Monday, December 21, 2015

Trump & Terrorism

There was a Democrat debate over the weekend. Many pundits commented on the fact that the timing of the debate -- competing with the newest Star Wars movie and the last weekend of Christmas shopping -- seemed designed to keep viewership low. Not surprisingly, Saturday's debate had the lowest ratings of any debate -- Democrat or Republican -- held in 2015.

The candidates talked a lot about GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. In fact, it was a comment about Trump that got most of the post-debate attention.

Hillary Clinton claimed that ISIS was using Donald Trump's rhetoric for its recruiting videos. PolitiFact checked out her claim and determined there was no evidence for it.

But in its own way, the comment about Trump and ISIS is very revealing. To many on the left, virtually anything we say or do that exposes radical Islamists is an excuse for recruiting more jihadists.

For example, Barack Obama says that the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is a major terrorist recruiting tool. We're told that ISIS doesn't represent Islam. So, if we capture terrorists and detain them in a secure prison, Muslims should be thanking us, right?

Secretary of State John Kerry blamed the Palestinian stabbing attacks in Jerusalem on Israeli settlements. We were told an obscure video was responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Now we're being told that proposals for a pause in Muslim immigration lead to terror recruitment.

There is one thing that does demonstrably contribute to jihad and that is the large global infrastructure of radical mosques and madrassas teaching young Muslims that the only way to please Allah is to kill infidels. Yet that is the one thing that the left refuses to acknowledge.

Last night I reviewed the most recent, disgusting ISIS recruiting video. It is so filled with hate that I will not share a link to it. But I must concede that American politicians are being used in the video. Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama were featured prominently as symbols of America's decadence and why Muslims should unite against us.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Hillary the Failure

Hillary is a failure;

1. She ousted Muammar Gaddafi and resulted in Libyan civil war where ISIS is growing and refugees are fleeing. The country is in total chaos and people are dying now more then ever.

2. She failed with the "Russian Reset", which resulted in a stronger Russia and the revolt in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. She couldn't even get the translation correct with the stupid button thing.

3. She failed with the "Arab Spring". Not only are the Arabs not accepting democracy, they are growing and fighting democracy more and more. They are now even a bigger threat to democracy.

4. She failed with dealing with Syria's chemical weapons program, which led to Russia stepping in and making a deal with Assad to end the program making us look like amateurs.

5. She voted for the War in Iraq which is one of the biggest mistakes the U.S. has made in modern history.

6. She's on the wrong side of the Syrian Civil War where we are arming the rebels who are sending those arms to ISIS. That region is/was held together and stabilized by dictators. And in hindsight, removing those dictators results in destabilization and anarchy. And yet she want's to remove Assad who is fighting the anarchists. Russia is doing a good job at making us look like amateurs, again!

7. LIED about her role in the Northern Ireland peace talks and was exposed by actual negotiators like Ulster Unionist Party negotiator Peter King, who said "Hillary Clinton was totally invisible at the actual negotiations" and Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey who said, Mrs Clinton's claims were a "wee bit silly". Both Unionist and Nationalist negotiators told this newspaper she played no part in the gruelling negotiations that took years.

And aside from her other failures, she is now setting herself up for more failure with her support of the "refugees" in Europe. A new report explains;

“It’s become an epidemic,” Geller said. “7,000 migrants have left the Brandenburg shelters. Where are they going? Who is sheltering these illegals, many with ties to ISIS?”
Such a high number of people hiding is “completely unacceptable,” according to the German authorities.
“Where are they hiding? Could they be connecting with sleeper cells?” Geller writes.

And another report says that Austrian gun shops have "sold out", and it's going to be some time till anybody can buy guns there again. People are arming themselves to protect from these "peaceful refugees". These "refugees" have skyrocketed the rape and crime rates in several European nations. They are in the twilight hours of destroying Europe as we know it. And of course Hillary supports them and she will bring 100's of thousands here to the U.S.
Isn't it clear that she is a total failure? If it's not clear to you, then you are only being fooled by her carefully written speeches and her ability to convince you that she has never done anything wrong. Thank God I have eyes, ears and a working brain to see through this total failure of a politician.

Calling out Obama


Thursday, December 03, 2015

Non-White Shooters

In response to Robert Dear Jr.’s murder of three people at a Colorado Springs shopping mall last week, The New York Times exulted:

“Even as politicians and those in Congress pump up public fears at the supposed threat of refugees fleeing Syria, every day in America people — mostly white men — are walking into movie theaters, restaurants, churches, grade schools and health care centers armed to the teeth, determined to take as many people out as they can.”

Mostly white men???

I know it didn’t happen here, but is the Times really going to ignore the murder of 130 people in Paris two weeks ago?

Here at home, an Oregon Community College was shot up in October — by a mixed-race, half-black immigrant, Chris Harper-Mercer. Nine people were killed. It’s hard to remember every sensational crime, but that was just two months ago.

Last year, another mixed-race immigrant, Elliot Rodger, committed mass murder at a sunny college campus in Santa Barbara, killing twice as many people as Robert Dear did — in half the time! That seemed like a pretty big story to me, but the media passed over it pretty quickly. The Times has airbrushed it from history.

In 2013, two Chechen immigrants — also allegedly fleeing persecution — blew up the Boston Marathon.

In 2012, Haitian immigrant Kesler Dufrene murdered as many people in Miami as Robert Dear did in Colorado Springs. One of Dufrene’s victims was a 15-year-old girl. Dufrene had already been convicted of a felony in the United States, so he should have been deported, but our “Deporter in Chief” Obama had blocked his return to Haiti. As the murdered girl’s mother said, “Because of immigration, my daughter is not alive.”

Have you ever heard of Dufrene? I don’t think his murders got as much press as the “Planned Parenthood” shooting.

I’m sure you’ve heard of Jared Loughner. But have you ever heard of Eduardo Sencion?

In 2011, nine months after Loughner’s shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona, Sencion, a Mexican immigrant, shot up a Carson City, Nevada, IHOP, killing four Americans, including three National Guardsmen and a 67-year old woman.

Eduardo was a Mexican immigrant. The Times ran two stories on his mass murder — on Pages 17 and 18. By contrast, Loughner’s shooting got dozens of write-ups in the Times, including at least three front-page articles, three editorials and 10 op-eds.

The media are tickled pink whenever they have a white perpetrator because it happens so rarely in a country that is majority white.

In 2009 — the same year that model second-generation immigrant Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood — model first-generation Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong shot and killed 13 people in Binghamton, New York, because he was upset that people disrespected his English skills.

Who holds the record for the deadliest shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, you ask? That would be Korean immigrant, Seung-Hui Cho, with 32 murders in a matter of hours at Virginia Tech in 2007.

The Times cheered anti-gun advocate Carolyn McCarthy’s election to Congress, but today, the paper seems to have forgotten the event that propelled her there: the 1993 Long Island Railroad massacre that left six passengers dead, including McCarthy’s husband.

That mass shooting was committed by a Jamaican immigrant, Colin Ferguson.

It hasn’t even been a week, and the Times has already run more than a dozen articles on the shooting at a Colorado Springs shopping mall. Hey — everybody remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the mass shooting at a Salt Lake City shopping mall in 2007? Five people were killed.

Here’s a clue: Two days after the attack, the Times ran an article titled, “Anti-Bosnian Backlash Is Feared in Utah.” (The killer: Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic.)

After Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia slaughtered six employees at the Windy City Core Supply warehouse in Chicago in 2003, the Times plastered the story all over — one article on Page 14 of the late edition. The Washington Post also ran one.

The media use their own lack of coverage as proof that mass murder by non-whites almost never happens. It’s exactly what they’re doing to Donald Trump over his claim that a lot of Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attack.

At the time, normal people were enraged that the media refused to cover the Muslim reaction to 9/11, all while lavishing endless column inches on a non-existent “backlash” against Muslims.

But now these journalist-referees turn around and insist that the only acceptable proof that Muslims cheered the 9/11 attack is the existence of the very media coverage that they obstinately refused to provide.

There’s a reason most people trust their own recollections over media reports.

