VIDEO Arkansas Joins Indiana – No Rainbow Sticker Let People Know You’re Black – Free Market for People Who Have Self-Worth

-Arkansas Joins Indiana With Religious Freedom Bill
-It’s time for Tim Cook and Apple to stand up for homosexual rights in China
-CHINA CRACKDOWN ON MUSLIMS: Court jails man for six years for growing ‘illegal beard’ and his wife for two years for wearing Islamic ‘headbag’
-Let Them Eat Cake!
America today racist sexist Bible islam
March 31st, 2015 By: Erick Erickson (Diary)

To recap: Tim Cook and the left are happy to do business in countries that stone to death or otherwise jail gay people, but will not do business with Indiana, which merely passed a law insisting that the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment be on the same legal footing in courts as the “free speech” clause of the first amendment.

The Supreme Court, in Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), ruled that for a state to restrict content based speech, it must have a compelling governmental interest. But the Court subsequently ruled that the free exercise clause, also in the First Amendment, need not fall under the compelling governmental interest” standard. President Bill Clinton and a near unanimous Congress disagreed and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

31 states similarly moved to protect religious practice and 20 have explicit copies of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indiana is the latest. Georgia’s Governor, Nathan Deal, just tucked tail and ran from putting religious expression on the same legal footing as speech. The cowards of the Georgia Republican Party decided they would rather serve Mamon and have the checks to prove it.

What we are learning in the controversy, though, is simple: you will be made to care. There will be no middle ground. Many people would like to find middle ground. Many churches would like to find middle ground. But there will be none because homosexuals and their culture war warriors on the left are unwilling to have a middle ground.

The gay rights movement has decided their rights are equivalent to the Civil Rights movement and, through their interpretation of the Civl Rights movement, there can be no accommodation with the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment. The “free exercise” clause is not limited to worship. It is “free exercise of religion.” It applies, or should, to the business owner who views his job as missional. It applies, or it should, to the religious school whose faculty honor the tenets of its faith. But the left, in recent years, has taken to calling it a “right to worship” instead of a “right to religion.”

The gay rights movement cannot abide a middle ground and a free exercise of religion for a simple reason — homosexuality is not normal in nature, in historic relationships, or in the sacred texts of almost all religions. The gay rights movement must therefore censor and subjugate dissent. Any who point out the lack of historic or religious acceptance or the lack of its ready existence in nature or, for that matter, the lack of scientific evidence showing homosexuality is a birth trait as opposed to a choice or external factors, must be shut up.

Homosexuals and the gay rights movement crave not tolerance, but the veneer of normalcy. To tolerate them means to allow them to be. But that also equates to heterosexuals being in a better position — one that decides who to tolerate. They have moved to demanding “equality” for now.

You can generally look at a woman or a person of a different race and tell immediately that the person is a woman or of a different race or ethnicity. One does not need a rainbow sticker on the back of their car to let people know they’re black. Or Asian. Or a Woman. The struggle for equality and civil rights between genders and races is inherently and objectively different from the gay rights movement. It is also why the gay rights movement is so invested in arguing that gender, though not sexuality, is a choice.

The gay agenda depends on equating the various struggles. Through mythology [insert your favorite historic person and he’ll probably be declared gay], pseudoscience [you’re born gay, but you pick your gender], and organized harassment of critics, the gay rights movement silences dissent to establish legitimacy in their quest for normalcy. The Stonewall riots are their Selma. Pay no attention to the lack of dogs in the street, poll taxes at the voting booth, and “heterosexual only” water fountains.

In Macon, Georgia, a Catholic School was okay with a gay band teacher until he wanted to get married. The Catholic Church views marriage as a church sacrament. The school dismisses teachers who get divorced for violating the sacrament and dismissed the gay band teacher for marrying in violation of the sacrament. The Obama Administration has decided the Catholic Church cannot set the standards of conduct for its faculty.

Around the country, gay rights activists have attacked Christians for daring to put their faith ahead of the wants and desires of homosexual marriage advocates. The Christians must be silenced and punished. Their faith cannot be respected. Legislation designed to allow diversity of religion and the free exercise thereof must be stopped and must be decried as discrimination.

The move to put “free exercise” on the same footing with “free speech” must be opposed because most major faiths recognize homosexuality as outside normal behavior. The logical outcome of this will eventually be to reduce free speech. People and faiths are going to have to be shut up for homosexuals to have the veneer of normalcy.

But it won’t stop there. Over time, the gay rights movement will move to pushing churches to marry gays because normally people get married in churches. Over time, it will move to push religious schools to abandon standards on sexuality. Over time, it will mean religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Over time, it will require Bible believing churches be labeled hate groups and orthodox Christianity be forced to the sidelines. Over time, it will mean that the state must intervene and protect children from parents who want to raise them as orthodox Bible believing Christians.

Essentially, replacing the prohibition on religious tests clause of the Constitution will become an enforcement of a secularism clause. People of faith need not apply for jobs, political appointments, or elected office. People of faith will be the new bigots because their God said “go and sin no more” and dared list homosexuality as one of those sins.

Ultimately, over time, two thousand years of Christianity will be forced to be treated as the deviant lifestyle. You will be forced to pick a side. If you remain true to your God, you will be outside the bounds of acceptable conduct. You will be made to care.

If you pick the wrong side, you will be punished. Gay rights activists cannot show you tolerance and cannot treat you equally, because that means you and your faith that suggests homosexuality is a sin would be allowed to remain in the public square. And in the quest for the veneer for normalcy, that cannot stand.

For any who suggest this is hyperbole, a college is having its accreditation threatened because of its religious views on sex and a seventy year old is losing her home and business because she did not want to provide flowers to existing, regular customers for a gay wedding.

The good news, however, is this — Christianity is growing worldwide, even in places like China and Saudi Arabia. People of faith continue to have more kids and, in fact, can actually naturally procreate. The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction. And the religion that withstood Nero and even now withstands ISIS can withstand a bunch of angry people in comfortable shoes who need stickers on their cars to tell us who they are.

The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming.

Psalm 37:12-13

It’s time for Tim Cook and Apple to stand up for homosexual rights in China
March 31st, 2015 By: Neil Stevens (Diary)

Tim Cook has become a vocal activist in recent years, taking his role in charge of Apple and using to promote his personal point of view on issues. He’s using that role to attack the state of Indiana for a political decision he disagreed with. However Indiana (population 6.5 million) is small potatoes. The fact that they don’t have a law specifically banning discrimination against homosexuals is nothing.

The People’s Republic of China (population 1,350 million) is a major manufacturing hub of Apple’s, also has no law protecting homosexuals specifically from discrimination, but further is arresting homosexual activists. It’s time Apple stood up to China the same as Indiana.

Not only is the Chinese government arresting activists, people who like Tim Cook himself are promoting their point of view, they’re also censoring the Internet to block people from learning about these arrests.

And yet Foxconn is making 70% of all iPhone 6 phones as well as an unknown percentage of iPhone 6S units. Foxconn has more manufacturing plants in the People’s Republic of China than in any other country.

Further, Apple does big business selling in China selling hardware, running Apple Stores (18 in China vs 2 in Indiana), as well as buying parts and products for other parts of the firm’s line. Apple is fully integrated with the People’s Republic of China, an entire country which omits the same protections Indiana is supposed to be omitting.

So if Apple, and specifically Tim Cook, are serious about using this soapbox to stand up for homosexual rights, then it’s time to get as active about the People’s Republic of China, as they are about Indiana. Speak out just as loudly, and if any economic threats are made, they must be applied equally to both.

Anything less discredits their position.

CHINA CRACKDOWN ON MUSLIMS: Court jails man for six years for growing ‘illegal beard’ and his wife for two years for wearing Islamic ‘headbag’
March 30, 2015

A court in China’s volatile Uighur Muslim region of Xinjiang has sentenced a man to six years in prison for ‘provoking trouble’ by growing a Muslim-style beard, a practice discouraged by local authorities. The man’s wife was also given a two-year prison sentence for disobeying the ‘NO Headbag’ rule.

A delegate from the Xinjiang provincial delegation is seen before the start of their meeting with representatives from the National People's Congress in Beijing

A delegate from the Xinjiang provincial delegation is seen before the start of their meeting with representatives from the National People’s Congress in Beijing

Tribune The law in the predominantly Muslim region comes as Beijing intensifies a campaign against religious extremism that it blames for the violence by Uighur Muslims that has left hundreds of Chinese dead in the past 20 months.

In August, the northern Xinjiang city of Karamay announced that young men with beards and women in burqas or hijabs would not be allowed on public buses.

china city muslim

The man “had started growing his beard in 2010″ while his wife “wore a veil hiding her face and a burqa”, the paper said. For more than a year the authorities in Xinjiang have been campaigning against men growing beards – a practice officials associate with extremist ideas.

