Some thoughts of the day from our friends at Polination: On Obama Bush Hillary, Islam, and more…

by chrissythehyphenated | December 12, 2015 · 12:32 pm

Hell, no!

As an adult survivor of multiple pedophile assaults, I just have to say … no wait, I can’t say that. I’m a lady. Well, God knows! I’ve read those Psalms too. He’s NOT going to be all “It’s okay” about this at judgment. I’m so glad He gave me faith. I could NOT have become the stable, wonderful, wise, outstanding adult … okay, SANE adult LOL … I am without knowing that somehow, somewhere … those b******* are going to get what’s coming to them!

Filed under Morality


by Pistol Pete | December 11, 2015 · 2:31 pm

Just an assortment of odds and ends for anybody who happens to wander by.

My black friend Willie and I were chatting as we prepped our papers this morning, talking about nothing in particular. On a whim, I thought I’d see if I could get him started ranting, so I mentioned about what a filthy religion Islam is. To my knowledge, he’s not a muslim. Heck, he has a white wife and he works two jobs. But that was all it took.
“Have you ever read the Koran?” he asked.
“You mean the one that says if somebody doesn’t believe what you do you have a right to kill them? Or adulterers are to be stoned to death? Christians and Jews beheaded? Kill your daughter or wife if she speaks to a man who’s not a relative? Or the part about 40 year old men marrying 8 year old girls?’

He never heard a word. He just kept shouting about non-muslim terrorists, but couldn’t come up with anything but the Planned Parenthood shooting. This is the same friend who, after 7 years of Obama destroying the middle class, is still claiming these are all Bush’s fault. He’s still my friend but he is still firmly ensconced on the liberal plantation. There is no reasoning with unreasonable people.




Filed under Funny Stuff

You know who they didn’t laugh at? George W. Bush. He was a serious man who handled the serious GWOT problem with prayerful leadership. He made tough decisions and dealt with the inevitable criticisms gracefully. In the end, we won the War in Iraq. Then, President Kumbaya swanned into office, removed our troops prematurely, and handed the whole region over to ISIS.


by Pistol Pete | December 8, 2015 · 1:26 pm


Without them, he’d be just a community-organizing Chicago street hustler with a white education. He is a rare case of someone who has had everything in life handed to him through the sacrifice of others while he has done virtually nothing but reap the benefits. He has shown his gratitude to everyone who sacrificed for him by turning and farting in their faces… with one exception: his Iranian-born Rasputin, committed muslim and slumlord, Valerie Jarrett.

His army of media whores fell passionately in love with him when he read the keynote speech at the Democrat convention in 2004. I hadn’t seen a reaction to a speech like that since David Brinkley fairly shot a wad in his trousers over Mario Cuomo’s speech at a similar venue years earlier. The media whores hoisted the young biracial Kenyan posing as an American on their shoulders and carried him to the presidency, never allowing anyone to broadcast any hint of what and who he really was.
The Republican nominee even accomodated him by turning on his own VP running mate and allowing him to walk into the presidency where the palace guards stood, protecting him from any criticism whatever.

But all the media could not save him from losing first the House, then four years later the Senate, as the concerned citizens of America watched him ignore the constitution and set himself up as the arbiter of all things.

They helped him get reelected by savaging anyone they deemed a real threat to his power. Vote-rigging and blatant fraud also helped. The nanosecond he won the office for the second time he dropped what little facade he ever showed of caring about anything but his own authority and the benefits of the office.

It was hardly noticeable at first, but eventually some of his devotees started criticizing his ham-handed way of ruling what he saw as his serfdom. Now, even Mr. “tingle up my leg” Matthews and “kind of like a god” Thomas can be a little critical. It seems like a lover who no longer has much interest and is eyeing another to enter into an intimate relationship. Still, they are a possessive lover who will protect their old flame as long as it suits their cause.

After the disastrous address he read from the Oval Office, they felt free to say some negative things about their old flame, as if most of the country hadn’t had the revelation long ago.

Today Show Pans Obama’s Terrorism Address: ‘No Sense of Urgency’…’Didn’t Offer Anything New’

‘Nothing new’…’No sense of bipartisanship’

‘No new strategy’…’No unifying vision’

Wow. Andrea Mitchell hits him the hardest here.

Panel Destroys “Out of Touch” Obama Over Failed ISIS Strategy, Refusal to Use Term Islamic Extremism

Longtime CNN anchor John King called the President “deeply out of touch,” argued he should be taking a tougher tone and slammed the administration for failing to mention Islamic extremism as part of the problem. Other panelists piled on Democrats as a whole for being all over the map with their response to the attack.

Tom Brokaw On Obama: “I Find Almost No One Who Is Very Happy With His War Policies”

NBC News’ Richard Engel: Uh, Staying The Course Hasn’t Been Working, Mr. President

“He’s already talked about staying a course that we’ve already been on, and it hasn’t been working, “ Engel said. He did credit the president for the first point of his strategy–going after the plotters of terrorism–which has been in the form of raids by special operations forces and drone strikes. Yet, it pretty much goes downhill from there.

CNN: ISIS will laugh at Obama’s oval office speech

WHOA: Popular Egyptian TV host says Obama should be tried and then ‘sat on an impalement rod’
Egyptian TV’s Ahmed Moussa gave a blistering rant aimed at Obama for being an ally of terrorists, calling him a liar and saying he should be put on trial and then executed by being forced to sit on an impalement rod. Yikes!

He points out that his beef is not with the American people, who he says are very respectful, but with Obama who said just days before the San Bernardino terrorist attack that there is no threat to American citizens. He called Obama a liar again and said that all allies of terrorism are liars.

Serious Saturday Funnies: Lynch the Grynch and Progressive’s Anti-progress

Saturday Funnies

by Lonely Conservative • December 12, 2015

Happy Saturday, and Happy Hanukkah to my Jewish friends. Christmas is just around the corner but it’s not too late to order from Amazon. (Hint, hint: use the links in the sidebar.) Anyway, I hope you are enjoying the season, I know we’re all enjoying the mild weather here in Upstate New York. Have a great weekend!

Today’s funnies were found at Liberty Alliance with credit going to Legal Insurrection and Net Right Daily.

Buy this book before Loretta Lynch bans it: She wants political correctness, we want none of it!

Buy this book before Loretta Lynch bans it

and cartoonist A.F. Branco gets sent to the Gulag Obamapelago

Posted by William A. Jacobson Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School

Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:00am | 12/6/2015 – 7:00am

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is worried about incendiary rhetoric. How long before she turns her attention to cartoons?

So act fast.

A.F. Branco has released Comically Incorrect, a collection of his best cartoons, some of which ran at Legal Insurrection, some elsewhere.

The book is available at a $5 discount off the $24.95 list price at Patriot Depot (where they throw in a calendar of Branco’s cartoons as well), and at list price at Amazon.

At Patriot Depot only you can purchase an autographed copy for $29.95.

Get it now. While you can.

Buy a second one for the bunker.

Here’s some samples:

The 11th Hour, of the 11th Day, of the 11th Month; and Everyday – We Honor and Remember America’s Veterans!

Veterans Day 2015

By Patriot Post Staff · Nov. 11, 2015

On the 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month…

This day is set aside in honor of American Patriot Veterans who have carried the banner of Liberty forward since the first shots at Lexington and Concord. And it is now time for us to deliver this banner to the next generation.

Millions of Patriots — American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen — have for generations honored their oaths to “support and defend” Liberty, as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution.

Today, and every day, we formally honor them. We remain the proud and the free because they have stood bravely in harm’s way, and millions remain on post today. For this, we, the American People, offer our heartfelt thanks.

“Mighty men of valor, men trained for war, who could handle shield and spear, and whose faces were like the faces of lions.” —1 Chronicles 12:8

“Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.” —Gen. Douglas MacArthur

“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” —John Stuart Mill

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” —John 15:12-14

American Patriot: Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

(See Mark Alexander’s essay, The Most Noble of American Patriots.)

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


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


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


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


More ways to share…







Tell my politician



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
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

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

By Ishaan Tharoor September 25

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

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 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

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.


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:
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


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


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="; class="attachment-full wp-post-image" alt="Pastors" /> Video








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


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



· 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.

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


More ways to share…







Tell my politician



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
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


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.

CA VISTA 92084
FL MIAMI 33133
FL MIAMI 33162
FL MIAMI 33125
FL MIAMI 33128
FL MIAMI 33169
FL MIAMI 33172
FL MIAMI 33173
NV RENO 89506
NY BRONX 10453
NY BRONX 10455
NY BRONX 10456
NY BRONX 10463
NY BRONX 10474
OK GATE 73844
TX KATY 77450

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


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



Watch the latest video at &amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="<a href=""></a>"&amp;amp;amp;gt;;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



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.


"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


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
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


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

Bring this Marine home

By Post Editorial Board View author archive




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
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


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,, 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.


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?


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

Wednesday, 24 Sep 2014 02:30 PM

By Melanie Batley


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:

We’ll pay for your trip and the meal