Last Saturday, Pope Francis referred to EU refugee centers as "concentration camps."
“These refugee camps — so many are concentration camps, crowded with people… because international accords seem more important than human rights,” Francis said in impromptu remarks. Ironically, this happened while he was attending a ceremony in memory of modern-day Christian martyrs and mentioned an anecdotal story of a Christian woman murdered in front of her Muslim husband.
He went on to say that he had met the woman’s husband during his visit to a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos last year. “I do not know what happened to him, if he managed to get out of his concentration camp, and get to somewhere else.”
If the story's true, who does he imagine murdered that Christian woman 'for her faith' if not Muslims?
And that basically tells us a lot of what a leftist ideologue and tool the current Pope is. During Easter week, the Pope gave a 20 minute speech about the plight of the Muslim migrants. Yet his reaction to the massacres of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims, especially the mass casualties from the bombing of Coptic churches in Egypt, his response was something along the lines of 'Isn't it wonderful that Christians would give their lives for Jesus Christ?'
Even more hypocritically, the Pope has consistently demanded that western nations open their borders to more of these 'refugees' and foot the huge bills for their housing, care and feeding. Not to mention the horrendous security problems, the rapes, murders and other crimes that every nation who has done what Pope Francis suggested has suffered. Oh, and the Vatican? They have not taken in a single refugee. And in spite of the fact the Church still has plenty of money even after being sued multiple times for shielding and attempting to cover up the activities of pedophile priests, it has contributed virtually nothing to help pay for these 'refugees' the Pope wants other countries to foot the bill for.
To add insult to injury, Pope Francis, who is no friend of Israel made these remarks just before Yom HaShoah, the day Jews worldwide memorialize the victims of the Holocaust. No accident there, I guarantee you.
Yet, to be charitable, perhaps Pope Francis is like many people today, who simply don't comprehend what a concentration camp is what a Holocaust really is. As the elderly people with the numbers forcibly tattooed on the arms fade into history, these words get used commonly for situations they don't remotely resemble. So perhaps Pope Francis merely needs a bit of understanding of what a concentration camp actually was.
The phrase 'concentration camp' was actually a Nazi euphemism for 'murder factory.' Its working principle was, first, to sort out the elderly, the infirm and those who hadn't managed to do so well after being shipped east for miles in unheated boxcars. Those were murdered immediately, usually in gas chambers, after which their bodies were plundered for hair and for gold and silver dental work and either burned or buried in mass graves, depending on what means were available.The end result looked like this:
Seen anything like that on Lesbos or any other European refugee center, Pope Francis? Do tell.
In the camps like Auschwitz where huge crematoriums were constructed, you could literally smell the odor of burning flesh for miles. Tell us, Pope Francis, did you smell anything like that? Or see anything like the ovens at Auschwitz in those refugee centers?
Now, the ones that survived the initial selection became slave laborers. They were put on starvation rations and literally worked to death, unless some of them, particularly children were subjected to hideous medical 'experiments.' Young women were frequently put into brothels and forced into assembly line prostitution, something that also usually resulted in a fairly quick demise. And the remnant that managed to survive? They were human skeletons when they were liberated.
Tell us about the living skeletons you saw at Lesbos, Pontiff. What, none? Surely you must have seen something, to call in a concentration camp.
Look into those dead eyes, Pope Francis. Along with the Jewish people, this is who you have defamed, trivialized and insulted,beyond what they suffered while your Church did NOTHING, although individual Catholics certainly did. Not a single Catholic was ever excommunicated for their part in perpetrating or cooperating with the Holocaust, even after the war.
Again, just so you fully understand what's coming out of your mouth...this is what a concentration camp looks like. This is what it is.
Seen anything like this in Lesbos or any other refugee center Pope Francis?
Seen anything remotely like it?
I didn't think so. What was that the Scriptures say about bearing false witness?
Pope Francis is the second Pope in a row to have the distinction of being an utter failure. At a time when Christians in the Middle East are in danger of extermination, he has spent his time attacking Israel, the one country in the region where the Christian population is actually growing.At a time where Christians are being assailed by Muslims in Pakistan, Turkey, Europe, Nigeria and elsewhere by Muslims, he has opted to appease the Muslims and confine his remarks to the joys of Christian 'martyrdom.'
Benedict, his predecessor started out as the leader the Church needed by became so frightened by Muslim reaction to his linking the fate of the Church to that of the Jews that he became a servile, terrified tool of Islamism. On a visit to Turkey and its Islamist ruler Tayyip Erdogan, he was so cowed that he followed Erdogan's orders not to even look like he was praying at St. Sophia, formerly the largest cathedral in Europe. And before it became a museum of sorts, a mosque sanctified, as it were, by the blood of thousands of unarmed Christians who were slaughtered in cold blood when the Turks captured Constantinople* and entered it.
At least Benedict had the decency to realize what an utter failure he had become and resign.
Pope Francis shows no such signs of doing so. And both men have consequently forfeited all claim to any moral authority whatsoever., not to mention hurting the Church and weakening it immensely.
Milo Yiannopoulos has emerged as one of the Right's most effective spokespeople. He was willing to literally risk his personal safety to journey into the belly of the beast, college campuses and slay the dragons of political correctness, militant second wave feminism, leftist fascism and denial of free speech. He went armed with a keen sense of facts, his hilarious campy gay delivery, a superb sense of humor and the courage to present the truth as he saw it no matter what. He literally made people who aren't usually exposed to non-prog-fascist views take a fresh look at things and change their minds
The Left literally had no defense against him but to use brute force to riot and shut him down.Until now. And as usual, it was so -called 'conservatives' that happily provided the ammo.
Ready, aim, fire!
Some Twitter cretins who call themselves 'the Reagan Patrol' unearthed an old video where Milo talked about how coming of age consensual relationships between teen homosexuals of the age of consent and older gays could help them cope with their sexual orientation and deal with things they couldn't discuss at home. He was talking about people in their late teens (in the UK the age of consent is 15, and it's 16 in much of the U.S) but unfortunately used the term 'boys.' So they were able to use that to frame him as supporting pedophilia.
Milo attempted to explain that he was a sexual abuse victim as a young man of thirteen himself,that he regretted the use of the word 'boys' and that he did NOT support pedophilia.
He certainly had that right. Not only is he an avid Trump supporter, but his success excited envy. So the idiot 'conservatives' had to take him down and went to town with this.
They got Milo disinvited from a speaking engagement from CPAC, and cost him a publishing deal for his upcoming book 'Dangerous' was cancelled by Simon & Schuster.
Today, Milo resigned from his job with Breitbart. Here's what he had to say about it:
And this, remember, is without Milo having done anything at all!
This is exactly why 'conservatism' has accomplished so little in the last thirty years and why the entire brand is rotted to the core. When someone on the Left is found to have been involved in scandal, a sexual predator, a liar or guilty of a crime, the Left don't demonize their own...they circle the wagons around them. Sometimes, they even elect them president or stop them from being impeached. As just one example, an actual self-confessed pedophile like Lena Dunham remains in their good graces. It's conservatives who take delight in the circular fire squad, and Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly the first person to experience this.
Milo says he's going to soldier on, and with his gifts, his courage and his spirit I'm not worried about him. He can self publish his book, put together his own internet platform, even book his own tours. But the Left now has a weapon to use against him they didn't have before to delegitimize him, courtesy of the 'Reagan patrol' and like minded 'conservatives.' Talk about irony...President Reagan was known for his sympathy and tolerance for homosexuals, and he famously said that the 11th commandment is that you don't speak ill of your own.
This kind of stupid is exactly why I haven't considered myself a 'conservative' for some time. I have no desire to be lumped together with a bunch of self destructive fools.
As I predicted when this all started, Trump's biggest problem isn't going to be the Democrats, but friendly fire from the rear.
Their hatred and opposition to Trump always came down to three issues..his being an outsider not of the political establishment, his opposition to globalization and his opposition to open borders and the supply of plentiful cheap labor it provides.
For years, the party elites had wailed about the party's need to make the tent bigger, to reach out to minority voters and conservative crossover Democrats. Trump has done all that, but as usual, it turns out they were lying to us. What they really wanted was some certified GOP product, one of their own who could creditably mislead the peasants until the election was over and it was business as usual again.
Trump was something they should have foreseen would arise after they received historic majorities in both houses of congress and ignored the very people who voted for them in favor of aiding and abetting Barack Obama's policies, enjoying the perks of office and fattening their own wallets.
Originally, they saw Trump's campaign as a joke or a publicity stunt, something to mock. But after Sarah Palin (whom they can't buy off and still fear) endorsed The Donald, they went into full attack mode flooded the GOP establishment candidates with money and unleashed their paid punditry in a frenzy of neverTrumper hatred.
It didn't work, and they're still too cottoned off from reality to understand why. In the end they spent almost half a billion dollars trying to knock Trump out of the primary race and failed miserably.
The hatred they have for Trump and what he represents is mirrored by their hatred for those tiresome peasants, the party's base. Trump's success against all odds has made it necessary for them to drop their cover and reveal themselves for the swine they really are.
The events of this last week are unconscionable.
Billy Bush, Hillary supporter George W,Bush's nephew handed over a 12 year old tape of what amounted to a private locker room conversation between him and Donald Trump, to the Washington Post who released it. And as we now see, Paul Ryan apparatchnik Dan Senor appears to have had a hand in getting this to the Post as well as advising them on how to use it for maximum effect afterwards. He would never have done that without Ryan's approval.
Immediately after tape's release, a slew of Republicans (many of whom were never supporting Trump anyway) jumped on the Democrat media bandwagon,helping to obscure the very real corruption' lies and greed of the Clintons in favor of demonizing Donald Trump and making that the headline story.
A number of them 'unendorsed' him, and there was open discussion about forcing him off the ticket. They were only waiting for him to be massacred at what was largely a rigged, pre-scripted 'debate' where exactly as I surmised, Mrs. Clinton had the questions in advance. The odious neverTrumpers were suddenly invigorated.
But as we all know, a funny thing happened on the way to Trump's political funeral. The script didn't go as planned, Trump triumphed and all the cooked polls and desperate punditry to the contrary couldn't change what the American people saw that night - the Clintons stripped bare and exposed for exactly what and who they are, a cancer in American politics and policy only concerned with gaining power and enriching themselves to the nation's detriment and expense.
And this puts these Republican and their paid shills in a dilemma. What to do? After jumping off the Trump train, they can't very well get back on, and for a number of them up for re-election, that could present problems, since Trump has a lot of popular support.
Some of them are simply keeping a low profile hoping this all goes away,but others, many of whom have done everything they can to derail Donald Trump are doubling down, particularly in the punditocracy.
The Trump movement is essentially a rebellion against the established order, and like our Forefathers, we now have our own class of Tories to deal with.
The lie they tell themselves is that after Trump's defeated, they will take over and rebuild the Republican Party, blaming Trump's loss on 'the trumpkins' or whatever other derogatory name they want to make up. Wat they're really saying is that it's the voter's fault, damn them. How dare they? But that aside, let's look at their prospects for 'rebuilding' shall we?
Out of a total of 31,183,841 votes cast in the GOP nominating campaign, the establishment, pro-globalist candidates combined garnered a grand total of around 26% of that number. Ted Cruz, who at least talked a good game about illegal migration while accepting the open border lobby's cash on the sly behind the scenes got 7,822,100 votes, or 25.1 percent.
And Trump? He set a record for primary votes - 14,015,993 votes, or 44.9 percent.
Does anyone think the people who voted against globalism, cronyism and open borders are going to go quietly back into the GOP fold and back the next establishment product? No, the vast majority will be gone for good, depend on it. They've been screwed for the last time.
These clowns with their fantasies are going to be trying to 'rebuild' the GOP with 30% or less of the current GOP electorate. And in terms of national politics, it will be worthless.
A president Hillary Clinton will see to that. She will appoint leftist judges galore, overturn Citizen's United, castrate the Second Amendment, destroy any vestige of voter ID laws,and use the IRS to target select GOP donors. She will use the FEC to hamstring and eventually eliminate conservative media and enforce the kind of speech codes already prevalent in the EU. Any criticism or even discussion of Islamism, Islamic terrorism or sharia will be illegal. Just ask Geert WIlders.
She will legalize millions of Democrat voting illegal aliens and boatloads of Muslim 'refugees' and continue to plant them in Red states, essentially turning them blue by using the Federal government to change the electorate. This is exactly what was done in California, so the model's already there.
The Republican Party will become even more of a joke than it already is, talking to itself and only surfacing at election time as a comic villain to keep the illusion of democracy going. In short, there won't be a Republican Party for our modern day Tories to rebuild.
Whether Mrs. Clinton is allowed to do this to our Republic or Donald Trump, against the odds is elected, make no mistake. We are going to remember that these creatures chose sides against us and against our country. We will not forget.
Some of you might remember the Steubenville, Ohio rape case, where an underage girl who was drugged and unconscious was gang raped. A video of the rape went viral, complete with some of the party goers laughing hysterically over her being 'so raped' and 'dead.'
The story is also notable because the perpetrators, or at least the two we know about were members of the popular high school football team and there was an effort at a coverup by the school because of that.
The two football players, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond,pictured above were only convicted because of the efforts of hacker Deric Losutter, who hacked into the Steubenville High School sports fan website and revealed incriminating evidence against two rapists and three others who may or may not have also participated and kept silent except for swapping obscene Instagram comments among themselves along the lines of ''no pity for whores' and how 'some whores deserve to be p*ssed on.'
Faced with also being prosecuted, the other three were given immunity to testify.
The duo's lawyer, one Walter Madison actually tried to make the case this was consensual because "She didn't affirmatively say no."
"The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that's because there was consent," he said.
Of course, as the judge pointed out, consent wasn't an issue since the girl was a minor and others testified that she was unconscious while all this was going on. But then, most defense lawyers usually aren't burdened much with morals and ethics...let alone concerned with the truth unless it provides a loophole of escape for their clients.
Richmond and Mays were convicted of the rape of a minor, but aside from some harsh words from the judge, nothing really happened to the two rapists. Ma'lik Richmond was back to playing football for Steubenville just a few days after serving only 10 months out of a one-year sentence in a juvenile detention facility. And Trent Mays spent just two years behind bars for the rape, but that didn't stop him from getting admitted to Ohio’s Hocking College and playing varsity college football there.
The real criminal, the one who felt the full force of the law on his back? Deric Losutter, the one the actually unearthed the evidence that convicted the rapists and got the others to plea bargain. The FBI raided Lostutter’s home and, then arrested and indicted him on four counts: three counts of unauthorized access to a computer used for privacy breach and one count of making a false statement to the FBI.
He's facing 16 years in prison. Lostutter’s lawyer, Tor Ekeland, says that the harsh sentence is based on the 1986 the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA. It was originally only supposed to cover actual criminal activity, but it's been extended out of all proportion from its original intent and beefed up quite a bit, perhaps as a lesson to the activities of whistleblowers and the WikiLeaks phenomenon.
Yes, Losutter apparently had some involvement with Anonymous, a group for which I admittedly don't have too much sympathy for reasons I needn't go into. But one of the primary object of criminal justice used to be to determine who had been harmed.
Now, we've it seems we're returning to an earlier time, when justice is doled out unequally as a given, and a primary objective is simply to serve as an example pour encourager les autres, a warning to keep the peasants in line.
Can we blame this on the regime of President Obama? Of course we can. It's under his administration, particularly at the Federal level that the idea of justice being politicized and perverted depending on who it's aimed at has taken off on steroids.
Turkey's leader Tayyip Erdoğan has devoted some impassioned rhetoric to fighting ISIS, but until now that pretty much summed up Turkey's contribution...which makes sense if you think about it as I pointed out previously.
What Erdoğan has concentrated his military on is not ISIS but the Kurds, a U.S. ally and so far the most effective force on the ground battling ISIS.
On August 24th the Turkish military invaded Northern Syria. They used a contingent of 1,500 Turkish sponsored "Syrian rebels", aka Islamist jihadis from all over the world, accompanied by some Turkish special forces and twenty tanks to capture the city Jarablus at the Turkish-Syrian border. There's no question that this was pre-arranged in advance. ISIS moved all of its fighters and their families out of the city, and not a single shot was fired. After the 'victory' the Turkish flag was raised.
Erdoğan's announced rationale is to get rid of "any terror activity on our borders." He's also made it plain that he considers the Kurdish forces 'terrorists' and the equivalent of ISIS, even though the Kurds have been the ones actually fighting ISIS with the most success. He also issued an ultimatum to the Kurds to withdraw all of their forces and civilians below the Euphrates River.
Obviously, if keeping 'terrorists' away from his border was Erdoğan's chief concern, that could be accomplished by better border security on the Turkish side. A look at the map shows his real objective..to carve out a nice slice of Northern Syria and destroy the Kurds:
The Kurdish forces (labeled SDF by the U.S.) had previously advanced to the west and liberated the predominantly Kurdish city of Manbij from the Islamic State with the aid of U.S. air cover. And a new SDF Military Council was announced. But the man slated to head that was assassinated a scant three hours after the introductory press conference, with a fair amount of evidence pointing towards Turkish involvement in the murder.
Today, the Turkish military attacked Manbij, indiscriminately bombing and shelling civilians.The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 40 civilians were killed in strikes on two areas. That's probably a very low figure. According to al-Arabiyah, SDF spokesman Shervan Darwish said the airstrikes and shelling started overnight and continued Sunday along the front line, killing many civilians in Beir Khoussa and nearby areas. He said the bombing also targeted Amarneh village. He said 50 Turkish tanks were taking part in the offensive.
Keep two things in mind here. First, if Erdoğan's 'Operation Euphrates' is successful, the Kurds are pushed into ISIS held territory without the defensive protective shield of the Euphrates River. And second, remember that these are U.S. backed allies we're talking about that our 'ally' Turkey is attacking in force and attempting to push to an indefensible position.
Wouldn't you expect the Obama Administration to intervene?
Of course they won't. They're simply standing aside and allowing Erdoğan's armies to do whatever they want to the Kurds. In fact, while all this has been going on, Obama's VP Joe Biden was making penitence in Ankara to Erdoğan. As a sign of massive disrespect to America and the Obama regime, Biden was met at the airport by -wait for it- the deputy mayor of Ankara.
This disgusting exhibition isn't just limited to Obama. For 30 years, successive administrations, the Bushes, Clinton and now Obama have betrayed the Kurds, one of our few real allies in the region, usually in favor of Turkey. Obama and his minions seem to be paying no attention to the fact that Turkey is already working on an alliance with Iran and Russia, with Erdoğan establishing a direct line of communication from Ankara to Syria's Bashar Assad and Turkish MiT Secret Service director Hakan Fidan visiting Damascus to discuss 'mutual cooperation.'
President Barack Hussein Obama has proven once again that actually being a U.S. ally is not only worthless but potentially lethal. Unfortunately, the Kurds have found that out again the hard way. But don't believe for a minute this won't have serious repercussions on America in the future.
Well, Ted Cruz made his convention speech, all right.
I had a conversation with a friend about what he might do and my prediction was that Cruz's speech would mostly be an attempt to set himself up for 2020. Cruz could, of course be the one guy who could unify the party and at the same time position himself for a future run. If nothing else, just the fact that he kept his word to support the GOP nominee would mean a lot to people down the line.
That's the choice Reagan made after he was robbed of the nomination in 1976, and he manned up and worked hard for Gerald Ford. I personally think it helped Ronaldus Maximus a great deal in 1980.
Cruz is a very different kind of man, and I use the term loosely where's he's concerned.
The speech itself was basically boilerplate, and at least listenable for awhile because someone finally convinced Cruz somehow to drop the faux-preacher delivery this time that's always been a dead giveaway.
He got away with a lot of cute little lies, like trashing the Iran deal when it was Ted Cruz who voted for the Corker Amendment that allowed Obama to shove it through the senate. Or Cruz talking about how bad out of control offshoring and illegal migration is. It was Marco Rubio who pointed out Cruz's curious record on illegal migration in the debates and stumped him. And you don't get more globalist or pro offshoring than Cruz's choice of running mate, globalist shill Carly Fiorina. And of course, Cruz wasn't going to mention that he helped Obama fast track TPP, and lobbied heavily to increase H1B visas that throw Americans out of work in favor of cheaper foreign labor.
But I was prepared to let him get away with this horse manure because I hoped that just this once, he'd be concerned with something other than Ted Cruz. Silly me.
After talking about how we need leaders who stand for what he called 'shared principles,' Cruz told people not to stay home in November, which the crowd took as a lead in to his endorsing Donald Trump. Instead, he told essentially told people not to vote for Donald Trump with a line he threw in that was missing from the copy of the speech he submitted to Trump and the convention..."Vote your conscience."
Here's what happened after Cruz came out with this beauty..he was literally booed off the stage amid chants of “We want Trump!”
Typical Cruz moment... when the boos started, he flashed that sickly cobra smile of his and said, "I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation." Except it wasn't just New York as you can see from the video. But Cruz just stood there, smiling that creepy smile that reminded me of nothing so much as Humphrey Bogart's Captain Queeg in 'The Caine Mutiny' smiling while telling the court martial all about the non-existent key and the strawberries. Because like Queeg, Ted Cruz is always right. All that was missing is the little metal balls rattling in his hands.
Even most of the Texas delegation was fed up with him:
Fortunately, Trump and Ivanka appeared to hear Eric Trump speak, and the angry crowd was diverted, which is why you can hear the loud cheers at the end.
The fallout didn't stop there. Back stage, many of Cruz's supporters were visibly angry with him, as the Politico, CNN's Dana Bash and the AP reported. Cruz was refused entry to Sheldon Adelson's Skybox loaded with Republican conservative donors and strategists and was told simply to get out, that 'you don't belong here after what you just did.'
Another well known, long time Cruz backer was reportedly so angry he had to be physically restrained from assaulting the senator, and Heidi Cruz was heckled so badly she had to be hustled out of the arena by security.
The fun didn't end there either. Apparently the Texas delegation holds a traditional breakfast the morning after every convention roll call, and it's usually a pretty easygoing affair. It wasn't this time. Ted Cruz attended to try and make up some lost ground and the delegates called him to account for his behavior, as the New York Times reported:
Repeatedly, the taunts rained down on him.
“Sit down!” one man said, before a “Clinton-Cruz 2020” sign was raised.
“You need to do it now!” shouted another.
“Do it!” yelled a third. “Do it now!”
The episode supplied another vivid demonstration of a party sharply at odds during a moment historically reserved for unity, a snapshot of a convention hurtling into chaos in what was intended to be a celebratory week.
When attendees pointed out Mr. Cruz’s past pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, Mr. Cruz, under duress throughout 25 minutes of heated questioning, suggested that any agreement was “abrogated” when Mr. Trump attacked his family.
“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” he said, adding that he was not a “servile puppy dog.”
(Quite a give away, since it proved it wasn't about Cruz's principles, but all about him. - ed. note)
A man in the back hollered at the stage: “You’ve got to get over it. This is politics.”
One attendee, Thomas Mathis, said loudly that he was helping to elect Hillary Clinton and demonstratively turned his back, facing a table of beverages, as Mr. Cruz pressed on.
Another guest, Shawn McAnelly, who twice shouted at Mr. Cruz, was warned by security that if he did so again, he would be ejected.
Mr. Cruz sought to depict his critics as reflective of two men considered boogeymen for hard-line conservatives: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
He suggested that the calls to endorse under any circumstances reminded him of Washington ethos of “sit down, shut up, just support the team.”
“If that’s the price, I ain’t gonna do it,” he said.
Other members of the Texas delegation made no attempt to mask their anger at Mr. Cruz, who rose to political stardom with his attacks on other Republicans.
“It’s consistent behavior from him,” Representative Pete Sessions said before Mr. Cruz spoke on Thursday, adding, “He continued what he is — it’s about Ted.”
Representative Jeb Hensarling told reporters that Mr. Cruz had delivered the beginnings of an effective speech on Wednesday night and then “missed a two-foot putt” at the end.
The criticism was particularly striking, given that Mr. Cruz will need the support of the activists and officials in the room here when he seeks renomination to his Senate seat in less than two years.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who spoke earlier endorsing Donald Trump said it exactly right..."If You're not voting for Donald Trump, you're voting for Hillary."
There's no doubt in my mind that Governor Walker, an uncommonly brave and principled man will work his heart out to get Donald Trump elected. What a contrast to the subject of this story!
The latest attempt by the #neverTrumpers to whitewash this was a series of articles by the usual suspects especially at places like the rapidly sinking NRO. According to their line of - well, I censor myself -why no-oo, Ted Cruz didn’t say anything negative about Donald Trump. 'Vote your conscience' never meant don't vote for Donald Trump, Trump supporters just chose to take it that way. And say, if Trump is such a great, principled guy and it didn't apply to him, then why are you complaining, hmmm?'
Oh, please. Everybody knew exactly what 'vote your conscience' meant after Cruz delivered it with his signature smirk. Even Hillary Clinton got it and tweeted the phrase right after Cruz uttered it, likely cackling while she did it. So did every delegate on the the floor and Cruz caught hell for it even from a lot of his own people. Ted Cruz essentially endorsed Hillary Clinton, with all that portends. She knew it, and so did everyone else.
It was a sick, shameful exhibition of a man putting his own ego before country, let alone party.
I'm sick and tired of people defending this malignant narcissist. This was Trump's convention, he earned it fair and square and if Cruz didn't want to do the right thing, he should have stayed home just like John Kasich, Jeb!, and Lindsay Graham.
Donald Trump showed some real strategy smarts in how he handled this. Cruz wanted a speaking slot and Trump agreed he could have one, even giving him one in prime time. Trump had held out an olive branch to Ted Cruz before when the campaign ended only to have his hand slapped away, but perhaps he figured that given time to get over himself, Ted Cruz might actually do what he pledged to do, swallow hard and support the nominee. That, by the way is how winners behave. They give people the opportunity to come around and do the right thing.
Instead Cruz saw this as an opportunity to do whatever he could to help Hillary Clinton torpedo Donald Trump, figuring the party would rally around him in 2020.
When Trump's people received the speech Cruz planned to give, Cruz's invitation could have been rescinded. It certainly would have if it was Hillary's convention. But Trump wisely let it go through.
He gave Ted Cruz enough rope to hang himself in front of the entire party and millions of voters on prime time television. It actually unified the party by showing people the real Ted Cruz.
The Ready For Hillary #NeverTrump diehards will still worship him, but a lot of people who used to support him now see Ted Cruz for what he is.
2020? I doubt he even gets re-elected to the senate in 2018.
The Left is on a jihad to teach us differently, but Senator Ted Cruz, like most politicians, understands that most Americans approve of traditional family values and like to see them reflected in the people they elect to office. This is common sense on their part - a man or woman with a family to protect and care for has a stake in society and his or her decisions are going to reflect that.
If the family is photogenic, that's also a plus. And as anyone who's ever run for office will tell you, running for office is a time consuming, demanding enterprise. And having the spouse and kids along when possible gives the family a little more time to spend together.
So Ted Cruz decided to have some fun with his family doing a commercial with a Christmas theme. It's political of course, but in a lighthearted and witty way modeled on the old Saturday Night Live faux commercials. Anyone with a sense of humor should be able to appreciate it, even if you disagree with Senator Cruz's positions:
That when Washington Post editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes decided to attack Cruz's five and seven year old daughters, depicting them in a racist cartoon as mindless dancing monkeys, with Senator Ted Cruz as the organ grinder. You can see this on twitter in a gif she created here. (this gutless creep subsequently has removed that as well)
Her excuse for this viciousness was that if they were 'props' in the ad, they were 'fair game.'
Oh really? I wonder what the reaction would be if a major outlet like the Washington Post used that logic to depict the kids in this political ad as monkeys? Malia and Sasha appear about twenty minutes in:
Or how about the quaint little family group pictured in this political ad below?
After a major outcry, Washington Post editor Fred Hiatt removed the cartoon and Ann Telnaes' lame explanation with this comment :
Editor’s note from Fred Hiatt: It’s generally been the policy of our editorial section to leave children out of it. I failed to look at this cartoon before it was published. I understand why Ann thought an exception to the policy was warranted in this case, but I do not agree.
He 'failed to look at it?' He's supposedly the editor and he just let this go through without even taking the ten seconds it would take to glance at it and see this for what it was? I'd certainly like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but given the Washington Post's default ideological position, it's not easy. Especially since the Left has always crossed that line, with some honorable exceptions. Just ask the Palin kids or the Bush twins.
And there's also the fact that this is blatant racism, since Cruz and his children have Cuban ancestry. Would a cartoon of Obama's daughters as monkeys have ever gotten by the WAPO's editors? And if it had, can you imagine the headlines, and perhaps even the racial violence in response? Hiatt and Telnaes would be fortunate merely to be fired and allowed to leave town in one piece. Needless to say, since its Ted Cruz and he has an 'R' after his name, they'll merely remove the cartoon, issue a lame response that isn't even decent enough to be an apology and perhaps just chuckle among themselves about it in private.
Ted Cruz was his usual classy self in response, of course :
Actually.. they are indeed out of her league, not that it's a very high bar. Their father and mother have obviously raised them with a sense of decency, of right and wrong. Ms. Telnaes obviously never had the benefit of that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, she's just the first one out of the box. Rest assured that if Ted Cruz's star continues to rise, you're going to see a lot more of this.
I have to admit, I have never seen a spectacle like this before. Just when I think the Leftist media has struck bottom, they dig a new hole even deeper. CNBC's 'moderators' made no secret of their political bias or their disgust and hatred of every candidate on the stage tonight. The questions they asked them were designed either to get the candidates to attack one another or of the 'have you stopped beating your wife' category.
Senator Ted Cruz fianlly had enough after he was insulted by being called 'not the problem solver America's voters need' in yet another 'question.' He got the biggest wave of applause all night when he called out Pravda-on- the-Hudson's John Harwood and CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla on the bizarre, hostile questions and compared them to how Democrats were treated at their debate:
"The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media."
"This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions -- Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?"
"The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise?"
"Let me be clear," Cruz said. "The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks."
"Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary"
I wouldn't even call it Bolsheviks versus Mensheviks myself...more like bunch of carnies seeing whom could game the rubes the most by promising 'free' stuff.And would anyone be surprised to find that certain questions asked in the democrat debate were run by one or more candidates in advance?
"The questions being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home," Cruz finished before getting cut off.
It was a superb moment, both for Ted Cruz and for the American people. Right before the eyes of the entire country on nationwide television, he just revealed that the emperor really has no clothes. And that a big part of our dysfunctional politics is due to creatures like CNBC's Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood.
Still, unfortunately, there's the stupid party (as opposed to the corrupt one) to deal with.
While Reince Priebus, head of the RNC tweeted harsh criticism of CNBC's antics. But he still has no excuse for allowing Republican candidates to appear in a biased forum like this. And if he didn't know it was going to be this bad, he should have.
Marco Rubio came out with an excellent jab, saying 'The Democrats have their own super PAC. It's called the mainstream media.'
That's really what we're dealing with here. The efforts of some of these people aren't journalism. They amount to a campaign contribution in kind, and the GOP candidates need to simply say no to any further exercises like this.
There's absolutely no need for these unethical, egotistical 'moderators.' Make the debates Lincoln Douglas style, where each party speaks for a set time and the only outside party is a timekeeper.
You can't continue to kiss the feet of people who kick you.
Senate Democrats successful filibustered a vote on the Iran atrocity today. Harry Reid managed to get 42 Democrats to block the vote.The official tally was 58-42.
“Democratic Senators just voted to filibuster and block the American people from even having a real vote on one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of our age,” added Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after the vote as quoted by the National Journal.
McConnell, of course could have used the nuclear option ala' Harry Reid when he was majority leader to head this off, and in fact he still could. But I doubt he has the testosterone to do it, even when faced with an issue of grave national security.
“I think when [the Iranians] continue their terrorist activity—their proxy war against the United States and our allies—you will be able to point to that and say, well, this is something that would not have happened but for the $100 billion of additional funding that went in to fund this activity,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn. “Or the lifting of sanctions which allow the sale of 1 million barrels of oil a day.”
This is a day of craven, cowardly appeasement. Only 21% of the American people supported this monstrosity. While the Senators involved may pay a major price politically for their dishonorable action, it is the American people whom will ultimately pay the price in blood and treasure.
The Republican leadership today managed to threaten or bribe enough GOP congressmen to pass something most Americans overwhelmingly did not want passed - 'Fast Track' authority, the TPA for President Obama on his top secret trade bill that mostly isn't one.
The vote was 218-208, with 28 Democrats voting for it.
The fast track authority for President Obama was originally paired with another bill called the TAA, a bogus welfare crumb for all the American workers whom will lose their jobs thanks to Obama's secret trade bill. The combination legislation was voted down last week, but the TPA fast track was shoved through on its own and now goes to the Senate.The GOP leadership has promised to put the TAA provision, which expires in September to a separate vote, which the GOP leaders have promised will be nearly simultaneous.
Oh, I'm sure it will be...after the rest of the secret trade bill gets passed. And of course, as RINO Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, the Republican Gruppenführer for Obama's trade agenda tells us, the peasants like you and I will find out what's in it when it's passed, since on a need to know basis, we're not even on the list.
Neither is most of congress, since the administration our president told us would be "the most transparent in history' is anything but. Only a handful have actually seen it, because it's locked in a secret room and no one is allowed to take notes or photograph any of it. Based on Wikileaks and a few things Senator Jeff Sessions has said, it's pretty easy to extrapolate why Barack Obama wants this so bad, and very little of it is actually concerned about trade.
According to the draft provisions,a brand new, unelected international bureaucracy is to be formed, in which America would have the same vote as Qatar. Countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens’ personal data is held or whether it’s accessible from outside the country.
The Healthcare Annex, according to WikiLeaks, “seeks to regulate state schemes for medicines and medical devices. It forces healthcare authorities to give big pharmaceutical companies more information about national decisions on public access to medicine, and grants corporations greater powers to challenge decisions they perceive as harmful to their interests.”
In other words, congress would no longer have sole authority to over reforming MediCare and of course, ObamaCare. And the FDA would be subject to this international bureaucracy that's being set up as well.
Immigration is a big part of this too. U.S. laws, what remains of them, would now be subject to this international agreement. It calls for special fast tracking of visas that essentially would turn ICE into a rubber stamp. If this passes, look for thousands of American jobs to be replaced by foreigners at vastly lower wages and benefits as fast as corporate America can process the paperwork. And it allows much easier fast tracking of corporate off shoring of American jobs, putting Americans in competition with workers happy to receive less than a dollar an hour in countries like Vietnam.
Of course, there are also provisions to steal billions of dollars from America's tax payers in the name of global warming as well, while driving utility costs sky high.
Even more shocking, TPA gives congress no leeway on changing any of this. No amendments are allowed, simply a yes or no vote.
Overall, it's a great plan to finish bankrupting America's middle class and subject our sovereignty to the 'international community.' No wonder this president wanted it so bad and worked so hard to push it through. None of this was possible without the fast track TPA authority. And a GOP majority House just gave it to him.
Here's Louie Golmert (R-TX), one of the House's honest men, trying to stem the tide (H/T The Noisy Room and The Right Planet):
So did Senator Jeff Sessions, who is one of the few congress members who has actually seen the proposed trade bill locked in that secret room:
“It is essential that there be no misunderstanding: fast-track preapproves the formation of not only the unprecedentedly large Trans-Pacific Partnership, but an unlimited number of such agreements over the next six years,” Sessions said. “Those pacts include three of the most ambitious ever contemplated. After TPP comes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, followed by the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), seeking as one its goals labor mobility among more than 50 nations. Together, these three international compacts encompass three-fourths of the world’s GDP. Including the nations whose membership is being courted for after enactment, the countries involved would encompass nearly 90 percent of global GDP. Yet, through fast-track, Congress will have authorized the President to ink these deals before a page of them has been made public. Then, the Executive sends Congress ‘implementing’ legislation to change U.S. law—legislation which cannot be amended, cannot be filibustered, and will not be subjected to the Constitutional requirement for a two-thirds treaty vote.”
“According to the European Commission, the TiSA agreement—which most House and Senate members did not know about when they voted—will follow in the footsteps of the WTO’s Trade in Services Provisions, which has already inhibited the U.S. from making needed immigration changes,” Sessions said. “The European Commission says the EU ‘wants as many countries as possible to join the agreement.’ We have already seen how the EU has curtailed sovereignty in Europe; we do not want to follow in its footsteps.”
With regard to TPP, Sessions warned that America has “never seen” anything like it before—and that it’ll force the United States into a version of the European Union he calls “a new Pacific Union.”
“This nation has never seen an agreement that compares to the TPP, which forms a new Pacific Union,” Sessions said. “This is far more than a trade agreement, but creates a self-governing and self-perpetuating Commission with extraordinary implications for American workers and American sovereignty. Such a historic international regulatory Commission should never be fast-tracked, and should never be put on a path to passage until every word has been publicly scrutinized, every question answered, and every last power understood by Congress and the American people.”
This is still going to be bounced back and forth between the Senate and the House, but the fix is likely in for this colossal betrayal. We're being told that this 'free trade bill' will benefit American workers. It will not. Actually, it will cost many of them their livelihoods as visas for foreign workers to replace them at cheaper wages are rubber-stamped. One more time - this isn't primarily a trade agreement at all.
I just heard Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) trying to sell it that way on one of the talk shows, saying we didn't have trade agreement with Japan, or China, or a number of other countries. Well and good senator. What's wrong with the normal process of sending diplomats to negotiate them on a per country basis and submitting them to congress for approval as we've done in the past?
Or is it just that your corporate donors want it done this way, in stealth and secrecy? Because it isn't going to benefit the American economy so much as milk it dry for the benefit of the well connected...and of course, their servile toadies in congress.
So once again, we're faced with outright betrayal. Virtually everything the Republican Party campaigned on in 2010 and especially in 2014 was an outright lie. Instead of being 'pulled out root and branch' as Mitch McConnell told voters in 2014 in Kentucky, ObamaCare is being funded by congress and the GOP establishment is already plotting to save it in case the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, which it always was.
President Obama's amnesty of illegal aliens by executive order? In spite of all the rhetoric, that's being funded too. We essentially have no borders anymore, or any standardswhatsoever on whom we let stay here.
Shutting down President Obama's appointments of radical judges and federal appointees at offices like the FCC? Or his radical new racialist attorney general? Using the nuclear option, the way Harry Reid did to stop over 200 bills the house passed from even going to committee? Nothing. The GOP's congressional leaders have made sure that President Obama has gotten whatever he wanted.
Barack Obama's EPA war on coal? Same story.
And forget about congress using the power of the purse to compel the release of documents and the testimony of those involved in major scandals like Benghazi, the IRS targeting political opponents or the Clinton Foundation's dealings.
I have speculated on these pages that with all the warrentless NSA spying and data collection going on, it's quite possible this president has something juicy on key Republicans like McConnell and Boehner. Or it may be they're simply being paid off in one way or another.
In the end, it really doesn't matter. What does is the realization of this foul betrayal and to look at Tolstoy's eternal question; what then must we do?
I'm still putting together some of the answers for myself, and perhaps you are too, But here are some obvious takeaways. The GOP as it is has evolved into an institution that is no longer to be trusted and certainly not worth saving. And yes, I fully understand the implications of that. But I'm also tired of being gamed to vote for the lesser of two evils only to find out there's not that much difference between them anyway.
The well established Whig Party participated in their last presidential election in 1852 and fell apart over the slavery issue. Many ex-Whigs like Abraham Lincoln actually quit politics until the new Republican party debuted in 1856. The Republicans lost that election to Democrat James Buchanan, perhaps one of our worst presidents, but they won every presidential race after that until 1884.
The early Republicans were considered radicals, impractical trouble makers and rebels against the established order of things. What they had going for them was something the Whigs did not - an adherence to principals. And principals, along with achieving power to implement them are the key to the political success of any party or movement.
Not only does the leadership of today's GOP lack adherence to principles, but they are all to willing to take advantage of those that do by pretending, a cynical shell game,
Any of you actually seen how a real shell game works? The guy moving the cups around is an expert at making you believe the peanut is really under that cup when it's not.The object of the game is to deceive and distract you and to keep you in the game as long as possible by any means necessary to take your money.
That's exactly what we're dealing with here, and the way to win is to stop playing their game and concentrate on our own.
We basically have been acting the part of the naive hooker who believes at first that her pimp really is telling her the truth about how he loves her and that he just needs her to turn a few more tricks until she earns enough money for him to take her away with him from all this.
'Just get us the house, just get us the senate baby. Everything will be beautiful then, trust me.'
So the first step is to decide you're not going to be pimped out or conned anymore. And how to best realize your new independence.
The second step is to decide what principles you stand for, and what you're not willing to compromise on.
And the third step? To organize with like minded folks to do what all political movements should do...to work towards achieving the power to put the principles you stand for into practice. That likely includes Republicans like Gohmert and Sessions willing to declare their own independence and make the move forward
To my mind, the biggest failure of the Tea Party was its lack of organization. Without that, it was far to easy for too many people to grab on to their own small piece of turf and to spend their energies competing for funds and attention rather than unifying and focusing on the real opposition.And it was harder for them to accomplish things as small, barely connected groups.
Ronald Reagan, notorious for his successful accomplishments in spite of a hostile, Democrat-dominated congress had a secret. He famously said, "There's no limit what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."
Becoming independent and refusing to be conned again, deciding on principles, ironing out petty differences and organizing for unity and power, concentrating on cooperation with like minded allies and accomplishing common, concrete goals rather than focusing on whom gets the credit.
Putting these principles into practice is the secret of real Hope and Change for America and the renewal of our Republic. And in fact, if we wish to continue to live as a free people and control our own destiny, we have little choice. We certainly can't depend on most of the politicians in Washington we elected so trustingly to do it.They have proven themselves disgraceful and unworthy of our trust or the offices they hold.
Read this document carefully. You will be shocked at how many similarities there are to our present situation.
Am I talking revolution ? No, not a bloodstained revolution, but certainly a political one, which is still possible. The existing set up simply doesn't work for us anymore.
It's time we banded together to secure our right to life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness before we lose all of them for ourselves and our future generations. It's past time. That is what we should be concentrating our energies on now.
Stay tuned. More later.
UPDATE,June 23rd - Today, the Republican majority senate voted to shut down debate on ObamaTrade with a cloture vote. The official vote will likely pass, after which it will go to President Obama for his signature. And America will be well on the road to no longer being a free republic, but a collection of serfs ruled by unelected bureaucrats at home and abroad.
“Americans increasingly believe that their country isn’t serving its own citizens. They need look no further than a bipartisan vote of Congress that will transfer congressional power to the Executive Branch and, in turn, to a transnational Pacific Union and the global interests who will help write its rules.
"The same routine plays out over and again. We are told a massive bill must be passed, all the business lobbyists and leaders tell how grand it will be, but that it must be rushed through before the voters spoil the plan. As with Obamacare and the Gang of Eight, the politicians meet with the consultants to craft the talking points—not based on what the bill actually does, but what they hope people will believe it does. And when ordinary Americans who never asked for the plan, who don’t want the plan, who want no part of the plan, resist, they are scorned, mocked, and heaped with condescension.
"Washington broke arms and heads to get that 60th vote—not one to spare—to impose on the American people a plan which imperils their jobs, wages, and control over their own affairs. It is remarkable that so much energy has been expended on advancing the things Americans oppose, and preventing the things Americans want.
"For instance: thousands of loyal Americans have been laid off and forced to train the foreign workers brought in to fill their jobs—at Disney, at Southern California Edison, across the country. Does Washington rush to their defense? No, the politicians and the lobbyists rush to move legislation that would double or triple the very program responsible for replacing them.
"This ‘econometarian’ ideology holds that if a company can increase its bottom line —whether by insourcing foreign workers or outsourcing production—then it’s always a win, never a downside.
"President Obama, and allies in Congress, have won this fast-track vote. But, in exchange, they may find that they are losing something far greater: the trust of the American people. Americans have a fundamental, decent, and just demand: that the people they elect defend their interests. And every issue to come before us in the coming months will have to pass this test: does this strengthen, or weaken, the position of the everyday, loyal American citizen?”
Senator Sessions does a good job of laying out the problem here. The solution is in our hands.
President Barack Hussein Obama announced yesterday that a deal - ooops, a 'framework for a deal' had been achieved with Iran on its illegal nuclear program.
Here's what the president said the components of this unwritten, unsigned framework were.
First of all, he claimed that the reactor at Iran's heavy water facility at Arak will be dismantled so the Iranians cannot produce plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons.He also claimed that nuclear material from Arak would be shipped out of Iran, that Iran would not build a new heavy water reactor and that Iran will not reprocess fuel from its existing reactors ever.
Second, he claimed that the Iranians agreed that its centrifuges would be reduced by two thirds, and that Iran will not enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. He also said that Iran would no longer enrich uranium at its top secret military facility at Fordow. and that there would be severe limits on Iran's stockpiling of the materials needed to build a nuclear weapon.
He said there would be limits on Iran's nuclear program, research and development for a decade and that Iran would never be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.
He also claimed that current sanctions would be gradually phased out in accordance with Iranian compliance, that Iran would face intense inspections and scrutiny, and that if if was found cheating, the UN would slap massive sanctions back on Iran.
There's not a single statement in the above four paragraphs that's true, and that comes from no less than Iran's own Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who supposedly agreed to all this in the last minute negotiations at Lausanne:
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.
Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations. [...] Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions. “Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.
He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”
On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.
“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.” “Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”
The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.
As for the president's threat of renewed sanctions, just like his promises on ObamaCare he is knowingly lying to the American people. It took two years to put together the sanctions regimen in the UN. Now that Obama has essentially dismantled it, it isn't going to happen again, certainly not in time to be of any use. Russia will see to that.
And here perhaps is the most chilling statement Zarif made:
Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.
Can you imagine whom a regime that is the major supporter of Islamist terrorism like Iran is likely to sell nuclear materials and know how to? Iran itself obtained quite a bit from Pakistan's notorious AQ Khan when he was running what amounted to a cash and carry supermarket for this sort of merchandise. What Iran is obviously planning will make what Khan did look minor.
President Obama claims that this 'framework' agreement is a good deal. In reality, all it does is give Iran another three which gives Iran another three months to work on its nuclear weapons technology in exchange for...absolutely nothing specific. Instead of leading to reduced nuclear proliferation, it will increase it, since countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under no illusions as to what this means.
This goes beyond mere appeasement. President Obama and John Kerry are enabling a nuclear armed Iran.
All other things aside, this president and his team are allowing a murderous regime that has sworn to destroy Israel on numerous occasions the tools to attempt a second Holocaust. And there's no question in my mind that this is deliberate.
The moron prog think tank response to this is that the Iranians are rational actors whom would never do this, because of the risk of retaliation by Israel. Let's see what the founder of the regime, the Ayatollah Khomeini had to say about that:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
The Iranians have continued to promise to destroy Israel since 1978 when Khomeini took over. That goal has never changed.
Neither has their goal of destroying America. In fact, during the Lausanne negotiations, Iran's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei once again led crowds in the old chant,"death to America."
He means it, and so does Iran. For those of you whom think this is just Israel's problem and you couldn't care less, guess again. Once the Iranians attack what they refer to as the Little Satan, the Great Satan is next on the list.
These things only start with the Jews. They don't end there.
Barack Obama and John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they were willing to take a position of strength and turn it into a position of weakness. In fact, they became the Iranians' community organizers lobbying the other P5+1 countries to accept more and more concessions. Kerry at one point said, “Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice sound bite,but [a sound bite] is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan.”
Actually, giving Iran a choice between having its nuclear weapons program and having an economy was an extremely realistic plan. So was telling the Iranians that if negotiations failed, they wouldn't even have a nuclear program any longer, because we would seek other means to solve the problem.
Instead, Barack Obama and John Kerry capitulated on virtually every major point the Iranians wanted, while rewarding them with billions in badly needed funds simply for continuing the process. It was like two hookers paying a john for deigning to partake of their services rather than the other way around.
President Obama wants some kind of deal with Iran at whatever cost. And he'll get it any way he can.
What he has in mind is not that hard to figure out.From the beginning, his goal was to promote and empower Islamists at home and abroad while distancing America from Israel. After this backfired in Egypt and even more horrendously in Libya, his next attempt was in Syria. Islamic State was originally armed and trained by the Obama Administration, with the help of Qatar and Turkey. after which it promptly attacked and defeated the corrupt Shi'ite regime in Iraq.
Having pounded his chest repeatedly about how he ended 'Bush's war' successfully, President Obama can't ignore Iraq. Islamic State has been far too blatant for that. But politically, he can't do anything meaningful about it beyond a few air strikes, and certainly not in the in the way of putting boots on the ground, The radical Leftist anti-war base he and the other leaders of the Democrat party created as a political weapon after 9/11 now controls that party for the most part, and the last thing Barack Obama wants is to awaken the beast on his watch.
So his solution is to have Iran and its proxies do the dirty work on the ground in Iraq, while the U.S. helps out with a few desultory air strikes. In exchange, the Iranian will be allowed to return Iraq to its status as an Iranian colony, and President Obama will see to it that there's an end to sanctions and wink at Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons.
The president sees this as 'a good deal' for a number of reasons. He wants to exchange Israel and the Gulf States for Iran as our chief ally in the region, and he feels that this will all lead to a lessening of tension in the region and to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. And above all, he and his Secretary of State really seem to believe that the Iranians are not interested in nuclear weapons. In fact, he even quoted, again, a religious fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei.
This is sheer madness.
Iran has been in a state of war with us since 1979. They were complicit in 9/11, and they have no interest in an alliance with 'The Great Satan,' This 'good deal' President Obama is pimping will feverishly ramp up the tension in the Middle East as Egypt, the Saudis and the GCC countries all scramble for their own nukes in the face of the Shi'ite threat, and an attack on Iran's facilities using tactical nukes by Israel becomes a distinct possibility. And finally, the Fatwa against nuclear weapons the president keeps babbling about is a myth. It doesn't exist.
Of course, when things spiral out of hand President Obama will likely be safely out of office, and it can be conveniently blamed on someone else, the same way 9/11 was blamed on a hapless President George W. Bush by the usual suspects. The huge cost of this folly will be paid by America, by Israel and by anyone else the Iranians target in ways we can't even begin to imagine, just as the French and British couldn't imagine the aftermath of Munich in 1938.
This is Munich II, and it will be far worse than the original in terms of destruction and lives lost unless this foul, craven sell out is stopped cold. If this stands it will be an unmitigated defeat for the West, and knowing whom was responsible and cursing their names in the annals of history will be cold comfort in the aftermath.
After America gave the GOP a landslide victory, the Republican leadership is repaying them with what amounts to a total surrender to President Obama's amnesty by diktat.
The new GOP draft 2015 “omnibus” spending bill includes $948 million designated to aid poor and unskilled Central American illegal migrants establish themselves so they can stay in the United States. And there are no restrictions whatsoever on the president's plan to give work permits and other benefits to millions of illegal migrants. Nor is the bill prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from spending money to implement President Obama's amnesty:
Instead, the leadership, led by House Speaker John Boehner, drafted a bill imposing a 60-day spending limit for Obama’s immigration agencies.
The planned 60-day spending limit is largely symbolic, because the most important immigration agency can operate on fees paid by the illegals.
“Leadership is basically giving in to every facet of Obama’s amnesty. We’re giving up an astonishing amount of leverage on every issue imaginable,” said one Hill aide.
The struggle between Boehner’s business wing and the populist conservative wing, has received little coverage in the established media, even though GOP legislators are calling for the public to protest their leadership’s policies.
Not only does the president's new executive order pretty much make enforcement of our immigration laws irrelevant, it creates new opportunities and encouragement for a brand new surge of illegal migrants to cross the border, expected to start in the summer of 2015.
And why not? Their chances of being allowed to stay have never been better. In 2014, Obama’s agencies accepted something like 56,000 Central American minors, providing them with health screenings and air transport to parents and family members throughout the United States.
The Obama Administration is also spending at least $7 million to provide free lawyers to the migrants so they can win court cases to remain in the United States. Only 1,901 were sent home by October 31st.
If the Republican leadership thinks that they're going to be able to indulge in this kind of treachery to please the Chamber of Commerce and their wealthy donors and still win elections, they're even stupider than I thought. This goes beyond mere politics..it's bad for the country and sets a horrible precedent.
Watch how quickly their majority disappears in 2016, especially if they nominate some RINO like Jeb Bush. The base will stay home, the majority of Latinos whom vote will vote for Hillary or whatever other Democrat promises them more gimmees and the GOP will likely have participated in its last election as a new party forms.
Here's hoping enough Republicans get this to kick Boehner and McConnell out and get new leadership, before they wind up being destroyed as a political entity.
Two reporters for Pravda-on-the-Hudson (and apparently their editors)thought it would be awfully cute to publish the home address of officer Darren Williams and his wife. They did this in full knowledge of the $5,000 cash bounty radical black groups have placed on Wilson's head, and the $1,000 bounty on any member of his family. They did it in full knowledge of the threats of rape and murder levied against Wilson as well as other police in Ferguson and their families.
New York Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson published the address of Darren Wilson in the New York Times so here are their addresses.
…It would be wrong, for example, to publish Bosman’s address at
5620 N WAYNE AVE APT 2
CHICAGO, IL 60660-4204
COOK COUNTY
It would be similarly wrong to publish the address of Robertson, too.
1113 N DUPRE ST
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119-3203
ORLEANS COUNTY
So why do journalists think they are beyond examination?
How does it advance the story to know where Darren Wilson and his newly wed live?
You can also tweet Bosman, @juliebosman. Robertson's is @campbellnyt, and his e-mail at last report is carobe@nytimes.com
Of course, this isn't remotely equitable. These two genuinely awful people aren't under a threat of death the way Wilson and his wife are. Nor are they going to be forced to sell a home under duress when they're already under considerable stress or be forced to spend the money to move quickly simply to protect their physical safety...which is also going to saddle them with double house payments until they can sell or rent the old one. And that's going to take some time, because who's going to want to move into a house with a target painted on it?
Nevertheless, here are their addresses, so that you can communicate to them directly about your feelings on the matter.
Hopefully the Wilsons can sue the pants off of these people and the foul publication they work for.
UPDATE: Thanks To Terresa at The Noisy Room, we now have phone numbers! Campbell's is 504-218-7703. Bosman's is 312-552-7204 (work) and 646-753-2052 (mobile).
President Obama has now presented his amnesty by executive order to the country. Oddly enough, he appeared to want much of the country not to know exactly what he said. None of the alphabet networks covered this important speech, strange considering wall to wall coverage of the lame gibberish issuing out of this White House on other occasions.
The networks say that the White House never asked officially asked them for broadcast time for the speech. FOX wanted to broadcast it live according to one of my sources, but was told arrangements 'could not be made in time.'
The White House likely told their media allies they didn't want this one broadcast, which also explains why FOX was denied access.
But Spanish only networks Telemundo and Univision were certainly allowed to broadcast it. It's obvious which audience President Obama was targeting and whom he would rather wasn't paying too much attention.
He started out, of course, by blaming the GOP dominated House for failing to pass a deeply flawed bill that managed to squeak by in the senate some time ago, thanks to the wily Chuck Schumer playing a naive Marco Rubio like Jimi Hendrix used to play a Stratocaster. The president of course neglected to mention that all the House wanted was to meet with the Senate to effect what's called reconciliation, where both houses of congress meet and hammer out a version of legislation they can both support. After that, the House and Senate vote on the changes and the bill goes to the president for his signature.
This is standard operating procedure in congress. Guess who stopped it? None other than Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who refused to have a reconciliation meeting with the House and demanded they pass the bill as is. When they wouldn't, it was Harry Reid who shelved it on the orders of President Obama. As usual, nothing is ever the president's fault He simply blamed other people for his failure, just like always.
The president also predictably failed to mention another reason legislation has consistently failed - because of his previous track record of ignoring laws he doesn't like, no one trusts him or his corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder to enforce any provision on border security. They haven't done so with present existing law and there's no doubt they would do the same thing with any new legislation.
That said, what does the president's new executive order actually consist of?
There are some throwaway paragraphs about border security, and about hiring a few more border patrol agents. Based on what they've been facing lately and what border patrol agents are saying right now, I doubt few people want the job even if he attempts to follow through on it, which is doubtful.
The president also claims he will make it "easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs' to avoid deportation." In other words, the small percentage of illegal migrants who have tech skills will now be able to work legally for the likes of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg for a fraction of what he has to pay legal citizens, thus keeping wages in that segment of the economy low as a payback for all those campaign contributions.
Of course the biggest impact of the president's executive order is the one that affects the vast amount of illegal migrants whom don't really fall into the skilled category , and he left those for for last.
And before we examine this in detail, let's remember... President Obama's intention here is not 'humanitarian' but purely political. This is the new class of government dependent Democrat voters he wishes to create, and his way of deliberately signaling to the new congress that he has no intention of cooperating with them on anything.
What he said is that if illegal migrants have been in America more than five years, if they have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If they register, pass a criminal background check and are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, they won't be deported.
Note the parts I emphasized.
First of all, it is going to be next to impossible to determine how long many illegal migrants has been in America assuming ICE even attempts to do so, doubtful given this president's track record. As usual, this president and his minions think everyone's stupid except themselves. Any illegal migrant with the least bit of savvy can find someone in one of the numerous Mexican consulates willing to crank out a matricula consular card with any name and dates the applicant wants for cash under the table. The going rate right now is about $75 - $100..not to mention that the cards themselves are very easily forged.
And aside from that, does anyone really think that your average illegal migrant won't be able to find people willing to swear he or she has been in the country five years? Or that ICE won't accept that as 'proof' given the president's political interest in keeping all of them here?
The next criteria, freeing from deportation those who have children who are American citizens or those who have children who are illegal migrants is even more of a giveaway. Anyone who’s at all aware of America's immigration policies knows that having a child who is an American citizen is a sure ticket to getting a green card and the accompanying social welfare benefits. Many potential illegal migrants know it, which is why many illegal migrants whom are pregnant strive to have the child born on American soil. The United States, remember, is one of the only countries that still has birthright citizenship and the newborn baby can in effect legalize the whole family. But the second category, 'those who have children who are illegal migrants' is the real stinger. What this president has done is to essentially extend blanket amnesty even to those who have children who didn't manage to get birthright citizenship by being born here.
After all, if they're legal citizens who happen to have a child who's an illegal migrant, there’s no worry about deportation and the child can get citizenship through normal legal channels. No, this little provision is designed to cover a lot more illegal migrants than the 5 million or so we're being told. And the president is also signalling that the recent rush of illegal migrants from Central America are going to be allowed to stay..and to import their parents and other family members.
That of course ranks the president's statement that "This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently" up with " If you like your health plan, you can keep it" as one of the more egregious lies he has ever told the American people. And that's a pretty high bar.
I think many American are already aware of the fact that a lot of illegal migrants whom have committed serious crimes are being allowed to stay, and that the Obama Administration lied about it. It's unlikely that they're going to be deported under the president's new executive order,which shows you how much you can believe the president when he talks about "focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families."
And taxes? Many illegal aliens already file tax returns. And why not? For many of them, it's quite profitable.
The president claimed this isn't amnesty, merely freedom from deportation. And that this isn't citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or access to the same benefits that citizens receive.
Aside from the benefits issue (anyone who knows anything about current law knows that illegal migrants will have full access to social welfare benefits, including ObamaCare), I give it a year at most before you hear the Democrats calling for a pathway to citizenship - and of course, voting rights - for the illegal migrants. That's the plan, guaranteed.
The president finished his remarks with his usual touch of cherry picking an example, appealing to America's natural generosity. He even attempted to quote Scripture, citing a passage in Exodus about oppressing a stranger. Of course, even that was bogus. The ancient Hebrews were invited to settle in Egypt as actual immigrants (Genesis 46-48) because of a famine in the land of Canaan, back when Joseph was the Pharaoh's Chief Minister. It was only after a new Pharaoh ascended 'who knew not Joseph' that the Hebrews were enslaved and oppressed (Exodus 1:8). And the actual passage in the Hebrew, of course, refers not to illegal migrants but to a ger, a convert to Judaism.
Here are a few things for those who think that President Obama did something wonderful here to ponder:
If this was done 'out of compassion,' or because, as he claims, the evil Republicans wouldn't give him what he wanted, why didn't he do it in the first two years of his term, when he had a veto-proof majority in the house and senate? Wasn't this important enough then ?
For years, this president has been telling Hispanics whom wanted this amnesty that he was simply unable to accommodate them, that he was not a king or a dictator, that he was unable to do what in fact he just did. How does it make you feel to have been cynically lied to all this time? Does it make you wonder what else President Obama has been lying to you about?
If you're black or Latino citizen making say, $40,000 or so as a delivery driver, a caregiver, a construction worker, a clerical or healthcare worker, are you aware that as this amnesty develops, you're now going to have to compete for your job with people willing to work for less, willing to take part time employment, willing to take less benefits and and poorer working conditions? Do you like the idea that it's going to be you dealing with rising rents for affordable housing, higher taxes, longer waits for medical care and other social services, and schools that become even more dysfunctional as they struggle to handle children whom aren't even literate in their own language?
If you'd like to see actual legislation dealing with immigration,do you think this president's disrespect for the incoming congress and the separation of powers makes that more likely or less likely? Do you like the idea of a president just disregarding laws like this? And if you do, are you at all worried about the precedent this sets if there's a different president in the White House?
The amnesty for illegal migrants the president has planned has nothing to do with 'compassion' nothing to dow ith the good of the country. Barack Hussein Obama is literally strangling the Eagle for what goes beyond even normal partisan political gain...his way of 'transforming' a country he secretly despises into something very different than the democratic republic our Founders envisioned and created.
Having failed to completely crush America's innate spirit and having had his persona andhis failed policies repudiated, he has simply decided to import enough people whom he feels he can manipulate... to transform the electorate to his liking.
Aside from the constitutional issues,what the president has done will encourage further illegal migration, cripple already struggling school districts, substantially raise the prices on affordable housing, raise taxes, depress wages increase unemployment and saddle America with huge social welfare costs in a stagnant economy.That cost, by the way is estimated at $2 trillion dollars by Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation's expert on these matters, which I think is conservative since Rector is only calculating on the basis of four million illegal migrants, seems to be discounting the effect of chain migration and the influx of new illegal migrants and is only calculating for Social Security and Medicare.
So can this be stopped? Of course it can.I'll tell you how in Part II.
Hillary Clinton
