There's Some Riots Going On..And It Was Planned

There's a number of riots going on in America right now. And there's no doubt they were planned.The excuse for them is the death of one George Floyd, a black man who was arrested by police in Minneapolis and died while in their control. There's a video (isn't there always?) showing Mr. Floyd being pulled over by police who were trying to arrest him for check forgery or passing counterfeit money, depending on what version you read.

BUT...I'm a bit puzzled. In the famous video, it shows George Floyd refusing to leave his car after he was stopped. The policeman dragged him out of his car and handcuffed him. SOP so far.  Then we see him handcuffed and seated on the pavement. Again, SOP (Standard Operational Procedure). Then we don't see anything until we see Floyd on the ground near the right side passenger door of his car with the cop kneeling on his neck. Definitely NOT SOP.So how did he get moved from leaning against the wall to the sidewalk near the car? What happened in between?

Did he make a run for it and have to get chased down? Did he heavily resist getting into the cop car? It will be interesting to find out. In any event, one of the other cops should have intervened. Did they?

And old and close high school friend of mine now retired from the LAPD tells me that something must have happened, because kneeling on someone's neck like that is a last resort and hardly ever used. In any event it was a stupid move.

Since this is Minneapolis, the four police officers involved were immediately fired, and the cop who did the kneeling has been charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter less than 30 hours after the incident took place.* And of course, violent riots broke out, mostly  in blue run cities. As we all know, they tend to be rather lenient of such things for political reasons.Nashville had its entire City Hall set on fire and of course, there was the usual 'shopping spree.' There's nothing that  expresses grief and a passion for law and order then grabbing a big screen TV for free or looting department  and liquor stores.

While the um, protests were masterminded by Black Lives Matter, Antifa's thugs and thugettes were obviously a huge part of the show. In fact, Antifa was very much involved.

Police cars and police were attacked, and in LA police were even shot at, although they were under orders NOT to shoot back. The mob, after the usual looting and destruction actually went onto the 101 Freeway, where they blocked traffic and attacked two police cars who were trying to keep them from being run over.

In Oakland's riot, A black federal officer, Patrick Underwood, was shot and killed and another FPS officer was wounded and in critical condition. They were victims of a drive by shooting right in front of the Ronald Dellums Federal Building. A number of other police were injured and some were killed in other 'peaceful demonstrations' around the country.

The most feckless and disgusting comments came from Jacob Frey, Minneapolis mayor and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms.

Get a load of this!

Mayor Jacob Frey

@MayorFrey

We are now confronting white supremacists, members of organized crime, out of state instigators, and possibly even foreign actors to destroy and destabilize our city and our region.

White Supremacists?? Really?

I'd say there was a mixture.

As for Mayor Bottoms, her response was disgraceful. First she talked about her black sons and how 'as a mother' she worries everyday about whether they'll be killed by the nasty, racist police. Who of course have been given a license to kill black people by President Trump who should 'just shut up.' She also explained to the rioters that they were looting and burning 'black owned businesses' without any words of concern for the destruction or looting of any businesses or property but those of her fellow blacks.

Talk about racism...I have a feeling she's bucking for the slot as Biden's VP.

The police for the most part are having any of their efforts to enforce law and order in their cities stymied by orders from the politicians involved and anything they do subject to micro analysis. Which of course means very little is being done towards stopping any of this. If you have a job, a pension and possibly your personal freedom to protect, you step very carefully if at all and just try to keep safe. And with a few exceptions, that's exactly what the cops are doing.

It's alsoobvious to me that the riots are well organized.There are plenty of reports of pallets of bricks having been "conveniently" staged near stores, banks and other buildings to be handy for the looters. Given the sort of people who were on the streets and the way it was coordinated in various locations, there's no doubt this was staged.

Ah, the age old question...Cui Bono, who benefits?

Obviously, the Democratic Party and the Left for various reasons.

First they're stuck with Biden (probably) and he isn't really making too many black friends
as of yet. This is an opportunity for his handlers to write up some statements for him to make about economic inequality, reparations for slavery, how wonderful Black Lives Matter is, et cetera. And also a perfect way for the Dems to paint Trump as an authoritarian/racist/what have you, and make him call out the National Guard or even the military to end the riots.

I can just see an elderly gentleman with the initials GS on the phone saying '"The pandemic isn't working. Call out the rioters. Let me know how much money you need."

George Soros spent  spent something like   $30 millions to defeat George Bush, and Bush was a dysfunctional  RINO.  Imagine how much he is spending to incite this civil war and defeat Donald Trump! And he's probably not the only one. The DNC has lots of millionaire celebs and others willing to shell out for the cause.

You'll notice that a lot of black race pimps are also being given time just now to sound the trumpets.

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television has the answer of course. He wants $14 trillion in reparations for slavery to people who were never slaves. The black population of America is 45,532,100 - 13%. That works out to $330,000 for every black man, woman and child in America.

Of course, Mr.Johnson neglects to figure in what's already been paid in terms the War on poverty, social welfare, affirmative action which gave backs priority in financial aid and placement in universities over far more qualified applicants, The money for the funding for the traditional black colleges, the money that formed and funded the civil rights movement (both almost entirely donated by Jews), repayment to businesses who were wrecked and looted in the various riots,  and of course,the cost of the Civil War, all figured in today's money.

In any event, I suggest that we start funding any reparations by confiscating Mr. Johnson's entire net worth to begin with.After all, he was never a slave...

Cornell West was on CNN just the other day yakking to Anderson Cooper about how wonderful and  the riots are, how evil Trump is and how we need to 'change the system' with  socialism that 'spreads the wealth around democratically' because America is 'a failed social experiment.'

West is a known anti-semite and a real fan of Black Lives Matter, another anti-semitic group, so this is to be expected.  Antifa has the same agenda when it comes to Jews and Israel. In Fairfax, a Jewish neighborhood in LA, every synagogue was vandalized by these people, as well as other synagogues and Jewish community buildings in other cities.

 

Speaking of race pimps and Jew haters, Al Sharpton also had a few things to say on his home network MSNBC  I won't even dignify them by repeating them.

Dan Bongino has the right of it as usual 

This is a rebellion and an attempted coup.Exactly.

So how do we stop it?

It's actually fairly simple. You stop bad behavior when there are consequences for it. Anyone who has ever trained a dog or raised a child understands that. If there are no consequences, the bad behavior continues. In this case of course, the bad behavior has been tolerated for some time...the politicians who run these cities need the votes, y'know. And felons and the kind of people who violently engage in looting and domestic terrorism are part of the bloc who votes for them especially in blue run states and cities.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), a decorated war vet and one of my favorite politicians put it this way:

The riots and the anarchy we’ve seen across the country have nothing to do with the death of George Floyd,” Cotton said. “In Washington, D.C., they set fire to a historic church attended by every president since James Madison. They defaced the Department of Veterans Affairs and the World War II memorial, which honor our veterans. They defaced the Lincoln Memorial, a temple in which we remember the great emancipator.”

“What the president can do is say that justice will be done in accordance with law for George Floyd,” he added**. “And we will always respect the right of peaceful protest, as many of these cities saw in the daytime. But the rioting, the anarchy, and the looting ends tonight. If local law enforcement is overwhelmed, if local politicians will not do their most basic job to protect our citizens, let’s see how these anarchists respond when the 101st Airborne is on the other side of the street.”

