Posted tagged ‘Republicans’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences

July 7, 2016

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 7, 2016

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

Hillary Clinton, who if elected would be President Obama Part Two, is a world-class liar. Whenever She considers truth damaging to Herself — as it usually is — She lies. Normally, She gets away with it. She lied about her State Department e-mails: guilty as hell and free as a bird. She lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and, thus far, has got away with it. This year, it is up to the American people to do the only thing we can to prevent Her from becoming President Obama Part Two. Our only way to do that will be to deny Her what She considers “Her turn” to continue Obama’s quest to destroy America.

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

First, a flash-back

She lied misspoke, as She often does.

On July 5th, during FBI Director Comey’s address on his recommendation that She not be indicted, She was revealed as a consummate liar. She then got adverse press, even from the lamebrain media. For her lies evidenced there alone, She should not become “our” president. She will not if we stand firm. Please see The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump.

This brings us to The Benghazi Clusterdunk

The following video shows that the Obama-Clinton administration should, and could, have sent American military resources to prevent American deaths in Benghazi. For political reasons, resources were not sent: elections were comings soon, so Islamic terror needed to have been defeated and nation-building had to have been successful in Lybia. Both were lies.

The next video provides what we know about the Clinton-Obama administration refusals to send American military help. There is much that we don’t know, because of the Obama administration chose to provide lies instead of truthful answers.

Hillary lied, Obama lied. Americans died and Obama got a second term in office. Now Hillary wants Her “turn.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xA2_LDKm8s

Knowing full well that the attack had nothing to do with a poorly made video — for which the maker was gratuitously jailed — Hillary and Obama lied. Ambassador Rice may also have lied intentionally. Either that or she was given a political spin instead of accurate information and had no reason to believe that she had been lied to.

September 25, 2011

According to the Majority Report on the Benghazi clusterdunk, as summarized by Robert Spencer,

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154] [to avoid offending the locals by wearing military attire — DM]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

And now, two wrap-ups:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwZvZGQfbg

Conclusions

Hillary lied, Obama lied and Islamist al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists murdered Americans because no American military resources were sent, even though available. Their deaths were not only unnecessary, they were and remain a disgrace.

There is now only one action that we can take, and that will be on November 8th. Then, we will vote either for Obama Part Two becoming Obama Part One, thereby affirming their disgraceful actions and inactions or disown them. It’s up to us to disown them both.

Categories: 2016 elections, al-Qaida, Benghazi, Benghazi - Rescue Interrupted, Benghazi report, Clinton cover ups, Clinton lies, Democrats, Department of State, Federal Government, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans, U.S Government, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, U.S. politics, You Tube
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Happy Independence from ?? Day

July 3, 2016

Happy Independence from ?? Day, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 3, 2016

(The views expressed in this post represent my views but not necessarily those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

How will Obama tell us to celebrate Independence Day tomorrow? Will He speak of Independence from The Dead Constitution? Independence from Islamophobia, or perhaps Independence for Safe Space Demanders? Let’s get ready to celebrate our own Independence Day tomorrow and then on November 8th.

Some get it, some don’t. Oh well. What difference does it make, Now? What difference will it make as Bill Whittle’s young American Fascists become government officials and increase their authority over us? We need to keep that from happening.

As Stephen Kruiser wrote at PJ Media, our great lefty “journalists” had to get into the game. One complained about the playing of God Bless America at sporting events. Gersh Kuntzman, somewhat reminiscent of Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright, wrote,

It’s time for God to stop blessing America during the seventh-inning stretch. Welcome to the July 4 holiday weekend — when once again, baseball fans will be assaulted by the saccharine-sweet non-anthem “God Bless America” at stadia all over this great land. But no matter which home team you root, root, root for, “God Bless America” should be sent permanently to the bench.

Oh well. Chuck him.

In a Los Angeles Times editorial, Mark Oppenheimer wrote about the National Flag:

I come from flag-ambivalent America. My neighborhood is peopled by gays and Jews, professors and social workers, and Catholics of the Dorothy Day persuasion. Yoga practitioners and yoga teachers. Vegetarians. Bicycling enthusiasts. We love the Fourth of July, with its long weekend, its parades, its backyard barbecues (veggie burgers available). It wouldn’t be Independence Day without flag bunting on floats, flags lining our Main Streets, flags adorning houses. But we aren’t much for patriotic symbolism the rest of the year. For us, it’s an article of faith that crude patriotism quickly turns on the underdog, the minority. We know how the flag is used to impose loyalty tests, which we find un-American.

And then, of course, there’s always the danger of fireworks. As Stephen Kruiser wrote in the PJ Media piece linked above,

Modern American leftists are emotionally constipated, offense-seeking, finger-wagging shrews who are motivated solely by the desire to make everyone else as miserable as they are. The really weird thing is that they are under the impression that it is the conservatives who are like that. They’re either in the midst of the longest-running collective psychotic break ever, or they know the truth about themselves and that merely compounds their misery. Puritans in the 1600s probably smiled more in a day than a crusading twenty-something American social justice warrior media hack will in a lifetime should he or she live to 100.

Much of our past is now deemed “racist” or otherwise too distressing to study and is therefore shuttered from K1-12 and much of academia. I guess some of us old farts will be able to remember and speak about bits and pieces of the past, at least until more of it is deemed offensive and therefore politically incorrect. Can we restore the study of actual American history in place of bland and inoffensive fabrications? We had better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUzD5eBTNU&list=PL6yPolYMK1lq89tvN91tzRe89G93ZMexl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArgMK2kAjzw

But how did any of them survive without welfare, Obamacare, free stuff, affirmative action, safe spaces, multiple government regulations, political correctness and the gloriously all-embracing peace of Islam? Come to think of it, how did any of them survive without the beneficent, ever-flowing help of Dear Leader Obama?

Can we — will we —  keep her that way?

Finally, Grandpa Jones

Will we kick out ol’ Dan Tucker, I mean Barack and Hillary, and make America right again this November? Let’s make November 8th our Independence From The Leftist-Obama-Clinton Debacle Day. It may well be our last chance.

Obama-Hillary-copy

Categories: 2016 elections, Democracy, Democrats, Freedom of speech, Globalism, Government, Hillary Clinton, History, Immigration, Independence Day, Love of country, Lust for power, Obama's America, Political correctness, Political establishments, Republicans, U.S History, US politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

House Benghazi Committee Completes its Work

June 30, 2016

House Benghazi Committee Completes its Work, Full Measure, Sharyl Attkisson, June 28, 2016

There’s at least one point of agreement: Despite the early claims to the contrary by the Obama administration, both Democrats and Republicans conclude security measures in Benghazi prior to the attacks “were woefully inadequate” as a result of State Department decisions.

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

Republicans say White House Impeded Probe

The U.S. military response in Benghazi, Libya was perplexingly inadequate the night Americans were attacked by Islamic extremist terrorists, Sept. 11, 2012. That’s one overarching conclusion reached by two leading Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee after a year and a half long investigation.

“Until now the administration has led us to believe the military did not have assets-men or machines-close enough or ready enough to arrive in Benghazi in time to save lives,” said Republicans Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas. “An asset that could have made a difference would have been armed drones. And as the Committee learned, it would have been relatively fast and easy to arm a drone.”

Jordan and Pompeo released a 48-page supplement to the Committee’s much lengthier official report, also out today, numbering more than 500 pages. Jordan said he and Pompeo “felt the need to draw conclusions from facts,” and address motivations behind the Obama administration’s Benghazi-related actions; something he said the Committee’s main report stopped short of doing.

Four Americans were killed in the Benghazi attacks. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith died in the initial assault on the unsecure diplomatic compound. CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed hours later, when no U.S. military help from outside Libya came to the rescue and terrorists assaulted the nearby CIA annex. The events, as told by survivors in the annex, were portrayed in this year’s film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.”

The fallout from Benghazi is among the most enduring controversies of the Obama administration.

Read and Watch Sharyl Attkisson’s Benghazi reports:
https://sharylattkisson.com/benghazi-links/

The tragic events happened eight weeks before the 2012 Presidential election. President Obama’s re-election campaign centered, in part, on the notion that his administration had eliminated major terrorist threats. Almost immediately, when word of the attacks reached Washington D.C., all concerned understood they were acts of terrorism, according to documents and witnesses inside the Obama administration. Emails and testimony later revealed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials confirmed the attack’s terrorist origins privately with foreign officials and family members right away, but told the public and victims’ family members a different story.

Even as the assault was underway, Clinton began advancing a false narrative pointing to an anti-Islamic YouTube video rather than Islamic terrorists. Emails also revealed Obama officials censored words and phrases such as “Islamic” and “terrorism” from talking points. This was the first time there was public focus on the Obama administration’s avoidance of those terms; something it has continued to do on many occasions since.

Democrats’ Defense

Still, Democrats remain steadfast in their insistence that “administration officials did not make intentionally misleading statements about the attacks, but instead relied on information they were provided at the time under fast-moving circumstances.”

Read the Democrats’ report:
http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/democrats-issue-benghazi-report-and-release-interview-transcripts

They released their own separate report yesterday. The Democrats’ version concentrated largely on “abuses Republicans engaged in during this investigation.” Their account of the Committee’s work is, in many instances, diametrically opposed to the Republican version. Democrats largely claim the Committee simply confirmed what was already known.

“Republicans excluded Democrats from interviews, concealed exculpatory evidence, withheld interview transcripts, leaked inaccurate information, issued unilateral subpoenas, sent armed Marshals to the home of a cooperative witness, and even conducted political fundraising by exploiting the deaths of four Americans,” say Democrats.

They accuse Republican Chairman of the Committee Trey Gowdy of South Carolina of “conducting this investigation like an overzealous prosecutor desperately trying to land a front-page conviction rather than a neutral judge of facts seeking to improve the security of our diplomatic corps.”

Democrats call the House Benghazi Committee’s work “one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history.”

White House “Impeded the Investigation”

In the end, Republicans say the White House “impeded the investigation” making it impossible to answer all outstanding questions. “The Committee ended its work without having spoken to anyone in the White House Situation Room that night,” wrote Jordan and Pompeo. “Nor did we receive all email communication between White House staffers concerning the attack all off limits to Congress according to White House lawyers.”

President Obama’s whereabouts during the attacks and his precise actions remain unknown and publicly unaccounted for. White House press secretary Josh Earnest blocked release of White House photos taken that night that could provide insight. And the President did not respond to the Committee’s questions.

At times, the Obama administration provided false information, says the Jordan-Pompeo report. When they sought to identify and interview the military operator who guided an unmanned military drone flying over the compound while the attacks were underway, a Defense Department official claimed, “The [Defense] Department has expended significant resources to locate anyone who might match the description of this person, to no avail.” However, that claim was proven “completely false,” said Republicans. Eventually, the Department of Defense produced the witness.

As to what military assets might have been available, but were not called upon, Republicans say the Defense Department refused to fill in those blanks.

“The military has failed to provide a clear, specific inventory of every armed aircraft whether manned or unmanned that could have flown to Benghazi during the 7-plus hours from the beginning of the attack to the mortar rounds hitting the CIA Annex. Instead, the military has insisted that the Committee simply accept the word of senior military officers, some without firsthand knowledge of the events, as an adequate substitute for actual eye witnesses.”

Democrats claim, “The Defense Department could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of the four brave Americans killed in Benghazi, and although the military’s global posture prevented it from responding more quickly that night, improvements were made years ago.”

Obama Administration’s Public vs. Private Statements

Using government documents, Jordan and Pompeo spent many pages in their report contrasting the private and public statements of Obama officials at the time. For example, Clinton emailed her daughter at 11:23 p.m. the night of the attacks, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda- like [sic] group[.]” But Clinton didn’t mention terrorism or al-Qaeda in her public remarks the following morning when she implied a YouTube video sparked protesters who had gotten out of control and attacked.

Meantime, Clinton’s Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones privately told Libya’s Ambassador to the U.S. that “the group that conducted the attacksAnsar Al Shariais affiliated with Islamic extremists.” And Clinton told Egypt’s Prime Minister in private that, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attacknot a protestwe believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

After then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows furthering the false narrative blaming a spontaneous protest for the violence, documents show some State Department officials reacted with shock and disbelief.

One State Department official emailed another:

“The horse has left the barn on this, don’t you think? Rice was on FIVE Sunday Morning shows yesterday saying this. Tough to walk back.”

Other State Department officials chimed in:

“[State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland] planned on walking it back just a bit, though.”

“I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.”

“Yup. Luckily there’s enough in her language to fudge exactly what she said/meant.”

“Off the reservation on five networks!”

“[White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.”

But instead of correcting Rice’s statements, Republicans say the State Department may have changed its public statements to match Rice’s claims. “No one asked about it could explain the change. The change from the truth to a known false statement is troubling,” say Republicans.

Rice was later considered to succeed Clinton as Secretary of State. As controversy over her statements lingered, she withdrew her name. President Obama later appointed her to become his National Security Advisor.

No Death Penalty Sought

Republicans also criticized the fact that dozens of terrorists stormed the U.S. compounds that night and many of their images were captured on video cameras. Yet, almost four years later, only one suspect has been indicted and brought to the U.S. to face charges: Ahmed Abu Khatallah.

“The United States does know the identity of many of the attackers,” say Jordan and Pompeo. “Yet, the resources devoted to bring them to justice have proven inadequate.” Furthermore, they note, “the administration has chosen for reasons it refused to provide Congress not to seek the death penalty in this case.”

According to Democrats on the committee, “Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation. They will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars and the formidable power of Congress to attack their political foes.”

There’s at least one point of agreement: Despite the early claims to the contrary by the Obama administration, both Democrats and Republicans conclude security measures in Benghazi prior to the attacks “were woefully inadequate” as a result of State Department decisions.

Categories: Benghazi reports, Democrats, Obama administration, Republicans, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why Trump frightens the GOP Illuminati

June 28, 2016

Why Trump frightens the GOP Illuminati, American Thinker, Lee Cary, June 28, 2016

Unlike the Democrats, who hunger for full power and control over the federal government, the GOPe aims to “go-along-to-get-along.”  They don’t want to lead. It’s too hard. They’d rather follow. It’s less risky.

Besides, the party is ill-equipped to lead.  It has no guiding, discernible political philosophy. It collectively swims in the neither hot,  nor cold, waters of moderation.

When conservative GOP Senators are elected, the moderates ostracize them as extremists, a la Cruz.

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

George Will, Brent Scowcroft, Hank Paulson, and Paul Ryan all fear Donald Trump.

They’re part of a growing list of GOP Establishment Illuminati that includes Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Mitch McConnell.

George Will officially declared himself an independent – no longer aligned with the GOP.  He recommends that Republican conservative voters “grit their teeth” and hope Trump loses.  Referring to the GOP, Will said, “This is not my party.”

196758_5_(Screenshot, not a video)

George doesn’t understand that he never owned the party.

On June 23, 2016, CNN trumpeted that “a heavyweight foreign policy adviser to Republican presidents” had endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy:

“Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton ‘brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House.’”

Then, on June 24, 2016, CNN gleefully announced that Hank Paulson “endorsed Hillary Clinton, adding his name to prominent GOP heavyweights who are backing the presumptive Democratic nominee.”

Yet another “prominent” GOP “heavyweight” for Clinton!

Paulson was Treasury Secretary during George W. Bush’s presidency.  Hank brought us the 2008 Big Bank Bailout – along with union pension fund bailouts – plus, funding for all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects that were never-ready for shovels.  A huge scam.

And there’s Robert Kagan, a reputed neoconservative who writes for the Washington Post. On July 21, 2016, Kagan is scheduled to headline a D.C. fundraiser for Clinton. TPM quotes him saying,

“For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

Kagan is concerned that America will become 1933 Germany.  His May 18, 2016, Post article led with this incendiary title: “This is how fascism comes to America.” In it, he deploys 1,300 words to describe Trump as America’s rendition of Adolf Hitler.

No hedging from Kagan there – we Americans are potential Nazis. Speak for yourself, Bob.

Kagan’s byline at the Post reads, “Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.”

The “Brookings” in Brookings Institution was Robert S. Brookings, once President Emeritus of Washington University (a signed, discarded book from WU Library is the source for the quote below).

In The Way Forward (1932), Brookings wrote,

“The economic consequences of what went on before the crash and of what has followed it, have been of such a drastic nature as to leave us, and indeed the whole world, after the lapse of more than two year’ time, in a state of industrial and agricultural depression requiring a thoroughly planned policy if we are to attain a sound healthy economic condition.”

Brookings firmly believed in central economic planning.

Brookings also wrote,

“This means that our present system for the distribution of wealth is unjust to those who mainly produce it and whose needs would easily absorb all of its products, could there be brought about some modification in our system of compensation providing a more equitable distribution and so increasing the consumption power of workers. This – distribution based on social justice – is the main problem of the world today.”

Sound familiar? 

Kagan is a poster boy for a GOPe that talks the limited-government-talk, but walks the bigger- government-walk.

Then there’s The Weekly Standard founder and editor, Bill Kristol.  Kristol, another neocon, came out early and loud against Trump.  In response to Will’s party abandonment, Kristol tweeted this:

Kristol tweet

Kristol declared he won’t vote for Trump.  He has encouraged Mitt Romney and Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse to step forward as alternative candidates.  And, he asked Sen. Lindsey Graham to “resurrect the campaign he suspended in December.”

How do you resurrect a campaign that was never alive?

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell display the anti-Trump style of politico-speak characterized by the English idiom, damn with faint praise.

Ryan called Trump “a very unique nominee.”  He might have added, “Bless his heart,” if he lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

McConnell’s comments about Trump, made to the Washington Post, went public on June 10, 2016, in an article with the blatantly editorialized title, “Mitch McConnell just made a devastating admission about Trump — and the GOP.”

“Mitch McConnell is getting a lot of attention this morning for his startlingly candid admission, in a new Bloomberg Politics podcast, that Donald Trump ‘doesn’t know a lot about the issues’ and has not displayed the requisite ‘seriousness of purpose’ for the presidency. And it certainly is clarifying to have the top Senate Republican admit this about the party’s standard bearer.”

The Washington Post always welcomes devastatingly clarifying negative comments from Republicans, about other Republicans.

The list of prominent GOPe anti-Trumpters is likely to grow as the Republican Convention approaches.  So why are some GOPe Illuminati so afraid of Trump?  Here’s why:

Trump threatens the complacent comfort they’ve long enjoyed as members of the junior political party – junior even though they now control both Houses of Congress.

Unlike the Democrats, who hunger for full power and control over the federal government, the GOPe aims to “go-along-to-get-along.”  They don’t want to lead. It’s too hard. They’d rather follow. It’s less risky.

Besides, the party is ill-equipped to lead.  It has no guiding, discernible political philosophy. It collectively swims in the neither hot, nor cold, waters of moderation.

When conservative GOP Senators are elected, the moderates ostracize them as extremists, a la Cruz.

When liberal GOP Senators are elected, the moderates see them as bridges across the proverbial aisle that allegedly separates the two parties.  In fact, no bridge is needed.  Just a stepping stone, or two, will suffice.

Because Trump threatens to destabilize the GOP’s status quo position as the junior political party, he presents an existential threat to the livelihoods of party apparatchiks. The GOPe is fully content to play the Washington Generals to the Democrat Globe Trotters.

Meanwhile, everybody gets paid. Not just the elected pols.

Faux dialectical partisanship in America is big business for a burgeoning host of enterprises.  In addition to the pols who benefit from this dualistic charade, there’s a long list of roadies who keep the show on the road, including, but not limited to: the professional fund-raisers; the career strategists and consultants; the crony-capitalism lobbyists; the political action groups’ administrators and accountants; the media pundits (including most of the FOX All Stars), who often play the roles of dueling talking-heads; the erudite fellows who swim in Think Tanks (like Kagan at the Brookings Institute); the multiple, redundant polling enterprises; the political-ad firms; big media that charges big fees to air political ads; the major-events planners and providers; caterers and sound technicians for those big events; the new myriad of social media hacks…the list goes on.

Let’s not forget the little people who make the bumper stickers, the hats, the signs, the flags, the banners, the campaign buttons, and the requisite convention balloons.

It’s like when the credits roll at the end of the latest blockbuster movies showing how many and varied are the workers who make a living in Hollywood – even when the film is a bust.

It’s no surprise that four of the ten richest neighborhoods in the U.S. surround Washington D.C.  The town is a bipartisan, bottomless sinkhole for taxpayer and donor greenbacks.

Then along comes a Donald Trump – an outsider, despite disingenuous efforts to stamp him as an “insider” – who threatens to lead the GOP from the here comfortable known, to the unknown somewhere else.

It’s no wonder that the Wills, Ryans, Kristols et al are threatened by Trump. He represents a clear and present danger to their comfortable lives.

And, since they know what’s best for the nation, much better than the rubes that determined the GOP primary results, the Illuminati despair at the thought that Trump will represent their beloved party in the General Election.

They don’t get it.  It’s not their party.  Maybe it was once.  But no longer.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, Republicans
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Paul Ryan’s Treason

June 21, 2016

Paul Ryan’s Treason, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 21, 2016

paul_ryan

In an awkward interview with the Huffington Post, House Speaker Paul Ryan threatened to sue Donald Trump if he were to ban Muslim immigration or build a border wall with Mexico. Considering the current track record of suing Obama over abuses of power, this is little more than a confession of impotence.

And yet it’s deeply troubling that a top Republican is willing to go to such lengths to fight for Muslim migration or for that matter illegal immigration in general.

Paul Ryan insists that he will continue to “speak up in defense of our principles, in defense of not just our party’s principles, but our country’s principles”, but it’s telling that these principles seem to involve illegal immigration and Muslim migration.

Since when are either of these representative of our party’s principles or our country’s principles?

And yet they are indeed core principles for Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan had complained that a Muslim ban was, “not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country.” Like Obama, Ryan speaks of “our principles” without actually referencing specifics. While a constitutional conservative, speaks in terms of the Constitution, Ryan uses the “values” language of the left which references no laws, only general sentiments attributed to no specific law or document.

Though Paul Ryan claims that he wants to maintain the traditional separation of powers, and quotes the exact basis for it, he seems reluctant to do so when he claims that a Muslim ban would be wrong. Ryan knows quite well that his opposition to a Muslim migration ban is not based on the law. Like his support for illegal alien amnesty, it is based on the values construct of the left and not on the Constitution.

Paul Ryan was a longtime supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Back when amnesty was still being disguised as “immigration reform”, Ryan was a key player in pushing it forward. Ryan was so notorious for his support for illegal alien amnesty that he had to promise not to move forward on it under Obama in order to gain enough support to become Speaker. And yet despite this Ryan continues to sound amnesty notes.

Like most of the left, Paul Ryan describes illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” Last year, he once again endorsed some measure of legalization for illegal aliens. Even now his website’s top 5 issues includes a call for “immigration reform” which remains a euphemism for illegal alien amnesty.

As is typical of stealth amnesty bids, up front are a raft of security measures and at the very back is a plan for more guest workers and finally a call to “give people a chance to get right with the law”.

That is yet another amnesty euphemism.

Paul Ryan’s amnesty pledge expires when Obama leaves office. That means that, if we take his website at its word, he would like to push amnesty measures under the next administration. A few years ago he was anticipating a move on “immigration reform” in 2017. And so it is not surprising that he remains less than fond of any calls to crack down on illegal immigration.

While Paul Ryan has currently been fairly quiet about amnesty, there was a time when he was one of the more vocal national legislators throwing out amnesty talking points about a “broken immigration system” and “de facto amnesty”. Ryan was certainly not the only prominent Republican to climb on board the amnesty express, but he remained aboard it long after it was leaving the station.

Despite the general shift in the GOP, there is no sign that Ryan has abandoned it. Instead he views Obama’s divisive tone as having poisoned the wall on amnesty. He’s still the same politician who complained two years ago, “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] ten years from now.”

Trump’s victory has made it quite clear that Ryan’s view of amnesty, once mainstream in the GOP, is now on the outs. If Trump were to win a national election, then the country would have ratified a rejection of amnesty. The thing that Ryan once fought so hard for, turning illegal aliens into guest workers, was thoroughly rejected by Republican voters.

But there is no sign that Ryan is willing to give up or give in. And that is the problem.

Paul Ryan insists that a ban on Muslim migration would be wrong because, “Muslims are our partners.” That would come as news to all the Americans killed at home and abroad by “our partners” from Saudi Arabia to Muslim refugees and terrorists operating in the United States. And yet even after the latest Muslim terrorist attack in Orlando, Paul Ryan shows no sign of being willing to reconsider his position.

And that’s not surprising.

Paul Ryan doesn’t represent any kind of national Republican consensus. Instead he is a vocal and effective spokesman for the point of view of his backers and sponsors. That is why Ryan not only supports illegal alien amnesty, but also backs “sentencing reform”, a euphemism for freeing criminals.

Despite the anti-establishment election, Paul Ryan continues to represent a particular strain of elitist establishment politics which is concerned with the advocacy of very specific and specifically destructive policies without regard to their consequences, whether it involves criminals, illegal aliens or Muslim terrorists. These principles are often put forward as conservative, but in fact they are a particular species of libertarianism that has very little regard for national interests and none for their victims.

Ryan’s support for illegal immigration and Muslim migration is treasonous. And yet the deeper treason is his treason to the ordinary Republicans whose views and interests he simply does not seem to care about. This is a problem that did not begin with this election and is not likely to end with it.

And yet it is a problem that must be confronted.

The GOP came dangerously close to endorsing amnesty because special interest agendas mattered more than national interests and community interests. And we are not out of the woods yet.

Paul Ryan represents everything wrong with allowing a handful of special interests to set the agenda for the GOP. The agenda has been repudiated at the polls, but it will take far more work to repudiate it in the GOP.

Categories: Amnesty, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Paul Ryan, Republicans, Uncontrolled immigration
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Border Control vs. Gun Control

June 18, 2016

Border Control vs. Gun Control, Power Line, John Hinderaker, June 17, 2016

The Pulse night club massacre was the latest in a series of Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, quite a few of which have succeeded, while others have been foiled. These attacks have used a variety of weapons: box cutters, knives, pistols, pressure cookers and rifles. There is a sharp partisan divide with respect to how such terrorist attacks should be viewed.

Republicans say that we should try harder to keep potential terrorists out of the country. Since we have no practical way to vet immigrants, and, in any event, Islamic extremists tend to be second generation Muslims like Omar Mateen, the only realistic way to do this is by reducing, or suspending altogether, immigration from Muslim-dominated countries. This is Donald Trump’s proposal.

That would be a radical departure from present practice. Senator Jeff Sessions’ Senate subcommittee has released this chart, which shows that the Obama administration will soon have issued one million green cards to immigrants from Islamic countries. Click to enlarge:

Green cards

Sessions’ office adds this explanation:

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Notably, the 832,014 figure does not include temporary, nonimmigrant visas issued to migrants who come to the United States simply to work, nor does it include those who have come to the United States on temporary visas and overstayed their authorized period of admission.

Among those receiving green cards are individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, who are required to apply for adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident (green card) status within 1 year of admission. A green card entitles recipients to access federal benefits, lifetime residency, work authorization, and a direct route to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Why are we doing this? When did we vote for it? Who decided that it was a good idea to import, for example, 102,000 Pakistanis? A few of them are doctors and so on, but what about the rest? Why do we need them? We know the downside, what is the upside?

There are 37,000 Somalis on the list. Hardly any of these are physicians, scientists, etc., and most have been shipped to my home state. Why? More than 50% of Somali-American men in Minnesota are not in the labor force. On what theory does this benefit the United States? I have never seen such a rationale articulated.

No doubt the majority of these million-plus Muslims are good people. But no one questions that some percentage of them will turn out to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Or their sons and daughters will be. No one knows what that proportion is, but even if it is small, the risk is large. Why are we taking it?

Democrats don’t think this way at all. They say it is impossible to know who will turn out to be a terrorist, and therefore, the best we can do is to make sure that would-be terrorists don’t have guns. The solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism (not that any Democrat admits that Islamic terrorism is a problem) is gun control.

To support this interpretation of events, Democrats portray Islamic terrorists as indistinguishable from crazy people who commit similar outrages–people like Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Charles Whitman. Islamic terror, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us, has nothing to do with Islam. It is just random insanity. On that theory, it is pointless to keep out any category of immigrants, and preventing future terrorist attacks mass murder incidents is pretty much hopeless. All we can do is try to prevent murderers from obtaining firearms (or certain firearms, anyway) so that their victims might be fewer in number.

And yet…there does seem to be something going on here. David French reminds us of what has happened, just during the last two years:

* From April to June, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown killed four Americans on a “mission of vengeance” against the United States.

* On September 25, 2014, Alton Nolen beheaded an Oklahoma woman with a knife. His social media pages were covered with evidence of jihadist leanings and motivations.

* On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked an exhibit of Mohammed images in Garland, Texas. They wounded a security officer, but police killed them before they were able to carry out mass murder.

* On July 16, 2015, Mohammad Abdulazeez killed five people at two Chattanooga recruiting stations. FBI director James Comey declared that Abdulazeez was “inspired/motivated” by terrorist propaganda.

* On November 4, 2015, Faisal Mohammed went on an ISIS-inspired stabbing spree — wounding four — before he was killed by campus police.

* On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS then killed 14 people and wounded 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.

* On January 8, 2015, Edward Archer pledged himself to ISIS and attempted to assassinate a Philadelphia police officer. The wounded officer chased down and apprehended Archer before he could commit any other acts of violence.

* On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen pledged himself to ISIS and killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The Europeans could add many more to that list. Somehow, the random insanity theory doesn’t seem to fit.

Moreover, we now know that Omar Mateen’s wife–who, like so many Islamic radicals, grew up wealthy–knew about his plans for mass murder in the name of Allah, accompanied him when he scoped out murder venues and bought ammunition, and exchanged texts with him as he carried out his “mission.” And it came out today that Mateen’s brother in law refuses to say whether he knew about Mateen’s plan for jihad.

Consider the other mass murderers who, liberals say, were just like Mateen and the many other Islamic terrorists. Did Adam Lanza’s relatives know about his plans? Did they help him carry them out? Of course not. Lanza’s plan included murdering his mother. It is only Islamic terrorists whose cries of “Allahu Akbar!” as they open fire are joined in by accomplices and supporters. This isn’t random insanity, it is a global movement.

Those are arguments for immigration control. How about the Democrats’ arguments for more gun control? Would their proposals do any good?

The Democrats want to ban semi-automatic rifles, but only if they are black. (There is a funny Twitter meme–a picture of an AR-15 that says, “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”) This is an amazingly dumb idea. Rifles are the least popular murder weapons, ranking well below blunt objects, knives, shotguns and bare hands. Democrats say: but you can kill so many, so fast, with a rifle! News flash: you can pull the trigger on a pistol just as fast as on a rifle, and, unless you are 50 yards or more distant, which is never the case in a mass murder situation, the pistol is just as lethal.

Democrats also want anyone on the FBI’s no-fly list to be barred from buying guns. Intuitively, that sounds like a good idea. But the first problem is that the no-fly list is a joke. Ted Kennedy was on it, Omar Mateen wasn’t. As far as we know, not a single murderer, terrorist or otherwise, has ever been on the no-fly list. (I assume for this purpose that Kennedy’s grossly negligent drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne was not murder.) So best case, the no-fly ban does no good.

The second problem is that the no-fly list is concocted in secret and there is no way to get off it. This is a significant civil rights issue. The NRA says that the FBI should have to go through a judge, the equivalent of a search warrant, and show probable cause to put someone on the list.

The third problem, and the reason why the FBI opposes the Democrats’ proposal, is that it gives actual terrorists an easy way to find out whether the authorities are on to them: try to buy a gun. So the Democrats’ plan to ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun is at best ill-considered.

More broadly, the Democrats’ core idea–go ahead and admit lots of potential terrorists, but don’t let them get their hands on a gun–flies in the face of reality. Convicted criminals are legally prohibited from buying guns. Does that prevent them from being armed? Of course not. Further, has any terrorist attack ever been thwarted because the would-be terrorist couldn’t find a gun? Not that I know of. A fundamental problem with all gun control proposals is that law-abiding citizens will follow them, but criminals (including, above all, terrorists) will not.

As is so often the case, the Democrats’ proposals are intended to gain political advantage, not to produce positive results. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to have succeeded in converting the debate over the terrorist attack in Orlando to one about gun control. This is sad, but but doesn’t change reality: while neither approach is a panacea, it makes much more sense to control our borders than to admit all comers and try to foil terrorists through even more gun control measures than are already in place.

Categories: Border controls, Democrats, Donald Trump, Insanity, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, No fly lists, Obama and gun control, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy

June 16, 2016

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy, Breitbart, Neil Munro, June 15, 2016

Domestic-Islamic-Terrorists-Radical-Islam-San-Bernardino-Fort-Hood-Orlando-Boston-Chattanooga-AP-640x480

House GOP leaders are set to endorse President Barack Obama’s failed domestic anti-jihad strategy, according to Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert.

The GOP’s Obama endorsement is hidden in a new bill, titled the ‘‘Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act.” The showpiece bill’s title and language is undermined by numerous exceptions that allow the president to continue his failed “Countering Violent Extremism” strategy,  Gohmert said. 

The bill is a post-Orlando showpiece that actually entrenches Obama’s harmful policies, he said. “All this is doing is giving more and more credibility to this ridiculous term ‘CVE’ instead of describing the killers that were behind 9/11, the Boston bombings, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando shooting, the bomber in Times Square… all these people who are trying to kill us in America,” he said.

“We’re doing the same thing as the president… we’re not identifying radical Islam” as the enemy which nurtures and motivates attackers, Gohmert. “There is going to be more and more killings of Americans … until we can train our people to recognize radical Islam,” he said.

Under the CVE strategy, Obama has blocked FBI investigators from examining the supposedly non-political and peaceful networks of mosques that actually nurture jihadi attitudes, while redirecting FBI attention to less dangerous non-Islamic groups, such as small-government militias. The strategy has also put FBI agents under the supervision of an oversight panel influenced by Muslim political activists, including an immigrant who reportedly welcomed the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in 2001 by her Muslim co-religionists.  

Moreover, Obama’s tight restrictions on investigators have not earned the expected cooperation from Islamic groups. In fact, many self-segregating Islamic groups have rejected Obama’s proposal to allow local Imams to police their young men in exchange for sharing information about jihadi groups with the FBI.

The GOP endorsement bill is slated for a vote as early as Thursday, June 16.

Under a subtitle, “AMPLIFYING LOCAL EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT TERROR,” the bill simply authorizes extra training, the creation of a committee and establishes some conditional reporting requirements, according to the draft given to Breitbart. The bill does not reform Obama’s CVE strategy, training rules or investigative priorities.

The bill was drafted by staff working for Rep. Michael McCaul,  R-Texas, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.  Press aides at the committee declined to comment on the bill, or even if the committee plans to hold oversight hearing on Obama’s failed CVE strategy in the run-up to the 2016 election.

In March, McCaul endorsed Obama’s tacit alliance with U.S-based Islamic religious groups, many of which share overlapping umbrella networks that are exempt from normal FBI anti-terror monitoring.

“The effective thing is … effective outreach to the Muslim community, so you can pull the religious leaders really on to our team, if you will, to protect us from radicalization from within those communities,” he said March 27. “I think we can get good intelligence from the Muslim communities in our outreach efforts, in our working with the religious leaders in the communities in the United States,” he said.

In contrast, federal prosecutors do not offer political favors to let the Catholic priests run law-enforcement tasks in Latino neighborhoods, for example, keeping track of MS-13 and various drug-gangs.

In practice, much of that hoped-for intelligence about emerging jihadis has been blocked by determined opposition from Islamist advocates. For example, Linda Sarsour, a prominent Islamic advocate who is called a “Champion of Change” by Obama’s deputies, is a strong opponent of the information-exchange.

The government’s practice of providing funds to Muslim community partners in the fight against violent extremism has also raised concerns about the true goal of these partnerships. Are they being formed in order to gather intelligence and information about community members, or to actually engage in valuable community outreach about civil rights protections? CVE programs can foster mistrust between government entities and community members.

In December 2015, George Selim, then the  director of the Office for Community Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security, told NPR that Muslim communities are not identifying emerging jihadis. 

The research and the statistics have all indicated that peers, people that are in close association with subjects that ultimately commit an act like this, see something that’s a little bit out of the norm, but they don’t necessarily report it. And so part of our goal is to create the type of partnerships in which peers know when and how to elevate those type of suspicions.

There’s growing evidence that wife of the Orlando jihadi knew of his pending attack, but did not warn Americans.

Gohmert is trying to reform the McCaul bill before the vote — but he’s skeptical the GOP leadership is willing to fight for an effective anti-jihad strategy.

“There are plenty of representatives who are concerned about this, but the Speaker [Rep. Paul Ryan] and the Majority Leader [Rep. Kevin McCarthy] control what comes to the floor for a vote. and they have no intentions of bringing a bill that says we’ll stop radical Islamists,” he said.

Anti-jihad groups are urging voters to protest the planned bill. “Congress is about to help President Obama whitewash his approach to Counterterrorism to hide any mention or focus on Islamists or their Jihad against the free world,” said Jim Hanson, an executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy. “The Countering Violent Extremism Bill ignores the very Islamic nature of the Sharia ideology that motivates our enemies to slaughter innocents from Paris to Orlando,” he added.

The problems in Obama’s CVE strategy, said Gohmert, include the tight curbs on FBI investigations and training, the gag order to prevent any discussion of Islamic ideas — such as ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia’ or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ — an intrusive oversight panel staffed by Islamic advocates, the legal shield for Islamic networks and political groups, and an eagerness to direct stigma and investigations against non-Islamic groups, such as “right wing militias,” plus its failure to win cooperation from self-segregating Islamic political groups.

For example, the gag-order means “the FBI is not allowed to learn or discuss or look for the things that radical islamics read, or the type of activities they’re doing when they going through radicalization,” Gohmert said.

In contrast, GOP 2016 candidate Donald Trump has called for more oversight over the Islamic networks. “We have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques and we have to check other places because this is a problem that, if we don’t solve it, it’s going to eat our country alive,” he said during his June 15 campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia.

Obama’s CVE strategy also created an advisory group of outsiders who have much influence over FBI investigations.

The committee has pushed for a FBI focus on non-Islamic groups, and just before the Orlando massacre, presented a report to top DHS officials asking for a gag-order that would prevent officials from studying, debating or even recognizing jihadi ideas. Officials should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English,” said the report, which also urged officials to use “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,” according to the The Daily Caller. 

That’s the equivalent of President Franklin Roosevelt and his generals and their soldiers waging war against National Socialist Germany without mentioning “Blitzkrieg,” “U-boat,” “Fuhrer,” “Lebensraum,” “Panzer,” “Stuka,” or “Untermensch” or “Flak,” “Panzerfaust” or “SS.”

Committee co-chair Farah Pandith was born in the Muslim-vs.-Hindu battleground of Kashmir. For decades, that area has suffered from Muslim attacks, and many non-Arab Muslims consider that war to be as important as the Arab fight to destroy the Jewish state.

In 2012, co-chair Adnan Kifayat threatened this reporter with criminal charges for asking George Selim about the White House’s many quiet contacts with the Council on American Islamic Relations. “That was wrong… it is really bad form … You’re putting a career at risk by asking [questions] without telling him… you cannot ambush people and expect them to actually cooperate,” Kifayat told this reporter.

The CAIR group is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various financial and terror-related offenses. Critics show that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, and that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS.

Another member, Mohamed Elibiary, quit in 2014 after he tweeted that the Islamic empire, dubbed the “caliphate,” will return.

CAIR tweets

Obama’s deputies have recently appointed a young Muslim activist from Syria to the panel, Laila Alawa. She wears a hijab in observance to Islam, has tweeted a message supporting the 9/11 atrocity by her fellow Muslims, and tweeted a series of hateful messages about jihad opponents, according to a new report in The Daily Caller.

Alawa1

Alawa2

The new GOP bill eliminates any GOP oversight or leverage over Obama’s counter-productive CVE strategy by adding numerous loopholes in the weak GOP bill, Gohmert said. For example, the bill says;

COORDINATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, where appropriate, coordinate the efforts described in subsection (a) with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, and, to the extent practicable, engage nongovernmental and international partners in the identification and use of testimonials described in such subsection.

But the phrase “to the extent practicable” really means “only if you want to … if it is not too much trouble,” Gohmert said. The phrase “where appropriate” really means “if you feel like you want to,” he said. 

“Shakespeare has the appropriate phrase— much ado about nothing,” he added.

“We all know most Muslims are not terrorists,” said Gohmert. “At the same time, it is ridiculous to not recognize there are radical islamists who are in America, who want to bring this country down and who think they go to paradise if they kill Americans.”

Categories: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Homeland Security, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, National secuity, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, Republicans, Sharia law, Supporting terrorism, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

ACLU lawyers blame ‘Christian right,’ GOP for Orlando terrorist attack

June 12, 2016

ACLU lawyers blame ‘Christian right,’ GOP for Orlando terrorist attack, Washington Examiner, Joel Gehrke, June 12, 2016

Christian conservatives are responsible for the mass shooting at a gay bar in Orlando because they “created this anti-queer climate,” according to American Civil Liberties Union attorneys.

“You know what is gross — your thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate,” ACLU staff attorney Chase Strangio tweeted on Sunday morning.

About 50 people were killed last night by Omar Mateen, a U.S. citizen born to Afghan parents suspected to have “leanings toward extreme Islamic ideologies.” The FBI is investigating the attack as a “domestic terror incident.”

But Strangio — who “spend[s his] life fighting Christian homophobia while being loved & supported by [his] Muslim family” — and his colleagues connected the shooting back to Christians and Republican politicians who oppose gay marriage. “The Christian Right has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the last six months and people blaming Islam for this,” Strangio tweeted. “No.”

Another ACLU attorney who specializes in religious liberty issues scolded Republican lawmakers who tweeted out their condolences. “Remember when you co-sponsored extreme, anti-LGBT First Amendment Defense Act?” the ACLU’s Eunice Rho tweeted at Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and other Republicans,

House Speaker Paul Ryan was careful not to jump to conclusions about the attacker on Sunday morning. “We pray for those brutally attacked in Orlando,” Ryan tweeted. “While we must learn more about the attacker, the victims & families will not be forgotten.”

Strangio rebuffed that message as well. “But there will be no self-reflection and people like you will continue to fuel and embolden this type of hatred,” he wrote in a retweet of Ryan’s note.

Categories: ACLU, Conservative Christians, Homosexuals, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre, Republicans
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump and Democratic Political Incorrectness

June 8, 2016

Trump and Democratic Political Incorrectness, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 8,2016

Trump and PC

Remember the time a presidential candidate suggested that Gandhi used to run “a gas station down in St. Louis.” No it wasn’t Trump. That was Hillary Clinton. Had Trump said it, we would still be hearing about it. But since Hillary Clinton was responsible for it, it went down the memory hole.

Along with her more recent “Colored People Time” gag.

And who can forget the time that Trump said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” But that wasn’t Trump. It was actually Vice President Joe Biden.

But still it was indisputably offensive when Trump told the Asian Chamber of Commerce, “I don’t think you’re smarter than anybody else, but you’ve convinced a lot of us you are.”

Then he followed that up by joking, “One problem that I’ve had today is keeping my Wongs straight.”

You would have to be ridiculously politically incorrect or an outright buffoon to say something like that to the Asian Chamber of Commerce. And this is exactly why Trump is… but wait, those lines actually came from Democratic Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

Reid recently popped up to call Trump’s comments racist. And he ought to know. Harry Reid believed that Obama was electable because he was “light-skinned” with ”no Negro dialect”.

Memories are short when it comes to Democratic racial and ethnic stereotypes. Not to mention slurs.

Trump is certainly not the only prominent politician who says wildly politically incorrect things. Democrats do it all the time. And they do it in more pointed ways.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is running for the Senate. Sanchez is a racist who accused the “Vietnamese” of “trying to take this seat” when running against a Vietnamese-American candidate. Last year she managed to ridicule both Hindus and Native Americans with one slur.

There was the time that Bill Clinton suggested that, Obama “would have been getting us coffee”. Or when Biden described his future boss as the, “first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.” Despite two terms in which Republicans were accused of racially stereotyping Obama with secret dog whistles, nothing any major Republican figure said was anywhere as bad as what Obama’s Democratic predecessor and his own Senate ally had said about him.

Democrats actually say politically incorrect things all the time. Trump has become famous because he’s one of the few Republicans who talks like a Democrat and says the sort of things that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid have no problem saying in private and even in public speeches.

A Republican who told the Asian Chamber of Commerce that he had trouble “keeping my Wongs straight” would have been forced out in disgrace by a combination of media pressure and Republican shame. And having standards of respectable civic discourse is not a bad thing. But standards that are applied unilaterally to one side are not standards, they’re weapons.

Political correctness is a weapon brought out to punish political opponents for statements that run the gamut from offensive to those whose offensiveness is entirely manufactured by the media’s political echo chamber, such as Romney’s comments about having binders of qualified female candidates. Challenging political correctness does more than challenge these standards. It challenges the dishonest ways in which they are applied for political purposes.

Any of the above comments would have disqualified a Republican, but barely rate mention for Democrats. The truth about Trump is that he hasn’t said anything that plenty of Democrats haven’t said.

Long before Trump’s call for a Muslim ban, President Carter responded to the Iran hostage crisis by banning Iranians from America. Harry Reid had also proposed eliminating birthright citizenship long before Trump did. Building a wall with Mexico? Hillary Clinton called for it back in the Senate. Before she was condemning “talking about building walls”, she was talking about building walls. And warning that, “A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations”.

The media has made a game out of pretending that everything Trump says is shocking. When Trump poses with a taco bowl and posts, “I love Hispanics”, the media gets giddy with outrage. But when Hillary Clinton foolishly panders to black voters by claiming to carry around hot sauce in her purse or posts, “7 Things Hillary Clinton has in Common with Your Abuela”, there are shrugs.

All politicians have their cringeworthy pandering moments. But the media chooses which of them it plays up and which of them it plays down.

That’s why Trump is shocking only in contrast to a Republican field that had been trained to carefully avoid even the faintest suggestion of insensitive or politically incorrect remarks. And that training did no good whatsoever with a media establishment that insisted on manufacturing gaffes no matter what.

Trump is often just as unrestrained as Democrats are. He feels the same freedom to speak his mind that is enjoyed by Joe Biden or Bill Clinton. He pays as little attention to political correctness as Harry Reid.

And it’s time that we were honest about that.

Sensitivity is not a bad thing. But what we have is not sensitivity as a value, but as a weapon. When one side is free to be as offensive as it wishes to be with no consequences whatsoever, then eventually the other side will escalate to match it. When oversensitivity becomes used to enforce an agenda that limits basic personal freedoms then the reaction to that will run roughshod over any and all sensitivities.

Political correctness, like all forms of censorship, is about power. Not fairness, sensitivity or decency. Trump is taking the license to be politically incorrect back from Democrats. The ability to determine what may or may not be said is the essence of power in a system where discourse dictates elections.

If Democrats are truly outraged by Trump, they might want to try looking in a mirror.

Categories: Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Media, Political correctness, Racism, Republicans
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

FULL MEASURE Episode 36: June 5, 2016 (P2) – Gingrich on Trump

June 6, 2016

FULL MEASURE Episode 36: June 5, 2016 (P2) – Gingrich on Trump, via YouTube, June 6, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Republican principles, Republicans
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »