U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Inmates / Jesse Jackson incites American Muslims / Muslim College Professors and Traitors Within! / Radical Islam Mosque member and Murdered in Oklahoma / Obama’s JV team, more

Alton A. Nolen (Oklahoma Department Of Corrections)

U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Inmates

12:19 PM 11/21/2014 Joy Brighton, Author, Sharia-ism is Here

4388676

Back in 2006, then FBI director Robert Mueller prophetically described the radical Islamist conversion machine operating throughout U.S. prisons, to a Senate committee. He said that prisons were a “fertile ground” for Islamic extremists, and that they targeted inmates for introduction to the militant Wahhabi and Salafist strains of Islam.

The recent so-called “lone wolf” terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City, New York, and just over our northern border in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, may be the product of such radicalization.

In April 2010, Larry James murdered his mother, pregnant wife, 7-month-old son, 3-year-old niece and 16-year-old niece for refusing to convert to Islam. James converted in 2007, while in a U.S. prison.

Then two months ago Colleen Hufford, a 54-year-old grandmother and factory worker in Oklahoma, was beheaded with a produce knife by Alton Nolen who likely converted to Islam in a U.S. prison. Nolen is being charged with workplace violence.

Last month NYPD officer Kenneth Healey, 25, was axed to death with a hatchet to the side of the head. He was not attacked by a “lone wolf,” but by ex-con Zale Thompson. New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton has called it a terrorist attack, and the NYPD might want to look at Thompson’s record in California where he did two brief terms in California prisons.

The statistics are staggering, and woefully out of date. One out of three African-American inmates in U.S. prisons convert to Islam while incarcerated.

This statistic is no longer limited to African-Americans in prison. The Huffington Post reported an estimated 35,000 – 40,000 inmates convert to Islam each year, and that 15 percent of the total U.S. prison population or 350,000 inmates are Muslim.

This is more than 18 times the national representation of Muslims in America, reported to be 0.8 percent. Prisons are churning out converts to Islam who are taught they are righteously entitled to control the religion, speech, and dress of family, co-workers and strangers.

The key to conversion success is clear. Our government has been contracting and paying Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as GSISS (The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) to screen and assign Muslim prison chaplains for at least 8 years.

While Egypt and Saudi Arabia have banned the Muslim Brotherhood, classifying it as a terror group, the White House, U.S. prisons, and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security continue to work with Muslim Brotherhood groups.

For example, Paul Pitts served 14 years in prison for murder, where he converted to Islam and became Imam Abdu-Shahid. He was paroled in 2001 and hired as a prison chaplain in 2007 with an annual salary of $49,471. In Feb 2010, he was caught trying to bring scissors and razor blades into the Manhattan Detention Complex.

A New York City corrections department source told the New York Post: “It’s a disgrace that taxpayers are funding Muslim chaplains who not only have criminal records, but also are promoting violence.”

Abdu-Shahid’s boss – head chaplain Umar Abdul-Jalil – was hired at an annual salary of $76, 602 even though he served 14 years for dealing drugs. In 2006, he was suspended for two weeks without pay after declaring that “the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House.” He continues to oversee 40 prison chaplains.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Wallace Gene Marks converted under Imam Umar while in prison for weapon possession. He was hired as a one of the first paid Muslim chaplains in 1975 and has hired nearly 45 chaplains. Imam Umar says that prison “is the perfect recruitment and training grounds for radicalism and the Islamic religion” and that 9/11 hijackers should be honored as martyrs. “Funded by the Saudi government he traveled often to Saudi Arabia and brought that country’s harsh form of Islam to New York’s expanding ranks of Muslim prisoners.”

Next Page

Joy Brighton, Author, Sharia-ism is Here

See All Articles

Subscribe to RSS

Bio

Joy Brighton is a longtime champion of women’s rights. Notably, in 1998, Joy partnered with a major international charity to create one of the earliest micro-finance programs for women in Africa, and the first financial literacy course for women in Mozambique. Concerned about the abuse of women in America, sanctioned in the name of religion, culture or sharia, Joy published her first book: Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle for Control of Women; and Everyone Else.

Joy Brighton is a also a former Wall Street trader who today is part of an international team of experts concerned about the non-transparent risks of the Sharia Finance market, and threat to global free capital markets.

A graduate of a top business school, Joy was a fixed-income salesperson/trader for a bulge bracket investment firm, and an adjunct Professor of Securities and Investments at various colleges. Later, with a Masters in Psychological Counseling, Joy worked as an executive coach catering to investment professionals. Joy speaks with legal, policy, grass roots, and legislative leaders who are concerned about the challenge of Sharia-ism, the political movement of Radical Islam to: America’s national security, civil and women’s rights, First Amendment freedoms, sovereignty of U.S. Law and free capital financial markets.

Continued on Next Page >>

Rev. Jesse Jackson Calls American Muslims “The New America,” Exhorts Them To Fight Back

By Joseph R. Carducci, October 21, 2013.

You do understand that the extreme left wing of the Democratic party actually hates America, don’t you? The use every opportunity they can get to speak out against the supposed evils that America has committed and call for the so-called ‘oppressed’ enemies of these actions to fight back and reclaim their own rights. This is exactly why it is not surprising to many of my long-time readers when they hear that the very reverend Jesse Jackson has actually told a group of Arab Americans that they are ‘the New America,’ and must fight against the system.

You see, folks, Jackson is just your typical appeaser. He is pandering to this demographic simply in the hopes of getting their votes and earning their trust and support. This is just like how Wisnton Churchill famously remarked that appeasers feed “a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

The occasion for these interesting remarks by Reverend Jackson came as he appeared before the Arab American Civil Rights League (AACRL). Of course, he told them how much he sympathizes with their cause and also said that they were being shamefully discriminated against and must stand up and fight for their rights. Apparently, some of their members have been placed on no-fly lists and have even had their bank accounts closed. The group also filed a lawsuit earlier this year to try and stop these indignities. Oh, the horror!

All of these laws like the no-fly lists and the ability of the government to close the bank accounts of possible terrorist supporters and sympathizers are the direct result of Muslim terrorists. They are intended to stop people from hijacking planes and funneling money to Arab terror groups. But, as of yet, there is absolutely no evidence that the AACRL has protested a single act of Muslim terror. Not one. They have not said a word against the horrific attack at the Nairobi shopping mall in Kenya. They have not spoken out against the attacks on churches in Egypt or the church bombings in Peshwar.

Nope. Instead their response to worldwide acts of Muslim and Arab terrorism is to act like whiny children and claim that law-abiding Muslims are unfairly being targeted here in America. Yet, they have never done anything to reassure the confidence of anyone that they do not support these acts of cruelty, brutality, and terrorism. If they were to speak out, it just might help their cause. It might work to allay American fears that some (or many) in their group actually support these activities.

Also, as a supposedly committed Christian, one would think that Rev. Jackson would be against bombings of Christian churches around the world. Yet, instead he actively panders to the Muslim community…and has done so since his presidential bids in the early 1980′s. He fuels their sense of victimhood of these groups, attempting to instill in them his own hatred of the American system. You see, it is obvious that the Rev. Jackson feels strongly America is a fundamentally evil country that must at the very least be controlled and constrained, perhaps even destroyed and rebuilt.

So, it really does not come as any surprise when JJ tells these people to “Love yourself. Stand up and fight back.” Or when he tells them that “You are God’s people.” How interesting. Maybe this is also where Obama gets his hatred of the American system. Perhaps this is also why Obama continues ignoring the worldwide war against Christianity.

So, what do YOU think? Should we do away with no-fly lists and bank account closure of possible terrorist supporters? What do you think about Jackson’s comments? Are American Muslims ‘God’s people’ as he says?

Muslim College Professor: US Military Worse Than ISIS

By Robert Gehl, November 3, 2014.

A professor is claiming the U.S. Military is a greater threat to the world than the Islamic State and that American men and women in uniform commit crimes equal to – or worse – than ISIS fanatics.

University of Arizona instructor Musa al-Gharbi – who is (shocker) a Muslim – has written an article in the left-wing TruthOut website that has generated outrage and controversy for claiming the United States doesn’t have the moral authority to even criticize Islamic extremists.

“It would not be a stretch to say that the United States is actually a greater threat to peace and stability in the region than ISIS—not least because U.S. policies in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have largely paved the way for ISIS’s emergence as a major regional actor,” al-Gharbi wrote.

It’s difficult to dissect how incredibly stupid the article is. He quotes statistics that are meaningless, overblown or just plain wrong – like claiming 20 percent of women will be victims of rape. This has been debunked long ago.

He claims that our soldiers use rape as a “weapon of war” and use the weapons with the same cruelty as ISIS.

“The initial driver of U.S. involvement was the outrage over ISIS’ capture of thousands of Yazidi women and the sexual violence subsequently exercised against them—horrors which provided moral credence to the war against ISIS in much the same way that the 2001 U.S. war against the Taliban was justified in part by highlighting the plight of Afghan women living under their rule,” he wrote.

He also claims the U.S. Military is “heavily influenced by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other hate groups, but provides zero factual evidence of a rash of racial attacks to back up his claim.

Clearly, this is all hogwash and deserves to be tossed in the “circular file.” But remember: Mr. al Gharbi and his friends are who’s teaching our children in college now. What else our our college kids being indoctrinated with?

National Security

The JV Team Takes on ISIL

The results of having no strategy are becoming painfully apparent.

Former Member: Oklahoma Mosque Taught Radical Islam

By Greg Richter

Wednesday, 01 Oct 2014 10:43 PM

·0

A former member of an Oklahoma mosque attended by the suspect in a recent beheading said members and leaders taught radicalism but hid it from the media.

On Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s "The Kelly File," the man appeared in silhouette, using the name Noor.

Noor said he attended the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City for about two years to learn about Islam.

"To the public, the mosque will not promote terrorism or any kind of radical acts," he said. "But when they’re among friends and congregants only, they will promote the true teachings of Islam, which include the offer to non-Muslims – the choice, rather – that you must convert, live under Islamic rule, or be fought against."

He said he was told that Muslims support Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel because they are the only weapons the Palestinians have. He said he was warned, "Do not mention this to the media because they would not understand."

He said two friends told him they would welcome Osama bin Laden into their homes if he arrived at their door.

On one occasion, he was invited to go shooting. Two targets were identified as former President George W. Bush and former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

He said he finally left because he thought the mosque was too radical. He said his last visit was in 2011, at the request of law enforcement.

Alton Nolen, 30, is charged with killing his co-worker Colleen Hufford, 54, by cutting off her head at the food processing plant where they worked. Witnesses said he was shouting Arabic phrases during the attack.

Related Stories:

· Suspect in Okla. Beheading Had Ties to Radical Islam

· Radical Imam: Terrorism Is ‘Part of Islam’
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Index Finds 61 Percent Jump in Terror Attacks in One Year

Tuesday, 18 Nov 2014 09:09 PM By Cathy Burke

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

The number of terrorist attacks around the world skyrocketed 61 percent from 2012 to 2013, a startling new report shows.

The Global Terrorism Index, released Tuesday by the Institute for Economics and Peace, ranks 162 countries based on the impact of terrorist activities as well as an analysis of economic and social factors.

The latest report finds that 17,958 people were killed in terror attacks last year, a rise of 61 percent from the previous year, with 82 percent of the deaths occurring in five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria.

Combined, they accounted for nearly 15,000 fatalities, a summary of the report shows.

Among them, Iraq holds the top spot with about 2,492 terrorist attacks in 2013 that killed 6,362 people, the report says.

The report also identifies the four groups responsible for the deadly destruction
as the Taliban, Boko Haram, the Islamic State (ISIS), and al-Qaida. Their "key commonality," the report says, is that they all represent radical variants of Islam.

The primary method of choice in the terror strikes was explosives, the report finds, but since 2000 just 5 percent of deadly terror strikes have been suicide attacks.

The 2014 report does not include the recent insurgence of ISIS militants.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/terrorism-index-ranks-countries/2014/11/18/id/608209/#ixzz3KYXb4PZS
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByYrS5aIYAQLmUJ.jpg:large

U.A.E.’s first female fighter pilot dropped bombs on the Islamic State

By Ishaan Tharoor September 25

http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2014-09-25/Getty/Nic6373072.jpg

A picture dated June 18 and made available by UAE’s official news agency WAM on Sept. 25 shows Maj. Mariam al-Mansouri, the first female pilot to join the Emirates Air Forces, walking alongside her comrades at an air force base. (HO/WAM via AFP)

Maj. Mariam al-Mansouri, the first female fighter pilot in the history of the United Arab Emirates, led the the Gulf state’s bombing raids over Syria this week. Photos of al-Mansouri, beaming from her cockpit, that were released by the country’s state news agency have taken social media by storm.

The 35-year-old squadron commander was likely part of sorties that dropped bombs on Islamic State positions in Syria’s Idlib, Aleppo and Raqqa provinces. Some reports suggest that she even spearheaded her country’s mission, which complemented the parallel efforts of four other Arab states backing the U.S.: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar.

According to a profile in the National, the Abu Dhabi-born al-Mansouri harbored an ambition to join the air force since her teenage years, but had to bide her time until women were permitted to enlist. She graduated Khalifa bin Zayed Air College in 2007 and is now a veteran F-16 pilot.

In earlier interviews, al-Mansouri has insisted that she received no special treatment because of her gender. "Everyone is required to have the same high level of combat competence," she told Deraa Al Watan, a U.A.E. magazine.

It’s not clear how vital her and her compatriots’ efforts were in the air campaign against the Islamic State, which is entrenched over a vast swath of territory in Syria and Iraq. More important was the sheer fact of her presence. "While Arab participation in the strikes is of more symbolic than military value," writes the Wall Street Journal’s Ahmed Al Omran, "analysts described it as a bold move for a group of countries that for long preferred to act via proxies instead of any direct involvement."

The symbolism of a female fighter pilot bringing the heat to the women-enslaving Islamic State ought be lost on no one and is useful propaganda for the Emiratis. To that end, Saudi Arabia also released pictures of its pilots who took part in airstrikes, including Prince Khaled bin Salman, the son of the kingdom’s crown prince. Long blamed for their listlessness and inaction, the kingdoms of the Gulf may try to change their image in the ongoing campaign.

In terms of gender equality, the U.A.E. stands in relative contrast to Saudi Arabia, where women are not permitted to drive cars, don’t have voting rights (more enlightened rules come into effect in 2015), and cope with a whole regime of draconian, religious laws that circumscribe all aspects of their lives. On the same day al-Mansouri won plaudits for her role in the airstrikes, debate broke out in Saudi Arabia over the propriety of a woman — clad head to toe in conservative garb — who was filmed riding a horse while waving a Saudi flag.

The U.A.E. is no paragon of women’s rights either. Female migrant workers in the country face harrowing conditions and abuse, while Emirati laws still don’t provide legal recourse for marital rape. Men also have license to discipline their wives and children through physical violence. And extramarital sex can land you in legal trouble. In one notorious case last year, a Norwegian woman received a 16-month prison sentence after she reported being raped to the police, who did not believe her claim that the act was non-consensual. The international outcry that followed eventually led to a pardon, but it underlined how much more progress the U.A.E. still has to make, despite al-Mansouri’s bravery and skill.

Ishaan Tharoor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. He previously was a senior editor at TIME, based first in Hong Kong and later in New York.

America will perish without a vision to defeat ISIS

By Tony Perkins President

Advertisements

New Axil of Evil / Iran, Russia, China / Communism-Marxism-Islam / Middle East Abyss / ISIS Crisis / War on Christians / Islamism and Islamofascism / Influencing ferguson, Amnesty, more…

The New Axis of Evil Waging Unconventional Warfare

November 26, 2014 5:07 pm EST

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton NoisyRoom.net For years, we have warned about the solidifying new Axis of Evil between Russia, China and Iran. It is now fully formed and growing in strength. Already Russia and China’s militaries have grown arguably more powerful than ours if you consider their nuclear arsenals and Obama’s rigorous gutting of our military […]

The Movers and Shakers Behind the Ferguson Riots

November 30, 2014 8:25 pm EST

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton NoisyRoom.net

The Ferguson riots are not what they seem and those behind them are professionals. One of the top organizers of the protesters for the Ferguson riots is Lisa Fithian, someone who was intimately involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. She has been deemed “Professor Occupy.” In 2005 and 2008, Lisa Fithian, Root Activist Network of Trainers, (2005), Alliance for Community Trainers Inc. (2008), was voted onto the Steering Committee for United for Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice is a partner organization of the George Soros linked Institute for Policy Studies. Several Marxist organizations are involved in the UFPJ leadership, but the most influential has been the Communist Party USA.

Lisa Fithian joined the labor movement through the AFL-CIO Organizing Institute in 1993. She is considered a legendary organizer. She also served as a human shield in actions conducted by the International Solidarity Movement in the Palestinian cities of Jenin and Nablus and has accused Israel of “slaughter[ing] Palestinians every single day in Gaza and the Occupied territories.” These are just a few of her credits.

Fithian is known for her statement: “create crisis, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.” Sound familiar? It should, it is straight out of Holder’s and Obama’s playbook, as well as Marxism in general. Fithian was a lead organizer in the infamous 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization that devolved into violence. She is known for teaching violent tactics as well as community organizing. She specializes in aggressive “direct action” tactics. Fithian previously provided training and support for the controversial ACORN group, National People’s Action, the new version of the Students for a Democratic Society and other radical organizations. She trained somewhere around 600 protesters for Ferguson.

The following video shows anti-capitalist radical Lisa Fithian training Chicago union teachers on how to stage their arrests for the camera in 2011:

Fithian is far from alone in her Revolution organizing. She is joined by the likes of Code Pink, RevCom, the New Black Panthers, Socialist Party USA, etc. The ACLU has been in the mix from the beginning as well, along with SEIU. The UN also became involved, along with national LGBT organizations, climate environmentalists, amnesty groups, pro-Palestinian organizations, Christian social justice groups and Planned Parenthood.

LGBT organizations represented include the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, National Center for Lesbian Rights Action Fund and PFLAG National.

Amnesty International sent a “13-person human rights delegation” to the town to “examine” potential human rights abuses, in what they refer to as an “unprecedented” move by deploying in the United States. Many other groups joined in, such as Tauheed Youth Development Life, the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS), the Moorish Science Temple, the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression and the Universal African Peoples Organization (UAPO). No radical party would ever be complete without the Socialist Workers Party as well.

Pro-Palestinian groups included: St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, Organization for Black Struggle, U.S. Palestinian Community Network, Muslims for Ferguson, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Council on American Islamic Relations St. Louis, Palestinian BDS National Committee, National Students for Justice in Palestine, Palestinian Youth Movement, American Muslims for Palestine and African Americans for Justice in the Middle East and North Africa.

In reality, there was a great presence at the riots by those such as the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panthers, CAIR and a whole host of Jihadists and their supporters including ISIS. Walid Shoebat is correct when he states that radical Islamists want to weaken and demilitarize the police. They are promoting Jihad in our streets and Ferguson is the perfect environment for their message. Even Iran’s Ayatollah got into the act.

From Walid Shoebat via Fox News:

Muslim groups have stepped up efforts to co-opt protests over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., with a drive to equate the teen’s death to the death of a radical Islamist shot during an FBI raid in 2009, a Washington-based security watchdog group is warning.

Using social media, conference calling and traditional outreach methods, leaders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are portraying Brown and Detroit mosque leader Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah as African-American victims of police targeting, according to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy (CSP). In a conference call organized by CAIR-linked “Muslims for Ferguson, a CAIR official called Abdullah a “Shaheed,” or martyr, and said both he and Brown were victims of a national security apparatus that had “completely gone wild” and engaged in “demonizing and criminalizing Muslims.”

“The reality is that this country, in law enforcement, be it local, state or federal law enforcement, people with guns have always seen black men and black people as threats,” Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR’s Michigan Chapter, told the some 100 protest organizers on the call, made on the five-year anniversary of Abdullah’s death and which was monitored by CSP.

Walid claimed Brown was a Muslim, although when pressed, Walid denied he had made such a claim. Brown was buried in August after a memorial service at the Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis.

Also from Shoebat, he states that another Muslim activist behind the Ferguson chaos wrote that Muslims, including CAIR have been involved since the beginning of this controversy:

From day one, Muslims have been on the ground in Ferguson. The Facebook group Muslims for Ferguson and other efforts were just later manifestations of what was already happening. Muslims were in Ferguson first and foremost because we live in the community like everyone else and are concerned about its well-being.

Along with Brothers Anthony Merrill and Naji Fakhrid-deen Adams, I was on the ground in Ferguson on the first night. I grew up in the area and have been talking about issues of violence and policing and surrounding economic issues for years.

For me, it was a no-brainer to stand in solidarity with those protesting in the streets. Brother Anthony also grew up in the area and has been vocal on local issues for years. Brother Naji is a reformed East St. Louis gang leader and substance-abuse counselor who works in the community every day.

Talal Ahmad was also on the ground from day one. A native of the O’Fallon Park Neighborhood in North St. Louis living in Jennings Brother Talal is a local independent-journalist who emerged as a protest leader with the group Tribe X. Brother Talal was instrumental in the successful occupation and subsequent negotiations with St. Louis University.

Brother Anthony Shahid of the Tawheed Youth Group and Masjid Tawheed is a long time St. Louis activist and veteran of the African-American struggle for justice. Brother Shahid was on the ground from day one and played a pivotal-role as a peacekeeper.

Missouri State Senator Jamillah Nasheed and her aide Eric Vickers, both Muslim, have also been mainstays at the protests. Ministers Donald and Akbar Muhammad, members of the Fruit of Islam security, and the Final Call News and others components of the Nation of Islam have also been active on the ground as have members of the Moorish Science Temple.

Mustafa Abdullah of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri has not only been active on the ground he has taken local police to court over the “5 second rule” and other egregious abuses of civil-liberties. Faizan Syed, director of the St. Louis Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations along with community-activist and Hafiz Abdul-Basit Syed, have also been of assistance to activists starting at an early date.

Muhammad Sankari, a youth organizer with the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, argued that black and Latino minorities should look to Muslims as the “gatekeepers of policing” in the United States because anti-terrorism efforts had provided police with greater arsenals that, he claimed, were now being turned on those communities. He said “justice” could only be found “in the streets,” and not in “marble halls and marble buildings.” Muslims are looking to cause conflict to justify instituting Shariah Law state by state, city by city across the US.

And there were others of the communist variety at the riots. One of the protest leaders was Michael McPhearson. Just like Lisa Fithian, McPhearson has connections to CPUSA and United for Peace and Justice. McPhearson is the co-chair of the Don’t Shoot Coalition and addressed the crowd together with Julia Ho, a community organizer with Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.

Then we have Maria Chapelle-Nadal who was elected to the Senate to succeed fellow Democrat Rita Heard Days of St. Louis. Chapelle-Nadal has numerous ties to CPUSA. Communist Party USA affiliate, Julie Terbrock was a Legislative Assistant to Representative Maria Chappelle-Nadal. John L. Bowman, another CPUSA affiliate, ran her campaign to be elected as well. Chapelle-Nadal also attended the Missouri Communist Party USA’s Friends of the People’s World when they hosted their 18th annual ‘Hershel Walker Peace and Justice Awards Breakfast’ on Saturday, May 8th, 2010. You might recall Nadal as the one who said Missouri was now in a race war after the Grand Jury announcement came down.

You have the race hustlers Jesse Jackson and especially, Al Sharpton. Sharpton was a great instigator in all this, stirring up the family of Michael Brown and the protesters wherever he could. He also claims to be a personal adviser to Barack Obama.

Which brings us to Governor Nixon and Valerie Jarrett. Nixon loudly and publicly proclaimed that there was no government influence on the National Guard not showing up the first night of the riots as businesses burned and were looted, and police cars were rocked and set on fire. Nixon let the city burn as directed by Jarrett and the Obama Administration. It is acknowledged by the White House that Valerie Jarrett and Nixon were in close contact for the first 24 hours of the violent protests. It’s not hard to see who called the shots there.

Doug Ross has this to share on Jarrett:

And who is our crypto-president?

In 2008, The Boston Globe exposed Jarrett’s background as the failed chief executive of The Habitat Company, which managed government-subsidized housing complexes in Chicago from 2001 until 2006. Her leadership, if you can call it that, resulted in violations so egregious that many units were deemed “uninhabitable” and eventually the federal government was forced to seize the properties.

That year, Judicial Watch named Jarrett to its “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for her ties to the failed housing complexes and “other shady real estate scandals.”

Jarrett’s family background is equally troubling. Her father-in-law was a card-carrying Communist who worked with Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Jarrett’s grandfather Robert Taylor is reported to have served in a leadership role for the Soviet Union’s American front group during World War II, when Stalin was still allied with the Third Reich. Taylor’s “American Peace Mobilization” was a Soviet initiative designed to keep America out of the war so that Hitler and Stalin could divvy up Europe and Asia virtually unopposed.

So, in short, the first female President is a hard-core Leftist with an abysmal track record for decision-making, a horrifically failed tenure as a chief executive, a stunning inability to learn and a steely refusal to take responsibilities for her many failures.

But she’s the president and you’re not.

Which explains why Jarrett — against all historic precedent — was given a Secret Service detail for protection.

Iranian born Valerie Jarrett is more of a President than Obama is and she is an enemy within through and through. Digging all the way down to who is behind the Fergusion riots, you find a cadre of communists, radicals, Islamists, Progressives and in the end, the face behind the chaos is the Muslim Brotherhood-connected visage of the President’s consigliere the voice of Iran and a devout Marxist, Valerie Jarrett.

PRESIDENT JARRETT: “Senior Adviser” Reportedly Calling All the Shots, Including Those In Ferguson

November 29, 2014 4:29 pm EST

By: Doug Ross Doug Ross @ Journal

For those who are wondering how Barack Obama — a man seemingly engaged in full-time campaigning, fundraising and rabble-rousing — could also have the bandwidth to weaken America both at home and abroad, the answer is really quite simple.

The leader of the free world is actually a woman named Valerie Jarrett, a longtime crony of Barack and Michelle Obama, who appears to call all of the shots in the Oval Office.

In the White House, Jarrett has been linked to a wide variety of scandals and other policy debacles.

There are credible reports that Jarrett blocked the attack on Osama Bin Laden’s compound on three separate occasions.

Similar reports indicate that she gave the “stand down” order to would-be rescuers in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.

In 2012, she was reported to have led Obama’s “secret negotiations” with Iran’s Mullahs. Subsequent accounts depicted Jarrett as working with Iran’s nuclear experts to ensure the Islamic Republic could continue on its march to build nuclear weapons.

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Strassel summarized the ramifications of Jarrett’s litany of policy failures in stark terms: everyone but her is expendable.

Among those thrown under Jarrett’s bus: Christina Romer, Jim Jones, Bill Daley, Leon Panetta, Kathleen Sebelius, Rahm Emanuel, Austan Goolsbee, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Vivek Kundra, Eric Shinseki, Keith Alexander, James Clapper and, most recently, Chuck Hagel. Hagel’s ostensible replacement, Michèle Flournoy, turned down the opportunity because she didn’t “want to be a doormat.”

As Strassel asks:

Who would want to work for a boss whose experiments in big government all but guarantee their reputation will be ruined in the aftermath of a bureaucratic collapse? … And who wants to work for a boss who doesn’t have your back? … Is it possible to have any other experience working for Mr. Obama—a boss who doesn’t listen, views everything politically, always thinks he’s right, and whose policies are a recipe for a lost reputation?

Which brings us at last to the Democrats’ latest haven for race-baiting, Ferguson.

Jarrett was in contact with Missouri’s Governor Nixon in the run-up to the announcement of the Grand Jury’s decision.

While Nixon denied the administration pressured him to resist activating the National Guard to put down the violent protests, the White House has admitted that Jarrett was in close contact with the governor during the first 24 hours of violent protests.

Nixon came under heavy criticism for failing to deploy the National Guard to quash the protests, which resulted in massive property damage. It now would seem that Jarrett had a hand in that decision as well.

And who is our crypto-president?

In 2008, The Boston Globe exposed Jarrett’s background as the failed chief executive of The Habitat Company, which managed government-subsidized housing complexes in Chicago from 2001 until 2006. Her leadership, if you can call it that, resulted in violations so egregious that many units were deemed “uninhabitable” and eventually the federal government was forced to seize the properties.

That year, Judicial Watch named Jarrett to its “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for her ties to the failed housing complexes and “other shady real estate scandals.”

Jarrett’s family background is equally troubling. Her father-in-law was a card-carrying Communist who worked with Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Jarrett’s grandfather Robert Taylor is reported to have served in a leadership role for the Soviet Union’s American front group during World War II, when Stalin was still allied with the Third Reich. Taylor’s “American Peace Mobilization” was a Soviet initiative designed to keep America out of the war so that Hitler and Stalin could divvy up Europe and Asia virtually unopposed.

