian tradition is summarized in the second Chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." In short, Man is saved FOR good works, and NOT because of them.
Islam is different. There are 5 things you need to do: 1. Believe that Allah is God, 2. Pray five times a day, 3. Support Islamic charity, 4. Participate in a pilgrimage to Mecca (the Hajj), and 5. support Jihad.
Thus, Islam is based totally on works. A young Muslim may start out as a peaceful individual but as soon as he reads the Koran, he knows that he is supposed to kill and terrorize non-Muslims. In an earlier post there were citations from the Koran as to how the Prophet Mohammed admitted using terror to convert people.
Thus, Islam can not be reformed, nor is it possible to live in peace with it.
The Christian tradition holds (at least as expressed in the Bible) that Man is a sinful creature, unable to remedy his condition. Sin is defined as disobedience of God's commands. Man can only be saved through Faith: accepting Christ as a Savior and it is His work on the cross that counts as the price for being saved (i.e. reconciled to God). Jesus told us that Man can come to God only through Him (Jesus) and can come to Jesus only if God is willing. The Christian tradition is summarized in the second Chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." In short, Man is saved FOR good works, and NOT because of them.
Islam is different. There are 5 things you need to do: 1. Believe that Allah is God, 2. Pray five times a day, 3. Support Islamic charity, 4. Participate in a pilgrimage to Mecca (the Hajj), and 5. support Jihad.
Thus, Islam is based totally on works. A young Muslim may start out as a peaceful individual but as soon as he reads the Koran, he knows that he is supposed to kill and terrorize non-Muslims. In an earlier post there were citations from the Koran as to how the Prophet Mohammed admitted using terror to convert people.
Thus, Islam can not be reformed, nor is it possible to live in peace with it.
Idiot of the day awards
Senator Barbara Boxer.
Reports The Hill:
Reports The Hill:
Boxer: California has proven that 'sensible gun laws work'
Also from The Hill:
Dem: Paris a 'chilling reminder' we need tighter gun laws
Jan Schakowski (D, Ill)
Is Ukraine preparing for a new offensive?
Tass reports that dozens of Ukrainian military vehicles have been move up to the front line.
http://tass.ru/en/world/841688
http://tass.ru/en/world/841688
Friday, December 4, 2015
Obama's stupid grandstanding about guns.
Like the veteran ambulance chasers they are, Liberals use every opportunity to try to hamper gun ownership in America. The latest case in CA is an example. Hardly did the blood stopped flowing, Obama was out there asking for tougher gun laws. But, gun laws in CA are already as O'Bungle wants them. There is one statistic that Liberals shy away from: mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Would be perps know that they have a half hour to shoot people before the police arrives. This is even acknowledged by some Liberals:
"
According to WaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
Breitbart News previously pointed to this decline and explained it correlated with a massive increase in privately owned firearms over the same period of time. For example, Congressional Research Service showed that the number of privately owned firearms increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. And record background checks under Obama make it easy to see how tens of millions more privately owned guns have found their way into Americans’ hands since 2009.
So gun ownership increased for 20 years, but “gun homicides” decreased–except in gun free zones.
WaPo points to a study by Mother Jones that claims that high-profile shootings began increasing in gun-free zones in late 2011/early 2012. The examples Mother Jones provides are the Aurora movie theater, Sandy Hook Elementary, and the D.C. Navy Yard, all of which were gun-free zones.
Other examples of shootings in gun-free zones that could have been cited are Arapahoe High School (December 2013), Fort Hood (April 2014), Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (June 2015), Chattanooga military offices (July 2015), the Lafayette Grand Theatre (July 2015), and Umpqua Community College (October 1).
Increases in gun ownership correlated with drastic reductions in firearm-related homicides, but creating zones where law-abiding citizens are denied the ability to be armed for self-defense have allowed high-profile attackers to find easy targets."
Most of the gun violence occurs in urban areas controlled by Democrats. If you ignore rates in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and New Orleans, homicides by gun are not different than in other industrial countries. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce violence.
"
According to WaPo, “In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans. … By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 [per 100,000].”
Breitbart News previously pointed to this decline and explained it correlated with a massive increase in privately owned firearms over the same period of time. For example, Congressional Research Service showed that the number of privately owned firearms increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. And record background checks under Obama make it easy to see how tens of millions more privately owned guns have found their way into Americans’ hands since 2009.
So gun ownership increased for 20 years, but “gun homicides” decreased–except in gun free zones.
WaPo points to a study by Mother Jones that claims that high-profile shootings began increasing in gun-free zones in late 2011/early 2012. The examples Mother Jones provides are the Aurora movie theater, Sandy Hook Elementary, and the D.C. Navy Yard, all of which were gun-free zones.
Other examples of shootings in gun-free zones that could have been cited are Arapahoe High School (December 2013), Fort Hood (April 2014), Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (June 2015), Chattanooga military offices (July 2015), the Lafayette Grand Theatre (July 2015), and Umpqua Community College (October 1).
Increases in gun ownership correlated with drastic reductions in firearm-related homicides, but creating zones where law-abiding citizens are denied the ability to be armed for self-defense have allowed high-profile attackers to find easy targets."
Most of the gun violence occurs in urban areas controlled by Democrats. If you ignore rates in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and New Orleans, homicides by gun are not different than in other industrial countries. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce violence.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
The unfolding demise of the Euro and the EU.
Frankly, when I first read Larry's cycle conclusion that the Euro will self-destruct and that the EU itself will go into the tubes, I was more than skeptical. Unless you were born in Europe, it is hard to describe the joy of being able to travel from one country to the other, of being free of the threat of war. Yet, a generation of democratic socialists have managed to do the unexpected.
First, let's look at the Euro. Its slide can hardly be denied.
Is it a coincidence that the fall of the Euro coincides with the Presidency of Obama? Not really. The fall of gold prices and of the Euro have been engineered by the FED to reduce inflation resulting from the printing of several trillion dollars. Ironically, the printing of Dollars have not helped, but it sure hurt Europe.
The European economy has not been doing well. So, it will not surprise you that the ECB is planning a dump of Euros, believing that the printing of money will improve the economy. This action is being negated by the IMF. The IMF decreed that banks will go from 1% of reserves in Yuan to 11%. To make room for the Yuan, banks will have to reduce their Euro holdings by 16%. The sudden spike in the Dollar corresponds to banks unloading some Euros.
That is not the end of the bad news for Europe. There is also the influx of an Islamic army (mostly Syrian) that demands to be fed, given medical care and housing. There is the looming vote in Great Britain to leave the EU and the flareup between Turkey and Russia. Unfortunately for Europe, Turkey is a member of NATO, which means a confrontation between Russia and NATO.
First, let's look at the Euro. Its slide can hardly be denied.
The European economy has not been doing well. So, it will not surprise you that the ECB is planning a dump of Euros, believing that the printing of money will improve the economy. This action is being negated by the IMF. The IMF decreed that banks will go from 1% of reserves in Yuan to 11%. To make room for the Yuan, banks will have to reduce their Euro holdings by 16%. The sudden spike in the Dollar corresponds to banks unloading some Euros.
That is not the end of the bad news for Europe. There is also the influx of an Islamic army (mostly Syrian) that demands to be fed, given medical care and housing. There is the looming vote in Great Britain to leave the EU and the flareup between Turkey and Russia. Unfortunately for Europe, Turkey is a member of NATO, which means a confrontation between Russia and NATO.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Obama’s Strategic Bumbling Is Theater of the Absurd
by Jonah Goldberg November 20, 2015 12:00 AM @JonahNRO
‘You’re all suckers.” That has to be what Barack Obama is thinking as the country falls for his head-fake. Let’s recap. George W. Bush’s surge reduced the Islamic State’s precursor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, to a paltry 700 members, according to CIA director John Brennan. Its membership has grown by something close to 4,000 percent. As it metastasized, Obama yawned, calling it the “JV team.” When Syrian president Bashar al-Assad violated Obama’s “red line,” Obama yawned again, and the refugee crisis was born. By August 2014, Obama was grudgingly conceding he needed a new counterterrorism strategy. One tactic he ruled out: building up pro-American Syrian forces. He told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that was an unworkable “fantasy.” RELATED: After Paris, Obama Refuses to Lead Then, within weeks, the Islamic State beheaded American journalist James Foley. On vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, Obama denounced the murder. Within eight minutes of that statement, he was on the golf course. He later conceded that was a mistake. “I should have anticipated the optics,” he told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “Part of this job is also the theater of it. . . . It’s not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters.” Let’s put a pin in that. On September 10, 2014, Obama gave a televised White House address in which he finally laid out his Islamic State strategy. Key to his plan: bringing the “fantasy” of training Syrian rebels to life. RELATED: Obama Trades Real Security for Spin to Secure His Legacy “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years,” he said with theatrical confidence. By late January, the Yemeni government — i.e., our partners on the ground — had collapsed. But the White House continued to insist that the strategy was a success. Obama’s phony war on the Islamic State was always more about seeming to do something while running out the clock until his successor inherits his mess. In September, our effort to train rebels in Syria was exposed as a boondoggle of epic proportions. A $500 million program had produced “four or five” fighters, according to General Lloyd Austin, the head of U.S. Central Command.
When 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked about this spectacular failure last month, Obama replied that he always knew it wouldn’t work. “Steve, this is why I’ve been skeptical from the get-go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,” Obama said.
A day before the Paris attacks, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Islamic State had been “contained” inside its borders. This was shortly after the Islamic State had murdered hundreds of Turkish, Russian, Iraqi, and Lebanese civilians — all of whom lived outside those borders. Then, the next day, the Islamic State slaughtered more than 100 people in Paris. That brings us to Monday’s press conference in Turkey. For a moment, it seemed like the press had finally grasped the staggering failure of Obama’s strategy. One reporter after another asked the dyspeptic and defensive president why we weren’t making better progress against these rapists, slavers, and murderers.
They repeated the question because Obama kept saying his strategy was working. He described the slaughter in Paris as the kind of “setback” we should expect from a successful strategy. Even liberals were aghast at Obama’s failure to appreciate the “theater” of his job. Oh, but he gets it. Put aside the fact that his “strategy” was always theater to begin with. His phony war on the Islamic State was always more about seeming to do something while running out the clock until his successor inherits his mess. More Islamic State House Dem: Obama Could Cause 'Devastating Nuclear War' With Russia ‘Degrading’ ISIS Is Not a Serious Strategy The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won’t Admit It Obama knew the media would take their eye off the ball if he distracted them with a passion play about GOP bigotry. He ridiculed Republicans for their cowardice and cruelty in raising concerns about the potential security threats posed by Syrian refugees. Never mind that such caution is informed in part by warnings from the heads of Obama’s CIA, FBI, and DHS. Obama ludicrously mocked the idea that we prioritize Christian refugees — victims of Islamic State genocide — as an Islamophobic “religious test” that was “not American,” even though his administration already gives special preference to Yazidi refugees from Iraq and federal law requires taking religion into account when screening refugees. For Obama, politics ends at the water’s edge, unless he’s speaking abroad. Obama’s dithering sparked the refugee crisis. He’s now using a smattering of refugees as a cynical prop to prove he’s the hero of his own morality tale. The reality is that he’s a villain in his own theater of the absurd. And we’re the suckers in the audience falling for it. — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. He can be reached by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427370/syrian-refugees-obama-islamic-state?target=topic&tid=2991
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427370/syrian-refugees-obama-islamic-state?target=topic&tid=2991
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427370/syrian-refugees-obama-islamic-state?target=topic&tid=2991
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427370/syrian-refugees-obama-islamic-state?target=topic&tid=2991
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427370/syrian-refugees-obama-islamic-state?target=topic&tid=2991