Donald Trump Judge Jeanine Pirro FULL Interview 4-9-2016, Fox News via You Tube, April 9, 2016
Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category
Donald Trump Judge Jeanine Pirro FULL Interview 4-9-2016
April 10, 2016Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Donald Trump Vs Establishment – Election 2016
April 10, 2016Obama: ‘Mr. Trump is not succeeding me’
April 8, 2016Obama: ‘Mr. Trump is not succeeding me’ Politico, Nolan D. McCaskill, April 8, 2016
(Did Obama just “endorse” Trump and/or Cruz? Perhaps they should thank him.– DM)
President Barack Obama is confident that Donald Trump won’t succeed him as president in 2017. | AP Photo
Democrats should thank Trump and Cruz for their honesty, Obama remarked, while also expressing that their rhetoric provides a look into what’s at stake in this election — which he said is about more than why Democrats can take America in a better direction than Republicans.
*******************
President Barack Obama in his most emphatic terms yet disputed the idea that Donald Trump will win this presidential election.
“I recognize that there is a deep obsession right now about Mr. Trump,” Obama told attendees of a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser Thursday evening in Santa Monica, California. “And one of you pulled me aside and squeezed me hard and said, ‘Tell me that Mr. Trump is not succeeding you.’ And I said, ‘Mr. Trump is not succeeding me.’”
Obama credited Trump and his primary rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for exposing “some of the nonsense that we’ve been dealing with in Congress on a daily basis.”
“People act as if these folks are outliers. But they’re not,” Obama said, pointing to what Republicans in general say during interviews, on talk radio and in town halls. “They’re saying stuff that’s just as wacky as what we’re hearing out of the presidential candidates. It’s just nobody was paying attention.”
Democrats should thank Trump and Cruz for their honesty, Obama remarked, while also expressing that their rhetoric provides a look into what’s at stake in this election — which he said is about more than why Democrats can take America in a better direction than Republicans.
Obama recalled that during trips in Democratic circles he’s praised for his work the last seven-plus years but told that people aren’t that excited about this election.
“And I say I have no patience for that. I say thank you very much, first,” Obama said. “But then I say to folks, we cannot be complacent, and we cannot be cynical, because the stakes are too high. And we should take pride in what we’ve accomplished over the last seven and a half years, not because every problem was fixed, but because it showed the steady progress that happens when people who love this country decide to change it.”
“And that should be a spur, a call to action,” he added. “And it starts not just at the presidential level, but in us recognizing the enormous power of Congress and the difference between a Nancy Pelosi being speaker of the House and a Paul Ryan being speaker of the House.”
Trump’s new convention manager speaks out
April 8, 2016Trump’s new convention manager speaks out, CNN via You Tube, April 8, 2016
Let My People Go: How Trump and Cruz Deliver the GOP
April 7, 2016Let 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.
Primary distractions from Iran
April 5, 2016Primary distractions from Iran, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, April 5, 2016
Ahead of Tuesday’s Wisconsin presidential primaries, U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was in Israel, the destination he chose for his first foreign trip since assuming his post at the end of October.
In meetings with Israeli leaders — and in an interview with Times of Israel editor David Horovitz — Ryan reaffirmed his commitment to the Jewish state and his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. He also stated, in no uncertain terms, that — contrary to increasing rumor and pressure — he is not going to end up becoming the Republican nominee at what threatens to be a contested GOP convention. Nobody really believes he means it, however, because he had been equally adamant about not wanting the position he is currently occupying.
But, while distraught Americans from both parties are obsessing over whether Donald Trump can win the nomination — and if he does, whether he can beat likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton — the Obama administration is being given a free pass to get away with murder, figuratively. More literally, it is enjoying the benefit of the doubt caused by the distraction of the public away from the havoc the White House and State Department are continuing to wreak, which is enabling the actual death of a lot of people in the present, and a whole lot more in the future.
The terrorism of the Islamic State group is only a tiny part of this, though it seems to be the only jihadist organization that gets a rise out of Westerners, whom it makes no bones about targeting for mass murder. Indeed, as the suicide bombings in Brussels on March 22 indicated, Europeans and Americans only wake up when a lot of people with whom they can identify get slaughtered senselessly. That this kind of thing is going on routinely everywhere else in the world barely elicits a yawn.
But as evil as ISIS is, it is still small fry compared to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism, with tentacles reaching far and wide. And now, thanks to the Obama administration, it also has multibillions of dollars at its disposal with which to build its nuclear arsenal. Nor does it hide its ambitions to wipe Israel off the map and its loathing for America, the “great Satan.”
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has made this clear to the point of warning his own underlings to follow suit.
“Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors,” he said last week.
How has the Obama administration responded to this and previous Iranian muscle-flexing, abduction of American sailors, celebration of U.S. abdication and assertion that nothing Tehran does violates the nuclear agreement?
It has conceded to Iran on every point. Or worse.
As was revealed in a piece by Adam Kredo in The Washington Free Beacon on Monday, “Congress is investigating whether the Obama administration misled lawmakers last summer about the extent of concessions granted to Iran under the nuclear deal, as well as if administration officials have been quietly rewriting the deal’s terms in the aftermath of the agreement.”
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) told Kredo that “the gap between [the administration’s] promises … and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians.”
He was referring to issues such as Iran’s ballistic missile testing, which the administration initially said constituted a violation of nuclear-deal codifier U.N. Resolution 2231, and then backtracked. Perhaps even more disturbing were statements from the Treasury Department indicating that international business transactions with Iran could be done in dollars — releasing the ban in place on Iran’s access to the U.S. financial system.
In other words, not only was the deal America made with the devil a dangerous one to begin with, but apparently, we don’t know the half of it.
This sentiment was expressed in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday by United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba, who wrote that, in spite of President Barack Obama’s claim about the world being safer place as a result of the nuclear deal, “The Iran we have long known — hostile, expansionist, violent — is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever.”
It is this sorry situation, and the Democrats who brought us here, that Americans must keep in mind come November, no matter who the Republican candidate is.
Two Clashes of Civilizations
April 4, 2016Two Clashes of Civilizations, Dan Miller’s Blog, April 3, 2016
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
One clash involves those who would make America more corrupt, more violent, more drug addicted and poorer. The other involves those who would make Islam dominant, bringing us Sharia law along with the violence and social unrest now seen in Europe.
Illegal immigration from South of the Border
Is she right or wrong?
Corruption in the United States mainly (but not exclusively) enriches the political class. In the Latin Amerian countries my wife and I explored during our seven years of sailing in the Caribbean, we saw corruption in most countries. However, rather than being mainly at the top, it was accepted and relied upon by all levels of society. Venezuela under Chavez was the worst. The more illegal immigrants from Latin America who enter America, the more corruption we will have at all levels.
Our southern border is not a sieve; it is wide open to all who can get to it, with no significant efforts to restrict entry or to deport the many who get across illegally.
Perhaps that’s among the reasons why the U.S. Border Patrol agents’ union broke with its policy of endorsing no presidential candidate to support Donald Trump.
“We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man,” the union said.
Trump had scheduled a tour of the border with agents from a local chapter of the union, but that tour was canceled due to pressure from the group’s national headquarters. Yet the endorsement, which Trump’s campaign touted Wednesday, came from the national union.
The results of our open border are felt well beyond border states. In St. Louis, Missouri for example, a substantial spike in violent crime has been traced to cheap heroin and Mexican cartels. Ditto Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Philadelphia.
“The gangs have to have a lot of customers because the heroin is so cheap,” said Gary Tuggle, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief in Philadelphia, who observed the same phenomenon while overseeing the agency’s Baltimore office. ”What we are seeing is these crews becoming more violent as they look to expand their turf.”
To attract customers, the cartels — usually through a local surrogate — instruct gangs to sell the drug at prices as low as $5 for each button (about one-tenth of a gram of powdered heroin, which could last a novice user an entire day). At times, the gangs distribute free samples, according to agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Drugs are one part of the illegal immigration problem, but far from the only part. On March 16th, an article by Victor Davis Hanson was posted at PJ Media. It was titled The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration. Hanson’s basic thesis is that illegal immigration begets disregard for the law and hence additional lawlessness.
[C]ontemplate what happens in a social, cultural, and economic context when several million immigrants arrive from one of the poorest areas in the world (e.g., Oaxaca) to one of the most affluent (e.g., California). For guidance, think not of Jorge Ramos, but of the premodern/postmodern collision that is occurring in Germany, Austria, and Denmark.
The first casualty is the law. I am not referring to the collapse of federal immigration enforcement, but rather the ripples that must follow from it. When someone ignores a federal statute, then it is naturally easy to flout more. In Los Angeles, half the traffic accidents are hit-and-run collisions. I can attest first-hand that running from an accident or abandoning a wrecked vehicle is certainly a common occurrence in rural California. Last night on a rural road, a driver behind me (intoxicated? Malicious? Crazy?) apparently tried to rear-end me, then turned off his lights, sped up, and at the next stop sign pulled over swearing out the window in Spanish. In this age and in these environs, why would one call a sheriff for a minor everyday occurrence like that? The point is simply that when there is no federal law, no one has any idea how several million arrive in the U.S., much less what exactly they were doing before their illegal arrival. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Out here almost all laws concerning the licensing and vaccination of dogs seem to have simply disappeared. No one can walk or ride a bicycle along these rural roads without being attacked by hounds that are unlicensed and not vaccinated—and that have no ID or indeed owners that step forward to claim ownership once the victim is bleeding. The Bloomberg Rule reigns (i.e., if you can’t keep snow off the street, deplore global warming or cosmic war): we talk of dreamers because we have not a clue how to ensure that hundreds of thousands of pets are registered and given rabies shots. No one suggests that once one breaks the law of his adopted home, and continues to do so through false affidavits, aliases, and fraudulent documents, then the law itself become an abstraction, useful as a shelter, expendable if an inconvenience. Again, one assumes that if a citizen were to do that, he would face a felony indictment.
. . . .
An indigent Oaxacan immigrant is reminded more often by his host that his poverty is not the result of his own wild gamble to leave his home and enter illegally an entirely foreign universe, but due to the racism, nativism, and xenophobia of his clueless host—pathologies that can be ameliorated by plenty of advocates whose own careers are predicated on open borders and slow if any assimilation.
Yesterday, I saw this story of a walkout from a local high school, five miles away: Among the many racialized complaints was a strange one that that were not enough Latino school board members (that might apparently ensure interpreters at board meeting). “We feel oppressed and underrepresented. When we try to speak up, they don’t listen,” said student Monica Velazquez. “When the majority of the school board is white and male, I don’t see us being represented. And [Laton High School] is just a small piece of that problem.” In our world of victimology, being oppressed and underrepresented are quirky assertions (e.g., ethnic chauvinism mean that coveted spots must reflect ethnic percentages of the population, while ethnic disproportion in unmentionable activities is left unsaid).
Where does all this lead? I suggest we open our eyes and watch it in progress. Mass flight either out of state, or to coastal enclaves, where liberalism and abstract progressive utopianism can be indulged safety without worries over the concrete ramifications that follow from one’s own idealism. If deeds trump words, then the real racists or exclusionists are those in the mostly affluent coastal enclaves who suddenly want no part of the California that they have helped to create.
The final tragedy? If the border were to be closed, if immigration laws were enforced, if there were some reduction in legal immigration, if entry were to be meritocratic, if we reverted to the melting-pot ideal of assimilation, if we cut –studies courses and jettisoned therapy and ideology for hard science, math, and English language, in just two decades one’s particular ancestry would become irrelevant — the image of Oaxaca would be analogous to having a grandfather from Palermo or cousin from the Azores. In other words, things would work out fine.
Please read the entire article. It’s one of VDH’s best.
Sanctuary cities? An article titled Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities compares sanctuary cities to “no-go zones”in Europe.
While there are no actual “No Go Zones” in the United States, there are neighborhoods scattered around the United States, where the concentration of ethnic immigrant minorities is so great that police find themselves unable to make the sort of inroads that they should be able to make in order to effectively police these communities. Adding to the high density of these aliens in these communities is the issue of foreign languages often being the prevalent language in such “ghettos.” This gives new meaning to the term “Language Barrier.”
. . . .
Not unlike the “No Go Zones” of European countries, these communities in the Unites States also tend to shield foreign nationals who may be fugitives from justice both inside the United States and in other countries. Terrorists and their supporters are able to go about their daily lives- undetected by law enforcement agencies.
Implementation of sanctuary policies in such cities greatly exacerbates the threats posed to national security and public safety- turning those cities into magnets that attract still more radicals and fugitives and terrorists who need to “fly under the radar.”
Any community that provides safe haven for illegal aliens willfully endangers the lives of it residents.
Even as concerns about increased threats of terror attacks are the topic of a succession of Congressional hearings, so-called “Sanctuary Cities” continue to flourish- with the tacit approval of the administration even though they are clearly operating in violation of federal law.
Islamic immigration, legal and illegal
Europe
Much of Europe has been overrun with Islamic “immigrants” and “refugees.” In consequence, Sweden, Germany and other nations are faring poorly. It is virtually impossible to determine who they are (use of forged passports and other identity documents is rampant), where they come from or whether they are seeking refuge from violence in their home countries or ways to bring it to Europe on behalf of Allah “the all merciful.” Perhaps national suicide is a “merciful” way to go. Unfortunately, few in Europe’s political class acknowledge the nature of the predicament their constituents face.
Despite the series of horrific attacks perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the name of their religion, Europe is not taking the appropriate steps to suppress the phenomenon. Very few mosques in which clerics preach for war against the infidels have been closed down; public order has not been restored to the lawless suburbs in large cities; there is no real oversight of textbooks used in Muslim schools and mosques; very few radical imams have been deported; no significant countermeasures have been taken against Muslims expressing extremist views; and the burka ban has not been implemented.
These are just several of the signs pointing to Europe’s lack of comprehension that some of the Muslims living among them want the continent to fall under Muslim sovereignty, whether by way of the Islamic State approach of violent jihad or by the Muslim Brotherhood approach of population growth and Islamic preaching.
There are many excuses: Misconceptions that violent Muslims are that way simply because they are poor and unloved, a misperceived need to expand the workforce by importing those unwilling and/or unable to participate in that workforce are parts of the problem. So is Europe’s “original sin” of colonialism, for which all of Europe must atone. Another is a fear that if they are not appeased Muslims will become more violent.
Rooting out militant Islam will require taking police action in Muslim-controlled areas. We have already seen the humiliating footage of police officers fleeing under a hail of rocks and Molotov cocktails, hurled at them by crowds of incensed Muslims. Another contributing factor is the dependency of political leaders, primarily from the Left, on the Muslim vote (French President Francois Hollande owes his election victory to the Muslims).
Turkish Muslims living in Germany are on the move. Are they “refugees” (from where) or economic “immigrants” just seeking a better life?
Turkish Muslims living in Germany threaten Germany Shouting “With Allah’s (and Merkel’s?) help, we shall conquer you,” Turkish Muslims take to the streets of Germany, carrying Turkish flags and using the ‘Grey Wolves’ salute, the Turkish equivalent of a National Socialist (NAZI) salute. Just think, Angela Merkel has just signed an agreement to allow Turkish Muslims into Germany without having to get a visa.
Don’t they seem grateful for their new opportunities to prosper? Oh well. Swedish women and girls gotta “love” them, like it or not.
Some “ordinary” Europeans are getting fed with up mass immigration and support anti-immigrant politicians. The left objects.
“You are not the people, you are the past,” was the message to German critics of mass immigration on Germany’s public broadcaster ZDF’s NEO MAGAZIN ROYALE television programme.
The message was delivered in a video featuring a multi-ethnic crowd of disabled, gay and transgender people, as well as a Muslim woman wearing a face veil and a man wearing traditional Saudi headgear, all telling a crowd of Germans that they are “not Germany”.
The video opens with a crowd of angry-looking white Germans hitting against the windows of a bus to intimidate a frightened Arab child and his father, a policeman dragging the child out and hurling him to the ground. Led by the German comedian and television presenter’Jan Böhmermann, brightly dressed people rise from graves, forming a crowd to combat the beige-clad Germans who are wielding Donald Trump placards and signs reading “Refugees not welcome.”
Condemning the German crowd as “authoritarian nationalist dorks” and telling them “you are not the people, you are the past,” Böhmermann cautions that “true Germans are coming for you, you’d better run fast.”
Warning the beige-clad Germans that “10 million bicycle helmets are in sight” Böhmermann describes the lifestyle of “true Germans” to be one of cycling, recycling and eating kebab and muesli. In what is perhaps a jab at protests from senior members of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union against pork being “quietly removed from menus” of public canteens, Böhmermann also declares that the “true Germans” eat vegan sausages.
Obama’s America
A relatively small, but significant, number of Muslims now live in America.
In 2005, more people from Islamic countries became legal permanent United States residents—nearly 96,000—than there had been in any other year in the previous two decades.[13][14] In 2009, more than 115,000 Muslims became legal residents of the United States.[15]
That’s just those who are legally present. Those present illegally? The powers-that-be haven’t a clue as to who they are, where they are, how they got here, where they came from or what they want. We experienced the gifts bestowed upon us by some legally present in Obama’s America during the Boston marathon as well as in Fort Hood, San Bernardino and elsewhere.
Obama has already brought in more than 76,000 “Syrian refugees.” More seem to be on the way.
President Barack Obama has been quietly pushing new plans to bring thousands of additional Syrian refugees into the country, despite the concerns of state and county officials and the outrages committed by welfare-dependent migrants in Europe.
Obama’s special assistant to the president for immigration policy, Felicia Escobar, recently announced plans to increase America’s intake of migrants, according to the Washington Examiner.
“We want to make sure that we can increase our numbers of refugees that are able to settle here,” Escobar said. “The need globally is so, so, so massive right now, given all the displacement and conflict around the world, but we also know that we have to do it in a way that’s smart.”
Federal law already allows the administration to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees a year, but many states and local county administrations have complained that once the Obama administration places refugees among them, few resources are available to deal with them.
The influx is very unpopular, according to polls. Also, nearly all immigrants from the Middle East are dependent on welfare. Some migrant and some second-generation Muslim Americans also embrace jihad.
During his March 2016 visit to a mosque, Obama praised Muslims living in America.
In rebuke to politicians like Donald Trump, Obama presented Islam as an essential part of the nation’s heritage, going back to Muslim slaves brought to the British colonies and running through Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom up to Fazlur Rahman Khan, who designed two of Chicago’s tallest skyscrapers. And he spoke emotionally about mail he received from Muslim American children and parents who felt persecuted and unsafe.
“We’re one American family. And when any part of our family starts to feel separate or second-class or targeted, it tears at the very fabric of our nation,” he said.
. . . .
On Wednesday he responded to critics—especially Republican contenders to replace him in the White House—who complain that he won’t label Islamic terrorism as such, saying demands to label by religion only play into extremist propaganda.
“I often hear it said that we need moral clarity in this fight. And the suggestion is somehow that if I would simply say, ‘These are all Islamic terrorists,’ then we would actually have solved the problem by now, apparently,” he said. “Let’s have some moral clarity: Groups like ISIS are desperate for legitimacy…. We must never give them that legitimacy. They’re not defending Islam. They’re not defending Muslims.”
Implicitly responding to tiresome calls for the “moderate Muslims” to speak out against terrorism, Obama said that they are speaking—but not enough people are listening. He vowed to work to amplify their voices. [Emphasis added.|
There are, in fact, Muslims who want to reform Islam; Obama pays them scant attention. Instead, He consorts with CAIR and it’s co-conspirators to keep Islam just the way it is. Here’s a video of some reform-minded Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, produced and directed it as well as others in the Honor Diaries series.
And here’s a video of some who think Islam is just fine the way it is.
As I noted here,
Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.
In Heretic, Hirsi Ali argued,
There is probably no realistic chance that Muslims in countries such as Pakistan will agree to dispense with sharia. However, we in the West must insist that Muslims living in our societies abide by our rule of law. We must demand that Muslim citizens abjure sharia practices and punishments that conflict with fundamental human rights and Western legal codes. Moreover, under no circumstances should Western countries allow Muslims to form self-governing enclaves in which women and other supposedly second-class citizens can be treated in ways that belong in the seventh century. [Emphasis added.]
Yet there are Islamic enclaves in America where Sharia is practiced. According to The Clarion Project, there are at least twenty-two.
Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani militant group that has rebranded itself as Muslims of the Americas, says it has 22 “Islamic villages” in the U.S. Its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York is the most well-known.
The Clarion Project identified one village in Texas in 2014 and the group mentioned others, including one in Alaska during a frivolous lawsuit it filed against a prominent critic.
Fuqra’s 1994 book, Target Islam: Exposing the Malicious Conspiracy of the Zionists Against the World of Islam and Prominent Muslim Leaders,explains that its establishment of “villages” in the U.S. since 1980 is part of a jihad against a Satanic-Jewish-Communist conspiracy that puppeteers the U.S. government.
They have a cultish devotion to their extremist leader in Pakistan, Sheikh Gilani, who they believe is in constant contact with Allah and the Prophet Mohammed and a miracle worker chosen by Allah to lead Islam to victory.
. . . .
“The Jammatul Fuqra has been able to establish justice according to Islamic Law, not only in the United States, but wherever Muslims are living under un-Islamic laws. According to the Holy Q’uran, a Muslim is not allowed to follow laws other than the law of the Holy Qu’ran…This so-called ‘freedom’ is actually enslavement by the kufaar [non-Muslims] and Shaitan [Satan]…”
It continues:
“On these sites where Islamic Law is enforced as much as possible, anyone who commits a crime against the Law of Allah is punished according to Ta’azerat….Here you see one person receiving twenty lashes in one [Sharia] court in South America. He was found guilty of violating the honor of a Muslim lady, a crime for which he received a hard punishment with patience and faith.”
The article says that the hudud punishments, such as execution and severing of hands and feet, cannot be enforced in kuffar (infidel) lands like the U.S. Notice that this isn’t a stand against sharia‘s brutal hudud punishments; just that they aren’t implementable at this time.
With freedoms of speech and religion lacking in Islamic countries, America could become the birthplace of Islamic reform. With Obama in office? Not a chance.
Conclusions
People from some foreign cultures have integrated and become productive American citizens. Many who have come illegally have not and live on welfare payments and other government subsidies. Since the current administration welcomes them and seeks more, we get (some) cheap labor, plentiful cheap heroin and substantial welfare costs. We also get drug gang-related violence, lawlessness metastasizing into areas beyond immigration itself and corruption.
Our Islamic “refugees” and “immigrants” bring us some similar and some different bounties, just a bit less thus far. They bring us the gift of jihad and Sharia law while enjoying welfare-based lives and complaining that anyone who complains is racist and “Islamophobic.”
There is little that any of us, individually, can do to halt or even slow the Haspanification and Islamification of America. We need to vote for leaders who will undertake — seriously and not merely with pleasing slogans — the legislative and legitimate executive steps needed for that purpose.
Sarah Palin advocates for Donald Trump in Wisconsin • 4/01/16
April 2, 2016Sarah Palin advocates for Donald Trump in Wisconsin 4/01/16, via You Tube
(Substance begins at 04:33 into the video. Here’s a photo of Ted Cruz at the border helping hand out goodies to illegal immigrants.
— DM)
President Of Kremlin-Funded Think Tank Calls For A ‘Reset’ Of Russia–U.S. Relations
March 29, 2016President Of Kremlin-Funded Think Tank Calls For A ‘Reset’ Of Russia–U.S. Relations, MEMRI, March 29, 2016
The Kremlin-funded think tank Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) recently published on its website an article by Igor Ivanov, the think tank’s president of and former minister of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation (1998–2004). In the article, titled “Russia-U.S. relations: The Limits of the Possible” on the RIAC’s website. In the article Ivanov explains that the main goal of Russia-U.S. relations today is to create conditions to end the crisis between the two countries.
Ivanov presents an analysis of the recent crisis in Russia-U.S. relations and points out that the relations are now very different from what they were during the Cold War. He also admits that today’s Russia cannot compete with the U.S. in the same way the USSR could.[1] However, Ivanov warns that the risk of “the political confrontation turning into a military one continues to grow.”
It should be noted that U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, speaking at a U.S. Senate hearing devoted to the U.S. military budget on March 17, 2016, listed Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism as the five evolving strategic challenges that are driving the U.S. Department of Defense’s planning and budgeting.[2] In 2015, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that Russia represents the “greatest threat to the [U.S.] national security.” He then added: “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia.”[3]
On March 23-24, 2016, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Moscow and met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. According to reports, the meeting, which focused on Syria and the Ukrainian crisis, was “relaxed”, “friendly” and characterized by a “touch of humor, “and “John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov moved from reciprocal accusations to dialogue.”[4] However, Kerry told his hosts that President Barack Obama would lift sanctions off Russia only if the Minsk agreements concerning Ukraine were implemented.[5]
According to Ivanov, in order to avoid worst-case scenarios between Russia and the U.S., specific steps must be taken immediately, without waiting for new American and Russian administrations to take office in 2017 and 2018, respectively. He stresses that it is necessary to address those areas of international relations where, in the absence of cooperation, the two sides will face growing problems, especially because neither side is interested in the collapse of the current international system. Hence, the damage control channels of U.S.-Russia dialogue should be restored, the hostile rhetoric should be muted and positive aspects of bilateral relations should be protected and strengthened. Tension may also be reduced if both countries participate in multilateral mechanisms and forums, in which they can demonstrate flexibility without appearing to make unilateral concessions. Ivanov also recommends developing connections between Russian and American civil society, and strengthening Russian studies departments in the U.S. and American studies departments in Russia as a means to promote constructive dialogue.
It is worth noting that the Russian pro-Kremlin media are masters of doublespeak when it comes to the U.S. On the one hand, the threat of an imminent U.S.-Russia confrontation is a constant leitmotif;[6] on the other hand, editorialists and the Kremlin itself declare Russia’s interest in cooperating closely with the West.[7]
The Following are excerpts from the English version of Ivanov’s article, published on the RIAC website on March 16: [8]
Igor Ivanov (Source: Russiancouncil.ru)
The Risk Of The Russia-U.S. Political Confrontation Becoming A Military Confrontation Continues To Grow
“…It has become fashionable lately to speak of a new chapter in the Cold War in global politics, and draw parallels between the current standoff between Moscow and Washington and the Soviet–U.S. confrontation that dominated the second half of the 20th century. But it seems like a bit of a stretch: relations between Moscow and the White House were the main axis of world politics during the Cold War, whereas now they are still important, but they do not determine the global system. We no longer live in a bipolar world, and returning to the rigid bipolarity of the Cold War is impossible.
“Moreover, ideology is not at the core of the current standoff between Russia and the United States, as it was during the Cold War (Soviet communism versus Western democracy). The antagonistic conflict of civilizations dominant today is not between the United States and Russia, of course, but between Western liberalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
“Finally, while Russia may remain a great power in terms of its potential, it is unable to compete with the United States in a number of fields in the same way that the Soviet Union did, particularly in terms of economy and high technology…
“Does all this mean that the current crisis in Russia–U.S. relations is any less dangerous than the situation during the Cold War? Quite the opposite. At that time [during the Cold War], Moscow and Washington were able to set certain rules that served to reduce the risks of an uncontrolled confrontation breaking out. By combining efforts, we created a dense infrastructure of communication channels, consultation mechanisms, and bilateral and multilateral agreements designed to increase the predictability and manageability of international situations. The unique architecture of bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington that existed during the Cold War was mostly stable, and this enabled it to remain almost completely unchanged for quite a long time.
“The current state of Russia–U.S. relations can hardly be called stable. Practically all channels of communication between the two countries have been disrupted, the legal and contractual basis of relations is being eroded in front of our very eyes, and the concept of ‘rules of the game’ with regard to global politics is not even on the agenda. The risk of conflicts breaking out by accident, because of technical glitches or misinterpreted actions, is objectively on the rise…
“Recent events have sparked hopes that Moscow and Washington are beginning to realize the scale of the growing risks and threats to international security: consultations on the Ukrainian issue are underway; efforts to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis are ongoing; cooperation on the Iranian nuclear dossier continues; and the parties hold similar positions with regard to the nuclear situation on the Korean Peninsula. All this is true, but it is too early to talk about any stabilization of U.S.–Russia relations.
“The risk of a political confrontation turning into a military one continues to grow, and there have been no breakthroughs in terms of agreeing to new rules of the game in bilateral relations. The negative dynamics in relations between Moscow and Washington are becoming a serious problem not only for the two countries in question, but for the entire international system…”
Is A New “Reset” Possible?
“Everything indicates that both parties will find it extremely difficult to achieve the most important goal – to restore trust in bilateral relations. No high-level meetings or summits are taking place. Track II diplomacy [i.e. informal contacts] is non-existent. Agreements on local, however important, issues do nothing to help solve the problem of deep mutual suspicion that exists on both sides, and these agreements do not mean that the numerous mutual disagreements and grievances have been removed. Trust has been completely eroded between Moscow and Washington, and it will take a long time, great effort and considerable political will on both sides to restore it.
“Russia and the United States do not have a unified vision of the main trends of global development, the driving forces behind such development, the future world order, the fate of leading international organizations, the reform of international law, etc. And it is unlikely that they will see eye to eye on these matters anytime soon. The White House and the Kremlin have wildly differing views on what they consider to be ‘legal,’ ‘correct,’ ‘ethical,’ and ‘responsible’ in global politics. In this sense, we observe a ‘values gap’ between the Russian and American political elites, which, however, does not necessarily mean an equally wide gap in the fundamental values of the Russian and American people.
“This lack of trust and a unified vision for the development of international relations in the near future means that a new ‘reset’ of U.S.–Russia relations is practically impossible, no matter who comes to the White House in January 2017 and who is elected President of the Russian Federation in 2018.The ‘reset’ that did happen was made possible by a unique confluence of historical circumstances. And even then it ran its course fairly quickly. It did not lead to any kind of breakthrough in relations between the countries, did not give them a new quality…
“So what can we consider as ‘possible’ in U.S.–Russia relations? To answer this question, it is necessary to address those areas of international relations where the roles of Russia and the United States in the near future will continue to have significance and where, without their active cooperation, the two sides will face growing problems.
“First of all, despite their differing views about the future world order, Russia and the United States have no interest in seeing the complete collapse of the current system. Both countries are predominantly conservative players, and on the whole are oriented towards maintaining the global status quo… Despite the nuclear arsenals of a number of countries, there are still only two nuclear superpowers in the world, just as there were during the Cold War. And it will remain this way for a long time.
“It is also clear that Russia and the United States are united, and will continue to be united, by the common desire to avoid a nuclear conflict. Russian and American interests also coincide in terms of combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and fighting international terrorism. We should not forget that efforts to resolve the nuclear issue in Iran and eliminate chemical weapons in Syria continued even during the most critical moments of the Ukrainian crisis…
“Many people believe that no progress is possible in U.S.–Russia relations until the new administration comes into power in the United States in January 2017. In fact, considering the time it will take to form a new presidential team, we should not expect any important initiatives from the American side before summer, or even autumn, of next year.”
The U.S. Administration May Differ From Its Predecessors In Terms Of Style, But Not In Terms Of Understanding Its Basic National Interests
“How justified is this ‘wait-and-see’ approach? First of all, we should not exaggerate the significance of partisan differences in U.S. foreign policy. The new U.S. administration may differ from its predecessors in terms of style and the tactical decisions it might make, but not in terms of understanding and interpreting the country’s basic national interests. In any case, there is no chance of turning a page and starting a new chapter in relations between Moscow and Washington. On the contrary, the more significant the backlog inherited by Barack Obama’s successor, the easier it will be for him or her to move forward.
“What is more, the rapidly changing international situation means that any pause in the U.S.–Russia dialogue is a luxury we cannot afford. Experience shows that such pauses only exacerbate crises in various regions of the world, increasing the risk of a direct military confrontation between Russia and the United States, and bolstering the positions of hawkish actors on both sides.
“In order to avoid worst-case scenarios for U.S.–Russia relations, we should not wait for the right moment, which may never present itself. Rather, we should start working on specific issues immediately.
“First, the damaged channels of U.S.–Russia dialogue need to be restored – at various levels and with various participants, from military leaders to members of parliament, from government officials to representatives of security services. Dialogue has never been seen as merely one side making concessions to the other… But the lack of dialogue inevitably breeds mistrust and fear, creating additional risks.
“Second, it is vitally important to mute hostile rhetoric, primarily at the official level. This kind of rhetoric filters down to the general public, appeals to long-standing stereotypes and the darker instincts of national consciousness, and builds a momentum of its own, until it is incredibly difficult to stop.
“Third, we must make every effort to protect the positive aspects of U.S.–Russia relations from the negative impact of the current crisis… It is almost impossible, of course, to completely isolate these aspects from the overall negative political atmosphere, but we need to work towards this.
“Fourth, the intensity of the U.S.–Russia confrontation can be reduced by the participation of both countries in the work of multilateral mechanisms… It is no coincidence that it was through multilateral efforts that progress was made on the Iranian nuclear issue, and it is in the multilateral format that issues like the Syrian settlement and the North Korean nuclear program are being discussed. This format allows the parties to demonstrate great flexibility, and at the same time to avoid appearing to be making unilateral concessions.
“Fifth, an extremely important, although difficult, task is to revive and develop the dialogue between Russian and American civil societies.
“Sixth, it is becoming increasingly important to strengthen and develop Russian studies [departments] in the United States and American studies [departments] in Russia. Professionals in both countries have long been suffering financial woes, and the worsening political situation does not help. The lines between expert, propagandist, academic and pseudo-scientific journalism are being blurred almost beyond recognition. The waning quality of independent expert analysis, or the lack of demand for such analysis, objectively reduces the chances of turning U.S.–Russia dialogue into something constructive.
“It will take some time before the United States and Russia find a way out of the current crisis in their relations. The immediate goal should be to change the dynamics of the crisis from negative to positive. This would create the necessary prerequisites for setting more ambitious targets.”
Endnotes:
[1] For a broader presentation of U.S.-Russia relations in historic perspective see MEMRI report Understanding Russian Political Ideology And Vision: A Call For Eurasia, From Lisbon To Vladivostok, March 23, 2016.
[2] Defense.gov, March 17, 2016.
[3] YouTube video of Gen. Joseph Dunford’s speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFo976aIw-4
[4] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6363, Kerry’s Visit to Moscow: Much ‘Humor’ About Nothing, March 28, 2016.
[5] Izvestia.ru, March 25, 2016.
[6] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6345, Russian State-Owned Media Outlet: ‘Why American GDP Won’t Matter In A War With Russia,’ March 11, 2016.
[7] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 1239, Understanding Russian Political Ideology And Vision: A Call For Eurasia, From Lisbon To Vladivostok, March 23, 2016.
[8] Russiancouncil.ru, March 14, 2016. The Russian version of the article was published in the website on March 14.
© 1998-2016, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved. M
Cruz Hits Trump on NATO ‘Surrender’ in Wake of Brussels Attacks
March 22, 2016Cruz Hits Trump on NATO ‘Surrender’ in Wake of Brussels Attacks, Newsmax, Sandy Fitzgerald, March 22, 2016
(At least he didn’t blame the Trump rallies for the violence in Brussels. — DM)
(AP)
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Tuesday that Donald Trump was engaging in a “pre-emptive surrender” to Islamic terror by calling for a “withdrawal” from NATO on the eve of the Brussels terror attacks.
On Monday, Trump told CNN that the U.S. should greatly reduce its support of NATO.
“It’s too much and frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea,” Trump said of the US-European security alliance.
Cruz said he found it “striking” that the terror attacks occurred on the day after his rival candidate Donald Trump called for reducing the U.S. role NATO.
“We see Brussels where NATO is headquartered as the subject of a radical Islamic terrorist attack,” Cruz said in a press conference from Washington D.C.
“Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that America should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Vladimir Putin a major victory, and while’s he’s at it, hand ISIS a major victory.”
Instead, said the Texas senator, NATO would be crucial in any United States effort in “utterly destroying ISIS.”
“And I would note that NATO is ready to act in a way our president is not,” said Cruz.
“Donald Trump’s proposal to withdraw from the world, to withdraw from NATO and Europe is sadly consistent with his statement that he intends to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Cruz also said Trump’s approach was similar to Obama’s.
“We have seen for 7 years a president that cannot distinguish between our friends and enemies. A president that cannot distinguish between the nation of Israel and Islamic terrorists who seek to murder us, and it would be a mistake to elect another president who buys into the same left-wing moral relativism that equates the terrorist blowing himself you have and murdering innocent civilians to the brave soldiers and law enforcement officers risking everything to keep us safe.”
Cruz was not alone for criticizing Trump on his stand on NATO.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, appearing on Fox News Tuesday morning, said Trump’s plan for downsizing the U.S. role in NATO was dangerous as we confront the grave threat of Islamic terrorism.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments