Saturday, November 21, 2015

Cruz catches Carson (Tied for second place)

Red State ^ | November 20, 2015 | Dan Spencer

A new national NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll finds that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100% has moved up 8% as Ben Carson dropped 8% leaving them tied for second place at 18%. Donald Trump, who was tied for the lead with Carson at 26% in the last NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, is now in the lead at 28%. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 94% also moved up 2%, to 11%, and remains in fourth place. The rest of the Republican candidates remain at 4% or less. The two point moves by Trump and Rubio fall within the poll’s 2.9% margin of error.

Other interesting findings from new the NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll include:

â—¾Carson is losing his support among evangelicals. He is now backed by just 25% of this group while Trump and Cruz have 23% and 22% respectively.

â—¾Cruz now has the highest level of support among those who identify as very Conservative, with 40%, overtaking both Carson and Trump.

â—¾Carson, Cruz, Rubio and Trump receive nearly equal levels of support among those with college degrees.

The upward movement of Cruz could be attributed to his organizational efforts with politically active church goers. And some credit should surely go to his response to the Paris terror attack we reported on here and here.

Carson’s fall, or as Trump calls it “free fall,” is the result of questions about Carson’s grasp of foreign policy. Most, 71%, of the Republican insiders surveyed this week by The POLITICO Caucus said Carson was the most vulnerable Republican presidential candidate on foreign policy — far more than any other candidate.

Don’t take this new poll too seriously. There are still more than two months before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. That’s a very long time at this stage of a presidential campaign.

50 US Spies: The Obama Admin Manipulates Our Reports, Threatens Us If We Speak Out

TruthandAction ^ | 11/21/15 | ??? 

More than 50 spies working for the military have come out with shocking allegations: according to them, the Obama administration has taken their painfully honest assessments of the war against ISIS and effectively reinterpreted them to paint a rosy picture of things that reflects well on the president’s efforts against the terrorist group.
The spies specifically went out of their way to clarify that it wasn’t just a matter of rogue agents telling falsehoods to advance their own careers. Rather, as one of the operatives involved said, “The cancer was within the senior level of command,” revealing how high this conspiracy of competence goes.
Indeed, the allegations are serious enough that the Pentagon has charged it’s inspector general with investigating the intelligence agents’ claims. This followed the submission of a formal written complaint by two veteran analysts at U.S. Central Command in July, prompting the Department of Defense to look into the matter itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Chickens of Communism Have Come Home to Roost!

Canada Free Press ^ | 11/21/15 | Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh 

If people fail to understand the concept of Big Brother Government and the Welfare State, forgetting patriotism, cultural heritage, and history, all freedoms will vanish.
The chickens of intolerance and communist social justice have come home to roost on the American campus. Decades of Marxist indoctrination by the vaunted communist academia are finally paying off—our cultural heritage is replaced by cultural Marxism and primitive cultures that are deemed superior to ours and worshipped.
Academia has been blotting out the past and revising history for a while but with increased vengeance since Jimmy Carter founded the U.S. Department of Education on October 17, 1979. Our children’s education has depreciated considerably as evidenced by test scores and the quality of mis-educated youth in our country who can barely read or write a complete and coherent paragraph. But their fingers fly on Twitter in hashtags and 140 characters, staring constantly like robotic drones into illuminated smart devices.

Climate Change Claims 129 in Paris! ^ | 11/21/2015 | Dave Rosenthal 

This past Friday, while Americans readied for the weekend, Parisians were under attack. As of this writing, 129 innocent people were confirmed dead and hundreds more wounded.
As the reports began to come in, many suspected the worst: the biggest threat to humanity, climate change, had struck again. This should be no surprise. Leftist world leaders such as Obama, Kerry, Clinton, and Merkel, along with other global socialists, repeatedly told us, in Goebbels-like manner, that climate change is the biggest threat to our existence. These elitists warned us that we could no longer continue to kick the can down the road, and that we must act to save the planet from this phenomenon that would destroy the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Terrorists as 'Tourists' (what an ASS) ^ | November 21, 2015 | Cal Thomas 

Resident Obama has put a new twist on the Islamic invasion now taking place across Europe and the United States. Speaking to reporters last week during his visit to the Philippines, the president compared Syrian refugees to "tourists," saying they are no bigger a threat than people who come to sightsee and visit attractions.
Rhetoric is a powerful weapon to rally citizens to stand against enemies, whether foreign or domestic. In this war, the people are out in front of the president. According to the latest NBC News/Survey Monkey online poll, "56 percent of Americans disapprove of allowing more migrants fleeing violence in Syria and other nations into the country, while 41 percent approve and the issue divides sharply across party lines. But overwhelmingly, Americans say the U.S. and its allies are losing the war against ISIS and the poll shows bipartisan support for sending additional ground troops to fight the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria."
Virtually every retired military officer I've seen on the networks and quoted in newspapers says only a ground force, not bombing alone, can root out and destroy ISIS' base camp inside Syria. The administration is right that the U.S. cannot do this alone, or even mainly, but neither can European nations. American expertise and leadership are essential. It is the lack of leadership by this president that is encouraging the terrorists.
From NATO's website is the principle that should be guiding President Obama: "The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO's founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance."
These attacks, as we have seen, are not only against France, England and the U.S. They are an attack on a way of life that includes religious pluralism, freedom of speech and press, equal rights for women and the right to choose one's leaders. This is why, if such principles are to endure, a collective effort is essential in defeating this latest threat.
Freedom is not a given If it were, more people would be free. As one looks around the globe one finds intolerance, bigotry, dictatorship, oppression, mass murder, imprisonment of political opponents and so many other horrors. Our way of life must constantly be defended, like a strong immune system, and healthy practices are the best defense against viruses and disease.
The Democratic Party in America is about to face a critical test that could have ramifications not only in next year's election, but also many elections to come. That party was once at the forefront in fighting communism, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For decades, Democrats joined Republicans in believing that a strong and united foreign policy was a deterrent to aggressors. While the Vietnam War was a notable exception, the principle has a history of serving U.S. interests.
If congressional Democrats refuse to join Republicans in stronger measures to -- at a minimum -- vet the background of Syrian "refugees," and if some of them turn out to be terrorists, or are recruited and radicalized in mosques after getting here, they will pay for it dearly at the polls. The Daily Caller reports that "at least 15 U.S. 'citizen terrorists' are also legal immigrants" and "more than 70 U.S. residents have been publicly arrested and charged with conspiring to help terror networks in recent years."
President Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" America. I'm wondering if those who voted for him believed that this is what he meant.

Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

11-21-15 | johnwk 

See Abbott: Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

"Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday that Texas would refuse Syrian refugees after a terrorist attack in Paris killed more than 120 people.

"Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees,any one of whom could be connected to terrorism, being resettled in Texas," Abbott wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama."

I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution's Tenth Amendment.

Our federal government's delegated power starts and stops with the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.
There is a big difference between the words "immigration" and "naturalization".

The ordinary meaning of the word "immigration" is the entrance into a country of foreigners for the purpose of permanent residence. This word does not appear in our Constitution.

"Naturalization" does appear in our Constitution in the following context:

Congress shall have power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

We also find the words "Migration" in our Constitution in the following context:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. see: Article 1, Section 9

As to the ordinary meaning of "naturalization", its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted an exclusive, but limited power to establish a uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over "naturalization" does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state's original policing power over foreigners wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation's first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: "that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States." see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what "Naturalization" [the power granted to Congress] means, and he â€doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States, all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States." see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

The irrefutable fact is, nowhere in our Constitution has our federal government, much less the President of the United States, been vested with a power over the immigration of foreigners into the United States or a power to compel a state to accept them.

The limited power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a "citizen of the United States".

It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language confirms each State may make distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" when regulating and enforcing its laws!

Please note that a review of our Constitution's 14th Amendment declares that "citizens" of the United States are guaranteed the "privileges or immunities" offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not "citizens of the united States" and referred to as "persons" (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the "privileges or immunities" which a state has created for its "citizens".

The 14th Amendment only requires that "persons" may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state's codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other "persons" within the state in question.


The State of Texas, as well as every other State has retained its policing power to determine the flow of foreigners into their State, which is an original power exercised by each state and never ceded to our federal government.

Neither Congress nor the president has a power under the Constitution to force the unwanted populations of other countries upon the States. The various states should immediately go into Court and ask the Court for an injunction to stop Obama from forcing the states to accept unwanted foreigners while it determines the legitimacy of Obama's or Congress forcing tens of thousands of foreigners upon the various United States, especially when the introduction of these foreigners pose a very real threat to the general welfare of the States.

Keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments. One of the reasons for granting the injunction was the devastating effects thrust upon the States without their permission.


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

Obama refugee plan exposed: 72 terror cases 'ignored'

WND ^ | Leo Hohmann 

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is throwing cold water on President Obama's plans to expand the number of Islamic refugees entering the U.S. from Syria, saying it's a recipe for disaster similar to what’s happening in Europe.
He urged Congress to use its only real power--the power of the purse--to stop a president who has often "run over Congress" to get his way.
In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Sessions said Obama has ignored 72 documented cases of terrorist activity by suspected Muslim immigrants inside the United States since July of last year. Many of these terrorists came to the U.S. as refugees, a stark contrast to the "widows and orphans" meme put forth by the Obama administration and the myriad political and religious groups that support the resettlement business.
Sessions said his office sent the list of terrorist plots, many of them foiled by the FBI before they could be carried out, to the administration more than four months ago and asked for the immigration histories of each suspect.
Sen. Ted Cruz also co-signed the request sent to the Obama administration with an attached list of 72 individuals charged or convicted of terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama: We'll Welcome Millions from Around World

Newsmax ^ | November 21, 2015

Pushing back against efforts to bar Syrian refugees from resettling in the U.S., President Barack Obama vowed Saturday that his country will be a welcoming place for millions fleeing violence around the world "as long as I'm president.

Brushing off refugee worries at home, Obama crouched alongside migrant children on Saturday and declared they are the opposite of terrorists wreaking havoc from Paris to Mali. Working to put a human face on the refugee crisis, he said, "They're just like our kids."

The refugees Obama encountered at a school for poor children in Malaysia were not from Syria, and unlike the flood of Syrians meeting steep resistance in the U.S., these migrants had already been cleared to resettle in America. Still, Obama said their faces could have been those of kids from Syria, Iraq and other war-torn regions whose pursuit of a life free from violence led them far from their native homes.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Clinton Crime Continuum

Flopping Aces ^ | 11-21-15 | DrJohn

Ah, it's good to be a Clinton. They have leveraged their political positions to raise $3 billion over the last 40 years:

LITTLE ROCK - Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family's charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton's 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

People don't hand over cash for nothing. They expect something in return and Hillary has come through for them.
The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium - the stuff used to build nuclear weapons - to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's time and attention?
Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary's statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.

First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary's family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.

Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there's even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.

But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?

Second, during her Sunday interview, Clinton was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech delivered in Moscow. Hillary's response? She dodged the question completely and instead offered this blurry evasion.

"The timing doesn't work," said Clinton. "It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state."

Hillary added that such "allegations" are being "made by people who are wielding the partisan ax."

The reason Hillary ignored addressing the $500,000 direct payment from the Kremlin-backed bank to her husband is because that payment occurred, as the Times confirms, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One."

And as for her comment that the timing of the uranium investors’ donations "doesn't work" as a damning revelation: In fact, the timing works perfectly.

And she came through for a Swiss bank:
(WSJ) - A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.
If the case proceeded, Switzerland's largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

From that point on, UBS's engagement with the Clinton family's charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

There's lots more, such as:
"...Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation..."
Bill made out like a bandit consequent to his wife's lofty position:
In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes.
In fact, once Hillary had greased UBS, UBS became the biggest income source for Bill

Bill's speaking fees doubled and tripled once Hillary became SoS:

After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows.
Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China.

"It's unusual to see a former president's speaking fee go up over time," said Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel's office under President George W. Bush. "I must say I’m surprised that he raised his fees. There's no prohibition on his raising it. But it does create some appearance problems if he raises his fee after she becomes Secretary of State."

Even Politifact agrees. Let us not forget that speaking fees to Bill are also income to Hillary as they file joint returns. Thus she is padding her own pockets in addition to Bill's.
Hillary Clinton put the US up for sale as Secretary of State. And as President she and Bill could probably command billions for selling US favors. And the skids are being greased right now.

When's the last time you could under report your income by $20 million without an hassle?

The Clintons can, and did.

The Clinton Foundation "forgot" to report $20 million in donations.

The Clinton Foundation failed to report $20 million in donations from governments to the Internal Revenue Service, newly refiled tax returns show.
Reuters reported that the foundation disclosed the $20 million it received from governments, most of them foreign, between 2010 and 2013 when it and a spin-off organization refiled tax returns from six years to fix errors.

The Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation did not previously separate out its donations from governments on old tax returns as is mandated by the IRS.

The foundation refiled tax returns from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and a charity spun off from the foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, refiled its own returns from 2012 and 2013 after both were found to have made errors reporting funds from foreign governments. The revelations about inaccuracies came just as Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, endured scrutiny for the millions of dollars that her family foundation has received from foreign governments.

And most of that came from foreign governments. Hey, no problem! Just refile! No penalties, no fuss. How great is that?
Fear not- Hillary promises to take on special interests (like the Clinton Foundation, I imagine) while taking millions from lobbyists:

WASHINGTON — Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton's claims she’ll take on wealthy special interests and reform Wall Street, the road to her White House run has been paved with gold from Washington lobbyists.
Records show Clinton has raked in $3.2 million from registered lobbyists, who bundle money from their rich clients.

That's 3½ times more in lobbyist cash than the entire GOP field combined, according to Federal Election Commission records.

A review of the Clinton Foundation's was conducted by DLA Piper
"The Foundation voluntarily undertook a thorough review of the returns for those years in which the line on the return concerning government grants was left blank," said Keneally. "Foremost, we found nothing to suggest that the Foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which the Foundation reports on its website."
Voluntarily- once they were challenged. One more thing-
Kathy Keneally, a top tax litigation lawyer for DLA Piper, conducted the review of Clinton Foundation tax documents. DLA Piper has given between $50,001 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Employees of the firm have also contributed $171,200 to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, making it the fifth largest contributor thus far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Additionally, DLA Piper contributed $496,700 to Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, making it the second biggest contributor. Over the course of Clinton's two Senate campaigns she received $700,530 from DLA Piper, putting the firm third behind only Goldman Sachs and Citigroup in total contributions to Clinton.

Coincidence, I'd sure.
The Clinton's and the Foundation assert they've done nothing wrong. Ahem:

(Excerpt)

New DNC ad: Why can’t these Republicans be respectful of radical Islam, like George Bush was?

Hot Air ^ | November 20, 2015 | Allahpundit 

Via Alex Griswold, who cites a new Rasmussen poll showing that 56 percent of Democrats — Democrats — think we’re at war with “radical Islamic terrorism.” I’ve played this three times and still can’t believe I’m watching an ad from the Democratic Party pointing at George W. Bush as a role model on how to think about terrorism. The punchline is, Bush himself mentioned “radical Islam” in his presidential rhetoric; he even used it in the State of the Union, for cripes sake. He used the adjective “radical” because he wanted to suggest a distinction between “real” Islam and the version preached by jihadis — which is the same thing the Republican candidates featured in the ad are doing. It’s these DNC imbeciles, not the GOPers in the ad, who are effectively equating Islam with “radical Islam” by refusing to acknowledge the distinction. And the weirdest part, as Griswold says, is that if they wanted to show Republican suspicion of Muslims, they could have just stitched together some comments lately about barring Syrian Muslim refugees from the country. How come they didn’t do that? Is it because … a lot of Democratic voters agree with the GOP on that too?
Great timing, too:
Literally any other time of the year, voters might have just rolled their eyes at the unbearable PC-ness of it all. But the DNC ad comes after a series of major terrorist attacks across the globe… and after President Barack Obama gave a speech in response that left the impression that he was more fired up about attacking his domestic critics than taking on ISIS. To attack Republicans for “inciting fear” about radical Islam in the wake of nonstop news about radical Islamic terror is just an unbelievable misfire.
I think what happened here is that someone at the DNC decided that they needed to have Princess’s back after a week of him scolding Republicans about their insensitivity and so one especially dim liberal ad man was tasked with throwing something together. “Put George Bush in there,” he was told. “He always used to say ‘Islam means peace.’ He was such a good example.” This is a guy whom their base thought was some sort of new Hitler, and now they’re holding him out as an exemplar of … how not to incite fear. Am I awake?

HuffPo Author: Saying “All Lives Matter” an Act of Terrorism ^ | 11/19/2015 
Writing for the Huffington Post, writer Shea Watts wonders aloud how the United States could possibly condemn ISIS when the US has been committing terrorism for hundreds of years.
His article, “Looking Within: The Convenient Amnesia of American Terrorism,” argues that Americans have perpetrated terrorism for centuries and that we must face these facts or else we are hypocrites for condemning the terror attacks in Paris last week.
“How much blood is on our hands?” Watts asks. “What a shame that we, as a nation, have not looked upon our sins. We have not asked forgiveness for the the lives and bodies and communities we have destroyed. These unreconciled acts of the past continue to manifest themselves in our society.”
Hypocritical whites and Christians have terrorized black people for hundreds of years. African Americans are, in fact, still subjects of terrorism.
“We live in a country where the dead body of a black teenager can be left in the street for hours, where police are recorded, time after time, beating, shooting, and mistreating blacks, but are seldom charged for their crimes,” he writes.
“How convenient is it that so many act as if these acts of terror never happened or pretend that this degree of hate does not exist?” Watts asks.
“Do we realize how these terrorist acts are reaffirmed and even recommitted by not only our actions, but also by our words?” he says, stating that words can “recommit” acts of terror. “At the very least, this should make one pause and think before one says, “ALL LIVES MATTER.””
Watts concludes, “So before you make a statement on race, educate yourself on the history of American terrorism… We must come to terms with our own violence against our own people before we can condemn ISIS and the likes of them.”

DNC Ad Attacking Republicans for Saying ‘Radical Islam’ Is Laughably Stupid

Mediaite ^ | November 20, 2015 | Alex Griswold 

A new ad from the Democratic National Committee attacks Republican presidential candidates for using the term “radical Islam.” Entitled Inciting fear isn’t presidential,” the ad argues that the use of the term is offensive to Muslims.
(video at link)
I’ve seen my share of nasty, bizarre, and over-the-top political ads. But this may be the first that I can honestly say is just plain stupid.
To begin with, the ad is horribly tone-deaf. I don’t doubt that the decision-makers in the Democratic Party are horrified by the phrase “radical Islam.” But a new poll released today on the issue found that a supermajority of Americans agree that the United States is at war with radical Islam, including 56% of Democratic voters. Only 24% of the country agrees with the president. So right off the bat, the Democratic Party is attacking Republicans for a stance their own voters agree with.
But of course, the ad attacked Republicans for just saying “radical Islam,” not saying we’re at war with it. Well, 92% of Americans also say “radical Islamic terrorism” is a serious threat to the United States. But hey, at least the DNC is making inroads with that 8%.
To say nothing of the timing behind the ad. Literally any other time of the year, voters might have just rolled their eyes at the unbearable PC-ness of it all. But the DNC ad comes after a series of major terrorist attacks across the globe… and after President Barack Obama gave a speech in response that left the impression that he was more fired up about attacking his domestic critics than taking on ISIS. To attack Republicans for “inciting fear” about radical Islam in the wake of nonstop news about radical Islamic terror is just an unbelievable misfire.
But setting aside the politics of it all, the ad is simply insulting to the American voter’s intelligence. “Equating Islam, all Muslims, with terrorists is oversimplification and wrong,” the ad reads as somber music plays.
I think we can all agree that’s true. But in all the clips of Republican candidates that the ad shows, they never once say that the religion of Islam is the enemy, or that “all Muslims” are terrorists. They’re literally just saying the words “radical Islam,” “radical Muslims” and “radical Islamic terrorism.”
The inference the DNC appears to making here is astonishing. To even allude to the fact that radical Islam exists is now “equating Islam, all Muslims, with terrorists”? Even the most politically correct among us would roll their eyes at that notion.
I’m going to go ahead and assume that the Democrats are being intentionally dishonest, because the alternative is that they are incapable of intelligent thought. The fact of the matter is that most Republicans, most Democrats, and indeed most Muslims are capable of understanding and believing two separate ideas, neither of which conflict:
  • There are billions of Muslims in the world, the vast majority of which are peaceful, ordinary people and of no threat to the United States.
  • There exists a fringe element of the Islamic religion that is oppressive and often violent, and many of its adherents have openly declared war on Western Civilization itself.
To treat the latter statement as a denial of the former isn’t just manifestly unfair, it’s throwing logic itself out the window.
What really irks me is that it would be soooo much easier to cut this ad using actually offensive statements about American Muslims from Republican candidates. But then it would just be an attack ad on Donald Trump, with a brief cameo from Ben Carson. In order to tar every Republican, the DNC overstepped and declared nearly every American a bigot.
To which this conservative says: I hope to see more ads like this from the DNC in future.

Obama’s VA Facility Bans ‘Merry Christmas’

Big Government ^ | 11/20/15 | Ken Klutowski 

President Barack Obama’s Department of Veterans Affairs has banned employees at its facility in Salem, Virginia, from saying “Merry Christmas” to veterans.
It started as a broader ban that included Christmas trees. Federal law recognizes Christmas as an official federal holiday (5 U.S.C. § 6103) and provides federal employees with a paid day off to celebrate the Christian belief in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Every year, a White House Christmas Tree and a Capitol Christmas Tree grace those two respective buildings in Washington D.C., and a National Christmas Tree is also officially lighted outdoors for the public to enjoy during that time of year.
Yet the “Executive Leadership Team” at the Salem VA Medical Center banned Christmas trees, as well as other Christian speech and celebrations. As reported by local media, an email sent by senior staff to the center’s employees reads in part:
…Public areas may only be decorate d in a manner that is celebratory of the winter season. Displays must not promote any religion. Please note that trees (regardless of the types of ornaments used) have been deemed to promote the Christian religion and will not be permitted in any public areas this year.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Sees Worst Rating on Handling of Terrorism in His Career!

Washington Free Beacon ^ | November 20, 2015 4:35 pm | Morgan Chalfant 

In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, President Obama has earned his worst rating on his handling of terrorism in his career.

Currently, 54 percent of U.S. adults disapprove of the way in which Obama is handling terrorism threats, the worst such rating in his White House career, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Friday. Forty-three percent of Americans disapprove strongly of the president's handling of terror threats.
Americans are particularly critical of Obama's response to the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL or ISIS), the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the deadly attacks in Paris and that has also threatened attacks on the United States. Fifty-seven percent of U.S. adults disapprove of Obama's handling of IS, with 46 percent doing so strongly. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...