07/17/15

His Story.

04/6/15

America’s Progressive Foreign Policy Imperils Her Survival

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Today the men and women who walk the morally decrepit corridors of the White House and State Department of our Republic-turned-social democracy are aiding, abetting and enabling evil.

We find ourselves at a time in history when all of our foes from Islamic supremacists to the Russians and Chinese are ascendant, while America at best retreats and at worst sides with the most dangerous of them.

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Our enemies do not fear or respect us, our allies do not trust us and little indicates that the American people are cognizant of the size and scope of the perils that face us.

We are reliving Winston Churchill’s gathering storm in an era when it is questionable whether the majority of American citizens even know who Churchill is, let alone what he did. Many of those who do likely see him first and foremost as a dead white European male.

And unlike in World War II, today we are challenged by Nazis (insofar as Islamic supremacists are genocidal, Jew (and Christian) hating monsters who seek to dominate the world) and Communists (in their Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping-led manifestations.)

In the face of all this, America’s left exhibits two traits that together are fatal: hubris and ignorance.

Leftists have the hubris to believe that they can and should create a world according to their progressive vision – for the good of the people and their own aggrandizement.

Leftists have the ignorance of history and man’s nature that renders them unable to anticipate the dire consequences of their course.

Underlying their actions is the belief that all people are animated by the same goals and aspirations.

Yet different peoples are different. Evil cannot be appeased or assuaged. The world must be seen as it is, not as we wish it to be.

For those leaders who recognize these realities, yet still refuse to call our enemies by their names, enable their nuclear aspirations, and tolerate their bellicosity from Crimea to the South China Sea and our own shores, the only conclusion one can reach is that such people are cowards or something far worse.

Seen in this light, the support of the removal of secular authoritarian leaders and subsequent conflagration of Sunni and Shiite jihadism in the Middle East is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The Iranian nuclear deal and impending Arab nuclearization is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The galling and unconscionable replacement of Israel by Iran as America’s key partner in the region is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the omission of Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah from America’s terror lists, is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The removal, let alone trading of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay for an alleged traitor is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The failure to fulfill our obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The apparent unwillingness to stand with our NATO allies in the wake of further Russian aggression is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The inability to counter the long-term Chinese threat is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The opening of relations with Communist Cuba is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

These and many other actions should not shock anyone who understands the leftist ethos that America specifically and the West generally has been a force for evil and that redistributive justice is the remedy.

Empowering our enemies and attacking our allies is seen as the “right” thing to do under this perverse Sophistic paradigm.

That each day real headlines and the headlines of The Onion are indistinguishable; that when you routinely find yourself coming to the conclusion that the world has been turned on its head, this is the consequence of progressivism in action.

And progressivism always and everywhere leads to regressive ends.

Where are we heading?

As Dr. Thomas Sowell ominously writes:

Whoever holds that office [the presidency] makes decisions involving the life and death of Americans and — especially if Iran gets a nuclear arsenal — the life and death of this nation. It took just two nuclear bombs — neither of them as powerful as those available today — to get a very tough nation like Japan to surrender.

Anyone familiar with World War II battles in the Pacific knows that it was not unusual for 90 percent of the Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima or other islands to fight to the death, even after it was clear that American troops had them beaten.

When people like that surrender after two nuclear bombs, do not imagine that today’s soft Americans — led by the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton — will fight on after New York and Chicago have been reduced to radioactive ashes.

If this sounds alarmist, simply ask: With what in this statement do you disagree?

What countertrends do you see?

What reason is there to believe that, barring a significant reversal in our country’s academic and cultural institutions, the public is going to stir and demand meaningful change?

Has not political correctness gotten Americans literally killed from Iraq (via suicidal rules of engagement) to Fort Hood (via willful blindness) without a modicum of reflection on what went wrong and how to fix it?

Would an America awake to Barack Obama’s vision have elected him for a second term? Is it prepared to elect a president with the courage and intestinal fortitude to reverse our direction in the face of a craven political class?

So long as the forces of cosmic justice and gravity still exist, continuing on this path can only end in war and poverty.

The question for those of us who believe that America remains the last, best hope on Earth for freedom may not be what we can do to stop these forces, but what we must be prepared to do to survive and rebuild in the face of them.

03/24/15

Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez Called ‘Communist’ and ‘Traitor’ in Los Angeles [Video]

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

At a pro-illegal immigration event held at USC in Los Angeles, California, that was being conducted in Spanish only, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) was met with shouts of “communist” and “traitor.”

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL)

These are not altogether baseless smears. Gutierrez was a member of the Socialist Party in Puerto Rico during the 80s.

Via Discover the Networks:

From 1984-86 Gutierrez, a Democrat, served as an advisor to Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago. In 1986 Gutierrez was elected alderman of that city’s mostly-Hispanic 26th Ward. At the time, he was a member of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, a Marxist-Leninist entity.

At the same event, illegal immigrants shouted the slogan “¡Sí se puede!”–Spanish for “Yes, it can be done!” or “Yes, you can do it!”

Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, creators of the “¡Sí se puede!” slogan, were students of Saul Alinsky’s brand of community organizing, as were Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Yes, We Can!” originates from “¡Sí se puede!,” which is a communist revolutionary slogan.

Suit Seeks Financial Damages from Snowden Inc.

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A federal lawsuit has been filed against the Oscar-nominated movie “Citizenfour,” which features NSA defector Edward Snowden and celebrates his theft and release of classified documents. Snowden and his associates are being sued for financial damages for providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies.

Filed on behalf of a retired naval officer who saw the film and took offense at Snowden’s illegal activities, the suit says Snowden and his associates have participated in “a scheme to profit from stolen U.S. government property” and have no right to the money generated by the film. Snowden, who has been charged with espionage and is currently living in Russia, makes regular appearances via video to his supporters in the U.S. He spoke, for example, to a Koch Brothers-sponsored International Students for Liberty conference on February 13.

The “Citizenfour” film has already been shown in theaters, is up for an Oscar at the Academy Awards on Sunday night in the “documentary” category, and is then scheduled to air on the HBO cable channel the night of Monday, February 23.

The suit alleges that the film “glorifies international espionage for profit” and that Snowden’s “dissemination of top-secret documents to foreign enemies” has “seriously damaged” U.S. national security, putting the lives of Americans at risk. Information included in the complaint (Exhibit A) also alleges that the film is not eligible for an Oscar nomination because its entry violates the rules for documentary awards.

While the lawsuit has generated some interest from outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, it has not garnered the national press attention it deserves. Yet, the lawsuit has a very strong factual basis. It cites the 1980 precedent of Snepp vs. United States, in which a former CIA officer was denied the right to gain a profit from a book based on information obtained and then released to the public, in violation of his standard secrecy agreement.

Like Snepp, Snowden violated a secrecy agreement. What’s more, it has been reported that Snowden stole highly classified “Tier 3” documents about ongoing NSA operations. The NSA is part of the Defense Department and its mission is to support military men and women as they fight America’s foreign enemies.

The lawsuit shines a light on how Snowden’s disclosures have put our citizens, military personnel and allies in danger.

Snowden’s disclosures have been blamed for enabling the Russians to conduct a surprise invasion of Ukraine, and for the Islamic State terror group, also known as ISIS, to unexpectedly grow in power and strength in the Middle East. Former CIA officer Robert Baer has said, “…ISIS has been reading Snowden…they know to stay off phones, stay off e-mail and the rest of it. They’re communicating with mobile Wi-Fi. They can beat the National Security Agency…”

In addition to Snowden, defendants in the lawsuit include his collaborator Laura Poitras, the director of “Citizenfour,” and the Weinstein Company, which is distributing the film in the U.S.

To attempt to rectify the damage done to U.S. foreign policy, the lawsuit seeks the establishment of a “constructive trust” to hold the funds generated by the film. The suit argues that a trust would enable the government “to obtain an accounting of all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that all Defendants have derived, or will derive in the future, from the publication, distribution, sale, serialization, or republication in any form, including any other rights, of the work entitled ‘Citizenfour,’ whether or not such gains remain in Defendant Snowden’s possession or in the possession, custody or control, whether direct or indirect, of any other Defendant herein.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Horace B. Edwards, a patriotic retired naval officer and former Secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation. Edwards is also a former president of both a pipeline and an engineering company.

His local newspaper, the Topeka Capital-Journal, quotes him as saying that he went to watch the film and soon realized that it was celebrating illegal activity that hurt the United States. Edwards said he had a security clearance while working for the government and would never think of disclosing secret documents. He contacted a local attorney, Jean Lamfers, a former journalist, to bring the legal action.

“Plaintiff Edwards views Defendant Snowden’s acts as dishonorable and indefensible and not the acts of a legitimate whistleblower,” the lawsuit says.

The defendants have argued that their activities are protected by the First Amendment, and that Edwards doesn’t have the standing to sue.

As previously noted by Accuracy in Media, “Citizenfour” shows Snowden in Hong Kong, China, after arranging through encrypted messages to meet his collaborators and disseminate his stolen NSA documents. We argued that the film describes what amounts to an espionage operation to damage America and our allies. Snowden fled from China to Russia, where he is under the control of the Russian secret police, the FSB.

Because of the damage inflicted by Snowden and his associates, the suit anticipates that “hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars” will be needed “to protect human assets placed at risk, restore/revamp computer infrastructure, rebuild relationships with foreign governments, and respond to various enemies’ resurgence efforts, due to the blowback associated with the film and the release of classified information to foreign enemies of this Nation.”

A similar estimate has also been made by former CIA officer Baer, who said about Snowden, “…this guy has done more damage to U.S. intelligence than I’ve seen anybody do. And he’s gone way beyond…protecting privacy of Americans…It’s going to cost us billions.”

Catherine Herridge, chief intelligence correspondent for the Fox News Channel, noted in December of 2013, “A review of the NSA leaks by Fox News shows the majority of the leaks since June now deal with sources, methods and surveillance activities overseas, rather than the privacy rights of American citizens.”

We commented at the time that the evidence showed that Snowden “stole NSA documents and leaked them for the express purpose of weakening America’s defenses against terrorism.”

The lawsuit highlights the financial nature of the Snowden operation, and how he and his associates stand to make millions of dollars from undermining U.S. national security.

12/30/14

Obama: The Politician Without a Church

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

POLITICO has run a piece citing various claims that President Obama is a practicing Christian of some sort. Nice try. But the article is entirely unconvincing.

Obama isn’t prevented from going to a Christian church and doesn’t cite security reasons for not attending. Instead, he “worries that his presence detracts from other worshippers’ experience,” the publication said. We are told he reads scripture and prays in private.

In 2008, when he first ran for president, the Obama campaign insisted he was a “committed Christian.” Glenn Greenwald, who later became NSA defector Edward Snowden’s mouthpiece, found Obama’s claim so alarming that he wrote an article for Salon about it. Greenwald, whose anti-American outlook includes Muslim sympathies, was apparently deeply concerned that Obama could, in fact, be a committed Christian.

We now understand that Obama’s Christian claim was as phony as his promise, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

POLITICO reports that Obama has “attended Sunday services only occasionally, visiting a patchwork of congregations 19 times in all since taking office, according to a POLITICO analysis of White House pool reports.” Further down in the story we learn that “In all, Obama has gone to services on about 6 percent of the Sundays of his presidency and just once on Christmas Day, in 2011, which also happened to be a Sunday.”

Another insight into Obama’s religiosity is when he tries to quote from the Bible or make religious references. He once compared Mary and Joseph to illegal aliens. Even The Washington Post admitted that was false. On another occasion, he said, “The good book says, don’t throw stones in glass houses.” But the Bible has no such quote.

It appears that this man of deep faith, as described by POLITICO, doesn’t even read the “good book” he likes to quote from. So what has he been doing in those private prayer and Bible study sessions?

But the story goes beyond mere hypocrisy.

When questions emerged about Obama’s religious affiliation, in view of his Muslim background, his aides flatly asserted that he was a “practicing Christian” and was “baptized” in the Trinity United Church of Christ. We examined that claim and found it wanting. As we noted at the time, “People see him [Obama] playing golf on Sunday; they don’t see him going to church.”

Obama’s claim to being baptized in the Christian faith is found in his second book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006. Obama wrote on page 208, “I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.” We argued that what Obama described sounds like a religious experience, but not what Christians regard as baptism.

Obama’s pastor for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, gave a speech in which he praised Marxism and faulted the media for claiming that communism and Christianity were somehow opposed to one another.

It also turns out that Wright’s church accepted Muslims as members. Wright told author Edward Klein that he “made it comfortable” for Obama to accept Christianity “without having to renounce his Islamic background.”

Obama is now on vacation in Hawaii, and the White House is releasing details about his daily activities. “Like most Americans,” the White House proclaims, “President Obama is a creature of habit.” But church or Bible study doesn’t appear to be on his list of priorities. His activities are said to include:

Daily morning workout at the Semper Fit Center at MCBH [Marine Corps Base Hawaii]
Golf at the Kaneohe Klipper golf course
Golf at the Mid-Pacific Country Club
Golf at the Ko’olau Golf Club
Golf at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club
Dinner at Alan Wong’s Restaurant
Dinner at Nobu Waikiki
Dinner at Morimoto Waikiki
Visit Punchbowl Cemetery
Snorkeling at Hanauma Bay
Christmas Day: Visit service members at Anderson Hall
New Year’s Eve: Traditional talent show at home
Bowling at K-Bay Lanes at MCBH
Basketball at MCBH
Swim at Pyramid Rock Beach
Swim at Bellows Beach
Shave Ice at Island Snow in Kailua
Hike the Maunawili Falls trail

One writer, Hrafnkell Haraldsson, a self-described heathen, didn’t like the POLITICO story for another reason. He doesn’t even like the topic of Obama’s religiosity being discussed. “It doesn’t matter if Obama goes to church or not,” he wrote. “It doesn’t matter if he is even a Christian, or, as conservatives often charge, a Muslim. In a word, it is nobody’s concern but that of Barack Obama himself.”

Of course, if Obama claims to be a Christian, and the evidence suggests otherwise, it is a significant story. That’s because his alleged Christianity was a factor in his 2008 and 2012 victories.

In 2008, for example, Catholics voted for Obama by a margin of 54-45. In 2012, the margin was 50-48.

Now, with his recognition and bailout of the Castro regime, he can count on Pope Francis being in his corner. It’s quite an achievement for a politician without a church.