A campaign dubbed “Project Beauty” also encourages women to leave their heads bare and abandon wearing the veil, a relatively widespread practice among the Uighurs – the main Muslim ethnic group in Xinjiang.

china muslim burka

sign china muslim burka

The Kashgar couple had “received several warnings” before being charged, the newspaper reported, citing local officials. “Since the beginning of the year, a certain number of people breaking the regulation on beards, veils and burqas have been prosecuted and sentenced,” officials in Kashgar were quoted as saying by the paper.

Violence increased last year and at least 200 people were killed in a series of bombings and deadly clashes with security forces, blamed by Beijing on “separatists” and “religious extremists”.

In April last year authorities in Xinjiang’s Shaya county offered cash to informants to report on neighbours with excessive facial hair. China has also made it difficult for certain Muslim groups to observe the month of Ramadan fast.

china ban muslim

Let Them Eat Cake!
Why Bless Their Hearts! I’ll Make Them A Cake
March 31st, 2015 By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary)

We will all be made to care. Compassion; is now compulsory. You are not allowed to fight your wars against Westasia when Big Brother tells you to fight Eastasia or Eurasia. So if you own a bakery, you are free to believe anything you would like about gay couples. However, if a gay couple orders a wedding cake, you will bake it. You will render unto Caesar and he has a fwend in Wome named Biggus Dickus…

So what would Jesus do? The American Digest offers us a suggestion, but that would be too mean. Instead, make like the pwoud Woman Centuwion Naughtious Maximus and bake them a cake that you truly believe reflects the nature of their unconditional mandate to your business.

Hitler Bunny
If They *Demand* You Bake It, Why Not?

Now should they be upset, or lodge any complaints, you could plead ignorance. You should, of course, apologize profusely. Don’t let the slightest lilt of sardonic irony creep into your voice. Why bless their hearts! You simply misunderstood. Offer them a complete refund with no hard feelings. If they don’t accept that, bake them yet another cake. Something that reflects young ones, in the spring of their lives.

Young Hitler
For Young Lovers Who *Demand* You Bake Their Cake!

If that fails to adequately send them running off screaming into the woods, then you bake them a nice, traditional cake that has a gentleman and a lady right on the top. If they seem perturbed, nonplussed or otherwise upset, clarify your confusion. Apologize again and explain you were led to believe that this cake was for a marriage ceremony. You know, the union of one man and one woman. By this time, they should get the point. After all, passive resistance worked wonders for both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Free Market is Only for People Who Have Self-Worth
mike pence
March 31st, 2015 By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)

I’ve been watching over this controversy over the Indiana RFRA with no small amount of genuine amazement. I legitimately cannot relate to the arguments that the opponents of the law are making. The reasons for that are simple: I believe that I have inherent worth and that my spending dollars, earned with my labor, should not be voluntarily given to people who disrespect my sense of self-worth. Let me explain.

My own thoughts on the subject of same-sex marriage are relatively clear at this point and if I personally owned the sort of business that catered to people who were getting married, I would have no problem at all providing that service for a same-sex marriage. I strongly oppose any judicially imposed redefinition of marriage for the reasons set forth by my friend Thomas Crown, and believe that supporters of SSM should pursue victory at the ballot box, where this particular fight belongs.

I don’t think that people who disagree with me on this point are bigots or hateful people. There are some people who just don’t get the concept of following the precepts of their religion, wherever that might take them and however hard or unpopular that might be. However, let’s grant the (false) assumption that the people who don’t want to, say bake cakes for same sex weddings are bigoted people who hate everyone who is gay. Fine.

All that having been said, it’s worth remembering what this particular fight is about. This fight is not about discrimination in the workplace, under the law, or through access to public facilities. This is a fight about forcing people to accept your money who don’t want to take it. And that’s something I can’t even comprehend.

Throughout the few years I have lived on this earth I have had occasion to feel disrespected by any number of companies. And I’m not even talking about being told “We don’t serve your kind here.” I’m talking, companies that have missed appointments with me (looking at you, Comcast), companies whose employees have failed to return phone calls in what I considered to be a timely fashion, companies in which their sales people refuse to pick up the phone when you call (looking at you, Best Buy), companies who fail to hire enough employees to get me through a checkout line in less than 10 minutes (looking at you, Wal Mart), companies that broke promises their customer service people made to me, and so on and so on.

Look, the great thing about America and the free market is that there are an almost infinite number of companies that will compete for your business in all sorts of ways, almost none of which are about price. As a person possessed of self-worth, I take pleasure in not spending my hard earned money with a company that tells me – even in subtle ways – that my money or my time is not valuable to them, and instead giving it to companies who make an effort to win my businesses that provide good service.

Moreover, if a company held some bigoted beliefs against me or others like me, I would prefer that they be permitted to state it openly on their storefront so that I don’t mistakenly freely give my money to people who hate me.

I can’t for a moment wrap my mind around the mindset of the SSM activists in this case, especially the gay ones. Assume that they are successful in this fight and it becomes illegal to refuse to provide given services on this basis. That won’t, contrary to their expectations, change anyone’s religious beliefs, so people who they consider to be bigoted and hateful will still be bigoted and hateful.

Under a RFRA regime, there might be two bakers in a given town who could provide cakes for weddings – one with religious objections to providing them for a same-sex marriage, the other without. If a gay couple wanted to get married, they might unknowingly walk into the first and promptly be informed that the people therein held beliefs they considered to be bigoted towards them – in which case they would promptly go to the other baker who would presumably become more prosperous thereby.

Under the regime the anti-RFRA people are pushing, the first baker still holds the same beliefs and attitudes toward the gay couple and their wedding but now they are essentially prevented from refusing money and business which means that the gay couple might well order a cake from them and unwittingly enrich the business of bigots, which might well have the effect of prolonging the business’s life at the expense of the “tolerant” baker down the road.

For most of us, money is not free. It is purchased with work, and with time away from our families, loved ones, hobbies, and recreational time. The way that the free market works is that people of self-worth mold the business community and the market by valuing their money, effort, and time enough to not force it upon people who don’t want it. Given sufficient time, the market responds to these forces and changes in business culture take hold.

What the anti-RFRA people are doing will almost certainly have a distorting effect on the marketplace that will not change hearts and minds, will breed resentment, and will fail in its ultimate goal: revenge upon the religious for perceived historical persecution of gays. The real revenge here would be for those businesses who wish to not participate in SSM to diminish or go out of business through market pressure, to the benefit of “tolerant” bakeries/photographers/whatever. Instead the RFRA opponents are seeking to remove any market benefit from being geniunely tolerant and inclusive by forcing tolerance and inclusivity at the point of a gun. And thus everyone is equal in the marketplace, the “bigots” and the “tolerant” alike.

The fight against the RFRA is one of the worst examples of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face I have ever seen. And it is undertaken by those who, obviously, don’t have much regard for the value of their face.

Arkansas Joins Indiana With Religious Freedom Bill
Arkansas capitol
3.31.15 by Peter Malcolm

On Tuesday, Arkansas legislators, ignoring the deafening cry from LGBT supporters against Indiana’s religious freedom law, finished approving their own version of a similar bill. Gov. Asa Hutchinson has already indicated that he would sign the bill once it was sent to him, and with the 67-21 vote approving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Arkansas House, Hutchinson will get his chance. The Arkansas Senate already has approved the bill.

Hutchinson told KARK that the bill represents an effort to balance religious freedom and equal protection of the law, saying bluntly, “This bill tries to do that, and it’s not that complicated.”

The hue and cry over the religious freedom bill in Indiana prompted the governors of New York, Connecticut and Washington to curtail some government travel to Indiana. Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy blustered, “They knew what they were doing. They were going to make it legal to refuse to serve gay men and women. Somebody has to call them on it.” Resorting to typical Democrat name calling, he said of Indiana Governor Mike Pence on MSNBC, “When you see a bigot, you have to call him on it.”

The Arkansas bill states: “The Arkansas Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion; Laws neutral toward religion have the same potential to burden religious exercise as laws purposely intended to interfere with religious exercise; Governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification.”

The bill justified its necessity, asserting:

In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that the protections of religious exercise afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, only applied to religious exercise burdened by federal law or agencies and provided no protection from burdens on religious exercise from state or local law or governments; to provide the same level of protection from burdens on religious exercise from state or local governments, a state must enact an equivalent to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, that was passed by Congress.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

VIDEO Judge Bans Constitution in Ohio – SCOTUS Affirms Ruling That Displaying US Flag Is ‘Disruptive’

praying Eagle
Laughs when defendant cites First Amendment in freedom of speech case
March 31, 2015 by Kurt Nimmo

A judge in Xenia, Ohio said “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution” during a trial of a journalist who is charged with a misdemeanor after he was cited for protesting against an anti-panhandling ordinance.

Judge Kathryn Barber laughed when the defendant, Virgil Vaduva, argued his protest on a public sidewalk outside the Xenia police station constitutes free speech.

The exchange between Barber and Vaduva occurred after a prosecutor said mentioning the Constitution during the trial would “confuse the jury.”
Widespread Ignorance of Constitution

Many Americans are surprisingly ignorant of the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States.

An informal ABC News poll conducted in 2011 revealed that 70 percent of 1,000 people surveyed could not identify the supreme law of the land (the Constitution).

“Sixty-one percent didn’t know that the length of a U.S. senator’s term is six years, 63 percent couldn’t name the number of Supreme Court justices on the bench (nine), and 86 percent didn’t know that 435 members fill the U.S. House of Representatives,” ABC News reported.

Supreme Court Affirms Ruling That Displaying US Flag Is ‘Disruptive’
Refuses Case On School’s Cinco De Mayo US Flag Ban
March 31, 2015 by Steve Watson

The Supreme Court has refused to review a case concerning California school officials banning students from wearing American flag t-shirts for fear of the garments being ‘disruptive’.

The Supreme court decision was taking behind closed doors Monday. No explanation was given as to why the case of Dariano vs. Morgan Hill Unified School District will not be taken further.

The case stems from an incident in 2010 when students were ordered to remove US flag t-shirts on the Mexican national day Cinco de Mayo. School officials cited concerns that such displays of patriotism would inflame racial tensions.

Four students were suspended and sent home, and a blanket ban was enacted, much to the chagrin of free speech proponents.

Those critics now say that the Supreme Court’s decision to let stand a Ninth Circuit court ruling restricting free speech in this case affirms a troubling precedent that displays of patriotism in America can be prohibited.

“When public school students can’t wear an American flag on a t-shirt because it might be disruptive, then free speech as we’ve known it is dead,” said John W. Whitehead, president of rights group The Rutherford Institute, which was involved in the original district court case.

“If the Supreme Court continues down the road to political correctness, then eventually anything we say will be treated as threatening as a loaded gun and deemed just as dangerous.” Whitehead added.

The Ninth Circuit court concluded that a “heckler’s veto” theory could be applied to the case, essentially allowing the government to restrict free speech to maintain order.

While the court acknowledged that other students wearing Mexican flag colors and symbols were within their right to do so, it simultaneously ruled that American flag apparel could be prohibited, despite the fact that no breakdown in order had occurred.

“It’s unjust, it’s discretionary, it’s politicized,” Robert Joseph Muise, the plaintiff’s lead counsel for the conservative American Freedom Law Center, told NBC Bay Area Monday morning. “The 9th circuit set a horrible precedent. Why? I don’t know and they won’t tell me.”
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Protect Right of Students to Wear American Flag T-Shirt to School, Affirms Ruling That Patriotic Garments Are Disruptive

March 30, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C —The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a case in which California public school students were prohibited from wearing American flag t-shirts to school, allegedly out of a fear that it might be disruptive. In refusing to hear the appeal without giving any reason for the decision, the Supreme Court lets stand a lower court ruling that upheld the ban out a concern for school safety. The Rutherford Institute had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hill, in which several students were ordered by school officials to cover up their American flag t-shirts on May 5, 2010, allegedly because officials feared that it might offend other students who were celebrating the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo.

“When public school students can’t wear an American flag on a t-shirt because it might be disruptive, then free speech as we’ve known it is dead,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “If the Supreme Court continues down the road to political correctness, then eventually anything we say will be treated as threatening as a loaded gun and deemed just as dangerous.”

On May 5, 2010, three Live Oak High School students wore patriotic t-shirts, shorts and shoes to school bearing various images of the U.S. flag. During a mid-morning “brunch break,” the students were approached by Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who told the students they could not wear their pro-U.S.A. shirts and gave them the option of either removing their shirts or turning them inside out. The students refused, believing the options to be disrespectful to the flag. Rodriguez allegedly lectured the group about Cinco de Mayo, indicating that he had received complaints from some Hispanic students about the stars and stripes apparel, and again ordered that the clothing be covered up to prevent offending the Hispanic students on “their” day. Principal Nick Boden also met with the parents and students and affirmed Rodriguez’s order, allegedly because he did not want to offend students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

Arguing that the decision by school officials constituted viewpoint discrimination against pro-U.S.A. expression, Rutherford Institute attorneys filed a First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of the students and their parents in district court. In November 2011, the district court ruled in favor of school officials, citing a concern for school safety. That ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the appeals court acknowledged that other students were permitted to wear Mexican flag colors and symbols, it ruled that school officials could forbid the American flag apparel out of concerns that it would cause disruption, even though no disruption had occurred. Three of the nine judges on the Ninth Circuit agreed with The Rutherford Institute that school officials violated long-standing Supreme Court precedent forbidding suppression of protected expression on the basis of a “heckler’s veto,” which occurs when the government restricts an individual’s right to free speech in order to maintain order. Affiliate attorney William J. Becker assisted The Rutherford Institute in its defense of the students.

crumbling flag

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Kerry flashback: Give Iran nuclear fuel – Iran Deal ‘Lodestar’ MB Obama Foreign Policy, Defector, Jade Helm

-MB Obama’s Iran Monkey Trap
-Iran nuke deal close? Kerry says ‘inshallah’
-Has anyone told John Kerry that they don’t speak Arabic in Iran?
-Iran Militia Chief: Wiping Israel Off the Map Is ‘Nonnegotiable’
Obama Iran Deal 5
30 Mar 2015 By Melissa Clyne

Secretary of State John Kerry’s “unorthodox” lead role in the negotiations with Iran is highly unusual, according to retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both the National Security Agency and the CIA.

“Usually the secretary of state is the closer,” Hayden said Monday on Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum.”

Story continues below videos.

“You notice as we’re getting into this final stretch here, other foreign ministers are now coming into the loop. Kerry’s there all the time.

“It’s hard for me to remember another time when a secretary of state cleared his desk to become the negotiator rather than the person above the negotiations. This is a matter of technique. Even in a job less important than this one, like at the CIA, you really wanted your staff to go in there, roll their sleeves up, and go bare knuckles with the other guy so you could stay above the fray and make those final demands or final concessions. We’ve reversed that in this case.”

Getting a nuclear deal with Iran has become the “lodestar” of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, according to Hayden, who said that every other conflict around the globe is “being organized” around it.

“Frankly, what we do or don’t do in Yemen, do or don’t do in Iraq, do or don’t do in Syria, even how much we’re willing to press Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine is a byproduct of this intense passion on the part of the president and Secretary Kerry to get this deal,” he said.

It’s never a good idea to be the person in the room most interested in reaching an accord, he added.

The mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal under which the White House is operating will soon be replaced by assertions by the administration that the U.S. got “the best possible deal” we could get, Hayden predicted.

“That’s not the same thing as a good deal and we should never ever concede that in the debate that’s going to be coming up,” he said. “When we don’t get something that we were led to believe all along we were expecting to get, the cover story is that we’ve arrived at a ‘creative solution.'”

If the Iranians succeed in not having to ship their stockpile of uranium to Russia, the U.S. should be “very suspicious,” according to Hayden.

The Iranian negotiations are just one of many ways the U.S. has “really disturbed our Sunni allies,” Hayden said.

“They’ve got a whole list of things that they feel we have pulled the rug out from under them,” he said.

By allowing Iran to become an “industrial-strength nuclear state,” it is laying the groundwork for a nuclear arms race.

“The Sunnis are going to want one of those for themselves too because the successful deal would give the Iranians so much that the Sunnis are now going to want to be competitive with it,” he said. “I don’t think this is going to cap this race and in fact, in its own way, it might inspire it.”

Hayden also weighed in on the Iranian journalist who has defected. His information should be carefully considered but also vetted, Hayden said.

“We use a lot of things to motivate sources, some of them are pretty noble like idealism, others are not, like ego and money and coercion and so on,” he explained.

“Here’s a fellow who seems to want to talk to us based upon an ideal which we share with him: freedom of the press. So again, it begins to establish the relationship you have to establish with a potential new source and again, coming out of arguing for the lack of press freedom, that’s a pretty good first step on his part and ours.”

John Kerry flashback: Give Iran nuclear fuel

Insisted U.S. should trust Tehran as Carter had done with North Korea
March 30, 2015 by Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – Secretary of State John Kerry, currently leading negotiations for the Obama administration regarding Iran’s nuclear program, argued as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2004 that the U.S. should provide nuclear fuel to Iran, trusting, as President Jimmy Carter had done with North Korea, that the Iranians would not use it to make a bomb.

Notably, one of Kerry’s top “bundler” fundraisers in his 2004 campaign was Hasan Nemazee, an Iranian-American now serving a 12-year sentence in federal prison for bank fraud. During the 2004 campaign, Nemazee was accused by an Iranian-American of being an “agent of the mullahs” who lead Tehran’s Islamic, terrorist-supporting regime.

In the first presidential debate between Kerry and President George W. Bush, Sept. 30, 2004, moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS asked whether or not “diplomacy and sanctions could resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran.”

Bush answered first, pointing out that when the U.S. determined North Korea was not honoring nuclear agreements, he decided to recruit China, South Korea, Russia and Japan to join in the negotiations to create a “nuclear-weapons-free” Korean Peninsula.

“On Iran, hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions,” Bush responded.

Kerry’s answer to Lehrer’s question was very different.

“With respect to Iran, the British, French and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran,” Kerry began.

“I believe we could have done better,” Kerry continued. “I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.”

North Korea had begun to acquire nuclear fuel and plutonium processing technology from the Soviet Union to expand its IRT-2000 research reactor that was gradually diverted to nuclear weapons development.

Then, in October 1994, during the Clinton administration, former President Carter negotiated with Kim Il Sung a broad deal later formalized as the “Agreed Framework.

After the delivery of the nuclear fuel by the Clinton administration, however, Kim withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and prohibited International Atomic Energy Administration inspections. Within less than a decade, North Korea proceeded to make nuclear warheads for its Nodong missiles.

Enter Hassan Nemazee

In 2004, Nemazee, a multimillionaire Iranian-American investment banker and top Democratic Party fundraiser, served as New York finance chairman for Kerry’s presidential campaign, raising some $500,000 in bundled campaign contributions.

Kerry’s campaign website listed Nemazee as being in the top tier of Kerry’s contributors nationwide. Nemazee was one of some 60 people credited with raising $100,000 or more for the campaign and earned the designation of vice chairman to Kerry’s campaign.

On Oct. 14, 2004, investigative journalist Ken Timmerman, in an article titled “Kerry’s Iran Scandal” published in the Washington Times, reported the Kerry-Edwards campaign “is headed toward a campaign finance scandal involving contributions on behalf of a foreign power … from people with close ties to mullahs in Tehran.”

Timmerman said Iran, by funneling campaign contributions to Kerry-Edwards, was “seeking from Mr. Kerry a series of concessions that would allow them to become a nuclear weapons power.”

On Oct. 18, 2004, WND attended a deposition in New York City in which Nemazee was questioned under oath by legal counsel for Aryo Pirouznia, the leader of the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran.

Nemazee had sued Pirouznia in a $10 million defamation suit in which Nemazee charged Pirouznia had defamed him by calling him an agent of the religious clerics ruling Iran.

The lawsuit ultimately was settled out of court.

Pirouznia was particularly upset with Nemazee because of a speech Nemazee gave June 1, 2002, to the American Iranian Council, or AIC, at a conference in San Francisco in which Kerry deliverrd the keynote address.

Nemazee, in his speech to the AIC, argued for a resumption of normal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran, which were disrupted in the Carter administration after Ayatollah Khomeini in his 1979 Islamic revolution seized and held captive U.S. Embassy personnel in Tehran for 444 days. The crisis was not resolved until the hostages were freed the day Ronald Reagan gave his first inaugural address, March 20, 1981.

Kerry, in his keynote address to the AIC, lamented President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in his “Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union address Jan. 29, 2002.

Kerry referenced his experience in Vietnam, a major theme of his 2004 presidential campaign.

“And we have always had a rather isolationist, xenophobic, self-interest definitional problem in trying to [see foreigners through the eyes of the foreigners] properly,” Kerry said.

“It’s one of the reasons we did what we did in Vietnam. It’s one of the reasons why we have trouble today dealing more effectively in the Middle East, particularly the Arab world, and needless to say, of course, in Iran.”

Nemazee’s legal problems

Nemazee’s history with Democratic Party politics stretches back to the Clinton administration.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton nominated Nemazee to be ambassador to Argentina, a nomination Clinton withdrew after Forbes magazine published an extremely damaging review of Nemazee’s business career.

On May 3, 1999, Forbes wrote: “Over the past four years Nemazee and his family have given more than $150,000 to Democratic politicians and the DNC. Six of Nemazee’s friends and relatives have given $10,000 apiece – the maximum allowable per year – to Bill Clinton’s legal defense fund.”

For her 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton hired Nemazee as her national campaign finance director, who was known for his efforts to normalize relations with the theocratic Iranian regime. In 2010, Nemazee pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme in which he obtained $292 million in fraudulent loans.

Hassan Nemazee leaves Manhattan Federal Court after pleading guilty to fraud in 2010.

On Aug. 25, 2009, federal law enforcement authorities in New York City arrested Nemazee as he was attempting to board a flight to Rome, Italy, at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey and charged him with engaging in criminal fraud for his role in arranging a $74 million loan from Citibank.

U.S. Attorney Bharara in New York City and the FBI told Dow Jones Newswires the then-59-year-old Nemazee applied for the Citibank loans for Nemazee Capital Corp. by giving Citibank “numerous documents that purported to establish the existence of accounts in Nemazee’s name at various financial institutions containing many hundreds of millions of dollars.”

According to the criminal complaint released by Bharara, the accounts Nemazee submitted in the loan documentation were “fraudulent and forged” and “either never existed or had been closed years before Nemazee submitted the documents referencing those accounts.”

The complaint alleged Nemazee’s fraudulent scheme began in December 2006, when he first approached Citibank to borrow $25 million. He subsequently raised the sum to $80 million.

On March 2010, Nemazee, then 60, pleaded guilty in federal court to charges of fraudulently applying for and receiving some $292 million in loans as chairman of Nemazee Capital from Citicorp, Bank of America and HSBC. The proceeds were used to buy property in Westchester County, make campaign contributions to Democratic Party politicians, donate to charity and to support his lavish society lifestyle.

On July 15, 2010, U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced Nemazee to serve 12-and-a-half years in federal prison on multiple federal criminal counts of bank and wire fraud.

Iran nuke deal close? Kerry says ‘inshallah’

Critics say Obama ‘giving away the store, farm and kitchen sink’
March 30, 2015 by Bob Unruh

The time is approaching when the Obama administration will announce the outcome of its negotiations with Iran regarding the rogue nation’s burgeoning nuclear program.

And Secretary of State John Kerry says it’s in the hands of a higher power.

Allah, in fact.

As in “inshallah,” the phrase commonly understood to mean if Allah wills it, although Middle East experts say it also can mean “if Allah wills it, but I doubt it.”

That was Kerry’s response to a question about whether or not an agreement will be reached. According to the Gateway Pundit blog, Laura Rozen tweeted: “Friend of colleague ran into @JohnKerry at chocolate shop tdy. She said friends in #Iran are looking forward to deal. He said ‘inshallah.’”

The brief report unleashed a tidal wave of antipathy toward Kerry and President Obama from readers of the Gateway Pundit post.

Wrote Zander Kelly: “Obama is delusional, he sees Iran as a big warm teddy bear he can snuggle up to; Obama is a misanthropic moron. There is zero change that this Stone Age theocracy will magically transform itself into a responsible member of the international community; and yet, Obama is handing them nukes on a silver platter?

“Anyone with two functioning neurons has to realize that if Iran does develop nukes, it will use them; and when they do, they will be retaliated against in kind.”

Other commenters were even less complimentary of Obama.

“Obama is literally insane,” wrote D.C.

“Obama clearly suffers an antisocial personality disorder. Obama is a narcissistic sociopath,” added Jack Koos.

One other comment that “Obama is possessed by the devil” was followed quickly by “Obama is the devil.”

“And as Hillary would say, ‘At this point, what difference does it make, anyway?’” added another, which was followed by, “As Obama would say, ‘It is tee time yet?’”

The deadline for the nuke deal with Iran and the P5+1 nations of the U.S., France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany is the end of March.

Western sources familiar with the U.S. stances during the negotiations told the Washington Free Beacon that pressure from Iran is likely to force the Americans to offer more concessions than have previously been on the table.

Previous retreats by the rest of the world, the report said, have only “motivated Iran to push harder on issues such as the possibly military dimensions of its nuclear program, as well as continued work on advanced centrifuges and increased sanctions relief.”

One Beacon source stated plainly: “Iran has successfully dragged the administration toward their positions to attain massive concessions, and, sensing that kind of weakness, they are seeking to press their advantage to gain further ground on critical points.”

Another Beacon source said: “The Iranians have a 100 percent record of getting the Americans to accept their key positions on centrifuges, heavy water and ballistic missiles. They think the Americans want a deal more than they do. By all appearances, they’re right.’

A discussion among dozens of highly rated historians regarding Obama and Iran found many stating bluntly that Obama now is in pursuit of a legacy.

“The most lasting legacy of this administration will be the ‘pivot’ to Iran – away from Israel. Everything that has happened in the Middle East since 2001, including the unnecessary wars and ‘surges,’ has magnified Iran’s importance from the standpoint of U.S. national interests and, to the same extent, diminished Israel’s significance,” wrote James Livingston.

Added Stephen Kinzer, “If Obama can leave office without any substantial U.S. military engagement in the Middle East, that will be his greatest foreign-policy legacy.”

However, Investors Business Daily in a commentary said Obama’s goal is the legacy, not necessarily anything that would help the U.S.

“The U.S. is giving away the store, the farm and the kitchen sink to Tehran while the terror regime retains nuclear bomb-making capability,” it said. “For President Obama, a fabricated legacy trumps security.”

The article noted former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton warned Obama’s biggest legacy “could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East.”

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who just won re-election despite opposition from the White House, repeatedly has warned that American negotiations with Iran have failed to impose a penalty for aggression.

And he said Israel will continue to oppose what it perceives as threats.

“We will never close our eyes and we will continue to operate against every threat in every generation, and of course in this generation,” he said.

Associated Press reported as the deadline approached, Iran was considering demands in several additional areas, such as the levels allowed for its uranium enrichment program.

As for the deadline, Russian officials left the meetings Monday, with plans to return Tuesday “if there is a realistic chance for a deal,” AP reported.

Foreign Policy noted that some of the harshest opposition is coming from France, which has one key focal point.

“France wants an agreement, but a robust one that really guarantees that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear power, but not the atomic bomb,” said Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.

At the Jerusalem Post, Obama was being compared to Haman of the Old Testament’s story of Esther.

“The president of the United States is lashing out at Israel just like Haman lashed out at the Jews,” said Rabbi Shlomo Riskin. “I’m not making a political statement. I’m making a Jewish statement.”

A woman in the audience shouted at him, and was booed by the crowd.

Riskin continued, “I am being disrespectful because the president of the United States was disrespectful to my prime minister, to my country, to my future and to the future of the world.”

In the Bible, Haman’s plans to destroy the Jews suddenly were reversed, and he found himself facing the death penalty.

Obama largely has kept details of the negotiations secret, even from Congress, whose members are responsible for approving treaties.

The Obama administration has insisted it’s an executive agreement, not a treaty, prompting members of Congress to point out that if it’s a presidential agreement, a new president could change it.

Has anyone told John Kerry that they don’t speak Arabic in Iran?
March 30, 2015 By Shoebat Foundation

When asked about an Iran deal, Secretary of State John Kerry, says: “Inshallah” (Translated as “If Allah wills it”) in Arabic.

iran student kerry iran

Examiner It’s not everyday that the United States Secretary of State invokes the Islamic deity, but as reported, that’s just what John Kerry did. As reported by the Western Journalism news portal on March 30, 2015, Secretary Kerry gave the one word response in Arabic when asked the chances are for a deal with Iran.

Kerry 5

As sent via her micro-blogging site on Twitter, Voice of America reporter Negar Mortazavi cited that when John Kerry was asked on the fly in the streets of Lausanne, Switzedrland what the chances were of an agreement being reached in regard to the talks between a number of world powers and Iran, Kerry responded with a simple “Inshallah,” which is Arabic for “If Allah wills it.” Secretary Kerry has taken fire from American conservatives for what they perceive as Kerry being more than willing to broker a weak deal with Tehran.

Mideast Egypt US
Signs seen during Egyptian protests against John Kerry included a burning picture of him with a Muslim beard and Islamic prayer bump on his head

Concerns were heightened among conservatives when Secretary Kerry recently hailed progress with the Tehran government, despite Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei telling a cheering crowd Tehran that Iran would never give in to any of the Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the Ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure” as reported by the Times of Israel on March 21, 2015.

What raised both Republican and Democrat eyebrows was the White House response to Khamenei’s call for the destruction of the United States. As CNN reported (via The Weekly Standard), the White House just sees the “Death to America” talk as “intended for a domestic political audience.”

iran says they will wipe-israel off  the-map
Kerry 3-1

Iran Militia Chief: Wiping Israel Off the Map Is ‘Nonnegotiable’
3.31.2015 by Bradford Thomas

Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the chief of the Basji Militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, declared that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable.”

Israeli Radio reported the militia chief’s comments Tuesday, which also included threats against Saudi Arabia for its campaign against the Iran-backed rebels in Yemen. The Saudis, warned Naqdi, would share the “fate of Saddam Hussein.”

As the Times of Israel notes, Naqdi has spoken openly in the past about Iran’s military strategy against Israel:

In 2014, Naqdi said Iran was stepping up efforts to arm West Bank Palestinians for battle against Israel, adding the move would lead to Israel’s annihilation, Iran’s Fars news agency reported.

“Arming the West Bank has started and weapons will be supplied to the people of this region,” Naqdi said.

“The Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back,” he added. Naqdi claimed that much of Hamas’s arsenal, training and technical knowhow in the summer conflict with Israel was supplied by Iran.

The United States Institute of Peace describes the Basij militia as a “volunteer paramilitary organization operating under the Islamic Revolutionary Guards,” with auxiliary duties, “especially internal security, law enforcement, special religious or political events and morals policing.” The group has acquired more sway since 2009, political events having “increased the force’s political and economic influence and contributed to the militarization of the Iranian regime.”

MB Obama’s Iran Monkey Trap
monkey trap
March 31st, 2015 By: streiff (Diary)

The idea of a monkey trap is spectacularly elegant. A bit of food or a shiny object is placed inside a sturdy object (often a coconut is mentioned but the image comes from a termite hill being used for the purpose). There is a hole that is just big enough for the monkey’s hand to pass through. However, once the monkey grasps the object its fist is too large to pass through the hole. All the monkey has to do to free itself is to let go of the object inside, but, being the avaricious little f*** that it is, it won’t. And it soon joins the supply of “bush meat.”

This has become a fitting metaphor for Obama’s negotiating position with Iran on how soon he wants them to have nuclear weapons.

Iran is driven by two objectives. First, it wants to have a nuclear weapon. Second, it wants UN sanctions removed. Make no mistake about it, Iran intends to have both; Obama intends to give it both; and that is the reason the White House had an aneurysm over the letter by Senator Cotton and signed by 46 other GOP senators. Let’s review the bidding. In just the last week:

Wednesday — WSJ scoop on PMDs concession — the WSJ revealed that the administration was willing to let Iran put off fully disclosing its nuclear program until after sanctions relief had been granted, a concession that would gut any verification regime (

Thursday — AP scoop on Fordow concession — the AP revealed that the administration was willing to let Iran continue spinning centrifuges in its underground military enrichment bunker at Fordow, ensuring that Iran would be allowed to maintain nuclear infrastructure completely impervious to Western intervention if they decided to break out (

Monday — NYT scoop on Iran stockpile bait-and-switch — the NYT revealed that the Iranians had backed away from suggestions they would ship their enriched uranium to Russia, a scenario they had used for months to secure concessions on the number of centrifuges they’d be allowed to run (

A treaty with Iran has become an all-consuming goal of the Obama administration. They have indicated there is nothing they will not do to arrive at a deal:

Efforts by the Obama administration to stem criticism of its diplomacy with Iran have included threats to nations involved in the talks, including U.S. allies, according to Western sources familiar with White House efforts to quell fears it will permit Iran to retain aspects of its nuclear weapons program.

A series of conversations between top American and French officials, includingbetween President Obama and French President Francois Hollande, have seen Americans engage in behavior described as bullying by sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

A defector from the Iranian negotiating delegation, the media aide to Iranian “President” Hassan Rouhani had this to say:

In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.

The reason for Obama’s monomania seems to be an effort to create a legacy in foreign policy that is more positive that “a f***ing shambles,” and “the world in ruin.” Via Politico as quoted in my weekend epic Obama’s foreign policy: Cluster f*** or g-d freefall?

“There’s a sense that the only view worth having on the Middle East is the long view,” said the State Department official. “We’ve painfully seen that good can turn to bad and bad can turn to good in an instant, which might be a sobriety worth holding on to at moments like this.”

The official offered a hopeful note, adding that a nuclear deal with Iran — which some reports say could come as soon as Sunday — could be a turning point for the region.

“The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we’re one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what every one agrees is the biggest threat to the region,” the official said.

If Obama is truly interested in a legacy-worthy treaty that will remake the region he needs to walk away from these non-negotiations, ramp up sanctions, and acknowledge that Iran is not our friend. But he can’t for the exact same reason the monkey can’t let go the shiny object.

Editor’s note. I am sure this analogy is going to cause a round of panty-wetting and self-befouling at a variety of left wing sites, but, you know what, I just don’t care. If you want to enjoy the pleasures of monkey trapping for yourself, check out the video below.
iran deal
Obama Iran Deal 9

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ted Cruz channels Reagan: Media go bonkers, again

‘A medieval flashback who empowers rapists’

March 30, 2015 by Garth Kant

WASHINGTON – In the eyes of the political and media elite, presidential candidate Ted Cruz is far too extreme ideologically to win the nomination; doesn’t have enough support from party bigwigs; is hated by almost everyone and no one trusts him; uses distortive, misleading rhetoric; is venal and self-obsessed; says crazy things; is not actually very smart; and is everything that is wrong with modern politics.

In the eyes of the political and media elite, Ronald Reagan was too extreme and too simple to win the presidential nomination; a potential disaster for the GOP in the general election; an amiable dunce who was shockingly dumb and cruel; an evil man with no care and no concern for working-class Americans and future generations; cold and mean with ice water for blood; and an egotistical bore who had no friends, only cronies.

See any resemblance?

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, hasn’t been popular with either establishment Washington or the establishment media ever since his election to the Senate in 2012, but reaction to his announcement last week that he is running for president appears to have put the criticism into overdrive.

No Republican, arguably, has received such intense condemnation since Reagan.

And many of the criticisms seem remarkably similar.

Ronald Reagan

Former Reagan presidential aide Jeffrey Lord told WND, “What’s being said about Ted Cruz today was said endlessly by establishment Republicans about Ronald Reagan.”

“They were wrong then; they are wrong now,” added the associate political director in the Reagan White House.

One of the biggest criticisms has been that Cruz has so little support among those GOP elite.

According to the New York Times, Cruz is “a long shot, at best” to win the Republican nomination because:

“Political scientists argue that the single most important determinant of the outcome of the nomination is support from party elites: those operatives who can staff a winning campaign; the donors who fund it; the elected officials and interest group leaders who bestow the credibility necessary to persuade voters and affect media coverage.”

Cruz has argued the most important factor is actually votes, not support from the party elite.

WND reported in February that Cruz described how establishment Washington hated Reagan as a candidate and how he went over the heads of GOP elite and took his case straight to the people, from where his real power came.

Cruz even sees his outsider status as an asset, telling CNN over the weekend, “I’ll point out there’s almost an inverse relationship between being liked and appreciated in Washington, D.C., and reviled back home, and being reviled in Washington and appreciated back home.”

The four categories in which Cruz is receiving criticism similar to that which was directed at Reagan involve questions about their:

– D.C. popularity

– Electability

– Intelligence

– Character

D.C. popularity


– Foreign Policy : “The most hated man in the Senate … Ted Cruz has been, for all practical purposes, the human equivalent of one of those flower-squirters that clowns wear on their lapels.”

– New York Times: “Mr. Cruz has done nothing to endear himself to the elites. He won the party’s nomination for the Senate by defeating David Dewhurst, an establishment favorite and the sitting lieutenant governor of Texas.”

– Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: “It’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”

– FiveThirtyEight: “Let’s be serious about Ted Cruz from the start: He’s too extreme and too disliked to win.”

Henry Kissinger


– New York Times: “(Former president) Ford has frequently criticized Mr. Reagan for extreme and too-simple views.”

– Henry Kissinger: “When you meet Reagan, you wonder: How did it ever occur to anyone that he should be governor, much less president?”

– Christopher Hitchens: “A cruel and stupid lizard.”

– Lesley Stahl: “I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man.”

– Kevin Phillips: “It was foolish to think that Reagan could solve the nation’s economic problems with policies based on ‘maxims out of McGuffey’s Reader and Calvin Coolidge.’”

– New York Times: “[T]he stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan’s White House.”



– Kathleen Parker: “He’s obviously not going to win the presidency, OK? That’s not going to happen, we know that. He is an actor who acts alone. He gives maverick a bad name.”

– New York Times: “The most interesting question about Mr. Cruz’s candidacy is whether he has a very small chance to win or no chance at all.”

– Salon: “Ted Cruz doesn’t have a prayer … stands no chance at actually winning an election.”

– FiveThirtyEight: “Cruz doesn’t have enough support from party bigwigs.”

– Salon: “He’s not going to win, largely because almost everyone hates him and no one trusts him.”

– FiveThirtyEight: “Cruz almost certainly has no shot of winning the nomination, according to every indicator that predicts success in presidential primaries. … Cruz is likely far too extreme ideologically to win the nomination.”

– Michael Brendan Dougherty : “There is nothing about Cruz that appeals to people beyond his political sect … This isn’t a campaign: It’s a political fantasy and infomercial.”


– Former President Gerald Ford: “[W]e don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964 … A very conservative Republican can’t win in a national election.”

– Former Sen. Chuck Percy, R-Ill.: “A Reagan nomination and the crushing defeat likely to follow could signal the beginning of the end of our party as an effective force in American life.”

– Former Rep. Pete McCloskey, R-Calif.: “A Reagan win would be a disaster for the GOP.”

– Former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller: “No major American party can long endure by directing its appeal to a narrow minority. It will not serve the nation to have our major parties polarized at ideological extremes.”



– Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif.: “That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”

– Salon: “The ‘Ted Cruz is smart’ trap: Why this garbage is false – and dangerous. The Texas senator convinces all of his enemies to praise his intellect. Here’s why they’re wrong – and should stop … Cruz has become notorious for using distortive, misleading rhetoric that no sober-minded individual could apply … He has alienated all of his colleagues, and wants to revive the gay marriage fight at a time when it couldn’t be more unwise … One whose mind is clamped shut cannot be intelligent, and yet Ted Cruz does not in his life ever seem to have taken on board a single challenge to his worldview … consistent overgenerous assessment of Cruz’s brains … The man is arrogant, but he doesn’t actually seem very smart.”

Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif.


Clark Clifford: “An amiable dunce.”

The Chicago Tribune: (His) “air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limits of tolerance and have become an embarrassment to the U.S. and a danger to world peace.”

David Broder: “[T]he desert between Ronald Reagan’s ears.”

Jimmy Breslin: “Senile” and “shockingly dumb.”

Former House Speaker Tip O’ Neill, D-Mass.: Reagan’s mind was “an absolute and total disgrace,” and it was “sinful that this man is president of the United States.”

John Osborne: “Ronald Reagan is an ignoramus.”

Rep. John Rhodes, R-Ariz.: “As soon as Reagan gets away from his clichés and his campaign slogans, he’s in trouble.”

Christopher Hitchens: “He was as dumb as a stump.”



– Nomiki Konst, The Accountability Project: “Ted Cruz is a flashback to the medieval times. This is a man who is empowering rapists, essentially … He is so hypocritical in some many different ways, I think he is just trying to appeal to the base.”

– Talking Points Memo: “Arrogant a–hole, super smart … An incredibly bright guy who’s an arrogant jerk who basically everybody ends up hating.”

– The Week: “[H]e’s so venal and self-obsessed that he’ll use genocide victims as punching bags for a domestic audience.”

– Salon:”[A] showboat … Googling ‘Ted Cruz lies’ pulls back an astonishing 7,890,000 results, and on Twitter, the two phrases are basically synonymous … (If not a liar) it would mean that Cruz is shockingly delusional … Cruz is actually very much a part of the financial corruption in the Beltway that Americans find so repugnant … Cruz’s penchant for bloated duplicity … a politician as dishonest and entrenched in establishment ways as any other … he is just as much a huckster as the rest of them … Cruz embodies everything that is wrong with modern politics.”

– Foreign Policy: “He’s ideological, even compulsive, with regard to the Constitution … Cruz’s preoccupation with principles began early … he might come across as too wonkish and too aggressive to connect with voters … ‘Belligerent egghead’ has rarely been a winning brand in presidential politics.”

– Salon: “[A] highly intelligent person who says crazy things because he knows what the tea party and other hardline conservatives like to hear … a cynical opportunist who will use anything – terrorists, diseases, hackers – to make political points that rile up the conservative faithful.”

– Chris Matthews: “He’s so much like Joe McCarthy in the way he makes his indictments, the way he sweats and makes these arguments … this plan by the new Joe McCarthy which is always to blame the government as lawless … demagoguery is not a good career choice.”

Reagan and Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass.


– Former House Speaker Tip O’ Neill, D-Mass: “[T]he evil is on the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.”

– The Nation: “He is the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency” and “a menace to the human race.”

– Eleanor Clift: “Greed in this this country is associated with Ronald Reagan.”

– Sarah McClendon: “It will take a hundred years to get the government back into place after Ronald Reagan. He hurt people: the disabled, women, nursing mothers, the homeless.”

– John Huston: A “bore” with a “low order of intelligence” and “egotistical.”

– Christopher Hitchens: “He had no friends, only cronies.”

Despite all that, Cruz already may be on his way to getting the last laugh, as did Reagan.

On March 23, the first day of his candidacy, Cruz raised $1 million. He then doubled his fundraising goal in his first week.

If that money is coming from the grassroots, his campaign may be catching fire, as did Reagan’s in 1980. If it is coming from the elites, they may be coming around to his side, as they did after Reagan showed his vote-getting power.

The fiery Texan also may not be as unpopular with his colleagues as the media would suggest.

Cruz has steadfastly adhered to Reagan’s “11th Commandment” and not spoken ill of fellow Republicans, even those who have attacked him.

And it just might be paying off.

Just before the Texan announced his candidacy, CNN quoted McCain as saying of Cruz: “He is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He and I are friendly, and I think he is a very viable candidate.”

McCain also suggested Cruz could beat Hillary Clinton and win the presidency in 2016.

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MB Obama Vetoes Attempt to Halt Ambush Elections

Obama veto pen
Draws ire of businesses and lawmakers
March 31, 2015 BY: Bill McMorris

President Obama vetoed a resolution that would have protected employers from proposed regulations speeding up union elections on Tuesday.

The Republican-controlled House and Senate approved resolutions in March to prevent the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nation’s top labor arbiter, from implementing new union election rules, which would have eliminated a 25-day waiting period in the union election process. Obama said on Tuesday that the GOP resolution undermined the NLRB’s attempt to “streamline a democratic process that allows American workers to freely choose to make their voices heard.”

Congressional Republicans say that the ambush election rule does more to undermine the democratic process.

Unions and labor organizers spend months and sometimes years to get workers to sign petition cards to organize an election. Employers, meanwhile, are forced to play catch-up, educating workers on the potential downsides of union membership in the small window between the NLRB election petition and the election itself.

Rep. Phil Roe (R., Tenn.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, said the administration’s actions are rooted in rewarding political allies, rather than protecting workers.

“It is extremely disappointing the administration is moving forward with this misguided rule,” Roe said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “I have been an outspoken opponent of the ambush election rule and remain concerned that President Obama is putting the interests of labor unions ahead of workers and employers. It is completely unacceptable and beyond frustrating.”

Business groups are equally vexed by the veto. The National Restaurant Associations said that Obama’s action tilts the scales in union elections, rather than producing the “level playing field” he called for on Tuesday.

“NLRB’s unnecessary overreach has already placed significant burdens on the restaurant industry and our nation’s employer community by narrowing the length of time between the filing of a union petition and an employee vote on unionization,” said Angelo Amador, who is regulatory counsel to the group and its senior vice president of labor and workforce policy. “This rule denies employees full and proper access to information, restricts employers’ rights to due process and proper time to address employee concerns and the ability to raise substantive issues and concerns.”

The NLRB is pushing ahead with the implementation of the regulations set to debut in April. The agency conducted training seminars on implementing the new rules at the headquarters of SEIU Local 32BJ in Manhattan on Thursday.

The NLRB has been criticized for not appreciating the hardships it is placing on small businesses.

Rep. Andy Harris (R., Md.) challenged Richard Griffin, the NLRB‘s general counsel and a longtime union lawyer, to justify the hastened union election process at a March 25 hearing for the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

When Griffin forgot his own agency’s recommended timeline for conducting union elections, Harris said that the agency should grant leeway to small businesses that may lack legal resources.

“The General Counsel of the NLRB got that critical question wrong. You had to turn around and get—I’m amazed,” Harris said. “I now understand why it’s called an ambush election.”

The National Restaurant Association’s Amador said in a statement that the White House has misplaced its priorities.

“The Administration should recognize that this is a hard day for America’s small businesses community as employers will have a difficult time responding and employees will have decreased access to education during union election campaigns,” he said.

The veto does not mean that the new regulations will necessarily survive. Two different lawsuits have been filed in federal court challenging the legality of the NLRB’s actions.

The regulations will go into effect on April 14.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Judge: Hillary Could Teach Nixon A ‘Lesson’ About Destroying Evidence

hillary mad
Clinton’s ‘one device’ excuse proven to be a total lie
March 31, 2015 by Steve Watson

Libertarian pundit and former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano blasted Hillary Clinton over the complete wipe of her private email server, as it also emerged that Clinton lied about using one device for all emails.

“She could have taught Richard Nixon a lesson,” Napolitano said, referring to the Watergate scandal.

“She utterly, totally, and completely frustrated [Congress’] lawful ability to get their hands on her records which they have a right and a duty and an obligation to examine.” Napolitano said, appearing on Fox News Monday.

Napolitano also noted that Clinton’s emails should have been handed over to a State Department official to make a call on which are personal and which are public.

“She disabled the record keeper from doing it because she was the record keeper,” the former judge said.

Napolitano added that Clinton’s actions should lead to prosecution, declaring that what Hillary did is “10 times worse” than Gen. David Petraeus, providing classified information to his mistress biographer.

In further appearances throughout the day, Napolitano said that Hillary could be in serious trouble should any federal prosecutor have “enough courage” to pursue a case.

“She now has admitted to destroying subpoenaed evidence after she was on notice of the existence of the subpoena. That’s known as obstruction of justice, as well as destruction of the documents,” Napolitano told Bill Hemmer.


“If Republicans pound away at the now 20-year-long perception that the Clintons believe they’re above the law, this will be a serious problem for her.” Napolitano added.

“It’ll also be a problem for President Obama. Why aren’t you having your prosecutors prosecute her?” he added, noting “You went after General Petraeus for having some documents in a desk drawer. She destroyed evidence after it was subpoenaed! There are different weights of crimes. His is down here, hers are up here,” he urged.

It also emerged Monday that Clinton’s excuse of wanting to only use one device for all her emails is bogus. The Associated Press obtained State Department documents that show Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry.

The documents, obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2013, also show that Clinton messed up personal and government correspondence, wrongly emailing an advisor instructions about house decorations in response to a message concerning drone strikes.

The advisor subsequently replied, “Did u mean to send to me?” To which Clinton wrote, “No-sorry! Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad. I’m not sure replies go thru.”
Bill Whittle: The Criminal Arrogance of Hillary Clinton
3.18.2015 by Bill Whittle

30,000 deleted emails… Bill Whittle looks at the lawlessness, the arrogance, and the unmasked contempt that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have for the American people.


Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

The American experiment was many things, but first and foremost it was an attempt, for the first time in human history, to create a society based upon the rule of law. The Declaration of Independence lists, in exhaustive and minute detail, nearly thirty enumerated cases of lawlessness on the part of King George III. This nation showed the world that common people could not only rule themselves; they could do so without an aristocracy and especially do so without an aristocracy that was, like King George, above the law.

Here’s a law: U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to conduct, for four years, the office of Secretary of State using her own private email server. Because these emails were not transacted and recorded through the official State Department servers, Mrs. Clinton “willfully concealed and removed” these critical documents from the records and archives of the United States Government. You can further argue that by electing to not have these records placed onto government servers – which are secure, routinely backed up, and most importantly subject to Freedom Of Information Act requests, that she has, by any reasonable interpretation, “mutilated, obliterated and destroyed” these essential records, which belong not to Hillary Rodham Clinton but rather to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and her employers, the people of that nation.

The penalty for this is a fine or up to three years imprisonment, or both. That’s paragraph (a) of the law.

By her own admission, transacting ALL of her State Department business through her private server means that by not turning the entire server over to the State Department – all of it, that’s for us to decide what is important or incriminating, not her – she has in fact “willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, falsified, or destroyed the same.”

That too is punishable by fine, up to three years imprisonment, or both… and, parenthetically, forfeiture of office and disqualification from holding any office under the United States.

That’s the law. That’s what the law says.

The lawlessness is endemic in this administration. But beyond the lawlessness is, of course, the contempt. The contempt for the very idea that these Harvard and Yale Law School grads have to actually, you know, obey the law. The contempt for the American people’s right to know what their elected officials are doing. And beyond all of this, the towering, monumental, criminal arrogance of it: that the official business of the United States of America; the nation’s diplomacy, strategy, defense posture, privileged communications between our allies and in point of fact every particle of our nation’s foreign policy was being discussed and archived in a single box in either Texas or Manhattan or wherever the hell it is; that this server’s basic, routine, Microsoft security updates – the kind you and I get pestered with every day — were not complied with; that the vital security interests or in fact the very lives of 320 million people did not warrant the effort to even obtain a unique encryption certificate but rather used the same one issued to thousands if not millions of users; all of this gets to the heart not only of who Hillary Clinton is and the contempt in which she holds the American people. It is deeper than that.

When the President of the United States gets an official notification from his Secretary of State from, or any email that does not end in dot gov, then he too is complicit in this lawlessness, and for the same reason.

Barack Obama’s Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, admits that the President did receive emails from his Secretary of State, and went on to say this:


Feel better now? The President of the United States, receiving emails from an illegal source, did not know or care or take any action whatsoever to ensure that she complied with the federal law she was in violation of. And neither did any of the people we pay to be responsible for the security of the communications of those at the uppermost level of the most powerful nation in the world.

This country was founded to be rid of the incompetence, reckless arrogance and casual stupidity of Kings and Queens who acted as though they were above the law. If we let these crimes go unpunished it will die of that same parasitical disease.
Hillary 27 Watergate

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why SJP Should Be Targeted – Biden sending signal to American Jew

Horowitz Jew Hitler  MB
3.31.2015 by Peter Malcolm

In a blistering letter to The Daily Californian, the student-run newspaper serving UC Berkeley, David Horowitz, the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of “Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey,” writes his reasons for targeting the anti-Israel group Students for Justice in Palestine. After noting that “we are witnessing a resurgence of global Jew hatred not seen since the 1930s when Hitler was laying plans for the “Final Solution,” Horowitz points out that the college campuses of America are growing more and more anti-Semitic as student groups articulate venomous messages, including events calling for the destruction of Israel, including chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

Horowitz explains that the groups exhibiting such behavior fall under the definition of anti-Semitism used by the U.S. government, which is stated thus: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

He writes bluntly, “They deny the Jewish people — and only the Jewish people — their right to self-determination, they demand that Israel be judged by standards not applied to any other nation, they deploy classic anti-Semitic imagery, they propagate the idea that Israel exists on land stolen from the Arabs, and they demonize Israel as an apartheid state.”

Horowitz dismisses the charges from SJP that they were persecuted by a poster campaign he organized to highlight its anti-Semitic and anti-Palestinian activities. One poster depicted two Hamas terrorists about to execute a Palestinian for alleged collaboration with the Jews. This was, in reality, an understatement; last August, as many as 18 Palestinians suspected of collaboration with Israel were executed in public by Hamas, as the New York Times reported.

SJP complained to the Daily Cal that it refused to print a passage in an SJP members’ original submission because it was “libelous and unverifiable,” which Horowitz analyzes to show the Daily Cal was correct. SJP wrote, “The (SJP) flyers called attention to the real eviction notices Palestinians in the Occupied Territories receive from the Israeli military as part of the Israeli government’s policy of expelling Palestinians from their land in order to build ethnically-exclusive settlements, an ongoing project of ethnic cleansing that has seen some 27,000 Palestinian homes demolished since 1967.”

Horowitz writes: “These SJP claims misrepresent the situation. Since its creation, Israel has been home to more than 1 million Arabs who, as Israeli citizens, sit on Israel’s Supreme Court, are members of its Knesset and enjoy more rights than the Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Of the two parties that seek to represent Palestinians, one is a terrorist group sworn to eliminate the Jewish state. It is SJP that supports ethnic cleansing, not Israel.”

He adds:

Nor does Israel “occupy” any Arab land. Israel was created the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were created — out of the ruins of the Turkish empire, which ruled the area for 400 years before the countries’ creation. Native Americans have a greater claim to the United States than Arabs do to either Israel or Gaza and the West Bank. More to the point, there appear to be no Hamas, Fatah or SJP protests against the Hashemite rulers of Jordan, whose oppressed majority population is Palestinian. That is because the goal of the Palestinian movement, as led by terrorists, is not the liberation of Palestine but the destruction of the Jews.

Horowitz concludes that SJP has created an atmosphere on college campuses which makes Jewish students fearful. He finishes with a flourish:

SJP clearly violates UC Berkeley’s “Principles of Community,” under which officially recognized student groups are supposed to operate. Under the U.S. Constitution, SJP has every right to spew its noxious hatreds and spread its lies. It does not have rights, however, to the privileges of legitimate student groups or to funding from the campus and taxpayers of California. This is an outrage that needs to be addressed by UC Berkeley’s Division of Student Affairs, and the sooner the better.
Biden sending signal to American Jew

March 31, 2015 Leo Hohmann

Did Vice President Joe Biden have a reason to warn American Jews they are really only safe in one country, Israel?

The question has been asked by a prominent American magazine: “Is it time for the Jews to leave Europe?”

The Atlantic posed the question in its April cover story by Jewish writer Jeffrey Goldberg, citing the rise of right-wing fascists and radicalized Islamists on the European continent.

Of course the article made no mention of the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism among leftists on college campuses. But Goldberg’s inclusion of an anecdote involving U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is stirring a new debate that is causing some to ask, “Is it time for the Jews to leave America?”

Biden, according to Goldberg, made a comment last fall that struck those to whom it was addressed as strange.

The stage was a Rosh Hashanah party Biden hosted for senior American Jewish leaders in September.

According to Goldberg’s report, Biden recounted his first meeting with former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, who told the then U.S. senator that the Jews’ secret weapon in Israel’s war for survival was that they had no place else to go.

“You understand in your bones that no matter how hospitable, no matter how consequential, no matter how engaged, no matter how deeply involved you are in the United States … there is really only one absolute guarantee, and that’s the state of Israel,” Biden reportedly told the room full of surprised Jewish leaders.

Israel Today magazine took the position that Biden’s comments may have been a type of prophetic warning to American Jewry, even if he didn’t fully realize the significance of his statement.

After all, who is better suited to deliver such a hard message to the Jews of America than a Democratic leader, since Jewish Americans tend to vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats?

“Of course, it can and has been argued that Biden’s point of view is correct, and that ultimately even the Jews of America will have no choice but to flee to the relative safety of Israel,” the magazine reported. “Much has been made of rising anti-Semitism in Europe, but the same is true of the United States of late. The annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents published by the Anti-Defamation League revealed a 21 percent increase in anti-Semitism incidents in the U.S. in 2014.”

Biden, who is known for his verbal gaffes, could have had yet another case of that classic Biden disease, called open mouth, insert foot. Or, as Israel Today suggests, “they might also be a very prescient warning of things to come.”

WND reported in February that the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe was not happening in a vacuum. It is happening in America as well.

A Common Core lesson plan required eighth-grade students in a California school district last year to question whether the Holocaust ever happened.

The eight-page assignment asked students to weigh arguments on whether the Holocaust was an “actual event” or a “propaganda tool that was used for monetary gain.” It was justified as an exercise in “critical thinking.”

The school district at first defended the exercise before finally pulling it.

At the University of California at Davis, just last month it was reported that Jew-hating thugs painted swastikas on a Jewish fraternity house. Jewish students on campus have also been harangued by Muslims screaming “Allahu Akbar,” the war cry of jihad.

Bible teacher and author/filmmaker Joel Richardson, whose latest book discusses anti-Semitism under the title “When a Jew Rules the World,” doesn’t like what he is seeing on college campuses across America.

“Now you have this trend particularly in the youth that’s really trending back toward supersessionism and replacement theology, and it’s cast as being justice for the oppressed and standing with the Palestinians,” he told WND in February.

Joel Richardson masterfully lays out the scriptural case against anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and replacement theology in his new book, “When A Jew Rules the World.”

The most active player in fomenting hostility toward Israel on U.S. college campuses is the Muslim Student Association. The MSA has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been banned or suppressed in many countries including Israel, Russia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Yet the Brotherhood has been coddled by the Obama administration as a legitimate voice for all Muslims.

The rise in attacks on Jewish students, and the recent pressure by the MSA to have UC Davis divest of all companies that do business with Israel, led one member of the university’s student senate last month to proclaim that “Hamas and Shariah law have taken over UC Davis.”

“They boycott Israel and call it divestment, not just of a nation but of an actual people, and they’re giving comfort and aid to some of the most genocidal hatred that the world has ever known in Islamic extremism,” Richardson said.

The extent of the foothold that radical Islamist groups have established on college campuses is also evident in two recent reports, one from Cornell university in Pennsylvania and the other from Barry University in Miami, in which university officials appear to condone student groups that wish to support the Islamic State, also called ISIS.

Agitation and propaganda attacks often precede physical attacks. That’s what happened in Germany, Russia and other countries where European Jewry has come under the most vicious attacks — first it became trendy to make verbal assaults. Now it’s happening in America. Maybe Biden’s strange comment should be dismissed as just another slip of the tongue? Or, perhaps he knows something about what’s coming to America in the years ahead?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment