Sunday, November 22, 2015

Colbert's 'Late Show' has become propaganda for Democrats!

New York Post ^ | November 21, 2015 | Kyle Smith 

So Stephen Colbert turns out to be just as much of an a-hole as "Stephen Colbert." Viewers have noticed.
After an initial burst of interest spurred by CBS's big-bucks saturation advertising campaign for "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," the show's ratings have tanked and it is now running third in late night behind NBC's Jimmy Fallon and ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, who rarely has managed second place before.
The reason? A survey by the Hollywood Reporter found that conservative viewers are turning off Colbert in droves. Nearly twice as many Republicans are watching Kimmel as Colbert, who has turned "Late Night" into a sort of wannabe MSNBC show.
The pattern is familiar: When a Democrat is the guest, Colbert is Barbara Walters. When a Republican is on, he turns into Tim Russert.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

No Hablo Ingles!


Is The NRA The Only Civil Rights Group In America That Still Matters?

Bearing Arms ^ | 20 Nov, 2015 | Bob Owens 

The mainstream media is—once again—carrying out a nakedly partisan attack on the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association. This time the mainstream “news” organizations are attempting to assert that the NRA is a bunch of radicals that is so “gun crazy” that they even support terrorists buying guns.
The Daily News made that absurd claim earlier in the week, and the network of Dan Rather is doing so today.
Reality, of course, is something quite different.
The National Rifle Association is both a firearms training organization and a civil rights group, and opposes long-running Democrat attempts to abuse utterly arbitrary terror watch lists ripe for abuse as a method for unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats to “other” American citizens and resident aliens, stripping them of human rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Netanyahu: The Enemy is Militant Islam and Here's the Only Way to Fight Them ^ | 11/19/15 | Julie Stahl, Chris Mitchell 

"I am saying you're not going to change them; you will not win them over; you will not pacify them. The only way to defeat this is the way Naziism was defeated. First you defeat. Then you de-Nazify. That's the order; that's the priority." –Benjamin Netanyahu
airlift(Israel)—[CBN News] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an international audience of foreign diplomats that Israel stands by France and defined the common enemy France, Israel and the world face today. (Screengrab via CBN News)
"First of all, we stand and we do not fall. Even though, our numbers may be occasionally decimated by the barbarians, our countries are strong and we stand," Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu and the French Ambassador to Israel, Patrick Maisonnave, attended the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Netanyahu told the ambassador that Israel stands shoulder-to-shoulder with France, "committed to defend our common civilization."
"It's difficult for civilized men and women to recognize that our cities, our airways, sometimes our waterways are prowled by beasts that devour the innocent in their way. And the forces of civilization, when they realize the severity of this problem, have no option but to unite very clearly and defeat these beasts," he said.
"The beasts increasingly have a name—it is radical Islam. That is what is doing the killing, the murder, the rape, the burning, the beheadings. We must stand together and fight together militant Islam. The people of Israel grieve with you, the people of Israel stand with you. Now and always," he added.
Netanyahu and Maisonnave joined conference participants in standing for a moment of silence to honor the victims of the Paris terror attacks.
After the Paris attacks, Israel lowered its flags to half mast, and now on the streets of Jerusalem, the city is flying the French tri-color.
"We are not awakening to a new reality but mainly struggling like many other nations to adapt to a new phenomenon characterized by foreign fighters, who are converging to Iraq and Syria today," Maisonnave told participants.
"Fighting Daish [ISIS, jihad] is our priority," he said.
"Terrorism is terrorism not only when it affects us on such a horrendous scale, but also when it affects Israel," the ambassador added.
airliftDuring a question and answer session from the stage, Netanyahu defined terrorism. (Screengrab via CBN News)
"Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic targeting of the innocent, of civilians, of non-combatants for a political or ideological ends. This is what defines terrorism. It's always evil," he said.
Netanyahu said the international community often tries to make excuses for Palestinians when they attack Israel. But Netanyahu said it's all the same.
"The enemy is militant Islam. Its method so far is terrorism. It is in the business of acquired states. One already exists. It's called the Islamic State of Iran. The second is being established. It's called the Islamic State of ISIS, Daish. And with states, Islamic militants can have a base from which to launch much greater and more lethal terrorism," he said.
The prime minister said there's only one way to fight militant Islam:
"What is the system to fight them? One thing... fight them! Identify, condemn, fight," Netanyahu said.
"I am saying you're not going to change them; you will not win them over; you will not pacify them. The only way to defeat this is the way Naziism was defeated. First you defeat. Then you de-Nazify. That's the order; that's the priority."

How Many?

Fake Hate: Black Student Arrested for Threatening to Murder All Blacks at Michigan School

Getaway Pundit ^ | November 21, 2015 | Jim Hoft 

Emmanuel D. Bowden was arrested on Friday.
Police arrested a man for posting a threat against black people on campus.
The threat declared: "I'm going to shoot every black person I can on campus. Starting tomorrow morning."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Republican: Syrian refugees coming to U.S. for a ‘paid vacation’!

The Hill ^ | 11/21/2015 | Bradford Richardson 

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) says refugees fleeing war-torn Syria are trying to come to the U.S. for a “paid vacation” in the form of generous welfare programs.
“I’m one of these folks that think we need to stop paying these folks to come here, and we’re paying them about $15,000 a year in free health care, free food, free shelter, free clothing, free transportation,” Brooks said on the Dale Jackson Show on Friday, as first reported by the liberal media outlet ThinkProgress.

You know, just go down the litany of wealth-transfer programs that these people are entitled to, and that answers very quickly why so many of them want to come to the United States of America, we’re paying them to come here,” Brooks continued. “Paid vacation!”
He clarified that he was talking about “not just refugees, but all the illegal aliens, all the things that [President] Barack Obama is doing that is wrong and perhaps in violation of law with respect to illegal aliens, or irresponsible with respect to taking in refugees from countries that are infested with Muslim terrorist organizations.”
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Paris last week, the congressman said Islam is an inherently violent faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at .

Obama Bans Saying “Merry Christmas” At VA Center ^ | Robert Gehl 

In an e-mail to employees, Department of Veterans Affairs supervisors at the Salem, Virginia, center has banned employees from any religious expression in pubic areas.
"Employees are permitted to engage in private religious expression in their personal work areas that are not regularly open to the public," the message to employees reads, noting that Christmas music was banned as well. "If an employee's supervisor has previously granted them permission to listen to music in their personal work area, they should be reminded that music travels and should be secular (non-religious) and appropriate to the work environment."
At first, they tried to ban the display of Christmas Trees, but after an angry meeting between VA supervisors and about 150 employees, they backed down and said Christmas trees would be allowed. Here’s how WSLS reports it:
A letter from the Salem VA Medical Center to all employees stating Christmas trees will not be allowed in public areas this holiday season ignites a debate. But, after a heated meeting Friday afternoon — management is going todec k the halls and light the tree after all.
Christmas trees have always been a part of Christmas at the Salem VA Medical Center.
For veteran Vicki Jackson, the tree symbolizes overcoming a hard time in her life.
"It brought me over a big hump, because Christmas is hard for me, it's real hard for something that happened years ago," said Jackson. "And, to see that tree gone it's not Christmas."
It's not just Jackson; it's a message that provoked Salem VAMC employees, veterans and others in the community.
And, after a closed meeting between management and up to 150 staff members; now, a tree will stand tall this holiday season at the Salem VAMC.
"It was very tense in there with the director and amongst the employees," said Jackson. "I wasn't supposed to be there, but I went anyhow."
In a statement the Salem VAMC public affairs officer said, "it was determined that Christmas trees could be displayed in public areas so long as they were accompanied by the respective symbols of the two other faiths that celebrate holidays during this holiday season – namely symbols commemorating Hanukkah and Kwanzaa.
The decision comes after a letter from the Salem VAMC to employees which read, "trees have been deemed to promote the Christian religion and will not be permitted in any public areas this year."
"I don’t look at the tree as the birth of Christ, I don’t," said Jackson. "I look at is as a tree being decorated with ornaments."
Of course, as Breitbart points out, Christmas is not only an official federal holiday, but Christmas Trees grace the White House front lawn and the Capitol Lawn.
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that Christmas Trees were not a violation of the "endorsement test."
"The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas," wrote Justice Harry Blackmun, upholding the government's displaying a 40-foot Christmas tree on public land outside a courthouse.
"Numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs, and when the city's tree stands along in front of the City-County building, it is not considered an endorsement of Christian faith," he added.
But when was the last time the Obama Administration gave a damn what the courts said anyway?

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

Guardian ^ | June 3 2015 | Seumas Milne 

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.
Terrorism has come about in assimilationist France and also in multicultural Britain. Why is that?
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Clinton: GOP should 'just get out of the way'

Washington Examiner ^ | 11/21/15 | Curt Mills 

Hillary Clinton, who listed "Republicans" as her enemy in the first Democratic debate, wasted no time laying into her longtime foil at Saturday's North Charleston, S.C., "Jamboree."

Referring to Republicans' repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare in Congress, Clinton said, "Honestly, I don't know why they do this. They're driven by political ideology, not by taking care of people."

"I want to build on, and make improvements in the Affordable Care Act and I will stand against any Republican effort to repeal it," Clinton said, highlighting a recent campaign tact of wholeheartedly embracing and highlighting President Obama's signature, but most controversial, legislative achievement.
Clinton also at times used language that seemingly could have been lifted from the stump speeches of her chief Democratic competitor, Bernie Sanders, representing a cementing of her move leftward in order to stave off Sanders' surging popularity and emergence as her leading rival in the primary.

"You know the deck is rigged," Clinton said of the tax system. "Well, we've got to reshuffle that deck, and make sure we are raising incomes for the middle class," Clinton said, adding, but "not raising taxes for the middle class," in a dig at Sanders who has proposed some middle class tax hikes to pay for his program.

"I will not do that," Clinton said. "From my perspective, we have to create more good-paying jobs, and there's a bunch of things we could do, if the Republicans would just get out of the way."

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 ...

Friday, November 20, 2015

Hillary can’t run from the messes she — and Obama — made

NY Post ^ | 19 November 2015 | Michael Goodwin 

As his first secretary of state, she was part of the team that botched the wars in Iraq and Syria and helped birth the Islamic terrorism now rattling the world. The slaughter in Paris and fresh threats against America make it urgent that she erase her fingerprints from the calamity. That's impossible, so she settled for putting some daylight between herself and Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Hitler-Era Brown Shirts Took Over Hunter College

Frontpagemagazine ^ | November 20, 2015 | Phyllis Chesler 

Following the blueprint of how Hitler's brown shirts worked on Germans.

Reprinted from
For the first time in the 21st century and on the American campus, legitimate economic grievances, specific to New York City, specific to the United States, have been tied to Zionism.
Led by a screaming woman in hijab and a man, assisted by the usual outside agitators, students screamed themselves hoarse at Hunter College, a branch of City University of New York not far from where I live just a few days ago.
"Zionism out of CUNY!" "Zionists out of CUNY!" "Intifada, Intifada" was chanted, screamed, roared, over and over again. You may see it here and here.
Their demands for pay parity for adjunct professors is just and long overdue. Their demands for "tuition-free education, the cancellation of all student debt, a minimum wage of $15.00 for campus workers" is, perhaps, more idealistic as well as economically challenging.
However, their demands for "an end to racial and economic segregation in education, racialized college-acceptance practices, work program requirements for students on public assistance, and an end to the rapid gentrification and privatization of public school property" verges on the surreal and smacks of Occupy Wall Street and the Ferguson riots.
The next demand is obscene.
"We demand CUNY divests from Israel, companies that maintain Zionist occupation, private prisons, and prison labor...the Zionist administration invests in Israeli companies, companies that support the Israeli occupation, hosts birthright programs and study abroad programs in occupied Palestine, and reproduces settler-colonial ideology throughout CUNY through Zionist content of education. While CUNY aims to produce the next generation of professional Zionists, SJP (Student for Justice in Palestine) aims to change the university to fight for all people's liberation."

What's Israel got to do with these domestic campus issues? Absolutely nothing--but in the mind of these Muslim Brotherhood indoctrinated students it has come to symbolize every conceivable injustice, both real and imagined; it has come to justify the stabbing, bombing, and car-ramming of Jewish civilians everywhere, especially but not exclusively in Israel or, as we saw on Friday in Paris, against Israelis--and the anti-Israel boycotts undertaken by the EU and by American academic organizations.
I have long referred to CUNY as the Communist University of New York because both the faculty and administration lean far left. If there is indoctrination going on, that indoctrination is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine; it is certainly not pro-Israel and anti-Palestine. But these paranoid ravings, this scapegoating of Jews, Zionists, and Israel for the very crimes being committed by Arab terrorists and their supporters, which include large chunks of the American professoriate, is what the new totalitarianism sounds like.
If there is intimidation, bullying and Blood Libels on campus it is anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism, not Islamophobia or anti-Arab-a-phobia, and it is coming from the Muslim-Brotherhood inspired Left; from Islamic-inspired and Christian liberation theology inspired Jew-hatred among angry African-Americans; from the anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic behaviors of the world's political leaders; and from the silence of our own professoriate--a silence which amounts to complicity as well as to cowardice.
This "million student march" throughout all of CUNY was endorsed by the NYC Students for Justice in Palestine, a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization outlawed in Egypt; by their cells at Hunter College, the College of Staten Island (where I taught for nearly 30 years), John Jay College (where I taught for a semester), by the Law School at CUNY, and by St. Joseph's College and Pace College.
The Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Student Association must be stopped. They are supported by a terrorist organization and should not be allowed on an American campus. They are not a "club." They are Brown-shirts on the move.
Students who have been taught that is it permissible to shout speakers down, interrupt and heckle them, force out distinguished academics, compel payment for outside non-academic rabble rousers, feel empowered by totalitarian Group Think, conduct angry rallies like this one at Hunter College are no better than Hitler-era Brown-shirts. They are not behaving like college students.
They should be emphatically condemned by the administration, and either expelled or de-programmed, whatever works

Left-Wing Arguments for Taking Syrian "Refugees" are Stupid

Renew America ^ | Nov 20, 2015 | Tim Dunkin 

The battle of the refugees continues in Washington, DC. With 33 state governors (at the time of this writing) refusing to take in any additional refugees, Pres__ent Obama (D-ISIS) has been absolutely flipping his wig, petulantly calling his opponents names while attempting to berate the governors into reversing their decisions. The radical Left has not been negligent to back him up, either. The past couple of days have seen them advance a number of arguments against rejection of the refugees – ranging from the simply wrong to the outright laughable. I'd like to address some of these arguments below.
The most sophisticated argument they have been employing is to rely upon the powers granted to the President to grant entry to refugees under the Refugee Act of 1980. The Act, which revised provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1968 and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, delegates to the President the power to grant entry to 10,000 refugees a year, plus additional though unspecified numbers of refugees on an emergency basis. It is unlikely that this act would survive a challenge on its substance in the courts, considering that the courts have typically a dim view of laws which grant the executive broad and ill-defined power to decide what a law means (as opposed to broad powers to merely execute the law as specifically directed by Congress when it crafted the law). Likewise, the act is unconstitutional due to its blurriness on separation of powers (and hence, rightly nullified by the states in toto). Nevertheless, this is the closest thing to a "slam dunk" that the Left can get on this issue.
Problem is, it's not at all apparent that the vast bulk of the "refugees" actually qualify as refugees under this law. The Refugee Act specified that refugees eligible for resettlement had to demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin on the basis of a verifiable or well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or because of political opinion. For the Muslim refugees, not a single one of these provisions is met.
Let's go through the list. Are they in danger on the basis of race? Nope. These refugees are all Levantine Arabs, basically racially identical to everyone else in Syria. What about religion? Again, no. The Muslim refugees are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim, a group which makes up 75% of the population of Syria, which puts them in the large and non-persecuted majority. Indeed, the Muslim "refugees" are the same sect as ISIS itself. Neither have Sunni Muslims been persecuted by the Alawite/secular regime of Assad.
How about nationality? If they're all Syrians, then they certainly aren't being "persecuted" by their own nation. Neither is there any particular "social group" to which they belong that has been singled out. Lastly, nobody has adduced any discernible political opinions that would single these "refugees" out for detrimental treatment in Syria. They can't even really be said to be "stateless" or dispossessed from their own country, since ISIS only controls about 1/3 of the land area of Syria, and there are regions far away from these to which these "refugees" could easily travel and find shelter.
So essentially, the Muslim "refugees" don't seem to fulfill even a single provision of the Act.
What's ironic is that there ARE "refugees" from this region who DO fulfill the religious and nationality provisions, such as Christians, Yazidis, Ba'hai, Jews, and other persecuted minorities from Syria and Iraq, people who genuinely ARE fleeing almost certain death or enslavement at the hands of ISIS. Yet, Obama has been extremely reticent about granting many of these groups asylum in America. So we see the strange situation where Obama is driving full steam ahead to bring in thousands of "refugees" who don't even meet the basic qualifications of our law, yet is turning away thousands who most definitely do.
The second argument that the Left has worked itself into a tizzy about is the one that says that efforts by Ted Cruz and others to exclude Muslim refugees from entry represent a "religious test" which is unconstitutional. Of course, we should keep in mind that the "religious test" prohibition in the Constitution (Article VI) applies only to holding public office. It doesn't apply to anything else. Indeed, in many cases, for the provisions introduced into our laws on refugees by the Refugee Act to be enforceable, we MUST apply a religious test when it requires determining whether a member of a persecuted religious minority qualifies for refugee status. The very law that left-wingers appeal to in their first argument above ends up completely refuting this second argument.
Next, left-wingers have taken to arguing that it is un-American and against our traditional welcoming of immigrants and refugees for us to refuse entry to this specific set of "refugees." But I would challenge these left-wingers to find a single, solitary instance in American history where we have voluntarily allowed in large numbers of empirically demonstrable and historically proven hostile foreigners. You won't find it. While we've opened our ports to those in genuine need or who wanted to come here to make a new life for themselves, we've never just thrown the doors open for people who have been openly hostile and who have declared their willingness to subvert our society and way of life in favor of replacing it with an alien and hostile culture such as Islam. We've never just opened the gates for people who hate us and want to destroy us.
Look to Europe's mistakes. They threw the doors open to these "refugees," and what did they get? They got a rape jihad, with hundreds of German and Scandinavian women being raped, abused, and even murdered by "refugees" so far. They've gotten riots. They've gotten vandalism and crime. They've gotten open declarations that the "refugees" are going to take over Europe and Islamize it. They've gotten religious triumphalism. And now, as Paris made clear, and as other incidents are continuing to do, they've gotten outright terrorism.
And that's what the left-wingers want to bring here. It has already been established beyond a doubt that at least two of the Paris attackers entered Europe after being processed through Greece as "refugees." Here in America, we've already seen al-Qaeda terrorists who have been caught here after they entered via the refugee program. We've arrested several ISIS members who were plotting attacks and who entered as refugees. Most recently, one refugee who had just been resettled in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, disappeared earlier this week, only to be found in Washington DC today. Even outside the official channels of the refugee resettlement program, we just saw five Syrian "refugees" with fake passports and refugee papers from Europe arrested by Honduras as they tried to travel to the US. Another eight Syrians were caught trying to illegally cross our border into Texas at Laredo.
Clearly, even the "refugees" who aren't actively bombing or shooting anyone yet are still bad news – and there's no historical precedent for America to be foolish enough to take them in.
The next argument is a classic one for the Left – how can we be so heartless as to turn away poor, helpless women and children? Think of all the poor widows and the three-year old orphans that Obama was jibber-jabbering about today!
Problem is, it's all a racket. Have you ever wondered why in those pictures of the "refugees" your see from Europe, nearly all of them are military aged males? It's because nearly all of them are military aged males. Indeed, the demographics are so lopsided that the Syrian women are wondering why all their "men" are leaving them behind to face the dangers of war and genocide and going to a cushy life in Europe. So the large majority of these "refugees" are men, not women and children. Men who, as we have seen above, have generally made a roaring nuisance out of themselves. There's no reason to think that the true numbers of those coming here will be any different.
Then there's this argument – turning away the Syrian "refugees' is just like when America turned away Jewish refugees trying to escape Nazi Germany. Really? The problem for this argument is that there's really no comparison between the at all. To begin with, the Jews were actual refugees – while the Muslim Syrians, at least, don't even qualify for that label. Further, the Jews did not go around raping, stealing, vandalizing, defacing churches, and declaring their intention to conquer their potential host countries in the name of their religion, as the Syrian "refugees" have been doing. If left-wingers can't figure out the difference between the two, and why refusing to take the Jews was a terrible tragedy while refusing to take the Syrians is simply sound public policy, then they aren't competent to even be having this discussion with the rest of America.
Lastly, there's this little argument which I actually hadn't heard used yet until I saw it in an email from a particularly...incompetent...left-winger who emails me every so often. I have since seen it used in a couple of other places. It goes as follows: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were refugees, so if you support turning away the Syrian "refugees," then you hate Jesus and can't be a "real" Christian.
Well...Joseph never raped anyone in his host country of Egypt. Jesus didn't steal from his hosts. Mary didn't vandalize any synagogues or temples while there were there. I doubt the officials in Roman Egypt had any cause to reasonably suspect that the Holy Family might flip out one day and go all Jihad Johnny on them. Argument fail.
In summation, while we see that the Left has managed to throw together quite a number of arguments in favor of accepting the Syrian "refugees," not a single one is actually a good argument. None of them hold any water. All of them are some combination of illogical, untenable, and/or ignorant. There is simply no reason why anybody should find them to be a reason for not supporting the governors and the members of Congress who are trying to prevent a likely national catastrophe from being caused by Trojan Horse terrorists sneaking in with the rest of a larger and quite radicalizable military-aged male population who hates us.

Obamacare’s Bait and Switch Has Left Consumers Scrambling in 2016

Yahoo News ^ | 19 November 2015 | Edward Morrissey 

The New York Times reported this weekend, even the words “affordable” and “care” have turned out to be untrue as well. The sharp rise in premiums has garnered the most headlines in the first three open-enrollment seasons of Obamacare, but equally if not more pernicious has been the increase in deductibles. As Eric Pianin explained for The Fiscal Times on Monday, deductibles have increased an average of 11 percent on Bronze level plans for 2016, intended to be the most affordable of all options, and now average over $5700. For Silver level, deductibles rose 6 percent and now average over $3100.
Consumers have to pay both the premium and then thousands of dollars for care out of their own pocket before insurance takes effect.
When the media focused on skyrocketing premiums (rightly so, considering the large serial increases for health insurance on the individual exchanges since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act) its advocates defended the system by pointing out that many on the exchanges qualified for subsidies to absorb the costs. For instance, Obama himself promised, “Most Americans will find an option that costs less than $75 a month,” and HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell claimed that 80 percent of Americans would pay no more than $100 in premiums after the subsidies.
Those claims may be true, but those subsidies don’t just fall out of the trees; they come from higher taxes on providers and manufacturers, and eventually out of the pockets of consumers, as do all business taxes. However, that defense doesn’t work on deductibles, which insurance companies were forced to raise when the state and federal governments tried to squeeze premium increases for the exploding demand down to a dull roar.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

41 years. $3 billion. Inside the Clinton Donor Network

Washington Post ^ | November 19, 2015 | By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger, Anu Narayanswamy 

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.
The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments in support of their political or philanthropic endeavors — a list that includes top patrons such as Steven Spielberg and George Soros, as well as lesser-known backers who have given smaller amounts dozens of times. Not included in the count are an untold number of small donors whose names are not identified in campaign finance reports but together have given millions to the Clintons over the years.
The majority of the money — $2 billion — has gone to the Clinton Foundation, one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe. A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who is among the wealthy foreign donors who have given tens of millions. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

FBI CONFIRMS: 6 Men from Pakistan, Afghanistan Busted Entering Arizona from Mexico!

Breitbart ^ | 19 Nov 2015 | Bob Price and Brandon Darby

UPDATE: After the publication of this article, a local NBC affiliate contacted the FBI for confirmation. The FBI confirmed that the six men were apprehended after illegally entering the United States in Arizona.

Original article:

A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.

The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.

The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.

Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.

On Wednesday evening, Breitbart Texas disclosed a report by other federal agents claiming that 8 Syrian illegal aliens were captured while attempting to enter the United States in the Laredo Sector. The Department of Homeland Security has now confirmed our exclusive report.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Wanted: An American Churchill

US Defense Watch ^ | November 19, 2015 | Ray Starmann 

ISIS is on a rampage of terror across the globe. They currently control an area the size of Indiana in the Middle East. In Europe, they have sleeper cells across the continent, ready to be activated with just a text message. The maestros of wickedness are here in the US and are attempting to infiltrate more people across our borders. Yesterday, eight Syrians were picked up by the Border Patrol in Laredo, Texas. In Washington, DC, a BOLO (Be on the Lookout) report has been issued for four Middle Eastern bearded men who were scoping out the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, President Obama is doing everything he can to roll out the Welcome Wagon for 100,000 Syrian refugees that you simply cannot vet, no matter what the federal government says.
The free world is in peril. We are at war. ISIS knows it. The Parisians know it. Time Magazine knows it too. The recent headline on their current issue is titled, “World War ISIS.”
The free world is waiting for the US to lead. Unfortunately, the leader of the free world is out to lunch.
President Obama is asleep at the wheel and simply doesn’t want to face the facts about ISIS. He’s also sympathetic to Islam. The nation is in jeopardy and we have no one at the helm.
Even if Obama had the will and the intestinal fortitude to hit ISIS, the US military is so weakened by budget cuts, equipment shortages and political correctness that we would be fighting ISIS with one arm in a sling.
We need a strong leader, a decisive, tough, no-nonsense, common sense President; someone who can rally the country behind them and lead us to victory. What America needs is another Churchill.
Which one of the Presidential candidates could be America’s Winston Churchill? Could any of them even come close?
Here is a list; starting with the WORST possible choice as the American Churchill, to the BEST:
Comrade Bernie Sanders – The poor man’s Doctor Zhivago, Sanders went to Moscow for his honeymoon in the 1960’s. That ought to be enough to make him the worst possible choice as the American Churchill. Who knew that bad food, KGB repression and freezing temperatures could be an aphrodisiac? Sanders strategy to fight ISIS is even worse than Obama’s, if that’s even possible. When asked about ISIS, Sanders mutters unintelligible platitudes about forming a global coalition and not being racist; cautions against sending our kids overseas and rattles on about GOP Islamophobia. N.B. Anyone who calls the troops “our kids” is probably a leftist.
Hillary – Her campaign motto is “Vote for Me, Because I Deserve It!” The probable Democratic Party nominee for President is currently being investigated by the FBI for multiple national security violations, while serving as Secretary of State. I have no doubt that Hillary will skate by any kind of indictment, with a triple axel jump of more obstruction and lies.
She has the passion of a 25 pound bag of cement and a robotic delivery that makes me wonder if she’s really just a hologram being broadcast from a hangar in the Nevada desert. A chameleon by nature, she will say anything to get elected…because she deserves it! Today, Hillary was talking tough about ISIS, saying we needed to destroy them, not defeat them. Undoubtedly, she’s been reading US Defense Watch.
But, her Thatcher-esque speech was cut short by a turn back to the dark side of Democratic Party appeasement and political correctness. She stated that Islam isn’t our enemy. Radical Islam isn’t the problem. This isn’t a clash of civilizations. She has to understand that these attacks are done in the name of Islam. The suicide bombers aren’t yelling, “I like Ike” when they blow themselves to the gates of hell.
Graham, Kasich and Huckabee – The Three Stooges simply have no chance to win and will most likely drop out of the race within weeks. But, they are good men, who would serve as excellent leaders if called upon to do so.
Rand Paul – A champion of libertarian ideals, like his father, Rand is just too much of an isolationist to successfully lead the free world’s fight against ISIS.
Jeb – A cross between Norman Bates’ mother and my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Buescher, Jeb doesn’t seem to possess the killer instinct to be the American Churchill. Jeb, like Mitt, is a little too nice, a little too PC, a little too naïve, to blow ISIS off the face of the earth. He reminds me of the guy you make small talk with, while in the buffet line at the country club. “Hey, Jeb, you up for some Round Robin tennis?” “Absolutely, just need to get my racquet out of the Volvo.” Still, he remains in the race and will be there for a while because mummy and daddy and his backers have put up a lot of cash to keep him there.
Ben Carson – Zzzzzzzzz. There is no doubt that Ben Carson is a phenomenal doctor and a very intelligent man. But, he lacks two things needed to become the American Churchill. He doesn’t possess a deep knowledge of world affairs and has no experience at all in that arena. He’s also a little too mellow. Maybe still waters run deep in Carson’s case, but should America take the chance in this dangerous hour?
Rubio – Marco Rubio has a lot of experience and is certainly a smart guy. But, he appears immature at times. In World War II his brains and drive would have gotten him stars. But, once the war was over he would have been demoted back to major. Rubio could be the American Churchill, but not for a few more years.
Christie – With a body built by Tony Soprano and the mind of Michael Corleone, Chris Christie would be a decent American Churchill. He’s a former federal prosecutor and would certainly be a competent leader of the free world. Christie has just one problem. He can’t win.
Carly – Carly Fiorina is a tough, smart woman who possesses the can do attitude and I believe, a certain amount of ruthlessness to be the American Churchill. Her only flaws are a lack of a sense of humor. She needs to watch some old JFK press conferences and crack a smile. She’s also wired tighter than an ISIS suicide belt. Even Churchill would unwind with a cigar and a brandy. Nevertheless, I think Fiorina would be a pretty good president.
Cruz – “Count Chocula” Cruz is the runner up as the American Churchill. Cruz is only a year older than Rubio, but he appears to be much more mature and worldly. Cruz is a brilliant man who is also a great speaker. His knowledge of foreign affairs is extensive. He is the runner up only because his extremely conservative views may alienate him from voters in certain parts of the country. Cruz’s strategy to fight ISIS is simple. We win. They lose.
Trump – Donald Trump is the GOP candidate who can win the presidency and become the American Churchill. He has the dynamic personality and the leadership abilities to rally the free world against ISIS. Trump is the man on the outside looking in. He isn’t bound by lobbyist donations or a closed minded Washington Beltway mindset. His ideas are fresh and this is what America needs. Unlike Churchill, Trump has no military or government background, so he would need advisers who were not only knowledgeable, but who weren’t lackeys. When asked what his strategy is to fight ISIS, Trump has responded, “I would bomb the hell out of them.”
We are in a clash of civilizations. We are in a fight for survival against evil, murdering zealots who wish to bring everyone back to the Stone Age. If the free world wishes to survive, it must destroy Islamic terrorism. To do that, America needs a Churchill.

U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes!

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 11/20/15 | Adam Kredo 

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.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
When asked to address Royce’s statement, a Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.
“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”
“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” the official said. “Despite U.S. strikes being the most precise in the history of warfare, conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where ISIL hides certainly presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, our pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against ISIL is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”
Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.
“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”
“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”
However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”
This 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.”
The French have been selecting their own targets since beginning to launch strikes on the Islamic State earlier this week, according to a second Pentagon source who spoke to the Free Beacon earlier this week about the strikes.
France dropped at least 20 bombs on key Islamic State targets within two days after the terror attacks in Paris that killed 129. French strikes have killed at least 33 Islamic State militants in the past several days.
In the case of the initial French strikes, the “targets were nominated by the French whose strikes against them were supported by the coalition” fighting the Islamic State, the official explained.
Any coalition member can nominate a potential target.
“Once a target is validated, great care is taken—from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements—to minimize the risk of collateral damage, particularly any potential harm to non-combatants,” the official said.
Since the beginning of the year, more than 22,000 munitions were dropped on Islamic State targets during more than 8,000 sorties, according to information provided to the Free Beacon by the Defense Department.
Some experts questioned whether the administration is handing off portions of the battle to other nations.
“The French airstrikes have been billed as a significant uptick in the battle against the Islamic State, Preliminary data indicate that this is not the case,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism expert at the U.S. Treasury Department. “It appears that the U.S. is simply allowing France to strike many of the targets that would usually be reserved for the U.S. and some of its coalition allies. In other words, this appears to be a redistribution of daily targets in the ongoing campaign, and not a significant change.”
These strikes have forced the Islamic State to evacuate at least 20 to 25 percent of the territories it held one year ago in both Iraq and Syria, according to the Pentagon.
Attacks have focused on the Islamic State’s “staging areas, fighting position, and key leaders,” as well as its “oil distribution chain,” according to the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, a poll released Thursday found that at least 70 percent of American support an expanded fight against the Islamic State, including sending U.S. troops to the region.

We Majored in...