So, in short, the first female President is a hard-core Leftist with an abysmal track record for decision-making, a horrifically failed tenure as a chief executive, a stunning inability to learn and a steely refusal to take responsibilities for her many failures.

But she’s the president and you’re not.

Which explains why Jarrett — against all historic precedent — was given a Secret Service detail for protection.

Related: The Illustrated Valerie Jarrett Primer and What Barack Obama Hid From His Readers.

The Illustrated Valerie Jarrett Primer

Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett is in the news this week with word that she, along with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, were subpoenaed in the corruption trial of ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Blago, as he’s fondly known in the world of D-list celebrities, is alleged to have put the vacant Obama Senate seat up for sale. But who is Ms. Jarrett? The few legacy media profiles that exist are short on details and long on bluster.

Certainly she is a long-time friend of and fundraiser for Barack Obama. But her ties to failed and fraudulent real estate deals in Chicago are of the most concern, especially given the recent allegations of illegal deal-making surrounding Senate candidates Sestak and Romanoff.

Certainly she is a long-time friend of and fundraiser for Barack Obama. But her ties to failed and fraudulent real estate deals in Chicago are of the most concern, especially given the recent allegations of illegal deal-making surrounding Senate candidates Sestak and Romanoff.

In 2008 The Boston Globe reported on the stunning failures of Jarrett’s companies. "Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this [past] winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems."

Problems including the fact that many of the approximately one thousand housing units were "uninhabitable" and were condemned by federal authorities. Grove Parc Plaza, one of the largest residential housing complexes in Barack Obama’s state senatorial district, has been at the center of a variety of scandals.

A few months after the Globe’s report, a non-partisan watchdog group — Judicial Watch — announced that it had secured documents linking Jarrett to a variety of real estate scandals including failed housing developments operated by Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko.

"Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis. (Davis is also Obama’s former boss.)…


… Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis.


…(According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems — including squalid living conditions…lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.")


…As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama’s former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage…
"

All were subsidized by the taxpayers, mind you, and aided and abetted by the likes of Jarrett and Obama. The Boston Globe explained the troubling quid pro quo between Jarrett, Rezko and Obama:

"Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this [past] winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems…


Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama’s US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama’s former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments…


Antoin “Tony” Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama’s early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko’s company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama’s district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable…

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers – including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko – collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama’s own accounting. (This number now exceeds $500,000)…


One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations…


…Obama [rewarded his backers with] legislative action as a state senator. In 2001, Obama sponsored a successful bill that increased state subsidies for private developers. The law let developers designated by the state raise up to $26 million a year by selling tax credits to Illinois residents. For each $1 in credits purchased, the buyer was allowed to decrease his taxable income by 50 cents…


The developers gave Obama their financial support. Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko all served on Obama’s campaign finance committee when he won a seat in the US Senate in 2004…

These are the kinds of heartwarming success stories that Obama and Jarrrett left in their wake in Chicago. Just after the election of 2008, I wrote of the pair, "I shudder to think what they could do to the entire country. And I sincerely hope I’m wrong."

Official ACORN employment app

Six degrees of Barack Obama

Is Obama Deliberately Using the “ISIS Crisis” to Forge an Alliance With Iran?

November 24, 2014 1:59 am EST | 3 Comments

The world communist press has been pushing an American/Iranian “rapprochement” for some time now. Navid Shomali, secretary of Iran’s communist Tudeh Party’s international department, recently wrote: The Tudeh Party of Iran supports any lowering of tension between the U.S. and Iran. It has called for years for all disputes to be resolved by negotiation in accordance with international law. […]

Communist Party USA Praises Obama for Violating the Constitution on Amnesty

November 22, 2014 9:43 am EST | 2 Comments

By: Sara Noble Independent Sentinel Communists marching. They must destroy the Republican party to succeed. The Communist Party USA, in their Peoples’ World magazine, praised Barack Obama’s decision to violate the law and bastardize even a valued legal tactic called “prosecutorial discretion.” They say he is bringing millions out of the shadows. Their article by […]

‘Unconventional Warfare’: Moscow Propaganda Uses ‘Ferguson’ to Demonize United States

November 26, 2014 7:32 pm EST | One Comment

Here’s an example of Russia’s unconventional warfare against the US. Kremlin propaganda station RT (Russia Today) uses “Ferguson” and gives us thirty minutes of almost unrelenting (and occasionally subtle) America bashing including even an interview with Hamas loving radical Bassem Masri. Please take your blood pressure pills first.

Weekly Featured Profile Communist Stephen L. Paulmier

November 24, 2014 9:12 am EST

KeyWiki Stephen L. Paulmier is Editor of the Hawaiian cultural magazine; The Hammer, active in the Hawaiian Friends of the Soviet People and Editor, of Ideological Fightback magazine, the journal of the Stalinist Communist Party USA spinoff National Council of Communists, USA. He is originally from from Germantown, Pennsylvania and studied art at Springfield College. […]

Stephen L. Paulmier is Editor of the Hawaiian cultural magazine; The Hammer, active in the Hawaiian Friends of the Soviet People and Editor, of Ideological Fightback magazine, the journal of the Stalinist Communist Party USA spinoff National Council of Communists, USA.

He is originally from from Germantown, Pennsylvania and studied art at Springfield College.

In 2002, Stephen Paulmier was a printer, a member of the Graphics Communications International Union and a reader of the Communist Party’s People’s World in Philadelphia. He wrote an article in People’s World on taking his family to meet jailed “Cuban 5″ spy René Gonzalez at the Federal Correctional Institute McKean in Bradford, PA.

We had learned about the circumstances leading to his imprisonment last summer while we were participating in the Pastors for Peace caravan to end the blockade of Cuba. My sons and I had the honor of hearing Ricardo Alarcon, the president of the Cuban National Assembly, describe the events that led to the brutal and unjust arrest and imprisonment of the five anti-terrorists.

June 13, 2002: Oscar Redondo Toledo, an Intelligence Officer serving under diplomatic cover at the Cuban Interests Section, was the featured speaker at a meeting in Philadelphia. Other speakers that night were Pamela Martin of the Philadelphia-Cardenas Sister Cities Project and Stephen Paulmier of the “Free the Five” Committee. While posted to the Interests Section, Redondo handled the “Sister City” program between Havana and Mobile, Alabama.

In early November, 2002, the US declared Redondo and another Cuban spy-diplomat Persona Non Grata. Both officers were First Secretaries at the Cuban Interests Section. According to the Washington Post, the expulsion retaliated for the 16-year career of Cuban spy Ana Montes, who was sentenced in October of 2002.

After moving to Hawaii, Stephen Paulmier was active in the Democratic Party contributing to policy formation, from his position as Treasurer, Democratic Party Caucus 1st District, Precint 2.

As of May, 2014, Stephen L. Paulmier served on the Board of the U.S. Friends of the Soviet People, a network aiming to support communist parties in the former Soviet Bloc.

(more…)

GM: Made in China

November 29, 2014 11:17 pm EST | No Comment

From 2012, but very much worth watching.

General Motors is becoming China Motors. The evidence is clear and convincing. Did U.S. taxpayers save GM for China? Listen to the candid comments of GM’s CEO.

Thanks to Bill.

Dialectics: Laughing at the Contradictions of Socialism in America

There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn’t work in translation — not so much because of the language differences,

Read more: americasurvival.org http://americasurvival.org/#ixzz3KcRrXE8e
Follow us: @americasurvival on Twitter | usasurvival on Facebook

Living Under Marxism is a Joke

November 28, 2014 9:48 am EST | No Comment

From: Cliff Kincaid at America’s Survival This edition of America’s Survival TV features Oleg Atbashian of the People’s Cube. He’s a serious observer of global affairs as well as one of the funniest guys on the conservative side. Years ago he fled Ukraine for America, to escape Marxism, and now lives under Marxism here. Please […]

American Freedom Alliance presents

The November Cinema Gateway

EUROPE’S LAST STAND: AMERICA’S FINAL WARNING

Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 7.30 pm
Santa Monica Screening Room 1526 14th Street, Santa Monica

Europe’s Last Stand is a shocking and graphic documentary by an American film company that examines the Islamic invasion of Western Europe and its threat to European democracy, freedoms, culture and history.

Click for Details

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Allahu Akbar

November 30, 2014 By Monica Morrill

The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is immovable, guarded by four Islamic minarets as a Christian architectural prisoner. It was originally the Santa Sophia[1] built as a Christian Orthodox Church to honor the Wisdom of God in 537, nearly a century before Islam was founded. 916 years later the Santa Sophia was seized by the Ottoman Turk leader Sultan Mehmed II, and converted into a mosque in 1453 for 478 years until 1931. All jeweled Christian imagery was covered while it housed Muslims[2] worshipping Allah, their god. By 1935 it was turned into a museum the sparkling iconographic images of Christ the Son of God reemerged. Many are now petitioning Turkish President Erdogan to remove its status as a museum and return the Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Similarly, the Washington National Cathedral joined the Hagia Sophia as a Christian hostage of grand architecture, a fortnight ago. Muslims invaded the Washington National Cathedral, a monument to Christianity, this time under the guise of “prayer” on November 14, 2014. The Muslim prayer was being planned in the Cathedral for 12 to 18 months.[3] Whether the Dean of the Washington National Cathedral, Reverend Gary Hall of the Episcopal Church,[4] knew it or not he was actually hosting the precise 100th anniversary of the declaration of Holy War by the Ottoman Empire as the Muslim Caliphate, which occurred on November 14, 1914. It was a bold declaration of Holy War by the Ottomans against the most powerful Christian nations of that time.

It is crucial to highlight history and specific dates, which are significant by the Ottoman tradition of Holy War. The 100th anniversary marked a deliberately disrespectful act by Mohammedan followers to the God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses Jehovah God. Much to the chagrin of the interfaith leaders, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. Muslims view the God of Moses as inferior to the god of Mohammed.

Deliberate Denigration of the US Military and Christianity

As a further example of this assault by Muslims, one of the standard prayers of the Muslims was given at the ramp ceremony at the American Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for the victims of the crash on Extortion 17 on August 7, 2011, which is highlighted in the book BETRAYED by Billy Vaughn.[5] Thirty dead American warriors were insulted and damned to hell by an imam, as they lay lifeless in their coffins. Some of the caskets were even draped with the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan flag, as the charred figures had not yet been individually identified, distinguishing the American from the Afghan men.

Part of the prayer by the imam during this ramp ceremony proceeded as follows, “…In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver, the companions of the fire [refers to infidels, those who are unbelievers] are not equal with the companions of heaven [refers to Muslims]. The companions of heaven [Muslims] are the winners. Had we sent this Koran to a mountain you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah…”

The “mountain” refers to Mount Sinai and compares the Koran to the Ten Commandments Moses received from Yahweh or Jehovah, eluding that if the Koran were sent instead of the Ten Commandments the mountain itself would have bowed to the greater power of Allah rather than Jehovah. This is a subtle way for the Muslims to mock and insult the God of the Jews and Christians, yet this sort of mockery by the Muslims has been happening for centuries.

A Christian Woman Rises

Two weeks ago Muslims began pushing the boundaries to denigrate Christianity in America’s capital. However, unlike the event of 1914 when the Ottoman Empire declared a Holy War against the great powers of the day: Britain, France, Russia and so on, there was a lone woman 100 years later in America’s Washington National Cathedral who was not as silent as the mosaics in the Santa Sophia. Christine Weick stood, with her hair down, without a head covering, and made a declaration to honor her Christian faith,

“Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” she said. “We have built …allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.”

The Muslims weren’t expecting a reaction from anyone, and certainly not a woman, which is quite profound as the “woman” in the Bible symbolically represents God’s anointed ones as a bride to the Lamb of God (Revelation 19: 7, 8). This sole woman, Ms. Weick, scolded Muslims along with their leader in the Cathedral. She threw a spanner into the plans of “Holy War” in America. Not surprisingly, the prayers by the Muslims in the National Cathedral insulted both Jews and Christians just as it did when an imam was praying over the dead bodies of men from the U.S. Military in 2011.

When retelling her story Ms. Weick says that she let God direct her path to finally speak out the words that God wanted her to proclaim. One reaction to Ms. Weick’s stance was from another woman who knows well the trickery of Islam in Africa, particularly Sudan and South Sudan. She is Pastor Lynn Childers, the wife of Sam Childers. With the assistance of fellow Christians for the past 18 years, both have been saving thousands of Christian orphans from Muslims who are murdering African Christians and their families.

In an exclusive interview, Pastor Lynn remarked, “It was disappointing to know that we Christians had no men to stand up for our faith at that moment. It had to be a woman.” Ms. Weick has inspired people like Pastor Lynn who is now inviting people to join her at Shekinah Fellowship in Central City, Pennsylvania to organize groups to visit mosques nationwide and peacefully pray to the Almighty God in Jesus’ name for Muslims to be enlightened with the truth about Christ. The notion of interfaith worship is inconceivable to both women. For Christians, Jesus is God’s Son and God has anointed Jesus as Lord and King in heaven. This belief is anathema to the Muslims.

That women are standing up for the Christian faith would be a reason to rejoice for other Christians. In the Bible, it was Mary who was chosen to be the mother of Jesus the Messiah, it was Mary Magdalene and a group of other women who first learned that Jesus had been resurrected — Christian women have been abundantly blessed by God. Christian women in turn have blessed others, for example they played an imperative role in ending slavery in the United States, pioneered the way against women suffrage, and continue to do so today. Decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the aristocratic women of Rome were also among the first Romans to convert, leading eventually to the end of Roman persecution of Christians by Constantine the Great, and to his conversion as the first Christian Roman Emperor.

Unlike women in the Muslim faith, Christian women have been elevated to positions of leadership in both the public and private sphere from the founding of Christianity and even prior to that among the Israelites. Hence, the woman in Christianity is symbolically profound. Jesus Christ is the male figure of Christianity and his anointed ones are the female figure, married in spiritual unity as a husband and wife. Therefore to defile the Christian “woman” of Christ is a desecration against the Father and the Son.

The Roots of Christianity

Which brings us back to Istanbul, formerly known as Constantinople named after the converted Christian Roman Emperor, and the history of the Santa Sophia. There is nothing the Muslims can do to evade the dominant founding history and the lasting legacy of Christianity. Centuries of defiling the Christian community, the symbolic woman, can no longer continue without resistance. When Ms. Weick stood up in the National Cathedral she represented and reinvigorated the Christian community. The Christian woman could no longer be disgraced.

Since the Holy War was declared in 1914, the Ottoman Empire is no more. A modern Turkey rose in its place and became the first and only secular Muslim country in the world under its leader Ataturk, but even now the country is under constant turmoil, spiritually and politically. President Erdogan acknowledges that the national borders drawn after World War I still plague Turkey, and many agree with him. However the solution President Erdogan and other Turks seek is more problematic. They believe that to achieve glory for their region, to regain what they see as their glorious Ottoman past, they must first reclaim and defile the Temple of God, whether it is in Istanbul or Washington, DC.

The prayers almost a fortnight ago by the Muslims in Washington, DC are in reality a desperate attempt by a failed ideological path to rewrite history. In fact, just hours after the prayer at the Washington National Cathedral, Hamad Chebli an Imam from the Islamic Center of Central Jersey was also praying on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Allah was worshipped and praised as supreme.

Observers are astounded at the lack of preparedness for Muslim manipulations by both alleged Christian leaders and political leaders in Washington, DC. Indeed, a Muslim imam was allowed to pray on the Congressional floor during the 100th anniversary of the Ottoman Empire’s declaration of a Holy War against Christian nations under the presence of America’s elected public servants. But the imam hurriedly prayed out of despair under the U.S. Congressional roof because the hour of glory will never come for Muslims amidst their willful lies and deceptions (taqiyya) against true Christians in America.

Others remain steadfast and righteous. Christine Weick, a servant of Jesus Christ, stood with the Wisdom of God like the Santa Sophia, and the Washington National Cathedral when they were first built, anchored with God. But it was the people, the custodians entrusted with the Cathedral and U.S. Congress who had vacillated and trembled toward the Mohammedan seductions. Jesus Christ as the figurehead of the Christian world continues to be rejected as the King of Kings and God’s Only Begotten Son by the Islamic world that is another unwavering truth, and always will be.

Monica Morrill is the co-author of the book BETRAYED: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s Father. The crash of Extortion 17 in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011 killed thirty American warriors and marked the largest loss of life in the history of Naval Special Warfare.

Liberal Columnist: We’re Coming For Your Guns And We’ll Take Them; Newtown Report: Mother, School ‘Appeased’ Lanza, it’s their fault, not 2A citizens!; Fools Push For Ban On Knives, knew that was coming.

Liberal Columnist: We’re Coming For Your Guns And We’ll Take Them

By Brian Anderson, November 25, 2014.

Gerald Ensley penned what is likely the most insane anti-gun rant ever written. In typical gun-hating fashion the article is ripe with misinterpretations of the Constitution, a lack of firearms knowledge, and a complete detachment from reality. What sets this one apart from the others is that the author, rather than calling for do-nothing “commonsense” gun control laws, wants to ban firearms completely. Every last one of them.

An article titled Stop the insanity: Ban guns gives a clue to the irrationality contained within. Ensley starts off listing some high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook and Gabby Giffords with this advice:

Take away guns and they don’t happen.

Just in case you are confused about what the author wants to happen, he lays it out in the simplest of terms:

I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks.

I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And he so delusional that he thinks this is something easily achievable:

You can prevent humans from having easy access to tools they can use to harm other people.

He doesn’t say how this can happen, but he clearly doesn’t know that guns aren’t the only things that can kill. Thousands of people are murdered every year by blunt objects, edged weapons, and hands and feet.

Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

In the meantime, the criminals who won’t follow the law will rob, rape, and murder those law-abiding citizens stupid enough to turn in their guns. Oh, and somehow the author’s fantasy plan will be the first successful prohibition and there will be no black market for handguns like there is for illegal drugs and everything else the government tries to ban.

Ensley reassures that we should disarm because self-defense is not a concern:

…the average American has only a one in 250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime.

If there’s a 1 in 250 chance that you’ll be assaulted or murdered, you’d be an idiot not to tool up. And again, if the good guys are all stripped of their firearms, the odds of being a victim go up exponentially.

The author initially called for a ban of all guns, but mid-stream changed his mind:

Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting.

I guess he forgot that both the Aurora movie theater shooter and the Navy Yard shooter used shotguns to carry out most or all of their killing sprees. I’m sure the victim’s families would disagree that shotguns are “ineffective tools” for mass shootings.

Other than “speaking up” and “marching forward” Ensley never really explains how he plans to get all of these firearms banned or how he thinks the government can confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns in private hands.

As crazy as this anti-gun rant is, the author saved the best for last with this bold threat:

One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.

Daily Caller News Foundation

Adam Lanza. Photo: Getty Images

Newtown Report: Mother, School ‘Appeased’ Lanza

10:07 PM 11/21/2014

Blake Neff, Contributor

4388812

Sandy Hook mass shooter Adam Lanza showed signs of severe mental illness throughout his life, but both his parents and educators repeatedly missed opportunities to address them, according to a new follow-up report published Friday by Connecticut’s Office of Child Advocate.

Lanza killed 20 children, six adults, and himself at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012, shortly after also murdering his mother at home. The shooting led to calls from President Obama and other Democrats for new gun control laws, in particular universal background checks for anybody seeking to buy a gun.

The shooting also led to demands for increased mental health resources in order to identify and assist afflicted individuals, after it became clear that Lanza was very mentally ill. Over the course of his life, the new report notes, Lanza was variously diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and anxiety disorder. By the time of his death, Lanza was also anorexic, packing just 112 pounds onto his bony six-foot frame. While none of these illnesses is known to have a direct correlation with violent outbursts, the report still faults Lanza’s parents and the school system at large for missing opportunities to spot Lanza’s deteriorating condition and potentially take action to help him.

At various points in his life, expert evaluations of Lanza identified his severe mental issues and recommended extensive special education and therapy. However, Lanza’s parents generally ignored these recommendations, and were enabled by the school system. Among other things, Lanza often resisted taking medication for his various diagnoses, an action that apparently was supported by his mother.

“The school system cared about [Adam Lanza]’s success but also unwittingly enabled Mrs. Lanza’s preference to accommodate and appease [him],” the report says. One major shortfall, the report says, was school officials’ approval of an educational plan that allowed Lanza to engage in independent study and graduate early from high school at age 17. This plan allowed for both Lanza and his parents to avoid any interaction with mental health professionals from 2008 onwards, even as evidence indicates that Lanza’s mental condition was in rapid decline.

The report suggests that Mrs. Lanza may not have fully appreciated the implications of Adam’s disorders and his need for ongoing treatment as an adult. While Mrs. Lanza noticed that her son was “despondent” and increasingly withdrawn from the world (he did not leave his room for three months prior to the massacre), she never sought further treatment for him and did nothing to prevent him from having access to firearms in the house.

The report also suggests that racial and class factors may have allowed Lanza’s mental illnesses to fly under the radar, as teachers were overly willing to accept Mrs. Lanza’s desire that her son be a “normal student.”

“Would a similar family from a different race or lower socio-economic status in the community have been given the same benefit of the doubt that [Lanza]‘s family was given? Is the community more reluctant to intervene and more likely to provide deference to the parental judgment and decision-making of white, affluent parents than those caregivers who are poor or minority?” the report asks.

While the report declines to blame any particular person or entity, going forward it suggests that schools, pediatricians, and other groups interacting with children should all assume some responsibility for assessing mental health, in order to avoid mental disorders from being repeatedly ignored as a problem for somebody else to deal with. It also recommends improving the system of mental health oversight, so that both children and adults with disorders can be routinely observed without waiting for “developmental failures” to occur such as homelessness, unemployment, or mass shootings.

Follow Blake on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing.

Britons Push For Ban On Pointy Knives

By Robert Gehl, November 23, 2014.

British doctors are calling for the ban of pointy knives.

It’s lunacy, but the public is beginning to rally around the confiscation and ban of sharp knives.

If all knives were ground down, it would reduce indiscriminate stabbings and makes Brits safer.

Researchers claim they asked ten chefs if pointed tips on knives were important – and since they said “no” – they should be banned.

Keep in mind, guns have already been banned in the U.K. and – shocker – violent crime is still rampant in the U.K. (in fact, it’s far higher than in the U.S.)

But that doesn’t matter – because the U.K. is all about sacrificing personal liberties for a false sense of safety and security.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

“The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

“We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.”

Here’s a rather long video of what knives are banned currently in the U.K.

In London, they’ve launched a new campaign called “Save a Life, Surrender your Knife,” where hundreds of people have turned in their knives to authorities ahead of a push to arrest and imprison people if they are caught carrying a knife – any knife – that may cause “offense” to anyone else.

When liberals talk about making the United States more like Europe, this insanity is precisely what they’re talking about.

Prominent Pastors Launch Movement: Vow ‘We Will No Longer Serve As Agents Of The State In Marriage’

Pastors Launch Movement: ‘We Will No Longer Serve As Agents Of The State In Marriage’

US | Tristyn Bloom

<img width="882" height="378" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pastors1.jpg&quot; class="attachment-full wp-post-image" alt="Pastors" /> Video

.

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

Prominent Protestant Pastors Vow To No Longer Perform Government Marriages

Two Protestant pastors, concerned about rapidly-changing government definitions of marriage, have started a movement encouraging priests and ministers to refuse to perform civil marriages. Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner, Episcopal and Anglican pastors respectively, launched “The Marriage Pledge” at the conservative religious journal First Things on Tuesday. It reads, “As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-­habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ­being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.”??

Daily Caller

Prominent Protestant Pastors Vow To No Longer Perform Government Marriages

1:36 PM 11/18/2014 Tristyn Bloom Contributor

4384398

Two Protestant pastors, concerned about rapidly-changing government definitions of marriage, have started a movement encouraging priests and ministers to refuse to perform civil marriages.

Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner, Episcopal and Anglican pastors respectively, launched “The Marriage Pledge” at the conservative religious journal First Things on Tuesday.

“As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness,” it reads. “This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-­habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ­being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.”

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

While the Anglican and Episcopalian communions do not have rites for a marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex, some parishes and dioceses will allow the performance of special services at the request of same-sex couples, who may or may not already be married in the eyes of the state.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Matthew Schmitz, First Things’ deputy editor. “I used to oppose calls to get government out of the marriage business, but times have changed. Many people see this and many more will. The signatories include some of the most clear-eyed and learned pastors who have refused to go along with the new orthodoxy on marriage. I expect more will follow their lead, if not today, tomorrow.”

First Things, an ecumenical journal whose contributors and staff are predominantly Catholic, has been one of the staunchest voices against gay marriage in recent years. Radner serves on its advisory council.

Just last spring it hosted a symposium on the relationship between religious marriage and the state, with Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and various Protestant scholars debating whether “churches, synagogues, and mosques [should] stop performing civil marriages?”

“The Christian Church should continue to oversee civil marriages,” Radner, a professor of historical theology at the Anglican Wycliffe College, argued at the time, “but only so long as she is free to choose which couples she will do this for, on the basis of her own understandings of marriage and of her witness. … My main reason for saying this is simple: Marriage — the lifelong union between a man and woman for the sake of mutual support and, God permitting, the bearing and raising of children — is a universal human estate, bound to God’s creative and redemptive will. Regardless of the civil state’s views on the matter, the Church is bound to further and nurture this estate, and if the state provides the means for the Church to do this, however partial or confused, all the better.”

Most of the scholars agreed with Radner, saying that while things looked dire, it wasn’t yet time for their faith communities to sever ties. Now, less than a year later, a growing number of faith leaders are acknowledging that while the state keeps using the word marriage, it doesn’t mean what it thinks it means.

Schmitz told The Daily Caller that the idea for the pledge came at a meeting of scholars and theologians after a speech made by Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput in October, during which he expressed sympathy for the desire to divorce church and state over liberalizing marriage definitions.

“A friend recently suggested that the Church should get out of the civil marriage business altogether,” Chaput said. “In a way, it makes sense. It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies spouse A and spouse B. … Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet. Or so the reasoning goes. I don’t necessarily agree with this approach. But in the spirit of candor encouraged by Pope Francis, I hope our nation’s bishops will see the need to discuss and consider it as a real course of action.”

Unlike the diversity of opinion sparked at the previous year’s meeting, Schmitz explained, “This time, the disagreement had mostly disappeared.”

Thus far Seitz and Radner have been joined by Peter Leithart, influential Presbyterian minister and president of the Theopolis Institute for Biblical, Liturgical, & Cultural Studies, as well as pastors and elders from a variety of other faith traditions, including Methodism, Lutheranism and a Baptist church.

“We’re grateful for the opportunity to sponsor this pledge,” said the journal’s top editor, R. R. Reno. “Now is a time for rending, not for the sake of disengaging from culture or retreating from the public square, but so that our salt does not lose its savor.”

L G B T I Q Q A A … The New Alphabet Soup Of “Alternative Sexuality”

By Robert Gehl, November 24, 2014.

I just wanted to take a moment to update you on the latest incarnation of the gay rights movement.

At least it used to be called the “gay rights” movement.

Some time ago, they decided that transsexuals were missing out, so they created a fun acronym.

It was “LGBT,” which stood for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.”

OK … now follow me.

Then, about four years ago, they decided an even more obscure demographic was being left out … so they added a few letters. Then it was “LGBTQIA.” The “Q” is for “Questioning,” the “I” is for “Intersex and “A” is for “Allies” or supporters of the cause.

What exactly is “Intersex?” Well, it’s someone who has “ambiguous outer genitalia” which the UN defines as a “congenital anomaly of the reproductive and sexual system.” About one percent of children born can be classified as “intersex,” but the “condition” resolves itself for the vast majority of people with the first few months.

But hold on to your hats, because we’re adding some more letters to this odd alphabet soup.

The acronym is now: LGBTIQQAA.

That’s right, two “Q’s” and two “A’s.”

The additional Q is for “Queer,” which I thought was sort of an all-encompassing term for this stuff … and the additional “A” is for people who consider themselves asexual.

So when you’re having a discussion with one of your liberal friends about tolerance and gay rights, make sure you have the proper acronym. It’s L G B T I Q Q A A.

Best write that down. You don’t want to leave anyone out.

(You know, if you mix up the letters, you can make up some interesting words.

How about LABIA GQQT?

compilation: Illegal immigration – Poll Shows Huge Opposition To Obama Amnesty; Grand Theft Obama The Biggest Heist in U.S. History; Republicans must fight delusional unlawful Obama; Impeachment question; Illegal votes cast; more…

Grand Theft Obama: The Biggest Heist in U.S. History

James Simpson — November 6, 2013

Excerpt (pertaining to illegal immigration)

  • Rather than provide healthcare, the Obamacare websiteis being used to boost low-income Democrat voter registration. Election integrity activists have called it “The biggest voter registration fraud scheme in history.” The Soros-funded Demos has bragged that Obamacare exchanges will register “68 million people to vote.”

