Thank Liberals for Today's Chaotic and Dangerous World
11/25/2015 12:01:00 AM - Star Parker
We're in a world today increasingly defined by chaos. At home it's on our college campuses. Abroad it's spreading across the Middle East and spilling over into Europe.
Who do we have to thank for it all? Liberals and moral relativists in power in our country and Europe.
Liberals have led the way to destroy all sense of moral clarity in our nation, all objective sense of right and wrong and all sense of authority.
What's the common ground of these distant and seemingly totally disconnected worlds -- American college campuses and a chaotic Islamic Middle East? In both places, those who claim to have all the answers are the very ones who should be humbly asking questions and seeking knowledge.
Aren't universities allegedly where youths go to learn?
The students causing problems do not arrive on campus to seek knowledge. They arrive already knowing it all, looking to instruct professors rather than to learn from them. And the weak-kneed liberal faculties and administrators at universities agree!
Today's upside-down world can be directly traced to the purge of the values and principles of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage. Milestones of this process are the purge of school prayer in 1962, legalization of abortion-on-demand in 1973 and redefinition of marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015.
Once the Bible goes out the window, reality gets invented by politicians.
Ironically, the tradition of higher learning in America is rooted in the church.
Look at the website of Yale, where there is student unrest, and discover the clerical roots of the university.
Yale University "traces its roots to the 1640s when colonial clergymen led an effort to establish a local college to preserve the tradition of European liberal education in the New World. This vision was fulfilled in 1701, when a charter was granted for the school 'wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences (and) through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Public employment both in Church and Civil State.'"
Regarding campus unrest tied to allegations of racism, we have the same problem. Despite the fact that the civil rights movement succeeded because of its Christian roots and Christian leadership, today, thanks to liberals, it is all about politics.
It is no secret that slavery and racism are shameful blots on America's history. But Judeo-Christian values are not about claiming the world is perfect. They are about transmitting the right values, principles and tools to individuals to take personal responsibility to perfect this broken world. This is in contrast to liberals, who invent their own illusions about the world and blame everyone else for their problems.
What about the Middle East?
The world of Islam is horribly broken. By some estimates illiteracy rates average 40 percent. As I wrote a few weeks ago, of 31 nations with populations more than 90 percent Muslim, two are free by the measurement of Freedom House in Washington, D.C.
According to "100 Years of Nobel Prizes," published in 2003, between the years 1901 and 2000 65.4 percent of Nobel laureates were Christians and 20 percent were Jews (who make up just .2 percent of the world's population). Muslims, despite being 20 percent of the world's population, achieved just .8 percent of Nobel prizes in that time. A world of 1.2 billion Muslims produced just 5 Nobel laureates over a century.
Instead of this broken Islamic world hearing from the West that they need to fix themselves, they hear from President Obama that our values are "tolerance and diversity and equality" and that the problem is a handful of terrorists and not the world of Islam itself.
Look no further than liberals holding positions of leadership in the West to understand why we live in an increasingly chaotic and dangerous world. If we want to fix the world, we must fix ourselves and restore the kind of values and leadership we need.
Obama After Briefing: Currently No Threats We Know of Against Homeland
11/25/2015 12:30:00 PM - Cortney O'Brien
After meeting with his national security team, President Obama spoke at the White House Wednesday, hoping to quell American fears about a domestic terror threat as we near the holidays.
“Watching the events in Paris made the threat feel closer to home,” Obama said.
“We are taking every possible step to keep our homeland safe.”
He again outlined the United States’ counterterrorism strategy. “We are going after ISIL where it hides,” he said.
The coalition of 65 countries against terror, the president claimed, has been an effective force in the fight against terror. The combined nations have conducted 8,000 airstrikes, "taking out key terror leaders and territories, choking off finances and supply lines." In addition, the U.S. has supporting the efforts of other countries, such as France’s airstrikes against ISIS.
“We will not let up, adjusting our tactics where necessary,” Obama insisted.
Yet, last week, after Paris faced unimaginable terror, Obama said his administration would not be changing its strategy against ISIS. He was criticized for continuing an effort that has failed to defeat the terror group, let alone “contain” it. The president then claimed the upcoming climate summit would be an effective “rebuke” against ISIS.
After his briefing, the president insisted Americans do not need to talk about the threats of terror around the dinner table.
“Right now, we know of any plot against homeland,” he said.
He reminded Americans that national security has been strengthened since 9/11 and Homeland Security is working around the clock to prevent attacks and terrorist fighters from entering our states and other nations.
In the event of a threat, the public will be informed, he insisted. For now, "Happy Thanksgiving."
Syrian Refugee Policy Raises Serious States’ Rights Issue
11/25/2015 12:01:00 AM - Bob Barr
The flood of refugees from Syria and other Middle East countries that the Obama Administration is preparing to distribute to communities across the nation raises very real and understandable security concerns among government officials at the state and local levels, and among the citizenry generally. It is, of course, facile for President Obama to proclaim piously that he "is not a afraid." With the full protection of the U.S. Secret Service, the armed forces, and every law enforcement agency in the country protecting him, why should he fret? The rest of us are not quite so lucky.
Whether we, or any nation, has any moral obligation to throw open its doors and accept tens of thousands of Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees at this (or any) juncture, and whether it is fiscally prudent for us to do so when we already are drowning in entitlement spending, are questions worthy of vigorous political debate.
In many respects, however, as important as are the security and fiscal concerns that accompany a plan to bring in tens of thousands of refugees from suspect nations and backgrounds, are the fundamental legal and constitutional questions that arise when the federal government imperiously claims absolute power to bring into the country whoever it wants and place them in whatever communities it wants, regardless of whether those states and counties want or can afford to maintain them. This is why so many governors have declared their states will not be a party to such irresponsibility. The federalism question underlying such concerns is why the Administration's actions and threats should be challenged in court.
While a few Republican lawmakers in Washington are discussing these federalism issues, it is state governors and attorneys general who ultimately must shoulder the burden for fighting the Obama Administration if they want to have a realistic chance at putting a stop to the refugee lunacy. Even if congressional Republicans were to propose legislation with real teeth -- something the S.A.F.E. Act of 2015 passed last week largely lacks -- it would never "earn" the signature of this president. The battle should be joined in federal court; and quickly.
Under our Constitution, the president does possess broad authority regarding national borders and matters of citizenship; the immigration battles with Arizona clarified that principle just a few years back. However, whether this power extends to welcoming foreigners into the country and then depositing thousands of potentially dangerous individuals into communities across the country, is an important and timely issue that demands resolution. As a security concern for governors -- whose responsibility to safeguard their citizens is no less important than the president's -- this challenge should be viewed as no less important than the challenges the states leveled against Obamacare.
The president’s plans for the refugees, and his blindness to the complex social, economic and national security issues that go well beyond the scope of the superficial and largely irrelevant “morality” debate, undermine the very essence of federalism and states' rights. It is not that Republican (and one Democrat) governors do not want to host war-weary refugees looking for a safe place to live; but rather that they do not want to jeopardize the safety of their states by rushing haphazardly to respond to the World’s moral crusade du jour.
It is not as if there are not current examples of the price to be paid for a knee-jerk reaction to media and bleeding-heart calls for "compassion." It took German Chancellor Angela Merkel only weeks to see how disastrous her grandstanding in support of the flood of refugees rushing to Western Europe from the Middle East and the Balkans last summer proved to be.
Europe’s rush to throw itself onto the altar of altruism, at the expense of national security, was illustrated tragically by the recent attacks in Paris; and it is precisely why the looming battle between Obama and the states is so important.
Obama’s political career is ending in a little more than one year (may I get an "Amen"), and what motivates his decisions is grounded less in the national interest than a personal one as he makes a last-ditch effort to build a legacy justifying the Nobel Peace Prize he received for no apparent reason at the start of his presidency. This perhaps is why he feels no shame when lecturing governors about how refugees “deserve love and stability and protection,” while ignoring the virtual lockdown in Brussels resulting from credible threats of major terrorism acts; or the warnings from European and his own intelligence agencies about the potential for terrorists to disguise themselves as refugees.
Obama's decisions in this regard reflect a cognitive dissonance only possible for a leader who neither recognizes nor accepts responsibility for his actions, because he is -- after all -- The President. Thank goodness we have at least some governors who do not share such an exalted -- and dangerous -- self-image.
A Dozen Refugees in U.S. Connected to Terrorism Just This Year
11/25/2015 8:05:00 AM - Katie Pavlich
The battle over Syrian refugees is raging on as the White House doubles down on their policy to bring 10,000 refugees from terror hot spots to U.S. soil over the coming months. But a new report from Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions details 12 alarming instances of refugees being connected to terrorism just this year. Criminal complaints, arrest warrants and indictments were provided. Here are just a few examples (bolding is mine):
On January 29, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal warrant was unsealed for the arrest of Liban Haji Mohamed – a native of Somalia who sources indicate came to the United States as a refugee, adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status, and subsequently applied for and received citizenship – for allegedly providing material support to Harakat Shabaab Al-Mujahidin, also known as Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda. Mohamed is believed to have left the U.S. on July 5, 2012, with the intent to join Al-Shabaab in East Africa. Mohamed previously lived in the metro D.C. area and worked as a cab driver, and is believed to have snuck across the border to Mexico after being placed on the no-fly list. Carl Ghattas, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office emphasized the importance of locating Mohamed, “because he has knowledge of the Washington, D.C. area’s infrastructure such as shopping areas, Metro, airports, and government buildings . . . [t]his makes him an asset to his terrorist associates who might plot attacks on U.S. soil.”
On February 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Abdinassir Mohamud Ibrahim – a native of Somalia who came to the United States as a refugee in 2007 at the age of 22 and subsequently adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status – was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for conspiring to provide material support to Al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and for making a false statement in his immigration paperwork. Ibrahim knowingly lied in his application for citizenship, and previously lied on his request for refugee status, by falsely claiming that he was of a member of the minority Awer clan in Somalia and subject to persecution by the majority Hawiye clan. However, Ibrahim was actually a member of the Hawiye clan and not subject to persecution. In fact, according to the Complaint, “Ibrahim’s family was famous . . . [and] [t]hrough his clan lineage, Ibrahim was related to known Somali terrorists[.]” Ibrahim also admitted he had lied on his citizenship application by having previously lied on his refugee application by falsely claiming that he had not provided material support to a terrorist group, when he had in fact provided material support in the form of cash to an Al-Shabaab member.
On February 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Ramiz Zijad Hodzic – a native of Bosnia, and a purported Bosnian war hero who came to the United States as a refugee – was charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, with providing material support to terrorists, and conspiring to kill and maim persons in a foreign country. According to the indictment, among other things, Hodzic obtained money that he used to “purchase materials and supplies including: United States military uniforms, tactical combat boots, military surplus goods, tactical gear and clothing, firearms accessories, optical equipment and range finders, rifle scopes, equipment, and supplies . . . intending that the materials and supplies would thereafter be transferred to, and used to support” Abdullah Ramo Pazara and ISIS.
On February 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Sedina Unkic Hodzic – the wife of Ramiz Zijad Hodzic, and a native of Bosnia who came to the United States as a refugee – was charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. According to the indictment, Sedina, along with her husband, collected money from third parties and wired it to terrorists abroad. Also according to the indictment, Sedina shipped six boxes of U.S. military uniforms, combat boots, tactical clothing and gear, military surplus items, firearms accessories, rifle scopes, optical equipment, first aid supplies, and other equipment to terrorists abroad.
Again, these are just cases from this year. There are many more examples of refugees being tied to terrorism since 9/11.
Last week President Obama accused Republicans of being afraid of "widows and orphans" after raising concerns, along with Democrats, about the vetting process for new refugees.
"Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said during an overseas trip to Turkey. "Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me."
The Death of Free Speech
11/25/2015 12:01:00 AM - Ben Shapiro
Four in 10 young Americans have no idea what America is.
That's the takeaway from a new Pew Research poll showing that 40 percent of Americans aged 18-34 say that the government should be able to prevent people from making "statements that are offensive to minority groups." This same group of young people has granted broad awareness to the culture of "microaggression" -- unintended slights taken as grave insults by their victims; they've also called for "trigger warnings," alerts that certain communications may dredge up unpleasant past memories or ideas. With such ghoulish cruelties haunting the most privileged generation in human history, naturally we'd want to toss out the bedrock of Western civilization: The right to debate, to express unpopular opinions. We wouldn't want to offend.
Unless, of course, we do.
There are those of us who find guns in our face far more offensive than the occasional taunt. We don't like the notion that your disapproval of an opinion gives you the right to call the men with the guns; we find that perspective tyrannical and threatening. We're not interested in your subjective feelings-world, in which you claim that innocuous statements somehow harm you in material ways. We don't believe that self-appointed victim status grants you the ability to use force. We think you ought to develop a thicker skin -- the sort of skin necessary to enjoy freedom. If your political agoraphobia prevents you from engaging in the arguments that characterize free countries, that doesn't mean you should lock us all away in our "safe spaces." Those "safe spaces" are called jail cells, and the only people who want to establish them are jackbooted fascists masquerading as hippy-dippy caring experts.
If all of this seems relatively basic, that's because it is. But because America forgot to teach her children those basics, they will be torn out by the root. The American university system has become Ground Zero for the anti-free speech movement. That's because young people always look for a cause for which to fight, an oppressive force to crush. Young people aren't looking for comfort; as George Orwell wrote in 1940 regarding the appeal of the Nazis, "Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all 'progressive' thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades."
How can today's young people enjoy such struggle?
Since America is the freest country in the history of humanity, the only oppression to be found is self-oppression -- and the only way to free people from that is to shackle everyone else. The old rule of politics stated that your right to wave your fist ends with my nose; the leftist perspective is that your right to wave your fist ends with that waving fist generating feelings of unease. So stop waving it. Anywhere.
The real danger here is that the would-be oppressors will win. They already are on university campuses, where those labeled holders of "white privilege" can now be fired or silenced based on the color of their skin. If Americans don't fight back against the free speech opponents, this battle will get ugly: Once one side utilizes actual aggression, it's only a matter of time until battle truly begins.
'Progressive' Hillary Skips Forum With One of Nation's Largest Progressive Groups
11/24/2015 7:55:00 PM - Cortney O'Brien
At the first 2016 presidential Democratic debate, frontrunner Hillary Clinton declared she was a "progressive who likes to get things done." It's something liberals on the fence needed to hear, considering Clinton has had a hard time appealing to the base thanks to her hawkish past and Wall Street ties. Left-leaning voters may wonder why then, at a time when she needs to prove her liberal credentials, Clinton chose to skip a candidate forum hosted by one of the country's most prominent progressive groups, MoveOn.org.
Anna Galland, the executive director of the group's non-profit wing, warned that the decision could hurt Clinton's ability to motivate progressives.
"It’s a shame that Secretary Clinton declined to participate in the MoveOn member forum; she missed an opportunity to speak directly to and energize the progressive base she’ll need in her corner not just to win the nomination but also the general election, if she is the party's nominee," she said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Clinton's two opponents, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, were happy to field some questions.
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz praised the idea of a forum last month, saying it was an ideal opportunity for the candidates to engage with voters. Why, then, did the party's leading lady forgo the chance to defend her supposedly progressive record?
Perhaps she's not ready to provide an answer as to why she used the tragedy of September 11 to justify her Wall Street connections.
Or, maybe she's just scared to get more questions like this.
It's obvious the former Secretary of State is more comfortable in a safer, DNC-sanctioned environment - and the committee is happy to oblige.
With Gratitude and Thanksgiving
By Mark Alexander
Nov. 25, 2015
“I do recommend and assign Thursday … next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.” —George Washington, 1789
Patriots, please join me in welcoming this Thanksgiving with a pause to step back and reflect upon how blessed we really are – blessed far beyond any measure of what we deserve. In the dust of the recent electoral contest, and the enduring struggle to sustain Liberty, we sometimes become so preoccupied with the challenges we face as a nation that we neglect to take account of the full measure of the innumerable ways our Creator has blessed us.
One of the ways God has richly blessed this unworthy servant is by allowing me to lead a team of young Patriots endeavoring to keep the “flame of Liberty” burning bright. We are honored to share the burden of defending our inheritance of Liberty side-by-side with you and millions of other Patriots steadfast in that defense.
To put our national Day of Thanksgiving into proper context is to express gratitude for, in the words of George Washington, “the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.”
With this in mind, I invite you to read The History and Legacy of our National Thanksgiving1.
For some added inspiration from our home state of Tennessee, listen to My Beautiful America2 from fellow Tennessean, Charlie Daniels, or read his inspirational tribute3 to our great country.
In his first Thanksgiving proclamation, President Ronald Reagan4 wrote: “As we celebrate Thanksgiving … we should ask what we can do as individuals to demonstrate our gratitude to God for all He has done. Such reflection can only add to the significance of this precious day of remembrance. Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family that has played such an important role in making this a great Nation, and which will be needed as a source of strength if we are to remain a great people.”
Fellow Patriots, I humbly thank you for the privilege of serving as editor and publisher of The Patriot Post. On behalf of your Patriot team and our National Advisory Committee, I wish you a peaceful Thanksgiving, and God’s blessings to you and your family.
“Enter His gates with thanksgiving, and His courts with praise. Give thanks to Him and praise His name. For the LORD is good and His love endures forever; His faithfulness continues through all generations.” —Psalm 100:4-5
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Putin Warns Turkey It Will Face 'Serious Consequences' After Shooting Down Russian Plane
11/24/2015 9:35:00 AM - Cortney O'Brien
Turkey is facing the wrath of Russian President Vladimir Putin after shooting down a Russian fighter near the Syrian border Tuesday morning.
Turkish officials claim it only took the action after issuing several warnings to the Russian warplane reportedly violating Turkish airspace.
Russia is of a different mind.
But Russia's state-run Sputnik news agency said that, "According to preliminary reports, the plane was gunned down from the ground."
Russian officials denied that the plane had violated Turkish airspace. Both pilots ejected from the plane, but their fate is unknown, Sputnik reported.
Putin issued a warning in response to the incident. The downing, he said, is a "stab in the back that will have serious consequences for Russia's relationship with Turkey."
The pilots ejected from the plane before it crashed, but still no word on whether they survived, CNN reports.
NATO is expected to hold an emergency meeting in Brussels at 11 a.m. ET.
Have a Happy, Politics-Free Thanksgiving
11/25/2015 12:01:00 AM - Michelle Malkin
Many people naturally assume that since I work in political journalism, I must breathe, drink and eat politics 24/7/365 -- including on the Thanksgiving holiday.
The thought of it gives me indigestion.
Self-absorbed creatures who have no life outside the Beltway world are the most tiresome ogres. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest advised Americans "sitting around the Thanksgiving table" to talk about gun control. The left-wing National Memo published "5 Things To Tell Your Republican relatives at Thanksgiving." And The New York Times served up its own version of "How to Talk to Your Relatives About Politics at Thanksgiving," stuffed with poll data and hyperlinks to other liberal sources of information.
Nobody needs tryptophan when you've got Pundy McPundit (amateur, professional or otherwise) at the table to bore your company to death with his or her insights on "climate-proofing" your holiday feast; bombard you with details about Bernie Sanders' latest Web ad; regurgitate John Kasich's latest attacks on critics of his massive Medicaid expansion; or champion Jeb Bush's latest re-re-re-reboot (two exclamation points, new talking points, a fix-it toolbox, blah, blah blah).
I feel sorry for rabid partisans on either side of the aisle who refuse to talk to family members, co-workers or friends who support a candidate they don't like. Life's too short -- and 99 percent of all politicians are crapweasels, anyway.
I've encountered unhinged hotheads who yelled at me in front of my kids at IHOP over my appearances over the years on Fox News. Way to ruin a Funny Face Pancake moment, one-dimensional oafs.
And I've known people who shunned my left-leaning in-laws because they refused to denounce their conservative daughter-in-law. Gotta love the Tolerance Brigade.
Newsflash: Even amid a heated campaign season, global jihadist terror and economic insecurity, there is more to life than #WINNING political arguments.
It shouldn't be a struggle to avoid yelling about Bush, Clinton or Trump as you pass the sweet-potato casserole. Don't get mad. Get perspective. Here, let me help:
If your children are alive, free and healthy, count your blessings and say a prayer for all those parents spending the holiday week in hospitals, hospices, clinics, jails or funeral homes.
If you can't think of something nice to say to the person sitting next of you, trade memories of the dearest, departed loved ones you share a connection with who are no longer sitting at the table at all.
Pick up an instrument and play music together or sing some old hymns of Thanksgiving ("We Gather Together" was always my favorite).
Take a walk, breathe fresh air, go out on the deck and make fire pit s'mores (or use the gas grill).
Show the young ones at your gathering how to make rubberband stars, advanced paper airplanes, origami hearts or crochet snowflakes.
Get silly. Play "Charades" or "Spoons" or "Balderdash." Laugh at yourself and laugh with your relatives.
Don't take family time for granted. Ever. You never know when your time will be up. It would be ridiculous if the very last, parting words you traded with an elderly uncle or sibling or cousin you rarely get to see were "You're an idiot for voting for (fill in the blank)!" instead of "I love you."
Look up at the stars. Remember how small and insignificant you are in the universe.
Finally: When you gather 'round the turkey, try not to be one.
American Universities Begin to Implode
11/24/2015 12:01:00 AM - Dennis Prager
For over half a century, American universities, with few exceptions, have ceased teaching and begun indoctrinating. In the last few weeks, this downhill spiral has accelerated. The university is now a caricature of an educational institution. It is difficult to come up with an idea or policy that is more absurd than the ideas and policies that now dominate American campuses.
The University of California, once an elite public institution, now circulates a list of "microaggressions" that students and faculty must be careful to avoid lest they engage in racism and bigotry.
"There is only one race, the human race."
You read that right. The denial of the significance of race in favor of the primacy of the individual and the affirmation of the equality of all human beings -- one of the noblest achievements of liberal Western society -- is now officially listed by the University of California as a racist statement. It is a pure expression of moral inversion.
"America is a melting pot."
The University of California considers this, too, a racist statement. Throughout American history the melting pot idea has been an expression of America's unique ability to transform people of every race, ethnicity, and nationality into Americans. It is now deemed racist.
"I don't believe in race."
Again, this statement -- which is the opposite of racism -- is deemed racist. In terms of the inherent importance of race, the American university is now closer to Fascism than to traditional liberalism.
"America is the land of opportunity."
According to the University of California, this is a "myth" that is also racist. It implies that some of those who fail do so not because they haven't had opportunities to succeed but because of their failure to take advantage of those opportunities.
Meanwhile university after university allows students to take over administration buildings and even president's offices. University presidents and other moral weaklings who administer colleges -- aka leftists -- never demand that these students leave the buildings they have illegally occupied. Rather they give in to just about all of their "demands."
Thus the president of the University of Missouri was forced to resign for allegedly not doing enough about a handful of isolated instances of alleged racism.
The president of Princeton University has agreed to demands of students who occupied his office to consider removing the name of Woodrow Wilson from buildings and institutes. Wilson, president of Princeton prior to becoming the president of the United States, held racist views common to many fellow progressives of his time.
Protesters at Dartmouth College invaded the school's library and screamed at white students studying there. According to the New York Post, "About 150 Dartmouth students this week protested in the school's Baker-Berry Library, chanting "Black Lives Matter" -- and harassing kids who tried to keep studying. Oh, and assaulting them, too, according to The Dartmouth Review, which reported that protesters pinned one girl to a wall while calling her a "filthy white b?-?-?-?h."
Other chants included "F?-?-?k your white privilege!" and "F?-?-?k you, you filthy white f?-?-?ks!"
The response of Dartmouth? An apology to the racist attackers: "The school's vice provost for student affairs, Inge-Lise Ameer, told the BLMers [Black Lives Matter] "I'm very, very sorry that you feel this way. We don't want you to have this experience here. ... We told them [the protesters] that ... the protest was a wonderful, beautiful thing."
As reported by Newsweek, more than 400 students at Occidental College took over the school's administrative building "stating that they intend to stay until a list of 14 specific points relating to diversity and inclusion of students of color are met." Occidental immediately agreed to 13 of the 14.
The universities, along with the rest of the American left, have repeatedly told students that America is a racist society, and many black students now believe it, even though they live in the least racist multiracial country on earth and attend the protective cocoon known as college. Likewise, the left has repeatedly told American women that the universities are rape cultures where they have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped.
So, the universities are imploding by their own doing. They produce aggrieved and angry young Americans whose primary identity is that of victim.
And there may be worse to come. There is little that produces violence as surely as does a victim mentality.
At this time, if you donate money to an American university, you are doing much worse than wasting your money. You are subsidizing the most anti-liberal, anti-American institution in America.
Scandal: US Analysts Allege Political Manipulation of ISIS Intel, Cover-Up
11/24/2015 10:25:00 AM - Guy Benson
We've touched on these allegations before, but now they're getting more specific and serious. The Obama administration is engaged in a storm of blame and demagoguery as Americans begin to demand answers in the aftermath of this month's deadly terrorist attacks in Paris. The president has personally assailed Republican rhetoricas the strongest ISIS recruitment tool he can imagine, while finding new ways of downplaying the threat posed by the expanding terrorist organization. The public isn't buying it. And now a clearer picture is beginning to emerge as to why so many Americans were caught off-guard by the strength and reach of this expanding malignant force. The prevailing 'official' opacity and diminished sense of urgency was no an accident, US intelligence officials tell Fox News and the Daily Beast:
Analysts at U.S. Central Command were pressured to ease off negative assessments about the Islamic State threat and were even told in an email to “cut it out,” Fox News has learned – as an investigation expands into whether intelligence reports were altered to present a more positive picture. Fox News is told by a source close to the CENTCOM analysts that the pressure on them included at least two emails saying they needed to “cut it out” and “toe the line.” Separately, a former Pentagon official told Fox News there apparently was an attempt to destroy the communications. The Pentagon official said the email warnings were "not well received" by the analysts. Those emails, among others, are now in the possession of the Pentagon inspector general. The IG’s probe is expanding into whether intelligence assessments were changed to give a more positive picture of the anti-ISIS campaign. The former Pentagon official said there were “multiple assessments” from military intelligence and the CIA regarding the “rapid rise” of ISIS in Iraq and North Africa in the year leading up to the group’s territory grab in 2014. Similar intelligence was included in the President’s Daily Brief, or PDB – the intelligence community’s most authoritative product -- during the same time period. Yet the official, who was part of the White House discussions, said the administration kept "kicking the can down the road."
Very serious stuff indeed, especially within an administration filled with people who accused the Bush White House of "cooking the books" on WMD's in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Here we have (a) intelligence analysts alleging effective stand-down orders after their rigorous assessments were deemed unhelpfully severe, (b) accusations that those enforcing this whitewash attempted to destroy evidence to that end, and (c) confirmation that some of these warnings made it to Obama's desk. Remember, the president's team has insisted that Obama reads the PDB every single day; this was a central piece of the White House's election-year damage control messaging after it was revealed how often he skipped his daily briefings, including the morning after the Benghazi massacre. The New York Times reported over the weekend that a nonpartisan probe into allegations of manipulated intelligence is growing in scope, with "more investigators" being assigned to the inquiry. The Daily Beast has more details on the cover-up aspect of this story:
In July, a group of intelligence analysts at the U.S. military’s Central Command accused their bosses of distorting and selectively editing intelligence reports about the fight against ISIS in order to portray that campaign as more successful than it really was. As a result of those complaints, the Pentagon’s inspector general opened an investigation. Now, the allegations of misconduct have extended to a possible cover-up, with some analysts accusing the senior intelligence officials at Centcom, Maj. Gen. Steven Grove and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman, of deleting emails and files from computer systems before the inspector general could examine them, three individuals familiar with the investigation told The Daily Beast...At the heart of the analysts’ allegations is what they describe as a persistent effort by Grove and his team to downplay or even change reports that that questioned how much progress a U.S.-led coalition is making in the Obama administration’s stated goal to degrade, destroy, and defeat ISIS. Draft reports that contained a more pessimistic view, or that questioned the efficacy of hitting certain targets, were sent back to the analysts for more extensive rewriting.
Allahpundit correctly points out that we don't yet know who, precisely, ordered the dangerous, politicized 'sanitization' of intelligence (cui bono?) -- but he notes that there are some breadcrumbs to be followed:
Two defense officials said that some felt the commander for intelligence at CENTCOM failed to keep political pressures from Washington from bearing on lower-level analysts at command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. That pressure, while described as subtle and not overt, is nevertheless clear, the analysts said: Assessments on ISIS should comport with “the leadership consensus,” that is, top policymakers’ view, that the U.S.-led campaign against the group is paying dividends.
If the Obama administration deliberately ignored unpleasant developments in 2012 -- as alleged by a high-ranking intelligence official in that Times piece -- in order to protect a political storyline, why wouldn't they rig the game later in the process too? I'll leave you with this juxtaposition of two headlines that emerged late yesterday. We're in the very best of hands.
Tuesday’s Daily Digest
Nov. 24, 2015
Your Patriot Team members will be taking a few days off to spend much-needed time with our families over Thanksgiving. Our regular editions will return Nov. 30.
“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.” —Alexander Hamilton, 1794
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Cracks in Obama’s ‘Feel-Good Story’1
We’ve known for some time that Barack Obama was receiving cooked intelligence2 on the Islamic State. We also suspect he wasn’t an unwitting recipient, but rather he wanted to hear only how awesome his national security policy is. And he’s still lying about all of it. “One of the things I insisted on the day I walked into the Oval Office was that I don’t want intelligence shaded by politics,” he pontificated this week. “I don’t want it shaded by the desire to tell a feel-good story.”
That’s an absurd claim. This is the same guy who repeatedly told us al-Qaida was “decimated” and “on the run,” the Islamic State was the “JV team,” and Benghazi was attacked over a video — all lies told in a bid to win re-election. And he still downplays the threat, dismissing the Islamic State after the Paris attacks as just a “bunch of killers with good social media.”
Meanwhile, the Pentagon inspector general’s investigation into manipulated intelligence continues, and new evidence has surfaced that CENTCOM analysts were pressured to “cut it out” and “toe the line” when it came to intelligence reports. And Obama ignored anything3 contrary that did make it through. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who ran the defense agency at the time, put it this way: “It was disregarded by the White House. … Frankly, at the White House, it didn’t meet the narrative.”
Finally, speaking of the narrative about Obama having the Islamic State “contained,” his State Department just issued a worldwide travel warning due to jihadi terrorism. And the warning extends for three months. Happy Thanksgiving from Barack Obama.
How About a Trade?4
According to5 Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, “Sheltering even 10,000 refugees, of any faith, would have mostly symbolic value. Four million Syrians have fled, with even more internally displaced. Half of all Syrians have been forced from their homes. For that, the Obama administration bears some responsibility — and the reasons should be something voters think about in 2016.”
Some responsibility? Let’s be clear: The primary reason for the Syrian exodus is the rise of the Islamic State6. And the primary reason for that is Barack Obama’s profoundly nescient retreat from Iraq in order to keep his 2012 campaign pledge. But even a critical Washington Post editorial won’t connect those dots.
This is not about “American inaction,” this is about Obama’s actions. His legacy is now secure — and it’s defined by an epic and catastrophic human crisis7. Their blood is on his hands.
So we propose a compromise. We’ll take 10,000 Syrian refugees if Syria will take Obama.
Ahmed’s Cash for Clocks8
Remember Ahmed “The Clock Kid” Mohamed? The 14-year-old Texas student who was interrogated for bringing a homemade “clock” to school that looked more like an explosive? His story begat sympathy and remorse from fellow Muslims and Islamic sympathizers all around the globe. Not long after the incident, Ahmed and his family moved to Qatar to escape supposed discrimination in America. Well, he’s back in the news, this time seeking reparations — to the tune of $15 million.
According to The Washington Post, Ahmed’s family is “seeking not only financial reparations but written apologies from the city’s mayor and police chief.” The Post continues, “The letter of demand alleges that officials at Ahmed’s school never really thought that his homemade clock, assembled from ‘spare parts and scrap pieces he had around the house,’ was a bomb. Attorneys claim that Ahmed showed it to another teacher earlier in the day without consequence. But in his English class, a teacher told him it ‘looked like’ a bomb.”
Ahmed’s attorney Kelly Hollingsworth says the family is experiencing cognitive dissonance: “Qatar is nice, but it is not Texas. … Are [the Mohameds] devout people devoted to their faith? Absolutely. But they are Texans, too, and they want to come home. What we are seeking is for them to be able to do that with their heads held high.” That’s interesting. At the very least, the family quietly concedes that America, despite its “discriminatory” demeanor, is still a better place to live than a predominately Muslim country. But why do they need $15 million to keep “their heads held high”? National Review’s Ian Tuttle writes, “The City of Irving and Irving ISD should refuse them a single red cent. If the Mohameds want reparations, then they ought to have to make their case — not before a gaggle of cameras, but in a court of law.” Maybe, just maybe, this legal lottery was the plan all along.
We were among a handful of the earliest online publications, and we remain one of the most influential today because of our large audience of grassroots gatekeepers. You and your fellow Patriots are force multipliers for our timeless message and defense of Liberty.
While our annual budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the big Beltway organizations, we’ve managed to substantially increase the scope of our mission and operations every year. Your Patriot Post team works long hours for modest pay.
Today, countless grassroots Patriots rely on The Patriot Post as their steadfast touchstone for Liberty, and we remain the most cost-effective conservative force multiplier on the Web. If you’re able, please support our 2015 Year-End Campaign today and help us extend Liberty to the next generation11 of American Patriots. Thank you, as always, for standing with us. —Mark Alexander, Publisher
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Reflections on Thanksgiving, Past and Present12
By Paul Albaugh
As we approach Thanksgiving Day, a day when we set aside time to give thanks to Almighty God for the blessings He has bestowed upon us, it’s worth reflecting on the early days of our country and assess where we are now.
Our celebration of Thanksgiving13 is rooted in the first “harvest feast” in 1621 following the establishment in 1620 of Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts by a group of religious refugees known as Pilgrims.
These Puritan “separatists” had originally fled to Holland in 1608 to escape religious persecution by the Church of England. They had suffered persecution and imprisonment for their beliefs and were seeking to worship God freely as they chose to, rather than being dictated by the effectively state-run church. They found this freedom in Holland, but the culture there was corrupt and degraded, so the Pilgrims returned to England and subsequently arranged for travel to the New World.
After an extremely difficult eight-week voyage on the Mayflower, they dropped anchor on Nov. 11, 1620, at Provincetown Harbor off the coast of what is now known as Massachusetts. On Dec. 11, they signed the Mayflower Compact14, which is America’s original document for civil government. This document introduced self-government and became part of the foundation upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were built.
The winter of 1621 proved to be catastrophic for the Pilgrims as only 53 people survived. Despite their tragic loss of life and the hardships of building a new way of life, they persevered and the summer proved to be productive as their crops flourished. Having learned new skills from the Indians and storing up their excess, they were able to set aside a three-day “harvest feast” upon which they shared with the Indians and gave thanks to God for providing them with so much.
Over the next 20 years, 25,000 more people came to the New World, many seeking religious freedom. Their desire to be free from the oppression of the Church of England led to the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. Particularly noteworthy in this heritage is the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These first restrictions on the government were and are necessary for a free people to live.
But we have come a long way since the Pilgrims landed. In present day America, our college campuses are rife15 with “speech zones” and “safe spaces.”
At Yale, students protested because a faculty member suggested the administration shouldn’t dictate what an appropriate Halloween costume is. At the University of Missouri, students protested and eventually ousted16 the school’s president because he supposedly failed to resolve racial tensions on campus. At Dartmouth, student protesters mobbed the library shouting profanities at studying students for supposedly committing racial oppression. At Princeton, student protesters stormed the president’s office and demanded that all references to President Woodrow Wilson be removed17 for his racism and segregation support.
The examples are numerous. These universities that were once bastions of free speech, free thought and free expression have now become the epicenters for limited speech, limited thinking and limited expression due to concerns of offending someone. Political correctness rules the day, and we are quickly devolving into a society of people who are intolerant of tolerance. Indeed, we are rapidly moving toward the kind of society that George Orwell warned of in his classic novel 1984.
But it’s not just the mobs on these college campuses that want to limit free speech, thought and expression. A recent Pew survey shows18 that 40% of Millennials (those between the age of 18-34) are in favor of allowing the government to prevent statements that are offensive. Furthermore, 35% of Democrats want the government to stop speech against minorities while only (only!) 18% of Republicans favor doing so. So we don’t just have a problem with college campuses, we have a problem with an entire generation of people and progressive-minded “thinkers.”
Let’s be perfectly clear: We are not advocating for people to offend minorities or use racial slurs or show hatred to one another. But we are advocating for the preservation of free speech, of free thought and the freedom to worship as our forefathers recognized as being essential to Liberty.
We are already experiencing a government that disregards the liberties of our people. Our government is forcing nuns to pay for birth control and taxpayers to fund abortions. Christian churches around the nation are hunkering down for the legal ramifications of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision19 and the inevitable lawsuits. It has already happened to bakers20, photographers and florists, and it’s naïve to think that our churches won’t be experiencing it soon.
So while 40% of Millennials advocate that the government should have the power to limit “offensive speech,” we can be thankful that they remain in the minority. And we should continue the effort to educate our fellow Americans on our rich history of Liberty. We can be thankful that, despite the relentless attack on Liberty from those who hate it, we still are the freest nation on earth and we will continue to be as long as there are Patriots who are willing to stand and defend it.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Stephen Moore: “At one recent visit to the University of Massachusetts, I asked a few kids what their plans were for Thanksgiving. They practically spat at me for even mentioning this white-supremacy holiday, which only trivializes and glorifies the genocide of the Native Americans by the pilgrims. Wow. Sorry I brought it up, especially in your "safe space."I can’t help contrasting these attitudes with a recent meeting I had with a group of soldiers who had returned from Afghanistan. These brave men and women risked their lives every day. They had real bullets shot at them, not the verbal ones that the campus leftists find so offensive. They have genuine and, in some cases, life-changing injuries: ringing in the ears, post-traumatic stress disorder and broken limbs. They served so that campus leftists can remain sheltered in their cocoons and protest the wounds to their fragile psyches from having to listen to a point of view they disagree with. The horror. Can you imagine the tyranny you would bring upon yourself by actually hiring one of these self-righteous complainers? … A generation that has been drilled since pre-kindergarten that the highest virtue in life is tolerance has suddenly become the least tolerant in history. What they lack most is gratitude. It’s something to think about this Thanksgiving.”
Insight: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” —Edward Bernays (1891-1995)
Demo-gogues: “I think it is absolutely vital for every country, every leader to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business.” —Barack Obama on the UN climate summit
The BIG Lie: “Some of us were saying 20 something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues [related to climate change] you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought… [T]here’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years.” —Prince Charles
Getting it right: “I don’t think [Obama’s] approach is sufficient to [do] the job. … I’m concerned that we don’t have the time, and we don’t have years. We need to be aggressive now, because ISIL is a quasi-state. ISIL has 30,000 fighters. It’s got a civil infrastructure. It’s got funding. It’s spreading in other countries. And it’s a big, big problem.” —Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee
Good advice, but how?: “Your options are run, hide, or fight. If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.” —Cathy Lanier, police chief in DC, who rarely approves gun permits
Annals of the absurd: “Yes, we should have free speech. Yes, we should have diversity of ideas. Yes, we should be encouraging vigorous debate and all kinds of things. But when young people don’t feel safe, feel absolutely isolated, feel absolutely intimidated, made to not feel welcome — that’s something else. We have to make sure that kids feel they belong on campus, that they belong in this world. And we have some work to do.” —Education Secretary Arne Duncan (These remarks are exactly the problem.)
And last… “How to tell when another terrorist attack has occurred? Obama is on TV expressing his anger at Republicans.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Buzzkill: Obamacare Regulation May Put Craft Breweries Out of Business
11/23/2015 6:30:00 PM - Leah Barkoukis
Obamacare’s menu labeling regulation promises to be a disaster for the food and restaurant industries, as its implementation is both costly and extremely onerous. While its deleterious effects on the pizza, restaurant, and grocery industries have been most well known, it also has the potential to shutter an industry near and dear to Americans’ hearts: craft beer.
Since beer has a few too many calories for bureaucrats, the health law dictates that all brewers include a detailed calorie count on every type of beer produced. Failure to do so, according to Americans for Tax Reform, “means craft brewers will not be able to sell their beer in any restaurant chain with over 20 locations.”
The Cato Institute estimates the Obamacare calorie labeling requirements will cost a business as much as $77,000 to implement. For larger beer companies, this is a drop in the bucket, but for small, local craft brewers it represents a substantial cost that they must pay. As a result, it creates a significant disadvantage compared to larger beer companies who can better absorb the cost of this new regulation.
According to Bart Watson, chief economist of the Brewers Association, "Most of the new [craft beer] entrants continue to be small and local, operating in neighborhoods or towns. What it means to be a brewery is shifting, back toward an era when breweries were largely local, and operated as a neighborhood bar or restaurant." The increasingly small size of craft breweries means they are faced with a tough decision in light of the impending regulations: cut costs and possibly lay off workers to pay for the calorie labels, or be shut out of one of the most profitable markets for their product. Either way, it is a lose - lose situation for the craft beer brewers and drinkers, an industry that grew 27.8 percent from 2013 to 2014 when it was left alone.
The most ridiculous part about the entire regulation is that menu labeling has little to no effect on consumers’ purchasing choices, and studies demonstrating that menu labeling is linked to a reduction in obesity rates, the supposed benefit the FDA used to justify the regulation in the first place, doesn’t exist.
Top Democrat: ISIS Threat Has 'Gotten Worse' Under Obama's Policies
11/23/2015 3:44:00 PM - Guy Benson
This is exactly what ISIS would want Sen. Dianne Feinstein to say -- amirite, lefties?
"I don't think the approach is sufficient for the job," said Feinstein, a top ranking Senate Democrat who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "I'm concerned that we don't have the time and we don't have years. We need to be aggressive now." ... "What I'm saying is this has gone on too long now and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse," [Feinstein said].
One key point she makes is that ISIS' footprint is expanding to countries beyond Syria and Iraq; she cites Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. She might have also added Afghanistan. Obama's former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is also criticizing the president's hands-off approach, effectively calling for ground troops to beat back the terror army's advance:
“I think the U.S. has to lead in this effort, because what we’ve learned a long time ago is that if the United States does not lead, nobody else will,” Panetta said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Panetta also called on the U.S. to commit additional resources to the fight against the radical Islamic terrorist group. He said air strikes will not be enough to slow ISIS’s territorial expansion in Syria. “Look, air strikes are great, you know, we’re hitting some targets, but air strikes alone are not going to win here,” Panetta said. “We’ve got to take that territory away from them,” he added. “It’s been a year. They’re still in Mosul, they’re still in Ramadi, they’re still in Raqqa, those are areas we have to go after in order to be able to defeat ISIS, ultimately.”
Panetta added that partnering with the Russians in this effort may be a good idea in theory, "but I don't trust them...at this time." He has ample cause for deep mistrust, but that hasn't stopped Team Smart Power from ritually humiliating itself in front of Putin. Panetta mentioned that airstrikes aren't sufficient to seize and hold ISIS-controlled territory. After the Paris attacks, some Americans wondered why the French military had so many juicy, obvious ISIS bombing targets to choose from. What have we been doing this whole time? A partial answer, perhaps (via the Free Beacon):
U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress. Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State...[Obama's zero civilian casualties rules of engagement regime] is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended. “Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.” And the same goes for Russians, he said, adding, “They don’t care at all about civilians.”
Taking pains to avoid collateral damage is the admirable and morally-correct course of action. This should be a major goal in any military endeavor; the United States targets bad actors, not innocent people. But at what point do extremely restrictive American rules of engagement directly benefit the enemy and constrain our military's ability to carry out its mission? A new CBS News survey broadly reflects other polling regarding President Obama's handing of foreign policy and national security matters: Just 23 percent of respondents say Obama has a clear plan to handle ISIS, with two-thirds saying the opposite. Half of the country now backs "boots on the ground" to combat ISIS, a shifting political reality that has tied Hillary Clinton into knots. Left-leaning columnists from Ron Fournier to Frank Bruni to Eugene Robinson have criticized the president's absentee leadership and misplaced priorities. Battered from all sides amid sliding poll numbers, Obama has ramped up his vitriol against the only enemies he truly relishes attacking:
Pathetic. Having repeatedly dismissed and underestimated ISIS -- sometimes deliberately so, it's been seriously alleged -- Obama's latest assessment amounts to another rhetorical shrug:
Evidence: Expanding territory. US weapons. 30,000 fighters. And close to $2 billion in estimated assets. Just some thugs with lots of Twitter followers, the president sneers.
Time for a Congressional Investigation? Shattering New Developments of Corruption in Rep. Renzi Trial
11/23/2015 12:27:00 PM - Rachel Alexander
The case of the corrupt prosecution against imprisoned former Congressman Rick Renzi continues to explode with new evidence of wrongdoing - literally every few weeks something else comes out. It is beginning to look like Fast and Furious as more information pours out implicating the government.
As I’ve explained previously, the crux of the case against Renzi was he had proposed a federal land exchange that allegedly would have benefited himself. Evidence came out during the trial and especially afterward revealing this wasn’t true. The FBI offered to give money to the government’s key witness/”victim,” Philip Aries, to change his story and say the land exchange was Renzi’s idea. The DOJ prosecutor, Gary Restaino, whose wife worked closely under Janet Napolitano, never disclosed this information to the defense.
As more evidence came out about this collusion in July, U.S. Federal District Court Judge David Bury granted a hearing to consider a new trial. I attended the hearing, where I met several of Renzi’s 12 children, who have developed into impressive young adults, sure of their dad’s innocence. I was shocked by what I heard as Aries and the main FBI agent repeatedly contradicted each other's testimony on the witness stand. How can you convict someone based on that?
The prosecution offered Renzi a deal right before the trial where he would have only done 10 months in prison if he would just lie and plead guilty to a small public corruption charge of failure to properly disclose his financial interest. If Renzi didn’t accept it, he was looking at possibly more than 35 felony charges and over 150 years in prison. Renzi prayed and fasted for seven days, drinking only water and asking God for wisdom. At the end of the fast, his son had to help assist him so he could eat. After eating, decided he could not accept the deal.
His children recall him telling them he would rather die than get up in court and lie that he ever misused his public office. He could not in good conscience allow a despicable deal which would have covered up the truth - that the South African former president of a foreign-owned mining company, Resolution Copper Company, named Bruno Hagner, along with a corrupt FBI agent, took out an innocent U.S. Congressman. Renzi would rather let the world know the truth, even if it meant a life behind bars.
Ever since I started writing about the corruption in this case beginning in July, people all over the country are finally hearing what really happened and are emailing me information that even Renzi’s defense team was unaware of. Someone in Colorado told me a couple of weeks ago that Aries’ father Frank has a history of sleazy real estate deals - yet more evidence it was Aries who had proposed the land exchange, not Renzi.
The Phoenix New Times described real estate developer Frank Aries in 1990, “Aries, who drove a Rolls-Royce, lived in a $1.6 million home in the ritzy Broadmoor district of Colorado Springs and liked to brag about the multimillion-dollar sailboat he had his eye on, was not a man who thought small.” The article explains how he connived $240 million from Western Savings & Loan to invest in a real estate project in Colorado Springs that had little chance of surviving,
Aries' willingness to pay top dollar for raw land in a time of economic uncertainty and Western's blind faith in the bet-it-all principles of Sun Belt real estate are straight out of a financial fairy tale...The remarkable loan agreement he worked out with Western saw to it that he wasn't personally responsible for a dime of the money. At last word, the 56-year-old Aries was making plans to sail "probably all over the world...As Aries sails off into the sunset, Western Savings is now under the control of the government's thrift bailout agency, the RTC. The taxpayers will pick up the tab.
Yet what may be the most alarming new piece of information is the role former U.S. Secretary of the Interior, powerful Democrat Bruce Babbitt from Arizona, played in the land exchange. Aries’ proposal to Renzi at their first - and only - meeting contained a document that contained a footer revealing it had been drafted from the computer of Babbitt’s current law firm. It included the “Sandlin property,” something the prosecutors had claimed was Renzi’s idea to include in the exchange all along to make it look like he was setting up the exchange to benefit himself. At that meeting, Aries even boasted to Renzi that the entire proposed land exchange - which included the Sandlin property - “met Babbitt’s gold standard.” Why would Renzi not feel comfortable at that point, with a former powerful Democratic Secretary of the Interior approving of the exchange? If including the Sandlin property was so wrongful, why did Babbitt give it his approval?
The problem is, what judge is going to risk taking on and implicating Babbitt in all this? The Babbitts are one of the most powerful, longstanding families in Arizona, heavily tied into the Democrats who control much of the legal system.
This sordid prosecution also ties back to the powerful Keating Five - another powerhouse Renzi was facing. Ron Ober, campaign manager and chief of staff for former Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini - who successfully escaped anything but a mere wrist-slap finding against him for his role in the scandal due to his immense power and influence - was hired as a lobbyist to represent the Resolution Copper Company to procure the land exchange through Renzi. Ober was also a friend of Charles Keating, Jr. Keating served four and a half years in prison, but Ober managed to distance himself and escape any tarnishing from that association.
Ober told Renzi that if he didn’t agree to push through the land exchange, RCC would go to Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe instead, which would make Renzi look bad since the land exchange was located in Renzi’s district. Ober asked him if there were any other properties that should be included in the land exchange, and Renzi suggested he speak with The Nature Conservancy, the military officials at Fort Huachuca and Senator McCain’s office - all of who had told him that they wanted to see the Sandlin property included in the next land exchange in order to save the Fort and the San Pedro River. In fact, the court record shows that many supported including the Sandlin property in the exchange, including two mayors from Sierra Vista, the chair of the Cochise County Supervisors, the Fort Huachaca 50 business council and a host of other officials from around the state. The alfalfa farmer using the Sandlin property was draining massive water from the land. Renzi finally reluctantly agreed to the land exchange, but he still had concerns about allowing a foreign-owned company run by a South African to buy out a significant amount of Arizona’s resources. Renzi also revealed verbally to RCC and on his public financial disclosure statements that Sandlin was a former business associate and that Renzi would recuse himself if that was an issue.
Ober and the powerful, connected Democrats working with him representing RCC then started getting pushy, demanding that Renzi ram through the legislation on their timeline. They never liked Renzi from the start, not wanting a Republican to get the credit for a land exchange that would benefit so many parties - including Native Americans, the Fort Huachuca military base, and the Nature Conservancy - and finally turned against him. They secretly decided to scrap the deal and just went through the motions, setting Renzi up for a fall by pretending that he had proposed the land exchange - namely the Sandlin property inclusion - since they had figured out Sandlin loosely owed Renzi money and they could say that Renzi had set it up to benefit him so Sandlin could pay him back. Eventually Renzi discovered they even had a name for the plot to take him down, “Operation Eagle.”
The reality is, Sandlin easily could have paid Renzi back the money at any time from all of his real estate holdings. He owned free and clear a property that was worth in excess of $5 million which would have been simply to obtain a 20 percent loan from.
But the powerful Democrats who controlled the governorship and much of the legal system weren’t going to risk a chance that Renzi might eventually run against Janet Napolitano for governor or continue on his successful path as a Republican who even Democrats liked. Evidence came in discovery during the trial that RCC had gone to Janet Napolitano and told her that the deal must be killed or it would help Renzi, who had become a #1 target of Democrats. No one doubts at this point that Napolitano was calling the shots, telling Restaino through his wife to continue the prosecution against Renzi no matter how trumped up.
I’ve still never met Rick Renzi. But the more I investigate this case, the sicker I get to my stomach.
What is now beyond doubt in the Renzi case is that a foreigner from South Africa named Bruno Hagner, who lived in Arizona, developed and executed a plan called Operation Eagle to take out an innocent U.S. Congressman. This former executive of RCC and his conspirators should be investigated by an independent counsel. All electronic records where Hagner discusses Operation Eagle should be investigated and turned over to Renzi’s attorneys. There also needs to be an electioneering investigation into Hagner and the the DOJ employees named in a memo from the Justice Department who were targeting Renzi and leaking information deliberately about the FBI investigation to hurt Renzi’s reelection chances.
Just like Fast and Furious, now that the criminal activity continues to leak out, it is time for a reexamination of the entire land exchange and prosecution - maybe it’s time for a congressional investigation. Otherwise the process of how we elect our representatives will never be safe from foreign predators.
It has now been since July that Judge Bury was made aware of this new information. Will he stand up to the powerful corrupt interests, or will he let an innocent man sit in prison?
The Disappearing Governors
11/24/2015 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell
There is a painful irony in a recent decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on the side of Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, whom the U.S. Department of Justice tried to stop from making charter schools widely available to minority youngsters in his state.
The Circuit Court's decision over-ruled a lower court decision on the side of the Justice Department, which was opposing the large-scale creation of charter schools in Louisiana, on grounds that this would interfere with long-standing federal government efforts to racially integrate public schools.
In short, Governor Jindal's attempt to give minority children a chance for a better education prevailed against the attempts of the political left to use these children as guinea pigs for their theories about mixing and matching students by race.
What made the Circuit Court decision ironic and painful was that this decision came right after Bobby Jindal had withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. Nor was he the first governor to withdraw from the campaign for a presidential nomination. Nor is he likely to be the last.
Some of us think someone who is going to govern from the White House ought to have had some experience governing somewhere else before, if only so that we can get some idea of how good -- or how bad -- he is at governing.
How good someone may have been in business, or in a profession, or as a member of Congress, is no real clue to what that individual will be like when it comes to governing the country.
Certainly choosing a first-term Senator on the basis of his political rhetoric is something that has not turned out well in the case of Barack Obama, and may turn out to be truly catastrophic, as international terrorism spreads.
The withdrawal of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and then of Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, are major losses -- not because we know that either of them would make a great president, but precisely because we have no idea whether either of them would have been great or awful.
The primary campaign is supposed to help us find out such things. Instead, the media have turned this into a side show about Donald Trump.
Nor was this all media political bias. The Fox News Channel, which broadcast the first "debates," opened up the second-tier candidates' session with a question about Donald Trump, who was not even present, rather than about the nation's problems, which have been all too present.
The media instinct for the flashy and clever irrelevancy seems to be non-partisan. The fact that we may be at a crossroads in world history does not seem to spoil their sense of fun and games.
Much of the time that could have been spent bringing out what candidates with governing experience have to offer was spent instead interviewing not only Trump himself but even members of his family.
This year the Republicans have had a much better qualified set of nominees to choose from than in previous election years. But most of them may be gone before we have learned enough about them to know whether we would have been for them or against them.
We may already know as much as we are likely to know about the three first-term Senators -- Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul -- since they have no governing records to be examined. We may also know as much about the candidates from outside politics -- Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina -- as we are likely to know.
It is the governors who have a record that goes beyond their rhetorical skills. And it is those records that need to be examined.
A complicating factor in this and some previous Republican primary campaigns is that there are so many conservatives splitting the conservative vote that it may guarantee that some mushy moderate gets the nomination, but cannot get enough Republican voters to turn out on election day.
At this point, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey seems to be the kind of articulate conservative candidate who can galvanize Republican voters to turn out on election day to vote, and perhaps even attract some Democrats with that political rarity, straight talk.
Monday’s Daily Digest
Nov. 23, 2015
“Measures which serve to abridge the free competition of foreign articles, have a tendency to occasion an enhancement of prices.” —Alexander Hamilton, 1791
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Britain’s Climate Change: Slashing Wind, Solar Subsidies1
Next Monday, many of the world’s nations will meet in Paris2 to begin discussing ways to hamstring their economies to fight global warming. To sanitize Joe Biden, the summit is a big deal. For the most part, governments want to cut back emissions severely, and the best way to do that is by making energy more expensive so people use less of it. Remember, Barack Obama promised his policies would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” But leftists also primarily target particular sources of electricity — namely coal and any other fossil fuel. Wind and solar are all the rage among ecofascists. So it’s a somewhat humorous coincidence that just before the festivities kick off in Paris, leaders in London are slashing subsidies for wind and solar, favoring instead a push toward natural gas. The Washington Post is apoplectic3: “[T]he decision to cut hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of support for renewable energy at home, with a planned 87 percent reduction in subsidies for solar power, threatens to undermine Britain’s international authority, while showing just how difficult it can be for a developed nation to break a centuries-long addiction to fossil fuels.” Or perhaps it could be simple economics. We support an all-of-the-above approach to energy production so long as it’s the free market doing it. If the economics of wind and solar require massive subsidies to even hope to compete with traditional energy sources — and they currently do — then basic economics is going to eventually rule the day.
As a final note, it’s worth mentioning that Britain’s wind farms often do more damage than good4. Just saying.
Louisiana Goes Blue. Or Does It?5
Most reports suggest Louisiana Republicans suffered another blow this weekend. Not only did Governor Bobby Jindal recently end his presidential campaign6, meaning his political talents won’t be brought to the White House, but a conservative won’t be filling his vacated seat. On Saturday, Republican Sen. David Vitter dropped the gubernatorial election to John Bel Edwards, a state Democrat lawmaker, by a 12-point margin — 56% to 44%. The sting hurts even more considering Vitter was long believed to be a shoo-in. Ultimately, however, a prostitution scandal from 2007 and a well-resonating message from Edwards derailed Vitter’s chances.
Which brings us to a few critical points. This wasn’t, as some newspapers surmise, a “Republican loss” so much as it was a reflection on values. As Hot Air notes, “If you dropped [Edwards] anywhere else in the country he’d be a Republican.” Indeed, The New York Times describes Edwards as “a Catholic social conservative from a family of rural law enforcement officers who graduated from West Point and served eight years of active duty in the Army.” The Wall Street Journal similarly writes, “Mr. Edwards, a former Army Ranger, neutralized the usual GOP cultural advantages by opposing abortion and defending gun rights.”
We can think of a few worse candidates — like Senator Vitter. Commentator Erick Erickson points out7, “Vitter was a terrible, terrible candidate. … Republican primary voters want an actual conservative and at this point would rather go down fighting than sell out to candidates posing as Democrat-lite. Conservatives can win, but not with guys like Sen. David Vitter as their standard bearer.” Most importantly, he adds, “[R]unning against Barack Obama with nothing to offer has to be done with good candidates, not men accused of paying for prostitutes' abortions.”
That’s not to say Edwards is a bona fide conservative leader. The Journal notes that Edwards “was a favorite of teachers unions and the plaintiffs bar, and we’ll see if he now does their bidding to roll back school choice and block much-needed tort reform.” That said, Republicans demonstrated their frustration with establishment incumbents and voters chose someone they believe to be the most qualified leader, regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation.
Princeton Ousts Woodrow Wilson8
Yet another student protest, yet another racist thrown under the bus. Except this one actually was racist — he just also happened to be a Democrat president and a father of the “progressive” movement. “The Black Justice League at Princeton had demanded that the president acknowledge the racist legacy of Woodrow Wilson and remove his name from buildings on campus, mandate ‘cultural competency’ courses for all faculty and staff, and provide cultural space for black students on campus,” The Washington Post reports9. “President Christopher Eisgruber immediately agreed to the idea of a cultural space Wednesday night, but declined to sign the demands and promised to continue talking with students about the other ideas.”
Wilson believed in a malleable Constitution and a virtually all-powerful executive. In fact, he was in many ways the originator of the elite administrative state10 in which know-it-all bureaucrats make thousands of decisions that solve problems in wreak havoc on our lives. He was also quite a racist. But as David Harsanyi writes11, “Like most progressives of his era, Wilson wasn’t merely a common racist, he embraced the pseudo-scientific eugenics that would haunt millions. After his election, he didn’t only say terrible things — ‘There are no government positions for Negroes in the South. A Negro’s place in the corn field’ — he institutionalized racism in the federal government, segregating the civil service in 1913. He personally fired 15 out of 17 black supervisors appointed to federal jobs, while his postmaster general and Treasury secretary segregated their departments. He’s the only president that I know of who’s ever celebrated the Ku Klux Klan in the White House.”
But you know something? We’ll bet these same student protesters are big fans of Planned Parenthood, which was founded by a eugenicist by the name of Margaret Sanger. Heck, Planned Parenthood still gives out media awards with her name on them. She and Wilson were peas in a pod on the issue, but you won’t hear that at Princeton.
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Attacking a Message as Corrupt as Its Messengers12
By Arnold Ahlert
In just over a week, the world endured three major Islamic terrorist attacks in Beirut, Paris and Mali. Be it the Islamic State or an al-Qaida offshoot, the current reality reveals that Barack Obama’s 2012 oft-stated13 campaign assertion that jihadis were “on the run” was as fraudulent as the commander in chief himself. In fact, there is only one thing more fraudulent than Obama, his equally feckless administration and the Democrat Party’s leading presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. That would be the progressive ideology that animates all of them. And it’s about time every GOP candidate for president made that reality crystal clear.
Make no mistake: Progressivism has metastasized to the point where it is no longer tethered to common sense and common decency. Thus we have “safe-space revolutionaries14” attempting to turn college campuses into speech-suppressing gulags where progressive orthodoxy must not be challenged. We have a Democrat Party totally embracing the rampant lawlessness associated with illegal aliens. And we have the insidious arrogance of a chief executive who insists that the Islamic State is “contained15,” even as its increasing lethality becomes undeniable.
Attacking Obama or Clinton personally may be somewhat effective. Absent the larger ideological context, however, it is far too easy for progressives, with an ample assist from their media apparatchiks, to dismiss those attacks as bigoted, xenophobic, Islamophobic or a host of other epithets designed to end the conversation. Republicans must illuminate the unmistakable nexus between unfettered immigration, open borders, sanctuary cities, the inability to call Islamic terror by its proper name, the desire to import improperly vetted “refugees” from terror hotspots, and the indoctrination occurring on college campuses. All of them are pieces of the same progressive jigsaw puzzle that must be put together so Americans can clearly see how determined the American Left is to fundamentally transform the nation.
In that context, it is no accident the Obama administration not only countenanced a two-year “surge” at our Southern border, but the deliberate dispersal of illegals throughout the entire country. Like the Syrians progressives would currently like to bring to America, they too were characterized as “refugees” fleeing crime and poverty in places like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, despite the reality that crime and poverty have been endemic in those nations for decades. When those illegals gained entry, the CDC waived the disease-screening process required for legal immigrants, and the media dismissed as “coincidental” an outbreak of the EV-D68 virus16 that killed and crippled American children — an outbreak 300 times larger than the infection rate seen in the 33-year period from 1970 to 2003.
This time we’re being assured that Syrians — who will also be dispersed17 to 180 different communities — have endured a serious vetting process, despite statements18 to the contrary by FBI Director James Comey, FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach and USCIS Associate Director for the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate Matthew Emrich. Yet just like it was with the illegals, anyone who dissents from admitting people who can’t be checked is not only a bigot, etc., but lacks “compassion.”
Compassion? How about compassion for Americans and their legitimate concerns? And how about credibility? Do the words, “If you like your doctor, etc.” or “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video” ring a bell?
Even more to the point, how about taking responsibility for one’s policies? Does anyone seriously believe progressives would countenance putting illegal aliens and refugees in camps while they were processed and vetted? They know 48% of illegals skip their deportation hearings19, and they know that terrorists might be embedded with refugees, because more than 100,000 Somali refugees have been allowed to emigrate to this nation — and more20 of them have left to fight with al-Shabaab and Islamic State terrorists than any other ethnic group. Yet is there the slightest doubt progressives would characterize such effective control of both groups as “inhumane?”
Perhaps they might have an ounce of credibility if every “compassionate” politician willing to accept Syrian refugees would pledge to resign immediately if even one of those refugees engages in terrorist activity.
But they won’t, any more than the phalanx of progressive politicians and law enforcement officials who should be fired or impeached for supporting the 340 sanctuary cities that operate with their blessings in open defiance of federal immigration law. Sanctuary cities that, in less than a year, released21 9,295 alien offenders Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seeking to deport. That group included 62% with “significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns,” and 58% with prior felony charges or convictions. Moreover, 2,320 were rearrested for new crimes within nine months.
The Obama administration doubled down on that insanity. In 2013 and 2014 ICE released22 more than 66,000 criminal aliens, with convictions including 414 kidnappings, more than 11,000 rapes or other sexual assaults and 395 homicides.
Tellingly, the same progressives who refuse to label the Islamic State and other terrorist groups “Islamic” also get indignant when the term “illegal aliens” is used. So much so that leftist media organizations like ABC and the Associated Press have actually banned the term23 completely. This puts them in perfect alignment with their speech-suppressing allies on college campuses and the 40% of Millennials24 overall who would support censoring speech that offends minorities.
In short, progressives are determined to control the narrative, even if it means undermining Rule of Law, endangering the nation and gutting the Constitution. Thus it becomes incumbent on Republicans to fight back with a narrative of their own in a manner just as hard-balled as their “by any means necessary” adversaries.
A bankrupt ideology with adherents more willing to preserve multiculturalism and political correctness than the lives of their fellow Americans is perched at the edge of the abyss. Push it over, Republicans. The fate of the nation may very well depend on it.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Rich Lowry: “It’s remarkable that the president feels justified in lecturing anyone on humanitarianism. He has stood by while Syria has descended into a hellish chaos, and hasn’t betrayed any guilty conscience. There are roughly 10 million Syrians who are refugees (4.2 million) or internally displaced (6.5 million). At 10,000 over the next year, we are offering to take .1 percent of them. One wonders when Obama begin caring so much about Syrians. If you put those 10,000 Syrian refugees back in their native country and let them get gassed, barrel-bombed, shelled or shot, would he bat an eye, or would they just be part of the ever-growing casualty count? The Syrian refugees are most useful to the president as a symbol of his alleged cosmopolitanism and of the supposed backwardness of his opposition. … According to immigration expert Jessica Vaughan, since 2009 we have accepted 70 percent of all resettled United Nations-designated refugees worldwide. … Of course, that we are discussing a Syrian refugee crisis at all is another symptom of the president’s abject failure in the Middle East. So, please, Mr. President, spare us your sanctimony and condescension.”
The Gipper: “Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuous revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions.”
Upright: “The public is appropriately alarmed about exactly who we might be letting in. It would be easy, and commonsensical, to follow their prompting and pause the refugee program, figure out how to screen those seeking entrance more carefully, and let in only the peaceable. If that takes time, it takes time. If Mr. Obama had wisdom as opposed to pride and a desire to smack around the GOP … he would recognize the refugee issue as a distraction from the most urgent priorities.” —Peggy Noonan
Braying Jackass: “A divided court of appeals has upheld an unprecedented nationwide injunction against implementing a federal immigration enforcement policy of great national importance, and has done so in violation of established limits on the judicial power.” —Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Obama’s appeal of his immigration order to the Supreme Court (Verrilli is trying to defend unconstitutional executive overreach.)
Alpha Jackass: “[The GOP] is a party that rejects science and refuses to understand that climate change is real. I understand if you stand up to the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry that you’ll lose your campaign contributions. [Climate change] is already causing devastating problems all over this world. To hell with the fossil fuel industry. Worry more about your children and your grandchildren than your campaign contributions.” —Bernie Sanders
Non Compos Mentis: “Republicans care more about kowtowing to the NRA35 than preventing terrorists from legally buying assault rifles and explosives like the ones used in the Paris attacks here in America.” —Harry Reid
Demo-gogues: “Right now, our political system does not work as well as it should. And what I would say to young leaders, what sort of pitfalls should you avoid, I would say, number one, it is very important to avoid any political system where money overwhelms ideas.” —Barack Obama (Says the guy whose last campaign topped $1 billion in donations.)
Late-night humor: “In his recent interview with GQ, President Obama said that he’d like to own an NBA team after he leaves the White House. You’ll know it’s Obama’s team when it takes the players five years to pass something.” —Jimmy Fallon
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Dumb and Dumber Drones
11/23/2015 12:01:00 AM - Katie Kieffer
If U.S. drone policy weren’t so treacherous, it would be a comedy on par with the hit movie Dumb and Dumber. Instead, U.S. drone policy is just plain dumb.
Today, I’ll walk through the most inane aspects of our drone policy so you can take action before you’re awakened from sunbathing on your patio by the buzzing of a drone snapping your picture overhead. My own mother was recently outside watering her flowers when she noticed a tiny drone flying above. A few days later, the drone returned. Whether drones like these are operated by snoopy neighbors or prying politicians—the threat they pose to our 4th Amendment right to private property is alarming.
A new report unearthed by The Intercept on Oct. 15, 2015 shows that our foreign drone policy is even more corrupt and mismanaged than our domestic policy. According to The Intercept’s report, there have been more innocent civilian deaths due to this administration’s use of drones than due to all combined mass shooters in the United States over the course of Obama’s dual presidency.
“Smart power” entails “showing respect even for one’s enemies,” says presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. I don’t think so. Smart power is not treating innocent civilians in the United States and abroad like one’s enemies—while befriending known ex-terrorists like Underground co-founder Bill Ayers.
This fall, Yale Daily News published an interview with Ayers and quoted him as saying: “I like to think that his [Obama’s] association with me got him elected in 2008.” Quite the opposite. If more Americans had known how cozy Obama was with folks like Ayers—and how callous he would be toward innocent citizens—they would never have fallen for Mr. Nobel Peace Prize.
Let’s start with the dumb and proceed to the dumber—and end with a solution.
Put the federal government in charge of anything, and prepare for failure. From IRS Girl Gone Wild Lois Lerner—to a TSA with a 95% fail rate at detecting bombs and weapons, our federal government is A-rated in incompetency.
For all the current administration’s efforts to make it more difficult to register guns—it has little qualm with making it super easy for anyone to register a drone—even when The Intercept report shows that drones are responsible for more mass killings of innocent civilians than guns.
Last week, the Obama administration’s Federal Aviation Administration announced that it will be a piece of cake for third parties to register drones. "Unmanned aircraft users should know they probably won't need help registering their drones when the system is in place," proclaimed the FAA. Great. Criminals could get their hands on a drone with less work and less cost—just $24.99—than an 18-year-old college student expends on a fake ID to buy beer.
Our domestic drone policy looks even more moronic when you consider that our president plans to make it easy for random hoodlums to register drones—despite numerous recent drone pranks played on the White House.
In January, a drone crashed on the White House lawn and in May the U.S. Secret Service arrested a man who flew his drone eerily close to the White House. As recently as October, the U.S. Secret Service handed out a citation to another man who illegally flew a drone near to the White House. Even if he’s not that concerned with our safety—doesn’t our president care about his own safety?
Nope. Unfortunately, President Obama and his wannabe successor Hillary Clinton perceive dumb domestic drone policy as “smart power.”
Dumber DronesOur foreign drone policy is far dumber than our domestic policy—and this is no laughing matter. As alluded to at the beginning of this column, The Intercept’s report shows that more innocent civilians died due to the use of drones by the Obama administration than in the U.S. due to mass shooters like Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof, Major Nidal Hasan, James Holmes or Jared Loughner.
As I’ve shown here, mass gun violence is at a historic high under the Obama administration. Trained U.S. military personnel cannot carry concealed on their own bases—even as madmen like Major Nidal Hasan and Aaron Alexis increasingly target their gun-free bases. And college women cannot carry concealed on their own campuses—even as reports of sexual assault rise. But our president has unethically authorized the use of lethal drone force against both Americans and non-Americans abroad—a process that has killed countless innocent civilians—in the name of hunting down terrorists.
It would be easier to trust our president’s competence in overseeing our foreign drone policy if Bill Ayers hadn’t made the mistake of confirming that our president is on very friendly terms with at least one anti-American ex-terrorist: Bill Ayers.
Documents leaked to The Intercept show that anyone deemed to be a “threat to U.S. interest[s] or personnel” could be targeted with lethal drone force. The broadness of this definition is concerning. Additionally, our domestic policy is vague enough to be misinterpreted to allow snooping to occur on my mother in her garden—or you sunbathing on your deck in your swimsuit.
Solution: Your voice is more powerful than you may realize. An uplifting new report from the Congressional Management Foundation finds that it only takes 30 tweets to draw congressional office attention to an issue. Keep hope and tweet on. Spread your smart facts on social media—and before long politicians will be forced to reform our Dumb and Dumber drone policy.
Four Reflections on the Syrian Refugee Crisis
11/23/2015 10:16:00 AM - Michael Brown
Many Christians are torn between a desire to help those in need and a desire to keep our nation secure. Perhaps these reflections will prove helpful as we seek to navigate a difficult and divisive issue.
1) The government should major on security; the Church should major on compassion. I don’t mean that the government should be harsh or that the Church should be foolish, but it is not the primary job of the government to care for the needs of refugees and it is not the primary job of the Church to provide national security.
The government should do its very best to shut the doors on any potential terrorists, even if that means slowing down the process of absorbing refugees.
We make decisions like this when, for example, there is an Ebola plague in West Africa. We want to be sure that we don’t unleash that plague on our shores even if the vast majority of West Africans are not infected.
In the same way, we must assiduously work against the plague of radical Islam, even if the vast majority of Muslim refugees are not radicals.
But there are plenty of refugees already registered with Christian relief agencies who are looking for sponsors, and that is where the Church can lead the way, either opening up our homes (as many of us had the privilege of doing during the Boat People crisis in the late 70s and early 80s when Vietnamese refugees fled their country and were in dire need of help) or helping refugees get settled in our communities.
Recently, while speaking at a church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, I was blessed to hear how this congregation of several hundred people had sponsored two Muslim families from Syria, ministering the love of God to them in a tangible way. The families have been deeply impacted.
Since the majority of refugees that come into America are sponsored by faith-based organizations, this is a great opportunity for local churches and individual believers to step into action.
2. Priority should be given to Christian refugees. I personally do not believe that we should shut the door on all Muslim refugees from Syria, as long as we can accurately vet them, but I do believe that the Church’s first priority should be resettling Christian refugees, and I say this for three main reasons.
First, Christians in the Middle East are facing a genocide, with the populations of Christians in countries like Iraq and Syria going from the millions to the hundreds of thousands. They are being slaughtered and they are being barbarized, and it is sometimes the lucky ones who are fleeing for their lives. How can we ignore their plight?
A friend of mine who pastors a large church in Tennessee traveled to Jordan and spoke with Christian refugees there. Their perception was that American Christians had completely abandoned them.
Second, whereas Muslim refugees can be absorbed by Muslim countries in the Middle East (I’ll return to that point shortly), Christian refugees have less options, and they do not get any special priority in “Christian” Europe.
Third, Paul wrote that “as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).
This does not mean that we neglect acts of kindness and mercy to Muslims in need, but it means that we do put our persecuted brothers and sisters first.
3. Muslim nations must step up their sponsorship of Muslim refugees. It is true that countries like Lebanon (which is predominantly Muslim) are bursting at the seams as Syrian refugees pour into their small territory, while countries like Iraq have become home to massive tent cities consisting of both Christian and Muslim refugees.
But there is no reason why the oil rich Muslim nations in the Middle East can’t do more to help their own people, by which I mean people of the same ethnicity (Arab), religion (Muslim), and language (Arabic).
While Saudi Arabia claims that it has taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees, other Gulf State nations have been criticized for allegedly taking in none. Can this be right? And is it fair that so much pressure is being put on the West to sponsor refugees while some of Syria’s closer neighbors barely lift a finger?
4. We must guard our hearts against unchristlike attitudes. On a regular basis, I speak against the evils of radical Islam, and I plan to continue to do so. At the same time, I always call for prayer for all Muslims – including radical, murderous Muslims – believing that Jesus died for them as well and that all of them are loved by God.
And so, while I want to see ISIS destroyed, I want to see individual members of ISIS come to faith and find mercy and repentance. I also want to remember that, while some Syrian refugees are bringing terrorism with them, the great majority are fleeing from that very terror.
Yesterday, a colleague sent me a short audio message preached a few years ago by one of the graduates from our ministry school, FIRE School of Ministry. He was back in the States while taking a short break from his mission’s work in a very dangerous part of the Muslim world.
He mentioned that yes, groups like Al-Qaeda were wreaking murderous havoc there, but he was shocked to come back home and find Christians demonizing Muslims and portraying them all as killers. Worse still, he found Christians who exhibited hatred rather than love towards Muslims.
What made his message all the more profound is that, not long after delivering that word, he was gunned down in cold blood by Al-Qaeda terrorists after returning to serve the Muslims in that very dangerous land.
But there’s more to the story. The day after his assassination, there was a large protest march in his home city, with devout Muslim men and women walking side by side, holding up his picture, carrying messages of love, and denouncing Al-Qaeda for killing this fine Christian man. And they wanted the world to know that Al-Qaeda did not represent them as Muslims.
I believe this young martyr would implore us today to love these lost Muslims just as the Lord loved us when we were lost in darkness.
In sum, our government must act wisely, refusing to make hasty, potentially dangerous decisions. At the same time, believers must rise to the occasion, as we have done so many times before, demonstrating to the whole world what the love of Jesus looks like in living color.
Do you agree?
Kerry Claims Al Qaeda Is 'Neutralized' Before Mali Attack
11/22/2015 8:08:00 AM - Leah Barkoukis
Just as President Obama claimed ISIS had been contained nine hours before the attacks on Paris, so too Secretary of State John Kerry said al Qaeda was neutralized just before the massacre in Mali.
"I'm confident if we stay steady, keep our heads in thinking creatively but also being strong and committed to our fundamental values, we're going to defeat Daesh. We always said it will take time. We began our fight against al Qaeda in 2001 and it took us quite a few years before we were able to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the top leadership and neutralize them as an effective force. We hope to do Daesh much faster than that and we think we have an ability to do that. So that's the effort, and we're going to continue," Kerry claimed.
Islamist militant group al Mourabitoun said it carried out the Mali attack on Friday with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
Jihadists yelling “allahu akbar” stormed a U.S.-owned hotel in the former French colony that was filled with international guests. At least 21 people died in the attack, including one American.
Obama administration officials would do well to refrain from making premature assessments about the vitality of both ISIS and al Qaeda for the foreseeable future.
More Lame Virtue Signaling From President Faily McWorseThanCarter
11/23/2015 12:01:00 AM - Kurt Schlichter
Imagine our surprise to learn that America is morally obligated to take in every out-of-luck dude who wanders out of his hellhole of a country with a bindle, selfie stick and no wife or kids in sight. And the troubling likelihood that some portion of these largely military-age male refugees agrees with their countrymen that the only good American is a headless one is beside the point. You see, our Glorious Leader and his dwindling coterie of slobbering fans cannot possibly pass up this sweet chance to pose, posture, and preen as our moral superiors.
It’s no biggie if more of us get slaughtered by foreigners who liberals have welcomed into the Land of Opportunity to Kill Some Infidels. Our sad little lives are a small price to pay for liberals to feel good about themselves.
Call me crazy, but I prefer not being murdered. Perhaps I’m selfish, not wishing to risk my family to boost liberals’ egos. Maybe I’m short-sighted, thinking it’s a bad idea to bring tens of thousands of people into our country from regions where a good chunk of the population would like to chop a good chunk of America’s population into chunks.
Oh wait – we’ll vet them, and a thorough vetting it shall be! Leveraging the legendary competence of the federal government under Obama, we’ll review the detailed records that they will no doubt carry with them attesting to their disdain for bomb making. We’ll gather references from those who know them: “Abdul? Oh no, he would totally never even consider shooting up a K-Mart full of infidels to achieve the glory of martyrdom.” And we can count on their personal assurances that they aren’t jihadis: “I promise I won’t kill anyone. Cross my heart and hope to die and get my 72 virgins!”
The fact is that importing Middle Easterners is a risk. Is it a huge risk? Maybe. Is it a small risk? Maybe, but either way, there is a risk in bringing these people in, and we just don’t want to take it.
Nor do about two-thirds of Americans, which creates conflicting emotions in our lousy president. He’s furious that mere normal Americans are defying him by failing to meekly obey his commands, but he is also excited about this chance to distinguish himself from them. There is nothing a liberal likes more than huddling with other like-minded cryptofascists in some coastal enclave and bemoaning the moral, intellectual, and philosophical failures of the rubes inhabiting the interior of this barbarous continent. What an opportunity to signal virtue to the world, especially when it can be done from behind walls and armed guards.
Obama won’t put his money where his big mouth is and promise to resign if one of his widows and orphans decides to create some American widows and orphans; as usual, he just mouths cheesy clichés. The reality is, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses mostly yearning to breathe free but maybe yearning to open fire in a shopping mall.” And that’s a chance Obama and his liberal friends are willing to take. If one of their personal shoppers gets whacked picking out ties at Nordstrom, well, it was all for a good cause.
Now, you might think because Muslim nations take up a big part of the planet that they might step up. After all, their co-religionists caused the problem that’s creating the refugee crisis. Maybe they should take some responsibility for their brothers and their (few and far between) sisters. But they won’t, and they won’t for the same reason we shouldn’t – it’s a really bad idea to import potential terrorists into your country.
This isn’t hard. A significant number of Middle Easterners want us dead. So if we don’t let them come here, we keep out some people who want us dead. You would think our president and the ninnies who still support him would want that. But then, for liberals it’s not about reason or facts. It’s about the feels.
At least the response from stompy foot liberals is amusing. We’re told that refusing to allow potential jihadi sleepers into America is “surrendering to ISIS.” For a group so inclined to give up in the face of America’s enemies, it is kind of odd that liberals still don’t understand how surrendering works.
Then there are the belabored Mary, Joseph, and the inn analogies. Except Mary and Joseph were facilitating the arrival of the Prince of Peace, not a bunch of aspiring Tsarnaevs intent on pressure cooking-up a bloodbath. Plus, it’s always awesome to get Jesus lessons from the same 37-year old pinko neckbeard whose Twitter bio reads, “Proud atheist who can’t stop talking about it and hopes to someday kiss a real girl.”
Then they call us paranoid, conveniently disregarding the bloody history of radical Islamic domestic terror with their Jedi hand wave: “These are not the airplanes smashing into skyscrapers you are looking for.”
In fact, jihadi attacks have touched many of us, from 9/11 survivors to those who knew victims. I served in the sister brigade of one of the guys that traitor murdered at Ft. Hood and knew another guy wounded by a grenade a junior jihadi tossed into an Army tent in Kuwait. So don’t tell me I’m paranoid. Doing so tells me that either you are stupid or you are a liar – or likely both.
And then they tell us we hate refugees. Pffft. We don’t hate cars but we still look both ways before crossing the street. And this sudden love of refugees by the left is puzzling – it sure as hell didn’t manifest when Christians were being butchered. I sure didn’t see a lot of these leftist posers in Kosovo trying to keep the genocide from winding back up again. Hell, I even married a refugee. Of course, no Cubans want to stick Western women in sacks and Western men in graves.
Obama will do his best to force these foreigners upon an unwilling America. It’s a bad idea politically, but Obama was never a tenth as smart as everyone told him he was. Sensible Americans are against it by huge margins. It’s going to hurt Hillary a lot, and it will hurt Democrat Senate candidates gravely, particularly in red states. Plus, as a special bonus, the 30+ red state governors standing together against Obama on resettlement are going to suddenly realize, “Gee, maybe we can all work together against this wannabe Chavez on other issues too.”
But President Faily McWorsethancarter’s ego takes precedence. He needs to soak in the adulation that comes from his virtue signaling. He needs to impose his will. He needs. It’s always about his needs.
The downticket Democrats who have so far survived the Obama years will take another hit. That’s okay.
The country will be further divided by his executive overreach. That’s okay.
And some of us may be murdered. Sadly, to our President and his lackeys, that’s okay too.