After 20 years of nearly non-stop mass murder by non-white immigrants in a country that is still majority white, our media have the audacity to claim that tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims are less dangerous than the most pacific human beings in world history: 21st-century white American men.

Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Left/Right America

Since this country is about to fall anyway I think it's time to figure out a strategy to split America in two and allow the liberals to wallow in their own "environment." We should divide the nation right down the middle. Conservatives can retain the Constitution and actually start abiding by it. We can have law and order -- we'll give police officers the authority to actually stop crime. We won't need large jails because the criminals will want to live with the liberals. We will restore free speech on our side but we won't tolerate unlawful protests. Anyone blocking the free movement of another citizen will be arrested. Anyone who disrespects the police will be arrested. Anyone who commits a crime will be arrested, and if they get hurt in the process they will be told that it's safer not to commit crimes. Personal responsibility will be our #1 fundamental. A temporary safety net will be provided for those who truly fall on hard times, but it won't be a 25 year long government check for some 350 lb. career porch sitter. Students in school will behave, or they'll be expelled. We will build a wall around the entire perimeter and use our National Guard to actually patrol it instead of using them every week for meaningless drills. We will not tolerate drug dealing of any sort. Those guilty of that will spend long years in prison. Prison will not have television or basketball courts. No personal devices will be allowed there. It will be a place that no one wants to go.

The liberal side of the country will be nice for about 6 months. They will raise the minimum wage to $20 hr. and half the businesses will close. Their main concern will be climate change, so they won't worry about the 500,000 Muslim refugees they just paid to fly in until they start finding decapitated heads in the street. Their governments will be ruled by ideological pinheads who will capitulate to whatever the mobs demand -- which will be unsustainable in any civilized society. Their biggest problem will be having no conservatives to blame for their uncivilized, unlawful, unproductive, chaotic environment.

Martin Luther King had a dream, and I have one as well... That we can stop fighting with one another. Like minded people can live in peace. This country will NEVER again be united, under the circumstances. The best we can hope to ever do is to eventually figure a way to phase in two distinct governments in place of the one we have. As hard as it would be to move to a different location, I would do it if it meant finally being able to live in peace. I'd move across the country to have that.

I realize this is never going to happen. It's just a dream. But on the other hand, the country is not going to survive much longer as it is. We have a nation breeding generations of mindless ignorance and stupidity like I never would have imagined. All one has to do is to look at who we worship now and who we don't. I never thought in my lifetime that I'd actually witness the downfall of the United States of America. But we are actually closer to the final phase than many believe.


Monday, November 30, 2015

The Shameless Left

I join other pro-life leaders in condemning Friday's shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The alleged shooter, Robert Lewis Dear, is being arraigned today and we may find out more about him and his motives then.

But everything we know so far indicates that Dear is a deeply disturbed man. He was a recluse. His neighbors avoided him. He had several run-ins with the law, including various charges ranging from domestic abuse to animal cruelty and invasion of privacy.

Nothing indicates that Dear was in any way, shape or form part of or inspired by the pro-life movement. Predictably, that hasn't stopped voices on the left from attempting to exploit this shooting to smear the roughly one half of the country that believes abortion is, at its core, the taking of innocent human life.

Left-wing media outlets even went so far as to check Dear's voter registration status. What does that have to do with anything? It turns out he is a registered independent -- much to the media's disappointment, I'm sure.

For the last seven years, many on the left have engaged in over-the-top, hateful rhetoric toward the police and then claimed that the assassinations of police officers that followed had nothing to do with their remarks. (A common chant at some Black Lives Matter demonstrations is "Pig in a blanket," referring to a dead cop with a sheet over his body.)

This same left-wing crowd tells us that mosques around the world where imams preach that infidels must be killed have nothing to do with jihadists who are killing infidels.

The administration is quick to excuse government-sponsored demonstrations in Tehran where "Death to America, Death to Israel" is chanted by thousands as hyperbole "for domestic consumption," even though Iran has in fact killed hundreds of American soldiers.

And the left has excoriated Americans who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, calling them bigots, haters and the equivalent of the KKK. Yet it rejects any responsibility for the man who shot up the Family Research Council and was stopped only by the bravery of the security guard on duty that day.

The left has no shame.

Sunday, November 08, 2015

Charting a new course for the US Navy

The Obama administration made an important statement in recently authorizing the Pentagon to order a warship, the USS Lassen, to transit close to an island constructed by China on a submerged reef in the contested South China Sea. Key US interests served include protection of the global economic system, the security of our allies in the region, and preserving the rules-based international order that has maintained peace in the Asia-Pacific region for decades.

While the US action was undoubtedly delayed in order to avoid affecting the recent summit between Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping, it fell well within the provisions of customary legal mechanisms governing maritime claims.

Aware of this, China has thus far been restrained in its protestations. It has also refused to acknowledge a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that the court has jurisdiction to hear competing maritime claims in the area. US partners and allies are likely, though more privately, pleased to see a more overt, though prudent, challenge to the Chinese claim. As such, the event is a setback for China’s model of “new great power relations” — code language for its desire that the United States cede its influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

It remains to be seen how — and how frequently — the United States continues to reinforce international norms in the area. But because neither nation will benefit from a direct confrontation, both civilian and military diplomacy are already occurring to soothe this necessary friction between the two nations.

In any case, South China Sea tensions have once again raised the profile of the US Navy and its global mission. The USS Constitution, currently in Dry Dock 1 in Charlestown Navy Yard, serves as a constant reminder to Bostonians of the importance of having a powerful navy. Yet, laboring under the shadow of deep uncertainty over future budgets, the Navy is grappling with important and long-lasting decisions over how it will prepare to deter and, if necessary, win future conflicts.
Nowhere is the Navy’s future course more important than in the Western Pacific. While for the last decade the US military has focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, China has been strengthening its own military capabilities. Moreover, it is rapidly developing asymmetric capabilities intended to limit our ability to project power in the Pacific, including advances in countering surface ships, air power, space, and cyberwarfare.

While the US Navy still holds the upper hand, the traditional advantages in size and quality on which it has relied to overmatch China’s relative advantages in distance and initiative are rapidly eroding. As a result, new ways to deter Chinese aggression against our allies and partners — which are available — should be developed.

For any navy on the seven seas, near-term decisions have long-term effects. While the projected US fleet is generally positioned well to support these new concepts, the Navy should keep seven factors in mind now as it balances impending investments in capability, capacity, readiness, and people:
First, it is time to recognize how hazardous it has become to venture “in harm’s way” on the surface of the ocean. Today the “finders” have major advantages over “hiders.” More and more space and volume are being required to defend surface ships against relatively low cost, highly capable antiship systems, which detracts from their other capability. There is still great utility for the Navy’s impressive surface fleet, from smaller littoral combat ships to the larger cruisers the service is attempting to refurbish, as well as aircraft carriers. But all of these ships are more likely in the future to operate outside dangerous waters.

As a result, and second, the Navy will need to invest more in asymmetric weapons, such as smart mines, nonlethal methods of stopping ships, cyberwarfare, highly capable standoff weapons, and a full range of electronic warfare. Moreover, the service must continue increasing its investments in a full range of electronic warfare, which have languished for far too long. Unfortunately, the communities within the Navy that advocate for these systems are not traditionally highly empowered, which means senior leaders will need to provide extra support. The burden of these investments may demand a slightly smaller fleet.

Third, the Navy and Congress should ditch the simplistic benchmark of overall numbers of ships, under which an aircraft carrier counts the same as a frigate. This metric places unhelpful pressure on the Navy to build increased numbers of low-end ships that, while certainly very useful in certain scenarios, will not perform well in a highly contested environment. We need the right combination of vessels, and this requires a far more sophisticated discussion than merely counting ships.
Fourth, due to the political near-impossibility of stationing more of its warships overseas, the Navy will need to make difficult trade-offs between the forward presence intended to deter conflict and the surge capability required to win it. Creative thinking regarding how presence is actually executed could provide additional leverage in this area.

Fifth, the service will need to maintain its longstanding advantage in both offensive and defensive undersea warfare. Advances in a number of technologies will enable greater use of undersea autonomous systems, and it is encouraging to see the Navy investing in this area.

Sixth, the Navy must keep its vital partnership with the US Marine Corps in mind. While a major amphibious landing in a conflict with China seems unlikely, there are ample scenarios that could call for the Marines’ expeditionary prowess.

Seventh, Navy senior leaders, led by Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson, well understand the many challenges facing the service and the need for innovation. Their greatest obstacles are fiscal pressures imposed by a divided Congress and old-fashioned institutional resistance to change, with the former amplifying the latter.

Sam Palmisano, former CEO of IBM, said of companies in financial crisis, “You spend more time arguing amongst yourselves over a shrinking pie than looking to the future, so you miss the big turn.” While there are promising signs that the Navy is pursuing innovative ideas, it is vital to our nation’s ability to protect its national security interests that the service avoid missing the big turn this time around.

 By James A. Winnefeld

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

The Left's Lawlessness

There are disturbing reports in a leading Capitol Hill newspaper that the Obama Administration is, once again, looking for ways to circumvent Congress and ignore the courts.

Using his pen and his phone, Obama is hoping to enact a radical climate change agreement through executive regulation, just like he did with the Iranian nuclear deal.

In addition, leaked memos from the Department of Homeland Security indicate that the administration is preparing to ignore court orders that have so far frozen his executive amnesty efforts.

Whether it's ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act, refusing to enforce our immigration laws or marijuana laws, or abuse at the IRS, the left's disrespect for the law seemingly knows no limits. And because the left-wing media gives him a free pass, Obama now feels so emboldened that he is willing to ignore the courts!

Just imagine if a conservative administration refused to enforce laws banning prayer in school, used the IRS to target political enemies and used executive power to shut down abortion facilities. Enterprising journalists would be investigating every agency. There would be outraged editorials every day blasting the administration's abuse of power.

Left-wing politicians all over the country are learning from Obama's example. Members of Congress cannot permit these kinds of executive abuses to go unanswered. The checks and balances of our constitutional republic must be respected.

If they are not, then our elected representatives in Congress are superfluous and the president rules by himself. That is not the vision our Founding Fathers had for America. And that is not the kind of government we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

Monday, November 02, 2015

Obama's Jail Break

Over the weekend, 6,000 so-called "non-violent criminals" were released from federal prisons, part of the Obama Administration's efforts to relax sentences for non-violent drug offenders. An additional 8,500 prisoners may be deemed eligible for early release next year. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Administration officials estimate that as many as 46,000 prisoners may have their sentences reduced over the next few years, leading to what one report called "the biggest prisoner release in U.S. history."

Criminal justice reform is all the rage right now. It is a key demand of the Black Lives Matter movement and even some Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon. But it is important to note that we are not talking about adults who were busted smoking marijuana.

According to an analysis by Investor's Business Daily, "Most sold crack cocaine or meth. . . Fewer than 1 in 10 are marijuana offenders." Moreover, 20% of the 6,000 offenders just released were also in jail for illegal firearms possession while committing drug offenses.

President Obama and the left are constantly railing against conservative support for the Second Amendment and demanding that we get guns off the streets. But guns don't kill people by themselves. Criminals use guns to kill people. Obama just released 6,000 thugs who had illegal guns while they were dealing drugs!

And if that wasn't bad enough, consider this from the IBD report: "Internal government documents . . . show that the administration figures as many as 43% may re-offend within five years of release." So we're letting them out early even though we expect nearly half will commit more crimes, injuring more innocent people and ending up back in jail.

From jihadists at Guantanamo to illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities and armed drug pushers, the left always has the same idea -- release them!

Guns and Nukes


Thursday, October 29, 2015

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Goodbye Ahmed! Good riddance!

Don't cry, America, but we are losing Ahmed Mohamed. The 14 year-old Muslim boy who built a clock (sort of) that some people mistook for a bomb (it looked like a bomb) is leaving with his family to live in Qatar.

Ahmed said at a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday that he was leaving the U.S. because it is "hard" growing up in America and "going to school being a Muslim." (If he thinks it's tough here, trying going to school as a girl in Afghanistan.) I guess that sort of makes him a reverse Muslim refugee.

His father, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, a supporter of Sharia law and a professional Muslim agitator, beamed with pride as his son described how miserable life is here in Islamophobic America.

I agree that Ahmed and his family will be happier in Qatar, a country that allows no religious liberty for anyone but Muslims. There, dissenters don't get invitations to meet with the president; they get thrown in prison. Ahmed should not let the door hit him on the way out.




Monday, October 19, 2015

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger

Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a "mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.

Upon investigation, Berger admitted that he had "made a mistake," and took them. Unfortunately, Berger says he "lost" some of the documents, but that he returned some of them after his the FBI searched his home. Amazingly, he even returned some documents that the Archive hadn't yet noted were missing! He apologized and said he had just been "sloppy." This, from the former "National Security" advisor to the previous President of the United States, and security advisor to the current Democratic candidate for president.

A "mistake" is not a crime in most instances. Theft of Top Secret documents is a Federal crime that is supposed to carry extremely serious consequences. Being "sloppy" isn't a crime. Clinton's affairs might be described as "sloppy." Lying under oath about them IS a crime worthy of impeachment, depending apparently upon one's definition of the word "is." Mr. Burger would have us believe that he was simply unaware of the procedures surrounding the security of Top Secret documents. He says he should have known that stuffing them in his pants and walking out might be a breach of security. For his "mistake" Mr. Berger has resigned as John Kerry's advisor on national security affairs.
The truly amazing fact is that, in the context of political scandals, Watergate pales by comparison! The Watergate scandal that resulted in Nixon resigning from office was essentially trivial in comparison. Nixon was (and still is) vilified for pondering a cover up of a break-in by low level political operatives into the files of a left-wing political supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee. They were looking for evidence of Communist ties to the McGovern campaign, and this transgression lives on as the Democrat's ultimate immortal example of Republican "dirty tricks."

Democrats are defending Mr. Berger by attacking the "timing" of the revelation that he was, ah, "sloppy." They stand behind his contention that he didn't really commit a crime, by stuffing Top Secret material in his pants and removing them from Federal custody. The Democrat spinmasters say that the revelation that Mr. Berger had "mistakenly" stuffed certain documents in his pants relating to how Clinton handled terrorism prior to 9/11 is just Republican trickery and an attempt by Bush to divert American's attention from his failures in the unjust war in Iraq.

So, ultimately it comes down to whether you accept the Democrat's spin that Mr. Berger was just "sloppy" and "mistakenly" stuffed Top Secret documents relating to terrorism threats into his pants prior to the 9/11 Commission investigation, or whether you have at least a minimal grasp of the obvious. With that, you would have to conclude that Sandy Berger attempted to keep information about terrorism, and the previous administration's approach to it, from the American people and the 9/11 Commission. Of course, you "middle-of-the-road" folks might just choose to believe that Sandy Berger was merely gathering material for a book.

Saturday, September 05, 2015

Friday, September 04, 2015

Obama and the Police






























I am sure if people in America were assassinating muslims, Obama would give a press conference condemning it....but apparently not the cops.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Looney Hillary

Yesterday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made headlines for comparing pro-life conservatives to Islamic terrorists. "Now, extreme views about women we expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don't live in the modern world," Clinton said.

Don't miss the irony here, friends. The leftist culture in America uses every verbal summersault possible to avoid making any connection between Islam and Al Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, etc. But it has no problem connecting American conservatism to those groups.

Of course, the reality is that this administration has barely lifted a finger to combat the religious persecution committed by the Islamic movement that is raping women and selling them into the sex trade. That battle has been led by conservatives.

The Obama Administration has gone into court suing American businesses that say the Muslim hijab, which many view as a symbol of submission, violates their dress code. It is conservatives who say Muslim practices that belittle women should not be imported into the U.S.

It is the left that says American women should get used to going into a ladies' room and finding a man using the facilities because he feels like he is a woman. It is conservatives who say this is a violation of a woman's right to privacy.

The left says it should be legal for people to abort babies because they are little unborn girls. It is conservatives who argue that sex-selection abortion is abhorrent and should not be permitted.

To the left, there is no more important right for women than the right to destroy innocent human life. Yet conservatives who champion the sanctity of life are somehow equivalent to the barbaric marauders of ISIS.

If the left really wants to have a debate about extreme views, bring it on!

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Obama and the Crazies

At a Las Vegas conference last night, President Obama launched into another demeaning attack against his domestic political opponents. Obama told the audience that he was back from his summer vacation feeling "a little feisty" and ready to fight "the crazies" who oppose his agenda. Really?

Given history, it is crazy to believe that a regime like Iran's, which is committed to a second Holocaust, will be restrained by words on a piece of paper.

It is crazy to think that Cuba, Russia and other enemies can be charmed into friends. It is crazy to believe you can continue to spend trillions of dollars more than you bring in and not face economic collapse.

It is crazy to believe that if someone thinks marriage is between one man and a woman, they are a bigot. It is crazy to think it is okay to butcher baby parts for profit. I could go on.

But when has Mr. Obama ever referred to the mullahs in Tehran as "crazies"? When has he called Castro or Putin crazy? It is sad to see the president once again directing more vitriol toward his political opponents in Washington than the avowed enemies of the United States.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Friday, August 07, 2015

Crisis in Ukraine Continues


Most Dangerous Weapons in the World

WU-14 Hypersonic Weapon System

China has been aggressively pursuing research into so-called hypersonic weapons and could be easily used against America or Russia. Hypersonics travel much faster than conventional weapons, cutting enemy reaction times and imparting tremendous kinetic energy on their target. Such weapons would allow China to quickly cover the vastness of Russia; a hypersonic weapon launched from western China could strike Moscow within twenty minutes.

On June 7th, China tested its WU-14 hypersonic weapon for the fourth time in eighteen months. Boosted by a repurposed DF-21 intermediate-range missile to speeds of up to Mach 10, the unpowered weapon then glides to target. The high speed and flight profile of boost-glide weapons makes them difficult to intercept by conventional surface-to air-missiles and anti-ballistic missiles.

Although not yet a deployable weapon, the WU-14 will be instrumental in developing real hypersonic weapons systems in the near future. Future hypersonic weapons could be launched from aircraft, ships and land-based launchers, providing a fast, accurate, conventional or nuclear, first-strike weapon.


Never Forget


Thursday, August 06, 2015

Random Comments


Obama Compares Nuke Deal Critics To The Ayatollah
Can he sink any lower with demagoguery? Probably not. In a speech at American University defending his disastrous Iranian nuclear deal, President Obama said this:

"Just because Iranian hardliners chant 'Death to America!' does not mean that's what all Iranians believe. In fact, it's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It's those hardliners who are chanting 'Death to America!' who are most opposed to the deal. They are making common cause with the Republican Caucus."

The leftists in training at American University laughed and applauded. But most insiders on Capitol Hill and in the media were astonished by this smear. They shouldn't have been - this is Obama's default position. When in doubt, demonize your opposition.

o Of course not "all Iranians" chant "death to America." But the ones who do chant it happen to run the country.

o The leader of the chant is the Ayatollah Khamenei who will reap the benefits of this deal and have billions of additional dollars to spend on terrorism and killing Americans and Israelis.

o The deal Obama is selling not only lifts sanctions on Iran, it specifically lifts sanctions on the very "hardliners" Obama says don't represent the Iranian people. The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is the center of Iran's ideological commitment to destroying the U.S. and Israel, will receive billions. Sanctions are also removed on Iran's Cruise Missile Industry Group whose missiles could sink a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Finally, it is worth asking this question. Why does Obama always talk tougher, meaner and more aggressively when he is dealing with his domestic political opposition than when he talks about Iran, whose leaders promise to kill all of us?


US Decline - No Aircraft Carriers In Gulf

Iranian leaders say a new world war is on the horizon. Jihadist groups are spreading turmoil. Anxious Middle East governments are trying to decide who owns the future - the U.S. or Iran. With that backdrop, the U.S. Navy has confirmed that for much of this fall, we will have no aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in spite of a formal commitment to do so. Why? Overextending the Navy from 2010 to 2013 led to postponed maintenance and repairs. Underfunding of defense is taking its toll too. The next president will inherit a military on the edge of serious problems, but don't worry, transsexuals are now on their way to full rights to wear the uniform.


On John Stewart

Jon Stewart was only the voice of "reason" for those who already shared his liberal outlook. Sites like HuffingtonPost and DailyKos promoted his clips not because they represented exceptional journalism, but because he used humor to attack the enemies of the left. He had just as much of an agenda as any Fox News host, and it was not beyond him to selectively edit footage or tell only half the story for the sake of the cause.

He's a odd entertainer and it was a fairly successful show, but at least be honest about what the program was. Stewart redefined the news into a biased presentation meant to coerce his easily-persuaded audience.


On Immigration


Saturday, July 11, 2015

Friday, July 10, 2015

How We Got Here: A Foreign Policy of Left-Wing Clichés

Tuesday was the tenth anniversary of the 7/7 suicide bomb attacks in London, which killed 52 people and wounded hundreds more. In the decade since, the threat from Islamic supremacists has gotten worse in ways that were almost unimaginable in 2005. Nearly everywhere in the world, the threat of violence is greater than it was a decade ago.

The U.S. has been focused during this period on the terrorist threat, even if there is little progress to show for it. But because the media and political establishments tend to focus on only one problem at a time, it has been easy to miss the rate at which other anti-American threats have been developing during the same period.

We are drifting into a period of extraordinary risk. In the vacuum, foreign powers have become progressively more hostile, capable, and risk-taking. Putin's brazen rule in Russia, an increasingly aggressive Chinese regime, the relentlessly dishonest Iranian dictatorship, and the steady development of nuclear and missile technology in North Korea are emerging threats for which the U.S. currently has no strategy. Worryingly, we have refused to consider that our enemies could coalesce into an anti-American coalition.

President Obama, it is sad to say, has invited many of the risks we face today.

He owes his presidency to opposition, in the far-left of the Democratic Party, to a strong America abroad. Those outside the U.S. saw his election as a victory for that worldview—anti-Americanism combined with anti-capitalism—as indeed it proved to be. The New York Times reported from Gaza the day after his victory that “Mr. Obama’s election offers most non-Americans a sense that the imperial power capable of doing such good and such harm — a country that, they complain, preached justice but tortured its captives, launched a disastrous war in Iraq, turned its back on the environment and greedily dragged the world into economic chaos — saw the errors of its ways over the past eight years and shifted course.”

It wasn’t just non-Americans who viewed Obama’s election that way. Obama himself embraced the role. Among his first acts of foreign policy as president were sending a feel-good YouTube video to the Iranian mullahs (the start of six years of begging), and his European “apology tour,” in which he confessed America’s sins on our behalf—the “times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,” and “a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” It was for this atonement, evidently, that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Those less enamored with ideas like “the European project” and a worldwide environmental regime took a more realistic view of Obama’s promise: impotence, weakness, and timidity, all inherent in the left-wing clichés he and his base espoused. The result has been aggression against the American order everywhere we look.

Putin clearly has contempt for the U.S. administration and is determined to push at the periphery to see if he can break up NATO and reintegrate more of the former Soviet Union back into the Russian Empire. As a KGB trained, would-be tsar, Putin is unlikely to be deterred by words and weakness.

The Chinese could hardly be more open in their determination to change the balance of power in their own favor. It is hard to know which is more threatening: the flagrant hostility of hacking into U.S. government records and stealing 18 million personnel files, or the construction, out of open ocean, of an expansive chain of islands and military bases to enforce a Chinese claim to an enormous territory—crowding Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Indonesia. Both of these actions are potentially acts of war, but the President seems incapable of responding. The possibility that Chinese economic growth is slowing significantly makes that regime more rather than less dangerous.

Having ignored every red line he announced for Syria and Ukraine, President Obama is clearly committed to ignoring his red lines once again for the Iranian dictatorship. No level of Iranian mendacity, no depth of Iranian violation of agreements, no proof of Iranian support for terrorism are sufficient to slow the Obama administration's rush to surrender on Iranian nuclear weapons.

After Russia, China and Iran, there are a number of increasingly threatening realities that the U.S. is avoiding because they so violate the ethos of the current administration. North Korea might have up to 60 nuclear weapons, according to Chinese sources. This is a huge increase from the failed Clinton policies of the 1990s and should serve as a warning about the current negotiations with Iran. Needless to say, it doesn’t.

All the while, we are failing even to contain the threat we are focused on. The attacks last Friday in Tunisia, Kuwait and France (not to mention the ongoing killings in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria) are a reminder that Islamic supremacists are gaining ground. A weak America has been a necessary condition for their progress, too.

This level of decline would have been unthinkable the day terrorists attacked London a decade ago, and tragically, the decline will likely result in more horrible days. The specter of feeble democracies trying to contain evil has not been this bad since the late 1930s. The danger now is that every bad actor in the world will view the next year and a half as their last best chance for aggression. This is what it looks like when left-wing opponents of a strong America get a chance to run our foreign policy.

By Newt Gingrich

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Sanctuaries For Conservatives?

San Francisco is making headlines for its status as a sanctuary city -- a city that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Last week, an illegal immigrant, with seven felony convictions and who had been deported five times, shot and killed a young San Francisco woman while she was walking with her father.

Ponder this: What about a sanctuary city for conservative values?

Imagine if some city in red state America -- Little Rock, Arkansas, Dallas, Texas, or Bowling Green, Kentucky -- decided that it wanted to be a sanctuary city for unborn children and refused to grant business licenses to abortion clinics.

What if a city decided that it was going to be a sanctuary city for the Ten Commandments and displayed them in schools, libraries and the county courthouse?

What if a city decided that it was important for children to have mothers and fathers, declared itself to be a sanctuary city for normal marriage and refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

How do you think the left and the media would react to that kind of selective enforcement of the law? Just a thought.

Thursday, July 02, 2015

Monday, June 15, 2015

Saturday, May 30, 2015

War With China

Why China Dangerously Underestimates America's Interest in the South China Sea
by Kyle Mizokami
May 29, 2015

Last week one of the U.S. Navy's newest patrol aircraft, a P-8A Poseidon, took off from an air base in the Philippines and flew due west.

Over the shimmering blue green waters of the South China Sea, the plane was hailed by a voice warning the crew they were nearing Chinese territory and should immediately leave.

The incident didn't occur near what most people consider China — mainland China was hundreds of miles away. It occurred near three tiny islets in the South China Sea: Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, and Mischief Reef. These tiny, seemingly inconsequential bits of land are the front lines in a dispute involving China, her neighbors, and now the United States.

The islets could also be stepping stones in the path to war, as China and the United States become increasingly embroiled in a territorial dispute that neither side has any intention of backing down from.

The South China Sea is one of the most valuable patches of ocean in the world. A third of the world's merchant traffic passes through the area. It's also resource rich, home to rich fishing grounds and large reserves of oil and natural gas. The South China Sea functions as a sea border for a number of countries, including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

In recent years, China has laid claim to roughly 90 percent of the South China Sea. This runs roughshod over territorial claims by China's neighbors. Furthermore, over the last several months, China has transformed Subi, Fiery Cross, and Mischief Reefs into outposts of the People's Republic, using dredgers to create land for building port facilities, radar stations, and airports.

China has agreed to abide by international regulations regarding the oceans. That sounds reassuring, but apparently the fine print is that it doesn't apply to Chinese territory. As far as China is concerned, international law applies to the South China Sea no more than it does to San Francisco Bay or Lake Michigan.

The U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon was flying what the U.S. military calls a "Freedom of Navigation" mission, demonstrating that the United States does not recognize China's claims and that anyone — including the U.S. military — can transit through the area unmolested.

This week a Chinese military spokesman accused the United States of preparing to confront China over the issues of ownership of the South China Sea. The spokesperson, Senior Colonel Yang Yujun, claimed that the U.S. was "smearing the Chinese Navy," presumably for no other reason than it is jealous of China's rise.

Senior Colonel Yang is right but for the wrong reasons. The United States is preparing to confront China. The purpose isn't to smear the Chinese Navy, but rather to uphold a key strategic principle.

As a direct interest, the South China Sea isn't of huge importance to America. The principle of freedom of navigation, on the other hand is very much an interest of America's. As a maritime power surrounded by two oceans and reliant on ocean-going trade, the United States must on principle resist all such claims — even those by countries as small as the Maldives.

The United States is the only country capable of countering China's claim to the South China Sea. Despite the extraordinary growth and progress of the Chinese military over the past two decades, the U.S. military is still more powerful by a wide margin.

China is currently operating from a position of weakness. That's precisely why it must be countered now, before it grows more powerful. It's important to confront China over this issue now and — to borrow a term Chinese officials often use — "teach it a lesson."

Left unchecked, we don't know where China's ultimate ambitions might lie. It's best we don't find out.

In international relations, little is cut and dried. Complexity rules. The various, competing claims to the South China Sea make for a complicated situation, each country alternately proposing and disposing differing territorial boundaries.

One thing is cut and dried: China — or any other country — cannot be allowed to take the South China Sea unilaterally. Doing so would let might make right, and embolden the country to make more claims in the future. This will make for some tense moments above, on, and below the South China Sea, and could even conceivably start a war.

But simply letting China do whatever it wants is not an option. The risks are much smaller now, while China is weak, and infinitely better than the alternative of confronting a stronger, more powerful China down the road. The sooner China learns to play by the rules, the better.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Friday, May 15, 2015

The Collapse of Balitmore City

Newt Gingrich
To idahobeef@yahoo.com
Today at 5:56 PM


Fact: the last Republican city council member in Baltimore City left office in 1942.

That is 73 years of solid Democrat city councils.

Fact: the last Republican mayor of Baltimore City left office in 1967.

That is 48 years of unbroken control of the mayor's office.

Fact: the Maryland Senate is currently 33 Democrats to 14 Republicans.

Fact: the Maryland House is currently 90 Democrats to 50 Republicans.

Fact: the last time Republicans held both the Maryland Senate and the Maryland House of Delegates was 1897.

Fact: the last time Republicans held even one chamber of the Maryland General Assembly--the House--was 1917.

That is unbroken Democrat control of the Maryland legislature since 1918--or nearly a century of Democrat control.

Fact: 7 out of 8 members of the Maryland delegation in the U.S. House are Democrats.

Fact: Last Republican U.S. Senator from Maryland was elected in 1980.

Fact: it was Baltimore’s Democrat mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who said:
“I’ve made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It's a very delicate balancing act. Because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."

This ”space to destroy” policy led to riots which resulted in:

    130 police officers injured
    More than 350 businesses damaged (increasing inner-city unemployment)
    15 pharmacies damaged (limiting inner-city residents’ access to medicine)
    Korean American businesses targeted while gangs protected businesses owned by African Americans
    144 vehicle fires
    Firehoses cut as firemen fought fires

The collapse of order has a continuing effect. There has been a drastic increase in shootings and homicides in Baltimore since April 27. More than 50 people have been shot. At least 10 have been shot and four killed since Saturday May 9. Nonfatal shootings are up nearly 50 percent.

All of this happened under the leadership of a Democrat mayor who was worried more about the rioters’ free speech than about the safety, protection, and livelihoods of innocent Baltimoreans.

The first duty of government is to protect the innocent and the weak from predators and violence.

Once again a Democrat favored the violent over the victims.

The protesters charge that the police are racist.

Fact: More than half of the Baltimore City police force is minority.

Fact: four of the six top commanders are African American or Hispanic.

Fact: half of the police officers being prosecuted are African American.

The protesters point to poverty--and they’re right. Poverty has devastated minority communities. But it is left-wing policies implemented by Democrats that have created destructive incentives and denied opportunity to generations of young people.

Fact: Baltimore City spends $17,329 per student, and its unionized, bureaucratic schools fail.

As Terence Jeffrey of CNS News quotes a lawyer for Freddie Gray’s family as saying, "The education system has failed them." The lawyer is right. "These kids have had bad experiences in school," he said.

Jeffrey outlines the absolute failure of the unionized bureaucratic Baltimore City school system: 84% of eighth graders score below grade level in reading. 87% scored below grade level in math.

For $17,000 a year, Baltimore City students could get much better educations at Catholic schools, private schools or even with an organized home schooling program (8 students could pool $120,000 a year to hire a personal tutor as was done when Thomas Jefferson was young).

Amazingly, as Archbishop of Baltimore William Lori points out, the Catholic schools cost $6,000 a year and have a 99 percent graduation rate. Yet the Democrats are committed to locking poor children out of those schools if it takes a dime away from funds for failing, unionized public schools.

With school choice policies, we could save children's lives while saving money. Instead the left wing unions and bureaucracies ruthlessly exploit children, ruining their lives while the Democratic leadership in the Maryland House blocks school choice bills that would give children a chance to attend better schools and would force schools to compete for students by actually being good schools.

There is no greater example of the relentless dishonesty of modern Democrats than their willingness to destroy children's lives while blaming others. President Obama could quit blaming Fox News and simply demand school choice (which of course he opposes) and he would radically improve the lives of millions of trapped poor children.

Of course, it is Democrats who control the teachers union that traps Baltimore City's children in schools that fail and ruin their lives. They do so on behalf of the unionized bureaucratic political machine that controls the city.

Poverty in general has been institutionalized by the destructive ideological biases of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. On May 22,1964 President Johnson said, "Our society will never be great until our cities are great. Today the frontier of imagination and innovation is inside those cities and not beyond their borders."

Tragically, his policies trapped people in dependency, killed small businesses in favor of bureaucracy, and favored unionized workers over children. The result has been a 50-year disaster which no liberal Democrat is prepared to analyze honestly.

Charles Murray's classic study of destructive welfare policies, Losing Ground, and Marvin Olasky's decisive repudiation of the idealistic premises of big government liberalism’s approach to poverty, The Tragedy of American Compassion, explain decisively the failure of the Baltimore City Democrats. Their values, principles and organizations doom their efforts to failure.

A sound program has to start with safety and work.

That policy has to begin with favoring public safety and small business.

All Americans should care enough about their fellow citizens trapped with bad leadership, bad government, selfish bureaucrats, and misleading news media. All of us should care about creating a much better future for poor Americans.

That future has to start with a fact-based analysis of how we got here and who has been responsible.

In Baltimore City, the answer is Democrat officials who for a half-century have crippled and weakened what was once a great and vibrant city.

In future weeks, I will outline a strategy for a renaissance in Baltimore City.

Your Friend,
Newt

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Warships of SE Asia

This chart from the ONI report helps explain why China thinks it can deter its neighbors. It just has far more ships and resources than any of its immediate rivals.


Monday, April 13, 2015

Chinese Bio-Attacks on USA

I am sitting across from a man who I call Doctor Doom. He's in his late 40s, is non-descript, and is Chinese. His insists that I don't use his real name, so I will call him "Wang". His life's work, his creation, will kill more than a billion people (probably closer to two billion), and in the very near future everyone on the planet will know his real name. He doesn't look like a monster, but then again most true monsters rarely appear like the role. He doesn't hate the West, he loves American TV and McDonalds, but that won't stop him from killing more people than Mao, Stalin, and Hitler combined. He is a viral geneticist that works in the area of agriculture and his "creation" will kill off a huge potion of humanity, and incite conflicts around the world (mainly for food). To just get a brief interview with "Doctor Doom" took me over a year; my step-mother is American Chinese and she knows his mother (who is openly terrified of her son's research). "Wang" works outside of Beijing, at a military-funded research facility with over 500 associates, all specializing in some form of virology. He has invented a virus that kills (for decades or more) specific plants that are used by the West: corn, wheat, and barley. Wang's mother, deeply worried about the response to her sons "invention", believes that open dialogue on the issue will prevent its use. She is terrified that the United States is working in the same field to develop a virus that specifically targets rice (we are, so confirms my 30+ year nurse boyfriend who lives in the LA area). She loves rice and knows if a tit-for-tat biological exchange occurs, most of the planet could be wiped out. Other scientists agree, which was one of the reasons why there has been a strong push for "agricultural arks" being created around the world, the most famous of which is in the ice-bound Svalbard region of Norway. It always puzzled me why they would put a global seed ark in such a remote and plant-hostile region, until I realized during this interview that it was placed in an area the virus couldn't easily spread too (an ice zone). China's leaders have already decided that conflict with the West, Japan, and the USA will occur, but how and when it will occur is the key and Beijing hopes to make it on terms in its favor. By launching a bio-attack on the USA foodstocks, it will ensure the Americans will stay out of any future fights because they would have to cope with food rationing, riots, and continent-wide starvation instead of waging war. A successful Chinese bio-attack against the US was completed late last year, when eight two-man teams spread a remote pig virus from central China across the heartland of America. This was a deliberate act and resulted in the deaths of over 2 million pigs in the US. The teams were infected with Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (or PEDv) and deliberately spread the virus by traveling to the US and handling as many pigs as possible in and around Iowa. Their efforts were a part of the plan by Beijing to wage war by a thousand cuts, to attack the USA subtlety and quietly, before it knew it was even under attack. Massive cyberattacks centered in China are also part of this war and are occurring on a daily basis. Chinese leaders decided more than a decade ago to use biological, chemical, nuclear, and asymmetrical attacks against the US and other foes. Their decision to not follow the rules of war set out in the Geneva Accords was based on the fact that China isn't a European country, and shouldn't follow European rules of war. By funding "Wang's" research in the area of deadly bioweapons, we can only conclude that Beijing will continue down this path to global destruction, in spite of the fact that other nations are preparing counter-measures; ones that could kill off most of the people on the planet. In the Book of Revelation, it talks about Apocalytic Horsemen who kill billions of people; starvation and plague and death. I hope to not see these Horsemen in my lifetime....I wonder if Wang cares.

Hillary's Stealth Announcement

Dick Morris Report

Hillary began her Presidential campaign yesterday.  How's she doing it? Stealthily, quietly, secretly, weirdly.

It started with a tweet.  The least technical savvy person on the planet is now hip.

It's really a lot easier that way.  No more speeches, no elaborations of her message, and, most of all, no room for annoying press questions.  Just a set number of characters and a quick message.

She tweeted that she was taking a "road trip."  She's actually sneaking into Iowa, riding in an unmarked secret service van for the more than1000 miles from Chappaqua to Des Moines.  Along with Huma Abedin and another aide, they're taking an undisclosed route, stopping randomly at gas stations for photo ops.  When she gets to Iowa, she'll attend meetings closed to the public.

What's she hiding from?

Emails, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation.

To grasp the essential differences between Hillary and Bill, all you need to do is to compare their two political journeys -- Hillary's stealth trip to Iowa and Bill's boisterous train ride to Chicago to claim his renomination in 1996.

Bill traveled on a train loaded with media, making highly publicized stops as he wended his way through every swing state en route to Chicago.  Hillary is traveling in a van with no media, in secret.  Nobody knows her schedule and no media is there to witness her trip.  Bill spoke from the rear of the train a la whistle-stop at each station along the route.  Hillary is not giving a single speech, but is tweeting about her trip stops so nobody asks any questions.  Bill spoke for hours, often having to be practically dragged off the stage to be as on time as possible for the next stop.  Hillary communicates by tweeting.  140 characters is perfect for her message.  Bill wanted as many people as possible to participate in his triumphant passage.  Hillary wants privacy and secrecy.

The two voyages illustrate the key differences between the two people -- and why Bill won and Hillary won't.

Bill is an extrovert.  Hillary is introverted.  Bill is almost naively open.  Hillary is closed.  Bill loves publicity.  Hillary fears it, distrusts it.  Bill needs to hide his private life.  Hillary must conceal her public one.  Bill welcomes questions and is at his best at town halls fielding them.  Hillary wants controlled situations.  Bill loves microphones.  Hillary avoids them.  Photo ops are her style.

Bill is a born politician.  Hillary is a born bureaucrat.  Bill thinks as he speaks.  Hillary hues to a script, blundering when she make the slightest departure.  Bill enjoys the give and take.  For Hillary there is only the take.

And so begins a campaign like no other -- hidden, paranoid, secret, controlled, and scripted.  Just like the candidate.

Always Remember


EWWW Hillary! EWWWW!!!


Wednesday, April 08, 2015

Death to the Tsarnaev's


To Obama: The Victims are Christians and Jews

by Newt Gingrich


President Obama has a strange pattern of citing Christians for violence and intolerance on the one hand but refusing to identify them as the targets of Islamist supremacists on the other.

In fact, in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast the President stretched back more than 800 years to declare that "during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."

This was a remarkably one-sided history of a long series of wars between Christians and Muslims in which atrocities were common on both sides. The President may not know that Saladin had more than 200 knights beheaded on July 4, 1187, or that in 1680 Turks cut off the heads of 813 Christians in Otranto, Italy (a group Pope Francis declared saints for their willingness to die for Christ). There were atrocities on both sides of these wars. Yet President Obama only found the violence perpetrated by Christians worth mentioning.

Referring to more recent history, this is how President Obama chose to describe an Islamic supremacist murdering Jews in France earlier this year “violent, vicious zealots who...randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris."

The dishonesty of this statement is breathtaking. There was nothing random about the attack. It was deliberate. The attacker didn't "randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris". The attacker himself said in the media that he went out to kill Jews. The "folks" in the President's language were Jews. The “zealots” were Muslim supremacists.

Why does President Obama find it impossible to say "a Muslim supremacist deliberately killed a group of Jews in a religiously inspired attack"?

President Obama was similarly abstract when commenting on the beheading of Egyptian Christians by ISIS in a televised act of religious hatred. He issued a statement saying it was a "despicable and cowardly murder of 21 Egyptian citizens in Libya." He described it as "the wanton killing of innocents."

Once again President Obama hides from what truly motivated the killing. ISIS wasn't randomly killing Egyptians. ISIS was killing Christians. The victims weren't, as the President asserted, just "innocents". The victims were guilty of being Christian.

Finally, consider the recent killing of Christians in Kenya. When radical Islamist terrorists killed more than 140 people at Garissa University College, the Associated Press reported, “The attackers separated Christian students from Muslim ones and massacred the Christians.”

How did the Obama Administration describe this religiously motivated massacre? The President's statement referred only to "innocent men and women...brazenly and brutally massacred."

Once again he failed to identify the religion of the dead or the religion of their killers--in both cases the factor that explained the events.

Sarah Kaplan of the Washington Post captured this refusal to describe Christian and Jewish victims in a remarkable recent article, "Has the world ‘looked the other way’ while Christians are killed?"

She reports:
David Curry, president of the nonprofit Open Doors USA, which advocates for persecuted Christians worldwide, believes so.

“We see a continued pattern in many of these regions of violence and persecution against Christians,” he said in a phone interview. “But the West and Western governments, including the U.S., when they conflict-map these issues, they refuse to address the fact that Christians are being targeted.”

According to Open Doors, 2014 saw a huge increase in violence against Christians. Researchers for the group found that 4,344 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons between Dec. 1, 2013 and Nov. 30, 2014 — more than twice the number killed during the same period the previous year. Curry says those numbers are a low estimate, as the group only counts incidents in which the victim can be identified by name and an exact cause has been attributed.

In its annual “World Watch” report, which ranks the 50 countries where persecution of Christians is most severe, the group said the past year “will go down in history for having the highest level of global persecution of Christians in the modern era” and suggested that “the worst is yet to come.”

Kaplan went on to quote Pope Francis over Easter weekend:
“Our brothers and our sisters … are persecuted, exiled, slain, beheaded, solely for being Christian,” he said, his expression tense, his cadence slow but deliberate. Speaking from a window of the Apostolic Palace, the Pope said that there have been more “martyrs” for Christianity in recent years than in the early centuries of the faith.

“I hope that the international community doesn’t stand mute and inert before such unacceptable crimes, which constitute a worrisome erosion of the most elementary human rights. I truly hope that the international community doesn’t look the other way.”

The persecution of Christians is a theme that ran through most of the pope’s speeches this weekend. At a Good Friday procession, he decried the world’s “complicit silence” while members of his faith are killed. On Sunday, he devoted his Easter address to a grim accounting of global conflicts where Christians and others have been killed.

I was moved to write this lengthy newsletter by Cardinal Wuerl's Easter Sunday homily at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (where Callista sings in the choir).

The Cardinal enjoined: "Today we must raise our voices on behalf of suffering Christians around the world, victims of terrorist/extremist attacks simply because they dare to say Christ is risen....”

He went on: "Pope Francis, in his Easter message...asked all of us not to remain silent...in the face of this terrible plague --violence on our Christian brothers and sisters and all others suffering religious persecution.”

His plea inspired me to ask you to join in speaking out and telling the truth.

If enough of us insist on identifying the religious victims of this war against Christians and Jews, perhaps the President will have the courage to join us in telling the whole truth.

Once we confront the truth, we can begin designing strategies to defeat the Islamist supremacists who would force us to submit or die.

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

Sidneys Emails

What's With The Emails To Hillary From Secret Spook Sid Blumenthal? And Who Was Bankrolling His Secret Ops?

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on April 7, 2015



Revelations from emails purloined by a Romanian hacker show that Hillary Clinton was being secretly advised about Libya -- before and after the Benghazi terrorist attack -- by an off-the-shelf private spook group associated with controversial former Clinton confidante Sydney Blumenthal that claimed to be helping the Libyan opposition and considered placing ground operatives near the border.

What's this all about?

It's not completely clear, but apparently the goal of the rogue group, which included a former high level CIA covert operative and a former U.S. General, was, at the very least, to gather and provide sensitive reports to the Secretary of State from foreign intelligence sources in Libya, Algeria, and Europe.

But there was lots more going on.  Two- time Pulitzer Prize winner and investigative reporter Jeff Gerth and Sam Biddle wrote about the secret spy network in ProPublica, reporting that Blumenthal indicated in one email that "he and his associates worked to help the Libyan opposition."  You can read the full article here.

What is a private citizen doing "helping the Libyan opposition" and reporting to the Secretary of State, who then does nothing about it?

It's likely that the rogue group feared that the State Department bureaucracy was not providing the same information to Hillary -- information that they definitely wanted her to know about.  Gerth noted that the State Department didn't even have a Libyan desk at that time.  So, they would have limited information about what was happening on the ground there.

Enter Sid Blumenthal.

In addition to Blumenthal, the secret network included Cody Shearer (a well-known Washington insider and negative dirt digger who was close to the Clintons) and former CIA spook Tyler Drumheller (who once ran CIA's operations in Europe).  Also involved was retired Army Major General David L. Grange, who, ProPublica reported, ran "a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999."

This is stunning.  It is hard to imagine how -- and why -- Blumenthal became involved in this clandestine spy ring.  What's even more puzzling is who was paying for it.

The group clearly had an agenda. Indeed, one of the firms that worked with Blumenthal -- Osprey Global Solutions -- owned by the former General, contracted with the Libyan National Transition Council in anticipation of Gaffafi's removal.  Its mission: to help establish an intelligence operation there in the new regime.

The back door spying operation relied on Blumenthal to keep channels open to Hillary and may even have sought to induce greater U.S. involvement in the war.  And Blumenthal was a good choice.  He had access to Hillary's private email account and was in near constant touch with her.  The hacker's screen shot of Blumenthal's emails in the last two months of Hillary's tenure shows that he sent over 25 emails from December 9, 2012 through February 17, 2013, many with subject headings about Libya and Egypt.  And Hillary seems to have responded to Sidney: "Got your message" says one subject line.  Another references the "question you raised."  So this was not a one-sided deal.  Hillary knew about what Sidney was doing and did nothing to close it down.  Her aides claim that she handed the emails over to the Benghazi Committee.  Let's see if they are all there.

Because this was big.  It wasn't just about passing along high level foreign intelligence.  There were indications that the Blumenthal group may have even placed its own operatives on the ground in Libya to directly influence events there, without reference to Administration policy and without the approval of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees.

ProPublica noted the reference to a ground operation: "a May 14, 2011 email exchange between Blumenthal and Shearer shows that they were negotiating with Drumheller to contract with someone referred to as "Grange" and "the general" to place four operatives on a week-long mission to Tunis, Tunisia, and "to the border and back."  Tunisia borders Libya and Algeria.  "Sid, you are doing great work on this," Drumheller wrote to Blumenthal.  "It is going to be around $60,000, covering r/t business class airfare to Tunis, travel in country to the border and back, and other expenses for 7-10 days for 4 guys." (Emphasis added)

It's not clear what exactly Blumenthal was doing to earn the compliment about his "great work".  And, again, what were they all doing and who was paying for it?

The U.S. government had been reluctant to get more deeply involved in Libya.  But Hillary wasn't.  She wanted to get rid of Gaddafi and was very, very public about it.  Is it possible that the unverified information from rogue sources triggered, or at least fostered, Hillary's aggressive advocacy of U.S. military intervention in Libya -- a policy that many in the Obama Administration resisted?  That's something that should be looked at quite carefully.

Because it was Hillary's advocacy that was the prime moving force in triggering the U.S. involvement.  Beginning in 2011, she lobbied the Obama Administration to intervene in the civil war in Libya, warning of impending genocide at the hands of Gaddafi.  Hillary's warnings were not in synch with information the U.S. and its allies were receiving and were widely believed to be deeply flawed. Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen opposed Hillary on Libya, and, along with Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, took the unprecedented step of opening up direct channels to Libya. Secret tapes obtained by the Washington Times "chronicle U.S. officials' unfiltered conversations with Col. Gaddafi...including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community's concerns." 

This is extraordinary - and yet Hillary prevailed.

House Benghazi Committee Chairman Tray Gowdy recently asked his staff to listen to the tapes, so it's very possible that we'll hear more about this.  Let's hope so.

Perhaps stimulated by the Blumenthal intelligence, Hillary worked ceaselessly to get rid of Gaddafi and create a coalition for a no-fly zone. When the coalition started to fall apart -- especially the support of the Arab states, Hillary intervened and personally called their leaders indicating the importance of the mission.

According to the Washington Post, she told the Arab leaders: "This is important to the United States, it's important to the president, and it's important to me personally." (Emphasis added)

So why was it so important to her personally?  And was the Secretary of State telegraphing to Arab leaders that there might be consequences if they did not follow her wishes?

After Hillary's intervention, the coalition was back on board and Hillary viewed the Libya war as one of her finest accomplishments.  Not everyone concurs with her.

There was good reason for American reluctance to go into Libya.  The Times reported that, according to secret intelligence reports, "Libyan officials were deeply concerned that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al-Qaeda and that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists."

And those concerns remain today: Have we and our allies actually delivered weapons that are now in the hands of terrorists?  What was going on there?

Was it Blumenthal's "intelligence" that led America into war?  A war which cost upwards of $1 billion?  A war to prevent alleged genocide that was never corroborated?  A war that kindled a massive flow to lethal weaponry to Islamic extremists in the Middle East, including some of the weapons ISIS is now using against us?

There are so many unanswered questions, but the biggest one is this: What was Sidney Blumenthal doing running a foreign intelligence network and reporting to the Secretary of State?  He has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs.  None.  His major credential is that he is close to Hillary and he can push her buttons.  And, he's willing to do anything and say anything to protect the Clintons.

Blumenthal worked closely with both Clintons during the Lewinsky scandal to discredit Monica and her allegations, calling her a "stalker."  He repeated Hillary's fabrication that Monica was just a troubled person who the President was "ministering" out of kindness and his religious convictions. (This is not a joke)

Sidney became an attack dog during Hillary's presidential campaign in 2008, but perhaps a too public one.  That's why Hillary's efforts to hire him at the State Department in 2009 were blocked, reportedly over lingering animosity about his role in the attacks on Obama during the campaign.  As far as we know, his was the only appointment nixed by the White House.

Sidney has always had the ability to take Hillary's paranoid side and lead her to exaggerate it even further.  It was Sidney who came up with one of her favorite phrases -- "the vast right wing conspiracy."  It's still part of her mantra.  And he's still her conspiracy theory alter ego.

So, what was going on here and what Sidney's portfolio included is anyone's guess.

If Hillary's erasure of her emails evokes remembrance of Watergate, so the new Hillary scandal involving her back door relationship with Sydney Blumenthal and his on-the-ground operatives evokes comparisons with Iran-Contra.  How Hillary can run for president with such baggage remains to be seen.

But at the very least, we need answers to the many questions that arise from this very weird turn in this very crazy relationship.

Chinese Biowarfare

I am sitting across from a man who I call Doctor Doom. He's in his late 40s, is non-descript, and is Chinese. His insists that I don't use his real name, so I will call him "Wang". His life's work, his creation, will kill more than a billion people (probably closer to two billion), and in the very near future everyone on the planet will know his real name. He doesn't look like a monster, but then again most true monsters rarely appear like the role. He doesn't hate the West; he loves American TV and McDonalds, but that won't stop him from killing more people than Mao, Stalin, and Hitler combined. He is a viral geneticist that works in the area of agriculture and his "creation" will kill off a huge potion of humanity, and incite conflicts around the world (mainly for food). To just get a brief interview with "Doctor Doom" took me over a year; my step-mother is American Chinese and she knows his mother (who is openly terrified of her son's research). "Wang" works outside of Beijing, at a military-funded research facility with over 500 associates, all specializing in some form of virology. He has invented a virus that kills (for decades or more) specific plants that are used by the West: corn, wheat, and barley. Wang's mother, deeply worried about the response to her sons "invention", believes that open dialogue on the issue will prevent its use. She is terrified that the United States is working in the same field to develop a virus that specifically targets rice (we are, so confirms  friend of mine). She loves rice and knows if a tit-for-tat biological exchange occurs, most of the planet could be wiped out. Other scientists agree, which was one of the reasons why there has been a strong push for "agricultural arks" being created around the world, the most famous of which is in the ice-bound Svalbard region of Norway. It always puzzled me why they would put a global seed ark in such a remote and plant-hostile region, until I realized during this interview that it was placed in an area the virus couldn't easily spread too (an ice zone). China's leaders have already decided that conflict with the West, Japan, and the USA will occur, but how and when it will occur is the key and Beijing hopes to make it on terms in its favor. By launching a bio-attack on the USA foodstocks, it will ensure the Americans will stay out of any future fights because they would have to cope with food rationing, riots, and continent-wide starvation instead of waging war. A successful Chinese bio-attack against the US was completed late last year, when eight two-man teams spread a remote pig virus from central China across the heartland of America. This was a deliberate act and resulted in the deaths of over 2 million pigs in the US. The teams were infected with Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (or PEDv) and deliberately spread the virus by traveling to the US and handling as many pigs as possible in and around Iowa. Their efforts were a part of the plan by Beijing to wage war by a thousand cuts, to attack the USA subtlety and quietly, before it knew it was even under attack. Massive cyberattacks centered in China are also part of this war and are occurring on a daily basis. Chinese leaders decided more than a decade ago to use biological, chemical, nuclear, and asymmetrical attacks against the US and other foes. Their decision to not follow the rules of war set out in the Geneva Accords was based on the fact that China isn't a European country, and shouldn't follow European rules of war. By funding "Wang's" research in the area of deadly bioweapons, we can only conclude that Beijing will continue down this path to global destruction, in spite of the fact that other nations are preparing counter-measures; ones that could kill off most of the people on the planet. In the Book of Revelation, it talks about Apocalytic Horsemen who kill billions of people; starvation and plague and death. I hope to not see these Horsemen in my lifetime....I wonder if Wang cares.