Archive for April 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Report: US army building secret missile-proof base in Israel

April 7, 2016

Report: US army building secret missile-proof base in Israel, Israel National News, David Rosenberg, April 7, 2016

img682871US officers at missile battery near Tel Aviv Ziv Koren flash90

Iran’s recent ballistic missiles tests, which have led to concern and consternation in Israel, apparently have the United States military worried as well.

In late February the US military took part in a five day joint military exercise with Israel code named “Juniper Cobra”.

The central focus of the exercise was coordinating responses to a potential ballistic missile attack.

Since then, however, security officials have revealed that the US military has serious concerns about the possibility of missile attacks by Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, and is taking additional precautions to protect American assets in Israel.

Speaking to Walla News, these officials said the US is constructing a secret army base in central Israel.

The new base, which is being built in response to the Iranian missile threat, is reportedly designed to withstand ballistic missile attacks.

According to the report the base, which is already in advanced stages of construction, will be fully manned at all times and prepared for emergency situations.

The base is linked to the US army’s radar facility in Dimona.

In March Iran conducted a series of ballistic missile tests, the first since October 2015.

Iran’s ballistic missiles, which are capable of reaching Israel and can be fitting with nuclear warheads, have prompted partial American sanctions, with some American lawmakers calling for harsher measures to punish the Iranian regime.

Categories: Defense of Israel, Foreign policy, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mosul Campaign Hampered by Fear of Iraq’s Shia Army

April 7, 2016

Mosul Campaign Hampered by Fear of Iraq’s Shia Army, Washington Free Beacon, , April 7, 2016

FILE - In this Saturday, March 26, 2016 photo, Iraqi security forces fire at Islamic State militants positions from villages south of the Islamic State group-held city of Mosul, Iraq. The Iraqi military backed by U.S.-led coalition aircraft on Thursday launched a long-awaited operation to recapture the northern city of Mosul from Islamic State militants, a military spokesman said. (AP Photo, File)

FILE – In this Saturday, March 26, 2016 photo, Iraqi security forces fire at Islamic State militants positions from villages south of the Islamic State group-held city of Mosul, Iraq. The Iraqi military backed by U.S.-led coalition aircraft on Thursday launched a long-awaited operation to recapture the northern city of Mosul from Islamic State militants, a military spokesman said. (AP Photo, File)

The grinding village-to-village war against ISIS in Northern Iraq has been weighed down by public complaints from Kurdish officials and military commanders who fear that the Shia-dominated Iraqi army will provoke stiffer resistance from ISIS defenders in Mosul.

Sunni, Shia, and Kurd units all want the political capital that goes with liberating a city of a million people and the capital of Sunni Iraq from ISIS, according to military observers.

A see-saw battle between elements of the predominantly Shia 15th Iraqi Army Division and ISIS fighters over control of abandoned villages on the Makhmour Front 40 miles southwest of Mosul took a turn for the worse on Monday, April 4, according to sources near the front. Last week the Iraqi Army, supported by Kurdish Peshmerga forces, captured four villages, including Al Nasr, but an ISIS counterattack recovered the village and left 20 soldiers dead, Rudaw reported.

Of these casualties, six were Peshmerga soldiers killed by a suicide vehicle that passed through the front line, said Ali Awni, a Kurdish Democratic Party leader in the Shekhan District north of Mosul.

The Shia soldiers reportedly abandoned their posts in the recent combat, according to Awni. “They left behind many guns, ammunition, and equipment for ISIS,” Awni said.

The campaign to retake the Iraq’s northern province of Nineweh started on March 24, according to the Iraqi Defense Ministry. That day, Iraqi Security forces backed by the Peshmerga and anti-ISIS Sunni tribal fighters recaptured four villages west of Makhmour.

Iraqi military spokesmen hailed the operations as “heroic,” but military observers say there is no sign of the final offensive to retake the city. The Iraqi defense minister has promised that the campaign to capture Mosul will start no later than May.

The array of armed forces ready and eager to retake the city of Mosul includes the Shia brigades of the Iraqi Security Forces, the Peshmerga army of the Kurdish Regional Government, the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Units, and Sunni-tribal fighters from Nineweh itself.

Until now, however, the Iranian-backed forces have not been allowed to join the campaign to recapture Mosul due to the high aversion to them by Sunni citizens in the north of Iraq.

The Iraqi Army has approximately 4,500 soldiers in the current campaign, not nearly an adequate force to secure the city, according to Michael Pregent, a career Army intelligence officer and former adviser to the Peshmerga in Mosul during 2005-06, who now serves as an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

“The force to retake Mosul has not been built yet. It must be a majority-Sunni unit to be accepted by the population,” Pregent said, adding that the defending force of ISIS fighters has been weakened and could be defeated by a patient, intelligence-heavy counter-insurgency campaign.

“There are more than 4,000 reluctant ISIS fighters in Mosul who don’t want to be there, who as soon as an operation begins may dwindle down to 1,500 or 2,000 as they melt into the population to wait the offensive out,” Pregent told a closed briefing at the Westminster Institute in Mclean, VA recently.

Awni, the Kurdish official, says the residents of Mosul despise the Popular Mobilization Units and will fight hard to resist them. “The people of Mosul believe the PMU will destroy the city with artillery and air strikes the way they did Ramadi a few months ago and Tikrit last year. When they entered Tikrit the looted houses and killed many people,” Awni says, adding: “the Mosul residents say if Shia militia are joining the fight, they will fight with ISIS, but if not, they will support the Coalition forces.”

Col. Tariq Ahmed Jaff, deputy commander of the 9th Combat Brigade of Peshmerga based in Kirkuk said in an email, “After ISIS we may have to fight the PMU. These guys pretend to be heroes but they intimidate elderly men, women, and children.” Sectarian war is a pervasive threat throughout Iraq’s territory south of Kurdistan’s borders. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in sectarian fighting that worsened after the U.S. invasion of 2003.

“Wherever there is PMU, there is Baghdad, and where there is Baghdad there is Tehran,” observed Ernie Audino, a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and a Senior Military Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

“All three are Shia, all three are allies to some degree, and all three vigorously support the concept of a unified Iraq, by force if necessary,” said Audino, who spent a year as an embed with the Pershmerga.  “Consequently, Shia militias cadred by Iranian Quds Forces, and Shia-dominated Iraqi Army units have pressed into Kurdish areas in and around Jalawla and Tuz Khurmatu to directly challenge Peshmerga control. Their continuing presence is seen by Kurds as a hammer waiting to fall.”

Categories: Iran in Iraq, Iraq war, Iraqi military, Islam - Shiite vs. Sunni, Islamic State, Kurds, Mosul
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

US giving green cards to more than twice as many Muslim country entrants than Europeans

April 7, 2016

US giving green cards to more than twice as many Muslim country entrants than Europeans, American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, April 7, 2016

The de facto immigration policy of the United States is to rapidly increase the number of Muslims in this country. I doubt very much that this has been articulated, but it is what is happening, beneath the radar. Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim entry has riled the elites but received majority support in every poll that I have seen. The plain fact is that Islam is a political ideology that requires its adherents to support the imposition of sharia law, which is deeply antithetical to our Constitution.

Now comes a report from the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest that the Daily Caller News Foundation has gained access to:

From 2009 to 2013, the U.S. issued 680,000 green cards to migrants from Muslim countries, more than twice the approximately 270,000 green cards issued to migrants from European countries. Green cards entitle migrants to legal permanent residency in the country and work authorization, federal benefits, and the chance to apply for citizenship.

The numbers are illustrated in a chart below by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. If laws are not changed, the U.S. is expected to issue another 680,000 green cards in the following five-year period.

196342_5_

I give Donald Trump credit for raising this issue. Perhaps it is time for him to modify his blanket ban and start raising the question of what our national interest is in vastly increasing the number of Muslims entering the United States, pointing out the political nature of Islamic doctrine. The public understands this, even if the political, academic, and media elites do not.

Categories: Donald Trump, Europe, Green cards, Islamic immigration, Obama and Muslims
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

April 7, 2016

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

stupid1

 

H/t Kingjester’s Blog

th-8

Categories: Humor, Immigration, Islam
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Perils of Not Listening to Iran

April 7, 2016

The Perils of Not Listening to Iran, Gatestone Institute, Shoshana Bryen, April 7, 2016

♦ The Iranian firing of a missile within 1500 yards of U.S. aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in December, and the kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy ship and crew (the photographs were a violation of the Geneva Convention) were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary Kerry, there was no American response. Oh, actually, there was. Mr. Kerry absolved his friend Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of responsibility.

♦ The Iranians were confident that the Americans could be counted on not to collapse the whole discussion over violations along the edges. Their model was American behavior in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” The Palestinians violate agreements and understandings with impunity because they know the Administration is more firmly wedded to the process than the specific issues on the table.

Supporters of President Obama’s Iran deal (JCPOA) are starting to worry — but that is because they believed him when his lips moved. They heard “snapback sanctions” and pretended those were an actual “thing.” They are not, and never were. They heard Treasury Secretary Jack Lew say the U.S. would never allow Iran access to dollar trading because of the corruption of the Iranian banking system and Iranian support for terrorism — and they wanted to believe him. And sanctions? The administration said that sanctions related to non-nuclear Iranian behavior — support for terrorism, ballistic missile development, and more — would be retained.