· House Republicans Place Obama On Official Notice

· November 20, 2014 – 4:52 pm EST | 3 Comments

·

y

· By: JB Williams Right Side News House leaders have placed Obama on OFFICIAL NOTICE to stop the usurpation of Congress by violating the Constitution with illegal Executive amnesty. The North American Law Center (NALC), working in concert with numerous patriot groups across America, placed House Republicans on notice demanding that they use constitutional congressional power […]

Delusional Obama Declares Action Lawful, Not Amnesty; Republicans Promise Fight

By Joseph R. Carducci, November 21, 2014.

http://downtrend.com/jrc410/delusional-obama-declares-action-lawful-not-amnesty-republicans-promise-fight/

So, after months of talking about how he was going to act alone, going so far as to use his pen and phone, our feckless President Obama has laid out his plan for granting amnesty. Of course, Obama needed to justify this plan and try to fool at least some of the voters in this country. To that end, he declared his plan is NOT amnesty…and that it is perfectly legal.

Obama Does a 360, Declares Unilateral Action

This still flies directly in the face of six years of Obama insisting he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws without the consent of Congress. I suppose that he is still hearing that mandate from those non-voters; maybe they were the ones who told him to go ahead and act on this now.

Honestly, though, this is probably simply how the most arrogant President in history gets his revenge. He has been reportedly furious ever since the Democrats endured their tidal wave of defeat in the midterms earlier this month. This is how Obama strikes back; by picking a political fight. He doesn’t think that the Republicans have the political will to do anything about this new plan, or he thinks they don’t have enough tools or power to do so. Maybe he thinks they won’t actually block his nominees…or that such a political battle would go badly for the Republicans? Then again, maybe he just doesn’t even care?

Obama Claims Authority to Act Alone

So, if this new plan of Obama’s isn’t amnesty, then what exactly is it? He tried to justify this by claiming, “there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President…that will help make our immigration system more fair and just.” Perhaps, but certainly not by going behind the back of Congress; not that this is really anything new for Obama…he has never been much for working together with Congress.

Even when Congress was held by the Democrats for the first two years of his Presidency, Obama seemed not to care about doing any type of immigration reform deal. Undoubtedly, this was something he could have had. Even up until he started simply not enforcing immigration laws and allowing a huge and constant flow of illegals over our southern border, he probably could have been able to get some type of deal.

Plan Could Be Devastating For Economy

That deal, probably wouldn’t have looked like his new plan. This calls for the fast tracking of green cards in order to make illegals eligible for numerous government welfare and other handout programs. That’s just what our country needs right about now, as our national debt is about to blast through the $18 trillion mark. That would be bad enough, but Obama’s plan also calls for the issuance of five million new work permits for those illegals living inside the United States.

Hopefully, the new Republicans in Congress are ready to stand up to this challenge. Hopefully, they will also be able to find a few more reasonably minded Democrats (yes, I know this might be difficult) to go along with them. This is more than just bad policy, it is a direct challenge to the Constitution. Even Constitutional Law professors and other liberals don’t agree with Obama’s action.

If Obama gets away with this, he will have changed the make-up of executive power and authority for years to come. Future generations will refer to this ‘plan’ and how Congress and the voters react to it as a pivotal moment in history. It was at least encouraging last night to hear some of the Republican leadership making statements to fight this and take all legal actions to prevent it from happening.

What do YOU think? Will the Republicans mount a vigorous challenge? Will it be enough to stop the new amnesty plan from really being implemented?

Bobby Jindal: GOP Must Do Everything to Stop Obama’s Amnesty Plan

Sunday, 16 Nov 2014 10:20 AM

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

·0

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says Republicans should do everything within their power to stop President Barack Obama from taking executive action to grant amnesty to up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

When asked Sunday on "Meet the Press" whether that included shutting down the government, Jindal replied, "I don’t think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution."

Host Chuck Todd said that sounded like he would favor a standoff that could possibly shut down the government, but Jindal stuck to his assertion that it would be Obama shutting down the government if he and Republicans in Congress can’t reach an agreement.

Turning to Jindal’s own possible presidential aspirations in 2016, Todd noted that the governor suffers low approval numbers in his own state.

Jindal said he’s never been concerned with polls, and was elected to make "generational changes" in Louisiana.

He noted he has cut the state budget 26 percent, cut the number of state employees by 34 percent and overseen the growth of Louisiana’s private sector economy at double the rate of the national economy.

Jindal has said he won’t decide on a presidential run until next year, but that if he does it would be because "I believe in our country."

"The American Dream is at jeopardy," he said. "This president has defined the American Dream as more dependence on the government."

Related Stories
:

· Bobby Jindal: Obama Undermining the ‘American Dream’

· Oregon Immigration Vote Is a Warning for Obama

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/bobby-jindal-gop-amnesty-obama/2014/11/16/id/607626/#ixzz3JIQ1Mp5q
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Amnesty and Impeachment
Absent the credible threat of impeachment, Obama will pardon millions of illegal aliens.

November 8, 2014 4:00 AM By Andrew C. McCarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy

There is high anxiety over President Obama’s impending unilateral amnesty order for millions of illegal aliens. How many millions? The estimates vary. On the low end, 3 to 8 million, assuming some correlation to the potential beneficiaries of the president’s already existing amnesty decrees (including DACA or Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals). On the high end, as many as 9 to 34 million, factoring in likely categorical expansions of amnesty and their ramifications over the next several years.

The anxiety stems from a remorseless truth that no one — most especially Mr. Obama’s most ardent detractors — wants to confront. It is the truth I have addressed, to much groaning and teeth-gnashing, in Faithless Execution, my recent book on presidential lawlessness.

It is this: The nation overwhelmingly objects to Obama’s immigration lawlessness, but it has no stomach for the only effective counter to it — the plausible threat of impeachment.

To hear the demagogue-in-chief tell it, the controversy over how to deal with the approximately 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. is a Manichean debate between enlightened humanitarians and vulgar xenophobes. (To be fair to the president, he is far from alone in peddling this smear.) But objections to Obama’s reckless immigration policies — indeed, to his policies in general, as this week’s historic election reaffirmed — cut across party and philosophical lines.

To be sure, the most intense protest is heard in “restrictionist” circles and among those for whom rule-of-law and national-security concerns trump sympathy for the plight of legions of decent but unlawfully present non-citizens (some of whom were brought here as children and are blameless for their illegal status). There are also, however, many enthusiasts of immigration amnesty — the euphemism is legislative “reform” — who recognize that the president’s sweeping, dictatorial approach is angering the public. That damages not just the cause but the career prospects of those who’ve made the cause their own.

So, on immigration, the president has managed to unite much of the country . . . against him — who says he’s divisive? Nevertheless, Obama made clear again this week that he intends to push ahead with massive amnesty by executive order. Further infuriating the public with his cynicism, he has strategically but quite openly delayed his directive until after the election, as if to say, “The rubes are too stupid to grasp what I’m doing even when I make no secret of it!”

As Faithless Execution recounts, the delegates at the 1787 Philadelphia convention included impeachment in the Constitution because they believed it to be “indispensible” (as Madison put it) to preventing the abuse of executive power. Congressional authority to remove a president would be a decisive check. Still, the Framers reckoned it would rarely be invoked.

To turn back most instances of executive overreach, less drastic remedies would do the trick. The ballot box, for one: The Framers high-mindedly assumed that an imperious, corrupt, or incompetent candidate would not be elected, much less reelected. In addition, the power of the purse would enable Congress to cut off the funds a president would need to carry out reckless or lawless enterprises; and requiring Senate approval of presidential appointments would give lawmakers additional leverage to bend the president into compliance with the law and the public will.

But here’s the problem: Obama has no more elections to worry about; and, other than impeachment, the rest of the arsenal designed by the Framers is impotent when it comes to most of his immigration scheme.

That scheme implicates three closely related but importantly distinct considerations: the lawless status of the aliens in question; non-enforcement of the immigration laws against them; and the conferral of legal status on them. On the first two, the president’s power to forgive law-breaking and refrain from law-enforcement is plenary. The abuse of these powers is essentially irresistible . . . except by impeachment. As for the third consideration, even though the president has no direct power to confer legal status or benefits (e.g., work permits) on aliens, that technical deficiency could be overcome by the abusive exploitation of the aforementioned powers he undeniably has.

I acknowledge in Faithless Execution that to refrain from invoking impeachment as the credible threat the Framers intended it to be is a rational political choice. My point is that it is a choice fraught with consequences. We have to face those consequences. We don’t get to avoid them by being reasonable, moderate people who recoil from the I-word. Nor, in the matter of illegal immigration, is there any funding cut or loopy congressional lawsuit that can dissuade this president. There is either a credible threat of impeachment or a transformational mass-amnesty. That’s it.

Executive Order Confusion
The public debate over Obama’s anticipated amnesty proclamation has wrongly focused on executive orders. So sullied has this term become that it is now a standard talkingpoint of Obama apologists that he has issued fewer such directives than his predecessors. It is a red herring.

There is nothing wrong in principle with an executive order — no more than there is with a statute. Congressional laws are problematic only when they exceed Congress’s powers in violation of the Constitution. Same with executive orders: The president’s powers are broad, the executive branch through which he exercises them is extensive, and there is consequently nothing improper in his issuance of executive orders to manage the conduct of legitimate executive functions — just as there is nothing invalid in Congress’s enactment of statutes consistent with its capacious constitutional authorities or a court’s issuing rulings within its proper jurisdiction.

Executive orders are offensive only when the president employs them to usurp the powers of the other branches — in particular, the legislative authority of Congress. If the president issued an executive order directing the IRS to collect taxes on a rate-schedule he unilaterally prescribed, that would be a serious violation of law. The fact that there was only one such executive order rather than, say, 500 would be quite beside the point.

With that backdrop, let’s go back to our three considerations in the immigration context.

1. Lawless Status of the Aliens.
The Constitution vests the president with “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” It is an awesome power — wholly unreviewable and nearly limitless — although one explicit limit is crucial, and we’ll get to it in due course.

Any offense against federal law is subject to pardon, and the Supreme Court has held since the Civil War that pardons remove “any of the penalties and disabilities” that would flow from a conviction. In fact, nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from pardoning his own law-breaking. The pardon power does not apply prospectively — the president may not license future law-breaking. But once the law has been broken, the president can pardon the offense; there is no need for an investigation to have occurred, much less a prosecution or conviction.

Pardons, moreover, need neither be individualized nor actually sought by the person to be pardoned. As George Mason law professor James Pfiffner recounts in the Heritage Foundation’s excellent Guide to The Constitution, President Washington granted a blanket amnesty to collaborators in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Lincoln and Johnson pardoned pro-Confederacy seditionists. On his first day in office in 1977, President Carter fulfilled a campaign promise by pardoning hundreds of thousands of Vietnam draft evaders.

It is occasionally claimed that illegal immigration is beyond the pardon power because it is “civil” wrong not a criminal offense. This contention is largely incorrect, and it rests on a dubious assumption. Illegal entry into the United States is a criminal offense, albeit a misdemeanor. Reentry after deportation is a felony. And illegal aliens often commit various crimes to sustain their unlawful presence in our country. It is certainly true that an alien’s being unlawfully present in the United States — for example, overstaying a visa or remaining here after illegally entering — is a civil violation, not a criminal one, but it is serious enough to render an alien deportable. The Constitution, in any event, enables a president to pardon federal “Offenses” — it does not say criminal offenses. While it is a reasonable deduction that the Framers’ use of the word “offense” was meant to imply crimes, not civil wrongs, why should we assume that federal courts now stacked with Obama-appointed judges would see it that way? Why should the word offense be any less “organic” than, say, the term equal protection of the laws? Besides, the point of a blanket pardon would not be to confer lawful status on the aliens, something the president has no power to do. The point, as we shall see, would be to pave the way for the courts to finish the job.

Thus, fully within his constitutional authority, President Obama could, right this minute and without any congressional approval, pardon every illegal alien in the United States — indeed, every illegal alien anywhere who has been deported after violating federal law. He could do it by executive order and, while outrageous and condemnable, it would indisputably be within his Article II power. (As I have been pointing out since before Obama’s 2008 election, his longtime friendship with former terrorist Bill Ayers is rooted in their shared radical notions about the American criminal-justice system — which Ayers, in a book Obama gushingly endorsed, condemned as the racist equivalent of Apartheid South Africa. If I were in Congress right now, I’d be asking the Justice Department a lot of questions about preparations for pardons in Obama’s last two years. If you’re a convict not named Dinesh D’Souza or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, I imagine you’ve got a shot.)

2. Non-enforcement of the Immigration Laws
As I explain in Faithless Execution, while the Constitution grants much raw power to the president, it also constrains its exercise by placing limits on the legitimate uses of executive authority. A textbook example of illegitimate exercise of a legitimate power is Obama’s abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecution is an awesome executive power. The Framers realized that, throughout history, the joinder in a single official or governing body of the powers to make law and to prosecute was the road to tyranny. So they took pains to separate legislative and prosecutorial authority. The executive branch was given plenary authority over federal law-enforcement: It is entirely up to the president and his Justice Department subordinates to decide what offenses and offenders will be investigated and prosecuted. Congress can try to pressure and prod, but it has no ability to coerce the Justice Department to enforce laws. (It is worth noting that the just-described sweep of the pardon power similarly reflects the Framers’ purposes to divide law-making from law-enforcement and to check potential legislative overreach.)

Pre-Obama, prosecutorial discretion was understood as an unremarkable resource-allocation doctrine specific to the criminal law. Enforcement resources are finite. It is neither possible nor desirable to prosecute every single violation of law. Therefore, policymakers, prosecutors, and police must exercise judgment about which violations merit attention and which ones can be overlooked. Mind you, the overlooking does not excuse the law-breaking; it is simply a concession to reality — there are more pressing threats to society than pot-smoking, petty fraud, etc.

Obama, however, has contorted prosecutorial discretion into a license to ignore, “waive,” rewrite, and otherwise violate congressional statutes — including laws such as the Affordable Care Act that are far afield from criminal-law enforcement. In sum, “prosecutorial discretion” has become the camouflage for Obama’s usurpation of the powers to write and conclusively interpret the law — powers the Constitution vests in Congress and the courts.

Faithless Execution outlines a litany of Obama-administration directives that the immigration laws go unenforced. In combination, they already amount to a large-scale amnesty. This, like abuse of the pardon power, can rightly be described as outrageous and condemnable. But, once again, such executive orders are indisputably within the president’s Article II power in the sense that neither Congress nor the courts can compel him to enforce the law.

3. Conferral of Legal Status
Under the Constitution, the power to determine the qualifications for American citizenship is legislative. Obviously, Congress’s prescriptions must be signed by the president to become law (unless lawmakers have the numbers to override a veto). The president, however, has absolutely no authority to confer legal status or positive benefits (e.g., work permits) on aliens who are in the United States illegally. If the president attempts to do this by executive order — and, as Faithless Execution recounts, Obama has already done it, albeit on smaller scales than what is now being contemplated — that would patently exceed his authority, in violation of both the Constitution and statutory law.

But it is never that simple, is it? Let’s say Obama pardoned some millions of illegal aliens. The effect of a pardon is to expunge a violation of the law and its attendant effects. In the eyes of the law, it is as if the offense never happened.

Well, the legal and moral case against conferring legal status on illegal aliens is that doing so would excuse their law-breaking, encourage more law-breaking, and give the lawbreakers an unfair preference over aliens who have tried to immigrate lawfully. But a pardon would thrust us into a legal fiction in which we’d have to pretend that the aliens had never broken our immigration laws in the first place. What, then, would remain of the rationale for complaining about the preference given law-breakers over law-abiding aliens? Or for continuing to saddle the aliens with illegal status? Anyone want to bet me on how the nearly 400 judges Obama will have put on the federal bench by 2017 would come out on those questions?

If the president refuses to enforce the immigration laws and grants something close to a blanket amnesty, we will be on an inexorable course toward citizenship — and, crucially, voting rights — for millions of illegal aliens, also known as Democrats waiting to happen. It is the Left’s dream of a permanent, unassimilated, post-American governing majority.

Is that where we are headed?

Abuse of Power and Impeachment
As we noted earlier, the president’s pardon power is nearly limitless. There is a single exception, explicit in the Constitution’s Article II, Section 2: “Cases of Impeachment.

The president can prevent incarceration and other legal punishments for any unlawful acts; but he cannot prevent impeachment — his own or any other official’s — based on the abuses of power that flow from those acts. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. It is about the removal of political power because of breaches of the public trust, not legal prosecution and punishment. Indeed, the Framers considered narrowing the pardon power to prevent the president from granting amnesty for his own lawlessness; they opted against it precisely because they believed the specter of impeachment would be sufficient disincentive.

As we’ve seen, the president’s pardon and prosecutorial powers are formidable. They do not, however, exist in a vacuum. They exist in a constitutional framework wherein the president’s core duties are to execute the laws faithfully and preserve our system of government. The fact that an act is within a president’s vast lawful power does not make it a faithful, constitutionally legitimate use of that power. As Faithless Execution elaborates, an act need not be criminal or indictable in order to be impeachable. There is far more to fiduciary responsibility than acting within the margins of technical legality.

To offer an analogy, a judge who sentenced a defendant to 20 years’ imprisonment for handing someone a single marijuana cigarette would be imposing a legal sentence (i.e., within the governing statute) but would demonstrate himself unfit to be a judge. Likewise, lawmakers have the power to impose a 100 percent tax on income, but doing so would be an intolerable abuse of power. Similarly, a president who uses the pardon power and prosecutorial discretion as pretexts for usurping Congress’s power to make immigration law, for encouraging law-breaking, and for remaking the country in a manner that imperils the economic and security interests of American citizens, commits grievous impeachable offenses.

To be blunt, there is no real power-of-the-purse check on the president’s pardon power. Congress could threaten to withhold funds necessary for other Obama agenda items in an effort to discourage a blanket amnesty — although it would not be a very credible threat with the soon-to-be Senate majority leader having already pledged to refrain from using Congress’s control of the purse-strings as leverage. But let’s face it: While many of his abuses of power cannot happen without congressional funding, the president doesn’t need a dime to pardon people. He doesn’t even need his phone — just his pen.

The only real check on the pardon power is impeachment.

At this point, would a credible threat of impeachment be much of a check on this president’s designs? I’m not sure. Obama’s stated goal is fundamental transformation of the nation, and a blanket amnesty would accomplish that. From his standpoint, it might be worth the risk. Plus, even if the amnesty suddenly ignited public sentiment for the president’s removal from office (a dubious supposition), nothing in Washington happens quickly. Obama would still have many months if not most of the rest of his term to abuse his awesome powers (including by issuing additional pardons) in transformational ways.

But I do know this: Absent a credible threat of impeachment, President Obama cannot and will not be stopped from granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, who will in short order be awarded citizenship and voting rights. You can call that a plea for impeachment if you’d like. I call it a statement of fact.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment. Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

Sessions: ‘Voters Sent Congress’ Republicans to Stop ‘President’s Unlawful Executive Amnesty’

11:51 AM, Nov 14, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER

Senator Jeff Sessions wants Congress to stop the "president’s unlawful executive amnesty." And he believes that’s precisely why "Voters sent Congress a Republican majority."

Read more…

How to Stop Obama’s Executive Amnesty

10:19 AM, Nov 14, 2014 • By MICHAEL WARREN

Matthew Continetti, writing at the Washington Free Beacon, offers Congress a path for fighting against President Obama’s plans to amnesty millions of illegal immigrants through executive order:

Read more…

Oregon immigration vote is a warning for Obama

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.

Associated Press

Registered Non-Citizen Voters – CCES: More Than 14% In 2008 & 2010 Figures

Posted on October 27, 2014 by TMH

Watch Rachel Campos-Duffy with the Libre Initiave

· STUDY: Illegal Alien Votes Potentially Could Determine the Outcome in Close Midterm Elections

This entry was posted in Constitution, Politics.

ICE Agents Taunted by Illegals as Amnesty Nears

By Rick Moran Bio

November 14, 2014 – 2:35 pm

Agents working for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency have already been suffering from low morale. Now they have to contend with illegal aliens taunting them about amnesty.

Jessica Vaughn, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration, wrote about the tremendous stress ICE agents are under trying to deal with an immigration system that President Obama has deliberately sabotaged:

The president’s gradual, calculated dismantling of our immigration system has caused morale to plummet in the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security. Career immigration officials have courageously objected in public, and sometimes resorted to lawsuits to draw attention to the administration’s subversion of the law. In denial about their principled objections to his scheme, now the president is hoping to stifle their voices by offering them a pay increase as part of this outrageous plan. His assumption that they are motivated by money shows just how little respect he has for the men and women who have devoted their careers to public service in immigration.

Vaughn told the website Secrets about the low morale among ICE agents:

She said that officers are concerned that illegals with criminal records are being released under Obama’s policies, and that some immigrants taunt the officers, believing that the policies protect them.

“Some have told me that illegal alien criminals they have arrested have even taunted them, saying they know the ICE officers can’t do anything to them because of Obama administration policies,” Vaughan told Secrets.

The officers have raised the issues at “town hall” meetings with their superiors.

However, she said, top Homeland officials believe the issue is more about poor pay, not working conditions or the president’s policies. As a result, the White House is considering a pay raise as part of the president’s amnesty plan to some 5 million illegals.

“Clearly the administration is trying to triangulate at best, or more likely thinks that it can just dangle the prospects of a pay raise if they would stop objecting to administration non-enforcement policies,” said Vaughan. “I sincerely doubt anyone will fall for it, but it does reveal what he thinks of them,” she added.

This is not just a matter of “deferred action” on deportations. It is the systematic breakdown of immigration law and procedures. Most of these agents have served proudly, upholding the law while trying to act humanely toward illegal aliens. That’s how they’re trained. But when criminals who’ve committed serious crimes are let loose; when agents don’t even know what the law is supposed to be anymore; when their efforts to keep us safe are stymied by higher ups — it’s a heavy weight to carry when no one is listening to their warnings.

No matter who gets elected as our next president, this is going to be a mess that will take years to clean up.

Sheriffs Headed to Washington to Oppose Amnesty

Nov. 10, 2014

<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:image002.png

Barack Obama’s immigration executive order is just around the corner, and it has many people already poised for opposition. That includes many of the nation’s sheriffs. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson of Bristol County, Massachusetts, sent a letter to call on his fellow sheriffs to march on DC on Dec. 10 to oppose Obama’s plan. Hodgson wrote, “Never before in our nation’s history has it been so important for the American sheriffs to stand united and speak with one voice to secure our nation’s borders.” His goal is to bring 200 sheriffs to DC with him. He also told National Review, “We don’t need people to sit down there in Washington and sort of intellectualize what they think is the right thing to do without listening to the people who are dealing with these problems day-in and day-out and know the problems intimately.”

US Senator Exposes ZIP Codes Where Criminal Illegals Were Released By Obama Administration – Conservative Hideout 2.0

EXCLUSIVE: List of 134 Cities Where Violent, Criminal Illegal Aliens Were Sent After Release by Obama DHS

Submitted by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on November 2, 2014 – 10:10 am ESTNo

Comment

Doug Ross @ Journal

According to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, 36,007 criminal illegal aliens were released into the United States in 2013. Responding to a request by Sen. Chuck Grassley, ICE provided a list of ZIP codes — not cities and states — where criminal illegals, many convicted of violent offenses including murder, rape and kidnapping, have been dumped by the administration.

I wrote a small script to convert the ZIPs into cities and states, the results of which are below. Please make sure that your families, friends, colleagues and other acquaintances are aware of these locations. Better safe than sorry.

AK ANCHORAGE 99502
AK ANCHORAGE 99507
AZ BUCKEYE 85326
AZ PHOENIX 85007
AZ TUCSON 85730
CA ADELANTO 92301
CA ANAHEIM 92804
CA ANTIOCH 94509
CA BEVERLY HILLS 90211
CA BURBANK 91506
CA BUTTONWILLOW 93206
CA CHINO HILLS 91709
CA CORONA 92880
CA EMERYVILLE 94608
CA FRESNO 93701
CA FULLERTON 92835
CA GARDEN GROVE 92840
CA GLENDALE 91201
CA GLENDALE 91205
CA HAYWARD 94544
CA HUNTINGTON PARK 90255
CA IRVINE 92614
CA LA PUENTE 91744
CA LOS ANGELES 90005
CA LOS ANGELES 90013
CA LOS ANGELES 90019
CA LOS ANGELES 90032
CA LOS ANGELES 90044
CA LOS ANGELES 90057
CA MONTROSE 91020
CA MURRIETA 92562
CA NORTH HOLLYWOOD 91606
CA OCEANSIDE 92057
CA OXNARD 93030
CA PACOIMA 91334
CA POMONA 91766
CA POMONA 91767
CA POMONA 91768
CA RANCHO CORDOVA 95670
CA RESEDA 91335
CA ROSEMEAD 91770
CA SACRAMENTO 95823
CA SACRAMENTO 95824
CA SAN FRANCISCO 94112
CA SAN JOSE 95112
CA SAN JOSE 95116
CA SAN JOSE 95132
CA SAN PEDRO 90731
CA SOUTH EL MONTE 91733
CA STOCKTON 95205
CA TAHOE CITY 96145
CA VISTA 92084
CA WESTMINSTER 92683
FL DELRAY BEACH 33444
FL FORT LAUDERDALE 33351
FL HIALEAH 33010
FL HIALEAH 33012
FL HIALEAH 33018
FL HOMESTEAD 33032
FL HOMESTEAD 33034
FL LAKE WORTH 33463
FL LAKE WORTH 33467
FL MIAMI 33133
FL MIAMI 33162
FL MIAMI 33125
FL MIAMI 33128
FL MIAMI 33169
FL MIAMI 33172
FL MIAMI 33173
FL NAPLES 34114
FL OPA LOCKA 33055
FL OVIEDO 32765
FL PEMBROKE PINES 33028
FL SAINT PETERSBURG 33712
FL TALLAHASSEE 32305
FL WEST PALM BEACH 33406
GA ATLANTA 30303
GA ATLANTA 30337
GA ATLANTA 30340
GA LAWRENCEVILLE 30045
GA MABLETON 30126
GA NEWNAN 30263
GA NORCROSS 30093
IA DES MOINES 50320
IA SIOUX CITY 51106
IL PLAINFIELD 60544
IL SPRINGFIELD 62794
KY LOUISVILLE 40203
LA BATON ROUGE 70816
LA KENNER 70065
MD OWINGS MILLS 21117
MI PONTIAC 48340
MN MANKATO 56001
MN MINNEAPOLIS 55408
MN MINNEAPOLIS 55443
MN SAINT PAUL 55125
MN WILLMAR 56201
NC CHARLOTTE 28212
NC CHARLOTTE 28215
NC DURHAM 27707
NC MOUNT PLEASANT 28124
NM ALBUQUERQUE 87121
NV RENO 89506
NY BRONX 10453
NY BRONX 10455
NY BRONX 10456
NY BRONX 10463
NY BRONX 10474
NY BROOKLYN 11213
NY BROOKLYN 11214
NY BROOKLYN 11236
NY JAMAICA 11433
NY NEW YORK 10006
NY NEW YORK 10027
NY QUEENS VILLAGE 11429
NY RIDGEWOOD 11385
NY STATEN ISLAND 10304
NY SYRACUSE 13205
OH COLUMBUS 43222
OH NORTH OLMSTED 44070
OK GATE 73844
OR FAIRVIEW 97024
OR PORTLAND 97266
PA ALLENTOWN 18103
PA PHILADELPHIA 19142
PA SHARON 16146
TX CYPRESS 77433
TX HOUSTON 77072
TX HOUSTON 77078
TX KATY 77450
VA ALEXANDRIA 22304
VA ALEXANDRIA 22312
WA SEATTLE 98168
WI MILWAUKEE 53218

We have two days left to save America.

Poll Shows Huge Opposition To Oval Office Amnesty

9:27 AM 11/07/2014

Neil Munro White House Correspondent

4373481

Eighty percent of voters polled on Election Day say new jobs should go to Americans and legal immigrants, not to illegal immigrants, including the potential beneficiaries of President Barack Obama’s planned executive amnesty, says an election-day poll of 806 voters.

“Voters overwhelmingly prefer an immigration system that protects American workers,” says a memo released with the poll by Kellyanne Conway, founder of the polling company.

“Members of Congress should feel confident that voters will support actions using the power of the purse to protect American workers from Obama’s executive amnesty threat,” the memo said.

GOP leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have already warned Obama against announcing an amnesty or enforcement rollback.

The new telephone survey of 806 voters matches other data showing that most Americans strongly oppose Obama immigration policies, and that many members of his base and that many Latinos also oppose his immigration policies.

Seventy-four percent of respondents in the election-day poll say the president “should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration … [and] 80 percent want new jobs created by the economy to go to American workers and legal immigrants already in the country,” said the memo.

It showed that “majorities of men (75%), women (74%), whites (79%), blacks (59%), and Hispanics (54%) all recommended that the President collaborate with Congress before changing immigration law.”

The demand that new jobs go to Americans and established immigrants “is a matter of fairness to them,” Conway told The Daily Caller.

“The question of fairness is usually about ‘what’s fair to the illegal immigrants,’” Conway said.

Each year, 4.3 million Americans turn 18, and face competition for jobs from roughly 10 million unemployed Americans, 11 million illegal immigrants, plus the annual inflow of 1.1 million new legal immigrants and 70,000 guest workers.

The poll was conducted for NumbersUSA, which favors a reduction in the annual inflow of immigrants and guest-workers.

“Now people are asking ‘What’s fair to the rest of us? What’s fair to the high school graduates and college students who is looking for a job? What is fair to the union guy who can’t find unemployment? What’s fair to the business owners?” Conway said.

Obama is taking a risk by ignoring the strong opposition to unilateral action, she said.

On Nov. 5, he said he would announce some form of enforcement rollback, even in the face of GOP opposition.

“It is just a fact that this president doesn’t seem in interested in collaboration,” Conway said. “He’s more interested in confrontation than collaboration, in stirring the pot and stoking fears,” she said.

“Obama is making executive amnesty his first resort, and he’s not even bothering to sit down for negotiations,” she said.

The Constitutional Peril of Executive Amnesty

Nov. 6, 2014 patriot post

Columnist David Harsanyi writes, “In his post-midterm press conference [Wednesday], President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to taking executive action on immigration, ‘before the end of the year.’ Obama argued that most Americans desire reform and consequently he has an imperative to act.” However, that has huge consequences for constitutional government. Harsanyi argues, “Obama has basically admitted again that he believes the president – if he’s passionate enough about a certain issue – is free to craft legislation. And by consistently equating his forthcoming executive action with bills passed by Congress, Obama acknowledges the purpose of his unilateral moves is to enact new policies or pressure Republicans into giving him what he wants. Which is a big problem if you care about the Constitution.” We certainly do care about it. The problem is Obama doesn’t – unless you define “caring” as “shredding.” More…

Memo to the GOP: Don’t Fall for Obama’s Impeachment Bait

Nov. 8, 2014

By Charles Krauthammer

Memo to the GOP. You had a great night on Tuesday. But remember: You didn’t win it. The Democrats lost it.

This is not to say that you didn’t show discipline in making the election a referendum on six years of Barack Obama. You exercised adult supervision over the choice of candidates. You didn’t allow yourself to go down the byways of gender and other identity politics.

It showed: A gain of probably nine Senate seats, the largest Republican House majority in more than 80 years, and astonishing gubernatorial victories, including Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois, the bluest of the blue, giving lie to the Democrats’ excuse that they lost because the game was played on Republican turf.

The defeat – “a massacre,” The Economist called it – marks the final collapse of Obamaism, a species of left liberalism so intrusive, so incompetently executed and ultimately so unpopular that it will be seen as a parenthesis in American political history. Notwithstanding Obama’s awkward denials at his next-day news conference, he himself defined the election when he insisted just last month that “these [i.e. his] policies are on the ballot – every single one of them.”

They were, and America spoke. But it was a negative judgment, not an endorsement of the GOP. The prize for winning is nothing but the opportunity for Republicans to show that they can govern – the opportunity to seize the national agenda. …

[Obama] will try to regain control of the national agenda with executive amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Final memo to the GOP: That would be naked impeachment bait. Don’t take it. Use the power of the purse to defund it. Pledge immediate repeal if Republicans take the White House in 2017. Denounce it as both unconstitutional and bad policy. But don’t let it overwhelm and overtake the GOP agenda. That’s exactly what Obama wants. It is his only way to regain the initiative.

The 2014 election has given the GOP the rare opportunity to retroactively redeem its brand. The conventional perception, incessantly repeated by Democrats and the media, is that Washington dysfunction is the work of the Party of No. Expose the real agent of do-nothing. Show that with Harry Reid no longer able to consign House-passed legislation to oblivion, Congress can actually work.

Pass legislation. When Obama signs, you’ve shown seriousness and the ability to govern. When he vetoes, you’ve clarified the differences between party philosophies and prepared the ground for 2016.

Tuesday’s victory was big. But it did nothing more than level the playing field and give you a shot. Take it.

GOP’s impeachment dilemma: ‘Have you met Joe Biden?’

By Peter Sullivan

4644

234

Watch the latest video at &amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="<a href="http://video.foxnews.com">http://video.foxnews.com</a>"&amp;amp;amp;gt;video.foxnews.com&amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;gt;

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has a succinct response when asked about impeaching President Obama: "Have you met Joe Biden?"

Gowdy was asked on Fox News Thursday night about the possibility of impeachment, if Obama acts without Congress on immigration.

"Have you met Joe Biden, is my response to that," Gowdy replied. "So, no. Nobody’s discussing impeachment except pundits and commentators. First of all, impeachment is a punishment; it’s not a remedy. Second of all, the only people who want us to talk about impeachment are the president’s allies."

Referring to the idea of impeachment as bait, Gowdy said, "I’m not going to take it because I’ve met Joe Biden."

Gowdy is strongly opposed to Obama’s expected executive action giving legal status to millions of people who entered the United States illegally.

He pointed to the confirmation process of Obama’s attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch, as a place where Republicans could fight, suggesting the GOP could use Obama’s decision against her.

He said Republican lawmakers should ask Lynch pointed questions about the legality of Obama’s actions.

"Specifically with this new attorney general, ask U.S. Attorney Lynch, ‘What are the limits of prosecutorial discretion? What laws does he actually have to enforce?’ " Gowdy said.

While Republican leaders have dismissed talk of impeachment, at least one member, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), is open to it. He said this week that impeachment "would be a consideration," if Obama moves ahead on executive action.

Immigration quake jolts Congress

636801

1806

Getty Images

By Mike Lillis – 11/15/14 01:18 PM EST

Congress returned to Washington this week to find a Capitol transformed by the GOP’s midterm wave and a bicameral scramble to approve an oil pipeline that few would have predicted just days earlier.

But for all the debate over Keystone politics and the election tsunami, it was the lingering promise of executive action to reduce deportations that’s sparked the greatest intrigue – and most threatened to shake-up Congress in the lame duck and beyond.

ADVERTISEMENT

"What I’m not going to do is just wait," a defiant President Obama said from the White House the day following the elections.

The announcement has thrilled Democrats, infuriated Republicans and relaunched a debate over executive power that’s already spun talk of new lawsuits against the White House, new chatter of impeaching the president and new threats of another government shutdown – issues that are sure to reverberate right through the 2016 presidential election.

The complicated debate hinges on a simple question: Does Obama have the legal authority to halt deportations and grant work permits for millions of people living in the country illegally?

In 2012, the Homeland Security Department (DHS) adopted a program – the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative – which provides two-year work visas to qualified illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Multiple news outlets this week have reported that Obama is now eying what is essentially an expansion of that program to include a much broader swath of the illegal immigrant community, including parents of kids who are U.S. citizens, legal residents or DACA beneficiaries.

“I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that, if in fact Congress failed to act, I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better,” Obama said Friday during a visit to Burma. "That’s going to happen before the end of the year."

What remains in dispute is the scope of his "lawful authority." And both sides are claiming the legal high ground.

In the eyes of Republicans, such unilateral changes represent an abuse of executive authority and trampling on the separation of powers outlined by the Constitution. And the warnings from GOP leaders have been terse.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said executive action would "poison the well" of bipartisanship heading into the 114th Congress; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said such moves would be like “waving a red flag in front of a bull;” and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is lobbying fellow Republicans to sink any long-term government spending package that doesn’t include language to defund any new lenient policies Obama adopts – a position that potentially sets up a game of government-shutdown chicken with Obama.

"Voters sent Congress a Republican majority to protect them — and their borders — from the president’s unlawful executive amnesty," Sessions said Friday. "A long-term funding bill that does not deal with President Obama’s unconstitutional overreach, adopted before a single newly elected Republican is sworn-in, would be to acquiesce to the president’s unlawful action."

Across the aisle, the view is very different. In the eyes of Obama and the Democrats, the president has not only the clear legal authority to expand DACA to more immigrants, but also the advantage of precedent set by every administration over the last half century.

To make their case, Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) have compiled a list of unilateral immigration reforms under presidents as diverse Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

"They [Republicans] are saying to the president, ‘Don’t use your executive authority.’ Suppose he turned to us, and said, ‘Don’t use your legislative authority,’" Pelosi, the House minority leaders, said Thursday. "That’s what presidents do. They have executive authority."

Stephen Legomsky, who was the chief counsel at the DHS’ Citizenship and Immigration Services branch when the agency launched DACA, agreed. He argued that, on the statutory level, the power of the president to defer action has been written into federal immigration law for more than 25 years. As for the broader constitutional question, he said Congress’s perennial underfunding of immigration enforcement efforts leaves the president "no practical alternative" but to ignore many cases.

"Every single year Congress knowingly – I would emphasize knowingly – appropriates for immigration enforcement a level of resources that it knows will enable the administration to go after no more than about 4 percent of the entire undocumented population," Legomsky, now a professor at the Washington University School of Law, said Friday by phone.

"I’m really hard-pressed to think of any serious legal objection – statutory or constitutional – that could be made."

Still, the fact that the administration has released no specific plans suggests officials are taking pains to come up with language designed to be teflon-coated against legal challenges.

Legomsky said the legal arguments behind the moves Obama is reportedly weighing are identical to those that governed the crafting of DACA. But because millions more people are expected to benefit – and because everyone is anticipating the changes – officials are being particularly careful this time around.

"It’s … an indication that they know that, whether it’s legal or not, their critics will accuse them of doing something that was illegal," he said. "They’re savvy enough to know that those criticisms will be coming."

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) took those criticisms a step beyond the government spending debate Friday, arguing that, if Obama adopts the changes reported in the press, it would be an impeachable offense.

"Of course it would be,” he told Newsmax TV. "But committing an impeachable offense and getting the two-thirds in the Senate to convict are two different stories.

"We have to play the hand that we are dealt right now.”

Congress, Obama prepare for immigration battle

President Obama must act on immigration reform now, or risk losing the Latino electorate’s support for Democrats in 2016

Democratic Party loyalist Rep. Luis Gutierrez predicts a ‘civil war’ in the Democratic Party if the President is not ‘broad and generous in using his executive power’ to halt immigrant deportations soon

NYDailyNews by Albor Ruiz Sunday, November 9, 2014, 2:00 AM

After the overwhelming Republican victory in the midterm elections one is left to wonder if "representative democracy" means anything any more. Because something is clear: Despite their electoral triumph, the GOP does not represent the interests of the majority of Americans, that is, workers, minorities, women and, of course, immigrants.

For President Obama, what the Republican victory means is two years of even greater obstacles to advance his agenda, which could render the rest of his Presidency nearly irrelevant. That’s why it is now or never for him to do the right thing and act on immigration if he wants to save his legacy.

Obama, who promised to take action after the elections and before the end of the year, ran out of time and excuses not to take the much-ballyhooed executive measures that, supposedly, will help millions of undocumented workers.

Now, more than ever, he has to fulfill his promises to act on immigration on his own. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will see a redefinition of its relation with Hispanics and should not expect the all-important Latino vote to be there for them for the 2016 presidential election.

"Obama said that he wants to wait until December to see if Congress sends him a bill"" said Ángela Fernández, executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights. "There is no real reason to wait because we all know that any bill coming from the Republicans will be about enforcement and will not help the immigrant community. People are fed up and if Obama doesn’t act, Latinos will seek alternatives to the Democratic Party."

At this stage of the game immigrants and their supporters do not trust Obama. And who can blame them? After all, he set a deportation record by expelling over 2 million people and reneged of his "firm" promise to exercise his executive prerogative at the end of the summer. Instead, he postponed taking action until the end of the year solely for electoral reasons, a wrongheaded political maneuver that backfired spectacularly.

The distrust runs so deep that not even Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Il), a Democratic Party loyalist and the number one proponent of immigration reform in the House, is convinced the President will be true to his word.

In an interview with The Guardian Gutiérrez newspaper made an ominous prediction about his party’s prospects in 2016.

"This problem we are seeing politically is nothing next to the civil war that would be created in the Democratic Party if the President is not broad and generous in using his executive power," he said, referring to the disappointment of Latinos feel about Obama and the Democrats. "(If that happens) Latinos are not going to be deciding between voting or not voting, but if they stay (or not) in the Democratic Party."

And without the Latino vote, the deporter-in-chief’s party can kiss the White House goodbye.

Joe Arpaio: Secure Borders Would Have Saved Deputies’ Lives

Secure borders likely would have stopped the shooting deaths of two California sheriff’s deputies on Friday because the suspect would not have been allowed into the country, Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio told Fox News Channel. [Full Story]

Administration Freed Illegal Immigrants Charged With Violent Crimes

Thursday, 23 Oct 2014 12:25 PM By Melanie Batley

·0

Illegal immigrants charged with violent crimes and serious felonies were among the hundreds of criminals the Obama administration released from jails across the country in February 2013, newly released documents show.

According to records obtained by USA Today, the government released inmates charged with offenses ranging from kidnapping and sexual assault to drug trafficking, armed assault, and homicide.

The evidence contradicts previous assurances by the administration that the 617 criminals who were released as part of a cost-cutting exercise were low-risk offenders charged with misdemeanors "or other criminals whose prior conviction did not pose a violent threat to public safety," USA Today reported.


Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) admitted to the newspaper that numerous dangerous criminals had been released but denied direct responsibility.

"Discretionary releases made by ICE were of low-level offenders. However, the releases involving individuals with more significant criminal histories were, by and large, dictated by special circumstances outside of the agency’s control," ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told USA Today.

The new records obtained by the newspaper from a Freedom of Information Act request outlined previously undisclosed details about the alleged crimes of specific detainees. One person in Texas was charged with aggravated kidnapping and sexual assault of a child.

Another illegal immigrant from Florida was facing charges of conspiracy to commit homicide, according to USA Today.

Two Massachusetts detainees had been charged with aggravated assault using a weapon, while another illegal immigrant from Colorado was being held on a sexual assault charge.


The Obama administration released more than 2,200 illegal immigrants from jail between Feb. 9 and March 1, 2013, as part of an effort to cut the number of prisoners due to the budget-sequester funding cuts. The detainees had been awaiting deportation or immigration hearings in a court, and the administration did not give advance notice it would be freeing them.

The releases triggered a furor in Congress and hearings with lawmakers who grilled then-ICE director John Morton.

According to USA Today, Virginia GOP Rep. J. Randy Forbes asked Morton directly, "No one on that list has been charged or convicted with murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, were they?"

Morton, who subsequently resigned, answered, "They were not."

Former White House spokesman Jay Carney had also described the criminals as "low-risk, noncriminal detainees," USA Today reported.

Meanwhile, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma demanded a formal investigation by the inspector general.

The internal audit, which concluded in August 2014, concluded that ICE broke the law in releasing the criminal illegal migrants.

"It is baffling how an agency charged with homeland security and immigration enforcement would knowingly release hundreds of illegals with criminal histories. In this single action, ICE undermined its own credibility, the rule of law, and the safety of Americans and local law enforcement," Coburn said when the audit was released.


He added, "This report provides more evidence that our nation’s immigration laws are being flagrantly disregarded. Americans need to be assured the problems within ICE that led to the dangerous release of illegal aliens will be fixed, and DHS and ICE will never again violate the law by releasing known criminals into our streets."

McCain said it is "deeply troubling that ICE would knowingly release thousands of undocumented immigrant detainees — many with prior criminal records — into our streets, while publicly downplaying the danger they posed," USA Today reported.

Related Stories:

· Limbaugh: Obama Release of Illegals ‘An Impeachable Offense’

· Brewer: Release of Hundreds of Illegals Ahead of Cuts ‘Height of Absurdity’

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Illegal-immigrants-obama-administration/2014/10/23/id/602647/#ixzz3HOtthF3Q
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

§ Ingraham: White House ‘Hiding the Ball’ on Major News Stories

§ Hillary Corrects Herself: Businesses Do Create Jobs


Newsfront

Dick Morris: Obama, Democrats Want Control of Internet Speech

Not content with the total bias and domination of the news networks, CNN, and the nation’s leading newspapers, the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission have moved to assert federal control over Internet political speech…. [Full Story]

CNN Poll: 74% of Voters ‘Dissatisfied’ Means Trouble for Dems

Signaling Democrats could be hurtling toward a crushing defeat Nov. 4, [Full Story]

Reagan’s ‘Time for Choosing’ at 50: It Changed a Nation

Monday, Oct. 27 marks the 50th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s famous [Full Story] |

Bernie Kerik: We Can’t Stop Every Lone Wolf

Professional intelligence and citizen vigilance are critical to [Full Story] |

Gallup Poll: America’s Top Crime Worry: Credit-Card Hacking

Credit-card hacking is the number one crime on Americans’ worry list, far [Full Story]

Report: ISIS Beheads Female Kurdish Fighter

The latest victim of an Islamic State (ISIS) beheading reportedly is a [Full Story]

Biden: Voters Can ‘Stop the March’ of Tea Party

Democrats May Not be Able to Count on Black Voters

http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-of-the-navy-after-failing-cocaine-test/

http://nypost.com/2009/03/30/parties-pot-in-ashley-bidens-past/

Bring this Marine home

By Post Editorial Board View author archive

Name(required)

Email(required)

Comment(required)

October 6, 2014 | 7:45pm

Photo: AP

Sometime this week, Republicans in the House will put forward a resolution calling on Mexico to release Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi from prison.

The resolution follows hearings held last week by Chairman Ed Royce (R- Calif.) of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. At those hearings, Royce announced that Mexican doctors had confirmed Tahmooressi is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which he said opened the door to a “humanitarian release” very soon.

Good for Rep. Royce and his fellow Republican, Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Both men have visited Tahmooressi in recent months, and whatever political progress has been made toward this Marine’s release is largely because of their efforts.

That stands in stark contrast to President Obama, who has steadfastly refused to phone his Mexican counterpart, Peña Nieto, to push for Sgt. Tahmooressi’s release.

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden refused a personal entreaty from his former Senate colleague, John McCain, to ask the president to raise Tahmooressi’s plight with President Nieto during a meeting in June.

Sgt. Tahmooressi is a decorated Marine who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan.

He says he crossed into Mexico by mistake after making a wrong turn out of a parking lot. He was thrown into prison when Mexican officers discovered three weapons he had in his car — weapons he owned legally in the US but that are prohibited in Mexico.

Sgt. Tahmooressi served his nation with distinction on the field of battle. He deserves better from his commander-in-chief.

Democrats Push for Shake-up at White House

Sunday, 12 Oct 2014 08:22 PM

By Greg Richter

Democrats hope to see a drastic change in White House staffing in hopes of saving the presidency of Barack Obama, The Hill Reports.

Presidents typically announce staff changes halfway through their second terms, but with Obama’s poll numbers in the cellar and his agenda facing a bleak outlook as Republicans aim to control both houses of Congress, critics within his own party are calling for change.


The Hill quoted a "prominent party strategist" as saying Obama "should take a flamethrower to his office."

To say that Obama needs a dramatic change isn’t debatable, the strategist said.

"The general consensus that the president is surrounded by people who do him more harm than good because they are more focused on pleasing him than they are challenging him or proposing a different course," the person told The Hill.


The loss of former strategists David Plouffe and David Axelrod left a big hole, Democratic strategist Peter Fenn said, explaining that both were able to challenge Obama.

"And those guys could, they could speak really frankly to him," Fenn told The Hill. "How does he put people in the White House with serious political chops?"

Even if he did, Obama might not listen.

Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Vice President Joe Biden both have sway on Capitol Hill, but Obama himself is loathe to engage.


Obama is "very slow to get rid of people regardless of the circumstances," said John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

"If staffers close to the president haven’t been ousted yet, they’re likely not going anywhere unless there is additional policy failures," Hudak said.

Related Stories:

· Poll: Most Would Vote for the GOP Because of Obama

· In the Dark: Obama, Staff Learn of Scandals From News Reports

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-press-shakeup-at/2014/10/12/id/600142/#ixzz3FzAEyeP2
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Dick Morris: Obama Wants to Make US a One-Party Nation

Tuesday, 23 Sep 2014 04:48 PM

·4

President Barack Obama wants to transform the United States into a one-party nation in which Republicans are powerless, veteran political strategist Dick Morris says.

"[Obama] wants to stack the deck so that no Republican or conservative can ever win an election," Morris told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

Story continues below video.

Note: Watch Newsmax TV now on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH Ch. 223
Get Newsmax TV on your cable system – Click Here Now

Morris — author with Eileen McGann of the new book, "Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One Party Nation," published by Humanix Books — said the president’s plan is not about persuading Americans by traditional means, which "would be legit."

"It’s by bringing in millions of immigrants to screw up the voter rolls and by massive photo fraud with no photo ID so that he can use ACORN volunteers to produce artificial results," Morris said.

"It’s getting everybody into a labor union whether they like it or not, to help control their votes.

"And the most insidious part is Obamacare; to give everybody healthcare, food stamps, disability and Medicaid so that they all have skin in the game and something to lose if the Democrats lose."

Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, said the United States has been a one-party nation in the past.

"The Democratic Party held power for only 16 years between 1860 and 1932 – a 72-year period. That’s the kind of thing that he wants to do here," he said.

Morris also believes Obama wants industries such as those that produce solid fuels like coal to be under the government’s thumb.

"He wants to make it impossible for a private sector business to operate without the government’s explicit approval," Morris said.

"That means corruption, campaign contributions, not siding with the other side politically, that the EPA … has the life and death of your company in its hands."

Morris said the recent IRS scandal — in which agency officials allegedly targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status — was "designed to intimidate the activist and donor base so the Republican Party becomes a minor sideshow, not the main event."

And the president would also like to seize control of the World Wide Web, according to Morris.

"His whole goal here is to regulate the Internet and if possible, to allow international regulation of the Internet so some of the dictatorial countries can make their views heard," he said.

"He’s afraid of the Internet because he controls the media. If all we hear is the New York Times and the Washington Post, ABC, CBS and NBC and the L.A. Times and USA Today, that’s great.

"But once you get into this other stuff like Newsmax TV, FOX News, talk radio, Internet stuff, Drudge Report, WND.com, he gets nervous because he can’t control that and he wants to exercise the control."

Morris alleged that the Commander-in-Chief "bends over backwards" to appeal to Muslims by arguing that ISIS is not an Islamic State.

"What does the ‘I’ stand for? Ice cream? One of the reasons he does that is because he wants the Islamic vote," Morris said.

"His relatively pro-Muslim policy is a response to a domestic voting trend. Jews are three percent of the vote in this country and Muslims are two percent.

"If he can get it up to three, four, five or six and make it an 80-20 voting block for him, that’s pretty important. In terms of foreign policy and running the government, that’s not what he’s good at. What he’s good at is the correlation of forces to set up a political movement that takes over. That’s what he’s good at."

And with one-party control, Obama can reduce the Republican Party to an "infinite, yapping dog that’s on the side" while the Democratic Party is in control, according to Morris.

"The other thing is his scheme to kill the Electoral College. He is getting state legislatures around the country quietly to pass bills saying we will respect the winner of the popular vote and give him our electoral votes regardless of our own state votes. You can win by voter fraud," he said.

"He wants to transform this country fundamentally and permanently. I would not assume that Hillary Clinton is going to depart from this game plan very much."

Morris said Obama has "exterminated" the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

"I’m a dodo bird. I used to be a conservative Democrat, I still would be if it existed," Morris said.

"But you’re either a [Nancy] Pelosi, Hillary [Clinton], Obama Democrat or you’re a Republican. So I’m a Republican."

Related Stories:

· Dick Morris: Obama Has Secret Agenda

The Right Opinion

Is the French Revolution Our New Model?

By Victor Davis Hanson · Oct. 9, 2014

At the end of the 18th century, there were two great Western revolutions – the American and the French. Americans opted for the freedom of the individual, and divinely endowed absolute rights and values.

A quite different French version sought equality of result. French firebrands saw laws less as absolute, but instead as useful to the degree that they contributed to supposed social justice and coerced redistribution. They ended up not with a Bill of Rights and separation of powers, but instead with mass executions and Napoleonic tyranny.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is following more the French model than the American.

Suddenly, once-nonpartisan federal bureaucracies have become catalysts for fundamentally transforming America. Often-ideological bureaucrats have forgotten their original mission. NASA might do better to ensure that our astronauts are independent of Vladimir Putin’s Russian rockets rather than claiming that its primary mission is to reach out to the Muslim community.

Intelligence directors vie with one another to please superiors with fatuous but politically correct analysis. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assured us that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely secular. CIA Director John Brennan once termed a now-emerging Islamic caliphate as “absurd.” Former Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano once warned that returning veterans and right-wingers were the chief domestic terrorist threats, not Islamic jihadists.

The IRS has lost its nonpartisan reputation by hounding perceived ideological enemies. It no longer abides by the historic standards – transparency, rapid submission of documents, honesty – that it demands from those it audits.

The role of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement once was to enforce federal statutes established by Congress and signed by the president. Border patrol agents were not supposed to become agents of social change to nullify settled laws by noncompliance.

Almost immediately it was clear that the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a preplanned attack by an al-Qaeda terrorist affiliate. But that truth did not fit the re-election narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run.

In response, public servants such as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fabricated preferable scenarios – in service supposedly to a good cause. Suddenly, right-wing video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was to be blamed. He alone had incited ordinary Libyans to spontaneously riot – a useful teachable moment for the administration to muzzle such reactionary firebrands.

The Justice Department was supposed to be blind in matters of class, race, gender and religion. Yet, under Attorney General Eric Holder, if selective non-enforcement of elements of the Affordable Care Act, immigration statutes or conduct at voting precincts might further perceptions of social justice, then the law was often ignored.

Why would the Federal Aviation Administration shut down flights to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv – the most secure in the world – because of one stray rocket? Hamas leadership hailed the Obama administration’s move as proof that their aerial barrages were shutting off Israel from the Western world.

In contrast, the FAA has not yet stopped U.S. flights to and from Liberia and other West African countries, the source of the Ebola virus epidemic. Is it more dangerous for Americans to have open travel to and from Israel, or to and from Liberia?

What has happened to the Secret Service?

An intruder bounded onto the White House grounds, entered the White House and bowled over a Secret Service agent. A former felon, fully armed, climbed into an elevator with the president of the United States. Shots were fired at the White House. Agents were caught soliciting prostitutes while on duty in South America.

Official stories change to fit larger agendas. One day the White House has full confidence in Secret Service Director Julia Pierson, the next day she is gone. One day leaving Iraq was the president’s stellar achievement, the next day someone else did it. We are at war and not at war with the Islamic State – both a manageable problem of some jayvees and an existential threat. The Free Syrian Army is both a fantasy and plagued by amateurs and yet the linchpin of our new strategy on the ground against the Islamic State.

We are back to the daily revisionism of the Affordable Care Act, keeping and not keeping your doctor and health plan, with deductibles and premiums going down and going up.

Stopping the fracking of gas and oil on federal lands is good, but so is the cheaper gas that fracking brings.

Once-nonpartisan federal agencies are now in service to the goal of changing America from cherishing an equality of opportunity to championing an equality of enforced result.

Our revolutionary inspirations are now Georges Danton, Jean-Paul Marat and Maximilien de Robespierre, not the Founding Founders.

© 2014 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

The Right Opinion

Obama’s Supporters Said ‘Go Gangsta’ – Too Bad He Listened

By Larry Elder · Jul. 3, 2014

Obama’s poll numbers dropped below those of former President George W. Bush. By the end of Bush’s term, focus groups were telling pollsters they despised the very four-letter word B-U-S-H. When John McCain faced Obama in 2008, Democrats gleefully slammed McCain’s quest as the “third Bush term.”

Given Obama’s light resume and see-no-flaws cheerleading by an adoring media, Obama’s fall was inevitable. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, absolute adoration comes close.

In practically anointing Obama, our “watchdog” media ignored a thin resume full of red flags. So in four years, Obama shoots from unknown state lawmaker, with little private sector and no executive experience, to president – all in a nanosecond by political standards.

Look at Obama’s rise. By his own admission, he is an indifferent student who somehow finds himself at Harvard Law. Co-members elect Obama president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review publication, where, oddly, he publishes nothing, at least not under his name.

He becomes a Chicago “community organizer,” whose achievements appear to be holding lots of meetings and yelling at government to do more. He may have helped get asbestos removed from a lower-class housing complex. Or he may or may not have had a hand in it being removed after Obama left town for law school. Hard to say.

The Obama rise continues.

Former fugitive and still unrepentant domestic-terrorist-turned-government-paid-professor Bill Ayers co-writes a proposal to the Annenberg Foundation. It brings a $49.2 million education award to “improve” Chicago public schools. Just three years out of law school, Obama is asked to chair the newly formed Chicago Annenberg Challenge board. Money spent includes hundreds of thousands of dollars given in grants to Ayers’ Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform and Chicago School Reform Collaborative projects.

By their own admission, the Annenberg project group failed.

Obama runs for state senator, and somehow manages to kick off his other principal rivals over their alleged signature-gathering violations. He serves as an indifferent state lawmaker, voting “present” numerous times.

Obama runs for U.S. Senate. Rivals seem to suddenly drop out after formerly private confidential information about them become public. Luck or manipulation – either way, the rise continues.

Immediately after getting elected to the Senate, Obama runs for president.

As candidate, he survives scandals – or rather, would-be scandals – that would have torpedoed the chances of a typical pol. Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – are all overlooked or minimized in importance by our Obama-for-president media.

Elected, Obama pursues – and succeeds in signing into law – a left-wing agenda more ambitious than any in modern history. His record: $1 trillion “stimulus”; $150 billion spent, per “60 Minutes,” on “green tech” with nothing to show for it; higher taxes on “the rich”; Dodd-Frank, the financial regulations bill that does nothing to address the cause of the Wall Street/housing meltdown; an EPA unleashed on coal; and the creation of a brand-new entitlement program – Obamacare.

To pass Obamacare, Obama made a number of broken promises including, but not limited to: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor”; Obamacare will “bend down” the “cost curve”; Obamacare will save the “typical family … $2,500 a year”; and Obamacare will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years – a projection the Congressional Budget Office says it can no longer stand by.

Obama’s supporters, like former President Jimmy Carter, blame Obama opposition on “a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” Actors James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson publicly call the tea party, an important part of the GOP base, “racist.”

So Obama’s post-election narrative becomes: “It isn’t the leftist agenda that triggers GOP opposition. Nor is it Obama’s growth-retarding policies that have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. No, what drives Republican opposition? Racism!

How does that translate into presidential action?

Leftist pundits like CNN’s Roland Martin urged Obama to "go gangsta” and make “recess” appointments. Now, Congress said it was not “in recess” and thus the President could not make any “recess” appointments. Obama did anyway. Why not take extra, possibly illegal, measures to achieve results? Why not use expansive executive orders, ignore deadlines and unilaterally waive statutory requirements? After all, we’re dealing with racists here!

But in a stunning 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court said Obama overreached in making the recess appointments. Congress, said the court, not the President, determines its rules. Congress, said the court, not Obama, decides when it is in recess.

House Republicans say they intend to sue Obama, arguing abuse of separation of powers. Respected left-wing legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, who twice voted for Obama, encourages a lawsuit. “What’s emerging,” Turley said, “is an imperial presidency. … Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”

Obama, encouraged by supporters, went “gangsta” – on America. Now what?

COPYRIGHT 2014 LAURENCE A. ELDER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Report: White House Interfering With Press-Pool Coverage of Obama

Wednesday, 24 Sep 2014 02:30 PM

By Melanie Batley

·0

The White House press office has on several occasions made changes to media reports produced by journalists in the press pool, demanding adjustments as a condition of distributing the articles to press outlets more widely, according to The Washington Post.

The White House press pool is a rotating selection of professional reporters who attend events covering the president, and produce reports that are distributed for use more widely.
As part of the protocol, copy is sent to the White House press office for review. The White House then disseminates the stories via email to thousands of journalists and government officials.

According to the Post, most of the interference by the White House involves minor changes to spelling or small fact corrections, but it has on occasion taken issue with certain details that are being reported, in some cases demanding they be removed from reports entirely.

"Journalists who cover the White House say Obama’s press aides have demanded — and received — changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists. They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction," the Post reported.

"While the overwhelming majority of pool reports pass through the White House without delay or amendment, some have been flagged by the administration’s press staff, which has demanded changes as a condition of distributing them."

In one instance, a pool reporter covered a presidential trip on Air Force One to California in 2012. As part of the coverage, the reporter included mention of the president presenting a birthday dessert to a reporter and asking her to make a wish, "preferably one that had something to do with the number 270," in reference to the minimum number of electoral college votes the president needed to win re-election.

The story was flagged by a press aide who insisted that details of the president’s comments were off the record and would not be included in the distributed story. The reporter appealed the decision to then-press secretary Jay Carney, who gave approval, but the report was ultimately sent too late for reporters to use.

"My view is the White House has no right to touch a pool report," Tom DeFrank, contributing editor of the National Journal, told the Post. "It’s none of their business. If they want to challenge something by putting out a statement of their own, that’s their right. It’s also their prerogative to jawbone a reporter, which often happens. But they have no right to alter a pool report unilaterally."

The interferences have prompted the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) to consider revising its procedure for pool reporting.

"The independence of the print pool reports is of utmost importance to us," Christie Parsons, the WHCA’s president, told the Post. "Our expectation is that the White House puts out the pool report and asks questions later."

Parsons said she was assured by White House Press Secretary John Earnest that this would be the practice, and the White House reinforced the view that it will work cooperatively with reporters.

"We value the role of the independent press pool, which provides timely, extensive, and important coverage of the president and his activities while at the White House and around the world," White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told the Post.

"That is why, at the request of the White House Correspondents Association, the White House has distributed 20,000 pool reports in the past six years, and we will continue to offer that facilitation for journalists as they work to chronicle the presidency."

The report comes after numerous complaints by journalists that the Obama White House has systematically restricted reporter access, hindering the freedom of the press.

Related Stories:

· Peter King, Press Corps Irked Over White House Boston Observance

· Charles Hurt: Lack of Access Angers White House Press Corps

September 28, 2014

Double Standard for Barack Obama and Dinesh D’Souza

By William A. Levinson

In Shakespeare’s King Henry V, the king must decide the fate of a drunken soldier who berated him in public: lèse-majesté, a crime technically punishable by death. Henry decides to pardon him despite the sanctimonious pleas of three traitors to execute him, or at least punish him severely. The King warns and counsels them,

If little faults, proceeding on distemper,
Shall not be wink’d at, how shall we stretch our eye
When capital crimes, chew’d, swallow’d and digested,
Appear before us?

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee, should have pondered King Henry’s advice before he demanded jail time for conservative author Dinesh D’Souza. Campaign finance laws that do not apply to everybody should apply to nobody, while laws that apply to some must apply to all. D’Souza’s felony conviction makes it necessary to bring up Barack Obama’s own participation in equally illegal fundraising practices during his 2007 and 2008 campaigns.

"Obama’s Illegal Lottery" shows that the Obama campaign raised money through interstate gambling, which must have all three of the following characteristics to be illegal:

1. Payment of consideration (something of value)

2. An element of chance

3. A prize

A YouTube video by Barack Obama himself proves unequivocally that he not only knew about, but participated in, such a fundraising scheme. He says very clearly that four people who donate money (payment of consideration) will be selected (element of chance) to be flown in to have dinner with him, at his expense (prize). WorldNet Daily reported that the Obama camp modified these promotions to allow people to enter without donating money, but only after complaints from at least one law enforcement agency.

Here are the key parts of an E-mail I received from the Obama campaign in 2007. My E-mail address has been removed to prevent harvesting by spammers. All three elements of a lottery are present.

Dear Bill,

A couple of weeks ago I sat down to dinner with four supporters like you.

Christina, Haile, Margaret, and Michael each made a small online donation, and we flew them across the country for some good food and good conversation.

What I enjoyed most about this dinner was the opportunity to listen to the stories and concerns of ordinary Americans in a relaxed environment. Out on the campaign trail, there isn’t always time for that kind of interaction.

Last week we started planning our second dinner, and on Friday evening at 6:42 pm, a woman named Dorothy Unruh of Lakewood, Colorado made a donation.

I’m pleased to announce that Dorothy will be one of my guests for the second dinner. You could join us if you make a small donation before 11:59 pm tonight, July 31st:

I’m looking forward to having dinner with Dorothy, but there are still three seats left at the table. Will you be in one of them?

…If you make a donation by 11:59 pm tonight, Tuesday, July 31st, you could join us for dinner very soon:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner

We’ll pay for your trip and the meal

compilation: Globull warming – Robot Submarine Finds Antarctic Ice Thicker Than Believed / ‘Global Warming Swindle’ vs. ‘Inconvenient Truth’: A Comparison of Documentaries

Blame it on the polar vortex, according to climate scientists. Warming oceans and melting ice are weakening the vortex, causing colder, snowier winters. Huh? This year has given us, “The earliest ice on some of the Great Lakes in at least 40 years.” Arctic ice is decreasing as Antarctic ice is increasing, meaning a shift, not a net loss. How does one reasonably draw conclusions from conflicting and contradictory data? Unless the conclusions are foregone and data is simply window dressing.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/foregone_conclusions_of_global_warming.html#ixzz3KbgiW1eL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

‘Global Warming Swindle’ vs. ‘Inconvenient Truth’: A Comparison of Documentaries

Wednesday, 26 Nov 2014 08:07 PM

By Alana Marie Burke

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

Two documentaries that tackled the controversial issue of climate change, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "An Inconvenient Truth," took polar opposite positions on the issue. Each documentary took a definite stance on global warming, whether it is human-caused and on whether climate change presents an imminent danger to human kind. While both documentaries received accolades, both documentaries were also criticized for containing flawed data by those for and against anthropogenic global warming theories.

"An Inconvenient Truth" claims that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic. However, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" refutes that claim stating, "The most highly qualified and respected scientists can be blind to obvious deficiencies in a theory and will be dismissive of evidence when it undermines what they want to believe."

The brainchild of former vice president turned climate change activist Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth" premiered in 2006. In the film, Al Gore made the statement that not only are humans to blame for global warming but that if humans allow it, "it is deeply unethical." In the companion book to the film, "An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It" Gore stated that allowing global warming to continue "would be deeply and unforgivably immoral. It would condemn coming generations to a catastrophically diminished future."

According to an academic report by Texas state climatologist John W. Nielsen-Gammon, here are some of the claims made in "An Inconvenient Truth":

· "Global warming is caused by global warming pollution, which traps extra infrared radiation."

· "Carbon dioxide is going up relentlessly because of the larger changes in our civilization."

· "Impacts of the resulting global warming are visible worldwide in retreating glaciers."

· "Temperatures are unprecedented over past 1,000 years, and the trend is intensifying."

· "Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are endangered; their melting would cause catastrophic sea level rise"

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" which first aired on British television in 2007 purports that scientific consensus on global warming is the result of financial interests, media bias, and a "global warming activist industry." According to the film:

· "Man-made global warming is no longer just a theory about climate; it is the defining moral and political cause of our age."

· "The Earth’s climate is always changing. There is nothing unusual about the current temperature."

· "There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now."

· "Everywhere you are being told that climate changed is proved beyond doubt, but you are being told lies."

· "When people say we don’t believe in global warming, I say no, I believe in global warming, I don’t believe that human CO2 is causing that warming."

· "Greenland has been much warmer. Just a thousand years ago, Greenland was warmer than it is today. Yet it didn’t have a dramatic melting event."

Related Stories: Define Global Warming, Celebrities: Hollywood On Climate Change

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/FastFeatures/global-warming-swindle-inconvenient-truth-comparison/2014/11/26/id/609842/#ixzz3KYpdZ994
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Robot Submarine Finds Antarctic Ice Thicker Than Believed

Wednesday, 26 Nov 2014 04:52 PM

By John Blosser

Global warming theories just took a major hit with a surprising discovery by British, U.S. and Australian researchers who found that Antarctic underwater ice is much thicker than scientists had believed it to be.

After four years of study using a robot submarine called SeaBED, the researchers found that Antarctic ice averages from 4.5 to 18 feet in thickness, Breitbart reports.

Previously, scientists had believed Antarctic ice was only about 3.2-16.4 feet (1-5 meters) thick, Carbon Brief reports, but the new discovery indicates that in some areas, Antarctic ice may measure up to 16 meters (52 feet) thick.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the research team stated: "We suggest that thick ice in the near-coastal and interior pack may be under-represented in existing in situ assessments of Antarctic sea ice and hence, on average, Antarctic sea ice may be thicker than previously thought," Breitbart reports.

In fact, the team speculates that Antarctic ice may actually be growing in thickness.

"While we have not measured all Antarctic sea ice thickness and cannot state if Antarctic sea ice is getting thicker, this study is a huge step towards the sort of expanded and more routine measurements we will need to do to truly answer these questions," Australian oceanographer Guy Williams, of the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, said, Xinhuanet reported.

For the past four years, an AUV (autonomous underwater vehicle) robot submarine has been scanning the Antarctic ice from the underside. The twin-hulled submarine can work at 100 feet in depth. Weighing 200 kilograms, or 440 pounds, the sub, with three propellers, uses upward-facing sonar to create a three-dimensional map of the area above it, The Register reports.

Dr. Rob Massom, senior research scientist with the Australian Antarctic Division, said that prior to using the submarine, the job had been low-tech and manual, involving the labor-intensive drilling of holes.

"We look over the side of icebreakers and we look at the way that the icebreaker overturns the sea ice and we do a visual estimate on the hour every hour," Breitbart reported.

The robot sub "provided a new view of Antarctic sea ice with three dimensional maps. It’s like going from a broken pair of binoculars to a brand new telescope," Williams said.

Ted Maksym, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution oceanographer, told NBC News that "if we don’t know how much ice there is, we can’t validate the models we use to understand the global climate."

How the Antarctic sea ice forms "remains one of the great unknowns in the climate system," Carbon Brief reported Maksym said.

Scientist Jeremy Wilkinson of the British Antarctic Survey said "climate scientists modeling a warming world are baffled by the behavior of the southern ice," The Register reported.

Related Stories: Al Gore Global Warming Quotes: 8 Times Former VP Has Attacked Foes

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/SciTech/Antarctic-ice-robot-submarine/2014/11/26/id/609800/#ixzz3KYpzATrM
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

compilation: illegal immigration; obama violates oath/constitution; ect…

Obama: Americans Have No Right To Favor Americans

Any Amnesty Court Challenge Needs To Look At Last Year’s Near-Win In Texas

Ian Smith, Attorney

If law can be circumvented by cynical politics it simply doesn’t rule.

JoshuapunditStrangling the Eagle – Barack Obama And Amnesty, Part I

Obama Kills Tax Cut Because It Didn’t Help Illegals

Politics | Neil Munro

<img width="540" height="231" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/texas-border-crisis-immigration-cis-4-e1404850132746-620×266.jpg&quot; class="attachment-540×300 wp-post-image" alt="Unaccompanied Minors In Texas" />

GOP leaders refuse demand to extend tax payments to illegals…

JOEL KOTKIN: Legal But Poor: The Economic Consequences of Amnesty.

This workforce is being legalized at a time of unusual economic distress for the working class. Well into the post-2008 recovery, the country suffers from rates of labor participation at a 36 year low. Many jobs that were once full-time are, in part due to the Affordable Care Act, now part-time, and thus unable to support families. Finally there are increasingly few well-paying positions—including in industry—that don’t require some sort of post-college accreditation.

Sadly, the legalization of millions of new immigrants could make all these problems worse, particularly for Latinos already here and millions of African-Americans.

African-American unemployment is now twice that of whites. The black middle class, understandably proud of Obama’s elevation, has been losing the economic gains made over the past thirty years.

How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya? — Posted at 8:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

Illegal Aliens vs. Undocumented Immigrants

February 13, 2014

By David Lawrence

Some Americans think that America is so good that it’s their moral obligation to let everyone in to share in the joyous holiday of being American. They assume that anyone who becomes American is lucky. Wow, what a big break for a foreigner.

Well, maybe it’s no longer so great here. After all, Obama ran on "change." And the country has changed during his administration. It went downhill.

Maybe we don’t have to feel guilty for not letting foreigners become Americans. Perhaps they could do better elsewhere. Perhaps Obama’s new America, with its change for change’s sake, is not good for them.

Who knows? Perhaps letting foreigners in will end up in their being shot in a school or a movie theatre. Perhaps they will be on unemployment lines, gluing food stamps to their foreheads.

I think our pro-immigration cheerleaders are having flashbacks to a pre-Obama America — a country that had a strong economy, a consistent set of values, and a hegemony that fused a beautiful collection of different people into one.

Simple-minded liberals cite that America was founded on diversity — a nation of immigrants. Who cares? The past is the past, and the future is a result of understanding the problems with the past when projected into the future.

The Mexicans and the Swiss make citizenship for foreigners difficult. Why shouldn’t we?

Foreigners secure their own borders and then sneak in through the holes our silly generosity makes. We are afraid to call them illegal aliens because honesty has become alien to us.

We have no moral obligation to allow all people to become Americans. They are not undocumented citizens; they are illegal aliens. An undocumented citizen is someone who has lost his papers, not someone who has sneaked into the country. Not an illegal alien.

We do have an obligation to keep America American, to have English as our national tongue, and to follow our laws rather than sharia and other barbaric customs.

This is no time to give foreigners jobs. We are in free fall without a parachute. It’s time that we made it more difficult rather than easier for foreigners to move here.

We do not even have the ability to determine who is a terrorist and who would make a good citizen. Ask some of the legs buried without torsos in Boston. The Tsarnaev brothers were given scholarships.

Obama favors immigration amnesty. You’d think he is a loving man who cares about illegal aliens until we remember that he cares more about their votes and less about employment for our citizens.

Laissez-faire immigration is the sloppiness of tenderness without thought. Robert Frost wrote in "Mending Wall," "Good fences make good neighbors."

I think that Frost was a bit brighter than the average college professor who wants open borders and ill-defined morals. He will be remembered for centuries. The illegal aliens will not be remembered unless they murder someone. The progressive fools marching for their own unemployment will shout at us, but their voices will be lost in the wind.

Enough illegal aliens. They are not undocumented citizens. As Gertrude Stein said about Shakespeare’s line, "a rose is a rose is a rose." Or in this case, "an illegal alien is an illegal alien is an illegal alien."

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature. He has published over 400 blogs in the Daily Caller, American Thinker, and others. His letters appear in The New York Post, The Washington Times, and USA Today. He has published 600 poems, a memoir (The King of White-Collar Boxing), and several books of poems, including Lane Changes. He was a professional boxer and a CEO. Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/illegal_aliens_vs_undocumented_immigrants.html#ixzz3KbVGufGX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Missing Word in the Immigration Debate

November 25, 2014

By Paul Shlichta

The voting public, disgusted with the Democrats, has decided to try the Republicans for a couple of years. But if a Republican Congress does not win the public’s heart by 2016, it will be ousted as emphatically as it was installed a few weeks ago.

Therefore, Republicans must change their strategy and do what they have so far failed to do: win the war of words and propose alternative programs instead of merely opposing Democratic proposals. In issues such as immigration, the two strategies are closely connected.

Words are the stuff that ideas are made of. If you can control the vocabulary of a discussion, you can usually control the outcome. In warfare, it is axiomatic that one must not let the enemy choose the battleground. But Republicans have been violating that rule for decades by letting the liberals choose the vocabulary of debate.

Of course, liberals are famous for chanting catchphrases, such as "war on women" or “equality”, so incessantly that it takes an effort to remember their falsity. (They have even tried to brand opponents of illegal immigration as “nativist”, which they hoped would be equated to "racist".) But there’s a deeper and subtler way by which words can breed bias. Liberals choose words that convey subconscious meanings, which they hope will become universally accepted. This kind of political trickery, like stage magic, is based on misdirection: “Don’t look there, look here!”

Note the strident insistence with which liberals demand that we say “reproductive rights” instead of “abortion”, “gender” instead of “sex”, and “undocumented” instead of “illegal”. Each of these word choices hides some aspect of an issue that liberals want to keep hidden.

“Reproductive rights”, an essentially meaningless phrase, focuses on the mother and away from the baby, who is the victim of a homicide. In this respect, conservatives have unwittingly collaborated with liberals by calling themselves “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion”, thereby failing to direct attention to the ugliness and brutality of abortions.

Similarly, by insisting that homosexuality is a matter of “gender” preference, liberals try to divert attention away from the fact that the primary objection most people have to homosexuality concerns certain grotesque sexual acts.

With regard to immigration, liberals insist on replacing the word “illegal” with “undocumented”, a sly euphemism that suggests that some sort of paperwork error is all that needs to be cleared up. Moreover, by expunging the word “illegal”, liberals have diverted attention away from the key word in the issue so successfully that even conservatives have forgotten it.

The word is “legal”.

In the past few years, I have heard only one politician use it. During the second presidential debate in 2012, Mitt Romney said it, loud and clear:

First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants… We welcome legal immigrants into this country…. we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who’ve come here illegally.

Everyone else seems to have forgotten that there is a legal way of entering the country. It is, as Romney said, unnecessarily slow and complicated — which is all the more reason for giving preference to the patient and honorable people who have chosen the legal route.

Obama’s stated plan for legalizing illegal aliens is not only a shameless scheme for stuffing ballot boxes with illegal votes; it is a vicious slap in the faces of the millions of decent people who are trying to enter this country legally.

It is as if the illegal aliens had sneaked in through a backdoor of our country (aided by criminals who jimmied the door open) and then looked out at the legal aliens, waiting patiently in a line at the front door, and shouted “Suckers! There’s an easier way!”

Republicans must therefore redirect discussion to the plight of would-be legal immigrants. They should fill the media with advocacy stories about specific families, from all parts of the world, who are now trying to enter our country legally.

Republicans should also start playing the word game by repeatedly referring to the “war on legal immigrants”. Romney’s phrase, “those who’ve come here illegally take their place,” should become an oft-repeated battle cry. They might also try to redefine “amnesty” to mean that the deported illegal immigrants would not be charged with any crime but simply forced to leave.

Actions must be positive and prompt. Any boxer knows that you can’t win by just parrying your opponent’s blows; you must hit back. The Republicans must prove to the public that they are not “the Party of No” by advancing counterproposals to those of the administration. Those proposals should focus on legal immigration.

They should start, as Romney suggested, by proposing a streamlined system for accepting legal immigrants, with preference to applicants with proficiency in English and with education and skills that we need, such as degrees in science and engineering. Emphasis should also be given, insofar as possible, to screening out potential terrorists.

Moreover, the Republican plan should be based on the principle that deported illegal immigrants be replaced, one-for-one, by increasing the allowed number of legal immigrants. This concept of “replacement” should be the keynote of Republican press releases. Selection should be impartial as to country of origin. Since more than half of illegal immigrants are Mexican, such a concept will probably be favorably received by all other ethnic groups, including Hispanics from other countries.

This, or some equivalent Republican proposal, should have been issued and publicized immediately after Obama’s speech. When Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was our UN ambassador, he insisted on replying to Soviet accusations on the same day that they were hurled at us. This is known in boxing circles as counterpunching. The Republicans should hire a coach like our own David Lawrence to teach them this technique.

The voting public, disgusted with the Democrats, has decided to try the Republicans for a couple of years. But if a Republican Congress does not win the public’s heart by 2016, it will be ousted as emphatically as it was installed a few weeks ago.

Therefore, Republicans must change their strategy and do what they have so far failed to do: win the war of words and propose alternative programs instead of merely opposing Democratic proposals. In issues such as immigration, the two strategies are closely connected.

Words are the stuff that ideas are made of. If you can control the vocabulary of a discussion, you can usually control the outcome. In warfare, it is axiomatic that one must not let the enemy choose the battleground. But Republicans have been violating that rule for decades by letting the liberals choose the vocabulary of debate.

Of course, liberals are famous for chanting catchphrases, such as "war on women" or “equality”, so incessantly that it takes an effort to remember their falsity. (They have even tried to brand opponents of illegal immigration as “nativist”, which they hoped would be equated to "racist".) But there’s a deeper and subtler way by which words can breed bias. Liberals choose words that convey subconscious meanings, which they hope will become universally accepted. This kind of political trickery, like stage magic, is based on misdirection: “Don’t look there, look here!”

Note the strident insistence with which liberals demand that we say “reproductive rights” instead of “abortion”, “gender” instead of “sex”, and “undocumented” instead of “illegal”. Each of these word choices hides some aspect of an issue that liberals want to keep hidden.

“Reproductive rights”, an essentially meaningless phrase, focuses on the mother and away from the baby, who is the victim of a homicide. In this respect, conservatives have unwittingly collaborated with liberals by calling themselves “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion”, thereby failing to direct attention to the ugliness and brutality of abortions.

Similarly, by insisting that homosexuality is a matter of “gender” preference, liberals try to divert attention away from the fact that the primary objection most people have to homosexuality concerns certain grotesque sexual acts.

With regard to immigration, liberals insist on replacing the word “illegal” with “undocumented”, a sly euphemism that suggests that some sort of paperwork error is all that needs to be cleared up. Moreover, by expunging the word “illegal”, liberals have diverted attention away from the key word in the issue so successfully that even conservatives have forgotten it.

The word is “legal”.

In the past few years, I have heard only one politician use it. During the second presidential debate in 2012, Mitt Romney said it, loud and clear:

First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants… We welcome legal immigrants into this country…. we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who’ve come here illegally.

Everyone else seems to have forgotten that there is a legal way of entering the country. It is, as Romney said, unnecessarily slow and complicated — which is all the more reason for giving preference to the patient and honorable people who have chosen the legal route.

Obama’s stated plan for legalizing illegal aliens is not only a shameless scheme for stuffing ballot boxes with illegal votes; it is a vicious slap in the faces of the millions of decent people who are trying to enter this country legally.

It is as if the illegal aliens had sneaked in through a backdoor of our country (aided by criminals who jimmied the door open) and then looked out at the legal aliens, waiting patiently in a line at the front door, and shouted “Suckers! There’s an easier way!”

Republicans must therefore redirect discussion to the plight of would-be legal immigrants. They should fill the media with advocacy stories about specific families, from all parts of the world, who are now trying to enter our country legally.

Republicans should also start playing the word game by repeatedly referring to the “war on legal immigrants”. Romney’s phrase, “those who’ve come here illegally take their place,” should become an oft-repeated battle cry. They might also try to redefine “amnesty” to mean that the deported illegal immigrants would not be charged with any crime but simply forced to leave.

Actions must be positive and prompt. Any boxer knows that you can’t win by just parrying your opponent’s blows; you must hit back. The Republicans must prove to the public that they are not “the Party of No” by advancing counterproposals to those of the administration. Those proposals should focus on legal immigration.

They should start, as Romney suggested, by proposing a streamlined system for accepting legal immigrants, with preference to applicants with proficiency in English and with education and skills that we need, such as degrees in science and engineering. Emphasis should also be given, insofar as possible, to screening out potential terrorists.

Moreover, the Republican plan should be based on the principle that deported illegal immigrants be replaced, one-for-one, by increasing the allowed number of legal immigrants. This concept of “replacement” should be the keynote of Republican press releases. Selection should be impartial as to country of origin. Since more than half of illegal immigrants are Mexican, such a concept will probably be favorably received by all other ethnic groups, including Hispanics from other countries.

This, or some equivalent Republican proposal, should have been issued and publicized immediately after Obama’s speech. When Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was our UN ambassador, he insisted on replying to Soviet accusations on the same day that they were hurled at us. This is known in boxing circles as counterpunching. The Republicans should hire a coach like our own David Lawrence to teach them this technique.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/the_missing_word_in_the_immigration_debate.html#ixzz3KbeGeTAR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Obama Regime Feels “Incredibly Strongly” About Breaking Promise by Providing Taxpayer-Financed Benefits to Illegal Aliens Through ObamaCare

In 2009, after Obama proclaimed to a joint session of Congress that illegal aliens would not be eligible for taxpayer-financed benefits through ObamaCare, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) was put through the wringer by the media for observing that this was a lie. Even though he has already been repeatedly vindicated, now is a good time for another fact check on Rep. Wilson’s allegation:

On November 11, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell [who is in charge of administering ObamaCare] participated in an online chat with a group of Latino bloggers. Burwell was asked a two-part question. Would the young immigrants known as Dreamers be eligible for Obamacare subsidies, and can so-called mixed families — for example, a family with illegal parents and legal children — receive benefits?

Dreamers are not eligible, Burwell said. But she left no doubt that she — along with officials at the highest levels of the Obama administration — wants that to change. “I think that everyone probably knows that this administration feels incredibly strongly about the fact we need to fix that,” Burwell explained. “We need to reform the system and make the changes that we need that will lead to benefits in everything from healthcare to economics to so many things — a very important step that we need to take as a nation.”

Burwell went on to tell the bloggers that families with illegal members are welcome to receive benefits. “Mixed families should come, they should seek and try, go on the site, they’ll find out they can get financial assistance,” Burwell said. “They may be eligible for different programs for their children or themselves.”

Finally, Burwell stressed that no one in the government will ask applicants if they are here legally or not. “Everyone should come on, and folks should not be scared,” Burwell said. “No questions will be asked…”

Attention world! Free healthcare! Come one, come all!

We are witnessing a looting spree. Obama and his treasonous collaborators have turned America into the Third World’s Ferguson.

On a tip from Mr. Mentalo.

Obama on ‘Gang-Bangers,’ Hoodies, and Illegals Emptying Bedpans

November 26, 2014

By Jeannie DeAngelis

It’s classic Cloward-Piven strategy. First you foment a crisis, and then you rush in with a left-wing cure. That is exactly what the president did during an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who is not to be confused with Sesame Street’s Mr. Snuffleupagus.

During the Closer Look segment, Barack Obama weighed in on how to fix what he helped break.

As the public awaited the grand jury decision as to whether or not to indict Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of black teen Michael Brown, the typically anarchistic Obama saw it as an opportunity to impart guidance to law enforcement on how to profile black teenagers.

That’s right – Barack Obama, who, when it comes to himself, regularly contravenes the rules and regulations, is now suddenly an expert on how law enforcement should comport themselves in tense situations.

According to the president, minority community sensitivity is needed for police officers, who Obama has said in the past can “act stupidly.” The president feels the goal should be to teach law enforcement how to differentiate between a gang-banger and an innocent child, who, if wearing a hoodie, could be Obama’s son.

What the president’s counsel did not include was advice on how to deal with gang-bangers wearing hoodies or innocent children foolishly emulating gang-bangers.

Nonetheless, Obama did tell a totally transfixed George:

… [t]hey want to make sure the police are trained so they can distinguish between a gang banger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie, but otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong.

The president should be familiar with that type of mix-up. In 2008 and 2012, thanks to his emitting a “new car smell,” candidate Obama benefited because Americans were not trained to distinguish between a qualified candidate and a Chicago community organizer/socialist rabble-rouser who decided being black was the only criterion needed to run for president.

Now, just a few weeks after America expressed views Obama ignored when he lawlessly and unilaterally extended executive amnesty to those who defy the rule of law, he told George Stephanopoulos, “You know, this is a country that allows everybody to express their views. But using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are.”

It sure would have been nice if George had asked the president, who just the other day said that “[m]ass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character,” how the rule of law reflects who we are in some circumstances, but in others, following the rule of law contradicts our character?

After a break, Obama came back to discuss why lawless behavior is acceptable when he deems it necessary. Stephanopoulos asked the president how he justified exercising “administrative flexibility” when he circumvented Congress to grant amnesty to 5,000,000 illegal aliens.

First the president denied being emperor; then he explained that his job is to execute the laws he doesn’t keep, and then applied the gang-banger/hoodie argument to immigration when he told George that America has to:

…[p]rioritize felons, criminals, recent arrivals, folks who are coming right at the border and acknowledge that if somebody’s been here for over 5 years, they may have an American child or a legal permanent resident child[.]

In other words, the president was sort of saying that when it comes to immigration, Americans have to put the law aside and be able to “distinguish between” gang-banging illegal ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, murderers, and rapists and hoodie-wearing unaccompanied minors who just happen to be infected with Enterovirus D-68, but otherwise are good kids and “not doing anything wrong.”

Then, after citing prosecutorial discretion as the reason he did what he erroneously thinks Democrat and Republican presidents have done before with bipartisan Congressional approval, the president went on to give a laundry list of things that we have to do but will never do nor be able to enforce.

Things like securing the border, deporting criminals similar to the ones the Obama administration has already released, and believing that illegals will willingly submit to criminal background checks and U.S. tax law.

Then, point guard Stephanopoulos provided an opportunity for Obama to block any argument that might suggest that his so-called prosecutorial discretion on immigration could open the door for future presidents to target Democrat favorites like abortion and taxes.

According to Barack Obama, it’s different when it comes to taxes because, he says, “The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes. And when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating.”

Wait! Sneaking over the border isn’t dishonest? And when he says “we,” does he mean himself and Lois Lerner auditing conservatives, Tea Party activists, and right-wing media types?

Either way, apparently for Obama it’s not the same when illegals flagrantly break the law as it is for American citizens whom Obama wants to abuse with Chicago-style intimidation.

Clearly, the president feels his time is better spent “going after” millions and millions of Americans who disagree with him politically than it is pursuing illegals who Obama believes “we’re taking advantage of … as they mow lawns or clean out bedpans.”

When it comes to tax law, Obama, who’s proven to be the lawless one and who doesn’t expect bed-making, fruit-picking, lawn-mowing, bed-pan-emptying illegals to follow the law either, said that although not every person is audited, “we,” (as in he) “still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law.”

So there you have it. According to Barack Obama, black teenage boys in hoodies are off-limits to police officers. Similarly, when it comes to illegal aliens, the hoodie test should also be applied, lest those daring to suggest deportation as an option end up being legally audited by a president who doesn’t respect the law.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/obama_on_gangbangers_hoodies_and_illegals_emptying_bedpans.html#ixzz3Kbbqlp3e
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

GOP Pushes Leadership To Block Obama Amnesty

Politics | Neil Munro

<img width="341" height="141" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/texas-border-crisis-immigration-cis-e1405436135964-620×257.jpg&quot; class="attachment-341×300 wp-post-image" alt="Unaccompanied Minors In Texas" />

Calls, visits and protests are being used to rally leadership against Obama

WHOOPSIE: Turns Out Republicans CAN Cut The Funding For Obama’s Amnesty

Politics | Christopher Bedford

<img width="341" height="146" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Obama-surprised-Getty-e1417029308320-620×266.jpg&quot; class="attachment-341×300 wp-post-image" alt="Barack Obama surprised. Getty Images." />

The Congressional Research Service layeth the smacketh down

Delusional Obama Declares Action Lawful, Not Amnesty; Republicans Promise Fight

By Joseph R. Carducci, November 21, 2014.

So, after months of talking about how he was going to act alone, going so far as to use his pen and phone, our feckless President Obama has laid out his plan for granting amnesty. Of course, Obama needed to justify this plan and try to fool at least some of the voters in this country. To that end, he declared his plan is NOT amnesty…and that it is perfectly legal.

Obama Does a 360, Declares Unilateral Action

This still flies directly in the face of six years of Obama insisting he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws without the consent of Congress. I suppose that he is still hearing that mandate from those non-voters; maybe they were the ones who told him to go ahead and act on this now.

Honestly, though, this is probably simply how the most arrogant President in history gets his revenge. He has been reportedly furious ever since the Democrats endured their tidal wave of defeat in the midterms earlier this month. This is how Obama strikes back; by picking a political fight. He doesn’t think that the Republicans have the political will to do anything about this new plan, or he thinks they don’t have enough tools or power to do so. Maybe he thinks they won’t actually block his nominees…or that such a political battle would go badly for the Republicans? Then again, maybe he just doesn’t even care?

Obama Claims Authority to Act Alone

So, if this new plan of Obama’s isn’t amnesty, then what exactly is it? He tried to justify this by claiming, “there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President…that will help make our immigration system more fair and just.” Perhaps, but certainly not by going behind the back of Congress; not that this is really anything new for Obama…he has never been much for working together with Congress.

Even when Congress was held by the Democrats for the first two years of his Presidency, Obama seemed not to care about doing any type of immigration reform deal. Undoubtedly, this was something he could have had. Even up until he started simply not enforcing immigration laws and allowing a huge and constant flow of illegals over our southern border, he probably could have been able to get some type of deal.

Plan Could Be Devastating For Economy

That deal, probably wouldn’t have looked like his new plan. This calls for the fast tracking of green cards in order to make illegals eligible for numerous government welfare and other handout programs. That’s just what our country needs right about now, as our national debt is about to blast through the $18 trillion mark. That would be bad enough, but Obama’s plan also calls for the issuance of five million new work permits for those illegals living inside the United States.

Hopefully, the new Republicans in Congress are ready to stand up to this challenge. Hopefully, they will also be able to find a few more reasonably minded Democrats (yes, I know this might be difficult) to go along with them. This is more than just bad policy, it is a direct challenge to the Constitution. Even Constitutional Law professors and other liberals don’t agree with Obama’s action.

If Obama gets away with this, he will have changed the make-up of executive power and authority for years to come. Future generations will refer to this ‘plan’ and how Congress and the voters react to it as a pivotal moment in history. It was at least encouraging last night to hear some of the Republican leadership making statements to fight this and take all legal actions to prevent it from happening.

What do YOU think? Will the Republicans mount a vigorous challenge? Will it be enough to stop the new amnesty plan from really being implemented?

Obama Wants Things Both Ways: Now Claims Amnesty IS Changing Law

20 hours ago

Obama Admits To Violating The Constitution

By Brian Anderson, November 26, 2014.

Prepare for some major league spin from the White House to explain why Barack Obama just admitted that he violated the Constitution. While promoting his amnesty plan in Chicago on Tuesday the President said his executive action in fact changed the immigration law of this country.

At some point during what was supposed to be a

, some illegal aliens began yelling at Obama about God knows what. The President, not wanting to offend his most valuable demographic, let the disrupters scream for several minutes. He allowed them to stay and eventually got them to calm down. Reassuring them that he puts the interests of foreign nationals above American citizens, he said this:

Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.

Wow, he changed the law? That’s a pretty amazing feat considering he lacks the authority to change any law. Maybe he just misspoke. He was off-script and Obama doesn’t improvise very well. Nope. This is exactly what he meant because he doubled-down on it. Moments later he made reference to “the way the change in the law works…”

To remind the President how the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution work: The legislative branch (Congress) makes the law, the judicial branch (Supreme Court) determines the legality of the law, and the executive branch (President) enforces the law.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted the power to make laws, change laws, or repeal laws. Yet, Obama just admitted twice that he changed the immigration law. In addition to being ignorant of the separation of powers, he also seems unaware of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Sure, he’s illegally changed the law before, which is why Congress is suing him, but he’s never really admitted to changing the law. He always uses euphemisms like “tweaking” and “deferring.” Congress already had a pretty good case for the changes Obama made to the ACA train wreck and now the President has given them all the ammunition they need to undo his executive amnesty action.

Part of Obama’s cover story is that he’s a Constitutional scholar, but his complete disregard for the highest law of the land leaves that claim in doubt. Surely a man with a degree in Constitutional law would understand the powers granted to the executive branch don’t allow him to change the law on his own.

Two years ago when Obama was talking about immigration reform he told everyone that his hands were tied and that he couldn’t change the law. Last week when he signed his amnesty order he told everyone that he wasn’t changing the law. Yesterday he told everyone “I just changed the law.” Tomorrow he goes full-emperor when he tells everyone “I am the law!”

Obama Offers Companies $3,000 To Hire Illegals Over U.S. Citizens

By Robert Gehl, November 26, 2014.

Under Barack Obama’s new – and unconstitutional – amnesty plan, businesses have a big incentive to hire illegal aliens over U.S. citizens.

The incentive, $3,000 per employee per year – comes because while the illegals will now be granted work permits, they won’t qualify for Obamacare, meaning the companies won’t have to pay the penalty for not offering them insurance.

It’s a loophole the Obama Administration certainly must have known about and the President’s Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the new “legal illegals” won’t have access to Obamacare and companies will benefit from the incentive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses with 50 or more employees are required to provide insurance coverage to full-time workers. If they refused, they are assessed a $3,000-per-year penalty for each employee. But since the illegal aliens do not qualify for coverage, there would be no penalty.

This, of course, provides a great incentive for companies to hire “legal illegals” over U.S. citizens.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

Dick Morris said companies have already taken notice:

“The dimensions of this problem are enormous. One wonders if any of Obama’s crew spotted it during the run-up to his executive order. It is hard to imagine former President Clinton failing to notice such a conflict between his two major programs,” Mr. Morris said in an op-ed Tuesday in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

Dick Morris: Amnesty, Obamacare Will Eat Up Blue-Collar Jobs

Wednesday, 26 Nov 2014 08:50 AM

By Drew MacKenzie

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

·0

Democratic strategist Dick Morris has warned that President Barack Obama’s amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants will result in "a disaster of unparalleled magnitude" due to the Obamacare employer mandate.

In a commentary for The Hill, Morris says that blue-collar employees in large companies could eventually be replaced by undocumented immigrants because employers will not have to pay their healthcare insurance.

"Those granted amnesty will not be eligible for Obamacare," he wrote. "The amnesty will merely keep them safe from deportation. It won’t make them legal. And Obamacare can only go to citizens and legal noncitizens living in the U.S."

The political analyst, who was an adviser to former Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott and former President Bill Clinton, noted that the employer mandate in Obamacare requires big companies to offer insurance to their full-time workers or pay a large fine to the government.

"Combine these two programs and you have a huge incentive for employers to dismiss any blue-collar workers on their payroll and replace them with illegal immigrants covered by amnesty.

"These folks are allowed to work but not to get Obamacare. An employer can’t be fined for failing to offer Obamacare to employees who are ineligible to receive it. It’s an employer’s dream."

Morris dismissed the suggestion that anti-discrimination provision of Obamacare prevent employers from giving health insurance to some workers (citizens and legal immigrants) and not to others (illegal immigrants).

"That argument seems far-fetched, because the illegal immigrants cannot enroll in Obamacare," wrote Morris, author of 17 books, including his latest, "Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One Party Nation."

Morris says that by having one pool of legal workers who can receive Obamacare, and another pool of illegal works with amnesty who cannot receive healthcare insurance will give employers the incentive to replace citizens with illegal immigrants.

"If you think Democrats are bemoaning the loss of the blue-collar whites who voted with Republicans in the midterm elections now, wait ’til the amnesty/Obamacare mandate combo kicks in. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!" he said.

"As the 2016 elections approach, this conflict between amnesty and the employer mandate will likely become a major campaign issue. It calls into question the two hallmarks of the Obama presidency and puts them on a collision course."

Morris noted that Census Bureau figures show three out of four new jobs, or 6 million out of 8 million jobs created since Obama took office in 2008, went to "non-native-born Americans," a term which covers legal and illegal immigrants as well as naturalized U.S. citizens.

He concluded by saying, "The desire of employers to find a way out from under the expensive mandate in Obamacare will accelerate the process.

"It will be a great line to feature on your resume that you came here illegally and are not eligible for Obamacare. It will go a long way toward guaranteeing a job."

Related Stories:

· Dick Morris Tells Hannity: Obama Pushing for One-Party Rule

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/US/obamacare-mandate-employers-illegals/2014/11/26/id/609677/#ixzz3KLMIlFNr
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

What the President Didn’t Tell You About His Amnesty Plan

By Rick Moran Bio

November 23, 2014 – 10:55 am

Newt Gingrich, writing at CNN, contrasts the words that President Obama used to describe his deferred deportation plan with what his administration is actually proposing.

The President also said in his speech that his actions would offer relief only to people who met certain criteria he described, including having child dependents in the United States. But the actual policy memo makes clear that “DHS will direct all of its enforcement resources at pursuing” people who are “national security threats, serious criminals, and recent border crossers.”

In other words, there will be one group, estimated at 4 million or so, who are eligible for the new work authorization program. But at the same time, there will be no resources directed at enforcing immigration law against the other 7 million people here illegally as long as they do not fall into a few narrow categories, according to the President’s Office of Legislative Affairs. And indeed, a “senior administration official” told Roll Call that the administration “will order immigration agents to prioritize deportations of criminals and recent arrivals — and let people who are not on that priority list go free.” This is not at all the program the President described in his speech.

As I wrote yesterday, drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug traffickers, and even burglars will not be “prioritized” as far as deportations are concerned. Most local governments don’t turn illegals over to the feds anyway, so not much will change. Still, for the federal government to ignore the immigration laws already on the books by looking the other way and “deferring” deportations for almost all 11 million illegal aliens is a breathtaking expansion of executive power.

Gingrich, quite appropriately, called Obama’s address a “Gruber speech”:

Listening to a speech in which the President lied about what he was proposing and lied about his authority to implement it, it was hard not to think of the Gruber model — which is really the Obama model, after all. He said what he needed to say to do what he wants to do.

Immigrants will “get right with the law,” but not be “legalized,” just as Obamacare’s taxes weren’t taxes, until they were taxes before the Supreme Court, but after which they weren’t taxes again. Only immigrants who meet certain specific criteria will be eligible for relief, except for the millions of other people he doesn’t mention for whom he will also stop enforcing the law.

In the past few years, the President has described 22 times on video how he doesn’t have the legal and constitutional authority to take many of the actions he announced Thursday night.

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed,” he said in 2011. “…[W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. …There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

President Obama made a good case back then. It’s a shame he apparently thinks, like Gruber, that Americans are all so stupid we won’t figure out he’s not telling us the truth today.

The president also claimed that his amnesty plan would slow the rush to the border by illegals. With history as a guide, that’s hornswaggle. Look what happened after his unilateral action in 2012 with DREAMers being legalized. The crush of illegal alien children at the border overwhelmed our ability to deal with it. Now he announces that unless you’re a murderer or a terrorist, you can come to the U.S. and not be deported (as long as you avoid the authorities long enough). If past is prologue, you can expect a surge of illegals at the border in the near future.

At least Gruber was honest enough to come out and say what he was thinking. Obama used subterfuge to disguise his true intent: overturning our immigration laws.

Illegal immigrants will be eligible
for Social Security, Medicare

· AP

· PRESIDENT OBAMA’S executive actions will allow illegal immigrants who apply for work permits to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, the White House says.

Democratic Party Gambling Future On The Changing American Electorate

By Joseph R. Carducci, November 23, 2014.

Facebook

Twitter

One perspective about the illegal executive amnesty action Obama wanted…and now has indeed taken…is how this is an attempt to pander to the changing face of the American electorate. I have said before that a big part of Obama’s Open Borders policy, along with his direct instructions to the ICE and Border Patrol NOT to enforce current immigration law, is to hasten this change in the American electorate.

In other words, Obama and the Democrats are hoping that as more and more immigrants come into this country, illegally or not, that will gain a bigger advantage for their party. They also feel this will play out much better in Presidential and other national election cycles than in midterm or off year elections.

This is their big plan to retain control of the White House in 2016 and beyond. In fact, this so-called rising electorate, which is really a coalition of immigrants and socially progressive young people, has been discussed in political circles since at least 2002. It was even touted as the key to a new Democratic majority, although this has yet to come to pass, thankfully.

The plan is certainly an ambitious strategy. It is also partly complicated by the fact that the Democrats no longer seem to have any clear message that is truly resonating with voters. While a number of Latinos are in support of amnesty, there are a large number of Latinos and other immigrants NOT supportive of amnesty, certainly not in the fashion Obama has indicated.

While the leadership of the party likely understands that such a strategy can lead to problems in midterm election cycles, they are hoping they will be able to keep the White House (at least) out of the grasp of the evil Republicans for a generation or more. But as I said above, you still need to have a message that will reach and resonate with voters. The midterm elections earlier this month proved this to be a big Democratic problem:

“On election day 2012, the president had a 49.9 percent job approval rating and a 47.4 percent disapproval rating. In 2014, by contrast, the president had a 42 percent job approval rating, and a 53.3 disapproval rating. Notably, this isn’t ascribable to likely voter screens; the highest the president has been in polls of adults since June was 45 percent.

This low job approval interacted with state partisanship more heavily than it did with state demographics. After all, Obama was popular enough in 2012 in places such as Montana and North Dakota to enable Democratic Senate victories. If Obama’s job approval had been 54 percent in the overall 2014 electorate, rather than 44 percent (as exit polls indicated), the Republican purple state wins would not have occurred, and some of the red states would have elected blue senators…Regardless, the Democrats’ problem in 2014 was not simply the map, nor was it mostly a demographic/turnout issue. It was an unpopular Democratic president…”

So, as we see, the tidal wave of defeat that flooded over the Democratic Party on November 4 was due to more than simply a lack of voter turnout, or simple demographics. Even still, we should still be seriously worried about the effects of Obama’s opening the borders and lack of immigration law enforcement. Of course, all of this combines with the illegal executive amnesty action to create huge potential problems and consequences, the least of which might be a changing American electorate.

This is why Obama declared his action to be NOT amnesty and perfectly legal, despite nearly six years of his own prior assertions that he didn’t have the legal authority to do this. It is not amnesty in his eyes, because he is simply making new little Democratic voters.

What do YOU think about this? Is the Obama plan to flood the US with illegals, grant them legal status, and then allow them to vote, expanding the demographics of his party? Will this work…is it a good strategy to allow the Democrats to retain the White House in 2016 and beyond?

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

Ted Cruz: Obama’s In The Business Of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’

Ted Cruz: Obama’s In The Business Of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’

Daily Caller

Ted Cruz: Obama’s In The Business Of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’ [VIDEO]

9:47 AM 11/23/2014

154

88

Alex Griswold

Media Reporter

· See All Articles

· Send Email

· Subscribe to RSS

· Bio

Alex Griswold

Alex Griswold is a reporter for The Daily Caller.

·

· Tweet

·

4389618

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said on “Fox News Sunday” that President Barack Obama’s use of executive amnesty was tantamount to “counterfeiting immigration papers.”

Well, the notion that this is just prosecutorial discretion is simply nonsense. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish our immigration laws. What the President announced this week is a wholesale refusal to follow our immigration laws, to enforce our immigration laws. Number one, for 4 to 5 million people here illegally, he’s promising to print up and give work authorizations. Essentially he’s gotten in the job of counterfeiting immigration papers, because there’s no legal authority to do what he’s doing. He’s simply giving work authorizations and claiming unilateral authority.

Communist Party USA Praises Obama for Violating the Constitution on Amnesty

Submitted by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on November 22, 2014 – 9:43 am EST2 Comments

By: Sara Noble
Independent Sentinel

Communists marching. They must destroy the Republican party to succeed.

The Communist Party USA, in their Peoples’ World magazine, praised Barack Obama’s decision to violate the law and bastardize even a valued legal tactic called “prosecutorial discretion.”

They say he is bringing millions out of the shadows. Their article by Tim Wheeler started with Helen Chavez’, César Chavez’ widow praising the president. Of course, her husband, though one of them, didn’t approve of illegal immigration.

“Today, President Obama kept his promise to me and to the American people,” Chavez said in a MoveOn petition expressing support for Obama’s actions. The President took these steps despite threats from the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill to close down the federal government or even impeach him on specious grounds that he has exceeded his constitutional authority. Every president in the past half century including Republicans has issued executive orders to deal with issues of immigration when Congress failed, or refused to act.

Impeachment talk has been coming from the leftists in our government to be honest but communists aren’t honest.

La Raza (NCLR) is also thrilled with the decision but describes it as only a first step. Many in the LaRaza movement believe much of the West is theirs and was taken illegally in 1848.

I say give them California and call it even.

The AFL-CIO also backs the president. Illegal immigrants are the unions “brothers and sisters.” It doesn’t seem to phase them that they have welcomed in more workers to compete with their members.

Poll: Most Americans Against Obama’s Amnesty Plan

A majority of Americans feel that President Barack Obama badly handled the way he gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants through executive order. [Full Story]

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/#ixzz3KH3tDCpB
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

(Getty Images)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer: Amnesty Costs ‘Horrendous’

The costs to the states from President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration are going to be "horrendous," Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said. [Full Story]

Related Stories

§ Poll: Most Americans Disapprove of Executive Amnesty Action

§ Rep. Messer: Obamacare Gives Firms Reason to Hire Illegals

§ Dick Morris: Obama Amnesty to Cause Massive Layoffs

§ Social Security, Medicare Open to Illegals Under Amnesty Plan

§ Arizona Court Upholds Giving Drivers’ Licenses to Illegals

§ Congress Can Block Use of Fees for Immigration Overhaul

§ Congress can block President Barack Obama from using federal immigration [Full Story]

Ben Carson

Prescription for D.C.

Illegal Executive Orders Reward Illegal Immigration

§ Some Immigrants Eligible For Social Security Under Obama Immigration Executive Order

Tea Party’s Singular Focus on Amnesty Troubles GOP

President Obama’s executive action on immigration has so outraged the tea party faction of the Republican Party that the ultra conservatives are focusing their attention and resources on this single issue, The New York Times reports. [Full Story]

Related Stories

§ Poll: Americans Don’t Want Shutdown Over Amnesty

§ Michele Bachmann, Steve King Take Amnesty Fight to the Border

Obama’s Amnesty Will Cost $22,000 Per US College Grad

11:25 PM 11/23/2014

Neil Munro

White House Correspondent

4389892

President Barack Obama’s amnesty for four million illegal immigrants will cost Americans about $2 trillion, or roughly $40 billion a year for the next five decades.

The cost of Obama’s generosity is equivalent to 30 cents extra for every gallon of gas bought by Americans.

Or a $10 monthly fee added to every cellphone.

Or a $22,000 tax on every American graduate’s four-year college degree.

The $2 trillion cost is driven by the federal government’s support for all poor people, says Robert Rector, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Rector explained that, on average, the illegal immigrants benefiting from the amnesty have a 10th grade education.

That low education ensures they can’t earn enough money, or pay enough taxes, to pay for the many benefits they’ll get if they progress from temporary residents to legal residents and then to citizens, Rector said.

These various benefits add up to roughly $50,000 a year for each household, but those households can and do pay only about $13,000 a year in federal taxes, leaving a gap of roughly $40,000 between payments and benefits, Rector said.

That gap is effectively filled by payments from intact, college-education households which normally pay $30,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits. “It takes all of the net taxes paid by one college-educated family [household] to pay for one of these immigrant households,” he said.

Rector draws his estimate from a May 2013 analysis he completed for Heritage, which predicted a $6.3 trillion, 50-year cost if all 12 million illegals in the country were granted amnesty.

Currently, government spends roughly $50 billion a year supporting the children and families of illegal immigrants. Much of that costs consists of free schooling and medical care for the U.S.-born kids of illegals.

Obama’s plan will expand the spending, for example, by providing tax benefits, including Earned Income Tax Credit.

Two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997, according to the Internal Revenue Service’s EITC calculator. A family with two kids and an income of $20,000 would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone from EITC.

Those benefits will gradually expand to include healthcare and retirement benefits, Rector said.

“It is completely implausible that the Obama administration plans to have people with legal status reside here for 30 years without medical care… They would incrementally gain access to all of the means-tested programs,” he said.

According to Rector, half the total cost of the amnesty will come due once the low-wage migrants get Green Cards and tap into Americans’ Social Security and Medicare funds. Americans with similar education get $3 back from Social Security for every $1 they pay in taxes.

Tags: Barack Obama, Robert Rector

Next Page

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

Krauthammer: ‘Madison Is Turning Over In His Grave’ Following Obama’s Executive Amnesty [VIDEO]

Krauthammer: ‘Madison Is Turning Over In His Grave’ Following Obama’s Executive Amnesty [VIDEO]

Daily Caller

Krauthammer: James Madison ‘Is Turning Over In His Grave’ Following Obama’s Executive Amnesty [VIDEO]

7:41 PM 11/21/2014 Al Weaver Reporter

4389199

Appearing the night after President Barack Obama’s national address announcing executive action on immigration, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said that James Madison is “turning over in his grave” after Obama “assaulted the separation of powers” and exceeded “the powers of the presidency.” Krauthammer made the comments on “Special Report” Friday night.

Krauthammer: “My loser is James Madison, who is turning over in the grave in Montpelier, when he sees how Obama has assaulted the separation of powers and exceeded by any conceivable measure the powers of the presidency.

My winner: Barack Obama. He’ll get away with this. He will, it is not going to be overturned, there’s no way you can actually do it. He can be hampered, you know, you can hold back the judicial appointments. But overturning the executive order is extremely difficult, and he will. He will succeed, but history will not judge him nicely on this.”

Parker Moore, Linfield College student. Youtube screen grab.

Illegal Immigrant Stabbed College Football Player To Death In Oregon

1:27 PM 11/20/2014 Chuck Ross is a reporter at The Daily Caller.

4386699

A man who fatally stabbed a 20-year-old college football player in the chest at an Oregon convenience store over the weekend was likely an illegal immigrant, authorities say.

Juventino Bermudez-Arenas stabbed Parker Moore several times at a 7-11 in McMinnville on Saturday. Bermudez-Arenas returned to the scene after fleeing, and was shot and killed by police who say the 33-year-old refused to drop the knife he used to stab Moore.

Moore was a sophomore business management major and played linebacker for Linfield. The team had just won a game 59-0 several hours before the incident.

Bermudez-Arenas’ family told KPTV that he did not speak English and that they believe he may not have understood police commands because of the language barrier.

His identity was also hard to pin down in the days after the attack, which led authorities to believe he he was an illegal immigrant.

“It is not believed that he was in the United States lawfully based on inconsistent Social Security numbers given to his employer, lack of official U.S. paperwork, and from information provided by his family,” the Yamhill County district attorney said in a statement. “Investigators continue to gather further background information on him.”

Based on records that they could find, authorities said Bermudez-Arenas was arrested for trespassing in 2000. He told police his name was “Jonventino Bermudes” and listed his birth date a month earlier than his actual birth date, KOIN reported.

Police have not determined a motive for the killing but have said it appears to be random. Bermudez-Arenas’s aunt told KPTV that after stabbing Moore, he went home to his family and said he had to go back to the store to turn himself in to police.

It is not clear if Bermudez-Arenas had ever come into contact with federal immigration agencies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not return an email request for more information.

Obama: US Taxpayers Must Pay For Illegals’ Children

6:00 PM 11/20/2014 Neil Munro White House Correspondent

4387893

Illegal immigrants will receive huge payments from American taxpayers under rules now being imposed by President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty.

The illegals will get work-permits and Social Security cards, and will be required to pay taxes, according to Cecilia Munoz, the former immigration lobbyist who is now a top Obama aide.

That means they’re part of the tax system, she said, when she was asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

“They are subject to our tax law,” she said, carefully.

Most households of illegals have very low income, and pay little in taxes. For example, in 2011, roughly 22 percent of immigrant households — both legal and illegal — were classified as living in poverty. In contrast, only 13 percent of American households were in poverty.

However, once illegal immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, they would be entitled to EITC payments.

The payments may be huge, and will rise each year.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997.

A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone.

Parents who earn less than the threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

The EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

Another study says that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced annual immigration.

U.S. President Barack Obama attends the 2nd ASEAN-USA Summit in Naypyitaw November 13, 2014. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj

‘FALSE’: Politifact Rates Obama Executive Amnesty Claim Ahead Of Address

6:17 PM 11/20/2014 Al Weaver Reporter

4387880

Ahead of President Barack Obama’s address tonight, Politifact has issued a “False” rating for Obama’s claim that his “position hasn’t changed” on using executive action to address immigration issues.

Per the rating from Politifact:

“Obama has been asked about his ability to use his office to change immigration rules in the U.S. in many ways throughout the years. Sometimes, he has been asked broadly, but other times, he was asked about very specific measures, such as not splitting up families or freezing deportations for parents of DREAMers.

In answering those questions, Obama’s position has clearly changed. Whereas he used to say his ability to take action ended at deferring action on DREAMers, he now is saying there are at least some things he can do and intends to do. Even absent the specifics of his plan, it’s very clear his tune is much different now.”

Two days ago, the Washington Post’s resident fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave the president’s claim an Upside-Down Pinocchio, described by Kessler as “a statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged ‘flip-flop’ from a previously-held position.”

Washington Post Fact Checker: Obama Flip-Flopped On Executive Amnesty

6:22 PM 11/18/2014 Alex Griswold is a reporter for The Daily Caller.

4385133

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler ruled on Barack Obama’s recent claim that his “position hasn’t changed” on executive amnesty, calling it a clear flip-flop.

In the lead-up to Obama’s planned executive amnesty, observers have pointed out that on previous occasions, Obama claimed he lacked the authority to do so. “I am president, I am not king,” he once told Univision, back in 2010. “I can’t do these things just by myself.”

But Obama said last week in Australia that in those instances, he was talking about something else entirely. “When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress,” Obama explained, “And getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation, for example, does extend beyond my legal authorities.”

Not true, says Kessler. He points out that on no less than four occasions, President Obama was asked only about halting the deportation of illegal immigrants. In all four occasions, and as late as 2013, Obama claimed it was beyond his power to do so.

“The president has certainly been consistent on this issue — until he saw that the path through Congress was blocked,” Kessler concludes. “It’s clear from the interviews that the president was not being asked about executive orders that would have provided comprehensive immigration reform, but about specific actions that ended deportations of a subset of illegal immigrants — precisely the type of action he will shortly unveil.”

Obama recieved an” Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which according to the Fact Checker rating scale represents “[a] statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.”

Rick Santorum: Amnesty’s a ‘Slap in the Face’ of Working Americans

Saturday, 22 Nov 2014 01:08 AM By Sean Piccoli

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

With his edict on immigration now in effect, President Barack Obama has flooded a struggling American labor market with millions of new workers who will further depress wages and make jobs harder to find, former Sen. Rick Santorum told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"He’s doing this as a slap in the face of every working American, and that is what we should be talking about," Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican and former presidential candidate, told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner.

In that besieged working-class group, said Santorum, are some of the very people that Obama claimed to be aiding by announcing on Thursday that 5 million immigrants living here illegally will be shielded from deportation.

"You know, who gets hurt most by what the president just did? Hispanics in America," said Santorum.

"You’re adding 5 million mostly unskilled workers into a labor pool right now, where wages are declining and income in America is declining."

With the economy creating "maybe if we’re lucky, 2 million new jobs a year," Santorum said that amnesty will add 5 million new workers "in addition to 1.1 million new legal immigrants that are coming into this country every year.

"Plus more illegals who will be coming because the president has now created a path to citizenship to whoever gets into this country," he said.

"We are going to flood labor markets."

Obama declared amnesty in a televised address over the objections of Republicans in Congress, who say the president is exceeding his authority and effectively inventing law, which he has no constitutional right to do.

House Speaker John Boehner said on Friday that Obama is "damaging the presidency" with his actions and that Congress will act to "protect the Constitution."

Santorum, like others, rejected the argument that Obama’s executive action is no different from deportation stays issued by former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, calling the comparison "a farce."

"What President Reagan and President Bush both did, they dealt with a very small group of people and they acted pursuant to a congressional act," said Santorum.

"In other words, Congress acted, did something on the issue of immigration and, in implementing that law, the president cleaned up some loose ends. He dealt with a very small group of people, which in fact, Congress agreed with him doing."

"That is not what’s going on here," Santorum said.

With comprehensive immigration reform stalled in Congress, "The president is saying, ‘You won’t act, so I will. You won’t grant amnesty to all these people. You have opposed doing that, and therefore I’m going to do it,’" he said.

"That is not what Reagan did and that is not what Bush did."

Santorum said that by "acting like a tyrant" and "against the Constitution," the president "has thrown the Republicans and the country a curveball.

"We have never dealt with anything like this before," he said.

"It’s a time where people from both parties have to take a step back," said Santorum, arguing that Democrats in Congress should be just as concerned as their GOP colleagues.

"You’ve just seen the president of the U.S. basically tell you that ‘You’re irrelevant and we don’t really need you anymore. I don’t need you to change the laws of this country. I can do what I want to do irrespective of what you say and what you want in the [legislative] conference.’"

Santorum said that Obama’s act "is not just backing Republicans in a corner, it’s backing Americans in a corner."

Related Stories:

· Hispanic Post: Obama Creates a ‘Two-tiered’ Hispanic Community

· Rep. Steve King: ‘Sinking Feeling’ on How Order Will Play Out

Dick Morris: Obama’s ‘Ghost Army’ of Illegals

Dick Morris: Obama’s Amnesty Is a Never-Ending Cycle

Friday, 21 Nov 2014 12:37 PM0

President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to between 4 and 5 million people is really part of an ongoing cyclical process of immigration-amnesty-more immigration.

He intends this amnesty to provoke a new wave of illegal entry into the United States, creating a new pool of illegal immigrants awaiting their own amnesty.

And in the meantime, they will constitute a "ghost army" able to vote illegally with no requirement that they present photo identification.

Obama’s previous grant of amnesty — to the group known as "DREAMERS" — triggered a flood of new illegal immigration from Central America. No sooner did they arrive than Obama packed them off to all parts of the country, likely shielding them from deportation.

His new amnesty, based on giving legal status to those who have had anchor babies in the U.S., suggests a simple strategy for the coming wave of illegal immigrants: Come here, sneak over the border, have a baby in the U.S., and wait for your amnesty.

None of these outcomes are unintended consequences of the president’s program — they lie at its very core. In our book "Power Grab," we explain how Obama uses this cycle of amnesty and immigration to pad his electorate and power the left into office using demographically based politics.

But Obama’s nightmare is that even as he catalyzes millions of new immigrants, Latinos who have lived here for many years might be assimilating, voting as independents unwilling to toe the ethnic voting line. The president’s economic policies, which decrease upward mobility, may retard assimilation, but the process is proceeding nonetheless.

In the 2012 election, 75 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama. But this year, only 63 percent did.

When will the Latino vote go Republican? When it is no longer the Latino vote. The same assimilation, intermarriage, and merging which has extinguished the German-American, Italian-American, and Irish-American vote, making them all just American voters, is at work among Hispanics.

Democrats would prefer that Latinos follow the model of African-Americans, whose resentment, memory of past discrimination, and worry about ongoing racism keep them bound to the Democratic Party even as they move up the income ladder. But Latinos give every evidence of being more like the traditional immigrant groups that merge into the American population and culture.

In a sense, the very removal of the grievance over immigration reform, implicit in Obama’s amnesty, may serve to undermine his purpose by reducing the racial tensions which keep Latinos Democrat.

Devout Catholics and increasingly evangelical Protestants, the Latino vote embraces values shared largely by Republicans. Their move to the right as they advance economically may swing the electorate back to the Republicans.

Ben Carson: Obama Helping Illegals While Appalachia, Cities Rot

Friday, 21 Nov 2014 14:25 PM

President Obama is ignoring the plight of millions of needy Americans in inner cities and rural communities with his fo . . .

Rep. Joe Barton: Opposing Amnesty Not About Race

Saturday, 22 Nov 2014 01:06 AM By Sean Piccoli

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

Taking issue with President Barack Obama’s executive decree on immigration does not make somebody a racist, Rep. Joe Barton told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"I don’t think there’s anything racial about asking the president to enforce the existing immigration laws and to work with the Congress to reform those laws where we all agree there’s something that needs to be done," the Texas Republican told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner. "I don’t see a racial issue in that at all."

In a televised address on Thursday night, the president declared that some 5 million immigrants — primarily Hispanic — living here illegally will be shielded from deportation. He said he was acting because Congress had failed to.

He proceeded despite criticism that the move exceeds a president’s authority, and that Obama is asserting powers the Constitution explicitly gives to legislators, not the executive.

Obama also defied warnings from Republican leaders that he would "poison the well" for cooperation between Congress and the White House — whose relations were sour even before the Nov. 4 electoral rout of Democrats that gives the GOP control of the U.S. Senate beginning in January.

Barton, a veteran congressman who touts his suburban Dallas-Fort Worth base as "one of the more diverse districts in Texas," said that Obama missed an opportunity on Thursday to restart the push for comprehensive immigration reform — lawfully.

"If he has said almost identically what he said last night and [then] said, ‘I’m sending this as a legislative proposal to the Congress,’ we would have taken it under consideration," said Barton. "And I don’t think we would have enacted it verbatim, but we would have acted upon it in the regular course of legislative action."

Instead, Obama said, in effect, "Forget Congress, forget last week’s election; I’m just going to do this," said Barton. "He’s thumbing his nose at everybody in this country, and that’s flat wrong."

Barton credited the president with being "partially correct" in one respect — that "amnesty" was the state illegal immigrants already lived under because, until Thursday, the federal government had not addressed what to do with an estimated 12 million undocumented migrants who are here.

"I would partially agree with the president that just doing nothing, in effect, is the de facto amnesty," said Barton, "because it allows the however many millions of people who come into this country without proper documentation to stay here."

The hitch, said Barton, is that "this president is not enforcing the [existing] immigration laws."

"What does get under my skin is that he is trying to act unilaterally, which is against the Constitution," he said. "He is not the legislative body; he is the administrative officer of the executive branch. He’s a powerful person — the president’s a very powerful office. But he cannot act unilaterally without the support of the Congress."

He also questioned the president’s timing and the sudden urgency with which he acted in defiance of Congress.

"When President Obama had a Democratic Senate, [and] a Democratic House when he was first elected, he never sent an immigration bill to the Congress. … So it’s a little hypocritical for him now to demand immediate action. When he had the entire legislative apparatus, he didn’t do anything," said Barton.

Related Stories:

· Greg Abbott: Texas Will Sue Obama Over Executive Amnesty

· Rep. Mike McCaul: ‘Shut Down’ Obama, Not Government

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

White House Excludes Unfriendly Media From Amnesty Briefings

The White House cancelled its usual press conference on November 20th, and instead invited establishment media to attend a closed-door briefing about the president’s unprecedented offer of work-permits to millions of foreign workers. The 45-minute event was held in a room near the White House’s press room, just before midday, and attending journalists were told they can’t release the information until 6.00. The attendees included some independent reporters from major outlets, including Ed Henry at Fox News, ABC’s Jon Karl and CBS’ Major Garrett. Most of the media at the event were from outlets, including The New York Times, Politico, The Hill and The Washington Post, which have not provided critical reporting of the president’s planned executive order.??

Daily Caller

White House Excludes Unfriendly Media From Amnesty Briefings

3:52 PM 11/20/2014 Neil Munro White House Correspondent

4387658

The White House cancelled its usual press conference Nov. 20, and instead invited establishment media to attend a closed-door briefing about the president’s unprecedented offer of work-permits to millions of foreign workers.

The 45-minute event was held in a room near the White House’s press room, just before midday.

The attending journalists were told they can’t release the information until 6.00.

The attendees included some independent reporters from major outlets, including Ed Henry at Fox News, ABC’s Jon Karl and CBS’ Major Garrett. Most of the media at the event were from outlets, including The New York Times, Politico, The Hill and The Washington Post, which have not provided critical reporting of the president’s planned executive order.

The Daily Caller was not invited. Other popular outlets, such as Breitbart, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and TheBlaze were also excluded.

The White House also held a conference call for reporters at 2:00 pm, which was embargoed until 6:00 pm.

Administration officials accepted questions from regional media and from the media site Vox, as well as from the progressive outlet Think Progress.

The regional media invited to ask questions included the Las Vegas Sun, the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Arizona Sun.

Callers were forced to identify themselves before they were selected by officials.

None of the reporters on the call asked about the impact of Obama’s amnesty on American workers, and or about public support for the unpopular amnesty. Instead, the questions asked about the benefits provided by the president to illegal immigrants, and why Obama set some limits on benefits.

The Daily Caller was not invited to join the media call.

compilation: Ferguson files

Sheriff Clarke doesn’t mince words. Ever. Including on Ferguson. And Democrats

November 29, 2014

By Carol Brown

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke tells it like it is. He’s a stellar reminder of what true leadership looks like and what it means to uphold the rule of law. It is a relief to hear someone speak with such honesty and candor.

To give you a taste of how fearlessly this man puts truth on display, here are two videos of Sherriff Clarke speaking about Ferguson. Below is a quote from a speech he gave at the National Press Club a couple of weeks ago:

… I’m known for not sugar coating things. This pissed me off … I sat up there and listened to Eric Holder throw law enforcement officers under the bus for political expediency….

His densely packed 6-minute speech is worth a listen, as is his recent interview with Neil Cavuto. I’ve transcribed a few gems for AT readers, but hope you’ll take the time to listen to this man. I can only hope and pray he is the voice of our future because, Lord knows, this is the kind of leadership and vision we desperately need.

On Al Sharpton:

… Anytime Al Sharpton shows up on the scene, nothing good is going to come of that.

On Barack Obama:

… I heard some of the president’s comments last night. And he said that what we need to do is try to understand them and he said that the anger was an understandable reaction. And I was just floored by that because it’s not an understandable reaction. People have to come up with a more socially acceptable way to deal with anger and frustration. This is totally and unequivocally intolerable ….

… when I heard the president call for calm after the rioting started, I questioned his sincerity because some of his political strategy of divide and conquer fuels this sort of racial animosity between people. And so I think when he called for calm after the rioting started I believe it was done with a wink and a nod.

On Jay Nixon:

… I think Governor Nixon is trying to soft shoe this thing. I don’t think he has the intestinal fortitude to deal with this. What’s happening down there right now is real ugly and the response isn’t going to be pleasing to the eye with what law enforcement and the national guard have to do. But, Neil, I mean come on. They have to restore order and the law enforcement officers and the national guard have to use all reasonable force to get that under control. Restraint is not an option right now for law enforcement .…

There’s always going to be people on the sideline that are going to second guess you. That’s part of what Governor Nixon has to deal with. It’s something that I have to deal with when I have to make tough decisions. He has to block that out and do what’s in the best interest of Ferguson, Missouri, and the state of Missouri and he has to get this thing under control and not worry about the optics so much. You know, nobody’s saying all due force or any force. What I’m calling for is all reasonable force to get this thing under control. And you’re going to be criticized. And he’s afraid to be criticized and he’s worried about what people might say in second guessing him? Then he’s in the wrong position.

On Eric Holder:

… Eric Holder is one of those that was in a very visible position to have talked reasonably and to kind of quell this thing early on and instead he engaged with inflammatory rhetoric. So for him to come on and announce what he’s going to today. You know, look, justice is about due process. You’re not guaranteed a result. You’re guaranteed due process. Due process played it out at the state level. If he wants to start a federal probe he’s entitled to do that, but that’s just going to prolong this thing and unless he thinks or he believes that there’s something nefarious that went on here with the Grand Jury investigation, I think he ought to reconsider that … For Eric Holder to come in I think it just continues to prolong this thing and fan the flames. And let’s say he comes out with some indictment of his own and it’s thrown out at the federal level, because in the end I don’t see a judge in this country upon appeal that would uphold any kind of conviction here against the officer. And then we may have to relive this all over again.

Addressing polls that show a sharp racial divide regarding the Grand Jury decision:

… The political strategy used by the left and we saw it play out in November with this war on women, this fanning racial discord with conservatives and accusations they’re trying to take black votes away that kind of stuff enables this, that kind of stuff encourages this divide. Sure there’s a divide in this country and there always has been and sometimes along racial lines. But instead of feeding that beast, what people in leadership positions, and even political positions, ought to do is temper that stuff down and allow some of this to just you know kind of simmer instead of explode all the time. Race is a very explosive and divisive issue in this country and it’s not going to go away You mentioned that. But we don’t have to pick at it, we don’t have to stoke it up all the time. And if it does start to smolder, because this has a lot more to do than just what the police use force. And I don’t expect police to make major changes in terms of how they use force to defend themselves or defend others … I don’t believe that a police officer should put his or her life in danger just to achieve some political agenda.

To learn more about Sheriff Clarke, who is a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment by the way, see:

  • here (bio)
  • here (his blog which is fantastic)
  • here (2014 CPAC panelist)
  • here (election web site with lots of information about him and his views)

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke tells it like it is. He’s a stellar reminder of what true leadership looks like and what it means to uphold the rule of law. It is a relief to hear someone speak with such honesty and candor.

To give you a taste of how fearlessly this man puts truth on display, here are two videos of Sherriff Clarke speaking about Ferguson. Below is a quote from a speech he gave at the National Press Club a couple of weeks ago:

… I’m known for not sugar coating things. This pissed me off … I sat up there and listened to Eric Holder throw law enforcement officers under the bus for political expediency….

His densely packed 6-minute speech is worth a listen, as is his recent interview with Neil Cavuto. I’ve transcribed a few gems for AT readers, but hope you’ll take the time to listen to this man. I can only hope and pray he is the voice of our future because, Lord knows, this is the kind of leadership and vision we desperately need.

On Al Sharpton:

… Anytime Al Sharpton shows up on the scene, nothing good is going to come of that.

On Barack Obama:

… I heard some of the president’s comments last night. And he said that what we need to do is try to understand them and he said that the anger was an understandable reaction. And I was just floored by that because it’s not an understandable reaction. People have to come up with a more socially acceptable way to deal with anger and frustration. This is totally and unequivocally intolerable ….

… when I heard the president call for calm after the rioting started, I questioned his sincerity because some of his political strategy of divide and conquer fuels this sort of racial animosity between people. And so I think when he called for calm after the rioting started I believe it was done with a wink and a nod.

On Jay Nixon:

… I think Governor Nixon is trying to soft shoe this thing. I don’t think he has the intestinal fortitude to deal with this. What’s happening down there right now is real ugly and the response isn’t going to be pleasing to the eye with what law enforcement and the national guard have to do. But, Neil, I mean come on. They have to restore order and the law enforcement officers and the national guard have to use all reasonable force to get that under control. Restraint is not an option right now for law enforcement .…

There’s always going to be people on the sideline that are going to second guess you. That’s part of what Governor Nixon has to deal with. It’s something that I have to deal with when I have to make tough decisions. He has to block that out and do what’s in the best interest of Ferguson, Missouri, and the state of Missouri and he has to get this thing under control and not worry about the optics so much. You know, nobody’s saying all due force or any force. What I’m calling for is all reasonable force to get this thing under control. And you’re going to be criticized. And he’s afraid to be criticized and he’s worried about what people might say in second guessing him? Then he’s in the wrong position.

On Eric Holder:

… Eric Holder is one of those that was in a very visible position to have talked reasonably and to kind of quell this thing early on and instead he engaged with inflammatory rhetoric. So for him to come on and announce what he’s going to today. You know, look, justice is about due process. You’re not guaranteed a result. You’re guaranteed due process. Due process played it out at the state level. If he wants to start a federal probe he’s entitled to do that, but that’s just going to prolong this thing and unless he thinks or he believes that there’s something nefarious that went on here with the Grand Jury investigation, I think he ought to reconsider that … For Eric Holder to come in I think it just continues to prolong this thing and fan the flames. And let’s say he comes out with some indictment of his own and it’s thrown out at the federal level, because in the end I don’t see a judge in this country upon appeal that would uphold any kind of conviction here against the officer. And then we may have to relive this all over again.

Addressing polls that show a sharp racial divide regarding the Grand Jury decision:

… The political strategy used by the left and we saw it play out in November with this war on women, this fanning racial discord with conservatives and accusations they’re trying to take black votes away that kind of stuff enables this, that kind of stuff encourages this divide. Sure there’s a divide in this country and there always has been and sometimes along racial lines. But instead of feeding that beast, what people in leadership positions, and even political positions, ought to do is temper that stuff down and allow some of this to just you know kind of simmer instead of explode all the time. Race is a very explosive and divisive issue in this country and it’s not going to go away You mentioned that. But we don’t have to pick at it, we don’t have to stoke it up all the time. And if it does start to smolder, because this has a lot more to do than just what the police use force. And I don’t expect police to make major changes in terms of how they use force to defend themselves or defend others … I don’t believe that a police officer should put his or her life in danger just to achieve some political agenda.

To learn more about Sheriff Clarke, who is a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment by the way, see:

  • here (bio)
  • here (his blog which is fantastic)
  • here (2014 CPAC panelist)
  • here (election web site with lots of information about him and his views)

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/sheriff_clarke_doesnt_mince_words_ever_including_on_ferguson_and_democrats.html#ixzz3KbSBxx7u
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Black Activist Supports Ferguson Grand Jury Decision

Monday, 24 Nov 2014 11:47 PM

By Jason Devaney

· 0

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a conservative black civil-rights activist and national radio talk show host, said Monday night that he supports the grand jury decision in the Michael Brown shooting case.

The grand jury ruled that Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson should not face charges in the shooting death.

Peterson called the people rioting and causing chaos in Ferguson "racist black thugs."

He released the following statement:

"The decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson proves that our justice system works. The outcome shows that justice prevailed despite a concerted effort by rabble rousers, corrupt civil-rights ‘leaders,’ Attorney General Eric Holder, and even President Barack Obama, who attempted to tip the scales of justice and convict the officer without due process.

"Emboldened by irresponsible public statements made by race baiters like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder, the professional community organizers have been planning to create havoc in Ferguson for months. Some are looking for an excuse to loot and riot. Racist black thugs in Ferguson even issued a $5,000 bounty on officer Wilson’s life.

"If blacks riot, the blame lies with the so-called ‘leaders’ and elected officials who condemned the officer without knowing all the facts and who treated the thug Michael Brown like a hero by sending White House officials to his funeral.

"The problem with most blacks in Ferguson and across America is that they want to blame police and scapegoat whites for their anger rather than taking responsibility for raising their children and improving their communities.

"Intimidation and lawlessness cannot be tolerated. Law enforcement must be allowed to do their job and protect law-abiding citizens and businesses, and we must all repudiate irresponsible race hustlers who incite violence with their lies and encourage the foolishness of black thugs who act like spoiled children."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/Jesse-Lee-Peterson-supports-decision-Michael-Brown/2014/11/24/id/609397/#ixzz3KEPyDWu7
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Niger Innis: Sharpton, Jackson ‘Make Their Bones’ on Racism

Monday, 24 Nov 2014 06:22 PM

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

The Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson profit by peddling racism in America, Niger Innis, executive director of TheTeaParty.net and national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, charged on Monday.

"These boys make their bones, their money on racism. Real, imagined, nonexistent. Just the word racism," Innis said on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"It’s how they make their bones and the fact of the matter is [that is] the way they execute their activism. Black life that is snuffed out by another black person has no meaning. It has no value.

"Black life only matters if it’s taken by a white person and then it really matters if it’s taken by a white cop."

Related Stories:

· Niger Innis: Blacks Rejecting ‘Sharptonization’ of Politics

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/al-sharpton-jesse-jackson-racism/2014/11/24/id/609342/#ixzz3KEebgetn
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Black Residents Armed With Assault Rifles Stand Guard Outside White-Owned Business During Ferguson Riots

<img width="665" height="385" src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Black-Ferguson-Residents-Protect-White-Owned-Store.png-665×385.jpg" data-attID="1638955" class="single-leader wp-post-image" alt="Black Ferguson Residents Protect White Owned Store.png" />

A group of black Ferguson residents armed with high-powered rifles stood outside a white-owned business in the city during recent riots, protecting it from rioters that looted and burned other businesses.

After a grand jury returned no indictment against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed unarmed black teen Michael Brown, protesters took to the streets and the demonstrations quickly turned into rioting. Several buildings were set ablaze, but a group of heavily armed black men stood outside a Conoco gas station.

One of the residents, a 6-foot-8 man named Derrick Johnson, held an AR-15 assault rifle as he stood in a pickup truck near that store’s entrance. Three other black Ferguson residents joined Johnson in front of the store, each of them armed with pistols.

In a city torn apart by racial tensions, the fact that black residents took up arms to defend a white-owned store made headlines.

The men said they felt indebted to the store’s owner, Doug Merello, who employed them over the course of several years.

The men said Merello always treated them with respect.

“He’s a nice dude, he’s helped us a lot,” said a man identified himself as R.J. The 29-year-old R.J. said the group chased away several groups of teenagers who wanted to loot the store, but also nearly got into a brush with soldiers from the Missouri National Guard, who initially mistook them for looters.

The gas station’s owner said the men definitely saved his store.

“We would have been burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” said Merello, whose father first bought the store in 1984.

While the black Ferguson residents defended the white-owned store, dozens of other businesses were not as lucky. Officials said more than a dozen businesses received “significant” damage as groups of rioters threw bricks, broke windows, and set fires.

The Ferguson Disaster: The Wreckage of Obama & Marx

November 27, 2014 7:28 pm EST | No Comment

The Right Planet By: Lee Stranahan Rebel Pundit (Photo credit: Gateway Pundit) As the smoke clears and the ashes cool in Ferguson, it’s important to remember that the catastrophe there wasn’t a spontaneous protest in response to a Grand Jury’s decision. Ferguson shows the destructive consequences of Marxist ideological theory and its application in practice. […]

Politicians and Media Incite Violence in Ferguson

November 26, 2014 8:33 pm EST | No Comment

By: Cliff Kincaid Accuracy in Media With Ferguson in flames and mobs running rampant, it became apparent to everyone—except the liberals and libertarians—that the media-hyped “militarization” of the police was not the problem. Instead, the problem in Ferguson was, and is, a criminal element doing drugs and determined to engage in anti-police violence. The additional […]

‘Unconventional Warfare’: Moscow Propaganda Uses ‘Ferguson’ to Demonize United States

November 26, 2014 7:32 pm EST | One Comment

Here’s an example of Russia’s unconventional warfare against the US. Kremlin propaganda station RT (Russia Today) uses “Ferguson” and gives us thirty minutes of almost unrelenting (and occasionally subtle) America bashing including even an interview with Hamas loving radical Bassem Masri. Please take your blood pressure pills first.

PRESIDENT JARRETT: “Senior Adviser” Reportedly Calling All the Shots, Including Those In Ferguson

November 29, 2014 4:29 pm EST | 3 Comments

By: Doug Ross
Doug Ross @ Journal

For those who are wondering how Barack Obama — a man seemingly engaged in full-time campaigning, fundraising and rabble-rousing — could also have the bandwidth to weaken America both at home and abroad, the answer is really quite simple.

The leader of the free world is actually a woman named Valerie Jarrett, a longtime crony of Barack and Michelle Obama, who appears to call all of the shots in the Oval Office.

In the White House, Jarrett has been linked to a wide variety of scandals and other policy debacles.

There are credible reports that Jarrett blocked the attack on Osama Bin Laden’s compound on three separate occasions.

Similar reports indicate that she gave the “stand down” order to would-be rescuers in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.

In 2012, she was reported to have led Obama’s “secret negotiations” with Iran’s Mullahs. Subsequent accounts depicted Jarrett as working with Iran’s nuclear experts to ensure the Islamic Republic could continue on its march to build nuclear weapons

…That year, Judicial Watch named Jarrett to its “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for her ties to the failed housing complexes and “other shady real estate scandals.”

Jarrett’s family background is equally troubling. Her father-in-law was a card-carrying Communist who worked with Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Jarrett’s grandfather Robert Taylor is reported to have served in a leadership role for the Soviet Union’s American front group during World War II, when Stalin was still allied with the Third Reich. Taylor’s “American Peace Mobilization” was a Soviet initiative designed to keep America out of the war so that Hitler and Stalin could divvy up Europe and Asia virtually unopposed.

So, in short, the first female President is a hard-core Leftist with an abysmal track record for decision-making, a horrifically failed tenure as a chief executive, a stunning inability to learn and a steely refusal to take responsibilities for her many failures.

But she’s the president and you’re not.

Which explains why Jarrett — against all historic precedent — was given a Secret Service detail for protection.

Nice Deb Ferguson Cop’s Wife: DOJ Agents In Town Are “Not There to Guide, They’re There to Harm.”

Dennis Prager We Have a Moral Divide, Not a Racial One, submitted by Joshuapundit. It’s one of the better observations I’ve seen in print about what ails America.

Pro-Iranian Communist Party Co-ordinates “Ferguson” Protests, Excuses Violence

November 26, 2014 6:48 pm EST | 4 Comments

The Workers World Party is one of the most extreme leftist groups in America. They support Cuba, Iran, North Korea, even Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe. This November 22 video 2014 video “Why workers & the oppressed must stand with the Ferguson rebellion” from WWP leader Larry Holmes proves unequivocally that the the Party is coordinating […]

The Movers and Shakers Behind the Ferguson Riots

November 30, 2014 8:25 pm EST | No Comment

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
NoisyRoom.net

The Ferguson riots are not what they seem and those behind them are professionals. One of the top organizers of the protesters for the Ferguson riots is Lisa Fithian, someone who was intimately involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. She has been deemed “Professor Occupy.” In 2005 and 2008, Lisa Fithian, Root Activist Network of Trainers, (2005), Alliance for Community Trainers Inc. (2008), was voted onto the Steering Committee for United for Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice is a partner organization of the George Soros linked Institute for Policy Studies. Several Marxist organizations are involved in the UFPJ leadership, but the most influential has been the Communist Party USA.

Lisa Fithian joined the labor movement through the AFL-CIO Organizing Institute in 1993. She is considered a legendary organizer. She also served as a human shield in actions conducted by the International Solidarity Movement in the Palestinian cities of Jenin and Nablus and has accused Israel of “slaughter[ing] Palestinians every single day in Gaza and the Occupied territories.” These are just a few of her credits.

Fithian is known for her statement: “create crisis, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.” Sound familiar? It should, it is straight out of Holder’s and Obama’s playbook, as well as Marxism in general. Fithian was a lead organizer in the infamous 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization that devolved into violence. She is known for teaching violent tactics as well as community organizing. She specializes in aggressive “direct action” tactics. Fithian previously provided training and support for the controversial ACORN group, National People’s Action, the new version of the Students for a Democratic Society and other radical organizations. She trained somewhere around 600 protesters for Ferguson.

The following video shows anti-capitalist radical Lisa Fithian training Chicago union teachers on how to stage their arrests for the camera in 2011:

Fithian is far from alone in her Revolution organizing. She is joined by the likes of Code Pink, RevCom, the New Black Panthers, Socialist Party USA, etc. The ACLU has been in the mix from the beginning as well, along with SEIU. The UN also became involved, along with national LGBT organizations, climate environmentalists, amnesty groups, pro-Palestinian organizations, Christian social justice groups and Planned Parenthood.

LGBT organizations represented include the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, National Center for Lesbian Rights Action Fund and PFLAG National.

Amnesty International sent a “13-person human rights delegation” to the town to “examine” potential human rights abuses, in what they refer to as an “unprecedented” move by deploying in the United States. Many other groups joined in, such as Tauheed Youth Development Life, the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS), the Moorish Science Temple, the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression and the Universal African Peoples Organization (UAPO). No radical party would ever be complete without the Socialist Workers Party as well.

Pro-Palestinian groups included: St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, Organization for Black Struggle, U.S. Palestinian Community Network, Muslims for Ferguson, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Council on American Islamic Relations St. Louis, Palestinian BDS National Committee, National Students for Justice in Palestine, Palestinian Youth Movement, American Muslims for Palestine and African Americans for Justice in the Middle East and North Africa.

In reality, there was a great presence at the riots by those such as the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panthers, CAIR and a whole host of Jihadists and their supporters including ISIS. Walid Shoebat is correct when he states that radical Islamists want to weaken and demilitarize the police. They are promoting Jihad in our streets and Ferguson is the perfect environment for their message. Even Iran’s Ayatollah got into the act.

From Walid Shoebat via Fox News:

Muslim groups have stepped up efforts to co-opt protests over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., with a drive to equate the teen’s death to the death of a radical Islamist shot during an FBI raid in 2009, a Washington-based security watchdog group is warning.

Using social media, conference calling and traditional outreach methods, leaders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are portraying Brown and Detroit mosque leader Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah as African-American victims of police targeting, according to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy (CSP). In a conference call organized by CAIR-linked “Muslims for Ferguson, a CAIR official called Abdullah a “Shaheed,” or martyr, and said both he and Brown were victims of a national security apparatus that had “completely gone wild” and engaged in “demonizing and criminalizing Muslims.”

“The reality is that this country, in law enforcement, be it local, state or federal law enforcement, people with guns have always seen black men and black people as threats,” Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR’s Michigan Chapter, told the some 100 protest organizers on the call, made on the five-year anniversary of Abdullah’s death and which was monitored by CSP.

Walid claimed Brown was a Muslim, although when pressed, Walid denied he had made such a claim. Brown was buried in August after a memorial service at the Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis.

Also from Shoebat, he states that another Muslim activist behind the Ferguson chaos wrote that Muslims, including CAIR have been involved since the beginning of this controversy:

From day one, Muslims have been on the ground in Ferguson. The Facebook group Muslims for Ferguson and other efforts were just later manifestations of what was already happening. Muslims were in Ferguson first and foremost because we live in the community like everyone else and are concerned about its well-being.

Along with Brothers Anthony Merrill and Naji Fakhrid-deen Adams, I was on the ground in Ferguson on the first night. I grew up in the area and have been talking about issues of violence and policing and surrounding economic issues for years.

For me, it was a no-brainer to stand in solidarity with those protesting in the streets. Brother Anthony also grew up in the area and has been vocal on local issues for years. Brother Naji is a reformed East St. Louis gang leader and substance-abuse counselor who works in the community every day.

Talal Ahmad was also on the ground from day one. A native of the O’Fallon Park Neighborhood in North St. Louis living in Jennings Brother Talal is a local independent-journalist who emerged as a protest leader with the group Tribe X. Brother Talal was instrumental in the successful occupation and subsequent negotiations with St. Louis University.

Brother Anthony Shahid of the Tawheed Youth Group and Masjid Tawheed is a long time St. Louis activist and veteran of the African-American struggle for justice. Brother Shahid was on the ground from day one and played a pivotal-role as a peacekeeper.

Missouri State Senator Jamillah Nasheed and her aide Eric Vickers, both Muslim, have also been mainstays at the protests. Ministers Donald and Akbar Muhammad, members of the Fruit of Islam security, and the Final Call News and others components of the Nation of Islam have also been active on the ground as have members of the Moorish Science Temple.

Mustafa Abdullah of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri has not only been active on the ground he has taken local police to court over the “5 second rule” and other egregious abuses of civil-liberties. Faizan Syed, director of the St. Louis Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations along with community-activist and Hafiz Abdul-Basit Syed, have also been of assistance to activists starting at an early date.

Muhammad Sankari, a youth organizer with the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, argued that black and Latino minorities should look to Muslims as the “gatekeepers of policing” in the United States because anti-terrorism efforts had provided police with greater arsenals that, he claimed, were now being turned on those communities. He said “justice” could only be found “in the streets,” and not in “marble halls and marble buildings.” Muslims are looking to cause conflict to justify instituting Shariah Law state by state, city by city across the US.

And there were others of the communist variety at the riots. One of the protest leaders was Michael McPhearson. Just like Lisa Fithian, McPhearson has connections to CPUSA and United for Peace and Justice. McPhearson is the co-chair of the Don’t Shoot Coalition and addressed the crowd together with Julia Ho, a community organizer with Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.

Then we have Maria Chapelle-Nadal who was elected to the Senate to succeed fellow Democrat Rita Heard Days of St. Louis. Chapelle-Nadal has numerous ties to CPUSA. Communist Party USA affiliate, Julie Terbrock was a Legislative Assistant to Representative Maria Chappelle-Nadal. John L. Bowman, another CPUSA affiliate, ran her campaign to be elected as well. Chapelle-Nadal also attended the Missouri Communist Party USA’s Friends of the People’s World when they hosted their 18th annual ‘Hershel Walker Peace and Justice Awards Breakfast’ on Saturday, May 8th, 2010. You might recall Nadal as the one who said Missouri was now in a race war after the Grand Jury announcement came down.

You have the race hustlers Jesse Jackson and especially, Al Sharpton. Sharpton was a great instigator in all this, stirring up the family of Michael Brown and the protesters wherever he could. He also claims to be a personal adviser to Barack Obama.

Which brings us to Governor Nixon and Valerie Jarrett. Nixon loudly and publicly proclaimed that there was no government influence on the National Guard not showing up the first night of the riots as businesses burned and were looted, and police cars were rocked and set on fire. Nixon let the city burn as directed by Jarrett and the Obama Administration. It is acknowledged by the White House that Valerie Jarrett and Nixon were in close contact for the first 24 hours of the violent protests. It’s not hard to see who called the shots there.

Doug Ross has this to share on Jarrett:

And who is our crypto-president?

In 2008, The Boston Globe exposed Jarrett’s background as the failed chief executive of The Habitat Company, which managed government-subsidized housing complexes in Chicago from 2001 until 2006. Her leadership, if you can call it that, resulted in violations so egregious that many units were deemed “uninhabitable” and eventually the federal government was forced to seize the properties.

That year, Judicial Watch named Jarrett to its “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for her ties to the failed housing complexes and “other shady real estate scandals.”

Jarrett’s family background is equally troubling. Her father-in-law was a card-carrying Communist who worked with Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Jarrett’s grandfather Robert Taylor is reported to have served in a leadership role for the Soviet Union’s American front group during World War II, when Stalin was still allied with the Third Reich. Taylor’s “American Peace Mobilization” was a Soviet initiative designed to keep America out of the war so that Hitler and Stalin could divvy up Europe and Asia virtually unopposed.

So, in short, the first female President is a hard-core Leftist with an abysmal track record for decision-making, a horrifically failed tenure as a chief executive, a stunning inability to learn and a steely refusal to take responsibilities for her many failures.

But she’s the president and you’re not.

Which explains why Jarrett — against all historic precedent — was given a Secret Service detail for protection.

Iranian born Valerie Jarrett is more of a President than Obama is and she is an enemy within through and through. Digging all the way down to who is behind the Fergusion riots, you find a cadre of communists, radicals, Islamists, Progressives and in the end, the face behind the chaos is the Muslim Brotherhood-connected visage of the President’s consigliere the voice of Iran and a devout Marxist, Valerie Jarrett.

The Word Demon Is Now Racist

The Ferguson spectacle has resulted in at least two revisions to the Newspeak dictionary. As we have already seen, the verb to charge is now regarded as racist. Now the word demon has also been struck from the politically correct vocabulary. If you can tolerate an MSNBC interview that is inane to the point of brutality, at the end you will learn why:

· DJ3 hours ago

Are the words ‘demon’ and ‘charge’ really racist code words now?

Of course they are. According to some "sage geniuses" in the CBC, the entire English language is racist … but only when spoken by Republicans.

HEH!

(satire but based on a true story)

Congressional Black Caucus Discovers Entire English Language is a Racist Code Word

November 23, 2012

Responding to Republican criticism of UN Ambassador Susan Rice for claiming that the Benghazi attack on the US mission and annex there had been caused by a photo of a stuffed teddy bear named Mohammed, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus and Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on 40 Acres, an Obamaphone and a Mule denounced any attacks on Rice as “horridly and unspeakably racist.”

While Fudge could not point to any single word that was racist, she insisted that every single word used to criticize Rice was a racist code word.

“If the language is being used to criticize a black person then we must deem such language to be irreparably and irrevocably racist,” Fudge said. “Every word that is used to disguise the racist intentions of a racist political movement must be deemed a racist code word disguising the true racist intentions of the racists who make use of them.”

Congressman Jim Clyburn went even further. “The entire English language was created by slaveowners as a means of oppression. You can’t just say that one word is a racist code word or another. The whole language, every single word, letter and apostrophe in it is racist. It’s a fact. If you speak English, you’re a racist.”

Democrats rushed to conduct conference calls over this new development worried about the consequences of continuing to use the racist English language. Some called for staffing the Democratic Party entirely with illiterates, while others argued that such a measure would be entirely redundant. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was reportedly taking Spanish lessons from Mayor Bloomberg in preparation for the Democratic Party’s shift to conducting all business in broken Spanish.

Barnard College announced that it was immediately shutting down its English literature program and burning its collection of medieval English manuscripts to protest the Saxon oppression of Africa.

Hope was however restored when Congressman Clyburn was lured out of his mansion with an offer of a 3 million dollar grant to a museum of basket weaving in his name, and was persuaded to clarify his remarks.

“All Republicans is racist,” Congressman Clyburn said, “therefore whenever they use English, they are using it to hiddenly express racist ideas. Whenever they speak, they are speaking entirely in racist code words. But when Democrats like us speak English, we’re using tolerance code words.”

And so it was settled. Anything a Republican says in English is racist. Any racial slur used by a Democrat is however a hidden tolerance code word.

Responding to Republican criticism of UN Ambassador Susan Rice for claiming that the Benghazi attack on the US mission and annex there had been caused by a photo of a stuffed teddy bear named Mohammed, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus and Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on 40 Acres, an Obamaphone and a Mule denounced any attacks on Rice as “horridly and unspeakably racist.”

more….

· http://www.frontpagemag.com/20…

Posted in: News Posted: November 30, 2014

Ferguson Protesters Set Fire To American Flag

<img width="665" height="385" src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/American-Flag-665×385.jpg" data-attID="1645326" class="single-leader wp-post-image" alt="American Flag" />

Protesters in Ferguson have set an American flag ablaze after another night of rioting and protests over the shooting of unarm teenager Michael Brown and the decision by the grand jury clearing of the officer, Darren Wilson, who killed him.

A crowd swarmed outside the Ferguson Police Department’s headquarters as a youth held the burning flag above a drain grate. Other protesters looked on while some proceeded to the film the burning of the flag.

<img src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/239B292E00000578-0-Burning_-27_1417323499648.jpg" alt="U.S. Flag Set Ablaze in Ferguson" width="634" height="565" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1645353" />

The act sparked discussions on whether it was un-American to desecrate the Star Spangled Banner.

It was once illegal in almost every state to burn the United States flag however, the Supreme Court overturned the aforementioned law in 1989 deciding that it violated the First Amendment of citizens.

The ongoing protest follows the resignation of Darren Wilson after a grand jury decided not to indict him, sparking days of sometimes violent protests in Ferguson and other cities across the U.S.

In his resignation letter, Wilson cites the impact that his current employment may put other police offices at risk.

“I, Darren Wilson, hereby resign my commission as a police officer with the City of Ferguson effective immediately. I have been told that my continued employment may put the residents and police officers of the City of Ferguson at risk, which is a circumstance that I cannot allow. For obvious reasons, I wanted to wait until the grand jury made their decision before I officially made my decision to resign. It was my hope to continue in police work, but the safety of other police officers and the community are of paramount importance to me. It is my hope that my resignation will allow the community to heal. I would like to thank all of my supporters and fellow officers throughout this process.”

Earlier today, several St. Louis Rams players, including receivers Tavon Austin and Kenny Britt, showed their support by doing the “hands up, don’t shoot” signal that has become popular among protesters in Ferguson.

[Image via The DailyMail AP/Jeff Roberson]

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1645123/ferguson-protesters-set-fire-to-american-flag/#Qz6OiVcU2zUikHlC.99

Ferguson: A Defining Moment In Race Relations? Agitator Calls For ‘Bloodshed,’ Declare Some Will ‘Have To Die’

<img width="665" height="385" src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ferguson_riot_-665×385.jpg" data-attID="1645208" class="single-leader wp-post-image" alt="ferguson_riot_" />

Ferguson protestor Cat Daniels, along with a number of others, have caused quite a controversy following their recent statements during an interview with USA Today. The 53-year-old financial consultant has openly shared her disapproval of her generation’s impact on their children’s lives. Unfortunately, she feels her generation has failed, and the series of events that have ensued following the highly publicized death of Michael Brown has only made her perspective more evident.

Daniels, affectionately known as Mama Cat to younger protestors, feels that little progress has been made since the civil rights era, which is why the fight for justice continues today. “This is 2014, and we are still confronting the problems that our mothers and fathers confronted back in the civil rights era,” said Daniels. “My generation came along, and we fed off what they did. We didn’t fight and keep the fight going. Now, because we didn’t keep the fight, our children have to fight.”

Another avid protestor named Jay Daniels also shared his perception of the message America sends about the importance of African American lives when officers like Darren Wilson are not indicted. Now, as a result of the grand jury’s decision, many are fighting back with a vengeance, which could unfortunately lead to the death of many. Potential martyrs in this defining moment are open to leading the new civil rights movement and reportedly aren’t worried about the possibility of fatal consequences.

“Some people are going to have to die for the cause. It’s sad to say, but this is the new civil rights movement for our generation, and there will be casualties and there should be bloodshed.”

However, arguably many readers have a different perspective of Brown’s death as a “defining moment.” Although Brown was an unarmed, African-American teenager killed by a white police officer, many are viewing the fight for equality as the support of a “thug” who robbed a convenient store. Many readers have stated justice “would have been served” if the store owner had killed Brown instead of Wilson — an officer allegedly just “doing his job.” Others see the Ferguson protestors as agitators, inciting riots and havoc, instead of individuals partaking in a civil rights movement for justice.

Here’s what some readers had to say:

“Justice would have been served if the shopkeeper Brown robbed and assaulted had pulled a pistol and shot the 6’4 drugged-out 300lb thug Brown dead on the store video… that would be justice… and save an innocent policeman trying to do his duty from being assaulted, beaten, having his career and life destroyed… and saved all the innocent Ferguson store owners from having their property looted and burned by mindless, violent, lawless criminal Democrats…
It’s all about skin color, when racists call a ‘child’ a 6’4 300 pound thug who robs and assaults an innocent little shopkeeper, then attacks, assaults, punches, grabs for the gun of a Cop..Brown was armed… with aggression, hatred, bad attitude, and a 300 pound body..”

“Starting a civil rights movement by supporting a thug criminal like Brown? Yeah that makes sense…NOT. Here’s a movement for you try to not commit crimes, push around shopkeepers, and attack cops,” wrote Brett Guyer via USA Today.

“The ones who deserve to die are the communist/anarchist agitators. As they should, thanks to our second amendment given to us to fight this terrorism and tyranny,” another reader wrote.

Do you feel agree Michael Brown’s death is a defining moment in civil rights? Share your thoughts.

[Image via Last Great Island]

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1644936/ferguson-a-defining-moment-in-race-relations-agitators-calls-for-bloodshed-declare-some-will-have-to-die/#8ezuCUFksj8XAmKH.99

Anonymous Declares Vengeance For Mike Brown: ‘We Are The Law Now’

<img width="665" height="385" src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/anonymous-declares-vengeance-in-ferguson-665×385.jpg" data-attID="1644586" class="single-leader wp-post-image" alt="Anonymous declares vengeance in Ferguson." />

The hacker collective Anonymous has been involved in protests, information quests, and more since Michael Brown was shot on August 9, but in a Twitter post today, Anonymous declares vengeance — or, in their own terms, justice. After responding to a direct threat from the KKK, they went on to promise that justice would be done, saying, “We are the law now.”

Anonymous’ involvement in the Michael Brown case has involved leaking (incorrectly) the name of the officer who shot Brown, and later, doxing Officer Darren Wilson, the actual shooter. They’ve doxed a list of purported KKK members, releasing names, social media accounts, and other contact information. They’ve further claimed to have evidence that Darren Wilson is a KKK member, though they did not release this information, saying it would endanger others. They’ve hacked a Twitter account belonging to the KKK.

All of this has led to a particular tension between the two groups, and it seems that on Friday night, that tension escalated. Though the Twitter account @MStag56 is now deleted or suspended, one of Anonymous’ many accounts has shared an image purported to be a tweet from that account. The tweet appears to be a direct threat, and Anonymous responded in kind.

<img src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/anonymous-declares-vengeance.jpg" alt="Anonymous declares vengeance" width="482" height="417" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1644541" />

This account is one of many that Anonymous listed as belonging to KKK members. The Klan did not show up as invited, though, and it is after this missed event that Anonymous declares vengeance.

After Friday’s failed meet-up, Anonymous opened Saturday with a warning, seeming to hint that they will bestow justice, or vengeance, themselves. They tweeted their promise early Saturday afternoon.

Though they don’t name a victim, there are certainly some obvious possible pursuits, including attacks on Darren Wilson or on the police force, or the KKK. The group, known for its hacking skills, may have in mind to use a digital, rather than physical, attack. It may be hoped that they could plan to pursue legal avenues, but “we are the law now” would seem to defy that as a possibility.

Anonymous declares vengeance — but where, and how, will they seek it?

[photo credit: sweet1eafs]

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1644481/anonymous-declares-vengeance-for-mike-brown-we-are-the-law-now/#mf03pkrvekmO4qrb.99

Enough with The Ferguson Pandering Lloyd MarcusAs Americans watched footage of police cars burning, thugs gleefully running with stolen goodies and mayhem in the streets of Ferguson, we were told that while violence is not the way, we must understand their rage More

The Real Tragedy of Ferguson Is… Eileen F. ToplanskyThe American left insists on continually finding a racial basis for anything that occurs in this country. That the facts do not align with what the liberals desire is infuriating to them. More

Farrakhan: ‘we’ll tear this goddamn country apart’ over Ferguson – 11/30/14 November 30, 2014More on the moral stature of Ferguson protesters/ More

Standing up to Ferguson protester bullies – 11/30/14 November 30, 2014“I got six kids to feed and you are going to get me fired.” More

Madness in Ferguson continues – 11/30/14 November 30, 2014Citizens protecting businesses in Ferguson get harassed by police, Louis Farrakhan encourages people to destroy the country, and a movement to kill police officers takes hold on social media. More

It’s official. Officer Darren Wilson has resigned. – 11/30/14 November 30, 2014His career is over. His (& his family’s) life is in danger. All because he performed his job as he was trained to do. More

About Them There Four Hours

November 29, 2014

By Bill Schanefelt

The St. Louis (Mo.) grand jury rightly refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson of any criminal charges in the death of Mr. Mike Brown, but the Department of Justice and the family’s lawyers might pursue civil charges à la the O.J. Simpson case.

However, going into that briar patch will probably leave the pursuers of the rabbit both blooded and empty-handed, because Officer Wilson’s lawyers will be able to depose any number of people about Mr. Brown’s life history and his actions on the day he died.

Of particular interest in those depositions will be the four hours between Mr. Brown’s meeting up with his co-criminal, Dorian Johnson, and Johnson’s and the “Gentile Giant’s” robbery of the Ferguson Market.

Frequent AT contributor Jack Cashill has been all over the outstanding reporting done by the folks at The Conservative Treehouse with respect to Benghazigate and the Trayvon Martin case, and he has most recently commented about the possible troll witness #40 in the Mike Brown/Ferguson/Darren Wilson fiasco.

The jury will be out on witness #40 for a while, but those Treepers are, again, leading not only the pathetic reporting done in the Mainstream/Lamesteam Media but also the blogosphere’s reporting on the story.

Treeper Commonsense has thoroughly deconstructed the conflicting testimony and comments of Mr. Johnson. In fact, it is so thorough that my excerpting parts of it would do it a great injustice.

Suffice it to say the record reveals that Mr. Johnson left his girlfriend to get breakfast at 7 a.m., met up almost immediately with Mr. Brown, and then the two showed up sometime after 11 a.m. to rob the store.

No account exists of what went on during those four hours, and the piece explains, among other things, why we should be interested in the actions of the two during those hours.

The piece does an outstanding job of pointing out the many misconceptions about, and misleading actions and words of, “witnesses” to the shooting of Mr. Brown.

It also raises many, many troubling questions about the actions of Messrs. Johnson and Brown before that fateful day, during the unexplained four hours prior to the robbery, and during their encounter with Officer Wilson and numerous questions about the testimony of several other witnesses.

Mr. Johnson’s serial lies and his apparent co-opting by the Black Grievance Industry lie at the heart of all that is wrong about the reporting on the case, and Commonsense reports on it as no one else seems to have done.

This piece presents a signal condemnation of the received wisdom with respect to the Brown/Wilson case, and it is an absolute must-read for serious people seeking an understanding of that case.

And it is a signal recommendation that the Treehouse be on everyone’s daily reading list.

The author is retired, his profile may be found on bilschan.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/about_them_there_four_hours.html#ixzz3KbTFB88g
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

· Farrakhan: ‘we’ll tear this goddamn country apart’ over Ferguson

· Standing up to Ferguson protester bullies

· Madness in Ferguson continues

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/illegal_aliens_vs_undocumented_immigrants.html#ixzz3KbVwQXJL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Ben Stein Calls Obama ‘The Most Racist President There Has Ever Been In America’

By Brian Anderson, November 3, 2014.

There are plenty of superlatives one can use to describe President Obama: Biggest liar, least qualified, sh*ttiest golfer, etc…but conservative media figure Ben Stein adds the most ironic of them all: Most racist. And he really does have a point.

While speaking on Fox’s America’s News HQ, the former presidential speechwriter called out Obama for his purposefully divisive rhetoric and agenda. He told anchor Shannon Bream that Obama has consistently tried make every issue, and every election, about race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=47_H4GE6L40#t=0

“What the White House is trying to do is racialize all politics and their especially trying to tell the Africa-American voter that the GOP is against letting them have a chance at a good life in this economy, and that’s just a complete lie,” said Stein.

And it’s not just Obama, but all democrats, that drive a wedge through America with racial conspiracy theories:

“I watch with fascination — with incredible fascination — all the stories about how the Democratic politicians, especially Hillary [Clinton], are trying to whip up the African-American vote and say, ‘Oh, the Republicans have policies against black people in terms of the economy.’ But there are no such policies,” he continued.

But as we know, the fish rots from the head down, so Obama is ultimately the source of this fabricated rightwing war on minorities:

“It’s all a way to racialize voting in this country. This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America. He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans,” concluded Stein.

Stein is 100% correct on this, but it’s not just Obama’s words that show his racism; it’s his deeds as well. Ignoring immigration law, the looming amnesty executive action, reducing federal drug sentencing, and My Brother’s Keeper are all examples of racially motivated Administration policies. And let’s not forget how Obama’s sicks the Justice Department on high-profile racial cases like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, while ignoring similar incidents involving non-blacks.

Even ObamaCare, the minimum wage hike, and extending unemployment are thinly-veiled redistribution of wealth schemes drawn up along racial lines.

The President of the United States is supposed to represent all Americans; every race, every religion, and every class. The fact that he puts almost all of his time and energy into catering to a coalition of minority groups proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is intensely racist.

The funny thing is, like everything else, he’s terrible at it. Despite all his effort to cater to the minority communities while ignoring the whole of the country, the minorities hate him. The Latinos are pissed because of his lying, delaying, and politics playing with immigration reform. The blacks are furious with him because they say he hasn’t done enough to help them.

So while Stein calls Obama the most racist president ever, we can add one more superlative to his embarrassing presidency: Obama is the most racist president ever and the worst at being the most racist.

Farrakhan’s Response To Ferguson: ‘We’ll Tear This G**damn Country Up!’

White People At Michael Brown Vigil Told ‘Not To Take Up Space’ And Given Other Rules

31 Comments