Via Hope n’ Change
H/t Cry and Howl
Trump Castigated for Acknowledging Immigration Threats, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, July 29, 2016
There have been no shortage of participants of the Democratic Convention who have dismissed the concerns articulated by Donald Trump in his acceptance speech and elsewhere, as painting a fearful and dark image about America today.
When Donald Trump provided the transcript of his acceptance speech to the media, it was heavily footnoted to verify the claims he made, as the Washington Times reported, “Donald Trump promises ‘the truth, and nothing else,’ releases speech transcript with 282 footnotes.”
The concerns voiced by Mr. Trump were based on reality, a reality that Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others, would rather the American people not know.
On a personal note, fifteen years ago I was diagnosed as having aggressive form of prostate cancer. That diagnosis was dark and frankly, disconcerting. However, because of that diagnosis, I immediately sought an effective treatment. I was fortunate because my cancer was successfully treated.
Had I not immediately sought effective treatment I would not be here today.
Donald Trump has accurately diagnosed America’s serious and indeed, potentially fatal ailments beginning with the Damoclean Sword of terrorism that hovering over our heads. Our safety and wellbeing is also threatened by crime, record levels of drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, a faltering economy, suppressed wages and a shrinking middle class that are not fantasies but are the realities America and Americans face each day.
These concerns certainly paint a dark image, but it is an entirely accurate image and after more than seven years, the current administration bears the responsibility for the situation we are in.
However just as my cancer was treatable, America’s ills are treatable, if and only if our next president and other elected politicians are willing to acknowledge the threats and challenges and then swiftly devise and implement effective strategies to effectively mitigate them.
Donald Trump has properly identified the nexus between failures of the immigration system and the problems we face. This is not to say that immigrants are the problem but that failures of the immigration system have resulted in the entry of aliens criminals, terrorists and huge numbers of foreign workers who displace American workers.
Furthermore there is a world of difference between immigrants and illegal aliens.
Contrary to the claims of Trump’s critics that he has offered no solutions, he advocated securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws that make no distinction about race, religion or ethnicity. They were enacted to protect national security and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.
Trump has called for ending the admission of Syrian refugees and, in fact, any alien who cannot be vetted. This is sensible given the threats posed by ISIS and other terror organizations. This is consistent with our laws and precedents. Indeed, after our embassy was seized in Tehran, President Carter barred the entry of Iranians.
These are practical solutions and do not involve bigotry but commonsense.
The Obama administration implemented the DACA (Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival) program that has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with lawful status and employment authorization. Mr. Obama claimed to have done this because “Congress had failed to act.”
In reality, Congress did act. It voted against the DREAM Act. Hence, acted against what Obama wanted. The DREAM Act would have created a dangerous program that would simply encourage still more illegal immigration, flood the labor pool with still more foreign workers under the auspices of the “DREAM Act” and, while Obama and advocates for the DREAM Act claimed that this was about children, the age cutoff for aliens who would participate in this ill-conceived program was 31. (They simply had to claim that they entered the United States as teenagers.)
The Labor Department has falsely claimed that our unemployment rate stands at approximately 5% while utterly ignoring the tens of millions of working age Americans who have left the workforce.
Mr. Obama has complained about violence in the inner cities and connects the violence to high poverty rates while ignoring that as his second term as president draws to a close, our borders have never been more porous and that he has provided lawful immigration status to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens enabling them to compete with desperate American workers. He ignores the great increase of the number of Americans now on food stamps or that the middle class is shrinking.
Obama’s failures to secure our borders have facilitated the smuggling of record quantities of heroin into the United States. There is a clear nexus between violent crime, gangs and drug addiction and drug trafficking.
Obama has released record numbers of what he deemed “non-violent” federal drug offenders from prison and more than 100,000 criminal aliens from custody. Generally federally prosecuted drug offenses involve large quantities of drugs and almost invariably when individuals engage in large-scale drug crimes they are armed- often heavily armed.
The drug trade is a violent trade where extreme violence is routinely used to make certain that none of those who work for the drug gangs steal drugs or money or cooperate with law enforcement. Extreme violence is also a tactic of the drug gangs to control turf.
It must also be noted that many of the key players in drug gangs are aliens who were sent to the United States by the leaders of Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO’s) who employ them to maintain iron-fisted control over their operations in the United States. Leaders of DTO’s have generally known the people they send to the United States for many years and also know where their family members live back in their home countries. If an employee of a DTO betrays his/her employer, their family members will pay the price with their lives.
Although Obama and his supporters frequently claim that his administration has deported more illegal aliens than any previous administration, their statistics are bogus. They claim that aliens who are denied entry at ports of entry or aliens simply turned around at the border by the Border Patrol were deported (removed). This is the equivalent of claiming that a police officer who writes a parking ticket has made an arrest.
On July 24, 2016 Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, participated in a joint interview by Scott Pelley, correspondent for CBS News’ program, 60 Minutes. That interview has been posted under the title, “The Democratic Ticket: Clinton and Kaine.”
During that interview, when asked about her goals Clinton said, in part,
“I want an economy that creates more jobs. And that’s a lot of jobs. I want an economy that gets back to raising incomes for everybody. Most Americans haven’t had a raise. I want an economy that’s going to help lift millions of people out of poverty. Because, given the great recession, we have fallen back in the wrong direction.”
During his acceptance speech as Vice-Presidential candidate at the DNC Tim Kaine often spoke in Spanish and repeatedly invoked the three word phrase, “Si se puede” which means “Yes, we can.” This phrase is associated with the activist movement to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with a pathway to citizenship and is the precise opposite of Trump’s position.
Both Clinton and Kaine have promised to legalize a population of tens of millions of illegal aliens, giving them an equal standing in the already overflowing labor pool of unemployed Americans. On July 25, 2016 The Washington Times reported, “Tim Kaine promises bill to legalize illegal immigrants in ‘first 100 days’.”
Inasmuch as labor is a commodity, flooding the labor pool with millions of authorized workers will drive down wages and displace still more American and lawful immigrant workers.
It is absolutely impossible to provide lawful status to millions of illegal aliens and then magically put unemployed Americans to work and increase the wages of the workers. Additionally, each month the United States admits a greater number of authorized foreign workers than the number of new jobs that is created.
It has been said that you don’t bring sand to the beach.
When you find a hole in the bottom of the boat, it would be insane to believe that drilling more holes in the bottom of that boat would enable the water to escape. The rational and obvious approach would be to seal that hole.
America does not have a shortage of workers, it has a shortage of jobs. Flooding America with still more foreign workers is the equivalent of drilling more holes in the bottom of that boat.
Additionally, there would be no way to conduct interviews interviews or field investigations of these millions of illegal aliens whose true identities or dates of entry could not be determined and who entered the United States surreptitiously, evading the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would undermine national security, public safety, public health and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.
This violates commonsense and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would do irreparably undermine national security and public safety as would Hillary Clinton’s stated plans to greatly increase the number of Syrian Refugees who are admitted into the United States when the Director of the FBI and other high-ranking Obama administration officials have unequivocally testified before Congress that these refugees cannot be vetted.
Although never discussed, it is vital to note that if millions of illegal aliens were granted lawful status they would immediately be legally eligible to bring all of their spouses and minor children to the United States. This would flood our nation’s schools with millions of additional children, most of whom cannot read, write or speak English. Several years ago the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report that noted that it costs 20% to 40% more to teach a child who lacks English language proficiency. Imagine the impact this would have on American children- especially those who attend schools that are already struggling to provide their students with a good education.
As the title of one of my recent articles noted, “‘It’s the Immigration Problem, Stupid’ – Secure borders are synonymous with safety and that’s what Americans want in 2016.”
O’Keefe Undercover With Outraged Dems at the DNC, Project Veritas Action via YouTube, July 28, 2016
According to the blurb beneath the video,
In this new video from Project Veritas Action, James O’Keefe goes undercover as a Hillary Clinton supporter with outraged Democrats at the DNC. Angry protesters scream and shout about their hatred for Hillary Clinton and how they’ve been disenfranchised by the DNC, the Democratic Party establishment and political elites. James O’Keefe gets assaulted by an angry Bernie Sanders supporter. Watch this video to see what the mainstream media refuses to cover.
What if an Anti-American Cult Had a Convention? American Thinker, Jeffrey T. Brown, July 29, 2016
Anyway, I used to wonder what it would look like if such a cult had a convention. I don’t anymore.
**********************
Have you ever wondered what it might look like if a cult that enabled death and destruction and chaos and anarchy had its own national convention? I have.
Preceding that convention, we might already presumably know something about that cult, as well as its goals and objectives, since cults exist to spur larger and more oppressive versions of themselves that usurp power and mandate allegiance. They can’t very well do this under a bushel basket. They have to go public in order to recruit enough gullible and warped individuals to swell the ranks.
If there were such a cult, we might foresee that it would be made up of narrow-minded, intolerant, hate-filled people who reject the dignity of human life and self-determination. They would so resent the individualism and freedom of other segments of society as to believe that their superiority, and that of their vision, entitles them to do anything, and take anything, they wish. I imagine that such people, driven by a bizarre lack of self-awareness, and an equally impressive degree of selfishness and narcissism, would not only condone the death of others, but capitalize on death as a tool to further their agenda of control and oppression. After all, the rationalization goes, the exploited are dead. What do they care? And what is death but a practical response to an inconvenient obstacle to primacy?
If such a cult had its own convention, its members might prominently reward those who had committed the most damage. In the event that members had died doing damage, their family members would make worthy stand-ins. They could proudly tell lies about their ideological enemies, the ones whose deaths they threaten and chant about, while flaunting their fake victimhood for all their fellow believers. What a heartwarming moment that would be.
If there were such a convention, perhaps we could expect to see flags representative of regimes that soaked themselves in the blood of their own citizens and their enemies. Maybe some nice Soviet flags, or Communist Chinese flags, or some Palestinian flags. What a pretty spectacle that would be at a convention of supposedly American citizens who left American ideals behind decades ago in pursuit of domination, increasingly by any means necessary. Of course, they get to arbitrarily decide what is “necessary” to achieve their objectives. They really don’t want to hear from the rest of us. When it’s time, they will tell us what flag we are permitted to fly, if we survive their plans for us.
At such a convention, we might expect that God and religion are so objectionable that they are booed and marginalized. Why, they might even boo during the invocation at the outset of the convention, though why such people would have an invocation is beyond me. Perhaps they await the blessing of the entity to whom Saul Alinsky, one of their patrons, dedicated his book. Certainly that would make sense. After all, such a cult would probably have officially removed the actual God from its party platform years ago.
Such a convention might prominently feature those who have not only broken the law, but are immensely proud of their lawlessness and how they have gained from it, along with their friends. After all, what good is massive corruption if you can’t share it with those you wish to keep from stabbing you in the back? Soulless cults aren’t known for their sincere camaraderie, you know.
These folks wouldn’t admit to their crimes, of course, but would go out of their way to demonize those who believe that criminals should be treated like criminals. Going to jail is bad for business, and once one goes, a lot of them could follow. Therefore, it’s best to make sure there is no “first one” heading to the slammer. The answer is to condemn the law-abiding, smear them, and bring the weight of the cult down on their heads, so they know that it is better that they, or someone coming along after them, suffer in silence.
The members of such a cult would not only engage in their own mayhem, but embrace and protect other like-minded criminals. After all, there are plenty of spoils to be shared if all of the murderers and thieves simply accept their fair share. So the domestic cult would run interference for the foreign death cults. The American cult members would lie about the foreign cultists’ deeds and motivations, proclaiming that the foreign agents can’t be believed when they openly and consistently profess that they are motivated by their own death cult, with rules contained in a book they treat the way their American allies treat Saul Alinsky’s book. Cults have to have their “bibles,” after all. Lord knows the real Bible doesn’t help them out very much.
Perhaps, if there were such a convention, there would be anger, and resentment, and envy, and jealousy, and bitterness, and derision, and violence, since there isn’t much sweetness and light in death cults. Even their attempts at sweetness and light are patently false and condescending and obviously scripted and insincere. Destroying the lives, fortunes, and opportunities of hundreds of millions of people, and consigning some of them to suffering and death, is a mean business. For instance, you can’t be a happy soul while you make health care so unaffordable and poor that people perish for lack of funds to get treatment. You can’t be a kind soul while fervently advocating the death of millions of unborn human beings based on the lie that they aren’t real.
Death cults exist to extinguish happiness and kindness. They exist to rule and crush their enemies until they win.
And if there were such a convention, we shouldn’t expect to be truthfully told that any of the foregoing events were occurring. After all, such cults are still able to admit to themselves what they are about, and that there are still a lot of people who haven’t consented to be owned and ruled like subjects who can foresee where the cult is going and what is likely to happen before it gets there.
One thing we know about cults is that there were other cults like them before the most recent version. Cults that use death and destruction and anarchy to achieve their ends are really nothing new. What is new, however, is the seemingly growing number of Americans who are willing to empower the hierarchy of the cult to complete its mission. In the end, the cult will treat them the same as it treats the rest of its enemies. They will be just as expendable as those who resisted. By then it will be too late.
Anyway, I used to wonder what it would look like if such a cult had a convention. I don’t anymore.
Peace Now, the Philly version, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, July 29, 2016
U.S. President Barack Obama tried to sell Hillary Clinton to the American people when he spoke to the Democratic National Convention in Cleveland on Wednesday. After eight years in the White House, she is the most optimistic thing he has to offer, and Obama spoke about hope as if it was still 2008. If Clinton represents hope, fresh ideas and innovation, than Republican nominee Donald Trump has a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
In 2008 we witnessed a brutal fight between the Democrats. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had no mercy for each other. We all know how that fight ended: Obama became president; Clinton was left in debt. But the Clintons have this magic ability to land on their feet. In 2008, Clinton endorsed Obama (at the very last moment), then became his secretary of state and traveled the world. She saw conflicts up close. That is, she saw them rather than solved them.
The president getting emotional in Philadelphia was very emotional. His speech was too long, and he was too indignant. At the end of his address Clinton got up on stage, and the two hugged each other for a long minute. Bill Clinton, who watched from the VIP seats, had no reason to be jealous. He knows full well that this strong embrace was Obama’s way of asking for a third term.
It seemed as though the Democratic National Convention was taking place in a parallel universe. Recent polls show Americans are concerned over terrorism, over their personal safety, the rise in crime and the erosion in America’s status. But the Democrats in Philadelphia were determined to sell a utopian reality to America. The U.S. has never been stronger, the speakers insisted, even as Syrian President Bashar Assad was taking over Aleppo with Russian help.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, America has never been in a better shape, and that is why wars and conflicts were all but ignored in the convention. The message coming out of the city of brotherly love was this: We all like one another; there are no bad guys.
However uplifting that may be, terrorism was almost nowhere to be mentioned because Democratic conventions steer clear of that issue as much as possible. On Wednesday night the speakers had no choice, though, because national security was front and center. The Democrats’ tendency to bury their heads in the sand can play into the hands of the Republican nominee, because terrorism has increasingly become an issue in this election. Clinton has become associated with the Obama administration’s incompetency in the fight against the Islamic State, and rightly so.
Senators Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Brian Schatz (Hawaii) are concerned that Republicans are perceived as stronger on terrorism. This was reinforced when they heard the delegates in Cleveland shouting “No more war!” on Wednesday during former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s speech to the convention floor. As if America gets to decide if wars break out.
If Democrats want to win in November they have to address the issue that worries Americans the most: national security and terrorism, which according to one survey, is the top concern for 28% of Americans. But the Democratic National Convention’s message was heard loud and clear: peace now. This could explain why the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times daily tracking poll had Trump lead by 7 percentage points as of Wednesday.
Source: Alan Dershowitz: The New York Times makes a shocking mistake | Fox News
Published July 28, 2016

May 14, 2014: Pedestrians wait for cabs across the street from The New York Times in New York. (AP) (AP Photo/Bruce Smith)
In a recent article “Amid Push to Curb Police Abuse, Some Act on Fringe,” The New York Times quoted Malik Zulu Shabazz’s call to kill all Zionists in Israel, including their “old ladies” and “little babies.”
Those words alone are shocking and reprehensible but the Times reporters failed to properly identify Shabazz. They said he was “a former New Black Panther leader.” It is odd to identify someone by reference to his “former” role, when his current role is more important and more relevant to the story. Shabazz is the current president of Black Lawyers for Justice, an organization that assists plaintiffs with police abuse cases and frequently organizes rallies with notorious hate groups, such as Nation of Islam.
A 30 second Google search revealed Shabazz’s current role in an organization with “justice” hypocritically in its title. Why did the Times choose to identify him by reference to his former, rather than current role?
I know enough about the Times’ fact checking process to be certain that the reporters were aware of his present role. If they made an explicit editorial decision to omit it, the readers are entitled to know why.
A 30 second Google search revealed Shabazz’s current role in an organization with “justice” hypocritically in its title. Why did the Times choose to identify him by reference to his former, rather than current role?
Was it in order to artificially widen the distance between violent radical “fringe” groups and more mainstream groups that are seeking to curb police abuse? Why not include the current role of this hateful inciter of genocide and let the reader judge his proximity to the mainstream.
The Times didn’t even identify Shabazz as a member of the bar – a practicing lawyer – who, together with his fellow members of Black Lawyers for Justice, gives legal advice to some of those mainstream groups the Times was focusing on in the article.
As president of Black Lawyers for Justice, Shabazz, has called for genocide against the Jews of Israel: “Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddam little babies, goddam old ladies? Blow up Zionist supermarkets.” And, he has not limited his hateful vitriol to Zionists. He had blamed Jews for blowing up the World Trade Center: “They got their people out.” He has accused the Jews of “[k]illing Christ,” and said that “God condemns you.” He has said that “Jews” set up the death of Martin Luther King. He blames “[t]he Jewish rabbis” and “the Talmud” for “the African holocaust.” He has said that “the European Jews have America under control, lock stock and barrel, the media, foreign policy.”
This bigoted inciter of genocide is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia — despite having been disciplined by that bar for numerous acts of unprofessional conduct. Those acts include “failing to provide competent representation” to clients, “failing to safe-keep his client’s property” and “knowingly assisting another to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Applicants for admission to the bar have been excluded for expressing racist ideas far less virulent than the genocidal incitements attributed to Shabazz.
While these incitements may be protected by the First Amendment, they may also demonstrate unfitness to practice law, especially when considered against the background of the other unprofessional conduct of which Shabazz has been found guilty.
One thing is clear: no decent person should have anything to do with this anti-Semitic hate monger, and every legitimate organization concerned about police abuse should disassociate themselves from him and from his organization.
Yet Cornel West, a Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary and Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, recently introduced this despicable bigot at a “March of the Oppressed” rally in Cleveland. West praised Shabazz as “my dear brother,” someone whom he has known for 20 years and who “is still on the battlefield.”
He compared this rancid anti-Semite to the great Martin Luther King. He asked the crowd to applaud for Shabazz, which they did. He then hugged him.
You can view West’s speech at #MASSIVE rally and March in #CLE #BlackLivesMatter on YouTube.
West’s endorsement of Shabazz is comparable to a white professor introducing the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan with such effusive praise.
Despite West’s close association with and support for this advocate of genocide against Jewish babies, West was appointed to the Democratic Party Platform Committee by Bernie Sanders.
For shame!
Alan Dershowitz is emeritus professor at Harvard and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.”
Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims
by Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani
Jul 28, 2016 10:01 am
Source: Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims | ThinkProgress

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Monday, July 18, 2016.
Former New York City Mayor and current Donald Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani said on Wednesday that he thinks it’s an “excellent idea” to monitor Muslims on the federal watch list through electronic monitoring tags.
“I would think that’s an excellent idea,” Giuliani told reporters at a press conference, according to NJ Advance Media. “If you’re on the terror watch list, I should you know you’re on the terror watch list. You’re on there for a reason.”
Giuliani said he would suggest that Trump use the same measure of electronically monitoring people as in France. Both the attackers involved in the killing of a priest in Normandy on Tuesday were already known to French security services and on watch lists, and one was being monitored through an electronic tag.
The terrorism watch list and no-fly list are notorious for ethnic and religious profiling, and many innocent people end up on the list — but Giuliani’s comments come as no surprise given his own penchant for surveillance of the Muslim community, another ineffective practice, during his time as New York’s mayor.
“I put undercover agents in mosques for the first time in January 1994,” said Giuliani, following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which left six dead and hundreds wounded. “I did it because the 1993 bombing was planned in a mosque in Union City, New Jersey, and a second plan was uncovered to bomb our subways, which was foiled. And I kept those police officers in those mosques until I left as mayor.”
Surveillance of the Muslim community in New York grew exponentially after the 9/11 attacks, and according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), involved the mapping of Muslim communities, heavy photo and video surveillance, police informants, and entire databases with personal information about innocent Muslims. The ACLU has deemed the surveillance “unconstitutional” and said it contributes to an “atmosphere of fear and mistrust” — but perhaps equally important, such methods are wholly ineffective. According to a 2012 report from the Associated Press, in six years of spying on Muslims, listening to their conversations, and cataloging mosques, the NYPD didn’t get a single lead or begin even one terrorism investigation.
The watch lists Giuliani wants to monitor Muslims through also don’t work. As ThinkProgress has previously reported:
Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people. A leak revealed that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.
The watch lists are so huge, and riddled with errors, in large part due to the low bar for evidence. The government’s March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance, for example, notes that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to put someone on a watch list.
Trump has previously called for registering all Muslims in a “database,” racial profiling of Muslims, and banning all Muslims from the United States — a ban which his adviser once said would include Muslim Americans as well. He has also suggested that Muslims know about attacks before they happen and do nothing to stop them and said that Obama, who he has repeatedly called a Muslim, is allowing Muslims to commit attacks like the one in Orlando last month.
Recent Comments