Supporters believed Secretary Kerry when he said sanctions on Iran would be lifted only by a “tiny portion,” which would be “very limited, temporary and reversible… So believe me, when I say this relief is limited and reversible, I mean it.” They all but heard him stamp his loafer.

The mistake was not just listening to the administration say whatever it was Democrats in Congress wanted to hear, while knowing full well that once the train left the station it would never, ever come back. The bigger mistake was not listening to Iran. The Iranians have been clear and consistent about their understanding of the JCPOA.

Days before Congress failed to block the JCPOA, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, outlined Iran’s red lines.

  • To block “infiltration” of “Iran’s defense and security affairs under the pretext of nuclear supervision and inspection… Iranian military officials are not allowed to let the foreigners go through the country’s security-defense shield and fence.”
  • “Iran’s military officials are not at all allowed to stop the country’s defense development and progress on the pretext of supervision and inspection and the country’s defense development and capabilities should not be harmed in the talks.”
  • “Our support for our brothers in the resistance [Hezbollah, Assad, Yemeni Houthis, Hamas, Shiites in Iraq] in different places should not be undermined.”
  • A final deal should be a “comprehensive one envisaging the right for Iran to rapidly reverse its measures in case the opposite side refrains from holding up its end of the bargain.”
  • “Iran’s national security necessitates guaranteed irreversibility of the sanctions removal and this is no issue for bargaining, trade, or compromise.”
  • “Implementation… should totally depend on the approval of the country’s legal and official authorities and the start time for the implementation of undertakings should first be approved by the relevant bodies.”
  • Iran would not be limited in transferring its nuclear know-how to other countries of its choosing.

The Iranians deliberately and openly conflated what the Administration claimed would be limited sanctions relief related to specific Iranian actions on the nuclear program with the larger issues of sanctions for other Iranian behavior. The Iranians were confident that the Americans could be counted on not to collapse the whole discussion over violations along the edges. Their model was American behavior in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” The Palestinians violate agreements and understandings with impunity because they know the Administration is more firmly wedded to the process than the specific issues on the table.

The Iranian firing of a missile within 1500 yards of U.S. aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in December, and the kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy ship and crew (the photographs were a violation of the Geneva Convention) were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary Kerry, there was no American response. Oh, actually, there was. Mr. Kerry absolved his friend, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, of responsibility, noting, “it was clear” that the footage did not come from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He blamed the Iranian military, as if they do not work together.

Iran’s announcement that it would pay $7,000 to each family of Palestinian terrorists killed by Israel “to enable the Palestinian people to stay in their land and confront the occupier,” elicited the disclosure that Mr. Kerry was “extremely disturbed.”

Iran’s ballistic missile test in November, in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, prompted U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power to say, “The U.S. is conducting a serious review of the reported incident,” and if the reports were confirmed, the Obama administration would bring the issue to the UN and “seek appropriate action.”

By February, however — after yet another ballistic missile test, in which the missiles carried explicit threats to Israel, Mr. Kerry said he was prepared to let the matter drop. “We’ve already let them know how disappointed we are.”

1323 (1)Iran’s firing of a missile within 1500 yards of a U.S. aircraft carrier in December, and its kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy crew were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary of State John Kerry, there was no American response, except that Kerry absolved his friend Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of responsibility. Pictured above: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (left) and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (right).

Responding to Senator Lindsay Graham’s suggestion that Congress might increase sanctions against Iran, Mr. Kerry replied, “I wouldn’t welcome [that] at this time given the fact that we’ve given them a warning and if they decide to do another launch then I think there’s a rationale.”

Kerry may not have to wait long.

Just this week, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig-Gen Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the FARS News Agency reiterating, “The White House should know that defense capacities and missile power, specially at the present juncture where plots and threats are galore, is among the Iranian nation’s red lines and a backup for the country’s national security and we don’t allow anyone to violate it.”

Now, he is believable.

Congress is beginning to breathe fire, but it is not yet clear what it can or will do in the face of the Obama Administration’s executive actions. Last week, angry congressmen were reduced to threatening to “name and shame” American companies that do business with Iran because they cannot figure out how to stem the tide of the Obama Administration’s indulgence of Iranian provocations. That reaction is not even close to good enough.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Iranian military, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Obama and Iran, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Mullahs’ Plan to Hit Israel

April 7, 2016

The Mullahs’ Plan to Hit Israel, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 7, 2016

ws (2)

The Islamist state of Iran’s blatant aggression and provocative attitudes have reached an unprecedented level.

After the nuclear deal, and Obama’s appeasement policies towards Iran, the ruling Islamists of the country have become very public and vocal about their ideological objectives.

Most recently, the Fars News Agency, the Islamic Republic’s state-controlled news outlet, quoted Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff, Brigadier General Maassoud Jazzayeri, warning the United States to stay away from Iran’s redlines―one of which is Iran’s ballistic missiles.

In addition, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh was also quoted by the ISNA agency as stating, “The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 km is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance.” Iran has increased its short–and medium–range ballistic missiles, and currently boasts the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East.

But what will Obama’s response to these threats be? Most likely there would be more bowing to the ruling clerics of Iran and giving them more carrots. Iranian theocrats have learned that intransigence works with Obama.

There is a simple rule that if you reward a student or your kid for bullying and breaking the rules, you will be encouraging his/her bad behavior, which can ultimately become dangerous for everyone around that person. In addition, if you show students your weakness–such as being willing to give them extra points so that they give you good reviews at the end of the year–they will take advantage of that, or as the Persian proverbs goes: “they will milk you to the end.”

And this is exactly what Iran is doing and how President Obama is encouraging the Islamic Republic’s aggression. Iranian leaders have become cognizant of the fact that intransigence absolutely works with the White House, and threatening Obama with pulling out of the nuclear deal will lead to Obama offering more concessions to the mullahs.

There is a basic rule in Iran’s politics and in Iran’s Supreme Leader’s philosophy: concessions means weakness.  Once someone shows you his/her weakness, you have to speed up getting more concessions from him or her until there is nothing left to get from them.

Here is a chain of events that can easily help us understand how we got here with Iran. It also helps predict how President Obama and the White House will respond to Iran’s recent aggression and threats to the US and Israel.

When the nuclear negotiations were initiated, Obama announced his terms. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, gave an inflammatory speech, lashing out at the US. Obama’s response was to increase the number of centrifuges that Iran can hold and give Tehran more leverage in uranium enrichment. Obama also agreed not to include issues such as Iran’s ballistic missiles, human rights or the fate of those Americans imprisoned in Iran during the negotiations.

Now Khamenei knew the game. He used another shrewd tactic by giving another speech threatening the US that he will pull out of the negotiations if certain conditions were not met. Obama’s response was to immediately allow the Islamic Republic to receive all sanctions relief (including the removal of United Nations Security Council’s sanctions), even before Iran finishes its 10-year obligations. Obama also gave Iran a green light to become a nuclear state by enriching uranium at a level that they desire, spinning as many centrifuges as they like, and buying arms with no limits, after the 10-year period.

Khamenei and the IRGC leaders wanted to more forcefully milk the cow, as the Persian proverb goes. Iran launched its ballistic missiles in violation of the JCPOA (UNSCR 2231 Annex II, paragraph three), which states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

President Obama ignored it. Iran launched ballistic missiles several times more. President Obama issued a superficial statement criticizing Iran. Khamenei immediately gave his Nowruz speech heavily lashing out at the United States, the “Great Satan,” and implying that he will pull out of the nuclear deal.

To appease the ruling clerics of Iran, Obama immediately backed off his statements by breaking the promises that he made to the Congress when he was trying to get his nuclear deal through. In other words, he is now preparing to give Iran access to the US’s banking and financial system, and he has already lifted sanctions against Iran that are not related to the nuclear program, but to Iran’s ballistic missiles, terrorism and human rights violations. Iran was also removed from the list of countries for which there is a travel ban, although it is prominent sponsor of terrorism.

Thanks to Obama’s weak leadership and appeasement policies towards the mullahs, Iran is already publicly attacking several countries in the region directly or through its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, Badr, Kataeb Imam Al Ali, Harakat Al Islam, etc. Iran would have never dared to be so intransigent and aggressive when the UNSC sanctions were previously imposed on Iran. However, sanctions are being completely lifted, thanks to Obama.

Iran has a history spanning over 2,500 years and it goes without saying that that the mullahs are among the shrewdest politicians. They can smell weakness from thousands of miles away and they know how to exploit it. Obama’s weakness–that he fears his so-called crowning foreign policy achievement (the nuclear deal) might fall apart–has led to Iran’s bullying, and has driven his carrots-but-no-stick policy towards Tehran. It appears that Obama is indeed focused on scoring superficial records in his name, such as the nuclear deal or visiting Cuba. But there is no doubt that his so-called “accomplishments” will be forgotten soon. The things that are important are the lives that have been lost, the human rights violations, and the escalation of regional conflicts on the part of Iranian leaders thanks to Obama’s decisions.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Mad Mullahs, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Let My People Go: How Trump and Cruz Deliver the GOP

April 7, 2016

Let My People Go: How Trump and Cruz Deliver the GOP, American Thinker, Mark S. Hanna, April 7, 2016

The only way to stop their contested convention madness is for Ted to suspend his campaign and unite with Trump — like Aaron alongside Moses — and spend the next seven months working with him, not necessarily as his VP (which is probably not be the best ticket to defeat Hillary) but for the sake of the country, regardless of any deal or position promises.  

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

“I am more and more convinced that our campaign is going to earn the 1,237 delegates needed to win,” said Cruz after winning by a landslide in Wisconsin. But what he didn’t say is that to do that before the nominating convention, he has to amass nearly 82% of all remaining delegates — a virtual impossibility.

Cruz knows only a miracle can get him to the coveted 1237 delegates needed prior to Cleveland. “I’m encouraged by seeing Republicans coming together and uniting behind our campaign,” Cruz recently said, arguing that old rivals rallying to him is “proof miracles can happen.”

The parting of the Red Sea is a better proof that miracles happen. But apart from divine intervention, it’s mathematically clear that the waves of Republican delegates will not be blown over to Ted’s side for a win before the GOP gathering this summer.

What can be counted on, however, is that the hard-hearted establishment cronies and elites will continue to unleash their full arsenal of sorceries, like Pharaoh against Moses, to thwart the people from actually choosing their leader prior to the convention — even if it means political plague, pestilence and destruction ultimately descend upon their Republican kingdom.

Hell bent on #NeverTrump, the elites have formulated a trifecta of spells to keep both Trump and Cruz from securing the nomination. The first divination channeled through one of their old high priests, the failed Pharaoh-in-Chief Mitt Romney, was to split the vote by backing whoever might win a particular state’s primary delegates. Their endgame: conjure up a contested convention and thereby stop the exodus.

Magical Mitt demonstrated the effectiveness of this craft in the Ohio primary by campaigning aggressively for Kasich, only to stab him in the back a week later by sending out robocalls throughout Utah and Arizona in support of Cruz and calling a vote for Kasich a vote for Trump.

In addition to splitting the vote, the pharaoh class simultaneously began to woo and recruit delegates (or appoint those that can be co-opted by the party bosses) that would abandon Trump if he didn’t receive the necessary 1237 votes at the convention on the first ballot.

The New York Times described this hexing as a deliberate plan of attack to “derail Donald Trump”, noting the pharaoh class will step up their campaign for the next 100 days “with a delegate-by-delegate lobbying effort that would cast Mr. Trump as a calamitous choice for the general election.”

Which leads to their third hocus-pocus: change the rules that the candidates have counted on and adhered to throughout this primary cycle. Pharaohs are notorious for agreeing to something, and then at the last minute going back on their word.

“It’s still important to them that the perception is that the process is fair,” says Peter Feaman, a Republican National Committeeman from Florida. Never mind the reality.

The major stumbling block for the establishment Egyptians is Rule 40(b) which states that if a candidate doesn’t get a majority of delegates in at least eight states, he can’t be nominated on any ballot — whether the first or twenty-first.

North Dakota National Committeeman Curly Haugland, a member of the RNC Rules Committee, told the Daily Caller that to get around this little inconvenience, he would propose an amendment to the GOP convention rules this summer that will allow any Republican candidate with at least one delegate to be “deemed” nominated on the first ballot. By doing that, abracadabra! It’s no longer a race between Trump and Cruz, but the top eight finishers including Kasich and a resurrected Bush. Primaries and caucuses be damned.

To power-protecting fat cat pharaohs, the only rule that matters is their rule.

Along with Trump, Ted Cruz was initially the object of their disdain and derision. Now he’s their last hope to force a contested convention. No surprise they are rushing to his corner. Mitt’s magical robocalls, Graham’s voodoo fundraiser and Bush’s enticing endorsement are only the beginnings of their duplicitous efforts.

Shockingly, Ted seems to be falling for their manipulations.

“It won’t be Washington deal makers sending in some white knight who wasn’t on the ballot,” says Cruz. “It will be a fight between me and Donald and I think if we get to that, we win that fight, we’ll earn the support of the delegates that were elected by the people.” Sure.  Because pharaohs can be trusted.

“(I)t strikes me that (Cruz) should not be out there suggesting that the only two people who will be able to receive votes at the Republican National Convention are he and Trump by virtue of the fact that they have the majority of delegates from eight states or more. This is disingenuous,” corrects Lord Rove who is looking for a “fresh face” to nominate.

A more likely scenario is the pharaohs will continue to charm Trusting Ted, only to rain down their wrath on him and Trump once the convention convenes. Trump calls this the taskmasters’ Trojan horse maneuver. It’s the last remaining scheme that can halt the people’s exodus out of their decayed and dying Republocrat system of cronyism, corruption, kickbacks, and contempt for the Constitution.

Americans want to live in constitutional America, not some globalist empire that funds itself and expands its power through the enslaving of everyday brick makers, the cooked books of bailout dependent mega-corps, money printing central bank wizards, tax and spend overlords, open border bureaucrats, and institutionalized thieves that steal from one group in the name of compassion, but then use guilt and manipulation to shame those that have been stolen from.

This is the Washington cartel Ted has railed against, the same pharaoh class that is now gushing over him. Don’t forget how quickly Mitt stabbed Kasich in the back.

Only Trump can reach the 1237 before the convention. And therefore, it is only Trump that can lead the exodus out of their enslavement.

But without Cruz, the exodus will fail. Only Cruz can now ensure that the cabal’s conspiracies are negated and the party’s freedom from the pharaoh class is secured for generations to come.

How? First, Cruz must publicly acknowledge — in spite of the Wisconsin win — that he cannot and will not reach the needed 1237 delegates before the convention. Secondly, he has to come to grips with the overlords’ depraved lust for power and act accordingly.

Cruz is not suddenly the elites’ darling now that the slate of their candidates has been devoured. On the contrary, the pharaohs will unhesitatingly offer him up as a final oblation in order to nominate one of their own. If they fail here, any means is justified in their minds to ensure that their reign continues — including destroying the convention and thereby electing Hillary.

The only way to stop their contested convention madness is for Ted to suspend his campaign and unite with Trump — like Aaron alongside Moses — and spend the next seven months working with him, not necessarily as his VP (which is probably not be the best ticket to defeat Hillary) but for the sake of the country, regardless of any deal or position promises.

By unifying and jointly building a freed and reformed Republican Party, the two can ensure the drowning of the pharaohs and their armies and lead the party into a promise land of limited constitutional government, low taxes, unmanipulated free trade, sound money, Judeo-Christian values, secured borders and a strong national defense.

True glory is found in sacrifice, and greater love has no one than this: that he lay down his life –- or in this case, his campaign — for his friends.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Republicans, Ted Cruz
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘The Chalkening’ Continues: DePaul Accuses ‘Trump 2016’ Conservatives of Hate Crime

April 7, 2016

‘The Chalkening’ Continues: DePaul Accuses ‘Trump 2016’ Conservatives of Hate Crime, Truth Revolt, Mark Tapson, April 6, 2016

depaul

The College Republicans group apparently chalked the praises of conservative values, the nation of Israel, all candidates in the GOP primary, and the pro-law enforcement Blue Lives Matter movement.

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

It’s becoming too cumbersome to list all the schools across the country at which students have recently had panic attacks over pro-Trump chalkings on campus. Let’s just say that the left considers these domestic terror attacks — now known as #TheChalkening — to be an epidemic.

DePaul College is the latest school to be victimized, and a Republican group responsible has been accused of a hate crime, according to Hypeline.

The College Republicans group apparently chalked the praises of conservative values, the nation of Israel, all candidates in the GOP primary, and the pro-law enforcement Blue Lives Matter movement. Outraged students who felt “attacked” want the group to be held responsible, and the Black Student Union at DePaul accused the Republican group of a hate crime. They released this statement:

DePaul statement

“I’m disgusted but not surprised, because these thing happen all the time on campus,” said a student involved with the Black Student Union. He added: “Trump’s racist comments do not need to be included in the conversation and have no place on campus.”

“It’s sad that even at a school as diverse and accepting as DePaul, I still feel attacked,” wrote another student in a DePaul Facebook group. “Diverse and accepting,” that is, except for unacceptable ideas, and we can’t have those at our institutions of higher indoctrination.

College Republicans President Nicole Been said that she met with the administration, which told her that the name “Trump” triggers people, to which she responded:

“So you want to censor a word that is everywhere, who is the last name of the Republican frontrunner? You can’t do that.”

About the chalkings constituting a hate crime, Been said:

“I would just say that nothing we wrote was out of guidelines with University policy. Also, any [College Republican] chapter member, member of conservative group, or frankly any one right of center would most likely write something extremely similar. We just wrote in support of all Republican candidates and basic conservative values. If conservative/ Republican values are hate crimes then we have a much bigger issue in this country than students using sidewalk chalk to voice their opinion.”

Sounds like she’s too smart for this school. How did DePaul even let her in?

Been told Hypeline what she would tell others facing a similar leftist backlash:

“The conservative people in your club, school, local community, family, friends, have your back. They will fight with and for you. You are not in the wrong as long as you are following the rules, people are hypocrites. Don’t back down, don’t let it get to you, and don’t let it silence you. You know you’re doing something right when the far left is speaking out against you.”

According to the University, chalking is allowed on campus. Until it’s not.

Categories: Chalkening, Donald Trump, Education, Israel, Republicans, Snowflakes
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Politicization of the English Language

April 7, 2016

The Politicization of the English Language, Townhall, Victor Davis Hanson, April 7, 2016

Mucky Mucks

Last week, French President Francois Hollande met President Obama in Washington to discuss joint strategies for stopping the sort of radical Islamic terrorists who have killed dozens of innocents in Brussels, Paris and San Bernardino in recent months. Hollande at one point explicitly referred to the violence as “Islamist terrorism.”

The White House initially deleted that phrase from the audio translation of the official video of the Hollande-Obama meeting, only to restore it when questioned. Did the Obama administration assume that if the public could not hear the translation of the French president saying “Islamist terrorism,” then perhaps Hollande did not really say it — and therefore perhaps Islamist terrorism does not really exist?

The Obama administration must be aware that in the 1930s, the Soviet Union wiped clean all photos, recordings and films of Leon Trotsky on orders from Josef Stalin. Trotsky was deemed politically incorrect, and therefore his thoughts and photos simply vanished.

The Library of Congress, under pressure from Dartmouth College students, recently banned not just the term “illegal alien” in subject headings for literature about immigration, but “alien” as well. Will changing the vocabulary mean that from now on, foreign nationals who choose to enter and reside in the United States without being naturalized will not be in violation of the law and will no longer be considered citizens of their homeland?

Did the Library of Congress ever read the work of the Greek historian Thucydides, who warned some 2,500 years ago that in times of social upheaval, partisans would make words “change their ordinary meaning and … take that which was now given them.”

These latest linguistic contortions to advance ideological agendas follow an established pattern of the Obama administration and the departments beneath it.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s described Egypt’s radical Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular.” CIA Director John Brennan has called jihad “a legitimate tenet of Islam,” a mere effort “to purify oneself.”

Other administration heads have airbrushed out Islamic terrorism by referring to it with phrases such as “man-caused disaster.” The effort to combat terrorism was called an “overseas contingency operation,” perhaps like Haitian earthquake relief.

The White House wordsmiths should reread George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” which warned that “political writing is bad writing” and “has to consist largely of euphemism.”

Obama has said the greatest threat to future generations is “climate change,” a term that metamorphosed from “global warming.” The now anachronistic term “global warming” used to describe a planet that was supposedly heating up rather quickly. But it did not account for the unpleasant fact that there has been negligible global temperature change since 1998.

Rather than modifying the phrase to “suspected global warming” or “episodic global warming,” the new term “climate change” was invented to replace it. That way, new realities could emerge. Changes of all sorts — historic snows, record cold, California drought, El Nino storms — could all be lumped together, supposedly caused by man-made carbon emissions.

Volatile weather such as tornadoes, tsunamis and hurricanes was sometimes rebranded as “climate chaos” — as if Western industry and consumer lifestyles were responsible for what used to be seen as fairly normal occurrences.

The term “sanctuary cities” describes municipalities that in neo-Confederate fashion deny the primacy of federal immigration law and refuse to enforce it.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch used the term “justice-involved youth” to describe young criminals arrested and charged with crimes. From such terminology, one might think the offenders’ “involvement” meant that they were parole officers or young lawyers.

So what is the point of trying to change reality by making up new names and phrases?

It’s mostly politics. If Hollande had used the label “skinheads” to describe European right-wing movements, the White House might not have altered the video. If a half-million right-wing Cubans were pouring illegally into Florida each year, or if 100,000 Serbs were crossing the border from Canada, the Library of Congress might not object to calling them “illegal aliens.” Clapper and Brennan are unlikely to claim that the Crusades were largely secular or an exercise in self-purification.

The Obama administration probably would not describe rogue police officers charged with crimes as “justice-involved police.” If cities with conservative mayors declined to enforce the Endangered Species Act or federal firearms statutes, they probably would not be known as “sanctuary cities,” but rather as “nullification cities.”

Orwell also wrote about a futuristic dystopia ruled by a Big Brother government that created politicized euphemisms to reinvent reality. He placed his novel in the year 1984, warning Westerners about what was in their future.

Categories: Linguistics, Political correctness, Politics
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Moonies for Cruz

April 7, 2016

Moonies for Cruz, Ann Coulter.com, Ann Coulter, April 6, 2016

Congratulations to Ted Cruz for winning his fourth primary! Usually Donald Trump wins the primaries — where you go and vote, like in a real election. Cruz wins the caucuses — run by the state parties, favored by political operators and cheaters.

Until now, the only primaries Cruz has won are in Texas (his home state), Oklahoma (basically the same state) and Idaho (where Trump never campaigned).

So now, Cruz has finally won an honest-to-goodness primary. This is great news for him, provided: (1) the general election is a caucus, and (2) the national media universally denounce Cruz’s Democratic opponent the same way the Wisconsin media denounced Trump.

In that case, Cruz should do fine.

The Cruz-bots don’t care. They don’t care that they’re being used as a cat’s-paw by the Never Trump crowd, and that a brokered Republican convention is more likely to end with Bernie as the nominee than Cruz.

The Cruz cultists don’t even care about plain honesty, which I always thought was a conservative value. Republicans used to be appalled by guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons. Now they are guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.

It’s all hands on deck to stop the only presidential candidate who wants to save America from the cheap labor plutocrats.

Cruz has flipped to Trump’s side on every important political issue of this campaign — which only ARE issues because of Trump. These are:

— Quadrupling the number of foreign guest workers to help ranchers and farmers get cheap labor: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.

— Legalizing illegal aliens: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.

— The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal: Cruz was for it, and now is against it.

— Building a wall: Cruz was against it, and now is for it.

These are all positions Cruz has changed since being a senator — most of them he’s flipped on only in the last year. I’m supposed to believe that U.S. senators can sincerely change their minds about policies it was their job to know about, but a New York developer can never change his mind about pop-offs he made more than a decade ago.

Back in 1999 — 17 years ago — when Donald Trump was considering a presidential run on the Reform Party ticket, he said this when asked about abortion by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press”: “Well, look, I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”

Russert then asked him specifically if he’d ban partial-birth abortion. Trump said, “No. I am pro-choice in every respect and as far as it goes, but I just hate it.”

A year later, Trump wrote in his book “The America We Deserve”: “When Tim Russert asked me on ‘Meet the Press’ if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would indeed support a ban.”

Sometime in the intervening 16 years, Trump became fully pro-life.

You can say you don’t believe him — just as you might say you don’t believe Cruz has truly changed his mind on amnesty, the wall, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc. But to claim Trump is pro-choice today — present tense — is what’s known as a “lie.”

But that’s what Cruz says over and over again, including in a campaign ad — and not one of those “super PAC” ads that count even less than a retweet. A Cruz ad plays the clip from that 1999 interview where Trump says, “I am pro-choice in every respect,” repeats it three times, and then cuts to a narrator proclaiming: “For partial-birth abortion, not a conservative.”

These are the kinds of lies that used to drive conservatives crazy when the Clintons did it. Not anymore. All’s fair in smearing Trump.

Trump has said a million times that he’d scrap Obamacare and replace it with a free market system (which, by the way, he explains a lot more clearly than Washington policy wonks with their think-tank lingo). Merely for Trump saying that we’re “not going to let people die, sitting in the middle of a street in any city in this country,” Cruz accuses him of supporting “Bernie Sanders-style medicine.”

Yes, because Trump is against people dying in the streets, Cruz says that Trump thinks “Obamacare didn’t go far enough and we need to expand it to put the government in charge of our health care, in charge of our relationship with our doctors.” Over and over again, Cruz has repeated this insane lie, telling Fox’s Megyn Kelly: “If you want to see Bernie Sanders-style socialized medicine, Donald Trump is your guy.”

Trump’s alleged support for the kind of national health care they have in Scotland and Canada is another big fat lie. Trump was issuing his usual effusive praise before he drops the hammer — “It actually works incredibly well in Scotland. Some people think it really works in Canada.” Then he continued, in the very same sentence: “I don’t think it would work as well here. What has to happen — I like the concept of private enterprise coming in. … You have to create competition.”

Cruz and his cult-like followers lie about Trump wanting a health care system akin to Canada’s and Scotland’s. They lie about his supporting Obamacare. They lie about his supporting partial-birth abortion. They lie about his ever having been a Democrat. They lie about his campaign manager assaulting a female reporter.

I tried being nice after Florida, when it became clear that Trump was the choice of a majority of Republican voters, nearly choking on a column praising Cruz for his admirable flip-flops to Trump’s positions on immigration and trade. I censored loads of anti-Cruz retweets. But — as with the Clintons — you offer these Cruz-bots an olive branch and they bite off your hand.

The next thing I knew, the Cruz cult was accusing Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of criminal battery for brushing past a female reporter. Anyone who claims this video shows a “battery” is as big a liar as the liberals who lined up to say Clinton did not commit perjury when he denied having “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky.

If James Carville and Paul Begala had a baby, it would be a Cruz supporter.

They lie about my own tweaking of Trump — I didn’t like the Heidi retweet! — amid a tidal wave of support. Trump is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime who will build a wall, deport illegals and pause the importation of Muslims. He’s the only one who cares more about ordinary Americans than he does about globalist plutocrats. Does anyone really think I’m “tiring” of him because of a retweet?

Apparently, for slavishly devoted Cruz-bots, a normal human making a small criticism of her preferred candidate is unfathomable! That fact alone proves how dishonest they are about their own candidate.

I was under the misimpression that I was dealing with adults and not swine like Carville and Begala, willing to twist someone’s words to win a momentary political advantage. Mostly, I was under the misimpression that honesty was still a conservative value.

Categories: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz
Tags: ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »