Posted tagged ‘Democrats’

How Not to Fight Our Enemies

March 13, 2016

How Not to Fight Our Enemies, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, March 13, 2016

(An excellent article by David Horowitz. — DM)

cdtobckueaez4sp

The mob that came to disrupt the Trump rally in Chicago was neither spontaneous nor innocent, nor new. It was a mob that has been forming ever since the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization in 1999, whose target was global capitalism. The Seattle rioters repeated their outrages for the next two years and then transformed itself into the so-called “anti-war” movement to save the Saddam dictatorship in Iraq. Same leaders, funders and troops. The enemy was always America and its Republican defenders. When Obama invaded countries and blew up families in Muslim countries, there was no anti-war movement because Obama was one of them, and they didn’t want to divide their support. In 2012 the so-called “anti-war” movement reformed as “Occupy Wall Street.” They went on a rampage creating cross-country riots to protesting the One Percent and provided a whipping boy for Obama’s re-election campaign. Same leaders, same funders and troops. In 2015 the same leftwing forces created and funded Black Lives Matter and lynch mobs in Ferguson and Baltimore who targeted “white supremacists” and police.

Behind all the mobs was the organized left – MoveOn.org, the public sector unions runby Sixties leftovers,  and the cabal of anti-American billionaires led by George Soros. The mobs themselves were composed of the hate-filled foot soldiers of the political left. Now these forces have gathered in the campaign to elect the Vermont communist and are focusing their venom on Donald Trump. The obvious plan is to make Republicans toxic while driving a wedge through the Republican Party. The plan is defeat Republicans in November so that the destructive forces they have set in motion in the Democratic Party can finish the wrecking job that Obama started.

One of the professionally produced signs at the Chicago mob scene proclaimed, “This is what democracy looks like.” Actually it is exactly what fascism looks like. As every student of the Thirties knows, the break up of democratic forums by Nazi and Communist thugs paved the way for Hitler’s election. Just like the mobs of the Thirties, today’s left is driven by racial and class hate, and is utterly contemptuous of the democratic process – hence the effort to hang the Ferguson cop before the trial and to prevent Trump from expounding his views in Chicago.

And what has been the reaction of the presidential candidates, particularly those who propose to save the country? It is to blame Trump as though he and not the left had instigated the riot. If you play with matches like Trump did, opined Hillary Clinton, you’re likely to start a fire. This is the same Hillary Clinton who has compared Republicans to terrorists and called them racists, and who once accused a “vast right-wing conspiracy” of inventing her husband’s paramour. The Democratic Party has officially endorsed the Black Lives Matter racists and rioters. But it is not only the left who is attempting to blame Trump for the Chicago debacle.

According to the proudly positive John Kasich, it was Trump who created the “toxic environment” that led to the riot – not the fascist movement that has been metastasizing in our universities and streets for more than a decade. In other words, when you finally go on the attack, attack a Republican rather than a Democrat. That way you get a pass.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and their spokespeople piled on Trump as well. “Ted Cruz Claims Trump Is To Blame For Violence At His Rallies,” ran a headline in the leftwing New York Times. His Republican attackers attempted to shame Trump for speaking to the anger of his conservative supporters instead of bringing everyone together – those who claim we live in a white supremacist society and the whites they are attacking, those who claim that Republicans are terrorists and racists and the victims of this abuse. As though you can create unity with people who hate you because you are white or rich, or believe that America is a nation worth saving. The fact is that Trump’s anger is pretty controlled, considering the hate-filled environment of Islamic terrorists, illegal immigrants, event disrupters and rival candidates openly smearing him.

He is often guilty of over-reach – “punch him in the nose” directed at one disrupter, but this is hardly the sin his detractors suggest in comparing him to Mussolini. That is a much great violence to the man who is its target. Aside from Trump’s compulsive over-reach what is wrong with anger in the current political context? Is it wrong to be angry at what Obama and the Democrats and the progressive mobs are doing to our country? How is this dissociation from Trump mob attack not the same surrender to political correctness that conservatives like Rubio and Cruz claim to reject? Aren’t Cruz and Rubio angry at what is being done to our country? Why are they willing to validate the hypocritical slanders of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, two architects of our disasters?

This is the reality we must never forget: There is an anti-American radical in the White House who – with the support of his party – has delivered nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and a hundred billion dollars to our mortal enemies in Teheran who have declared their intentions to kill us. This suicidal deal was not an oversight, as Rubio has correctly observed, but the result of decades of thinking that America and Israel are adversaries, and our enemies are their victims. The extremists of #Never Trump exemplify the malaise Republicans have been prisoners of for years, which is what the primary revolt is about. Why was there no #Never Obama movement in 2012? For Republicans such a movement would be unthinkable. It would be too angry. It would be called racist. On the other hand, no one will call us racist for attacking a fellow Republican. So let’s join the left in smearing one of our own and hope that we can scrub off the stigmas that Democrats have tarred us with in the process. We’re not racists. Let’s not fight Obama, which will prove that we are. Let’s have respectful words for the lynch mob left.  If we capitulate the disaster unfolding before us, maybe it will go away. That is what the Trump crowd is angry about and mainstream Republicans should be too.

At the outset of the presidential debates all the Republican candidates pledged to support the party’s choice in November. Extra pressure was put on Trump to do so and he did. But now that millions of Republicans have cast their ballots for Trump, Rubio and Kasich are threatening to renege on their pledge, and destroy both the party and the country in the process. And Cruz, while sniping at Trump’s alleged role in inciting the leftists is notably non-committal about whether he will support a Trump primary victory. None of them explain how you can fight fascist leftists without actually fighting them and opening yourself to the charge of anger.

Perhaps it is money from the #Never Trump crowd – the extremists who want to thwart the popular vote and fatally split the party – that is behind this perfidy. But as someone who until very recently held high opinions of Rubio and Cruz, I am hoping that it is not too late for somebody to wake them up. I am hoping that somebody says: Cut it out. Come to your senses. Your scorched earth warfare is threatening the very existence of the right. Trump isn’t the enemy. Like you he is opposed to the Iran deal, supports a secure border, recognizes the Islamist threat, wants to reduce taxes and make the country solvent, and is greatly expanding the Republican base. Attempt to beat him at the polls if you think he shouldn’t be president but let the voters decide the result, and respect their decision. The alternative is a fratricidal war that could drive large numbers of conservatives away from the polls, and whose beneficiaries will only be America’s enemies at home and abroad.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Attack On 1st Amendment and Trump Rally

March 13, 2016

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Attack On 1st Amendment & Trump Rally, Fox News via You Tube, March 12, 2016

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0LD_4MAQug

Trump Storm Troopers Mob Sanders Rally: Force Cancellation

March 13, 2016

Trump Storm Troopers Mob Sanders Rally: Force Cancellation, American Thinker, Clarice Feldman, March 13, 2016

Of course, this didn’t happen. The opposite is true, but you can be sure that would be the headline had conservative opponents of Sanders prevented his rally in suburban Chicago from taking place because of mob threats of violence. This makes Ted Cruz ‘s spineless rejoinder to the violent demonstrations in Chicago so galling to me.

Some years ago I wrote here of my contempt for conservatives who flee the forum for fear of getting their spotlessly white togas spattered with mud and blood when their colleagues are being savaged by liars and thugs. This week my White Toga award goes to Ted Cruz. As thousands of rent a mobs from Soros funded Move On, the White House approved Black Lives Matters fabulist race baiters, and Bernie Sanders fans mobbed and threatened the thousands of people who’d waited in lines for hours to attend a rally in Chicago for Donald Trump. Even Obama pal and admitted terrorist Bill Ayers, doubtless reliving his “glory days” as a Weatherman was there cheering the mayhem on:

We shut Trump down! Beautiful gathering of anti racist youth. pic.twitter.com/uYOFXMvKhX

Bill Ayers (@WilliamAyers) March 12, 2016

The People’s Cube, which has perfected its satire of left speak described the event from the thugs’ point of view:

CHICAGO, IL – Tonight one thousand peaceful communists, socialists, anarchists, Black Lives Matter activists, devout Muslims, immigration advocates with Mexican flags, and local students of Marxism, disrupted a meeting of some twenty five thousand angry and violent Trump supporters.

The Trump crowd had it coming because they had conspired to shut down everyone else’s right to free speech by buying tickets to the event, which was closed to those who didn’t have tickets. That was a grotesque violation of the protesters’ right to get inside, jump on the podium, rip Trump signs, and scream “F** Trump” into a TV camera.

As the news of the event’s cancellation was announced, the protesters peacefully celebrated their victory by throwing punches at Trump supporters and police officers, shouting over their objections, flipping the middle finger and kicking their cars, and walking into the road to block traffic composed of gas-guzzling, global-warming-causing vehicles.

Did Ted Cruz criticize this effort to deny thousands of people their right to free speech and assembly or the violent nature of the demonstration? No, he feebly offered up this on Fox New’s The Kelly File: “A campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence.”

Did he seriously believe that the effort to shut down the rally was occasioned by anything but Trump’s political positions? Where was he in 1968 when the far left pulled the same kind of thug action in the same city? Did he not notice Soros’ funding of Move On and Black Lives Matter or his funding of opposition to Trump and mobilization of Latinos opposed to Trump’s immigration stance in this election?

The organizers’ own words belie that claim that Trump bears responsibility for this mayhem: They were well organized and were there to shut down Trump  whose political views they oppose.

Here’s People for Bernie:

People For Bernie

‏‪@People4Bernie

Remember the ‪#TrumpRally wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work.

Newsbusters picked up from an AP story the role of a Black Lives Matters

When’s the last time if even, that a group of right-wing protesters in the U.S. specifically set out to completely shut down a left-wing speaker’s address? There’s no doubt that the attempt to protest Trump was organized, and that its primary intent was to prevent him from speaking:

[snip]

“Trump represents everything America is not and everything Chicago is not,” said Kamran Siddiqui, 20, a student at the school who was among those celebrating. “We came in here and we wanted to shut this down. Because this is a great city and we don’t want to let that person in here.”

[snip]

“Our country is not going to make it being divided by the views of Donald Trump,” said Jermaine Hodge, a 37-year-old lifelong Chicago resident who owns a trucking company. “Our country is divided enough. Donald Trump, he’s preaching hate. He’s preaching division.”

[snip]

Chicago community activist Quo Vadis said hundreds of protesters had positioned themselves in groups around the arena, and they intended to demonstrate right after Trump took the stage.

Their goal, he said, was “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.”

A directory assistance lookup indicates that there is no listed “Quo Vadis” (which means “Where are you going?” in Latin) in Illinois.

It seems quite likely that the person who was quoted is really Quovadis Green, a Chicago activist who was involved in Black Lives Matter protests in Chicago’s Michigan Avenue shopping district during last year’s Black Friday Christmas shopping weekend.

Bernie Sanders, whose people, as I have noted, took pride in shutting down the Trump rally, held a rally of his own in suburban Chicago. There he bragged that he was bringing people together, not dividing them like Trump. One can only imagine what he’d have said in the unlikely chance that rabid Trump supporters had shut down his rally. I say unlikely chance because these tactics are those of the left side of the spectrum. For sure, the press wouldn’t have called such action a “protest”. We’d have been treated to Nazi comparisons and the rally wreckers called Trump’s storm troopers.

The president, who has stirred up so much racial division by, among other things, supporting the Black Lives Matter supporters and megaphoning their lies about Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, Missouri, was equally mendacious.

“What’s happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening in their party for more than a decade,” Obama said, according to a report filed by the Texas Tribune.

Given the forces of the left arrayed against his party, Cruz’ take was more than spineless, it was self-defeating. If they succeed in shutting down Trump’s rallies, he’ll be next in their crosshairs. It’s the way they work. In any event, this show of rent-a-mob force may well encourage more voters, sick of this behavior, into the Trump camp.

Cruz’ offering up a justification for this behavior also played into the press game of targeting Republicans while spackling the records of their opponents. Of particular amusement is this piece in the Washington Post (whose editors must be on permanent leave):

Trump is known for his massive, raucous rallies — part campaign events, part media spectacles, part populist exaltations for his most loyal supporters. But the events have also become suffused with the kind of hostility and even violence that are unknown to modern presidential campaigns. The candidate himself often seems to wink at, or even encourage, rough treatment of protesters.

What is conveniently ignored is that these demonstrations are set up by Trump’s opponents specifically to provoke tensions and fights which the press then propagandizes. By this means they hope to set him up as what he is not — a racist — to scare off supporters and drive Blacks and Hispanics to the polls to vote for his Democratic opponent.

It’s of a piece with the rapidly disintegrating claim of a Breitbart reporter, Michelle Fields, days before that she was roughed up by Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s brilliant campaign manager.

The Daily Beast picked up her claim and further suggested (on the basis of a dubious third-hand account) that Lewandowski had admitted manhandling Fields, but as pictures and videos emerged which made her claim virtually impossible to sustain. It shows Trump and Lewandowski emerging from the presser with a Secret Service agent between Lewandowski and Fields. The Daily Beast walked that back step by step:

Update 2:15 p.m. ET: The Trump campaign has evidently leaked an email from Breitbart News Washington political editor Matthew Boyle. In the email Boyle rejects as “false” Daily Beast editor-at-large Lloyd Grove’s claim that Lewandowski “acknowledged to Breitbart’s Washington political editor, Matthew Boyle, that he did manhandle Fields.”

Breitbart, itself over the day, seemed to be backpeddling its reporter’s claim and noted

A Vine video has emerged, purporting to show a new angle of the incident. The footage appears inconclusive, but visible in the background is Ken Kurson, editor-in-chief of the New York Observer, who appears to have had a close-up view of the action.

Breitbart News reached out to Kurson, who responded via e-mail:

I was five feet away from the alleged incident and didn’t see anything. I was literally looking right at Corey when it supposedly happened. Someone sent me a Vine of it (I look bald as hell, goddammit — and what’s with that backpack?!?!!?) and if this happened, I think I would have seen it. I have a lot of experience as both a journalist and operative in these kind of press scrums and I didn’t see anything at all out of the norm.

Still, you can be sure this week’s lefty trope that Trump and his people are violent and encourage more violence will be played out, And if Cruz were the front runner drawing tens of thousands to his rallies he, too, would be tarred just the same.

Stay alert. This is going to be the dirtiest election in a long time.

Trump and Jihad

March 13, 2016

Trump and Jihad, American ThinkerJames Lewis, March 13, 2016

Donald Trump just broke another PC taboo by telling the truth, and he put it in just a few words: “I think Islam hate us.”  

By now American Thinker readers are familiar with the overwhelming evidence on that point, while the American victims of the One Party Media still have their heads buried under camel droppings.

(“But what about the children? What about the children? What about the children?” said Cokie Roberts three times, talking with Trump about waves and waves of illegal and hostile Obamaesque immigrants, including Sinaloa gang killers who recently took 30,000 lives in Northern Mexico, using long guns and ammo from Obama’s Federales.

My respect for Roberts instantly dropped way below the Rio Grande, heading south. What about our children, Cokie? The real goal of bringing in vast numbers of illegals is to manufacture more lifelong Leftists, guided by La Raza, in collusion with MS-13 and Sinaloa (the biggest drug gang in Chicago). But Cokie only “cares” about the children… While in fact ensuring horrors for those very same children.

Well, do you really think those teenage thugs massing at the border, along their much younger would-be victims, are heading for a better life? They are being used and abused by the Obama Left, in collusion with radical Islam and Mexican gangs. Maybe some will be better off. But many are in immediate danger of becoming victims of abuse in our inner cities.

Nobody seems to know where the incoming flood have ended up going. In the world of the Charlie Chaplin’s Great Dictator we understand why the media are not interested in telling us. Or do you really think that most of those children will be adopted by nice, wealthy moms in DC, like Cokie Roberts? Have you ever heard of child slavery in the Third World, which we are importing en masse at this very moment?

Which brings me to Trump and Islam.

I don’t know how many individual Muslims hate us, but we know that from day one, 14 centuries ago, Islam has preached Holy War (Jihad) against those who don’t bow to its primitive dictates. From ISIS’ point of view, they are agents of Allah’s compassion. They will cheerfully kill, abuse, exploit, enslave, torture, threaten, beat and terrorize children, women and men with real pride in a job well done. You can see it on ISIS snuff videos on YouTube. Which Cokie has apparently never watched.

ISIS follows Saudi (Wahhabi) orthodox war doctrine. The Wahhabi priesthood has acknowledged the Qur’anic correctness of ISIS sadism, a perverted example of the very worst that humans can do to each other — not in self-defense but as a deliberate act of unprovoked aggression. And yes, they are constantly promising to do the same thing to us.

On the Shi’ite side of the Gulf, the mullahs follow exactly the same war theology. They don’t mind killing the wrong person, because in Heaven or Hell Allah will know his own. It doesn’t really matter whom you kill.

This is elementary information about Jihad, the kind of thing Western children used to learn in their history lessons. Cokie Roberts, propaganda peddler for the Left, has never bothered to learn the truth.

So Trump was right that Islamic doctrine is all about killing us, and by telling the truth Trump freaks out all the good liberals who are actually colluding with a genocidal war theology. The Cokies are no different from Nazi or Stalinist collaborators. Literally. They may be useful self-deluded idiots, but at some point, willful idiocy becomes a moral choice. Or do you think Nazi and North Korean collaborators bear no responsibility for crimes against humanity?

Jihad theology preaches the destruction of high, creative, and tolerant civilizations; it has always done so, and the Jihadist destruction of Persian, Egyptian, Byzantine, Indian, and other admirable pre-Muslim civilizations is well-known, even in Muslim countries.

The Taliban’s theological decision to blow up world-renowned Buddha statues in Afghanistan is the norm in Jihad warfare, not the exception. The Saudis have also blown up precious archeological artifacts from pre-Muslim times in Arabia, because, like the Soviets, they must erase history at all costs.

ISIS is a deliberate throwback to the very worst behavior in human history. Its parallel with Stalinism is amazing. Muslim crimes against humanity are rationalized by the ultimate goal of Paradise on Earth under Allah’s mercy.

Utopian ideologies are a dime a dozen in history. The Nazis were utopians, promising peace and love after all the inferior peoples were dead.

Jihad has always been single-minded, war-mongering, rape celebrating and fanatical, starting in the Arabian desert more than a thousand years ago. Jihad is not some weird historical anomaly. It is a calculated doctrinal strategy, representing a consensus in the radical ‘ulema, the priestly hierarchy. Nothing about Jihad is happenstance.

And yet — much of the nominally Muslim world today is deeply torn between its non-Muslim history versus centuries of Shari’ah dominance. Because orthodox Islam threatens all Muslims with death for apostasy, many have learned to live double lives, one for the local imam and his enforcers, and one for their private truths. That is important, because it means that every Muslim country also has a Fifth Column — all those who secretly reject the warmongering priesthood.

Iranians take justified pride in the high civilization of the Persian Empire, before Jihad stomped out the intellectual diversity that fuels innovation. Fanatical ideologies kill off the freedom to think. We can watch it in North Korea under its atheist dynasty, just as we can see it in Saudi Arabia in the grip of Wahhabi fanatics. They are all brain-locked war cults. Only the hats and banners change, but all war cults stir up mass murder as part of their divine mission.

In Northern India, where Buddhism first emerged, the monasteries and their peaceful monks were murdered en masse in 1200 by the Ghurid Jihadis. The Buddhist genocide was much celebrated by Muslim historians. After Jihad conquered the Byzantine Empire — the Christian Roman Empire of North Africa and Anatolia — another civilization was frozen into silence.

Much of the nominally Muslim world lives a double life. That is a basic strategic fact in the Jihad War. It means that millions of people secretly yearn for better lives.

Just as in the USSR, ordinary people learn to mouth the Party Line, until the day when the whole fabric of lies falls apart.

One key to victory against Jihad is very fast-spreading shale oil technology. The OPEC monopoly is losing its most powerful weapon against the West. There are serious predictions that the Saudis and Iranian mullahs will not survive another crash in the international price of energy.

In Lebanon, ordinary people remember better days, before Hizb’allah took over on behalf of its Iranian masters. Pakistanis celebrate Urdu love poetry, with its ancient pre-Muslim roots. Iraqis take pride in centuries of high Mesopotamian civilizations. Egyptians remember three thousand years of pharaonic Egypt, long before Jihad made free thinking punishable by death. In Turkey, people in the cities remember half a century of modernist politics, before Obama’s good friend Recip Erdogan brought back Ottoman corruption and misrule.

It is only sane for the civilized world to defeat aggressive Jihad, the deadliest threat in the world today. Trump may not be your cup of tea, but he has just broken decades of PC taboo against telling the truth about Jihad. I believe that every GOP candidate must finally talk openly about what every sane person already knows in the privacy of their minds.

In a time of war, you may have to pick Ulysses S. Grant for president, even if he is a drunkard. Sometimes, in the face of worse, you have to make tough choices.

That is where we are today. This election could be a turning point for the better, but only if millions of Americans follow their honest convictions. PC is a Leftist intimidation game, and we have to have the courage of our convictions. The media constantly play mind tricks on us, like the Wizard of Oz. This PC intimidation campaign will go up in a puff of toxic smoke, if we stand up to it.

Donald Trump keeps challenging the fear of PC. He is therapeutic for millions of Americans who have been silenced for decades; he has beaten the mind games of the One Party media. So far, he has the cult of the Islamo-Left on the run, which is a very good thing. But they see politics as war, and it ain’t over ‘till it’s over. Expect a vicious election season, and if we win this one, expect more years of Islamo-Lefto-fascist struggle. They are an absolutist cult, and any means are acceptable for their goals

The Clintons and Obamas refuse to even name Islamofascist aggression, because they have forged a close alliance with oil-rich Gulf regimes, who constantly push fundamentalist invasions of the West. The Saudis just promised to double the number of mosques in Europe, with the obvious goal of controlling millions of Muslim “refugees” wherever they may end up living. This is all standard Jihadist tactics. Mass infiltration by “peaceful” Jihad is called Hejira, after Mohammed’s journey to Mecca with the secret intention of committing genocide against the infidels.

None of that war strategy could happen in the West without the active collusion of the Left. We see the same corrupt bargain in Europe and over here.

Oil money and power are the reasons why Obama and Hillary will never call Jihad the enemy. Obama has consistently misused American power and resources to curry favor with Jihad-preaching regimes — maybe because he’s buying UN votes from the “57 Muslim states” that might elect him as Secretary General. If Hillary or Sanders win, they could nominate Obama for the position. The Party Media would never oppose it. With 57 Muslim votes in the General Assembly, Obama’s has already planted the seeds.

Obama’s ego is ungovernable, and in his mind there’s only one future to fill that everlasting hole in his soul. The news now tells us that the Obamas will stay in Washington DC, “to keep their children in the schools.” Funny thing is that it also keeps them in personal contact with the levers of power they’ve planted in the U.S. government. If Americans ever bothered to study history they would see how the same kinds of people have done the same thing before.

Needless to say, Obama as President of the UN Socialist World would enormously empower Jihad and the hard Left. Imagine Obama and Hillary in charge of both the UN and the U.S. It’s their lifelong wet dream.

As for Hillary, we now know she was behind the invasion of Libya, which brought down a stable Muslim regime, leading to another endless, bloody civil war that is still going on. I would hate to have that cruel blunder on my conscience. Invading Libya was unprovoked aggression — a genuine crime against humanity. Hillary’s idiotic slogan for that war was “We came, we saw, he died.” (Meaning Gadaffi, who was killed by anal impalement.) This is unmitigated evil, and a GOP challenger should use Hillary’s sadistic quote to expose her inner killer. Gadaffi posed no threat; in his later decades he was a source of stability. But at least Hillary’s War revealed her inner self to the world.

Apparently, in the Reign of the One, American foreign policy has lost any moral basis whatsoever. This is inexcusable.

Some reports suggest that Hillary stoked up the Libyan intervention to give herself a “foreign policy accomplishment” in time for the 2016 election.  If that is true, Hillary and Obama have knowingly blundered into Nuremberg Trial territory. It certainly seems that she has no conscience, and Bernie’s unrepentant Stalinist past shows he has none either. If Bernie had a Nazi past, he would never have been elected, even in New Hampshire.

Like it or not, those are the choices we face today.

Jihad is a strategic threat, and it demands a strategic response. A GOP president could lead that response. The Democrats are far too corrupt and brainwashed to do it.

The United States led the Cold War against Soviet imperialism because Europe was utterly incapable of self-defense, as we can see again today. Angela Merkel may be hunkering down after the rapefugee betrayal of Europe, hoping the Amis will come to the rescue again. But she is a Eurosocialist above all, and her goals are the same as the official EU Machine.

For sixty years Pax Americana protected the world without the suicidal danger of nuclear war. In their heart of hearts, millions of Europeans are looking again to the United States to pull their cookies out of the fire. The EU ruling class has simply brought one “yuge” disaster after another, but the unelected rulers are never blamed. Even the controlled Euromedia are starting to get it, but they still obey orders from the top. Merkel ordered the German media not to criticize her mad decision to bring in the rapefugees, and they followed orders: Jawohl, Frau Commandant!

Like Obama, Merkel represents the smiling face of a ruthless cult.

Today there is not a single leader of moral stature in Europe, because all decisions are made via group-think in EU committees. The EU is a political hierarchy, like the Soviet nomenklatura. Bureaucrats are taught to obey orders. EU governing committees are another version of the old Soviets (councils), which ultimately brought down the Soviet Empire.

Since the return of Jihad with OPEC, Jimmy Carter and Obama have dismantled the defensive alliances that contained global aggression in the Cold War. There certainly were painful proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam in the Cold War, but strategically we learned how to contain aggression without appeasement. The Democrats are not as ignorant as they pretend to be. They have knowingly sabotaged our successful Cold War strategy, constantly evading the obvious parallels between Soviet imperialism and Jihad.

Oddly enough, under Putin the Russians have switched sides, because of the greater threat posed by Jihad. Vladimir Putin is not our friend, but he thinks rationally.

Around the world our rejected allies must be thinking about a renewed alliance, to push a chaotic world back from the brink. Putin has suggested making common cause against Jihad, on the model of Soviet-American resistance to the Nazis. With real leadership, the civilized world could come together and beat oil-fed Jihad. In the Muslim Middle East, Egypt’s President El-Sisi would be a powerful ally, with major credibility among other Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia. El-Sisi rescued Egypt from a Muslim Brotherhood (Jihadist) takeover, and he is now fighting a hot domestic war against the Nazi-era Broederbund.

Jihad is a global threat, and a worldwide defensive alliance has worked well since World War II.  India, Japan, the UK, Australia, the saner half of Europe, and many others share our strategic interests.

We know it can be done. What’s missing is leadership.

An entente cordiale with Russia can work, because Putin rose to power in response to Jihadist terror attacks in Moscow and Beslan. Like it or not, Putin wiped out the Chechnyan Jihadist rebellion in his usual ruthless way. Russia has a long, long history of coping with Jihad. But now Russia is the only major nation that is prepared to fight for strategic goals. Fantasy pacifism has gripped Europe, which is why Angela Merkel surrendered to the rape Jihad that is still victimizing women and children in Europe.

What we need today is an administration with a strategic vision, instead of a gaggle of delusional radicals and their Jihadist collaborators.

This is not hard. It takes common sense, something Americans have always been blessed with.

At least until now.

The election will show if we still have what it takes.

 

Ben Carson Endorses Donald Trump FULL Press Conference (3-11-16)

March 11, 2016

Ben Carson Endorses Donald Trump FULL Press Conference (3-11-16) via You Tube, March 11, 2016

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjeM6jnX32M

Cartoon of the Day

March 9, 2016

Via Townhall

Crying parties

Is Biden’s Israel visit opening shot for White House bid?

March 7, 2016

Is Biden’s Israel visit opening shot for White House bid? DEBKAfile, March 7, 2016

Clinton_BidenKotere480t

US Vice President Joe Biden will start his five-day Middle East tour in Israel Tuesday, March 8, by presenting the multibillion financial and defense aid package promised by the Obama administration to redress the imbalance in Israeli security generated by the nuclear deal with Iran. DEBKAfile’s sources report that Prime Minister’s Binyamin Netanyahu was also quietly tipped from Biden’s close circle that he may decide to use the handover of this package as the opening shot of his run for the Democratic presidential nomination, despite past repudiations.

Our sources in Jerusalem reveal that Israeli officials in charge of staging the Biden visit were directed to handle the visitor to all intents and purposes as a candidate running for election to the White House on Nov. 4.

His presentation of an impressive US assistance program is meant to convey President Barack Obama’s desire to straighten out his rocky relations with Netanyahu before his departure, while also portraying his vice president to American Jews as a successor who will continue to look after Israel’s security interests.

The two governments have been negotiating for months on the size of US military assistance committed by Washington for preserving Israel’s qualitative military and security edge in the next decade, in the course of which Iran and the Islamic Republic’ will substantially upgrade the military capabilities of its armed forces and radical Revolutionary Guards Corps.

In recent talks between US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Israel put in a bid for $50 billion to be spread over 10 years, so raising the US military aid package for Israel from $3.5 bn to $5 bn a year. The Americans said this sum required further negotiation.

According to sources close to the prime minister, the vice president will be bringing the administration’s compromise proposal of between $40 billion and $50 billion, to be spread out over 13-15 years. He will also throw in to the deal US weaponry and items of cutting-edge military technology withheld hitherto from the IDF.

That list was agreed last week when Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff sat down in Tel Aviv with IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gady Eisenkot and his top officers.

As for Biden’s intentions, it should be noted that, although in February, he denied intending to contest the presidential nomination, he surprised political observers when, on Feb. 19, he sharply criticized the campaigns run by Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. He accused them of “doom and gloom” and not doing enough to combat the idea that the country is in decline.

Talking to a Democratic Party audience in California on Feb. 28, Biden congratulated Clinton on her successes in the primaries.

Political observers who are familiar with the vice president’s thought patterns say those comments were well calculated. They expect him to continue to stay in the wings of the campaign and watch Hillary get tied in knots over events in her past, not least the affair of the private emails she sent as Secretary of State. He expects her to be forced by the baggage she carries to give up her run for the presidency. Biden will then step in as the shining savior of the Democratic Party.  He and many of his backers are sure that he is the only Democrat capable of stopping Donald Trump’s inexorable run for the presidency.

At the annual Gridiron Club anniversary dinner Saturday night, March 5, Joe Biden was reported to have quoted a reputed comment by Winston Churchill, “When eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber,” he said, adding: “Our kids are watching. The world is watching. The American people are better than this.”

These remarks indicate that Biden is guided by a strong sense of mission.

Dems Balk at MB Bill Terror Findings

March 4, 2016

Dems Balk at MB Bill Terror Findings, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, March 3, 2016

713

Last Week’s House Judiciary Committee discussion of a bill requesting the State Department evaluate classifying the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization showcased the confirmation bias of the bill’s Democratic opponents on the panel.

Numerous examples of ties between the international Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups like Hamas and al-Qaida peppered the original draft of the bill introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

However, Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., made the oft-repeated assertion the organization had sworn off violence.

Conyers asserted that the Brotherhood had become a “non-violent religious and social service organization” and that Diaz-Balart’s bill promotes so-called “Islamophobia.”

“Before rushing to conclusions that can lead to unknown and unintended consequences, our committee should consider the facts that pertain to this complex organization,” Conyers said.

He pointed to testimony given in a 2011 hearing but much of what was said there undermines Conyers’ premise the Brotherhood is “non-violent.”

For example, Washington Institute Executive Director Robert Sotloff testified that the Muslim Brotherhood is far from “an Egyptian version of the March of Dimes,” whose orientation was fundamentally humanitarian.

“Should the Brotherhood achieve political power, it will almost certainly use that power to transform Egypt into a very different place … A more realistic situation would see deeper and more systemic Islamization of society, including the potential for a frightening growth of sectarianism between Muslims and Copts and even deepening intra-Muslim conflict between Salafis and Sufis,” Sotloff said, accurately predicting the divisive nature of the Brotherhood’s rule before it was ousted in July 2013.

Similarly, another person who testified before the subcommittee cautioned against falling victim to the Brotherhood’s semantics when it comes to terrorism.

“Just because the MB opposes al-Qaeda does not mean that they agree with us on the definition of terrorism,” Tarek Masoud of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government told the committee. “For example, they view both Hamas and Hezbollah as freedom fighters whose acts of violence are legitimate forms of resistance against what they see as Israeli occupation. In August 2006, former Muslim Brotherhood leader Mahdi Akef even declared that he was ready to send 10,000 (ten thousand) Brothers to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel. He didn’t, of course. But the sentiment reveals the gulf between us and the Brotherhood on this issue.”

The House bill also includes the 2011 assessment from then-FBI Director Robert Mueller: “I can say at the outset of that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

Conyers’ effort to characterize the Brotherhood as a “a predominately non-violent religious political and social service organization” ignores the repeated involvement of Brotherhood-linked charities in terrorism financing, ranging from the Union of Good to the Holy Land Foundation. The Holy Land Trial exposed a Hamas-support network in the United States created by the Muslim Brotherhood which included the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a branch.

Conyers ignores statements by the Brotherhood in the past year, including a Jan. 27 call for a “long, uncompromising jihad” against the Egyptian government, as noted in Diaz-Balart’s bill.

Groups calling themselves “Revolutionary Punishment” and “Popular Resistance” have carried out attacks against Egyptian police stations and businesses with support from Brotherhood-connected social media accounts. These accounts have been promoted by U.S. based pro-Brotherhood activists.

The legislation included other numerous specific examples of Brotherhood support for funding or engaging in violent jihad since its founding in 1928 by Egyptian schoolteacher Hasan al-Banna.

“…Jihad in its literal significance means to put forth one’s maximal effort in word and deed,” Al-Banna said in an undated speech. “[I]in the Sacred Law it is the slaying of the unbelievers, and related connotations, such as beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their shrines, and smashing their idols … it is obligatory on us to begin fighting with them after transmitting the invitation [to embrace Islam], even if they do not fight against us.”

Al-Banna also stated that the “people of the Book” should be fought until they pay jizyah, a tax mandated by the Quran paid by Christians and Jews to an Islamic state in exchange for keeping their lives and not embracing Islam.

It notes that the U.S. government previously listed Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, and Lajnat al-Daawa, the social wing of Kuwait’s branch of the Brotherhood, as terrorist entities.

Lajnat al-Daawa’s reported involvement in terrorism financing on behalf of Osama bin Laden underscores the hollowness of the Brotherhood’s condemnation of al-Qaida. Ramzi Yousef, planner of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, architect of 9/11, each worked for Lajnat al-Daawa.

Numerous individual Brotherhood members with ties to al-Qaida who were previously sanctioned by the U.S. government as terrorists are mentioned in the bill. Among them; Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, Mohammad Jamal Khalifa, served a senior member of the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Khalifa ran charitable offices on al-Qaida’s behalf in the Philippines, including an office for the Saudi-controlled International Islamic Relief Organization. He also established a charity called the International Relations and Information Center in the Philippines, which was the primary funding mechanism for Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef’s 1995 “Bojinka” plot to blow up American airliners over the Pacific.

Diaz-Balart’s bill additionally points out that the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood’s militias joined forces with Ansar al-Sharia, the al-Qaida linked militia responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

In opposing the bill, Conyers said it unfairly paints all Brotherhood members as terrorists. He dismissed the measure as “Islamophobia [which] may be good politics … but it certainly is not good policy.” Classifying the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization had more to do with fear than keeping Americans safe, he said.

But existing groups on the State Department’s terror list. such as Hizballah and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), also actively engage in social services or serve in parliament.

Hizballah’s social services give it strong support among poor Shiites in Lebanon. It also has 14 seats in Lebanon’s parliament and considerable political clout. Likewise, FARC has a significant social-service component.

Off Topic | Deserve Hillary? Then vote for her

March 3, 2016

Deserve Hillary? Then vote for her, Dan Miller’s Blog, March 3, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Democrats have done a bang up job for their people for the last fifty years. Want more of the same? Vote for Hillary.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFXwg7U_-DU

 

 

How about Mit Romney? Surely, he must be right. After all, the proud godfather of ObamaCare did so well in 2012. His part of the video starts at 23:00.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTtyBStFHQ

 

So, all of you RINOs who prefer Hillary to Trump, have at it. Heck, with the RINOs and the Dems in charge, the country will stay in the very best of hands.

 

A (Much) Better Year

February 5, 2016

A (Much) Better Year, Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, February 5, 2016

ob

[A] of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

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

On Wednesday the U.S. media interrupted its saturation coverage of the presidential primaries to report on President Barack Obama’s visit to a mosque in Maryland. The visit was Obama’s first public one to a mosque in the US since entering the White House seven years ago. The mosque Obama chose to visit demonstrated once again that his views of radical Islam are deeply problematic.

Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. During Operation Protective Edge, the leaders of the mosque accused Israel of genocide and demanded that the administration end US support for the Jewish state.

According to The Daily Caller, the mosque’s former imam Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh was active in the Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity deemed a terror group in 2004 after the US Treasury Department determined it had transferred funds to Osama bin Laden, Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

El-Sheikh left the Baltimore mosque to take over the Dar el-Hijra mosque in northern Virginia. He replaced Anwar al-Awlaki as imam after Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2003. In Yemen Awlaki rose to become a senior al-Qaida commander.

Awlaki radicalized many American jihadists both through direct contact and online. He radicalized US Army major Nidal Malik Hasan, and inspired him to carry out the 2009 massacre of 13 US soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood in Texas. Awlaki was killed by a US drone strike in 2011.

In 2010, a member of the Islamic Society of Baltimore was arrested for planning to attack an army recruiting office. According to the Mediaite news portal, the mosque reportedly refused to cooperate with the FBI in its investigation.

Obama’s visit to the radical mosque now is a clear signal of how he intends to spend his last year in office. It tells us that during this period, Obama will adopt ever more extreme positions regarding radical Islam.

Obama’s apologetics for radical Islamists is the flipside of his hostility for Israel. This too is escalating and will continue to rise through the end of his tenure in office.

The US Customs authority’s announcement last week that it will begin enforcing a 20-yearold decision to require goods imported from Judea and Samaria to be labeled “Made in the West Bank,” rather than “Made in Israel,” signals Obama’s intentions. So, too, it is abundantly clear that France’s plan to use the UN Security Council to dictate Israel’s borders was coordinated in advance with the Obama administration.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

On the Democratic side, neither candidate is a particularly energetic supporter of Israel or counter- jihad warrior. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recently released email discussions of Israel with her closest advisers indicate that all of Clinton’s closest counselors are hostile to Israel.

For his part, Vermont’s socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders harbors the far Left’s now standard anti-Israel attitudes. Not only did Sanders – like Clinton – support Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the Joint Houses of Congress where Netanyahu laid out Israel’s reasons for opposing the deal. Sanders gave television interviews condemning Netanyahu for making the speech, accusing him of electioneering on the back of the US Congress. Sanders criticized Israel during Operation Protective Edge and supports decreasing US military aid to Israel.

For all their anti-Israel sensibilities, though, neither Clinton nor Sanders gives the impression that they are driven by them as Obama is.

Unlike Obama, neither appear to be animated by their hostility toward Israel. Neither seem to be passionate in their support for Muslim Brotherhood- affiliated groups or in their desire to realign the US away from Israel, from its traditional Arab allies and toward Iran. This lack of passion makes it safe to assume that if elected president, while they will adopt anti-Israel policies, they will not seek out ways to weaken Israel or strengthen its sworn enemies.

On the Republican side, the situation is entirely different. All of the Republican presidential candidates are pro-Israel. To be sure, some are more pro-Israel than others. Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, is more supportive than his competitors. But all of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

It hasn’t always been this way. And it doesn’t have to remain this way.

Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush.

Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel.

On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel.

Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably.

Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel.

Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points.

The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites.

Last summer, pollster Frank Luntz conducted a survey of US elite partisan opinion on Israel. His data were devastating. According to Luntz’s data, 76% of Democratic elite believe that Israel has too much influence over US foreign policy. Only 20% of Republicans do.

Nearly half (47%) of highly educated, wealthy and politically active Democrats think that Israel is a racist country. Thirteen percent of their Republican counterparts agree.

And whereas only 48% of Democrats believe that Israel wants peace, 88% of Republicans believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors.

These trends affect voting habits. According to Luntz, while only 18% of Democrats say they would be more likely to vote for a politician who supports Israel, 31% said they are less likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate. In contrast, 76% of Republicans say they want their representatives to support Israel.

Forty-five percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who is critical of Israel and 75% of Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for an anti-Israel candidate.

These data tell us two important things. Today Democratic candidates will gain nothing and may lose significant support if they support Israel.

In contrast, a Republican who opposes Israel will have a hard time getting elected, much less winning a primary.

Partisan sensibilities aren’t the only reason that Israel is will be better off if a Republican wins in November. There is also the issue of policy continuity.

Even though neither Clinton nor Sanders share Obama’s anti-Israel passion, their default position will be to maintain his policies. Traditionally, when an outgoing president is replaced by a successor from his own party, many of his foreign policy advisers stay on to serve his successor.

Moreover, if American voters elect a Democrat to succeed Obama, their decision will rightly be viewed as a vote of confidence in his policies.

Obama has radicalized the Democratic Party in his seven years in office. When Obama was inaugurated, the Blue Dog caucus of conservative Democratic members of the House of Representatives had 54 members. Today only 14 remain.

Obama’s Democratic Party is not Bill Clinton’s party.

A party that isn’t forced to pay a price for its policies isn’t likely to change them. If the Democrats are not defeated in the run for the White House in November, their party will not reassess its shift to radicalism and reconsider its increasingly hostile stance on Israel.

That then brings us to the state of the presidential race following the Iowa caucuses and ahead of next Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses showed a significant gap in enthusiasm among partisan voters. Participation rates in the Republican caucuses were unprecedented.

Cruz shattered the record for vote getting in the state that saw participation rates up 30% from 2012. On the Democratic side, participation rates were below the 2008 level.

On the Republican side, the three top candidates – Cruz, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio – are all backed by committed, fervent supporters. On the Democratic side, Clinton’s supporters are reportedly diffident about her. And while Sanders enjoys enthusiastic support from voters under 45, he can’t seem to convince people who actually know what socialism is to support him.

If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, on the face of it, it is difficult to see his path to victory in the general election. Whereas Obama was elected by hiding his radical positions, Sanders is running openly as a socialist and attacks Obama from the Left. Whether America is a center-right or center-left country, the undisputed truth is that it is a centrist country.

As for Clinton, the likelihood grows by the day that by the general election, her inability to inspire her base will be the least of her problems.

The FBI’s ongoing probe of her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state is devastating her chances of getting elected.

The State Department’s revelation last week that 22 of Clinton’s emails were too classified to be released, even with parts blacked out, makes it impossible to dismiss the prospect that she will be indicted for serious felony offenses. Yet, as Jonah Goldberg argued Wednesday in National Review, with her narrow victory in Iowa, Clinton blocked the opening for a less damaged candidate – like Vice President Joe Biden or former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg – to step into the race.

In other words, the Republican nominee will have an energized base and will face either a legally challenged or openly socialist Democratic opponent.

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, before Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, he asked the FBI for its opinion of the mosque. FBI investigators informed Obama of the mosque’s ties to terrorism. They urged him not to confer it with the legitimacy that comes with a presidential visit.

Obama ignored the FBI’s advice.

The next 11 months will be miserable for Israel.

But we should take heart. By all accounts, next year will be better. And judging by the way the presidential race is shaping up, next year may be a much, much better year.