I have to agree. The one sure cure for rioting and looting is a dose of lead. Apparently a number of Americans feel this way. When the people who are supposedly charged with enforcing the law can't or won't, then it's time to take charge of it ourselves, or have the feds do it, since they don't need to answer to some mayor or governor catering to a certain voting bloc for re-election

I have never been prouder of President Trump than I have been the last few days. He has faced the most unwarranted criticism and outright lies from the media and the internet social media sites like Twitter and Facebook of any recent president and he has done it with courage. To see him yesterday walking to the vandalized historic St. John’s Episcopal Church while the Media rats yelled at him was definitely an act of courage. His reward, of course, was to be accused by these same media rats  of firing tear gas at 'peaceful protestors' for a photo op. As we now know, that was a blatant and deliberate lie.

Joe Biden's handlers even wrote him a lying statement to repeat for the media as well;

"When peaceful protestors dispersed in order for a president, a president from the doorstep of the people’s house, the White House, using tear gas and flash grenades in order to stage a photo-op at one of the most historic churches in the country or at least in Washington, DC, we can be forgiven for believing the president is more interested in power than in principle."

As we now know, these 'protesters' were far from peaceful,  and United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan made the following statement:

At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

…

As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park.

Happy Hands Joe has always been a liar, so no surprise.

President Trump was also rewarded with some shrew of an Episcopal Bishop screaming that the president, 'had no right to go there.' She apparently forgot that every president since James Madison has visited that church. Disgusting.

And President Trump's simple  statement in response to the hideous media jackals bellowing at him  was simply to say, "We have the greatest country in the world. We're going to keep it that way."

The media  and social media have  also intensified their excusing of the violence, looting and vandalism as 'protest.' CNN, MSNBC, the New York Ties  the Washington Post and Twitter have been particularly odious.

Here's CNN's Chris Cuomo..

"Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice. And please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful."

Umm here, Fredo...it's called the First Amendment:

↓

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Fredo is also an Antifa supporter and cheerleader, so this is no surprise.

Even his big brother, New York's Governor openly said the protesters aren't peaceful. Not that he's doing much about it. Of course, he's also responsible for freeing lots of violent felons from jail and refusing to jail plenty of other criminals, which certainly intensified the problem,no?

Ok, so where do we go from here?

This is a sign of the Left's desperation. The impeachment fraud failed, their media allies don't have the clout they used to, the Pandemic didn't work, and they're stuck with Joe Biden. So bring on the riots, hmm?

Except that's not going to work either, although it's going to continue until it's forcibly stopped. The Left still have no clue who they're dealing with.

President Trump and AG Bill Barr have already started the game. Now that Antifa is officially a terrorist organization, not only can they be fought effectively but the people who have been funding them can also be investigated, arrested, tried and jailed for material support for terrorism. That could very well include certain millionaires, Hollywood celebs, and even certain politicians. The rot goes deep. It's also quite possible that certain media outlets can be sued for inciting violence.

Trump is also in a position to declare martial law if the Dem mayors still handcuff their police and refuse to do anything constructive. As I said, lead cures riots and consequences ends bad behavior...it never fails. And finally, given how the investigations regarding the attempted coup now going on, there are very likely to be a lot of Obama's former associates and fellow conspirators headed for jail.

Our gutsy President  also has the alternative of exercising his deal making expertise. 'You want money to rebuild your city after you sat back and let it burn? I want your unconstitutional sanctuary laws repealed and your voter registration lists and cooperation with ICE. Otherwise, no deal.'

And me? I live in a state where you don't even need a permit to buy a long gun, although you do need one for  a handgun.You can buy all the ammo you need.  Its Democrat Governor tried to change that and ended up having to forget the idea when both the population and the legislature rebelled. I doubt he gets re-elected based on how I hear him generally referred to. While where I live has a small percentage of Black people,they're decent people with jobs, houses and something to lose, the police here are respected, crime in general is low and overall, it's a pretty civilized place  so there haven't been any riots here nor are there likely to be.

If this doesn't describe where you live, I'd arm up. An armed society is a polite society, and if you live in a blue run city, the police might not be there or  simply won't be able to do anything to help you..orders from upstairs, you know.

We do have a great country...and yes, we're going to keep it that way. Just wait and see

* Wow, that was quick! A lot faster then they moved to charge a black Somali policeman who shot an unarmed white woman in cold blood not too long ago.

** President Trump immediately ordered the FBI and the DOJ to thoroughly investigate this as soon as it happened.

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.

Debunking Mahmoud Abbas's Lies On Israel And The Balfour Declaration

As a 'recognition' of the centennial of the issuing of the Balfour Declaration (November 2nd, 1917) the notoriously anti-Israel UK Guardian decided to give Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas an op-ed entitled "Britain must atone for the Balfour declaration – and 100 years of suffering" (no link,but you can find it if you like). It contains a number of outright lies. And while Abbas, a Soviet trained apparatchnik and agent is pretty good at manufacturing this propaganda, someone from the Guardian obviously helped him concoct this, based on the language, much of it drawn verbatim drawn from past anti-Israel screeds from, of course, The Guardian.

As ludicrous as the thing is, Mahmoud Abbas's lies rates a serious debunking.Walk with me awhile in the Valley of Truth...

For starters, the op-ed refers to Abbas as the 'President of Palestine'. That's a hilarious title, considering that he's an unelected dictator now serving in year 12 of what was supposed to be a 4 year term! But let's continue...

 Lord Balfour as having 'signed a letter promising the land of Palestine to the Zionist Federation, a recently established political movement whose goal was the creation of a Jewish state. He promised a land that was not his to promise, disregarding the political rights of those who already lived there.'

What the Balfour declaration actually said was that Britain was in favor of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. And contrary to Abbas's nonsense, it specifically mentioned safeguarding the civil and religious rights of non-Jews living there, and of Jews living in other countries. Not only that, but the Balfour declaration meant nothing by itself. It was the League of Nations that created a Palestine Mandate under British control that was designated specifically to create a state that gave  rights of  sovereign specifically to Jews. And as we'll see, Britain bent over backwards when it came to Arab political rights.

It's also worth mentioning that Lord Balfour didn't create this on his own. It was the British cabinet that signed off on this. And they did it to reward the Jews for their help in WWI. Without Chaim Weismann, a skilled chemist discovering a process to enable fixing nitrogen out of the air, British troops would almost certainly have run out of ammo and artillery shells on the Western Front because of the success of German U-Boat attacks. Jews living in Palestine aided General Allenby's conquest of the Levant considerably with espionage and sabotage against the Ottomans at considerable personal risk, and an entire unit of British Jews fought alongside the Anzacs at the debacle in Gallipolli, something Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull pointed out in his visit to Jerusalem last week.

While most of the Arabs fought for their Ottoman masters, the few who didn't as part of the desultory Arab Revolt by the Sharif of Mecca received almost the entire Arabian Peninsula and ultimately 78% of the Palestine Mandate as their reward for taking a weak garrison in Aqaba well behind the fighting lines and sabotaging Turkish railways. Certainly the League of Nations rewarding the Jews with rights of sovereignty in their ancient homeland where a number of them already lived should have been no problem, since the land in the Palestine Mandate didn't belong to the Arabs either. It belonged to the Ottomans, who ceded it to the Allies under the Treaty of Sevres. So 'Palestine' like the rest of the ceded Ottoman lands belonged to the victorious allies, to do whatever they wished with it.

  'British policy, to support Jewish immigration into Palestine while negating the Arab-Palestinian rights created severe tensions between European Jewish immigrants and the native Palestinian population.'

Oh boy.

Chaim Weismann, representing the Zionist movement and Emir Faisal, the third son of the Sharif of Mecca met and made an agreement to accede to a Jewish State in part of the Palestine Mandate. Faisel and Hussein were more than willing, since the British promised as a sweetener to create an Arab state out of most of the Mandate for his second son, Abdullah and give his first son Ali what became Iraq.  So on 23 March 1918, in Al Qibla, the daily newspaper of Mecca, Feisel  urged the Arabs to to welcome the Jews as brethren and cooperate with them for the common welfare.

The British then went back to the  League of Nations to negotiate borders for an Arab state in Palestine, thus fulfilling their agreement with Emir Feisal. In the 1923 San Remo Accords, an agreement the Arabs were happy to sign off on, the Arabs received 78% of the Palestine Mandate for a state governed by Abdullah. It was called  Trans-Jordan, later Jordan. The border the Arabs agreed to accept was the Jordan River. And accordingly, British removed a number of Jewish families who had settled east of the Jordan River to the other side, although no Arabs were removed from the 22% promised to the Jews.

The proof of this is the fact that so many of the 'settlements' like Ariel and the  Gush Etzion bloc were first built in the 1920's after San Remo, on land legally purchased from the local Arab Muktars. 

The tension was caused by the Arabs, led by the British appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The British did little to stop it, and Arab violence became endemic. 

The British also responded by repeatedly limiting or even cutting off Jewish migration entirely to what was supposed to be the Jewish part of the Mandate while allowing in unlimited Arab migration.  The worst example of this was the White Paper of 1939, which cut off all Jewish migration and denied Jews desperate for a haven from the coming Holocaust a refuge.That was something the League of Nations planned to take up as a violation of the conditions of the Mandate, until WWII erupted and made the League irrelevant. The death toll of the Holocaust was vastly increased as a result.

'Palestine (the last item on the decolonisation agenda) led to our greatest catastrophe – in Arabic the Nakba.'

 In 1948 Zionist militias forcibly expelled more than 800,000 men, women and children from their homeland, perpetrating horrific massacres and destroying hundreds of villages in the process. I was 13 years old at the time of our expulsion from Safad.

Let's compare this with what Abbas has said on other occasions, shall we?

The Wall Street Journal on June 5th, 2003 made reference to an article penned by Abbas (AKA Abu Mazen) in an article entitled “Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" ( emphasis mine) :

"Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO in Beirut: ‘The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe.’”

But wait, there's more. Here's Mahmoud Abbas's own version of his family's 'expulsion' in 1948.

  In an interview with Al-Palestinia TV in 2009, Abbas admitted that his family was not expelled or driven out, but rather left voluntarily out of fear that the Jews might take revenge for the slaughter of 20 Jews in the city during the Arab pogroms of 19 years earlier:

“I am among those who were born in the city of Tzfat (Safed). We were a family of means. I studied in elementary school, and then came the naqba [calamity, namely, the founding of the State of Israel – ed.]. At night, we left by foot from Tzfat, to the Jordan River, where we remained for a month. Then we went to Damascus, and then to our relatives in Jordan, and then we settled in Damascus.

“My father had money, and he spent his money systematically, and after a year, the money ran out and we began to work.

So embarrassing when one's lies are contradicted from one's own mouth isn't it...and Abbas and his family aren't the only ones who left voluntarily.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was allowed back into mandatory Palestine in spite of his work for Hitler and the Nazis during WWII is on record as actively encouraging Arabs to leave what became Israel so that the Arab armies could massacre the Jews. The idea was that afterwards, these Arabs could return home again and have the pick of the dead Jew's wealth, property and women.  Al-Husseini was joined in that by that by other Arab media. Which is exactly why the Arabs who left took those house keys with them. And at this link, you'll find a number of quotations from the Arab press admitting it.

You see, the 'Nakba' Abbas is talking about was actually a failed attempt at genocide, only three years after Auschwitz was liberated. To Abbas (and apparently his morally delinquent pals at the Guardian) the fact that it failed is cause for mourning and sorrow.The Arabs knew that genocide was their goal. And so did the British, who armed, trained and in the case of Jordan officered that attempt. If the Brits need to atone for anything, it's not the Balfour Declaration but their collaboration in trapping desperate Jews in Europe seeking refuge in what was supposed to be their land  on the eve of the Holocaust to appease the Arabs. And collaborating actively with the next attempt by the Arabs in 1948  to massacre the Jews of Israel. 

Oh, and those numbers Abbas cites? According to the last British census in 1947, there were 700,000 or so Arabs in the part of Palestine west of the Jordan. The ones who lived in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem were never expelled by anyone, because the Jordanian Arab Legion illegally occupied those areas and ethnically cleansed every Jew living there. Only about 600,000 Arabs or less lived in what became Israel. This included Druse, Bedouin and Christians. We also know that 120,000 Arabs stayed in Israel and later became Israeli citizens with full rights. Now the last time I checked, that would mean that about 480,000 or so Arabs left Israewl when the Arabs attacked, not '800,000.'

I'm not suggesting that some of these Arabs weren't forcibly driven out by the exigencies of what was, after all, a war of survival. But th elarge number who stayed shows that there were obviously many instances where those Arabs who wanted to  simply stayed put, and decided not too listen to what Haj Amin al-Husseini and the Arab countries were telling them to do.

Now, if you want to see real ethnic cleansing in action, all you need do is examine the behavior of the Arab world after 1948. Almost a million Jews were thrown out of Arab countries they had lived in for decades forcibly simply because they were Jews,  after everything they owned was plundered. Israel took in most of them, and the property, bank accounts and businesses stolen  from them in today's money is conservatively estimated at a trillion dollars U.S.

There's a bit more nonsense about 'occupation' that's too ridiculous to even need a rejoinder. (Fun Question...which country's territory is Israel supposedly 'occupying?' It can't be 'Palestine,'  which doesn't exist as a country. Even the UN hasn't signed off on that one just yet. And it can't be Jordan, since Jordan relinquished all claim to Judea and Samaria as part of the peace deal with Israel.)

But one thing that bears looking at who's writing this and what he and the PLO have created. Here we have Soviet trained dictator  who actively supports terrorism,  pays convicted murderers out of donor aid based on how many Jews they've murdered, and  holds them up as heroes and 'holy martyrs.'

Abbas is a Holocaust denier who's book on the matter,written when he was being trained by the Soviets  in Moscow is required reading in the Palestinian schools and used as a standard text in what passes for Palestinian education.

And human rights? Here's what someone who formerly lived under Abbas and Fatah's rule had to say about them:




And speaking of human rights, do you notice that the regimes shown here attacking Israel have a little something in common in terms of their own human rights situation? 

I could also mention that 'honor killings' still occur in Abbasistan with distressing regularity, that journalists dare not voice any criticism of the regime and that homosexuals are persecuted and even killed there. I could also get into how Abbas became a billionaire and why he and his Fatah cronies live so well while his people struggle, but I digress.

You see, there's  no reason, really, to expect anything better from Abbas. Like his former boss Yasser Arafat, he is always going to lie, cheat, and steal. He's always going to foment violence and murder. It's what he was trained to do by the Soviets, it pays really well and at this point, his main objective is to keep  the status quo going, since actual peace would get a lot of people thinking about why they need parasites like Abbas and Fatah any more. They might even start asking awkward questions about where all that donor aid money went and try to do something about it.

The really interesting question is why so many people seem interested in being his enablers and  collaborators. Especially people who claim to care about human rights, democracy and justice.

Could it be, just maybe, that it's because helping a thug like Abbas and his friends is a fashionable and acceptable 'Anti-Zionist'  cover up for the real agenda... attacking Israel, the only Jewish State?

Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose...the more things change...you know the rest I assume.

NYT: 'Texas, CA Belong to Mexico. US Must Give Migrants Amnesty To Keep Them

Pravda-on-the-Hudson has been caught dissembling quite a few times. But this op-ed they chose to publish asserting that Mexico has a claim to all the territory ceded to the U.S. at the end of the Mexican War in 1848 has a special place in their disgraceful history. And I'm actually glad they did run this,because it unintentionally reveals the true core of the argument that illegal migrants are 'immigrants' and thus entitled to what are referred to as 'immigrant rights.'


 


The piece, written by one Señor Enrique Krauze who is described as 'a historian, the editor of the literary magazine Letras Libres and the author of “Redeemers: Ideas and Power in Latin America.”' His premise is this...and note certain key words I've emphasized:

The United States invasion of Mexico in 1846 inflicted a painful wound that, in the 170 years that followed, turned into a scar. Donald Trump has torn it open again.

Among the many lies that he has constructed, none is more ridiculous than his attempt to contradict history by presenting the United States as a victim of Mexico, a country that supposedly steals jobs, imposes onerous treaties and sends its “bad hombres” across the border.

To confront this fake history, some Mexicans are proposing to remind Mr. Trump exactly what country was the first victim of American imperialism. They are calling for a lawsuit that would aim to nullify the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (signed on Feb. 2, 1848), in which Mexico — invaded by American soldiers, its capital occupied, its ports and customs stations seized — was forced to accept the American annexation of Texas and concede more than half the rest of Mexican territory, now including most of the states of Arizona, New Mexico and California.

He continues by naming some radical Left 'statesmen' (his term) behind the idea of an (International Criminal Court (ICC) lawsuit and says, "If the present Peña Nieto government does not adopt Mr. Cárdenas’s project, an opposition candidate (of either the populist left or the nationalist right) could legitimately assume it as a banner for the presidential elections of July 2018. Such a new president could make that lawsuit a reality."

He goes on to cherry pick a few quotes from Americans who disagreed with the war, including misrepresenting soldiers like Robert E. Lee who merely expressed human sympathy for the loss of life that occurred during the war. And finishes thus:

For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest. Surely not the physical reconquest of the territories that once were ours. Nor an indemnification that should have been much greater than the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land. We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.

But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.

Let's look at what Señor Krause is actually saying. The United States viciously invaded Mexico for no reason whatsoever and committed war crimes inspired by racial prejudices and greed. So Mexico should annul the treaty that ended the war and sue for 'reparations' at the ICC. But because such a suit might not succeed, the U.S. needs to recognize its guilt, flagellate itself and provide amnesty for 11-20 million 'immigrants' no matter what, simply because they're Mexican. Because you see, they have rights other immigrants don't have, because America stole territory that rightly belongs to Mexico.

That is exactly what La Raza, MeCha and other 'immigrant rights' groups have been really saying for some time. That illegal migrants,or as they like to call them immigrants from Mexico have the right to come here and settle en masse because of this history.

Let's examine this, shall we?

In the first part of his screed, Señor Krause makes much of the violent, unprovoked war of greed and conquest America waged against Mexico. Then, towards the end this 'historian' mentions in passing 'the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land.'

When was the last time you heard of the victor in a war of greed and territorial conquest giving any money to the losing side in a peace treaty? N-E-V-E-R.

And that 'feeble amount?' In today's money, that translates into over $460 billion dollars for land that was mostly unsettled and undeveloped. Not exactly the kind of money 'conquerors' dole out to the vanquished, is it? For that kind of cash, we should have gotten the Mexicans to throw in Baja and a nice piece of Sonora as well, ¿No es así??

Mexico was desperately in need of that money, after years of dysfunctional, corrupt government from various dictators like Presidente General Santa Anna. They happily agreed to what was a seller's price they had no reason to expect after starting a war.

Texas, by the way had already broken free from the Mexican yoke. One of the chief causes of the war was the U.S. accepting the Lone Star Republic as the the 28th state of the Union. Mexico had never gotten over getting their behinds handed to them by the Texans a few years back in spite of the Treaties of Velasco they made with the Texans. They still regarded Texas as theirs, even though they no longer controlled it. They were enraged when it became part of the U.S. and publicly called it a causus belli, a cause for war.

California was also on the verge of revolt, because neither most of the Califonios (Mexican living in California) or the American settlers liked Mexico's tyrannical government or its high taxation and corruption. California's Bear Flag Republic broke free from Mexico during the war, in 1846.

What 'historians' like Señor Krause conveniently forget if that prior to the war, President Polk tried to stave off hostilities by having U.S. diplomat John Slidell travel to Mexico offering a sum of 30 million dollars (nearly a trillion dollars!) for New Mexico and California and a border at the Rio Grande. (Mexico claimed the border started at the Nuences River, which the U.S. and Texas disputed). The Mexican government refused to receive him or negotiate anything.Ayi, those greedy Yanquis! And when General Zachary Taylor and his troops were ordered to travel down to the Rio Grande to maintain the disputed border of Texas they were fired on by the Mexican army.

Hmm, so much for an unprovoked war, Señor   Krause. Who's dealing in fake history now?

 And Mexico got even more money a few years after the war via the Gadsden Purchase, $10 million 1853 dollars (about $240 billion today) for what was simply desert wasteland and served to give Mexico a contiguous border. So much for the greedy Yanquis, si?

So now that we've established that the U.S engaging in the Mexican War was not unprovoked, that Mexico could have prevented it, that Mexico was the aggressor, that the land was bought and paid for at a more than fair price, and that the  United States was surprisingly generous in victory to a country that had attacked them, let's briefly examine the argument this horse manure is based on.

 

Mexico today still has a corrupt, dysfunctional government. Part of the reason that kind of government survives is because illegal migration from Mexico aids and abets it. They do it by sending billions of dollars back to Mexico to prop up the status quo, and by importing billions in social welfare cost to America because Mexico prefers to aid and abet illegal migration rather than take care of its own people. Illegal migration is Mexico's safety valve that helps keep the status quo in power.

There are a lot of governments like Mexico, and a lot of people who want to come here for various reasons. Over 3 million people are currently stuck in bureaucratic limbo with ICE as I write this. If you doubt this, talk to any American who married a spouse from a foreign country and went through the red tape and expense to bring them here legally. To say that Mexican illegal migrants  have special rights over people who are actually obeying our immigration  laws to come here legally and get to jump the line simply because of their proximity to our border,  some complicit American politicians and peddlers of fake history like Senor Krause is racism. Plain and simple.

An obvious ideologue like 'historian' Señor Krause is one thing. But For Pravda-on-the-Hudson to run this sort of propaganda and take it seriously(they even translated this bilge) gives a new meaning to complicity. It's embarrassing that they're not embarrassed.

Milo Yiannopoulos: Once Again, 'Conservatives' Destroy Their Own

 


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.

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren Flees When Student Calls Her Out For Lying About Her Ethnicity

Ahhh, the perils of Princess Passes Bull!

Elizabeth Warren is something of a villain to a lot of progressives these days and it has nothing to do with her lying about her 'native American' background to get a lucrative position at Harvard.

For all her nonsense about wanting to get Wall Street money out of politics, when it came down to it she endorsed Crooked Hillary, the candidate backed by sleazy Wall Street money instead of her political soulmate, Bernie Sanders. Even worse, after selling herself in hopes of being named Hillary's running mate, Hillary picked Tim Kaine and she's been reduced to shilling for Hillary in hopes of getting some kind of cabinet post.

In that role,Senator Warren appeared for Hillary at Ohio State University. But then (H/T, Legal Insurrection) a pro-Trump student used the opportunity of taking a selfie to ask a few questions and hilarity ensued:




Student:“How does it feel like losing to Trump this year?”


Warren: “We’re not going to lose to trump this year.”


Student: “Oh really!”


Warren: “We’re going to beat that [inaudible]”


Student: “But you lied about your ethnicity, you lied about your ethnicity to get a scholarship.”


Warren: [runs away]

Of course, it was a teaching job (one class, $400,000 per year) that Warren finagled with her misrepresentation of her ethnic background rather than a scholarship, but yeah, that's the truth of the matter.

Obama's CIA Head Lies, Endorses Clinton, Shows How Trump Will Be Attacked At Debates

 

Mike Morrell, President Obama's handpicked choice to head the CIA in 2011 and again from 2012-2013 is a lifelong Democrat in spite of his claim to be 'non-partisan'. Today, he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and called her “highly qualified.” He claims during the four years he worked with her, he found her -don't laugh-  to be "prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.”

Donald Trump? "Dangerous to America's national security, unprepared and an unwitting Russian Agent."

Morrell put this out in an editorial in Pravda-on-the -Hudson, and then hit the Sunday shows, most notably with Martha Raddatz on the Clinton News Network (CNN).

This is actually a very telling endorsement. Here we have the man who was Obama’s pick as head of the CIA who backs Mrs. Clinton’s claim that Benghazi was ‘about the video’ and  oversaw the intel in Obama and Hillary’s illegal Libya war which helped destabilize the entire Middle East and led to deaths in Libya, Syria, Algeria, Mali and Nigeria (yes, Boko Haram got a lot of Khaddaffi’s arms too). This is the man who was in command of the agency that trained the Syrian Free Army members who later became ISIS, like these guys and many more just like them. While the article talks about this being a State Department program, the agency that did the hands on work was the CIA, in connivance with Qatar, Turkey and the Saudis as PBS revealed. And it that isn't enough to call Morrell's judgment into question, he's also willing to disregard Mrs. Clinton’s trafficking of confidential material for ca$h.

Just to show you how bogus this all is, on the one hand, Morrell claims that while he hasn't seen any evidence, he's 'pretty sure' Russia was behind the DNC hacking. Yet, he's willing to ignore (and Martha Raddatz, of course would never mention) that if  he's  right about Russia being responsible,, Putin has tons of blackmail material ready and waiting  if the  corrupt candidate  he's  shilling for, Hillary Clinton, becomes president.

Speaking of Russia, Morrell also conveniently forgets that Mrs.  Clinton, under Obama’s direction was responsible for giving Putin top secret intel on our Missile defense system as part of the ‘reset,’ In particular our state of the art Hit-to-Kill technology. And that wasn’t ‘unknowing’, but deliberate. Talk about a risk to national security!

On the other hand, Morrell's 'evidence' that Trump is 'an unwitting Russian agent' is that the two men have spoken respectfully about each other, with Trump saying that Putin is a much stronger leader than Obama, something that's undoubtedly true from the perspective of looking after his country's interests.

None of this is accidental,by the way. In the NBC commander-in -chief forum, Trump came across strongly as a strategic thinker and presidential to the overwhelming majority of viewers  while Mrs. Clinton was revealed  as the corrupt, incompetent and dishonest creature she actually is in spite of Matt Lauer's best efforts.

Again, since the Democrats can't sell Hillary, their only recourse is to demonize Donald Trump and hope enough of it sticks thanks to constant repetition on the media they control.

The choice of Martha Raddatz for Morrell's interview is no coincidence. She'll be 'moderating' the 2nd presidential debate and rest assured, this will be her attack line, to ignore Clinton's serious foreign policy errors and national security breaches and concentrate on 'Trump, the Russian agent.'

The Latest Lie...'We Got The Hostages Before We Gave Iran The Money'

 

Just when you think the Obama Administration has reached rock bottom when it comes to rank dishonesty, they dig deeper.

Many Americans were upset and disgusted by the spectacle of America appeasing Iran once again by handing over $400 million as ransom to release four American the Iranians were holding as hostages.

As I pointed out here, President Obama blatantly lied at a press conference he gave when he said that That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever and that the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered.

He also lied egregiously when he said that the Israelis were now in love with the Iran deal, but let's look at the latest horse manure Obama is having his minions push.

As the Wall Street Journal among other reported, the Regime was disturbed that the President's spiel not only didn't poll well, but that congress was taking notice. So they did what they always do - they doubled down and let their allies in the media push the narrative and then cover it up thoroughly. get a whiff of this load:

New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.

The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day.

President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have said the payment didn’t amount to ransom, because the U.S. owed the money to Iran as part of a longstanding dispute linked to a failed arms deal from the 1970s. U.S. officials have said that the prisoner release and cash transfer took place through two separate diplomatic channels.

But the handling of the payment and its connection to the Americans’ release have raised questions among lawmakers and administration critics.

The use of an Iranian cargo plane to move pallets filled with $400 million brings clarity to one of the mysteries surrounding the cash delivery to Iran first reported by The Wall Street Journal this month. Administration officials have refused to publicly disclose how and when the transfer took place.

I'll just bet they're refusing to publicly disclose it!

The first lie is that this was a 'failed arms deal,' the same stuff the president tried to feed us. Arms deals between governments are done using Letters of Credit, where the buyer (in this case, Iran) places funds with their bank as a guarantee of payment to complete the transaction with instruction to release it to the seller (In this case,the U.S.) upon delivery. The buyer's bank issues the Letter of Credit and sends it to the seller. The seller delivers the goods and the buyer's bank releases the funds. No delivery, no funds released. And anyway, who pays for a legal claims settlement with a planeload of cash in foreign, untraceable currency?

The president also lied about the need for an Iranian cargo plane to ferry $400 million in cash to Iran because 'we don't have a banking relationship with Iran'. If the U.S. was going to pay ransom, they could very easily have deposited $400 million in a Swiss bank that does have that relationship, had them issue a letter of credit to the Ayatollahs and instructed the bank to release the ransom money to Iran when the hostages were freed. Converting American cash dollars the way the Obama regime did for this sort of purpose has a name. It's called money laundering and it's a major felony.

The reason the president and his minions did it was precisely because it was a ransom, and the Iranians, like all kidnappers set the terms...because they wanted to be able to humiliate the Great Satan another time and publicize and display how America bent over to their demands. Which is exactly what they have done. They're not at all embarrassed about calling it a ransom.


The president also lied when he said his administration doesn't pay ransom for hostages. I was able to think of several instances just off the top of my head where they've done exactly that.

Finally, just today, the Obama regime finally admitted the president flat out lied when he told the American people this wasn't a ransom. Just like the rest of his little performance. And now, the next question is what the remainder of the $1.7 billion Iran received was for. Terrorist kidnappers don't ordinarily take ransom in installments. What else did this president buy besides the release of 4 hostages?

And let's not leave out the latest nonsense, that the money wasn't released until the hostages were freed The hostages themselves have debunked that one, with one of them in particular being quite vocal about how the Iranians told them explicitly that they wouldn't be allowed to board the waiting plane to leave until the ransom was paid. There were other installments, fo ra total of $17 billion. By all accounts, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Rest assured they'll put it to uses that violate U.S. statutes on material aid to terrorism.

The contempt this president's policy of ransoming hostages shows for America is bad enough, and rest assured we'll see more attempts at kidnapping American before Barack Hussein Obama leaves office. It pays.

But what's even more evident is how much this disgusting episode shows blatantly how much contempt this president and his regime have for American people. They're not even bothering to try to sprinkle a little perfume around to disguise the stench of horse manure like this any more.

Hostages, Ransoms, Iran, and Israel - Obama Lies Again

 

It's been revealed that American hostages held unjustly by Iran were released this January, but only after a sum of $400 million in cash sent by the U.S. was received by the Islamic Republic. This transaction was meant to be hidden, but now it's come out, it has immediately raised questions. Was this a ransom? Why was this hidden from the American public?



The totally misnamed Josh Earnest, Obama's spokeshole was quick to say that no ransom was paid, and Hillary Clinton said - it seems to be her trademark -that this was old news and 'no one cares about it anymore.' Well, it worked for Benghazi and her illegal private e-mails and server, so why not?

But it was left for Barack Obama to pull off the biggest, most shameless lies of the bunch. He gave a press conference and asserted the following:

• That it was U.S. policy never to pay ransom for hostages, ever.

• That the money arriving at the same time was just a coincidence and was a payment on an old claim by Iran on a missing arms deal to the Shah that we never delivered. And that America's own lawyers advised paying this settlement because Iran had pursued litigation in court and by settling, 'we saved America billions of dollars.'

• That this was old news, that the Iran deal was working and that even Israel admitted it. Obama also said those who had been most critical of the deal should admit they were wrong:
  
  “What I’m interested in is if there’s some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster come out and say, ‘This thing actually worked.’ Now that would be a shock,” he said.“That would be impressive. If some of these folks who said the sky is falling suddenly said, ‘You know what? We were wrong and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in short term and develop a nuclear weapon.’ But that wasn’t going to happen.”
  
  “The Israeli military and security community … acknowledges this has been a game changer,” he said. “The country that was most opposed to the deal.”

Well, let's examine these claims. First of all have we paid ransom before for hostages during Obama's term in office?

Remember these?


In 2011, the Obama Administration paid $1 million dollars to Iran as 'bail money' to get them to release two hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer who accidentally wandered over the Iranian border two years before and were being held in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. An additional $500,000 in 'bail' was paid earlier for the release of Sarah Shourd, Bauer's girl friend when she became seriously ill in Evin. So, a total of $1.5 million in ransom money.

In 2012, the Obama Administration used USAid as a conduit to pay $4.6 million to the Egyptian Government for the release of 43 NGO operatives...including Sam LaHood, the son of the then Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

Then there was deserter Bowie Bergdahl. Remember him? Not only were 5 extremely skilled and dangerous Taliban commanders sent back to Afghanistan, but there a great deal of evidence that the Obama Administration also paid a ransom of something like $5 million to the Taliban for his release.

Even if Bergdahl's ransom consisted of just the five Taliban commanders alone, those of you with loved ones serving in AfPak can thank the Obama Administration and Mrs. Clinton, then Secretary of State for making things far more dangerous and life threatening for them.

These are just a few instances that come readily to mind, and I'm certain there are other instances. So contrary to what the president said, yes, his administration does pay ransoms for hostages. And if I remember, he mentioned that countries that do that see the price go up. That's certainly been the case for the United States!

 

Let's look at the president's next claim, that the cash payment of $400 million wasn't a ransom, it was a claims settlement for an arms deal that the Iranians were already pursuing via litigation. And the money just arrived there at the exact same time as the hostages were being released just by coincidence.

Now anyone who's ever paid a court judgment knows this is sheer fantasy. Settlements of this kind involve legal documents including one called a satisfaction of judgement filed by the litigant at the same time payment is made. And the president's nonsense - that's the most benign word I can use here - about the fact that it needed to be all cash 'because we don't have a banking arrangement with Iran' is a blatant falsehood. There absolutely no reason the U.S. couldn't have deposited the funds in a Swiss bank by check for the Iranians to have wired to wherever they wanted in any currency they desired.

There's a name for what the Obama Administration chose to do instead. It's called money laundering and it's a felony offense. No wonder even some of the officials in Obama's serially lawless Justice Department were concerned about this one.

The Iranians wanted cash for a simple reason - to humiliate the Great Satan and show the money off to prove it actually was a ransom. Which is exactly what they've done.

One of the the hostages has recounted that even though the plane to take them home was ready for takeoff, the Iranians told them that they were waiting for the plane with the money and they weren't going to be released until it arrived.

Another falsehood the president told us is that this was supposedly an arms contract that was never fulfilled. I know a little bit about arms dealing and how it's legitimately conducted. The normal procedure is that the contracts are signed and the consignee (the purchasing country) goes to a large bank and obtains a Letter of Credit in the amount required. A Letter of Credit is a guarantee from a bank on behalf of one of its customers (in this case, Iran) to the seller's bank that the seller (in this case, the U.S.) will be paid in full to the amount of the Letter of Credit as long as the contracted goods and services are delivered.

To restate this more simply, the buyer's bank guarantees payment (normally they have the funds on hold) to the seller's bank when the buyer receive what they ordered.

Since, as President Obama told us, the arms were never shipped to the Ayatollahs the money was never released to America either.

So yes, that $400,000,000, was ransom money. And our president lied once again, without being challenged by a servile press.

Finally, let's look at his claim that the Israelis are on board and just love the Iran deal.

Now, there are a few Israeli members of the military and security establishment that agree with the president, but what's notable is that they're all ex-members and almost all associated with the left wing Zionist Union (AKA Labor) party that the president tried and failed to put into power with substantial injections of cash and paid activists when he interfered with Israel's elections. They're the people whose mindset and opinions the Israeli electorate overwhelmingly rejected.

And the people who they elected and who have actual responsibility for Israel's security?

Avigdor Liberman, Israel's defense minister compared the Iran deal to Munich in 1938.

"The Munich Agreement didn’t prevent the Second World War and the Holocaust precisely because its basis, according to which Nazi Germany could be a partner for some sort of agreement, was flawed, and because the leaders of the world then ignored the explicit statements of [Adolf] Hitler and the rest of Nazi Germany’s leaders,” the ministry said.

“These things are also true about Iran, which also clearly states openly that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel,” it said, pointing to a recent State Department report that determined that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

Yitzhak "Tzachi" Hanegbi, currently Minister in the Prime Minister's Office in charge of National Security and Foreign Affairs has a long history as part of Israel's security and defense establishment and who until recently chaired the Knesset’s powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He said, “I don’t know to which Israelis he (Obama) spoke recently. But I can promise you that the position of the prime minister, the defense minister and of most senior officials in the defense establishment has not changed.”

“The opposite is the case. The time that has elapsed since the deal was signed proved all our worries that, regrettably, we were justified before the deal was made.”

And Prime Minister Netanyahu? Netanyahu merely issued a statement that Israel “has no greater ally than the United States” but made plain nonetheless that Israel’s position on the Iran nuclear deal “remains unchanged.”

While he felt the need to be somewhat more diplomatic than Liberman (who later yielded and walked his initial statement back a bit), it's worth noting that Netanyahu used the example of Munich himself previously. And it's a correct one, with both involving a weak leader seeking to appease a vicious, aggressive enemy and buy 'peace' at an ally's expense. Czechoslovakia had a strong, well equipped military, strong, built up defenses on the German border and a world class armaments manufacturer in the Skoda Munitions Works. If Chamberlain had not sold out his ally, Hitler might never have felt secure enough on his Eastern front to start WWII and engage Germany in a two front war for some time. Certainly, it would have given the West a lot more time to arm and prepare if nothing else.

There should be no question in anyone's mind that President Barack Hussein Obama sees Israel as eminently disposable, just like Chamberlain saw the Czechs.

 

At any rate, another outright lie from this president.

And there was not a single question or followup at his press conference challenging any of these gross fabrications.

No one even challenged him by asking for his reaction to Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei essentially dumping the Iran deal and any future negotiations in a very public manner. (Hat tip to Moon of Alabama via The Glittering Eye)

Which is exactly why he keeps doing it. Because what used to be a free, independent press is now largely his enabler, a group of courtiers and political activists that covers for him. For them, that is more important than truth, the nation's well being or even a semblance of ethics. And thus, they reinforce President Obama's gigantic ego in believing that he can lie with impunity and that he really is smarter than everyone else.

How CNN Lied To Slander Trump As Wanting To'Register Muslims'

One theme floating around the media today concerns GOP front runner Donald Trump and claims he wants to register all Muslims. It is an outright lie, but that hasn't stopped the usual suspects in the media from repeating it ad nauseum.

Here's how CNN did it. Watch this video clip (hat tip, Breitbart)And notice the obvious edit before trump says the word 'absolutely .'



Now here's a transcript of what was actually said, with the edited parts CNN cropped out in boldface:

Reporter: Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?

Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we need to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen any longer.


Reporter: Is that something your White House would like to implement?

Donald Trump: I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.


That's how a routine, common sense position on border security was turned into something very different by the outright liars posing as journalists at CNN. As I wrote earlier this week, people talking about what the media needs to do to get it's reputation back are simply clueless. The media is not interested in reforming itself. 

 It's exactly what Sarah Palin said it was a few years ago after her own experience with the mainstream press's witch hunt on her. 'If they can't find something, they'll just make stuff up."

Since this is Donald Trump, one shouldn't expect the GOP establishment to kick up too much of a fuss. But we can.

For starters, turn it off. Avoid watching CNN, reading its content online or linking to its material.
Inform any aggregator like Real Clear Politics that you will no longer read anything CNN puts out or click on those links.

Browse this page, write down CNN's advertisers and inform them you will no longer patronize their products and services.

Inform the RNC that you will not watch any debates where CNN is moderating and urge them to cancel the upcoming one. let them know you will not be sending any donations until CNN is  barred from access to all GOP candidates, events, conventions and primaries. Make them persona non grata, without access to the story.

These are the sort of thing that affect their traffic and their livelihood and get results.

Something No One's Mentioning About Ben Carson And West Point

Today's media attack du jour on a Republican presidential candidate  comes from the very left leaning Politico.

Politico's Kyle Cheney claims that unnamed 'representatives of the campaign' admitted to them that Ben Carson's story about his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point” was fabricated.

“Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.”

In response, the Carson campaign responded with this statement (hat tip Daily Caller):

“Dr Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit. In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer.

He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors. They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission. There are “Service Connected” nominations for stellar High School ROTC appointments. Again he was the top ROTC student in Detroit. I would argue strongly that an Appointment is indeed an amazing full scholarship. Having ran several Congressional Offices I am very familiar with the Nomination process.

Again though his Senior Commander was in touch with West Point and told Dr. Carson he could get in, Dr Carson did not seek admission.

The Politico story is an outright Lie. Dr. Carson as the leading ROTC student in Detroit was told by his Commanders that he could get an Appointment to the Academy. He never said he was admitted or even applied.

The campaign never “admitted to anything.”

This is what we have come to expect from Politico.”

Before we go on, full disclosure. Dr. Carson is definitely not my choice for the GOP nomination or for president.

According to the Daily Caller, Politico's Kyle Cheney isn't responding to inquiries. That's pretty much standard operating procedure on the Left when the story in question is simply a political hit piece. The story goes out there, it becomes a news story, the True Believers and the Soros media outlets publicize it. Then it temporarily dies, as the news cycle moves on...to be revived later as the subject of a telephone push poll, or a campaign attack ad, or snarky references on left wing blogs later on. Because, you see,it has been implanted in people's skulls so they will recall it when it's brought up perhaps months later.

This isn't even remotely journalism. It's a political contribution in kind, rather than money on the table. It's not journalism, but political activism.

It's also racist to the core. It's no accident that Dr. Carson is receiving so much negative attention from the usual suspects lately. The Democrats lost the majority of the white vote years ago, and Mrs. Clinton's election is going to be highly dependent on a large black turnout in key urban areas. They have to be kept on the Democrat plantation, so the only black republican candidate with a chance of being on the ticket must be attacked and demonized...both on the grounds of racial politics and as an example to any black voters or potential candidates thinking of following Dr. Carson's example.

And yes, that's despicable.

But in fairness, I have to say that Dr. Carson may have expanded his original story.

I'm fairly familiar how West Point operates. In order to get in, you need to not only meet their stellar requirements when it comes to grades, test scores and other activities that indicate leadership, you have to be nominated by a sitting senator or member of the House. Here's how it usually works, from West Point's own site:

"The majority of the Members of Congress use a competitive nomination process, whereby 10 candidates are named to compete for a single vacancy. A minority of the members of Congress names a single candidate as their primary nomination, and some choose to number, or rank order the alternates. If you have an excellent academic and extracurricular activity record, however, you have a good chance of gaining admission with an alternate nomination. Each year several hundred of the best qualified alternate Congressional and military service nominees are offered admission from the West Point waiting list. "

So what likely happened is that a young Ben Carson met General Westmoreland at an affair of some sort, the General suggested he apply for West Point and maybe he had a conversation with some admissions people about the process. But him getting in was predicated on him being formally nominated by a member of congress either as an appointee or as an alternate on the waiting list. So the admissions people he spoke to had no power to get him in, no matter what he says. He probably thought about it for a few minutes and decided to take his talents elsewhere, hardly unique for a high school senior.

Another point - all appointees to any of the U.S. military academy get a full scholarship in exchange for agreeing to serve as officers for a given number of years. That's the trade off. Dr. Carson mildly embellishes that fact to make a 'full scholarship' seem like something special, when simply being appointed and admitted would have been the real accomplishment.

Whether the mild inflation even bears mentioning compared to the serial lies and contempt for the law evidenced by another presidential candidate, I leave it to you to decide.

Breaking - The Sordid Details Of Munich II Leak Out

 

Some of my sources have given me an outline of some of what's in the coming Iranian nuclear agreement, and it's even worse than I thought it would be. The blather we heard about 'no deal being better than a bad deal' and 'hard choices' from Secretary of State John Kerry turned out to mean a deal at any price, and the hard choices being made not by Iran but by John Kerry and the Obama Administration.

For starters, remember how we were told that Iran would be required to allow inspections to verify they were keeping their agreement? Well, in this new agreement, there are no real inspections involved, and the IAEA has been totally castrated. Any inspections that do take place will be prearranged with the Iranian regime at a time and place of their choosing. Since the Iranians have already said repeatedly that no inspections will be allowed in any of their military facilities under any circumstances, that essentially means no inspections at all and no ability to verify if Iran is keeping its word.

Considering the sort of regime we're dealing with, backing down on inspections is unbelievable.

Another red line the Iranians have been able to get President Obama to back down on was the insistence that Iran detail all activities it conducted regrading weaponization in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed prior to the this new agreement. This was important because the whole idea of this farce was supposedly to keep Iran within one year of 'breakout' - the time when the Iranians can develop a nuclear weapon.

Since the Obama Administration backed off on this condition, we now will have no idea how close they are to breakout, there will be absolutely no way to tell if they're a year away, six months away of one month away..especially as there will also be no meaningful inspections.

Originally, the position of the P5+1(the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany)was that Iran would be allowed only 500 to 1,500 centrifuges and they were all supposed to be IR-1s, Iran’s first generation centrifuge. That number is now 6,500, and the Iranians have actually been offered more up-to-date centrifuges by the P5+1 as an incentive. To give you an idea of the realities involved, contrary to President Obama's own assurances about 'freezing Iran's enrichment', Iran has actually increased its nuclear stockpile in violation of the framework agreement. This is 20% enriched uranium, 90% of the way toward weaponization, which can be reconverted into material suitable for further enriching to weapons-grade levels in only  a few weeks at most. Just as we have no idea of exactly what or where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are, we have no clue as to exactly how much enriched uranium they have...nor will we, based on the current agreement being finalized.

Another important concession Iran won is their 'right' to continue what Iran's President Rouhani called 'all forms of nuclear research and development.' That includes Iran's plutonium producing heavy water reactor at Arak, which has no peacetime application. You might remember that when John Kerry originally presented the framework agreement back in November 2013, he claimed that the Iranians had agreed to shut Arak down. The Iranians said in no uncertain terms that Kerry and President Obama were lying, and the end result was that the Obama team signed off on Arak, where Iran will continue to produce plutonium.

I could be charitable and say it was an error in translation, but in view of all the other differences between what our president and his  secretary of State told the world and what the Iranians claim they agreed to, I'll call it willful deception.

Keep in mind that none of this has anything to do with a peaceful nuclear power or medical uses because nuclear enrichment isn't needed for that. Canada, Sweden, Argentina and other countries all have peaceful nuclear programs without enrichment capacity. It's only needed if you're building nuclear weapons. President Barack Obama himself admitted this, back in December 2013.

But wait, there's more.

 

President Obama made a point of using the term 'snap back sanctions' last April to describe what the consequences for Iran would be if they cheated on the agreement. As our president knew full well, this term meant nothing when he used it and is even more meaningless now.

The sanctions regime took years to assemble in a form where at least most of the international community would go along with it. The sanctions have now been almost totally undone since the president's Iranian-born consigliere Valerie Jarret's secret, back channel negotiations with Iran for most of 2013 were concluded. President Obama actually watered down many of the sanctions with waivers prior to and after the initial framework agreement, and when he spoke to the American people last April, he knew that the sanctions regime was history.

Moreover, he also knew that Russia and China, whom were never that keen on the sanctions to begin with had already announced that they won't participate in future sanctions, something Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov recently repeated. And of course, with verification now entirely gutted, any attempt at revising the sanctions for cause is going to be difficult if not impossible to get through the UN. I'm informed that there may be a face saving plank moving sanctions relief to 2016, but that's fairly meaningless because it's not going to be observed anyway.

You see, not only did President Obama invalidate the sanctions, the one thing that brought Iran to the table. He rewarded the fascist Iranian regime with billions in badly needed cash for the privilege of talking to them. In fact, the Iranian regime's central bank just received 13 tons of gold with a value of $11.9 billion as part of a package of sanctions relief before signing or agreeing to anything. Any idiot knows that money changes hands when a deal is concluded, not before. The Iranians will keep that money regardless, and it's surprising to me that John Kerry left the conference room in Vienna still retaining his pants and shoes.

 

And there's even more. The Iranian regime came up with yet another demand at the last minute. As a major supporter and enabler of Islamist terrorism worldwide, Iran is under a UN arms embargo. And Iran is insisting that it be lifted as part of this deal. No word yet, but according to the Iranian Official News source Fars, the Obama Administration is going to go along with that too. And why not? They've given the Ayatollahs everything else they wanted.

And don't be surprised if the US provides some of those weapons, In fact, right now in Iraq, US advisers are sharing bases with Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, and some are surprised to see Hezbollah troops flaunting US weaponry. They shouldn't be.

Having created ISIS, President Obama wants Iran to do the dirty work on the ground to clean up the mess he created. To get that, he's willing to allow Basher Assad to survive, return Iraq to Iran as a Shi'ite colony, and allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The arms race this will set off in the region is of no concern to him. Neither is the security threat to the US of a nuclear armed Iran, or the Second Holocaust the Iranians continue to promise to unleash on Israel as soon as they're able to do so.

So to sum up, this deal does not provide for any real verification of Iran's breakout capacity, nuclear facilities or IBCMs, does not stop Iran from proceeding towards developing nuclear weapons, does away with what's left of the sanctions, and will reward the Iranian regime with billions in cash beyond what they've already received. In exchange for that, there's a worthless piece of paper President Obama can figuratively wave in the Rose Garden.


 

Would you like to know how President Obama is going to try to sell this to the American people? Here's a sneak preview:



Why yes, it's Mr. Bill, whom some Americans still see a a great president. The North Korean deal he and Marilyn Albright cooked up with the Kims led directly to Pakistan's nuclear weapons and Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program. President Obama will attempt to use the same sort of turgid prose to tell us all lies about what a wonderful deal this is. After all, he'll almost certainly be out of office when the damage he did to this nation becomes evident, just like Bill Clinton. And rest assured, that damage will likely be profound.

Because of the way President Barack Hussein Obama has set this up, congress is entirely out of the loop on a major security issue because this is agreement is being done via the UN Security Council. The Senate can vote for a motion of disapproval, which would keep some US sanctions in force. But when the president vetoes it, the chances of getting 12 Democrats senators to vote to override that veto are very slim, given the pressure being put on them.

The real joke is that even if the Iranians don't sign on to this deal, they still got everything they wanted - 17 months to continue their nuclear weapons development and to further protect their nuclear facilities from attacks, billions in cash and the destruction of the sanctions regime. And if they do sign on, nothing changes.After all, what's one more UN resolution to cheat on? They don't even have to make a pretense of changing their hostility to the west or their ultimate objective towards the nation they call The Great Satan as they move towards the day they announce their successful test of a nuclear device.

The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's President Rouhani and Iran's Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif sized up early the weak, craven and self-obsessed men they were dealing with quite some time ago,and played them thoroughly.

This is the post-American presidency indeed, when the practitioners of what my friend calls wifebeater patriotism have taken over our Republic and are doing their very best to loot it, damage it, and weaken it for their own purposes as they attempt to remake it to conform to the distorted mirror of their own image.

UPDATE: The Iranian nuclear deal was announced today, and once again my notorious Little Birdies came through - the deal as presented was pretty much what they said it would be, with a few last minute minor changes, none of which mean much in practical terms. The name of this new agreement is a dead giveaway - the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.' Note the word 'plan.'

The details are here.