"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means
of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own
Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." --James
Madison, letter to W.T. Barry, 1822
Feb. 23, 1945
Those depending upon a benevolent government will find the same benevolence a sheep may find among a pack of wolves.
Obama; integrity? Lie of the century! David Brooks and Obama's Ongoing Pant Crease
By David Limbaugh
If you read The New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks, you might better grasp the chasm between true and phony conservatives, between Reagan conservatives and establishment Republicans.
In his piece "I Miss Barack Obama," Brooks unwittingly humiliates himself in his latest paean to the president, just as when he revealed his perverse attraction to Obama's "perfectly creased pant."
Let me just share Brooks' words rather than trying to characterize them, for he does much more damage to his own credibility than I could. He writes, "As this primary season has gone along, a strange sensation has come over me: I miss Barack Obama. Now, obviously I disagree with a lot of Obama's policy decisions. ... But over the course of this campaign it feels as if there's been a decline in behavioral standards across the board. Many of the traits of character and leadership that Obama possesses ... have suddenly gone missing or are in short supply. The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free."
I could include every single surreal word of this column, but let me just add a few more sentences, because they illustrate what we're up against with Brooksian pseudo-conservatives.
Brooks swoons over Obama's "resilient sense of optimism. To hear Sanders or Trump, Cruz and Ben Carson campaign is to wallow in the pornography of pessimism, to conclude that this country is on the verge of complete collapse. That's simply not true. We have problems, but they are less serious than those faced by just about any other nation on earth."
I have repeatedly observed that one thing distinguishing Reagan conservatives from establishment Republicans is the latter's blindness to the reality and gravity of Obama's destruction to this nation and their lack of any sense of urgency as to the multiple existential threats looming over America.
We face an immigration problem that could wholly destroy the United States, not because people of different ethnicities are entering but because we are losing our national identity, terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers are among those entering, there are disruptions to the economy and harm to American laborers and it causes further strain on our colossally bloated welfare state.
If we don't begin to control our borders like any self-preserving sovereign nation must, it will eventually be the end of America as we know it. Demagogues and race-baiters despicably twist these arguments as grounded in nativism. But for America to survive as unique among nations, its citizenry must remain committed to the American idea.
The open-borders lobby is devoted instead to flooding the nation with new Democratic voters who will reject our founding ideals. You better believe this is an existential threat and, in turn, our struggle against the open-borders nation-destroyers is an existential struggle. It is precisely because they have no rebuttal to these arguments that they resort to categorical smears of racism. But it says a lot about these slanderers that they portray allegiance to America's founding principles as bigotry, when everyone acknowledges and celebrates that America is a melting pot of all ethnicities.
We face another existential threat from radical Islam. I would say it's incredible that anyone could deny this, except we've endured similar scoffers before, including liberals who denied Communism constituted such a threat. Maddeningly, they cite the Soviet Union's collapse as their vindication, though the reason it ultimately collapsed is that conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher treated it as a threat. ISIS is not contained and radical Islam is not limited to ISIS. Legions of people already in America are ripe for joining this cause and our president has tied our hands instead of empowering law enforcement, intelligence and security forces to optimally prepare against it.
Further, our panoply of entitlements objectively constitutes an existential threat, yet Obama and his party both deny it, and they obstruct all reform measures.
But David Brooks isn't just in denial over these and other perils. He also views the most divisive, polarizing, partisan, condescending and narcissistic president in American history as a model of bipartisan civility. Obama has bullied and lied about his opponents and has grossly exceeded his constitutional authority to impose an agenda that the American people oppose.
Brooks has no stomach for a spirited campaign among GOP rivals who seek to reverse Obama's transformation, but he is arrogantly indifferent to the devastation it has caused. It is instructive that he is more repulsed by intramural spitballs among political adversaries than by the character and behavior of Obama and his war on the republic.
Brooks closes with a surreal lament. "Obama radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I'm beginning to miss, and that I suspect we will all miss a bit, regardless of who replaces him."
Let us just say, politely and elegantly: Mr. Brooks, this depends on how you define "we." Everyone in your "ethos" bubble perhaps, those who don't mind wallowing in the pornography of unpatriotic perdition, but very few in my world.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh021616.php3#sSwX71cjxQG51XI7.99
Many candidates, but no choices: What if all the hopefuls reject the concept of limited government?
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
What if all the remaining presidential candidates really want the same things? What if they all offer essentially the same ideas couched in different words? What if these primary races have become beauty pageants largely based on personality and advertising?
What if our system of governance is so deep into the fabric of big government in the second decade of the 21st century that all the presidential candidates really believe that most voters actually want the government to care for them?
What if all major candidates in both major political parties promise a federal government that can right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event, solve any problem and borrow unlimited amounts of money?
What if the federal government is broke? What if it is politically committed to spending more money than it collects in revenue? What if all the candidates believe in borrowing money today and again borrowing money next year to pay off today's debts? What if rolling over federal debt never pays off or even pays down the principal?
What if none of the candidates cares about increasing the inflationary pressures and tax burdens on generations of Americans as yet unborn? What if they all want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year more than is collected in revenue? What if they all refuse to address the issue of how to pay back responsibly all the borrowed money from the past 100 years?
What if today we are the victims of this borrowing and spending mentality begun by President Woodrow Wilson and followed by nearly all of his successors up to President Obama? What if all the candidates in the presidential primaries plan to continue this self-destructive process?
What if the modern federal government has never paid back a loan in full without using borrowed money, and none of the candidates running for president cares about that, and all have indicated that they would continue to do the same? What if, as of today, nearly 20 cents of every dollar collected in revenue must legally be paid to lenders to the federal government as interest on their loans? What if American military leaders have argued that the government's debt is a greater threat to national security than is ISIS?
What if, when these candidates talk about curing cancer, eradicating the heroin epidemic or providing clean water, they are doing so to tug at your heartstrings? What if they are all mimicking Mr. Obama's politically successful demonstrations of empathy? What if these issues — genuine problems in contemporary America — are not federal problems because they do not spring from areas of governance delegated by the Constitution to the federal government? What if health, safety, welfare and morality are the core of the states' responsibilities and not the federal government's?
What if all these candidates don't care about the Constitution and its guarantees of personal freedom, its checks and balances, and its division of governmental powers, even though, before entering office, they will be required to take a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?
What if the candidates all want to rearrange borders of countries in the Middle East using the American military? What if they all think they can use the blood of young Americans to force democratic governmental structures upon foreign peoples whose cultures have rejected repeatedly the concepts of majority rule, due process and natural rights over the course of a thousand years of religious civil wars? What if the candidates all fail to see that the more innocents we kill abroad, the more we use force to tell others how to live, the more harm comes to us — to our people, to our culture and to our freedoms?
What if all the candidates for president favor the government using torture, detaining persons without trial, continuous surveillance of all the telephone calls, emails and text messages of all persons in America — even though these behaviors are profoundly unconstitutional, morally un-American, uniquely destructive of personal liberty in a free society and fail to enhance public safety?
What if all these candidates — in differing degrees — reject the concept of limited government? What if they all want to bribe the rich with bailouts and the middle class with tax breaks and the poor with welfare? What if these candidates, their supporters and their attitudes about the role of government in our lives have reduced government at this sad time in our history to a game whereby everyone tries to live at someone else's expense?
What if none of the candidates recognizes that government is an artificial creation based on force and ought to be exercised minimally? What if none of them understands that prosperity comes from the free choices of investors, workers and consumers, and not from the decisions of the federal government's central planners?
What if none of these current candidates acknowledges that individuals are sovereign, our rights are inalienable, our property belongs to us, our souls are immortal, and that the government works for us — not the other way around?
What ever happened to the right to be left alone? Where is a candidate who will defend it? What are lovers of liberty to do?
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0216/napolitano021116.php3#5jeb6kjcJr3EiCw1.99
Sloppy Language and Thinking
By Walter Williams
George Orwell said, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Gore Vidal elaborated on that insight, saying, "As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate." And John Milton predicted, "When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation." These observations bear heeding about how sloppy language is corrupting our society.
The Atlantic magazine reported that public schools are nearly as segregated in 2012 as they were in the late 1960s. An Education Next series commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Coleman Report includes an article by Steven Rivkin, "Desegregation Since the Coleman Report," that holds that American schools are still segregated. In 2001, Harvard University's Civil Rights Project press release stated, "Almost half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Southern school segregation was unconstitutional and 'inherently unequal' ... racial and ethnic segregation continued to intensify throughout the 1990s."
Let's examine the term "racial segregation." Blacks are about 50 percent of the Washington, D.C., population. Reagan National Airport serves the Washington, D.C., area and, like every airport, it has water fountains. At no time is there anything close to blacks being 50 percent of water fountain users. Suppose it turns out that only 15 percent of the water fountain users are black. Would the scholars, whose studies say that schools are segregated because of racial differences in attendance, condemn Reagan National Airport water fountains as being segregated? Would they propose bussing blacks in from water fountains in southeast D.C. in order to integrate the Reagan National Airport water fountains?
What about ice hockey games? Shall we call them "segregated"? I have never seen a proportional representation of black fans in the audience; in fact, most times I did not see any. Based upon racial disparities, might we conclude that opera performances, dressage and wine tastings are also segregated? If you want to see more "segregation," visit South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont. Not even 1 percent of their populations is black. What might our segregation scholars propose? Would they suggest rounding up blacks in the states where they are over-represented, such as in Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama, and bussing them to America's "segregated" states? Might they suggest drafting blacks to attend operas, dressage and wine tastings?
They would not propose such nonsense, because they would recognize in these instances that racial homogeneity does not mean racial segregation. The test they would use is: If a black wants to use a water fountain, attend an opera or live in Montana, can he? That ought to be the same test for schools: If a black lives in a school district, is he free to attend? If the answer is yes then the school is not segregated, even if no blacks attend.
Terms related to segregation are "disparities," "gaps" and "disproportionality," all of which are taken as signs of injustice that must be corrected. The median income of women is less than that of men. Black and Hispanic students are suspended and expelled at higher rates than white students. There are race and sex disparities and gaps all over the place. For example, blacks are 13 percent of the population but 80 percent of professional basketball players and 66 percent of professional football players, and on top of that some of the most highly paid players. Those numbers do not mean that everything is hunky-dory for blacks. How many times have you seen a black player kick an extra point in professional football? What should be done about all of these glaring disparities? We might also ask what can be done to make basketball, football, dressage and ice hockey look more like America: in a word, using that beloved term, diverse.
Before we invest resources into worrying about such matters, we might focus on language corruption, because it is polluting our thinking, resulting in inept and dangerous social policies.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams021016.php3#rBSJRDSdJoJWbGZL.99
By Thomas Sowell
During this election year, we are destined to hear many words that are toxic in the way they misrepresent reality and substitute fantasies that can win votes.
One of these words is "entitlement." To hear some politicians tell it, we are all entitled to all sorts of things, ranging from "affordable housing" to "a living wage."
But the reality is that the human race is not entitled to anything, not even the food we need to stay alive. If we don't produce food, we are just going to starve. If we don't build housing, then we are not going to have housing, "affordable" or otherwise.
Particular individuals or groups can be given many things, to which politicians say they are "entitled," only if other people are forced by the government to provide those things to people who don't need to lift a finger to earn them. All the fancy talk about "entitlement" means simply forcing some people to work to produce things for other people, who have no obligation to work.
It gets worse. If we are all "entitled" to things, irrespective of whether we produce anything ourselves, then the question becomes: Why are some people getting so much more than others?
People who are producing nothing can feel a sense of grievance against those who are producing much, and being rewarded for it, if our basis for receiving economic benefits is supposed to be what we are all "entitled" to, rather than what we have worked to earn.
One of the most misleading uses of the notion of entitlement is to say that people who paid into Social Security for years are now entitled to the pensions they receive.
Really? It so happens that I have put money into the same bank account for more than 20 years. But if I were to write a check for a million dollars today, it would bounce! The question is not how long you have been putting money in, but how much money you put in.
If what you have been putting into Social Security over the years is enough to pay you a $1,500 a month pension, but you were promised a $3,000 a month pension, how much are you entitled to? On what basis?
Social Security was created back in the 1930s, during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the shrewdest politicians who ever sat in the White House.
President Roosevelt understood that, if you could convince people that they were entitled to a pension under Social Security, it could become politically impossible to ever put an end to that system.
The pensions promised exceeded what could actually be paid from the money that was put in by the recipients. But the first generation to enter Social Security would have their pensions paid by money received from the second generation, as well as its own money. The second generation would be paid with money that included what was paid in by the third generation, and so on.
This is the principle behind a "pyramid" scheme, in which the first investors can get a big return on their money by simply paying them money received from subsequent investors. But it is only a matter of time before reality catches up with us, since the pyramid scheme is not actually investing any money or saving any money.
That is why a private insurance company that sold annuities based on a pyramid scheme would be prosecuted for fraud, and its officials put in prison. But you can't put Congress in prison, even when that is what it deserves.
With the money running out in the so-called trust fund for Social Security, reality is beginning to break through the fantasies, and is closing in on us.
No one wants to pull the rug out from under people already retired and dependent on Social Security, or on people nearing retirement age, and expecting a pension that is just not going to be there.
We can be both realistic enough, and decent enough, to rescue older people who have been victimized by political fantasies. We can pay higher taxes temporarily to rescue them. But, there is no reason to bankrupt the country by keeping the fraud going forever.
Younger people can be allowed to opt out and arrange their own pension plans in the private sector, where the kind of irresponsible pyramid schemes that politicians set up are illegal.
But we don't need to ruin the whole economy, in order to preserve the illusions created by toxic words like "entitlement."
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020916.php3#3D2Va4JRlLbjIeh8.99
Collapse of our Industrial/manufacturing base, and cyber security
By Jim Mullen
are trapped in a time of our nation's history when misfortunes,
mismanagement, corruption, and leftwing ideology come together in a
powerful concurrence of circumstances that leave our once dynamic nation
at risk for disaster.
Americans are a people dependent upon a
meddling, incompetent government with its foot on the necks of its
citizens. As incredible as it seems, our representatives allowed
dictators and corrupt regimes around the world to control nearly
everything we need for survival. Moreover, this administration is weak
and incapacitated on the world stage, making us dependent upon the very
people who wish to annihilate us.
Dozens of pressing problems challenge
America today. Unquestionably, however, the two most urgent problems
facing us are the loss of our Industrial complex/manufacturing base, and
a crucial lack of cyber security.
Power grids, water supplies, and other
utilities are the lifelines sustaining our nation, and experts have
warned for decades of onrushing disasters. Computer hacking or other
sabotage could leave our entire nation a rudderless, powerless ship
drifting defenselessly in a violent and hostile world.
In an age when computers run our military,
infrastructure, governmental agencies, financial networks, and nearly
everything upon which Americans depend for comfort and survival, we
stand defenseless. Countries attack, probe, and steal information with
brazen impunity knowing Obama has no stomach for confrontation or
retaliation with other countries.
There was a time when America rightfully
boasted the greatest and most envied industrial complex and
manufacturing base in the history of mankind. However, that was before
politicians decided to over regulate, overtax, and enact never-ending
destructive legislation motivating business and manufacturing to
surrender and move to foreign countries offering more welcoming laws.
Further, national politicians signed unwise
trade agreements with countries which placed the United States in a
subservient position on trade. Mega-international corporation lobbyists
became the driving force for trade policy, and national security
steadily suffered. Fair trade became a victim of an ill-conceived
national scheme and withered in the heat of backroom deals between money
brokers and politicians. The false narrative of free trade left our
nation impotent in a world offering depressed wages, fewer benefits,
insignificant regulations, and lower taxes.Obviously, good-paying jobs with benefits vanished as we became less competitive.
International trade is an absolute necessity
to a healthy U. S. economy. Unfortunately, big-time money speaks louder
and more forcefully than common sense and fair economic practice.
Democrats and Republicans joined at the wallet with special interests,
tragically left our national security rusting away in hundreds of
silent, inactive, and useless factories from coast to coast.
History reminds us when one door closes
because of trade, others open when an economy is freewheeling and
operating as intended in a free enterprise, capitalistic system.
However, we have a Marxist President who believes business and business
decisions must be filtered through an all-powerful government. This
stifling of the once powerful engine of industry, leaves us even more
Jobs created in Obama’s collectivist economy
are low wage, service oriented positions gobbled up by illegal and
legal aliens. Economic growth is consistently slower than at any time in
the last several decades, and a crushing national debt threatens all
future growth when interest rates return to sustainable numbers.
If war visits our shores the glaring,
unmistakable truth will expose a nation suffering from neglect and
decline, caused largely by political chicanery and malfeasance at the
highest levels of government.
Circumstances will uncover a corrupt and
incompetent educational system, and an Ill-educated populace
indoctrinated into an ideology of dependence on the government.
Unfortunately, most of the country’s engineers come from other
countries, and we rest in a state of denial and lethargy, at the mercy
of the world’s despots. Worse yet, our political leaders have us tightly
bound by contrived measures to our mortal enemies, China and Russia.
Yes, they’ve placed our manufacturing, jobs, national security, economy,
and a massive national debt in the hands of foreign dictators.
Once upon a time, this nation stood tall
flexing a mighty industrial complex, manufacturing base, and skilled
labor force. Coincidently, it all remained largely unfettered by
government. Undoubtedly, the next war will find a nation rife with the
greatest fast-food workers in the world.
Our industrial complex is as valuable as the
Army, Navy, Marines, ships, aircraft, missiles, and bombs. Our national
Political leaders destroyed our once awe-inspiring manufacturing and
industrial complex and at the same time Obama reduced our military. We
remain at risk until these greedy, shortsighted men get their hands out
of big-money pockets and introduce policies bringing back to our shores
the manufacturing once so coveted by the world.
In 1921, we initiated the Washington
Disarmament Conference in which we cosigned with several countries, two
treaties. The first was to reduce the size of the US Navy fleet; along
with the British, French, Japanese, and Italian fleets. The other was a
treaty to guarantee China’s integrity. Japan was one of the signees!
In 1929, we naively signed a treaty that was
supposed to abolish war to resolve International disputes. Forty seven
nations signed the treaty, including Germany and Japan.
We scrapped more than 60% of our Navy, and the army was reduced to a
total force of 136,000 men. That was less than the army of Romania at
that time! While the United States and most of the world
disarmed, the Axis powers audaciously prepared for war. If the world did
not learn a powerful, painful lesson from the causes of WWII, then we
are doomed to repeat another agonizing war.
Then, Neville Chamberlain, who said peace at
any cost even if it meant surrendering, helped throw Europe into
full-out war. Today Barack Obama says peace at any cost, even if it
means surrendering or arming with nuclear weapons a country sworn to our
annihilation. While he makes the world unsafe for all people, he
drastically reduces our military, appeases our enemies, and weakens the
economy.We are in similar circumstances as was the world and our nation in the 1930s.
The difference being, Roosevelt and Congress
did not disassemble our industrial might and send our manufacturing
jobs to our enemies. In fact, they fired up our manufacturing to assist
Europe and Asia to such a peak, that when we entered the war, much of
our country’s economy was quickly changed to support a full war effort
for us and our allies.
While the federal government, media,
Hollywood, and the lunatic-left keep the country’s attention on
fabricated crises and political correctness, the country sinks under the
weight of its own negligence and inattention. America’s greatest
tragedy 9-11, could have easily been prevented by simply placing locks
on cockpit doors, enforcing our Visa laws, and not allowing foreigners
access to flight training of commercial aircraft. Repeated warnings of
the dire consequences of these laxities went unheeded and disaster
A weak nation is a vulnerable nation, and we
have never been more vulnerable. Government is reactive and overactive
but seldom proactive. Barack Obama, his leftwing comrades, and Congress
have us teetering on a precipice of disaster. From where will the next
Lincolnesque commander-in-chief or never-give-up, Churchillian pitbull
come? Let us hope we don’t have another war to find out!
The Main-Stream Media in general, and the Associated Press, particularly, slant their news coverage toward the liberal-progressive side of the political spectrum. The recent AP article in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel on the possible loss of food stamps in 21 states was obviously written to elicit sympathy. This compassion for a certain segment of society that fails the pity test is, at best, curious.
Apparently, the “work-for-food requirements” enacted by a Republican Congress and Democratic President, Bill Clinton educes crocodile tears from this so-called reporter. He/she blubbers “More than 1 million low-income residents in 21 states could soon lose their government food stamps if they fail to meet work requirements that began kicking in this month.” Barack Obama, in the early stages of transforming America, rescinded enforcement of this law in his effort to maximize government dependency.
Keep in mind, the provision applies to able-bodied adults ages 18 through 49 who have no children or other dependents in their home. Nationwide, some 4.7 million recipients fall under these criteria.
Now for the kicker, this work requirement isn’t a work requirement at all. It requires them to work, volunteer or attend education or job-training courses at least 80 hours a month. According to my old-fashioned arithmetic (not Common Core Math), that is 18.5 hours a week these people must get out of bed, get dressed, and struggle their way to a productive life. How awful!
Is it any wonder that under Obama’s economy, 94 million Americans are out of the workforce, but only 5 percent are looking for jobs?
Liberal politicians created an America where a large segment long ago lost pride in themselves, respect for their families, and tragically lost the ability to manage their own lives in a free civilization. Most of these people have never been taught the rudiments of success or self-discipline. To the contrary, the leftist politicians and their corrupt educational system indoctrinated them into the idea that government is there for them, and dependency is perfectly acceptable.
Build pride, not dependencyWe’ve “advanced” to the point where a hand-up is now defined as an indefinite free ride on the backs of taxpayers. Obama has exacerbated an already destructive and vicious cycle of dependency with his Marxist policies. It’s long past time for offering real help to these people by restoring or instilling pride and a sense of purpose to lives heretofore built around a mere existence at the feet of government.
The failure of multiculturalism
By Cal Thomas
Just as radar warns of approaching storms, so does the flood of migrants entering Europe warn us of a deluge yet to come, not only for Europeans, if they continue to allow unrestricted immigration, but for the United States.
Reports that women in Cologne, Germany, have been groped and robbed by men described by authorities as having "a North African or Arabic" appearance should be warning enough, but there are other and more ominous warnings that suggest worse lies ahead, unless the problem receives immediate attention and action. And it's not just Cologne.
The Gatestone Institute, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank, is in possession of what it describes as a "leaked German intelligence document," which says, "We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law."
Last October, reports Gatestone, Andrew Parker, the director general of Britain's Security Service, said that "'the scale and tempo' of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK."
On Wednesday, President Obama visited a Baltimore mosque. According to The Daily Caller, the mosque "has deep ties to extremist elements, including the Muslim Brotherhood." That mosque is not alone, as a map on the paper's website reveals.
Explaining the president's visit, White House spokesman Keith Maley said, "The president believes that one of our nation's greatest strengths is our rich diversity."
I doubt terrorists believe that. I don't believe that diversity, as practiced in America, exists in any country with a Muslim majority.
Benedicte Bjornland, head of the Norwegian Police Security Service, recently warned against further Muslim immigration. When U.S. politicians suggest a similar approach, they are denounced as "bigots" and "Islamophobes," but in Norway and Sweden, two of the most liberal nations in Europe that have welcomed Muslim immigrants, that charge will be difficult to make stick.
What we are witnessing is the complete breakdown and failure of multiculturalism. Dictionary.com defines multiculturalism as "the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation."
That definition contains a glaring contradiction. A society cannot be unified if it preserves different cultures and cultural identities within itself. That's why our national motto is translated "out of many, one." To the multiculturalist it appears to be, "Out of one, many."
History demonstrates that no nation can long survive if it forgets why it exists. Our failure to inculcate American traditions, beliefs and history, even in the native born, not to mention immigrants, is rapidly destroying the country bequeathed to us by our forebears.
Leftists in Europe and the U.S. have promoted multiculturalism, believing that once Muslims experience our freedoms and dedication to equality they will want to be like us. It doesn't appear to be working and anyone familiar with the Koran and its "kingdom of this world" instructions knows it likely won't.
European leaders, from Germany's Angela Merkel, to Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, have deliberately closed their eyes to what they see unfolding in their countries, and in others.
President Obama is doing the same thing with his trip to the Baltimore mosque. Our enemies see our weakness and failure to understand their objectives, which include destroying the West and establishing a worldwide caliphate. This is not top secret information. Not all Muslims are terrorists, to be sure, but large numbers of radical Islamists profess allegiance to the faith and they are more than willing to wreak havoc in pursuit of their goals.
An ancient proverb reminds us: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas020416.php3#dTcsEkYhyTC4JBoQ.99
Can Bernie Sanders change dynamics of Democratic race?
By Byron York
It's pretty clear things have changed in the Democratic presidential race when Hillary Clinton does a sky-is-falling routine for donors.
"There are not one, but two new public polls out this week that have us down in Iowa," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in an email to small contributors Thursday. "Now, you should always take public polling with a grain of salt. But if you thought this race wasn't going to be close, well, it is. This isn't me claiming the sky is falling -- these are just the facts."
Of the six polls taken most recently here in Iowa, Sanders leads in the two Mook mentioned -- by Quinnipiac and ARG -- while Clinton has progressively smaller leads in the others. Back in December, Clinton's margins over challenger Bernie Sanders in the polls were 18 points, or 14 points, or 22 points. Today, they're two or three points.
The bottom line is that in Iowa, Clinton's lead over Sanders is within the margin of error, and in New Hampshire, she trails Sanders by several points. Which leads to a question: Could Clinton's entire theory of the race be wrong?
The theory is this: Of course Clinton wants to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but if she doesn't, she will still win the nomination because the race will move on to South Carolina and other states with a significant black population. African-Americans are a critical part of the Democratic coalition, and Clinton is undeniably strong with them. So in the long run, she will win.
It's a persuasive theory; Sanders has tried and failed to make any real inroads into Clinton's black support. But now there's the question: If Sanders were to vanquish Clinton in the first two contests of the campaign, would that change the dynamics of the race?
"It does change the dynamics of the race," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told me by phone from a campaign event at Dartmouth College. "If you do well in Iowa and notch a victory in New Hampshire, you're going to see more and more people take Bernie's campaign seriously, and that will change the dynamics."
But how specifically? The theory -- the hope -- is that the work Sanders has done trying to connect with black Democrats will start to pay off if Sanders comes out of the early states a winner. (Notice Briggs said "do well" in Iowa, not "win.") Sanders has always conceded that as a senator from a nearly all-white state, he doesn't have deep roots in African-American politics. But he's tried hard to reach out, stressing not just his record but civil rights work that goes back to student days.
I suggested to Briggs that all that reaching out hasn't paid off, since black Democrats still seem strongly behind Clinton. "It's not that it hasn't worked," Briggs answered. "People didn't know about it." If Sanders wins early contests, the theory goes, later-state Democratic voters, black and white, will take a look at him. And that's where, again theoretically, the dynamic changes.
Truth be told, that still seems unlikely to happen. But it seems less unlikely than it did a few weeks ago, which explains Clinton's increasing attacks on Sanders. It also explains the emergence of Chelsea Clinton, who is pretty much universally admired by Democrats, as one of the attackers. Chelsea's hit on Sanders' health proposal -- that it would somehow enable Republicans' efforts to repeal Obamacare -- struck a lot of Democrats as not just out of character, but flat wrong, as well.
Still, as a sign of Clinton anxiety, it was pretty accurate. "I think they're panicking," Briggs said of the Clinton campaign.
Things are moving fast; Iowa Democrats are choosing quickly. In The Des Moines Register poll, 70 percent of Hillary supporters, and 69 percent of Sanders supporters, say they've made up their minds. Just a month ago, those numbers were quite a bit smaller. More minds will be made up each day.
"Voters will caucus in Iowa in 18 days, and the Sanders campaign is outspending us on TV," Mook wrote in that alarmed email to small donors. "Hillary's been fighting for families for decades -- if you're with her, this is the time to show it." Mook then asked the recipient to "Chip in $1 now."
It's not surprising to see a campaign send out a poor-little-old-me appeal, asking for donations to fight a big, bad opponent. But for Hillary Clinton, the unstoppable, inevitable, Democratic nominee-in-waiting, to say that about Bernie Sanders? Now, that's a change.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/york012016.php3#eeqECgbUzedWX1kQ.99
Sources, Methods and Lives: How Hillary's mishandling of email could cost lives
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
This has not been a good week for Hillary Clinton. She prevailed over Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses by less than four tenths of one percent of all votes cast, after having led him in polls in Iowa at one time by 40 percentage points. In her statement to supporters, standing in front of her gaunt and listless looking husband, she was not able to mouth the word "victory" or any of its standard variants. She could barely hide her contempt for the Iowa Democrats who deserted her.
Sanders isn't even a Democrat. According to official Senate records, he is an "Independent Socialist" who votes to organize the Senate with the Democrats, and sits on the Senate floor with them. Clinton, of course, is the heiress to the mightiest Democratic political apparatus in the land. Hence the question: What do the Iowa Democrats know that caused thousands of them to flee from her?
They know she is a crook.
On the Friday before Monday's caucuses, the State Department, which Clinton headed in President Obama's first term, revealed that it discovered 22 top-secret emails on the private computer server to which Clinton diverted all her governmental email traffic. This acknowledgement marks a radical departure from previous State Department pronouncements and is a direct repudiation of Clinton's repeated assertions.
She has repeatedly asserted that she neither sent nor received anything "marked classified" using her private email server. The State Department, until last Friday, has backed that up by claiming that while the substance of at least 1,300 of her emails was confidential, secret or top secret, they were not "marked" as such when she dealt with them.
These are word games. First, under the law, nothing is "marked classified." The markings are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret," and Clinton knows this. Second, under the law, it is not the markings on the email headers that make the contents state secrets; it is the vulnerability of the contents of the emails to impair the government's national security mission that rationally characterizes them as secrets.
Clinton knows this because she signed an oath on Jan. 22, 2009 recognizing that state secrets retain their secrecy status whether "marked or unmarked" by any of the secrecy designations. She knows as well that, under the law, the secretary of state is charged with knowing state secrets when she comes upon them.
Yet, in order to further Clinton's deceptive narrative, the State Department has consistently claimed that it retroactively marked at least 1,300 emails as state secrets. It did this until last Friday.
Last Friday, the State Department revealed that 22 emails it found on Clinton's private server were in fact top secret, and were in fact marked top secret, and were in fact sent to or received from President Obama. This is a revelation that substantially undermines Clinton's political arguments and is catastrophic to her legal position.
Politically, Clinton has lost the final argument in her public arsenal — that she did not recognize top-secret data unless it was marked as top secret. She has also lost the ability to claim, as she has repeatedly, that she neither sent nor received anything marked classified, as meaningless as that phrase is.
Legally, the ground under Clinton continues to crumble. The more she denies, the more she admits. How can that be? That is so because her denials are essentially an admission of ignorance, forgetfulness or negligence, and, under the law, these are not defenses to the failure to safeguard state secrets entrusted to the secretary of state. They are, instead, recognition of that failure.
Late Monday afternoon, before the Iowa caucuses convened and after Clinton's political folks had lobbied their former colleagues at the State Department to re-characterize what they found and revealed late last week, the State Department reversed itself and claimed that the 22 emails were not "marked" top secret. It was too little and too late. The cat was out of the bag and Iowa Democrats knew it. Few really believed that the State Department would state publicly that the 22 emails were top secret and then state publicly that they were not, without a political motivation and irrespective of the truth. All this is infuriating to the FBI, which perceives these word games as mocking its fidelity to the rule of law.
Sanders' presence in the Democratic primaries will continue to give Democrats who mistrust Clinton a safe political haven. But he is not Clinton's real worry. Her real worry is an FBI committed to the rule of law and determined to fortify national security by gathering the evidence of her mishandling state secrets.
Let's be as blunt about this as the FBI will be: Causing state secrets to reside in a nonsecure, nongovernmental venue, whether done intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage.
And there is more. When asked about the consequences of Clinton's brazen exposure of state secrets to anyone who knows how to hack into a nonsecure computer, an intelligence operative winced as if in pain when he remarked that the nation's then chief diplomat surely compromised the "sources, methods, and lives" of her colleagues.
Even Democrats who see Clinton as a symbol of their long-time wish for a progressive female in the Oval Office are beginning to recognize that anyone who has jeopardized American lives for political gain is unworthy of their votes, unworthy of their trust and unworthy of public office.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0216/napolitano020416.php3#ggDgoWydht6DboYu.99
Isn't It Strange? (Liberals Lack of Common Sense)
By Walter Williams
There is a letter titled "Isn't It Strange?" making the rounds in email boxes. It asks questions to which our fellow Americans should know the answers, save for those caught up in modernity.
It starts off asking, "Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture but ... after a shooting, the problem is the gun?" In other words, after a shooting, it is the gun, an inanimate object, that is the culprit, but after a bombing, it is not the bomb that receives the blame but the evil individual. In both cases it is the evil individual who is to blame.
Ronald Reagan had it right when he said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Speaking of guns, the letter has a 1950s photo of high school girls at an indoor shooting range. The photo caption states: "Back in the 1950s and even later, many high schools had shooting ranges. Students even brought their own rifles to school." It asks, "What changed in society that we could trust such activities then, but not now?"
Youth involvement with guns has a long history. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA's junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, high school gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. I would like to ask America's anti-gun fanatics what accounts for today's mayhem: Have guns become more evil or have people become more evil?
The letter contains several photos under the caption, "These men support your right to bear arms." The photos are of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Below it is the caption, "These men oppose it," with photos of Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Vladimir Lenin and Barack Obama. Then it asks, "Who do you trust?"
Later on in the letter, there is a statement asking us to rename government programs, saying, "Get it straight: Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC ... are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements. Social Security and Veterans Benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients."
Then there is a warning: "No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produced." If one listens to the current debate and rhetoric of most politicians, both Democrats or Republicans, it is about expanding the class of Americans who live at the expense of other Americans, whether they are promising "free" education and medical care or forcing Americans to purchase products such as ethanol in order to enrich others.
John Wayne put it best, particularly for my colleagues in academia. "I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living."
Toward the letter's end there is a statement that rings so true and beyond debate: "I vote Democratic, because I'm pro-choice ... except on schools, guns, trade, health care, energy, smoking, union membership, light bulbs, plastic bags, Walmart, what kinds of food you can eat. ..."
Finally, there is a most important message from our 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower: "If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams020316.php3#c2ArgyXhA05hWBm3.99
By Thomas Sowell
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
• Will this November's presidential election come down to a choice between a felon and a pied piper?
• People who call Barack Obama a lame duck president seem not to have noticed that he is exercising more power than ever, and has turned the Republican Congress into a lame duck branch of government.
• The best New Year's Resolution I ever made was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. That may be especially valuable during an election year.
• With 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices being more than 75 years old, the next president will probably be appointing replacements who can help determine the direction of American law well into the next generation. This is just one of the many very serious things that we can only hope the voters keep in mind, instead of voting on the basis of just one issue or on emotions.
• Among the common phrases of the past that we seldom hear today is "None of your business." Apparently everything is other people's business these days, including the media's business and the government's business.
• In this scientific age, it is amazing how many people act as if magic words can make realities vanish. For example, they talk as if behavioral differences between groups can be made to disappear by saying the magic word, "stereotypes." This fallacy affects everything from statistical claims of discrimination to admitting refugees with cultures hostile to our own.
• After a famous naval victory in the War of 1812, Commodore O.H. Perry reported: "We have met the enemy and they are ours." After the Republican Congressional majority's repeated capitulations to the Democrats' minority, Congressional Republicans could say, "We have met the enemy and we are theirs."
• The central non sequitur of the political left is that, because America has never lived up to its ideals, it is to be condemned and repudiated. But what society of human beings has ever lived up to all its ideals? Despite all its achievements, America is condemned by the left because it is not exempt from all the sins and failings found in societies around the world.
• One of the apparently immortal fallacies is the belief that disarming peaceful people reduces violence. That fallacy underlies both national disarmament and gun control within nations.
• In trying to come up with alternatives to the welfare state, even some staunch conservatives have created plans that exempt low-income people from paying taxes, or plans that provide some basic income to all, making it unnecessary to work. But exempting anyone from responsibility and reciprocity as members of society risks disaster for those individuals and for society.
• Egalitarians never seem to understand that promoting economic equality in theory means promoting resentments and polarization in practice, making everyone worse off.
• It is corruption if an elected official uses his office to get money for himself or for someone else. But judges can fine someone to pay a donation to some organization that the judge favors. Typically these are organizations on the left. But I am sure the left would see the problem if a conservative judge forced people to donate money to the National Rifle Association.
• Someone is always parading statistics showing that some small number of people at the top of the income scale have more than some larger number of people at the bottom. But would we be better off if people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had never created things that widened our access to opportunities and enriched our lives, just because it also enriched theirs?
• Some people are surprised at how many young people look favorably on socialism. But socialism is a wonderful-sounding idea. Those who have lived through the era of its disasters in the 20th century, or learned about them from history, are likely to see through the appearances to the reality. A young age prevents the former and our dumbed-down education prevents the latter.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020216.php3#WeILAujLSo4vT4qQ.99
With Iran it's strictly business
By Cal Thomas
For anyone whose knowledge of history extends beyond the current season of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or the latest instant replay of an NFL game, the four days of meetings involving Iran's president Hassan Rouhani, European leaders and businesses should remind people we have seen this show before.
Rouhani's state visit, the first by an Iranian president in nearly 20 years, follows the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran, the world's leading supporter of terrorism. Corporate giants and politicians are salivating at the prospect of doing business with a regime led by a man who has referred to Israel as "an old wound" that "should be removed."
There is plenty of money to be made in deals with the devil, but at what cost? In the 1930s when European and American businesses traded with the Nazis, the rationale seemed to be, "If we don't sell to them, someone else will." That amoral view, no doubt, contributed to the slaughter of an estimated 11 million people. Six million of these were Jews.
Re-visiting this hall of shame ought to at least give corporate and political bodies pause when dealing with a regime that seems perfectly willing to finish the job Hitler and his brownshirts started. Have they learned so little from history that they are willing to repeat it?
Writing on Investopedia.com, Greg McFarlane offers a caveat to some of the businesses that purposely, or unknowingly, supported the Nazis: "By virtue of Hitler taking complete control of the most powerful country on the European continent, practically every existing business entity in Germany meant supporting Hitler, so it's not fair to frame all these businesses as enthusiastic Nazi collaborators."
Perhaps not, but like the majority of the German people, it is safe to say that quite a number of corporations ignored what the Nazis were doing so long as they could continue to do business and make a profit.
One of those companies was Siemens, the largest engineering company in Europe. About Siemens McFarlane writes: "The company forced slaves to manufacture components for the rockets that ended up raining down on London and Antwerp, Belgium, in short order. In the early 21st century, Siemens began to pay reparations to the workers it had paid nary a pfennig to 55 years earlier."
Will companies signing up to do business with Iran be shamed and perhaps forced by law at a future date to pay reparations to the families of those killed by Islamic terrorists funded by the Iranian regime?
IG Farben was another company that dealt with Nazi Germany. The company licensed to various companies the pesticide Zyklon B, which was used to suffocate millions in the death camps. "In 1951," notes McFarlane, "when the victors partitioned Germany, the Western Allies restored IG Farben into its original components," which included BASF, maker of cassette tapes. "Today, BASF continues to trade as one of the featured securities on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, with a market capitalization of $60 billion."
A line from "The Godfather" seems an appropriate analogy. Just before someone is assassinated he is told, "Nothing personal, it's strictly business."
In a twist on this theme, Deutsche Bank in 1998 accepted "moral responsibility" for its dealings with the Nazis. These dealings included knowingly buying gold taken from people murdered in the camps.
What would be the morally responsible approach to Iran? Because the regime is complicit in the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which have led to the deaths of American servicemen and women, the morally responsible thing to do is not to conduct business with Iran.
Given the depths to which human nature appears to have sunk, however, that is unlikely to happen. After all, it's strictly business, right?
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas012816.php3#OXLdVyMqjoUbexUB.99
Running on Empty
By John Stossel
Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes supporting mandates that force us to use ethanol, a fuel made from corn that Iowa farmers grow.
They support ethanol because Iowa is the first state to vote on presidential candidates. Candidates want to look strong at the start of the race, so every four years they become enthusiastic ethanol supporters. Even those who claim they believe in markets pander to Iowa's special interests.
Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to have a consistent political philosophy aside from bashing critics and foreigners, now has joined the ethanol-praising club. In fact, Trump says regulators should force gas stations to increase the amount of ethanol they use. It's a convenient way to attack his Iowa rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who courageously says the mandate should be phased out.
Cruz is right. Legally mandating that a certain percentage of fuel used be ethanol is a bad idea for several reasons:
First, mandating ethanol means more land must be plowed to grow corn for fuel. The Department of Energy estimates that if corn ethanol replaced gasoline completely, we'd need to turn all cropland to corn — plus 20 percent more land on top of that.
Second, requiring ethanol fuel raises the price of corn — bad news for consumers who must pay more for food.
Third, although ethanol's supporters claim burning corn is "better for the environment," that's not true. Once you add the emissions from growing, shipping and processing the corn, ethanol creates more pollution than oil. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Air Task Force now oppose its use.
Finally, because corn is grown in America, promoters said ethanol would make us more energy independent. Even if the "independence" argument were valid, fracking accomplishes much more. (Anyway, it isn't a valid argument. Trade with Mexico and Canada is just fine. We don't need total independence.)
Since Trump is a businessman, I assume he realizes that ethanol is an expensive boondoggle that wouldn't survive in a competitive market. But in Iowa Trump says, "Ethanol is terrific."
Dr. Ben Carson didn't go that far but according to the Washington Examiner said that it would be wrong to end the subsidies. "People have made plans based on those kind of things," he says. "You can't just pull out the rug out from under people."
It sounds like most politicians want to get rid of subsidies in principle, but never right now — certainly not in the middle of their campaigns. Sen. Marco Rubio says he'd support ending the mandate — after another seven years.
At the Iowa Agriculture Summit, Chris Christie sounded annoyed that President Obama hasn't been more supportive of ethanol subsidies, saying, "Certainly anybody who's a competent president would get that done!"
Bernie Sanders, I-Ver., criticized subsidies in the past, but on Iowa public radio he sounded as if he loves the boondoggle: "We have to be supportive of that effort — and take every step that we could, and in every way we can, including the growth of the biofuels industry."
Of course, big-government Democrats always want to subsidize more . Hillary Clinton says ethanol "holds the promise for not only more fuel for automobiles but for aviation ... and for military aircraft; we could be fueling so much air traffic with biofuels. We have just begun to explore what we can do."
Sure. Explore away! That's what market competition does. Entrepreneurs constantly explore options in search of profit. But that's very different from government forcing taxpayers to fund one particular fuel.
Only Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) have consistently said that the market, not politicians, should choose fuels. Unfortunately, that principled stance hasn't brought them much support. Presidential-race betting at ElectionBettingOdds.com has Cruz dropping and Paul tied for last.
Energy expert Jerry Taylor is right to say that running for office in Iowa not only means you must praise Christianity; it means being "willing to sacrifice children to the corn god."
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/stossel012716.php3#VgqG8miCeQjwMxxe.99
Hillary Clinton's Nightmare
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Hillary Clinton's nightmare is not the sudden resurgence of Bernie Sanders. It is the fidelity to the rule of law of the FBI.
The recent revelations of the receipt by Clinton of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage. Here is the backstory.
It seems that every week, more information comes to light about Clinton's grave legal woes. Her worries are in two broad categories: One is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband's charitable foundation. The FBI is currently and aggressively investigating both. What I will describe below is in the state secrets category. It is apparently not new to the FBI, but it is new to the public.
Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive.
SAP is clothed in such secrecy that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. Clinton — who ensured all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband's server, a nonsecure nongovernmental venue — could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes. Those codes change at unscheduled times, such that she would need to inquire of them before inputting them.
The presence of the SAP-denominated email on her husband's server, whether opened or not, shows a criminal indifference to her lawful obligation to maintain safely all state secrets entrusted to her care. Yet, Clinton has suggested that she is hopelessly digitally inept and may not have known what she was doing. This constitutes an attempted plausible deniability to the charge of failing to safeguard state secrets.
But in this sensitive area of the law, plausible deniability is not an available defense; no judge would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom, and no lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion.
This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.
Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute — it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution.
What type of data is typically protected by the SAP denomination? The most sensitive under the sun — such as the names of moles (spies working for more than one government) and their American handlers, the existence of black ops (illegal programs that the U.S. government carries out, of which it will deny knowledge if exposed), codes needed to access state secrets and ongoing intelligence gathering projects.
The crime here occurs when SAPs are exposed by residing in a nonsecure venue; it does not matter for prosecution purposes whether they fell into the wrong hands.
Clinton's persistent mocking of the seriousness of all this is the moral equivalent of taunting alligators before crossing a stream. SAPs are so sensitive that most of the FBI agents who are investigating Clinton lack the security clearances needed to view the SAP found among her emails. Most FBI agents have never seen a SAP.
Shortly after the presence of the SAP-denominated email was made known, the State Department released another email Clinton failed to erase wherein she instructed her subordinates to take state secrets from a secure venue, to cut and paste and summarize them, and send them to her on her nonsecure venue. Such an endeavor, if carried out, is a felony — masking and then not safeguarding state secrets. Such a command to subordinates can only come from a criminal mind.
Equally as telling is a little-known 2013 speech that recently surfaced given by one of Clinton's former subordinates. The aide revealed that Clinton and her staff regularly engaged in digital conversations about state secrets on their BlackBerries. This is not criminal if the BlackBerries were government-issued and secured. Clinton's was neither. It was purchased at her instructions off the shelf by one of her staff.
Can anyone doubt that Clinton has failed to safeguard state secrets? If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she'd have been indicted months ago.
What remains of the rule of law in America? The FBI will soon tell us.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/napolitano012816.php3#P8qoLrEz0V2ZcQTK.99
Vote Cruz in as if the Republic Depends on It
By David Limbaugh
I keep hearing from supporters of other GOP candidates that Ted Cruz can't win the general election because he is too conservative and too preachy. These same people criticize him for not being authentically conservative and also support others who are preachy.
I have long lamented the conventional wisdom, swallowed whole by many nominally conservative Republicans, that a true-blue consistent conservative can't win a general presidential election because he can't attract moderates, centrists, independents, Perotistas, Trumpsters, disaffected Democrats and certainly not women or minorities.
Why is that the accepted thinking, when Ronald Reagan won in two landslides and the moderate GOP presidential candidates from George H.W. Bush to John McCain to Mitt Romney lost? George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism barely won in 2000.
Would someone please have the guts to tell me in what ways Ted Cruz is too conservative? What does that even mean?
Is your objection that he is socially conservative as well as an economic and foreign policy conservative? Hallelujah! So was Ronald Reagan. Remember his three-legged stool?
We hear from Trump supporters that Ted Cruz is not likable or electable and that he's an opportunistic follower of Donald Trump on the immigration issue. Thus they'll support the more likable, electable, real-deal immigration hawk.
But polls say otherwise. They indicate that both Cruz and Rubio could beat Hillary Clinton but that Trump would have more difficulty, probably because of his astronomical unfavorability ratings. The charge that Cruz is in the Trump slipstream on immigration is bunk as well. Cruz was fighting in the trenches on immigration before Trump brought his megaphone to the issue — a megaphone we nevertheless appreciate — and Cruz remains a more reliable bet on the borders and amnesty.
I repeat the question: How is Ted Cruz too conservative? Don't you really mean that Cruz is too committed to his principles, that he will actually fight against the establishment and thus he is a thorn in their side?
The establishment claims to be just as conservative as we are yet they have an unmistakable, visceral contempt for Ted Cruz, who is one person who has actually refused to "grow" after being elected. This should thrill true conservatives endlessly.
Can you imagine what Cruz could get done if he were elected with a mandate to implement conservative ideas — the only antidote to the destructive path Obama has set us on? We've seen what we get with conservative lite, and it doesn't work.
We need an unprecedented reversal to get us out of this mess, but we mustn't — forgive me the cliche — throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must elect someone who not only will radically reverse our course but also has demonstrated his commitment to conservative principles, understands the United States Constitution and intends to honor its prescription for limited government.
I don't support Ted Cruz because he is by far the most learned constitutional scholar of all the candidates, though I am grateful for that bonus. It can't be solely a matter of head knowledge, but one also of the heart. Ted Cruz, in his heart, soul and mind, and with every fiber of his being, loves the Constitution and the system of ordered liberty it establishes.
Cruz intends to reverse the ravages of the Obama wrecking ball not through extra-constitutional means, but precisely within the constraints of the Constitution. That's because as a constitutional conservative he understands that the end — even the noble goal of reversing Obama's destruction — does not justify any means. We can't blow up the Constitution in the name of saving it. We can't issue lawless executive orders, pass overreaching legislation and implement unconstitutional regulations in furtherance of our agenda. We have to take special care to reverse Obamism through lawful means, lest we just kick the can down the road until the next lawless progressive comes to power to hammer the final nail into this republic's coffin.
There is nothing extreme about Ted Cruz except for his commitment to the American idea, to free enterprise, to ordered liberty, to limited government, to national solvency, to America's national security and sovereignty and to policies designed to unleash robust economic growth to benefit all sectors of society.
There is nothing extreme about Ted Cruz, because there is nothing extreme about Reagan conservatism other than a sincere commitment to reignite America's uniqueness and greatness.
As we've watched this GOP contest unfold, we've seen in Cruz a man under fire from all quarters who has maintained his cool, his dignity, his resolve, his faith, his integrity, his presidential demeanor and his unwavering dedication to restoring America — the America that we know and love, the shining city on a hill that has been the most benevolent, decent and prosperous nation in history.
Finally, it's important for me to emphasize that I don't idolize Ted Cruz or support him as part of a cult of personality. I support him because I believe he is the best hope for America for the many reasons I've underscored and more.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh012916.php3#RMoMljWIFQKfSFLs.99
By Walter Williams
Some credit Albert Einstein, others credit Benjamin Franklin, with the observation that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results." Whomever we credit, he was absolutely right. A perfect example of that insanity is education in general and particularly black education.
Education Next has recently published a series commemorating the 50th anniversary of James S. Coleman's groundbreaking 1965 report, "Equality of Educational Opportunity," popularly referred to as the "Coleman Report." In 1965, the average black 12th grader placed at the 13th percentile of the score distribution for whites in math and reading. That means 87 percent of white 12th graders scored higher than the average black 12th graders. Fifty years later there has been a slight narrowing of the math gap leaving the average black 12th-grade student at the 19th percentile of the white distribution; 81 percent of white 12th-grade students score higher. The black-white reading gap has narrowed such that the average black 12th-grader scores at the 22nd percentile of the white distribution, meaning 78 percent of white 12th-graders score higher.
Eric A. Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His Education Next contribution is "What Matters for Student Achievement: Updating Coleman on the Influence of Families and Schools." Hanushek concludes, "After nearly a half century of supposed progress in race relations within the United States, the modest improvements in achievement gaps since 1965 can only be called a national embarrassment. Put differently, if we continue to close gaps at the same rate in the future, it will be roughly two and a half centuries before the black-white math gap closes and over one and a half centuries until the reading gap closes." I would like to know what American, particularly a black American, can be pleased with that kind of progress and the future it holds for black people.
Many see smaller class sizes and more money as part of the general solution to our nation's educational problems. It turns out that since 1955 the average number of students per teacher has fallen from 27 to 16. During the same period real per-pupil expenditures have increased more than fourfold. Today, expenditures per pupil in the United States exceed those of nearly every other country in the world. The Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, ranks 15-year-old student academic performance in 34 OECD countries. In 2012, the U.S. students performed below average in mathematics and ranked 27th. In reading, U.S. students ranked 17th; and in science, they ranked 20th. Such a performance gap suggests that smaller class sizes and bigger budgets, in and of themselves, are not a cure to our nation's educational malaise, particularly that of black students.
The most crucial input for a child's education cannot be provided by schools, politicians and government. As such, continued calls for more school resources will produce disappointing results as they have in the past. There are certain minimum requirements that must be met for any child to do well in school. Someone must make the youngster do his homework, ensure that he gets eight to nine hours of sleep, feed him breakfast and make sure that he behaves in school and respects the teachers. If these minimum requirements are not met, and by the way they can be met even if a family is poor, all else is for naught.
What the education establishment can do is to prevent youngsters who are alien and hostile to the educational process from making education impossible for those who are equipped to learn. That is accomplished by removing students who pose disciplinary problems, but the Barack Obama administration is even restricting a school's power to do that. You might ask, "Williams, what are we going to do with those expelled students?" I do not know, but I do know one thing: Black people cannot afford to allow them to sabotage the education chances of everyone else.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012716.php3#TmWyIUEYuSGiwPGO.99
The Establishment's Irrational Fear of Ted Cruz
By David Limbaugh
Some time ago I said that many establishment Republicans dislike Ted Cruz so much that they would even back their nemesis, Donald Trump, if necessary to keep Cruz from winning. This is one time I wish I had been wrong.
The establishment has long held Cruz in contempt but didn't believe he had any realistic chance of securing the GOP nomination. Now, with his campaign success, he's scaring their pants off. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole has issued apocalyptic warnings against nominating Cruz, and I've just received an email that Sen. Orrin Hatch prefers Trump over Cruz as well.
Earlier this week, it was New York Times pretend-conservative columnist David Brooks who suggested a Republican conspiracy against Cruz and Trump in favor of any other GOP candidate. "Very few presidents are so terrible," he wrote, "that they genuinely endanger their own nation, but Trump and Cruz would go there and beyond." Setting aside this mindless conflation of Cruz and Trump, do you believe we should be taking advice about potentially bad presidents from a guy who drooled over candidate Barack Obama because of his trousers?
More and more insiders fear Cruz far more than Trump. Trump drives the establishment batty by ginning up his supporters against them and for his current hardline stance on immigration, but they have to know it hasn't been that long since Trump espoused a number of liberal positions and financially supported establishment figureheads in each party. As hard-nosed and independent as he seems, his track record reveals he is much more malleable and they'd have a better chance to influence him than Cruz.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has been a thorn in the establishment's side since he came on the scene. Insiders are astounded that he has actually refused to abandon his campaign promises and his commitment to Reagan conservatism, despite overwhelming pressure and derision from the party and its power brokers.
They have concluded that Cruz must be driven by egomania and not principle. Who but a stubborn, opportunistic loner could resist the temptation to rub elbows with the power brokers once elected? Only oddballs honor their constituents and grassroots conservative causes above those of the ruling class. Only charlatans continue to articulate conservative ideas with passionate optimism and idealism once in office. Only zealots evince an abiding dedication to Reagan conservative principles beyond what's necessary to get them elected. Only grandstanders would truly stand up to President Obama's reckless budget demands instead of throwing in the towel of surrender before the fight has even begun.
Why is it automatically presumed that Obama will win every game of chicken he insists on playing with Republicans? Why can't our side ever be confident enough in its own ideas and of the American people — as Ted Cruz is — to believe the people will back us if we call Obama's bluff and articulate our case to them? The establishment's rationale for caving has always been that Republicans, being the party of less government, can never win over the public in a shutdown showdown. They think that Cruz knows this too, but puts on a grandiose but futile show to play to the base and advance his political ambitions. Oh ye of little faith — little faith, that is, in the conservative ideas you maintain you embrace. If only the establishment would join Cruz in promoting the principles they say they share, just as Democrats always support an uncompromising and extremist Obama, there's no telling what progress we could have made in thwarting some of Obama's agenda.
As I see it, there are two major differences between Republican supporters and opponents of Cruz. One is that his supporters are more consistently conservative on every category of issues. The fight, in other words, is not just about strategy, as the establishment insists, but also involves policy.
The second is that Cruz's supporters believe he is a man of integrity. Many of his detractors contend he is a phony, but I think their real fear is that he is not. He will not change his positions for expedience — though many are working overtime to convince us otherwise.
The establishment, then, either believes or wants to fool us into believing that it opposes Cruz because he is a poseur, a saboteur of good government — a man who impedes the cause of conservatism by his unwavering commitment to it. Only by compromise and pragmatism, they argue, can we really advance conservative principles.
The truth, however, is that they are not as committed to conservative principles as they say they are and don't regard the current problems confronting our nation with the same degree of urgency as mainstream conservatives. They also place a high value on process — on bipartisanship and collegiality for their own sake — even over advancing a conservative agenda. Not long ago I read that one establishment icon said he didn't think a Hillary presidency would be that bad. Seriously?
We finally have a candidate who is committed to conservative principles across the board, a man who reveres the Constitution and America, as founded, who acutely understands the destruction President Obama has wrought, and who we can rely on to fulfill his promise to do everything in his power, if elected, to reverse this disastrous course and restore us on a path to recovery.
If the establishment would quit hyperventilating over Ted Cruz and get behind him they could do more than anything else to advance the cause they profess to believe in.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh012216.php3#OejCpD3U3QZUXozF.99
The Demand for Villains
By Thomas Sowell
The latest tempest in a teapot controversy is over a lack of black nominees for this year's Academy Awards in Hollywood.
The assumption seems to be that different groups would be proportionally represented if somebody were not doing somebody else wrong. That assumption carries great weight in far more important things than Academy Awards and in places more important than Hollywood, including the Supreme Court of the United States.
In an earlier era, the groupthink assumption was that groups that did not succeed as often, or as well, were genetically inferior. But is our current groupthink assumption based on any more hard evidence?
Having spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups around the world, I have never yet found a country in which all groups — or even most groups — are even roughly equally represented in most endeavors.
Nor have I been the only one with that experience. The great French historian Fernand Braudel said, "In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally." A study of military forces around the world failed to find a single one in which in which the ethnic makeup of the military was the same as that of the society.
My own favorite example of unrepresentativeness, however, is right at home. Having watched National Football League games for more than 50 years, I have seen hundreds of black players score touchdowns, but I have never seen one black player kick the extra point.
What are we to conclude from this? Do those who believe in genetics think that blacks are just genetically incapable of kicking a football?
Since there have long been black colleges with football teams, have they had to import white players to do the opening kickoff, so that the games could get underway? Or to kick the extra point after touchdowns? Apparently not.
How about racist discrimination? Are racists so inconsistent that they are somehow able to stifle their racism when it comes to letting black players score touchdowns, but absolutely draw the line when it comes to letting blacks kick the extra point?
With all the heated and bitter debates between those who believe in heredity and those who believe in environment as explanations of group differences in outcomes, both seem to ignore the possibility that some groups just do not want to do the same things as other groups.
I doubt whether any of the guys who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem ever went on to become ballet dancers. Nor is it likely that this had anything to do with either genetics or racism. The very thought of becoming a ballet dancer never crossed my mind and it probably never occurred to the other guys either.
If people don't want to do something, chances are they are not going to do it, even if they have all the innate potential in the world, and even if all the doors of opportunity are wide open.
People come from different cultures. They know different things and want different things.
When I arrived in Harlem from the South as a kid, I had no idea what a public library was. An older boy who tried to explain it to me barely succeeded in getting me to get a library card and borrow a couple of books. But it changed the course of my life. Not every kid from a similar background had someone to change the course of his life.
When Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe arrived in New York in the 19th century, they were even poorer than blacks from the South who arrived in Harlem in the 20th century. But the Jews crowded into public libraries because books had been part of their culture for centuries. New York's elite public high schools and outstanding free colleges were practically tailor-made for them.
Groups differ from other groups all over the world, for all sorts of reasons, ranging from geography to demography, history and culture. There is not much we can do about geography and nothing we can do about the past. But we can stop looking for villains every time we see differences.
That is not likely to happen, however, when grievances can be cashed in for goodies — and polarize a whole society in the process.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell012616.php3#LPkC1rKgpcdVTair.99
Will the Supreme Court strike back at Obama’s overreach?
By George Will
During Watergate, Henry Kissinger's mordant wit leavened the unpleasantness: "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." President Obama often does both simultaneously, using executive authoritarianism to evade the Constitution's separation of powers and rewrite existing laws.
Last week, however, the Supreme Court took a perhaps-momentous step toward correcting some of the constitutional vandalism that will be Obama's most significant legacy. The court agreed to rule on Obama's unilateral revision of immigration law.
Seeking reelection in 2012, Obama stretched the idea of "prosecutorial discretion" — supposedly "on an individual basis" — to cover a delay in efforts to deportmore than 1 million persons who were brought to the United States illegally as children. But he said that with this he had reached the limit of his powers: "If we start broadening [this executive action], then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally."
In 2014, however, he expanded the sweep and protections of that program. His executive fiat would have shielded perhaps 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents. His expansion made them eligible to work and receive Social Security retirement and disability benefits, Medicare, the earned-income tax credit, unemployment insurance, driver's licenses, etc.
Led by Texas, a majority of states (26) asserted standing to sue because of the costs of complying with the new policy. When they won an injunction, the Obama administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The administration lost there, too, and then asked the Supreme Courtto rule on the legality of Obama's action. The court should not, and probably will not, rule for the president.
The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested that the court not insert a "constitutional question" into the case. The question the court will consider is: Did Obama's action violate the " take care clause "?
Obama has sworn to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," which says the president shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never asked for a briefing on this clause.
In their brief, the states argue that "Congress has created a detailed, complex statutory scheme for determining" who qualifies for "lawful presence" in this country. No statute empowers the executive to grant this status to any illegal immigrant it chooses not to deport, let alone to confer "lawful presence" status on a class of many millions.
The states say presidents cannot "change an alien's statutory immigration classification." So, Obama is not merely exercising discretion in enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. He is altering this act so that previously prohibited conduct no longer violates the act.
Executive overreach has been increasing for decades. For example, although the Troubled Asset Relief Program was for financial institutions, the George W. Bush administration diverted more than $17 billion for auto companies. Obama's usual justification for his unusually numerous acts of unilateral legislating is that Congress refuses to act on this or that subject. But regarding who qualifies for legal status and for the right to work, Congress has acted with notable specificity. Obama simply wants to grant to millions of people various benefits in violation of Congress's will as written into law.
For seven years, Obama has treated the take care clause as a mild suggestion. He considers it insignificant compared with his virtuous determination to "work around" Congress to impose his policies regarding immigration, health care, education, contraception, welfare, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, unauthorized wars and other matters.
Both leading Democratic presidential candidates praise Obama's radical understanding of the Constitution's Article II presidential powers. The leading Republican candidate would replace the Constitution's 7,591 words with the first-person singular pronoun: He promises many unilateral presidential wonders, including a global trade war and a holier national vocabulary: "If I'm president, you're going to see 'Merry Christmas' in department stores."
But no Obama executive action has yet repealed Article III's judicial powers. So, come June we will learn whether the judicial branch will do its duty by policing the borders of the separation of powers.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will012316.php3#ChStJvhjG8UMzTaE.99
Women are leaving Hillary
By Dick Morris
All polls are now pointing in the same direction: Hillary Clinton is tanking.
The most recent Fox News poll, taken after the new year began, shows her losing to Ted Cruz, 50 percent to 43 percent; to Marco Rubio, 50 percent to 41 percent; and even to Donald Trump, 47 percent to 43 percent. The latest Democratic primary poll, by Investor's Business Daily, shows the former secretary of State nursing only a 4-point lead over Bernie Sanders, 43 percent to 39 percent. The Real Clear Politics average of New Hampshire polls has Sanders ahead by 6 points — and in Iowa, the candidates are tied in the RCP average, which Clinton led for months.
Beneath the overall head-to-head data, the internals of the polling show a sharp erosion of support for Clinton among women and very little change among male voters.
Among women, she has lost her lead over Cruz, falling from 13 points ahead in a Fox News poll on Dec. 17 to 3 points behind in Fox's Jan. 7 survey. Among men, she moved from 15 points behind Cruz in December to 14 points back in January.
So while Clinton has lost 16 points among women against Cruz, she is essentially unchanged among men.
The Fox News poll had similar findings for a match-up between Clinton and Rubio. And against Trump, she went from beating The Donald among women by 26 points in December to only 12 points in January.
So why are women leaving Hillary?
The only difference between mid-December and now is the Bill Clinton issue. Trump's exposure of her husband's record of abusing women, combined with reports of the former first lady's efforts to cow them into silence, are creating an image of the Clintons as predatory against women. Indeed, as the Bill Cosby scandal escalates into an indictment for rape, the two Bills seem to have more than a name in common.
Young voters are only now learning about what went on during the Clinton presidency. Those under the age of 35 were, at most, teenagers when the Lewinsky scandal broke.
Democrats are almost totally dependent on young voters. 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney defeated President Obama among older voters. If young voters, particularly young women, find fault with Clinton, her candidacy is doomed.
With Bill Clinton becoming radioactive among female voters, Hillary Clinton is in danger of losing her best weapon. She had hoped that trotting out the ex-president, even in his current weakened condition, would give her the boost she needs to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. But her effort backfired. Putting him out there triggered all the stories of his past and nullified any bounce he may have generated.
Not only is Hillary Clinton losing her best weapon on the stump, she is likely also losing her top adviser. The fact is, Bill Clinton is the only one in her camp who understands politics. If he is driven to the dog house by one of their frequent marital spats — and Hillary Clinton is not likely to be forgiving if he costs her votes — she could be cut off from advice that would save her.
Sanders does not need to use the Bill Clinton issue. Trump is doing it for him and the media is carrying the ball. Bill Clinton cannot appear anywhere without being surrounded by questions he doesn't want to answer, and his victims — Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Paula Jones among them — have a new platform from which to tell their stories.
If Hillary Clinton loses New Hampshire and Iowa and trails in national polls behind Trump, Cruz and Rubio, can a call to the bullpen for Joe Biden be far away?
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/morris011516.php3#kS7qFV6ffyHC1agh.99
Mayor de Blasio: Hypocrite Hooked on Hollywood Cash
By Michelle Malkin
Because the crime rate is zero, the potholes are all fixed and homelessness has been completely eradicated, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio now has time to focus on what really matters to Big Apple taxpayers:
Racial quotas in Hollywood.
Social justice warrior de Blasio took to Twitter last week to lambaste the 2016 Academy Awards nominations, which did not include any black actors or actresses.
"#OscarsSoWhite says it all," de Blasio carped. "(Wife) @Chirlane and I are sick of only one kind of America being celebrated."
Radical race-hustling director Spike Lee is leading a boycott of the awards ceremony scheduled next month in Los Angeles. Actress Jada Pinkett Smith, whose actor/director husband Will Smith was snubbed for his performance in the NFL drama "Concussion," took to Facebook this week to rally "people of color" not to watch or attend the gala event. Director Michael Moore hitched himself to the whiny wagon of 1 percenters. Pressure is mounting on host and comedian Chris Rock to bow out in solidarity.
A panicked Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (who is black), is promising expedited "change" to mollify the grievance mob led by shakedown artist Al Sharpton.
They'll never admit it, but for the guardians of the Academy, "change" means inevitable quota-based admissions to their elite club, where new candidates must traditionally be sponsored by two current members and demonstrate "exceptional achievement in the field of theatrical motion pictures."
The transformation is "not coming as fast as we would like," Isaacs bleated as she vowed to take more aggressive steps to "diversify" as part of the Academy's "A2020" plan.
Is this what "people of color" in the performing arts really want?
Fealty based first and foremost on skin tone and not on talent and ability?
Specially appointed members of the Academy chosen solely because of their race, gender or oppressed status who will be beholden to vote only for fellow tokens from their respective tribes?
What exactly will make the likes of Spike Lee and company happy if not de facto or de jure Oscars quotas and affirmative action points for minority entertainers?
Do they think ghettoized new categories for "Best Black Actor" and "Best Black Actress" constitute progress and equality?
Do they honestly believe that casting doubt on the achievements of all non-white thespians who earn nominations as a result of this politically correct hectoring is good for the profession?
Now, let's call de Blasio and his bean-counting wife out on the red carpet.
If this "diversity"-driven duo is truly "sick" of Hollywood's white cis-hetero-patriarchal oppressors, are they ready to boycott the billions that the entertainment industry pours into New York City until their utopian ideals of manufactured racial parity are achieved?
In an open love letter to Tinseltown in 2014, de Blasio boasted that since 2004, "Hollywood's financial imprint on our city has grown from $5 billion to $7.1 billion." The self-proclaimed warrior against income inequality enthusiastically doubled down on government subsidy programs to the Hollywood elite, vowing to "maintain the policies and practices that spurred this expansion while strategically investing in new projects to grow and diversify the industry."
"Investing," of course, means using the power of government to redistribute the hard-earned tax dollars of lower- and middle-income workers to millionaire and billionaire studio owners in the TV and film industry. On top of the city's subsidies, New York State offers myriad special tax breaks, credits, and rebates worth an estimated $420 million to lure Hollywood to the East Coast.
De Blasio's bowing and scraping bordered on an R-rating. "In New York City, the TV and film industry has a true partner," he gushed, "not to mention a mayor who will always be slightly in awe of the work you do."
Hooked on Hollywood cash, de Blasio's outrage about #OscarsSoWhite is so contrived it bounces like a fake check.
As usual, the left's hashtag warriors are all show and no go.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin012016.php3#riSR2T5K6XmcqCQm.99
Multiculturalism Trumps Protecting Women from 'Forced Violation'
By Dennis Prager
Since the scores of New Year's Eve sexual attacks on German women by hundreds of men identified as Arab or North African, the left in Germany has faced a dilemma: which to fight for first -- women's human rights or multiculturalism?
This was the same dilemma that faced British authorities between 1997 and 2013. During those six years at least 1,400 girls from the age of 11 in just one English city (Rotherham, population 275,000) were raped by gangs of men, nearly all of whom were immigrants (mostly from Pakistan) or their sons.
But British authorities kept silent. Why?
In 2014, the reason finally was revealed: The perpetrators were Muslim, and British authorities were therefore afraid to publicize -- or often even investigate -- the crimes. They feared being branded Islamophobic and racist. Politicians on the left and right acknowledged this fact.
As I wrote in a column in 2014:
"In 2002, a Labor Party MP from nearby Keighley, Ann Cryer, complained to the police about 'young Asian lads' raping girls in her constituency. In her words, she 'was shunned by elements of her party.' And note, that as is demanded by the left in the UK, she didn't even mention that the rapists were Pakistani, lest Muslims be blamed for this evil. They were 'Asian lads.'"
The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament that "institutionalized political correctness" was responsible for the lack of attention given to the mass rape.
In other words, between protecting over a thousand girls from repeated gang rape and protecting Muslims from being identified as the rapists, British authorities chose to protect multiculturalism and "diversity." In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization -- the protection of girls and women from sexual violence -- higher civilization lost.
The U.K. is of course not alone in having multiculturalism and the fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic take precedence over protecting girls and women. Some German authorities' reaction to the events of New Year's Eve in Cologne exemplified this.
After the attacks in Cologne, the mayor of Cologne suggested, in the words of The New York Times, "that women can protect themselves from men on the streets by keeping them more than an arm's length away."
In the mayor's words: "It is always possible to keep a certain distance that is longer than an arm's length."
Aside from the moral foolishness of the comment, it is factually incorrect. It is often impossible to keep an arm's length distance from others -- as, for example, on a crowded bus or train, or, as in Cologne on New Year's Eve, on crowded streets.
It is important to note two things about the mayor. One is that she has been among Germany's most vociferous advocates of accepting 800,000 Syrian refugees into Germany.
The other is that she is a woman.
One would assume that a woman would instinctively wholly condemn the sexual predators rather than lecture women on the distance they should always keep from men in order to avoid being attacked. But the mayor, like the British authorities, has opted for multiculturalism over human and women's rights, for fighting Islamophobia over fighting to protect women.
A related example is Ralf Jaeger, the interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia state, the German state in which Cologne is located. The left-wing minister said: "What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women."
All the isms of the left -- multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, socialism, Marxism, egalitarianism -- distort the individual's and society's moral compass. But, as the minister's comments make clear, none do so more than the left's loathing of conservatives and conservative values.
As with multiculturalism, a left-wing priority -- in this case destroying the right -- has distorted the left's moral compass. How could anyone in his right mind write that right-wing platforms and chat rooms are "at least as awful" as women being sexually attacked and even raped by gangs of men? The answer is that you cannot be in your right mind; you have to be in your left mind.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/prager011216.php3#Z58CLGS7uiWvFBmt.99
Two Smoking Guns
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
The federal criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's failure to secure state secrets was ratcheted up earlier this week, and at the same time, the existence of a parallel criminal investigation of another aspect of her behavior was made known. This is the second publicly revealed expansion of the FBI's investigations in two months.
I have argued for two months that Clinton's legal woes are either grave or worse than grave. That argument has been based on the hard, now public evidence of her failure to safeguard national security secrets and the known manner in which the Department of Justice addresses these failures.
The failure to safeguard state secrets is an area of the law in which the federal government has been aggressive to the point of being merciless. State secrets are the product of members of the intelligence community's risking their lives to obtain information.
Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.
In the cases of others, those threats have been carried out. The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine. It prosecuted a heroic Marine for espionage for warning his superiors of the presence of an al-Qaida operative in police garb inside an American encampment in Afghanistan, because he used a Gmail account to send the warning.
It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges.
The obligation of those to whom state secrets have been entrusted to safeguard them is a rare area in which federal criminal prosecutions can be based on the defendant's negligence. Stated differently, to prosecute Clinton for espionage, the government need not prove that she intended to expose the secrets.
The evidence of Clinton's negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others — some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.
One of the top-secret emails she received and forwarded contained a photo taken from an American satellite of the North Korean nuclear facility that detonated a device just last week. Because Clinton failed to safeguard that email, she exposed to hackers and thus to the North Koreans the time, place and manner of American surveillance of them. This type of data is in the highest category of protected secrets.
Last weekend, the State Department released two smoking guns — each an email from Clinton to a State Department subordinate. One instructed a subordinate who was having difficulty getting a document to Clinton that she had not seen by using a secure State Department fax machine to use an insecure fax machine. The other instructed another subordinate to remove the "confidential" or "secret" designation from a document Clinton had not seen before sending it to her. These two emails show a pattern of behavior utterly heedless of the profound responsibilities of the secretary of state, repugnant to her sworn agreement to safeguard state secrets, and criminal at their essence.
Also this past weekend, my Fox News colleagues Katherine Herridge and Pamela Browne learned from government sources that the FBI is investigating whether Clinton made any decisions as secretary of state to benefit her family foundation or her husband's speaking engagements. If so, this would be profound public corruption.
This investigation was probably provoked by several teams of independent researchers — some of whom are financial experts and have published their work — who have been investigating the Clinton Foundation for a few years. They have amassed a treasure-trove of documents demonstrating fraud and irregularities in fundraising and expenditures, and they have shown a pattern of favorable State Department treatment of foreign entities coinciding with donations by those entities to the Clinton Foundation and their engaging former President Bill Clinton to give speeches.
There are now more than 100 FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton. Her denial that she is at the core of their work is political claptrap with no connection to reality. It is inconceivable that the FBI would send such vast resources in the present dangerous era on a wild-goose chase.
It is the consensus of many of us who monitor government behavior that the FBI will recommend indictment. That recommendation will go to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who, given Clinton's former status in the government and current status in the Democratic Party, will no doubt consult the White House.
If a federal grand jury were to indict Clinton for espionage or corruption, that would be fatal to her political career.
If the FBI recommends indictment and the attorney general declines to do so, expect Saturday Night Massacre-like leaks of draft indictments, whistleblower revelations and litigation, and FBI resignations, led by the fiercely independent and intellectually honest FBI Director James Comey himself.
That would be fatal to Clinton's political career, as well.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/napolitano011416.php3#Sc8f5RBKv6rITH8s.99
By John Stossel
Hillary Clinton: "Of course we want to raise the minimum wage!"
Donald Trump: If we trade with China, "they suck us dry ... take everything. We get nothing!"
Bernie Sanders: "Ordinary Americans are working longer hours for lower wages."
But it's not true! Politicians are so ignorant about economics.
On his blog, Cafe Hayek, George Mason University professor Donald Boudreaux says his main job is showing students that much of what they believe about economics is wrong. I wish he taught presidential candidates.
Sen. Sanders simply gets facts wrong. Today Americans work fewer hours — down from about 2,000 hours per year to 1,800 over the past 60 years — and earn more . It's true that the rich got even richer, but the poor and middle class have done better, too, with about 40 percent higher salaries for the middle class and 48 percent more for the poor over the past 35 years. Politicians lie.
Donald Trump doesn't understand trade. Even if China "dumps" goods on America, we don't "get nothing" — we get the goods. As Trevor Woolley posted on my Facebook page, "The fact that the free market is based on consensual transaction means that no trade can decrease anyone's wellbeing."
Right. Since trade is voluntary, no trade happens unless both sides think they will gain. Trade may eliminate jobs in some industries, but it creates jobs elsewhere, more jobs, and creates wealth for the vast majority.
Helping some American companies by restricting foreign imports, as Donald Trump vows to do, sounds nice, but you can't restrict goods available to American consumers without reducing competition. Protected from competition, companies get lazier, less productive. They innovate less. Prices rise.
Hillary Clinton's minimum wage will help some workers, but overall, it should be obvious it's a job killer . If a minimum really could increase wages without harm, why are politicians so cheap? Let's have a $1,000 minimum wage! But it's just basic economics: If you increase the price of something, people buy less of it. That applies to workers hired, not just goods.
• Prices and wages are simply "set" by businesses.
• The rich get richer at the expense of the poor.
• Price increases after natural disasters are caused by "greed" and should be stopped by laws against "gouging."
• Rent control makes housing affordable.
• Business taxes are paid by business.
• Supporters of free markets are "pro-business" and (hence) "anti-consumer."
These are simple notions about economics into which our brains lazily fall. But none is true.
For example, supporters of free markets (like me) don't necessarily support business. I won 19 Emmy awards criticizing businesses. Corporations can be enemies of free markets because they don't want competition. They routinely lobby politicians to squelch it.
Boudreaux says his students arrive on the first day of class thinking businesses just "set" prices and wages. But businesses can't do that. Companies lose customers if they price goods higher than competitors do.
Wages can't be set at will either. Sure, what boss wouldn't like to pay a workforce one dollar per year? But other companies need laborers too, and those that underpay lose good workers. So the bidding process continues endlessly — it's why the median household income in the U.S. is more than $50,000 a year. That wouldn't happen if bosses could just wake up and decide, "Let's pay workers less!"
The credit for good wages doesn't go to labor unions or politicians' passing a minimum wage, though they sure hog the credit. The credit goes to market competition and a growing economy. After all, 95 percent of workers earn more than minimum wage, and most jobs aren't unionized.
Politicians can't see the wonders that the market provides, but they somehow see everything government does as a blessing — taxes that cut into people's pay and regulations that make it more expensive to produce. They don't see that their well-intended "pro-consumer" rules raise prices and reduce choice.
I wish more Americans learned basic economics from economists like Boudreaux — or from me! At StosselintheClassroom.org, I offer teachers free videos that illustrate economic principles and debunk myths like the ones listed above.
Politicians, on the other hand, are lousy teachers.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/stossel012016.php3#EVS7m6JkKDvi3Jc0.99
What Are Elections For?
By Thomas Sowell
After months of watching all sorts of political polls, we are finally just a few weeks away from actually beginning to see some voting in primary elections. Polls let people vent their emotions. But elections are held to actually accomplish something.
The big question is whether the voters themselves will see elections as very different from polls.
If Republican voters have consistently delivered a message through all the fluctuating polls over the past months, that message is those voters' anger at the Republican establishment, which has grossly betrayed the promises that got a Republican Congress elected.
Whether the issue has been securing the borders, Obamacare, runaway government spending or innumerable other concerns, Republican candidates have promised to fight the Obama administration's policies— and then caved when crunch time came for Congress to vote.
The spectacular rise, and persistence, of Republican voter support for Donald Trump in the polls ought to be a wake-up call for the Republican establishment. But smug know-it-alls can be hard to wake up.
Even valid criticisms of Trump can miss the larger point that Republican voters' turning to such a man is a sign of desperation and a telling indictment of what the Republican establishment has been doing for years— which they show pathetically few signs of changing.
Seldom have the Republicans seemed to have a better chance of winning a presidential election. The Democrats' front-runner is a former member of an unpopular administration whose record of foreign policy failures as Secretary of State is blatant, whose personal charm is minimal and whose personal integrity is under criminal investigation by the FBI.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have fielded a stronger set of presidential aspirants than they have had in years. Yet it is by no means out of the question that the Republicans will manage to blow this year's opportunity and lose at the polls this November.
In other times, this might just be the Republicans' political problem. But these are not other times. After seven disastrous years of Barack Obama, at home and overseas, the United States of America may be approaching a point of no return, especially in a new age of a nuclear Iran with long-range missiles.
The next President of the United States will have monumental problems to untangle. The big question is not which party's candidate wins the election but whether either party will choose a candidate that is up to the job.
That ultimate question is in the hands of Republicans who will soon begin voting in the primaries.
Their anger may be justified, but anger is not a sufficient reason for choosing a candidate in a desperate time for the future of this nation. And there is such a thing as a point of no return.
Voters need to consider what elections are for. Elections are not held to allow voters to vent their emotions. They are held to choose who shall hold in their hands the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans today and of generations yet unborn.
Too many nations, in desperate times, especially after the established authorities have discredited themselves and forfeited the trust of the people, have turned to some new and charismatic leader, who ended up turning a dire situation into an utter catastrophe.
The history of the 20th century provides all too many examples, whether on a small scale that led to the massacre in Jonestown in 1978 or the earlier succession of totalitarian movements that took power in Russia in 1917, Italy in 1922 and Germany a decade later.
Eric Hoffer's shrewd insight into the success of charismatic leaders was that the "quality of ideas seems to play a minor role," What matters, he pointed out, "is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world."
Is that the emotional release that Republican voters will be seeking when they begin voting in the primaries? If so, Donald Trump will be their man. But if the sobering realities of life and the need for mature and wise leadership in dangerous times is uppermost in their minds, they will have to look elsewhere.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011916.php3#pPmjYHshqEEAuxe8.99
Obama's SOTU Versus Reality
By David Limbaugh
In their State of the Union speeches, all previous presidents presented their policies in the most favorable light, but did they go so far as to distort reality? Did they use them to trash their opponents?
I don't think so. But in his last one, Obama did, and adding insult to injury, as always, he pointedly decried partisan sniping right before launching into another episode of partisan sniping. It's as though he doesn't even realize he's being hypocritical on steroids.
Obama is also the first president to have framed his SOTU speeches, in part, as high-school debate rebuttals. He must tell his speechwriters to bullet criticisms of his record and then craft a point-by-point rebuttal. If you haven't noticed, it's a formula for negativity and partisan rancor — the very things he denounces.
In addition, no other president has presented his record so inaccurately that informed and unbrainwashed viewers must conclude that the primary target of Obama's deception is Obama himself. If he were capable of digesting how bad his record is, he surely wouldn't embarrass himself by portraying it so falsely.
Obama claimed that there are no existential threats facing this nation, that his economy is robust, that his educational record is stellar, that people who are skeptical that global warming is man-made are fools, that the United States is more respected internationally now than it was before he took office, that Obamacare has lived up to its promises, that the military is overfunded, that ISIS members are just fanatics and killers riding around in pickup trucks, that his "clean energy" programs are superior, that people who support entitlement reform are the irresponsible ones — saying we should actually double down on these bankrupting boondoggles — that proponents of an orderly immigration system are bigots, that Ted Cruz's pledge to aggressively pursue the Islamic State is code for deliberately bombing innocent civilians, that he himself deserves praise for reducing the deficit, that he values bipartisanship and compromise and ideas other than his own, that it's morning in America and that he's just getting warmed up and planning on engineering further transformational change at the expiration of his term.
Can you imagine having this record of failure, bragging about it and promising to deliver more misery into the indefinite future? It would be like the owner of the Chicago Cubs pledging to keep winning the World Series.
As for existential threats, try ISIS, a government-sponsored invasion of our borders by immigrants whom the left encourages not to assimilate or embrace the American idea, out-of-control entitlements, the exploding national debt and the systematic assault on the Constitution and rule of law by a renegade executive branch and cynical, activist judiciary branch.
Obama's recovery is the worst in 50 years. He insists we accept anemic 2 percent growth as the new, wonderful normal. The labor participation rate is at its lowest since the 1970s. The median household income has fallen to a 20-year low, as has homeownership. Dependency programs, including food stamps, have skyrocketed. The poverty level is soaring. And Obama is hellbent on doubling the national debt. If it weren't for some mild Republican resistance, there is no telling how much higher spending would be. He mocks responsible people who would structurally reform entitlements, which are guaranteed to become insolvent and also bankrupt the nation.
Obama touts his clean energy program but omits that government is subsidizing it and sabotaging the natural gas and coal industries. It's pretty easy to take credit for the winners when you abuse power to pick winners and losers.
Though Obama boasts that Obamacare has caused 18 million more to be insured, it has been a complete disaster. The overwhelming number of additional insured people are from Medicaid expansion. People have lost their doctors and plans in droves. Premiums and deductibles have not decreased as promised but increased enormously.
Though Obama ridicules non-joiners of the apocalyptic global warming cult, he has never explained how the draconian measures he favors, even if fully implemented, would make a dent in reducing mean global temperature over the next century.
He has made a consummate mess of foreign policy, engineering the decline of the United States as the world's sole superpower, alienating our allies and coddling our enemies. He continues to defund the military; the Army will decline by some 40,000 more soldiers in the next two years alone, and we're below strength necessary to fight in two different theaters — always viewed as the acid test for readiness. He has grossly mistreated Israel, to which Saudi Arabia and Egypt have now had to turn because of his untrustworthiness. He claims to have ISIS contained — though it is in 20 nations, continues to wreak havoc in the Middle East and is a significant threat in the United States and Europe in the eyes of former intelligence, military and security advisers.
Then there are things Obama didn't mention, such as his record-breaking performance in dividing the nation along racial, gender and economic lines. His commandeering of the IRS to target his political enemies. His multi-pronged assault on the Constitution. His assaults on religious liberty. His nightmarish concessions to Iran, which have emboldened its tyrannical regime to be even more defiant — already violating the nuke deal with its ballistic missile program and lawlessly kidnapping our sailors.
Yes, folks, things are going swimmingly, and there's nothing to see here, so let's turn the volume down, OK?
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh011516.php3#kfjBDObJzMckRKIb.99
The state of the presidency: spent
By Charles Krauthammer
President Obama's Tuesday night address to Congress was less about the state of the union than the state of the presidency. And the state of this presidency is spent.
The signs of intellectual exhaustion were everywhere. Consider just three. After taking credit for success in Syria, raising American stature abroad and prevailing against the Islamic State — one claim more surreal than the next — Obama was forced to repair to his most well-worn talking point: "If you doubt America's commitment — or mine — to see that justice is done, just ask Osama bin Laden."
Really? Five years later, that's all you've got?
Indeed, it is. What else can Obama say? Talk about Crimea? Cite Yemen, Libya, Iraq, the South China Sea, the return of the Taliban?
"Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office," Obama boasted. Surveys, mind you. As if superpower influence is a Miss Universe contest. As if the world doesn't see our allies adrift, our enemies on the march and our sailors kneeling, hands behind their heads, in front of armed Iranians, then forced to apologize on camera. (And our secretary of state expressing appreciation to Iran after their subsequent release.)
On the domestic side, Obama's agenda was fairly short, in keeping with his lame-duck status. It was still startling when he worked up a passion for a great "new moonshot": curing cancer.
Is there a more hackneyed national-greatness cliche than the idea that if we can walk on the moon ... ? Or a more hackneyed facsimile of vision than being "the country that cures cancer"? Do Obama's speechwriters not know that it was Richard Nixon who first declared a war on cancer — in 1971?
But to see just how bare is the cupboard of ideas of the nation's most vaunted liberal visionary, we had to wait for the stunning anachronism that was the speech finale. It was designed for inspiration and uplift. And for some liberal observers, it actually worked. They were thrilled by the soaring tones as Obama called for, yes, a new politics — a post-partisan spirit of mutual understanding, rational discourse and respect for one's opponents.
Why, it was hope and change all over again. You'd have thought we were back in 2008 with Obama's moving, stirring promise of a new and higher politics that had young people swooning in the aisles and a TV anchor thrilling up the leg — and gave Obama the White House.
Or even further back to 2004, when Obama electrified the nation with his Democratic convention speech: "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."
Tuesday night, Obama did an undisguised, almost phrase-for-phrase reprise of that old promise. Earnestly, he urged us to "see ourselves not, first and foremost, as black or white, or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native-born, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first."
On cue, various commentators were moved by this sermon summoning our better angels. Good grief. I can understand falling for this 12 years ago. But now? A cheap self-quotation, a rhetorical mulligan, from a man who had two presidential terms to act on that transformative vision and instead gave us the most divisive, partisan, tendentious presidency since Nixon.
Rational discourse and respect for one's opponents? This is a man who campaigned up and down the country throughout 2011 and 2012 saying that he cares about posterity, Republicans only about power.
The man who accused opponents of his Iran treaty of "making common cause" with Iranians "chanting death to America."
The man who, after Paul Ryan proposed a courageous, controversial entitlement reform, gave a presidential address — with Ryan, invited by the White House, seated in the first row — calling his ideas un-American.
In a final touch of irony, Obama included in his wistful rediscovery of a more elevated politics an expression of reverence for, of all things, how "our founders distributed power between ... branches of government." This after years of repeatedly usurping Congress' legislative power with unilateral executive orders and regulations on everything from criminal justice to climate change to immigration (already halted by the courts).
There is wisdom to the 22nd Amendment. After two terms, presidents are spent. Nothing shows it like a State of the Union valedictory repeating the hollow promises of the yesteryear candidate — as if the intervening presidency had never occurred.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer011516.php3#ETSsiTKp3p6iedxc.99
The Constitution, the President and Guns
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." — Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
In 2008, the Supreme Court laid to rest the once-simmering dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court articulated the modern existence of the ancient right to keep and bear arms as a pre-political right.
A pre-political right is one that pre-exists the political order that was created to protect it. Thus, the court held, the origins of this right are the ancient and persistent traditions of free peoples and their natural inclinations to self-defense.
The court also characterized the right as fundamental. That puts it in the highest category of rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Though the origins of this right are from an era well before guns existed, the textual language in the amendment — "Arms" — makes clear, the court ruled, the intention of the Framers that its continuing purpose should be to recognize the right of people to keep and use the same level of technologically available arms that might be used against them.
That, in a nutshell, is the history, theory and purpose of the amendment as the modern Supreme Court has found them to be. But as we have seen, the constitutional guarantees that were written to keep the government from interfering with our rights are only as viable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping.
In our system, principal among those are the hands of the president; and sadly, today we have a president seriously lacking in this fidelity. And that lack is salient when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Earlier this week, President Barack Obama announced that he will sign executive orders that expand the size and scope of federal monitoring of the acquisition and use of guns — traditionally a matter left to the states — and he will interpret the laws in novel ways, establish rules and impose obligations that Congress rejected, and prosecute those who defy his new system.
The president has very little room to issue executive orders on guns because the congressional legislation in this area is so extensive, detailed and clear. In addition to ordering your doctor to report to the Department of Homeland Security any mention you may make to the doctor of guns in your home, the president has decreed on his own and against the articulated will of Congress the obligation of all people who transfer any gun to any other person to obtain a federal gun dealer license. This is among the most cumbersome and burdensome licenses to obtain.
He has also decreed that any licensee who fails to perform a background check on the person to whom the licensee has transferred a gun shall be guilty of a felony. Give a BB gun to your nephew on his 16th birthday without a federal license and you can go to prison.
Can the president do that? In a word: No.
Under our system of government, only Congress can write federal laws and establish crimes. The president is on particularly thin constitutional ice here because his allies in Congress have proposed this very procedure as an amendment to existing law, and Congress has expressly rejected those proposals.
The president is without authority to negate the congressional will, and any attempt to do so will be invalidated by the courts. As well, by defining what an occasional seller is, beyond the congressional definition or the plain meaning of the words, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts.
By requiring physicians to report conversations with their patients about guns to the DHS, the president will be encouraging them to invade the physician-patient privilege; and I suspect that most doctors will ignore him.
Under the Constitution, fundamental liberties (speech, a free press, worship, self-defense, travel and privacy, to name a few) are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion. One can only lose a fundamental right by intentionally giving it up or via due process (a jury trial resulting in a conviction for criminal behavior). The president — whose support for the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the military, the police and his own heavily armed body guards — is happy to begin a slippery slope down into the dark hole of totalitarianism, whereby he or a future president can negate liberties if he hates or fears the exercising of them.
We still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. The president can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon pre-existing laws than Congress or the courts can command the military.
As troubling as this turn of events is, it is not surprising. The president is a progressive, and the ideology of progressivism is anathema to self-help or individualism. He really believes that the government can care for us better than we can care for ourselves.
Yet he ignores recent history. Any attempt to make it more difficult for people to keep and bear arms not only violates the fundamental liberty of those people but also jeopardizes the safety of us all. Add to this the progressive tendency to use government to establish no-gun zones and you have the recipe for disaster we have recently witnessed. All of the recent mass killings in America — from Columbine to San Bernardino — have occurred in no-gun zones, where crazies and terror-minded murderers can shoot with abandon.
That is, until someone arrives with a gun and shoots back. Then the killer flees or is injured or dies — and the killing stops.
Comment by clicking here.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.
In the commercial that President Obama released prior to his final State of the Union address, Obama said he would tell Congress how "optimistic" he is about America's future.
Good. Politicians and the media are at their most dangerous when they try to scare us, telling us disaster is on the way unless we follow, and pay for, their latest schemes to "protect" us.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the future, too, if only because our last 200 years have shown that despite politicians' attacks on open markets and individual freedom, people keep getting richer and living longer.
When Obama talks about the America we are creating together, it would be more honest if he congratulated Americans for all the progress we make despite government fighting us at every turn — with taxes and regulations and booming debt that lowers the value of each dollar.
Of course, presidents want to be remembered positively, and Obama's cheerleaders are eager to put a happy spin on things in his final year in office.
Michael Grunwald at Politico decided to help with a piece about Obama's policy accomplishments, describing America as "the nation he built." Obama once told us that if you have a business, "you didn't build that," so I guess now we know who does the building.
Grunwald praises Obamacare for expanding the number of Americans with health insurance and points out that, at the same time, the administration also sneaked through a government takeover of student loan debt. John Boehner was correct to complain that "the president will sign not one, but two job-killing government takeovers."
But Grunwald says that sticking taxpayers with billions of dollars of student debt was part of the "relentless government activism" needed to give America "a profound course correction" that also changed "the way we produce and consume energy, the way doctors and hospitals treat us, the academic standards in our schools and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the nation."
All that is true, if by changing how we consume energy he means shutting down pipelines while ignoring private industry's wonderful fracking revolution.
If by changing the way doctors treat us he means locking still more people into bureaucracies instead of letting a true health market flourish.
If academic standards mean imposing weird testing regimens and teaching methods like Common Core.
And if "long-term fiscal trajectory" means nearly doubling our federal debt, now almost $19 trillion, and doing nothing to slow America's coming entitlements bankruptcy.
Leftists can credit Obama with policy successes because Obama often outmaneuvered Republicans and got bills he wanted. Unfortunately, the left rarely looks closely at whether those bills really made Americans better off.
Grunwald says Obama's $800 billion stimulus package crammed in a whole administration's worth of programs in one go — but Grunwald adds only in passing that economists don't agree on whether the stimulus accomplished anything good.
That's the whole problem. Politicians unleash programs — the more complicated the better — and then take credit later for anything good that happens, blaming the bad things on their political opponents.
It usually takes years to figure out what the programs' real impacts were, if we ever do. People still argue — 80 years later — about whether the New Deal prolonged or helped end the Great Depression.
We don't know if the country is better or worse off because of "relentless government activism." We libertarians argue that government helps us by keeping the peace and providing a level playing field but that beyond that, most government intervention does harm. That's why we're better off if individuals can pick and choose which things work for us.
In a real marketplace, individuals go to the schools we choose, buy health care we want and pay our own debts.
I'm optimistic about America, too — but not because we "come together" and function as a single union. I'm optimistic because in most areas of life, we're still free to make our own decisions.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/stossel011316.php3#eBuI8Jso4lShWgW3.99
Obama: Bitter Partisan and Committed Ideologue to the End -- and Beyond
By David Limbaugh
The liberal media seem perplexed that President Obama plans to deviate from his usual State of the Union practice of "asking" Congress for a laundry list of policy proposals and "not talking about himself."
You heard me right; the narrative is that Obama hasn't talked about himself in previous SOTUs. If that's their perception, can you imagine what an ego-fest — a virtual orgy of self-congratulation — this could be? But enough about that for now. I just ask that you sympathize with those of us who feel as if we have to watch it because it promises to be even worse than the preceding ones — and that's a very high bar.
The media just can't help themselves. They are also wrong that Obama has generally asked Congress to embrace his policy agenda, as opposed to browbeating it (or the Supreme Court) to kowtow. After his initial honeymoon expired, Obama never really tried to convince Congress of anything. His SOTU speeches were mostly televised harangues at Congress trying to publicly shame it into supporting his proposals. For him, it's never been about bipartisanship.
Perhaps what the media should be saying is that Obama has given up any pretense of convincing Congress through popular pressure he generates from his bully pulpit, emphasis on "bully," because he is a lame duck, emphasis on "lame," and because this is a presidential election year.
Even if Obama did harbor the illusion that he could use his nonexistent magical powers to persuade Congress to assist him in further dividing and destroying the nation, he realizes that can't work this year. Even establishment Republicans are not going to cave on any of Obama's remaining obsessions.
But any change from him will be only pro forma. Obama is an ideological zealot, still hellbent on advancing his leftist agenda. Though he probably won't try to cajole Congress into acting on his behalf, don't think for a second that he's abandoned his agenda.
Being who he is, Obama will not be deterred. You'll note that congressional opposition has never given him pause — and certainly not enough to reconsider whether his ideas are in line with a majority of Americans. It has just angered him enough to grow ever more lawless and impose his agenda unilaterally.
I suppose some people still haven't figured this out yet, but Obama's narcissism doesn't just drive him to establish a presidential legacy. He aims much higher. He doesn't see his transformative potential limited by a mere two terms in office. He seeks to continue laying the groundwork for further radical changes once out of office, both through a Democratic successor and by remaining an active player in the private sector as a "community organizer."
He plans on returning to community organizing when he's out of office, but we know that both "community" and "organizing" are euphemisms. He has no intention of restricting his activities to the community level, and he doubtlessly aims to be more proactive than "organizing" implies.
Ironically, Obama has been remarkably unsuccessful at using his "organizing" skills inside the system — by getting Congress to support his legislative proposals — with the major exception of the budgetary process. But he's been extremely effective at "organizing" people around the country to do his radical bidding — stirring up racial strife and class warfare, fanning the flames of distrust between minorities and law enforcement, and alienating various other groups against each other. He has every reason to believe he can continue to be effective in this regard when out of office — as if this were a worthwhile goal.
Don't just take my word for it. In a video preview of his address, Obama said: "What I want to focus on in this State of the Union address (is) not just the remarkable progress we've made, not just what I want to get done in the year ahead, but what we all need to do together in the years to come — the big things that will guarantee an even stronger, better, more prosperous America for our kids, the America we believe in. That's what's on my mind."
It is important to ask, who is "we"? What is "progress"? What are the "big things"? And what is "the America we believe in"?
We know "we" is not those who believe in the American idea, the Constitution, American exceptionalism or a strong America. We know "progress" is not progress but the forward march of socialism and leftist cultural momentum. We know that some of "the big things" are further advancing socialized medicine, punishment of the "rich," enabling Iran, flooding our borders, further emasculating our military and weakening America, gun control, and environmental fascism. We know that "the America we believe in" is not the America we believe in.
We'd better brace ourselves, folks. This last year of two miserable terms is not going to be better. Obama has big plans for his pen and phone, and his upcoming speech is going to be a bizarre victory lap combined with in-your-face promises of more (and worse) to come.
We can never let our guard down.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh011216.php3#loWFwF1kbouQgPic.99
Minimum Wage Dishonesty
By Walter Williams
Michael Hiltzik, a columnist and Los Angeles Times reporter, wrote an article titled "Does a minimum wage raise hurt workers? Economists say: We don't know." Uncertain was his conclusion from a poll conducted by the Initiative on Global Markets, at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, of 42 nationally ranked economists on the question of whether raising the federal minimum wage to $15 over the next five years would reduce employment opportunities for low-wage workers.
The Senate Budget Committee's blog says, "Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage." It lists the names of 210 economists who call for increasing the federal minimum wage. The petition starts off, "We, the undersigned professional economists, favor an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour as of 2020." The petition ends with this: "In short, raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour by 2020 will be an effective means of improving living standards for low-wage workers and their families and will help stabilize the economy. The costs to other groups in society will be modest and readily absorbed."
The people who are harmed by an increase in the minimum wage are low-skilled workers. Try this question to economists who argue against the unemployment effect of raising the minimum wage: Is it likely that an employer would find it in his interests to pay a worker $15 an hour when that worker has skills that enable him to produce only $5 worth of value an hour to the employer's output? Unlike my fellow economists who might argue to the contrary, I would say that most employers would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition, but they might hire him at $5 an hour. Thus, one effect of the minimum wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of low-skilled workers.
In our society, the least skilled people are youths, who lack the skills, maturity and experience of adults. Black youths not only share these handicaps but have attended grossly inferior schools and live in unstable household environments. That means higher minimum wages will have the greatest unemployment effect on youths, particularly black youths.
A minimum wage not only discriminates against low-skilled workers but also is one of the most effective tools in the arsenal of racists. Our nation's first minimum wage came in the form of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which sets minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the legislative debates, racist intents were obvious. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., complained: "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., complained of the "superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor."
During South Africa's apartheid era, the secretary of its avowedly racist Building Workers' Union, Gert Beetge, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that "while definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed."
It is incompetence or dishonesty for my fellow economists to deny these two effects of minimum wages: discrimination against employment of low-skilled labor and the lowering of the cost of racial discrimination.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams011316.php3#czWmqoGQ33Mu05Zj.99
'Messing With the Constitution'
By Thomas Sowell
In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.
The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."
The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.
This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.
It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices — to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.
This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.
For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."
Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated.
The judicial pretense of merely "interpreting" the Constitution is just part of the dishonesty in this process. The underlying claim that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution was belied during the very years when the Progressive movement was getting underway in the early 20th century.
The Constitution was amended four times in eight years! Over the years since it was adopted, the Constitution has been amended more than two dozen times. Why, then, is the proposal to call a convention of states to propose — just propose — amendments to the Constitution considered such a radical and dangerous departure?
Legally, it is no departure at all. The Constitution itself lists a convention of states among the ways that amendments can be officially proposed. It has not yet been done, but these proposals will have to be put to a vote of the states, three-fourths of whom will have to agree before any amendment can become law.
Is it better to have the Constitution amended de facto by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court? By the unilateral actions of a president? By administrative rulings by anonymous bureaucrats in federal agencies, to whom federal judges "defer"?
The idea that a convention of states could run amok and rewrite the Constitution overlooks the fact that it would take the votes of two-thirds of the states just to convene a convention, and then three-fourths of the states to actually pass an amendment.
Far from proposing radical departures from the Constitution, most of Governor Abbott's proposed amendments would restore Constitutional protections that have been surreptitiously eroded by unelected federal judges and by unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies, who create a major part of "the law of the land," with the help of "deference" from federal judges.
Why are "We the People" to be kept out of all this, through our elected representatives, when these are the very words with which the Constitution of the United States begins?
Despite the left's portrayal of themselves as champions of the people, they consistently try to move decisions out of the hands of the general public and into the hands of officials insulated from the voters, such as unelected federal judges and anonymous bureaucrats with iron-clad job protection.
No wonder they don't want to have a convention that would restore a Constitution which begins with "We the People."
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011216.php3#akh6xIb3JBD0S5vL.99
Defy America, pay no price
By Charles Krauthammer
If you're going to engage in a foreign policy capitulation, might as well do it when everyone is getting tanked and otherwise occupied. Say, around New Year's Eve.
Here's the story. In October, Iran test-fires a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in brazen violation of a Security Council resolution explicitly prohibiting such launches. President Obama does nothing. One month later, Iran does it again. The administration makes a few gestures at the U.N. Then nothing. Then finally, on Dec. 30, the White House announces a few sanctions.
They are weak, aimed mostly at individuals and designed essentially for show. Amazingly, even that proves too much. By 10 p.m. that night, the administration caves. The White House sends out an email saying that sanctions are off — and the Iranian president orders the military to expedite the missile program.
Is there any red line left? First, the Syrian chemical weapons. Then the administration insistence that there would be no nuclear deal unless Iran accounted for its past nuclear activities. (It didn't.) And unless Iran permitted inspection of its Parchin nuclear testing facility. (It was allowed self-inspection and declared itself clean.) And now, illegal ballistic missiles.
The premise of the nuclear deal was that it would constrain Iranian actions. It's had precisely the opposite effect. It has deterred us from offering even the mildest pushback to any Iranian violations lest Iran walk away and leave Obama legacy-less.
Just two weeks ago, Iran's Revolutionary Guards conducted live-fire exercises near the Strait of Hormuz. It gave nearby U.S. vessels exactly 23 seconds of warning. One rocket was launched 1,500 yards from the USS Harry S. Truman.
Obama's response? None.
The Gulf Arabs — rich, weak and, since FDR, dependent on America for security — are bewildered. They're still reeling from the nuclear deal, which Obama declared would be unaffected by Iranian misbehavior elsewhere. The result was to assure Tehran that it would pay no price for its aggression in Syria and Yemen, subversion in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and support for terrorism.
Obama seems not to understand that disconnecting the nuclear issue gave the mullahs license to hunt in the region. For the Saudis, however, it's not just blundering but betrayal. From the very beginning, they've seen Obama tilting toward Tehran as he fancies himself Nixon in China, turning Iran into a strategic partner in managing the Middle East.
This is even scarier because it is delusional. If anything, Obama's openhanded appeasement has encouraged Iran's regional adventurism and intense anti-Americanism.
The Saudis, sensing abandonment, are near panic. Hence the reckless execution of the firebrand Shiite insurrectionist, Sheik Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, that has brought the region to a boil. Iranians torched the Saudi Embassy. The Saudis led other Sunni states in breaking relations with Tehran.
The Saudis feel surrounded, and it's not paranoia. To their north, Iran dominates a Shiite crescent stretching from Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean. To the Saudi south, Iran has been arming Yemen's Houthi rebels since at least 2009. The fighting has spilled over the border into Saudi Arabia.
The danger is rising. For years, Iran has been supporting anti-regime agitation among Saudi Arabia's minority Shiites. The Persian Gulf is Iran's ultimate prize. The fall of the House of Saud would make Iran the undisputed regional hegemon and an emerging global power.
For the United States, that would be the greatest geopolitical setback since China fell to communism in 1949. Yet Obama seems oblivious. Worse, he appears inert in the face of the three great challenges to the post-Cold War American order. Iran is only the most glaring. China is challenging the status quo in the South China Sea, just last week landing its first aircraft on an artificial island hundreds of miles beyond the Chinese coast. We deny China's claim and declare these to be international waters, yet last month we meekly apologized when a B-52 overflew one of the islands. We said it was inadvertent.
The world sees and takes note. As it does our response to the other great U.S. adversary — Russia. What's happened to Obama's vaunted "isolation" of Russia for its annexation of Crimea and assault on the post-Cold War European settlement? Gone. Evaporated. John Kerry plays lapdog to Sergei Lavrov. Obama meets openly with Vladimir Putin in Turkey, then in Paris. And is now practically begging him to join our side in Syria.
There is no price for defying Pax Americana — not even trivial sanctions on Iranian missile-enablers. Our enemies know it. Our allies see it — and sense they're on their own, and may not survive.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer010816.php3#bipmlTlrJPG8XSl4.99
Yes, Muslims Should Be Asked to Condemn Islamic Terror
By Dennis Prager
Last week, an opinion piece appeared in The Washington Post that tells you much of what you need to know about the moral fabric and intellectual depth of the ACLU and much of the left.
Written by Rana Elmir, deputy director of the Michigan chapter of the ACLU, the title says it all: "Stop asking me to condemn terrorists just because I'm Muslim."
Here is how her column begins:
"As an American Muslim, I am consistently and aggressively asked — by media figures, religious leaders, politicians and Internet trolls — to condemn terrorism to prove my patriotism.
"I emphatically refuse."
Even putting aside her refusal as a Muslim to condemn the greatest organized evil in the world, her misleading rhetoric is revealed by another aspect of the opening sentence.
It is not to "prove [her] patriotism" that people ask her to condemn Muslim mass murder, torture and sexual enslavement. It has nothing to do with patriotism.
Decent people (including many decent Muslims) make this request for three other reasons: One is to ascertain the moral/religious views of that Muslim. The second is to ascertain how widespread Islamist views are among Muslims. And the third reason is to have as many Muslims as possible condemn Islamist violence in the hope that Muslims considering supporting or engaging in terror will think twice about doing so.
It is the most logical request people of goodwill can make when they ask Muslim spokespeople to react to atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. How else are non-Muslims to assess Islam and Muslims?
If the Spanish Inquisition were taking place today, wouldn't every Catholic spokesperson be asked if they condemn it? Of course.
But there is a difference. No one would have to ask Christians to condemn mass murder committed by tens of thousands Christians in the name of Christ. Millions of Christians would have already spoken out and demonstrated against such a thing.
Or take Jews' reactions to the 1994 murder of 29 Palestinian Arabs by a religious Israeli Jew, Baruch Goldstein.
The Israeli prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, in an address to the Israeli parliament, said to the Knesset:
"You [Goldstein] are not part of the community of Israel... You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law... We say to this horrible man and those like him: you are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism."
Even the Jewish Settler Council, of which Goldstein was a member, declared that what Goldstein had done was "not Jewish, not humane."
Israel's Sephardi chief rabbi said, "I am simply ashamed that a Jew carried out such a villainous and irresponsible act." And the Ashkenazi chief rabbi, Yisrael Meir Lau, labeled the murders "a desecration of God's name" — which is the worst sin a Jew can commit.
The then-chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks, declared: "Such an act is an obscenity and a travesty of Jewish values."
And all these Jewish condemnations were in reaction to the action of one Jew.
In 1982, rogue Lebanese Christian militiamen killed at least 800 Palestinians in two refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila, in the Beirut-area. Though no Israelis participated in the killings, Israel held itself responsible because it was the occupying power in that area at that time. In addition, approximately 400,000 Israelis — about 10 percent of the Israeli population — protested against their own government. It was the largest demonstration in Israel until that time.
That is what civilized and moral people are expected to do — condemn those who murder in their name.
But, according to the ACLU official, such civilized, moral behavior is not expected of Muslims.
Rather, in the age-old left-wing habit of reducing evil through moral equivalence, Elmir writes:
"Just as [an American] I have never been asked to condemn Dylann Storm Roof's attack on parishioners of a historic black church in South Carolina, Robert Dear's attack on a Planned Parenthood facility, the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the slaughter of moviegoers in Colorado or Louisiana, I will not be bullied into condemning terror perpetrated" by Muslim terrorists.
So there you go. If you ask Muslim spokespeople to condemn women in burqas, Muslim honor killings, Muslim annihilation of Christian communities in the Middle East, the massive support in Muslim countries for killing any Muslim who converts to another religion, or even the atrocities of Islamic state, al-Qaida, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, or the myriad other Muslim mass murder organizations, you are a bully. You are the guilty party.
That is one of the more remarkable moral inversions of our time.
But such is the moral universe of Elmir and the ACLU.
In fact, just as we ask Muslims to condemn evil done by Muslims in the name of Islam, we should ask supporters and members of the ACLU to condemn this column written in the name of the ACLU. It's that bad.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/prager010616.php3#O6fCBcKrdjHoIDr6.99
I've long marveled at President Obama's calls for bipartisanship right before viciously tearing into Republicans. It's creepy, because he is either too self-absorbed to know he's doing it or arrogant enough to assume we won't see through it.
I'm referring not to the routine partisan rancor between politicians in the course of debating an issue but to those occasions when there is no time between Obama's demands for cooperation and his tongue-lashing of Republicans — when he waxes eloquent about getting along and then immediately pummels his opponents. It's so strikingly inconsistent that I am surprised even conservative commentators don't make more of this.
In speaking to congressional Republicans on Obamacare, for example, Obama patronizingly told them that health care is such an important issue that they should put partisanship aside and work together to solve the problem. Then he proceeded to define bipartisanship and cooperation as, in effect, agreeing with his proposals because they were simply "common-sense" ideas. Anyone who didn't agree with him was, by definition, at odds with common sense, and a politician wouldn't do that unless motivated by partisanship. Obama then berated Republicans for not having jumped on board already.
We've all met people who actually believe that their ideas are so self-evidently superior that anyone who disagrees is automatically unreasonable, but it has been disturbing to witness a president with this unrealistic and delusional attitude.
This attitude seems to flow from extreme liberalism. Many liberals, especially media and academic elites, believe there is only one reasonable position on certain issues, from politics to culture to religion to, yes, even science. They think that their views are eminently sound and that contrary opinions are unreasonable, often evil and sometimes not worthy of constitutional protection.
That's why the liberal media don't consider themselves biased; in their minds, they are just promoting the only sensible position. The dissenting viewpoint doesn't need to be represented, because it is too toxic to warrant a voice, much less a balanced treatment.
This explains not only their shameless bias in news selection, reporting and commentating but also their opposition to the presentation of alternative views in schools on aspects of Darwinism or man-made global warming. They shame the "deniers" who haven't hopped on their cuckoo "consensus" train.
But Obama is even worse than your garden-variety liberal who has difficulty acknowledging or respecting dissenting views, as he proved again in his gun control speech Tuesday.
He said the gun control issue "has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates — despite the fact that there's a general consensus in America about what needs to be done." Polarized and partisan, yes, but a consensus? Please.
He added: "I think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives or without being disagreeable. ... But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it."
Why is it urgent when his liberal friends agree that even draconian liberal gun proposals, let alone these regulatory Band-Aids he is unilaterally imposing, wouldn't have prevented the types of mass shootings we've had in this country?
Perhaps we should feel a sense of urgency about the shootings (as opposed to gun control), but if Obama had a sense of urgency about the shootings, he would attempt to address the problem rather than exploit it to push gun control. He would address the gang-related black-on-black shootings in Chicago.
What about his claim that we can disagree without impugning one another's motives or being disagreeable?
Well, he betrayed his own advice just a few sentences later — and again and again. He said: "Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn't been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody's guns."
Then he cited a "compromise" proposal offered by a Democrat and a Republican senator. "Pretty common-sense stuff. Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea."
No partisan slurs or shaming there, no sirree.
More: "So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. ... And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here's your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. ... The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. ... We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do."
There you have it. If you agree with Obama, you have common sense and are reasonable. If you disagree, you are unreasonable, partisan or a corrupt pawn of moneyed interests. Yet he's not insulting you. He's not talking past you. He's not being divisive or partisan.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh010816.php3#uQMHvrQlLl76V4CS.99
By Thomas Sowell
Those who have been marveling at Donald Trump's political showmanship were given a reminder of who is the top showman of them all, when President Barack Obama went on television to make a pitch for his unilateral actions to restrict gun sales and make a more general case for tighter gun control laws.
It was beautifully choreographed, like a great ballet, and performed with consummate skill and understated eloquence. First of all, the scene was set with a room full of people who had lost loved ones to gun violence. A father whose son had been gunned down made a long introduction before the president showed up, walked down the aisle and up on to the stage to growing applause.
As political theater, it put Donald Trump's rantings in the shade.
As for the substance of what Obama said, there was very little substance, and much of it false, but one of the signs of great artistry was that the presentation overshadowed the substance.
None of the things proposed by the president is likely to reduce gun violence. Like other restrictions on people's ability to defend themselves, or to deter attacks by showing that they are armed, these new restrictions can cost more lives on net balance. The most we can hope for is that the effects of the new Obama-created rules will be nil, rather than harmful.
Like most other gun control advocates, President Obama invoked scenes of mass shootings, as if what he is proposing would have prevented those tragedies. But, almost invariably, mass shootings occur in gun-free settings. Yet gun control zealots seem determined to create more gun-free settings.
How often have supposedly mentally unbalanced shooters opened fire at a meeting of the National Rifle Association? They are apparently not that mentally unbalanced. They pick places where people are not likely to shoot back.
A mass shooting at a movie theater a few years ago took place at a theater farther away from where the shooter lived than other theaters in the area that were showing the very same movie. The difference was that this theater had advertised that it was a gun-free zone.
Who is more mentally unbalanced, those who are doing the shooting or those who refuse to examine the facts about what kinds of places attract such shooters? Schools and religious institutions are sitting ducks, and the shootings there have gone on until someone else with a gun showed up on the scene. That is what puts an end to the carnage, not gun control laws.
People who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are not very likely to be stopped by laws against guns. Only law-abiding citizens are likely to be stopped by gun control laws, and to become sitting ducks.
As for facts and statistics, the only ones likely to be mentioned by gun control zealots, including the media, are those on how many people were killed by guns. How many lives were saved by guns will never make it through the ideological filters of the media, the political establishment or our educational institutions.
Yet factual data on how many threats or attacks were deterred in a given year by displaying a firearm have long been available. Seldom is it necessary to actually pull the trigger to get some thug or criminal to back off and go elsewhere, often in some haste.
Are the only lives that matter those that are lost, usually because there is no gun immediately available to protect them, but not the lives saved because they did have a gun at hand to protect them?
Gun control zealots seem especially opposed to people being allowed to carry their guns concealed. But concealed weapons protect not only those who carry them, but also to some extent those who do not, because criminals have no way of knowing in advance who does and does not have a gun.
Muggings and rapes become much more dangerous activities for criminals where many law-abiding people are allowed to carry concealed guns. It can take a lot of the fun out of being a thug.
President Obama said that we are the only "advanced" nation with so much gun violence. But there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than ours and stronger gun control laws. But that leaves the definition of "advanced" to Obama — and makes for clever political theater.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010516.php3#MZm7YDCfhugdQlev.99
Unappreciated Tax on the Poor
By Walter Williams
A few years ago, BET had a commentary titled "Where Are the Grocery Stores in Black Neighborhoods?" One wonders whether anyone thinks that the absence of supermarkets in predominantly black neighborhoods means that white merchants do not like dollars coming out of black hands. Racial discrimination cannot explain the absence of supermarkets in black communities.
Compare the operation of a supermarket in a low-crime neighborhood with that of one in a high-crime neighborhood. You will see differences in how they operate. Supermarkets in low-crime neighborhoods often have merchandise on display near entrances. They may have merchandise left unattended outside the store, such as plants and gardening material. Often these items are left out overnight. Supermarket managers' profit maximizing objective is to maximize merchandise turnover per square foot of leased space. The economic significance of being able to have merchandise located at entrances and outside is the supermarket manager can use all of the space he leases.
Supermarket operation differs in high-crime neighborhoods. Merchandise will not be left unattended outside the store — and surely not overnight. Because of greater theft, the manager will not have products near entrances and exits. As a result, the manager cannot use all of the space that he leases. On top of this, it is not unusual to see a guard employed by the store.
Because supermarkets operate on a very lean profit margin, typically less than 2 percent, crime makes such a business unprofitable. The larger crime cost is borne by black residents, who must pay higher prices, receive inferior-quality goods at small mom and pop stores and/or bear the transportation cost of having to shop at suburban malls. Crime works as a tax on people who can least afford it.
Racial discrimination suits have been brought against pizza companies whose drivers either refuse to deliver pizzas to certain neighborhoods or require customers to come down to their car. In many instances, the pizza deliverymen are black people who are reluctant to deliver pizzas even in their own neighborhoods. For a law-abiding person, not to have deliveries on the same terms as everyone else is insulting, but who is to blame?
It is not just pizzas. Recently, Comcast notified a cable customer on the South Side of Chicago the company would not send out a technician because of the violent crime in the area. Delivery companies do not leave packages in high-crime neighborhoods when the customer is not home. The company must bear the costs of making return trips, or more likely, the customer has to bear the cost of going to pick up the package. Taxi drivers, as well as Uber and Lyft drivers, are reluctant to provide services to high-crime neighborhoods.
Crime and lack of respect for property rights impose another unappreciated cost. They lower the value of everything in the neighborhood. A house that is not even worth $50,000 might be worth many multiples of that after gentrification. Gentrification is a trend in some urban neighborhoods whereby higher-income people buy up property in poor repair and fix it up. This results in the displacement of lower-income families and small businesses. Before we call gentrification an exclusively racial phenomenon, many gentrifiers are black middle-class, educated people.
It is by no means flattering to law-abiding black people that "black" has become synonymous with "crime." Crime not only imposes high costs on blacks but also sours race relations. Whites are apprehensive of blacks, and blacks are offended by being subjects of that apprehension. That apprehension and offense are exhibited in many insulting ways to law-abiding blacks — for example, jewelers keeping their displays locked and store clerks giving extra surveillance to black shoppers.
White people and police officers cannot fix this or other problems of the black community. If blacks do not fix them, they will not be fixed, at least in a pleasing way.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams010516.php3#PMdhO45PXHpkvcR3.99
The Delusional Self-Importance of the Liberal Media
By David Limbaugh
I have long marveled at liberals' air of superiority and lack of self-reflection, which have always been particularly evident among liberal media elites and journalists. They tend to view themselves as sacrosanct and above scrutiny.
Perhaps this attitude sprang from the British and, later, American tradition that the press is the Fourth Estate. It doesn't just serve to inform the people and make them better contributors to the democratic process. It is the virtual fourth branch of government, operating as a watchdog on the formal branches to further check their potential abuses of power.
It is a heady concept to believe you function to keep the powerful in check. It is even more so when no one has ever told you that you, too, need to be kept in check. As a result, some journalists seem to believe that what they do is so important that nothing will deter them from ambitiously exposing to the public every titillating morsel of information, even if that information might unnecessarily harm people or the national interest. To some of the most self-righteous among them, catering to the public's "right to know" is like an unbending religious ritual that transcends every other value in the universe and justifies the vomiting of all information, no matter its actual value to the public or its likelihood of gratuitously harming others.
If you've ever watched a panel interview of major-network talking heads, you have heard their professions that they have a crucial role in keeping our government honest. That's fine as far as it goes, but it is rarely tempered by humility and an awareness that they, too, are capable of corruption and vulnerable to the trappings of power. They are astonished that anyone would ever question their noble character and honorable intentions. It is as if they are saying, "As to the dissemination of news, we are gods, and gods do not need oversight."
You could especially see their indignation at the rise of the alternative media — e.g., conservative talk radio, Fox News Channel, blogs, other Internet news sources and conservative speech on a variety of social media platforms. Surely, you've seen some of the major news media figures of yesteryear shaking their heads in consternation over the lack of proper journalistic processes in the alternative media, which, they contend, has resulted in sloppy and biased reporting.
It has amazed me to witness their delusional self-assessment. For all of their puffery, it was their own arrogance, bias, corruption, sloppiness and unfairness that led to the rise of the alternative media. Despite their nearly monolithic liberal views, the mainstream media figures truly believed their own work was above reproach.
They've neither been chastened nor learned from the rise of their competition, which could be clearly seen in a recent exchange between CNN's Brian Stelter and Donald Trump's national spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson. Stelter tried to shame Pierson into admitting that Trump's attack on the media's honesty was misguided and destructive.
Kudos to Pierson for adeptly dismantling her smug CNN interrogator. No matter what you think about Trump, she put on a clinic on how to turn the tables on liberal media bullies. One of the many reasons Trump is resonating is that he refuses to be bullied by political correctness, the political establishment and the media. He has provided a template for fighting back, and his spokeswoman put it into practice in that exchange. She refused to accept Stelter's false premises about Trump's alleged misbehavior and "factual inaccuracy" and instead redirected the discussion to media bias and dishonesty, putting Stelter on the defensive and often leaving him sputtering.
The clincher, however, was Stelter's last line of questions. He said it really worries him that by claiming the media are dishonest, Trump and others are "helping to erode trust in the press. The Fourth Estate, of course, is the press. So don't you think that might contribute to America being less great?"
I'm tempted to say that I couldn't believe my ears. But truthfully, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make here. Stelter might as well have just said outright that he believes the liberal media are special, indispensable and above scrutiny.
What he obviously doesn't grasp is that the media's role as government watchdog doesn't exempt it from accountability for its own excesses and abuses. After all, the three branches of government aren't beyond scrutiny just because they keep one another in check. And the media are no less vulnerable than the government to the trappings of power and to corruption and abuse. That's why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so vital to our system.
The First Amendment doesn't just apply to an elite group of print and broadcast media outlets, as much as those elitists seem to wish it did. It applies to every American citizen and every media institution, including conservative talk radio, Fox News and other alternative media sources.
The takeaway here is that in their heart of hearts, many in the liberal media champion free speech not across the board but selectively, to ensure the unbalanced dissemination of their own biased viewpoint. This is why they are so threatened by the advent of the alternative media, why they and their liberal colleagues in government are forever trying to invoke the Fairness Doctrine to suppress alternative viewpoints, and why almost all efforts to suppress speech in this country come from the political left.
Don't be fooled by the liberal media's phony protests about their essential role in preserving good and honest government, because it is not honest government they seek but one that advances their shared liberal agenda.
Whatever we do, let's make sure we fight vigorously and incessantly to guarantee the robust dissemination of freedom of speech and freedom of the press for every person and institution that chooses to exercise these rights. This is the best check against abuses by government officials and also those by the media.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh010516.php3#GmB4GYFh7WsvbWHU.99
Complicating the Obvious
By Thomas Sowell
Engineers who design computerized products and services seem to have an almost fanatical determination to avoid using plain English.
It is understandable when complicated processes require complicated operations. But when the very simplest things are designed with needless complications or murky instructions, that is something else.
For example, like all sorts of other devices, computers and computerized products and services have to be turned on and off. And everybody knows what the words "on" and "off" mean. But how often have you seen a computer or a computerized product or service that used the words "on" or "off"?
These simple and obvious words are avoided like the plague on many electronic devices — and this is symptomatic of a mindset that creates bigger problems with other operations. It is as if using words that everybody understands is beneath the dignity of a high tech product.
Often "power" is substituted for "on" and all sorts of words or symbols are substituted for "off." A laptop computer of mine had an unidentified symbol on the screen, and only after you clicked on that symbol did another symbol appear, with some words indicating where you could turn the computer off.
Designers of many electronic products do not condescend to use words at all. There is just an array of symbols or buttons that you can either guess what they mean or else dig into a thick book of instructions and search for explanations, much like a pioneer trying to find his way in the wilderness.
My cell phone is a classic example. It does not have a single word blemishing its gleaming surface, except for the name of the manufacturer and the name of the phone company. There is ample room for words like "on" or "off" but nothing so pedestrian is allowed to upset the design.
For people who spend hours every day talking on their cell phone, no doubt it is easy enough to remember how to turn it on and off. But, those of us who have a life to live, and work to do, cannot spend our time yakking it up with all and sundry. We may keep a cell phone on hand just for emergencies — and months can go by without using it, or a year or more in my case.
But when there is an emergency, that is no time to have to dig into an instruction booklet, in order to do something as simple as making a phone call. Nor are these instruction booklets always models of clarity. Too often they reflect the same mindset as the devices they describe. Plain and simple words are avoided whenever there is some fancy, murky or esoteric word that can be used instead.
All sorts of things are computerized these days, and the same preference for murkiness often prevails in their design.
After I bought a minivan, everything seemed to go well until I found myself running out of gas. After pulling into a filling station, I wanted to open the cover of the fuel tank — and saw nothing among the forest of anonymous control buttons and levers that would open the fuel tank.
There was nothing to do but get out the 300-page instruction book. However, nothing in the table of contents or the index had any such pedestrian word as "fuel" or "gas." Eventually — and it seemed like an eternity at the time — I finally stumbled across something in the instruction book that revealed the secret identity of the lever that opened the fuel tank.
There was ample space on the lever for 4 letters for "fuel" or 3 letters for "gas."
There is a certain newspaper whose outstanding editorials I read every day, usually on my iPad in the morning, since I don't get the paper edition until evening. At one time, it was equally simple to find the editorials in either edition. In the paper edition I just opened the editorial page, and on the iPad I simply clicked on the word "editorial" and the editorials appeared. But then electronic "improvement" reared its ugly head.
In the new electronic version, all kinds of items are grouped under all kinds of titles — none of these titles including "editorials." After plowing through a long list of items, I discovered the new alias for editorials. It was "Issues and Insights."
I wish someone would issue some insights to engineers designing computerized products and services.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010616.php3#GyLD7fe4tpqwtrmm.99
Taking stock; outrageous media
By Cal Thomas
Taking stock is a tradition observed by Jews at Yom Kippur and others who examine their lives at the end of a year and vow to improve in the new year.
One group needs to take stock perhaps more than any other: the mainstream media. They continue to lose readers and viewers, but close their eyes and ears to complaints from the public, guaranteeing continued decline in revenue, along with buyouts and layoffs.
So many of the big media outlets have become predictable and one-dimensional that if I didn't have to pay attention, I wouldn't. The New York Times, which fancies itself the "paper of record," is an ideological broken record. The Times and the broadcast networks are mostly toadies for the secular progressive left.
The conservative Media Research Center has compiled some of the more outrageous statements made during 2015 in its annual list of "Notable Quotables." Disclosure: I was one of the judges.
My personal favorite comes from Dick Meyer, the Washington Bureau chief for Scripps Howard newspapers and a former producer for CBS News. In a July 16 op-ed for a publication called "Decode," Meyer wrote of his admiration for President Obama: "Americans are lucky to have Barack Obama as president and we should wake up and appreciate it while we can. President Obama will go down in history as an extraordinary president, probably a great one. ... It would be a morale booster and a sign of civic maturity if more Americans appreciated what an exceptional president they have right now. It could be a long wait for the next one."
I'm sure Meyer would say his personal feelings about the president have nothing to do with his journalistic equanimity when it comes to reporting. That's not what the public thinks, as trust of the big media remains at an all-time low.
Opinion columnists are given more latitude than reporters, but when a newspaper like The Washington Post carries mostly liberal commentators who have been in the tank for President Obama and appear eager to back Hillary Clinton in the next election, one might credibly conclude there is a pattern.
Writing in his April 8 Post column, Harold Myerson offered his view of the Republican Party: "Fueled by the mega-donations of the mega-rich, today's Republican Party is not just far from being the party of Lincoln: It's really the party of Jefferson Davis. It suppresses black voting; it opposes federal efforts to mitigate poverty; it objects to federal investment in infrastructure and education just as the antebellum South opposed internal improvements and rejected public education; it scorns compromise. It is nearly all white. It is the lineal descendant of Lee's army, and the descendants of Grant's have yet to subdue it."
Let's all run to the closet and grab our sheets for the next Ku Klux Klan meeting.
Perhaps the biggest laugher of all comes from the far-left New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. In an interview with Ezra Klein for Vox.com, Krugman said: "As a Times columnist, I can't do endorsements, so you have no idea which party I favor in general elections."
Oh really? I might be willing to pay a year of Krugman's rent or mortgage if he could prove he ever voted for a conservative Republican, or if he could point to one in the newsroom.
There are many other examples such as these that you can read at mrc.org.
As a longtime member of the media, I do not wish to see a profession I love destroyed, but not only are these people in denial about what is happening to them, they appear uninterested in discovering the cause for their decline and then correcting it. That should be sufficient reason to take stock at the end of this year, but I fear that as in other years, the big media will push blindly ahead until the last person must symbolically turn out the lights, and democracy suffers for want of a vibrant press that more people can trust.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas123115.php3#k4htVwi24p6itXlp.99
By John Stossel
What might have happened if a few of the 1,500 concert attendees in Paris' Bataclan theater had guns? The terrorists had time to kill, reload and kill again. The police unit didn't come for more than a half hour. If a few people in the theater were armed, might they have killed the killers?
We'll never know.
France's guns laws say you may not carry a gun unless police certify that you are "exposed to exceptional risks of harm" to your life. Few people even bother to apply.
Fortunately, in America, laws in every state now allow adults to carry guns. Some predicted this would lead to more crime, but the opposite happened. Crime is down.
Yet some towns, such as Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City, where I live, still make it nearly impossible for people to legally carry a gun.
I know because I tried to get a license.
People sometimes threaten me. One made a "Kill John Stossel" website. So I'd like the option of carrying a gun to protect myself.
First, I had to read and say I understood 50 pages of New York weapons laws and fill out a 17-page form. We had to call the police department six times just to clarify what questions meant.
Then I had to go to police headquarters in person. They fingerprinted me and told me to list reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun.
Gun instructor Glenn Herman says the bureaucracy is intentional. New York politicians want "to deter people from following through the process, which can take a year."
It took me eight and a half months. That included returning for another in-person interview.
This time, they told me that they'd discovered an old lawsuit against me and said I couldn't get a permit unless it had been "resolved." I explained that it had been dropped. They wanted "proof." I showed them a New York Times story that reported that the case was dropped. They told me that wasn't sufficient; I had to produce original court documents.
They also told me I had to "document" threats against me. The "Kill John Stossel" website and other Internet threats weren't sufficient, they said, because I hadn't reported them to the police at the time.
Fifty-two days later, they sent me a letter — rejecting my application. They said I "failed to demonstrate a special need."
But why must I show a "special need"? The Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
The court allowed cities to impose reasonable regulation. But New York's leftist politicians have strange ideas about what's reasonable.
Gun instructor Herman told me that I applied "the wrong way." Permits routinely go to "friends of the ruling class," he says. "Everyone else is out of luck." Sure enough, I notice that Donald Trump, Howard Stern and Robert De Niro got permits.
I wish bureaucrats worried more about what can happen when people don't have guns.
Mass killers often deliberately target gun-free zones. Criminals don't care about breaking rules — but they know their potential victims will probably follow the rules and be unarmed. According to the U.N., the nation of Mali, where terrorists killed 20 people in a hotel, has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world.
Back in the U.S., people with guns often do stop violent criminals.
When Andrew Wurst killed a teacher at a middle school dance and shot at other people for 20 minutes, it wasn't cops who got him to stop. It was the owner of the banquet hall pulling out his shotgun. People use guns to ward off criminals all the time. Often just showing the gun is enough to stop the crime.
Criminals themselves seem to understand this better than anti-gun activists do. A survey of convicted felons found that half said they fear armed private citizens more than they fear cops.
Guns make some people uncomfortable, but so what? As gun ownership skyrockets, America's crime rate continues to fall.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1115/stossel112515.php3#IjvjmZkjpC7MRLMe.99
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton --- Tough Feminist Hawk or Feminine Victim?
By David Limbaugh
Hillary Clinton has now learned what some of Donald Trump's GOP rivals have discovered about him: You won't attack him with impunity, and you'd better not be vulnerable on the very same issue.
Trump used colorful language to describe Barack Obama's trouncing of Clinton in 2008 and also disparagingly referred to her prolonged bathroom break during the most recent Democratic presidential debate.
Trump's tactics and choice of language aside, Clinton clearly miscalculated her response, thinking that she could both brush Trump back and score points on his back by invoking the gender card. But you don't succeed against someone by attacking the very practice that has elevated him to the top — in this case his skewering of political correctness.
With no more sincerity than when she pathetically lapsed into African-American dialect in a black church some time ago, Clinton opportunistically exclaimed, "I really deplore the tone of his campaign and the inflammatory rhetoric that he is using to divide people and his going after groups of people with hateful, incendiary rhetoric."
As if that weren't enough, Clinton added, "His bigotry, his bluster, his bullying have become his campaign." In a later interview, Clinton continued to pile on, saying Trump has a "penchant for sexism."
I needn't defend Trump's choice of words here, but I will say that I don't believe he uttered them out of sexism or out of hatred. Trump, in my view, often uses provocative language against his opponents to get under their skin and to further prove that he will not kowtow to political correctness. That is what Trump was doing to Clinton — and it worked.
Clinton fell right into Trump's trap. By accusing Trump of sexism, she opened herself wide to his counter-counter, and he was ready. He happily threw that back in her face, citing husband Bill Clinton's undeniable penchant for sexism, which, by the way, Hillary Clinton grossly and persistently enabled — for example, with her ruthless handling of the famed "bimbo eruptions."
Hillary Clinton also accused the big, bad, mean, powerful, Putin-approved billionaire of bigotry and bullying. One would think that such a politically ambitious woman with ready access to the wisest political advice money can buy would appreciate the risk in her playing the gender card while trying to project an image of toughness and strength. Does it not occur to Clinton that there's an embarrassing contradiction in portraying herself as a hypersensitive, weak and vulnerable woman while holding herself out as our enemies' worst nightmare?
It's silly enough for her to think she can score points against Trump for allegedly bullying her but downright delusional to expect that those points will accrue to her benefit when national security is foremost on Americans' minds. Clinton is supposed to be the hawkish Democrat, remember? How many hawks do you know who are preoccupied with chivalrous men bending over to pick up their handkerchiefs?
Isn't the modern feminist's agenda to impose gender neutrality — to make it taboo to suggest there is any difference between men and women in any way, especially in their respective abilities to handle difficult workplace or political challenges? Of course that's what they want, except when it serves their interest to have it both ways.
Remember when Clinton and her handlers went ballistic when Rick Lazio, her Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate seat in New York, "invaded her space" on the debate stage? Clinton pretended to be mortified. Uber-feminist Clinton was reduced to "I am woman. Hear me roar, but don't you dare roar back. Don't even look at me crossways."
But in Clinton's case, there isn't an ounce of sincerity in her protests of sexism. With all due respect, she does not exude femininity on her softest day, and I don't believe for a second she's offended by Trump's comments any more than she was by Lazio's innocuous gestures. She is simply a political animal who will use whatever tools she has on any given day — hoping we'll forget what she did the previous day.
Apart from her bogus invocation of the gender card, we must also note that her counterattacks, some delivered by surrogates, were way more over-the-top than anything Donald Trump said. Clinton ally Ellen Tauscher said: "We are watching The Donald melt down. His racist, sexist, xenophobic rants are now wearing on people generally." It is a bit rich for Clinton and her gaggle of harridans to complain about Trump's scatological remarks and then turn around and accuse him of the worst kind of isms and phobias.
There is no chance Clinton will gain ground against Trump with this charade, but there is a real risk she'll do lasting damage to her coveted mystical image as a competent future commander in chief.
For my fellow Republicans concerned about all the GOP infighting going on, perhaps you can gain some solace in Clinton's penchant for unforced errors.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh122915.php3#DsofhlvLutqfZh6O.99
Happy New Year!
Goodbye to 2015, a year of absurdity and overreach
By George Will
E.B. White reportedly said "the most beautiful sound in America" is "the tinkle of ice at twilight." In 2015's twilight, fortify yourself with something 90 proof as you remember this year in which:
We learned that a dismal threshold has been passed. The value of property that police departments seized through civil asset forfeiture — usually without accusing, let alone convicting, the property owners of a crime — exceeded the value of property stolen by nongovernment burglars.
The attorney general of New York, which reaps billions from gambling — casinos, off-track betting, the state lottery — moved to extinguish (competition from) fantasy football because it is gambling. Florida police raided a mahjong game played by four women aged between 87 and 95 because they allegedly were playing the game for money.
A Michigan woman was fingerprinted, had her mug shot taken and was jailed until released on bond because she was late in renewing the $10 license for her dog. New Jersey police arrested a 72-year-old retired teacher, chained his hands and feet to a bench and charged him with illegally carrying a firearm — a 300-year-old flintlock pistol (with no powder, flint or ball) he purchased from an antique dealer.
The University of Georgia said sexual consent must be "voluntary, sober, imaginative, enthusiastic, creative, wanted, informed, mutual, honest." Imaginative consent? Connecting climate change to sex, the National Bureau of Economic Research warned that hot weather leads to diminished sexual activity.
Elsewhere in "settled science," the government's dietary rules were revised, somewhat rehabilitating red meat, sodium, eggs and other good stuff. Undaunted, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee produced a 571-page report calling for "bold action" and "dramatic paradigm shifts" until mother-hen government yet again says, "Well, never mind."
Since federal food police dictated changes in school lunch programs, food tossed in the trash is up 56 percent, salt shakers are being smuggled into schools, and there are black markets in potato chips.
The Internal Revenue Service persecutes conservative advocacy groups but does not prosecute IRS employees who are tax cheats: An audit revealed that over the past decade, the IRS fired only 400 of the 1,580 employees who deliberately violated tax laws, rather than the 100 percent required by law.
New York's City Council honored the "bravery" of Ethel Rosenberg, the executed traitor who spied for Stalin. Declaring her candidacy, Hillary Clinton said she will fight for, among many others, "truckers who drive for hours." Yes, hours . Elsewhere, she rejected the presumption of innocence, a.k.a. due process: Those alleging sexual assault have "the right to be believed," which she did not believe when her husband was the accused.
A 9-year-old Florida fourth-grader was threatened with sexual harassment charges if he continued to write love notes telling the apple of his eye that her eyes sparkle "like diamonds."
A Texas 9-year-old was suspended for saying his magic ring could make people disappear. A young girl was sent home with a censorious note from her school because her Wonder Woman lunchbox violated the school ban on depictions of "violent characters."
An Oregon eighth-grader, whose brother served in Iraq, was suspended for wearing a T-shirt that depicted an empty pair of boots representing soldiers killed in action. The school said the shirt was "not appropriate."
A Tennessee boy was threatened with suspension from elementary school because he came to school with a military-style haircut like that of his stepbrother, a soldier. A government arbitrator prevented the firing of a New Jersey elementary school teacher who was late to school 111 times in two years.
A suburban Washington high school promoted self-esteem by naming 117 valedictorians out of a class of 457. Two Edina, Minn., elementary schools hired "recess consultants" to minimize "conflict" — children saying "Hey, you're out!" rather than "Nice try!" The principal of a San Francisco middle school withheld the results of student elections that did not produce properly "diverse" results.
When some deep thinkers in academia decided that yoga, like ethnic food, constitutes "cultural appropriation," a clear thinker wondered whether offended cultures would send back our polio vaccines. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni reported that 48 of the top 52 liberal arts colleges and universities do not require English majors to take a Shakespeare course.
This list of 2015 ludicrousness could be lengthened indefinitely, but enough already. The common thread is the collapse of judgment in, and the infantilization of society by, government. Happier New Year.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will123115.php3#eHCMb05QM8kScOsP.99
By John Stossel
Terrorism! Crime! Deadly storms! Hillary Clinton!
We reporters focus on bad news, but at year's end, let's remember what went right. 2015 was a better time to be alive than most any prior point in history.
The rich got richer. Some people think that's a problem, but why? Do rich people sit on their piles of money and cackle about how rich they are? Do they build giant houses that damage the environment? Well, they sometimes do.
But mostly they invest, hoping to get richer still. Those investments create jobs and better products and make most everyone else richer. Even if the rich leave money in banks, banks lend it to people who put it to productive use.
Sure, income inequality has grown — but so what? The rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor. Poor people's income grew 48 percent over the past 35 years. Bernie Sanders says that "the middle class is disappearing!" But that's mainly because many middle-class people moved into the upper class. Middle class incomes grew 40 percent over the past 30 years.
This year we heard more horror stories about bad schools and students who don't learn. But take heart: Seven more states passed education choice legislation.
That means more students can opt out of bad schools and pick better ones, and over the long haul competing schools will have to get better at what they do. That will lead to a brighter future for all students — and for society, which will benefit from their improved skills.
In 2015, two more states and Washington, D.C., legalized marijuana. Authorities are always reluctant to give up control, but gradually the end of the expensive, destructive and futile drug war will come.
Meanwhile, real crime — violence and thefts — continue to fall. We cover horrible mass shootings and spikes in crime in cities like Baltimore and St. Louis, but overall, crime is down — over the past 20 years, down by about half.
Unfortunately, terrorism has increased — mainly because of ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, there are far fewer deaths from war and terror than there were 30 years ago, and in America, the odds of you or your family being killed by a terrorist are infinitesimal compared to disease, accidents and a thousand more-ordinary threats.
Marriage is good for civilization. This year the Supreme Court declared that gay people may get married. Government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, since marriage is a contract between individuals, but if it's going to wade into that issue, it's better to have one clear rule instead of ugly ongoing fights about it.
Ending the political squabble means we can all go back to minding our own business and worrying about our own marriages.
In 2015, women in Saudi Arabia got to vote.
More countries elected leaders, rather than inheriting them.
The picture isn't all rosy. As I mentioned, terrorism is up. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on track to lead America into bankruptcy. We have eternal problems like hunger and disease.
But even those "eternal" problems are closer to being solved than they used to be.
Thanks to better vaccines, 6 million fewer children under the age of 5 die each year compared to 30 years ago.
Twenty-five years ago, 2 billion people lived in extreme poverty — that meant surviving on about a dollar a day, often with little access to basic needs like water and food. "Experts" predicted that number would rise as the population grew. Happily, thanks to the power of free markets, they were wrong. In the space of a generation, half the people most in need in the world were rescued.
Ten percent of the world's people still live in dire poverty, but the trend is clear: Where there is rule of law and individual freedom, humanity is better off. As Marian Tupy of HumanProgress.org puts it, "Away from the front pages of our newspapers and television, billions of people go about their lives unmolested, enjoying incremental improvements that make each year better than the last."
So enjoy it. Happy New Year!
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1215/stossel123015.php3#weCyxJKX5kpiOlFR.99
Misleading and Using Blacks
By Walter Williams
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ran headlong into the leftist meat grinder by questioning whether college admission of blacks with academic achievement levels significantly lower than the rest of the student body is beneficial to blacks. His question came up during oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, wherein the court will rule whether the use of race in college admission decisions violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens.
Justice Scalia's questions generated news headlines such as "Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at 'Slower' Colleges," "Scalia questions place of some black students in elite colleges" and "Scalia and the misguided 'mismatch' theory." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said, "It is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation's highest court."
The issue for black parents is not whether their sons and daughters should be admitted to an elite college or one that is lower-ranked. The issue is whether their sons and daughters should be admitted to a college where they would not be admitted if they were white. The question for black parents and black people is: Which better serves our interests, a black student's being admitted to an elite college and winding up in the bottom of his class or flunking out or a black student's being admitted to a less prestigious college and performing just as well as his white peers? I would opt for a black student's doing well and graduating from a less prestigious college.
Think of it this way. Suppose you asked, "Williams, would you teach my son how to box?" I say yes, and after your son wins a few amateur matches, I set him up with a match against an elite boxer like Mike Tyson or Lennox Lewis. Your son may have the potential to be a world-class boxer, but he is going to get his brains beaten out and have his career ended before he learns how to bob and weave.
It's the same with any student — black or white. Pupils are less likely to succeed if they are placed in a fast-paced academic environment where their academic achievement levels do not begin to match those of their peers. Such students would have a greater chance of success in a slower-paced, less competitive environment, one more in tune with their preparation and where they might receive more personal help.
My recommendation to black parents is: Do not enroll your children in a college where their SAT score is 200 or more points below the average of that college. Keep in mind that students are not qualified or unqualified in any absolute sense. The nation has more than 4,800 colleges, meaning there's a college for most anybody.
There are beneficiaries from admitting black students with little chance of performing at the level of other students. They are college presidents, administrators and campus liberals. Whether blacks graduate or have been steered into useless "Mickey Mouse" courses is irrelevant. Government race overseers are only counting colors. College administrators win kudos for achieving and celebrating "diversity," not to mention the fact that they can keep government higher-education handouts.
Another group of beneficiaries is composed of black staff and faculty who are hired and create campus fiefdoms with big budgets based on the presence of black students. The number of black students enrolled is the key, not the number who graduate or wind up in useless "Mickey Mouse" courses or in the bottom of their classes. In fact, there is an element of perversity. The greater the number of blacks who are on academic probation or do not graduate the more justified are calls for greater budgets for academic support and student retention programs.
I have been asked: If elite colleges do not create lower admission standards, how are they going to have enough black students? My response is: That's their problem. Black people cannot afford to have our youngsters turned into failures in order to support the agendas of diversity race hustlers and to lessen the guilt of white liberals.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams123015.php3#hLQbjFtwjeOxG1Mq.99
By Thomas Sowell
How shall we remember 2015? Or shall we try to forget it?
It is always hard to know when a turning point has been reached, and usually it is long afterwards before we recognize it. However, if 2015 has been a turning point, it may well have marked a turn in a downward direction for America and for Western civilization.
This was the year when we essentially let the world know that we were giving up any effort to try to stop Iran — the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism — from getting a nuclear bomb. Surely it does not take much imagination to foresee what lies at the end of that road.
It will not matter if we have more nuclear bombs than they have, if they are willing to die and we are not. That can determine who surrenders. And ISIS and other terrorists have given us grisly demonstrations of what surrender would mean.
Putting aside, for the moment, the fateful question whether 2015 is a turning point, what do we see when we look back instead of looking forward? What characterizes the year that is now ending?
More than anything else, 2015 has been the year of the big lie. There have been lies in other years, and some of them pretty big, but even so 2015 has set new highs — or new lows.
This is the year when we learned, from Hillary Clinton's own e-mails, after three long years of stalling, stone-walling and evasions, that Secretary of State Clinton lied, and so did President Barack Obama and others under him, when they all told us in 2012 that the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the American ambassador and three other Americans was not a terrorist attack, but a protest demonstration that got out of hand.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" as Mrs. Clinton later melodramatically cried out, at a Congressional committee hearing investigating that episode.
First of all, it made enough of a difference for some of the highest officials of American government to concoct a false story that they knew at the time was false.
It mattered enough that, if the truth had come out, on the eve of a presidential election, it could have destroyed Barack Obama's happy tale of how he had dealt a crippling blow to terrorists by killing Usama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy's SEALS).
Had Obama's lies about his triumph over terrorism been exposed on the eve of the election, that could have ended his stay in the White House. And that could have spared us and the world many of Obama's disasters in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. That is why it matters, and will continue to matter in the future.
Lying, by itself, is obviously not new. What is new is the growing acceptance of lying as "no big deal" by smug sophisticates, so long as these are lies that advance their political causes. Many in the media greeted the exposure of Hillary Clinton's lies by admiring how well she handled herself.
Lies are a wall between us and reality — and being walled off from reality is the biggest deal of all. Reality does not disappear because we don't see it. It just hits us like a ton of bricks when we least expect it.
The biggest lie of 2014 — "Hands up, don't shoot" — had its repercussions in 2015, with the open advocacy of the killing of policemen, in marches across the country. But the ambush killings of policemen that followed aroused no such outrage in the media as any police use of force against thugs.
Nor has there been the same outrage as the murder rate shot up when the police pulled back, as they have in the past, in the wake of being scapegoated by politicians and the media. Most of the people murdered have been black. But apparently these particular black lives don't matter much to activists and the media.
No one expects that lies will disappear from political rhetoric. If you took all the lies out of politics, how much would be left?
If there is anything that is bipartisan in Washington, it is lying. The most recent budget deal showed that Congressional Republicans lied wholesale when they said that they would defund Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other pet projects of the Democrats.
As for 2015, good riddance. We can only hope that people who vote in 2016 will have learned something from 2015's disasters.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122915.php3#to5i1W0CEOFWgVoI.99
Secrets of the Hillary chronicles
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump's tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the government's efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Mrs. Clinton as the likely target.
The basic facts are well known, but the revealed nuances are important, as well. When the State Department responded to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by telling Judicial Watch that it had no emails from Mrs. Clinton, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. When the State Department made the same representation to the court — as incredible as it seemed at the time — the judge accepted that representation, and the case was dismissed.
Then The New York Times revealed that Mrs. Clinton used a private email server instead of the government's server for all of her work-related and personal emails during her four years as secretary of state. After that, the Judicial Watch FOIA case was reinstated, and then the judge in the case demanded of State that it produce Mrs. Clinton's emails.
When Judicial Watch expressed frustration to the judge about the pace at which it was getting emails, the judge ordered Mrs. Clinton, "under penalty of perjury," to certify that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department.
Eventually, Mrs. Clinton did certify to the court that she did surrender all of her governmental emails to the State Department. She did so by sending paper copies of selected emails, because she had wiped clean her server. She acknowledged that she decided which emails were personal and which were selected as governmental and returned the governmental ones to the State Department. She has denied steadfastly and consistently that she ever sent or received any materials marked "classified" while secretary of state using her private server.
All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails — metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government — she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies — hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.
This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office — though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State — because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)
Mrs. Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue — her own server — and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked "classified" is that protected government secrets are not marked "classified."
So her statement, though technically true, is highly misleading. The governmental designations of protected secrets are "confidential," "secret" and "top secret" — not "classified." State Department investigators have found 999 emails sent or received by Mrs. Clinton in at least one of those three categories of protected secrets.
Back when Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state, on her first day in office, she had an hourlong FBI briefing on the proper and lawfully required care of government secrets. She signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that she knew the law and that it is the content of emails, not any stamped markings, that makes them secret.
Earlier this week, my Fox News colleagues confirmed the certain presence of top-secret materials among the 999 emails. Intelligence from foreign sources or about foreign governments is always top secret, whether designated as such or not. And she knows that.
As well, she may have committed perjury in the FOIA case. When the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in its investigation of her role in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, gathered emails, it found emails she did not surrender to the State Department.
Last week, the State Department released emails that give the FBI more areas to investigate. These emails may show a pattern of official behavior by Mrs. Clinton designed to benefit the financial interests of her family's foundation, her husband and her son-in-law. Moreover, the FBI knows of a treasure-trove of documents that may demonstrate that the Clinton Foundation skirted the law and illegally raised and spent contributions.
Two months ago, a group of FBI agents sat around a conference table and reviewed the evidence gathered thus far. Each agent was given the opportunity to make or detract from the case for moving forward. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the group to pursue a criminal investigation.
And Mrs. Clinton is the likely target.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1215/napolitano121715.php3#jBLmrm26zGoKOhgT.99
If a president keeps us safe but unfree, he is simply not doing his job
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
As if to promise a Christmas present, Congress has just finished approving the finances of the federal government for the next few months. Santa Claus would have done a better job. During early 2016, Congress will pay the government's bills by borrowing money from individual and institutional lenders. Those folks will lend the feds all the money the feds need because the law requires the feds to pay them back.
The "pay them back" ideology is a very curious one. It is true that the full faith and credit of the federal government guarantees the payment of the government's debts. Without that lawfully binding guarantee, who would lend money to an institution that carries a debt of $18.8 trillion? So the investors who have lent money to the feds know that their debts will be repaid in a timely manner.
Because the federal government spends $1.5 trillion more annually than it collects in taxes and other revenue and because its payments of interest alone on the money it has borrowed will soon be about $1 trillion a year, it can only repay its debts by borrowing more money.
Since 1911, the federal government has not repaid a debt from tax revenue. It has always borrowed more money to pay its lenders. This is known to economists as rolling over the debt.
President Woodrow Wilson — who gave us a racially segregated military and federal civilian workforce, brought us into the horrific and useless World War I, arrested Americans for singing German beer hall songs in public, campaigned for the federal income tax by promising it would never exceed 3 percent of income, helped to create the cash-printing Federal Reserve, laid the groundwork for Prohibition, and kept Jim Crow going — borrowed $30 billion to pay for World War I. That money was borrowed from investors and from the Federal Reserve, which in those days literally printed the cash that it lent.
The $30 billion that Wilson borrowed was repaid by the feds with borrowed dollars. And the folks who lent the feds those dollars were in turn repaid with borrowed dollars. That inflationary cycle has been repeated countless times since all this borrowing from Peter to pay Paul became the financing method of choice for the feds.
As a result of this, the federal government still owes the $30 billion that Wilson borrowed, but it owes it — obviously — to different lenders from those who originally financed the Great War. It has paid more than $15 billion in interest payments on that $30 billion.
Who could run a household or a business the way the feds have run the government in the past 100 years?
As we approach a presidential election year, the federal financing-by-borrowing scheme is seen as a standard operating procedure by all the Democratic candidates and by all the Republicans, as well, except for Sen. Rand Paul. He and he alone among the major candidates would have the feds live within their means and stop the vicious circle that Wilson began.
He understands that government has limits. Those limits are written down in the Constitution. He recognizes, as his competitors do not, that the government simply cannot morally or constitutionally right any wrong, regulate any behavior, borrow any amount, or tax any event as long as it can politically get away with it. When it does, we end up with war and debt.
Whenever you hear a presidential candidate proclaiming that the first job of the president is to keep America safe, challenge that absurdity. Invite that candidate to read the Constitution, which lays out the jobs of the president — the principal of which is to keep us free and safe. If a president keeps us safe but unfree, he is simply not doing his job. Only Sen. Paul has made that argument.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1215/napolitano122415.php3#22mVoMUvAePSzgVZ.99
Why Don't Republicans Identify What They Are Fighting?
By Dennis Prager
American conservatives are rightfully annoyed with the Obama administration, and Democrats generally, for refusing to name radical Islam or Islamism as the major source of terror.
When Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood ,the administration refused to label the mass murder — committed by a Muslim in the name of Islam — an act of Islamist terror, or even terror at all. Instead it was officially declared a "workplace shooting."
And when President Obama convened an international conference on terror, he refused to include the word "terror" or any form of the word "Islamist" in the title. Instead the conference — which took place a month after the Islamists' massacre of the Charlie Hebdo writers and editors and Jews at a Paris shop — was ridiculously named "The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism."
But conservatives and Republicans do the same thing. They, too, almost never identify what they are fighting — namely, leftism and the left. (Note to left-wing websites that monitor conservative writings: This is not a comparison of the left with Islamic terrorists; it is about not naming an ideological foe.)
Republicans — from the highest ranking politicians to rank and file members of the party — fight Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and all other Democrats. But they don't fight the left and leftism.
The implication is that if only we could defeat this or that Democrat, we would be on our way to a much better America.
But it's not true. If extraterrestrials came to our planet and absconded with every Democrat holding office from Barack Obama down to every Democratic city councilman in America, nothing would change. Other Democrats with the same left-wing views would take their place.
Leftism is ruining America. But almost no Republican ever — let alone repeatedly — says this.
The universities of this country have become a laughingstock. They have degenerated into anti-intellectual, anti-Western, anti-rational institutions with their ludicrous "safe spaces," trigger warnings that infantilize students, and all the lies about the racism and a rape culture that allegedly pervade the campuses and American society.
What is responsible for that? Leftism.
According to Pew Research, 40 percent of millennials do not believe in the principal of freedom of speech if the speech might hurt the feelings of a member of a minority group.
What is responsible for that? Leftism.
Why did Islamic State rise in Iraq after that country had been pacified by American troops and the Sunni uprising? Because a leftist president, the left-wing Democratic Party, and the left-wing media demanded a complete American withdrawal from Iraq.
Why are race relations worse than in living memory despite the election and re-election of black president? Because of the left-wing lies about "systemic" racism. Because of the left-wing "Ferguson" lie, repeated regularly by the president of the United States, as if an innocent "unarmed black teenager" was killed by a white policeman because the teen was black and not because he was threatening the life of the officer. Because of the absurdity of "microaggressions," those lists of often noble statements — such as "there is only one race, the human race" — that the left characterizes as racist.
Why is it harder to open and sustain a small business than at any time in American history? Because of the left and their endless regulations.
Why do we have the highest national debt in American history? Because the left keeps expanding the size of the government.
Why are more Americans on public assistance than ever before? Because left-wing policies are designed to get more and more Americans dependent on government.
Why are Americans increasingly separated into ethnic, racial and religious identities? Because of the left-wing belief in multiculturalism and the left's neo-fascist emphasis on the importance of race.
Why are more Americans born to women without husbands than ever before? Because, ideologically, the left has determined that children do not need fathers, and because, policy-wise, the left has enabled mothers to depend on the state rather than the man who fathered her children.
Why is the American military weaker and less feared than at anytime in the last 50 years? Because the left doesn't want America to be the strongest country in the world.
In addition to criticizing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Republicans need to tell the American people over and over that the only thing that can stop the further degradation of the United States of America is conservatism and the Republican Party. Because only conservatism and the Republican Party can stop the left.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1215/prager121515.php3#PP5ryYHBbpBD0Vy2.99
Inspector-in-Chief Barack Clouseau
By David Limbaugh
President Obama's reckless neglect of America's national security is a rapidly growing malignancy on this nation, and there are no signs it will get better.
Some might attribute his arrogantly inaccurate assessment of the Islamic State group as "a JV team" or his delusional assertion, on the morning of the terrorist massacre in San Bernardino, California, that the Islamic State is "contained" to personal pride or political posturing. After all, he never admits his policies aren't working, and he is perpetually partisan.
More careful observers, however, see something far more troubling: He simply refuses to inhabit the reality that Islamists are at war with us. Obama is not only in a hermetically sealed bubble on the Islamist threat but also entirely oblivious to the degree to which the majority of Americans disagree with him -- or he outright disrespects their view.
What is his default reaction to every terrorist attack on American soil? Before he even has time to receive, much less analyze, the bulk of the evidence on such an attack, he immediately rushes to the presidential microphone and makes two equally bizarre points: that gun ownership is the principal cause of the attack and that we dare not jump to the conclusion that it was motivated by Islam or perpetrated by Islamists.
In fact, the word on the street is that he relishes these attacks -- and every other mass shooting -- as opportunities to rail against evil guns, their evil owners and their even more evil big-money enablers, such as the National Rifle Association. He is obviously just as adamant to deflect blame from Islamists as he is to blame American gun owners and the gun lobby.
How many times has he lectured Americans on guns after such an attack? How many times has he chided us not to presume it was committed by an Islamist? How many times has he rushed to shame us against jumping to the conclusion that Islamic violence was the culprit and then waxed eloquent about how wonderful Islam is?
His first instinct is to blame, shame and scold Americans, Christians, gun owners and Republicans and then defend Islam while warning us against Islamophobia. He never reassures Americans he recognizes the threat and is taking the important steps needed to combat it.
Just this past weekend -- at a time when Americans are increasingly and rationally nervous about the Islamist threat -- he made some more disturbing statements that should remove all doubt about this mindset.
He audaciously claimed that his strategy to combat the Islamic State is working and that the only problems are that saturated media coverage after the Paris attacks is fueling terror fears in the United States and that he hasn't done enough to communicate his strategy to the people. "We haven't, you know, on a regular basis, I think, described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat" the Islamic State.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh122215.php3#cukLay5zfzJiKRUY.99
Immorality and Contempt for Liberty
By Walter Williams
American immorality and contempt for liberty lie at the root of most of the political economic problems our nation faces. They explain the fiscal problems we face, such as growing national debt and budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels of government. Our immorality and contempt for liberty are reflected most in our widespread belief that government ought to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another American. Let's examine it.
Suppose there is an elderly widow in your neighborhood. She does not have the strength to mow her lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks. Plus she does not have the financial means to hire someone to perform them. Here is my question: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the widow's lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as a fine, property confiscation or imprisonment? I believe and hope that most of my fellow Americans would find such a mandate repulsive. They would rightfully condemn it as a form of slavery, which can also be described as the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Would there be the same condemnation if, instead of forcing one of your neighbors to actually perform the household tasks, your neighbor were forced to fork over $50 of his weekly earnings to the widow? That way, she could hire someone to perform the tasks that she is unable to do. Would that mandate differ from one under which your neighbor is forced to actually perform the household tasks? I'd answer no. Just the mechanism differs for forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
Most Americans would want to help this widow, but they would find anything that openly smacks of servitude or slavery deeply offensive. They would have a clearer conscience if government would use its taxing authority, say an income tax or property tax. A government agency could then send the widow a $50 check to hire someone to mow her lawn and perform other household tasks. This collective mechanism would make the servitude invisible, but it wouldn't change the fact that people are being forcibly used to serve the purposes of others. Putting the money into a government pot simply conceals an act that would otherwise be deemed morally repulsive.
Some might misleadingly argue that we are a democracy, in which the majority rules. But a majority consensus does not make acts that would otherwise be deemed immoral moral. In other words, if the neighbors got a majority vote to force one of their number, under pain of punishment, to perform household tasks for the elderly widow, it would still be immoral. People like to give immoral acts an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding expressions, such as "spreading the wealth," "income redistribution," "caring for the less fortunate" and "the will of the majority."
If one American can use government to force another to serve his purpose, what is the basis for denying another American the right to do the same thing? For example, if farmers are able to use Congress to give them cash for crop subsidies, why should toymakers be denied the right for Congress to give them cash subsidies when their sales slump?
Congress has completely succumbed to the pressure to use one American to serve the purposes of another. As a result, spending grows. Today's federal budget is about $3.8 trillion. At least two-thirds of it can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another.
I personally believe in helping one's fellow man in need. Doing so by reaching into one's own pockets is laudable and praiseworthy. Doing so by reaching into another's pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams122315.php3#1HAYlyXWxX4ZWsv6.99
The Busybody Left
By Thomas Sowell
The political left has been trying to run other people's lives for centuries. So we should not be surprised to see the Obama administration now trying to force neighborhoods across America to have the mix of people the government wants them to have.
There are not enough poor people living in middle class neighborhoods to suit the political left. Not enough blacks in white neighborhoods. Not enough Hispanics here, not enough Asians there.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to dictate such things. But places that do not mix and match people the way Washington wants them to can lose all sorts of federal money they currently receive under numerous programs.
Handing out vast amounts of the taxpayers' money is the way the federal government has expanded its power far beyond the powers granted by the Constitution -- thereby limiting the freedom of individuals, localities and states. Washington is essentially buying up our freedom with our own money, taken in taxes.
What makes this latest political crusade so ridiculous and so dangerous is that people have never been mixed and matched at random, either in the United States or in other countries around the world, or in any period of history.
We can see blacks and whites living in different neighborhoods, but many people who look the same to the naked eye also sort themselves out. Moreover, neither blacks nor whites are living at random within their own respective neighborhoods.
The upscale neighborhood called Sugar Hill in Harlem, where I delivered groceries as a teenager, was very different from the neighborhood where I lived in a tenement.
White neighborhoods also sorted themselves out. A man who grew up in Chicago said, "Tell me a man's last name and I will tell you where he lives." Studies of ethnic concentrations in Chicago have backed up his claim.
Back when the Lower East Side of New York was a predominantly Jewish area during the era of mass immigration from Europe, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in a different part of the Lower East Side from where Polish Jews or Romanian Jews lived. And German Jews lived uptown.
It was the same story in Italian neighborhoods. Immigrants from Rome were not scattered at random among immigrants from Naples or Sicily. Moreover, this was not peculiar to New York.
The same clustering of people from particular parts of Italy could be found in cities across the United States, as well as in Italian communities in Buenos Aires, Toronto, Sydney and other places around the world
The very same pattern could be found among Germans, Chinese, Lebanese and other peoples living in other countries. People of different ages, different incomes or different lifestyles likewise tend to sort themselves out.
Nevertheless the busybody left has launched a political crusade to make communities across America present a tableau that matches the preconceptions of their betters.
Nor are the true believers deterred by the failures and counterproductive consequences of their previous social crusades, such as busing children to distant schools to mix and match them with children from different racial, economic or social backgrounds.
The theory was that this would improve the education of all -- through the magic of "diversity" -- and promote greater understanding among different races and classes. In practice, however, compulsory busing of children to mix and match them produced more racial polarization and more educational problems.
Undaunted by reality, the left moved on to try something similar in the housing markets, by placing low-income housing projects in middle class neighborhoods and by giving housing subsidies to individual low-income families to go live in neighborhoods where they could not afford to live otherwise.
The counterproductive consequences of these efforts in the housing markets have only spurred on the busybodies of the left to try harder to force people to live their lives according to the preconceptions of the left, rather than according to their own direct personal experiences and preferences.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122215.php3#s7SRGGJzebtdJ4dZ.99
Establishment Republicans Must Be Careful Not to Go Too Far
By David Limbaugh
I've long said that the differences between so-called establishment Republicans and grassroots conservatives are about more than tactics in budgetary battles with President Obama and congressional Democrats. The current Cruz-Rubio flap validates my position.
Establishment Republicans have been enormously frustrated with the grassroots for wanting to call Obama's bluff in these budget battles to the point of allowing the government to shut down. They have maintained this is a fool's errand that will only help Democrats because shutdowns will always be blamed on the GOP, supposedly the party of limited government.
The establishment has been particularly derisive of Ted Cruz — one of the leading senators fighting to call Obama's bluff — arguing he has pursued quixotic positions designed not to prevail legislatively but to grandstand and serve his own political ambitions.
I disagree with that assessment of Cruz, who I believe has acted on principle and to honor his campaign promises. The establishment tends to see these legislative battles as a zero-sum game, thinking that unless you can be almost assured of prevailing in your legislative goals, it is counterproductive to fight Obama to the point of a government shutdown because that will inevitably result in voters punishing the GOP in the next election — no matter when that election is.
I reject that analysis. If establishment Republicans would ever unite with Cruz and the grassroots in opposing Obama publicly and vehemently instead of telegraphing their intention to surrender from the outset, the GOP might have a better chance of stopping Obama. If they didn't concede defeat in advance by saying it is impossible for the GOP to win a public relations battle with Obama over a government shutdown no matter how unreasonable Obama's position is, the GOP might — just might — be able to convince the public.
Why do establishment types automatically assume they will lose a PR war with Obama even when he is obviously the extremist in these budget battles, at a time when we are more than $18 trillion in debt, terrorists are at our doorstep and Obama is off globally evangelizing for the earth goddess Gaia? Doesn't it say something about these Republicans' lack of confidence in conservative ideas that they are never willing to entrust the voters to back them? Many of them demonstrate this same lack of confidence in selling conservative ideas when they repeatedly urge the party to tack to the middle in national elections to win moderate voters instead of passionately articulating Reagan conservatism and energizing (and expanding) the base.
I hear the same fecklessness from my establishment friends in the context of the Cruz-Rubio contest when they tell us that Cruz is too extreme and that of the two, only Rubio could defeat Hillary Clinton. Nonsense. Establishment types said the same thing about Ronald Reagan — and overall, things are worse now than they were even under Jimmy Carter.
So yes, I believe that grassroots conservatives differ with establishment Republicans in their respective budgetary tactics but also in these further particulars, among others: The establishment believes that Reagan conservatives such as Cruz are a bit extreme; indeed, the establishment probably defines Reagan conservatism differently than the grassroots; the establishment doesn't attach the same degree of urgency as the grassroots to the monumental problems this nation faces, from immigration to the national debt; the establishment seems far less confident that conservative ideas will sell; and the establishment is far more risk-averse.
I agree that there is far too much animosity from both sides in these GOP intramural conflicts and that we should all more strongly resist the urge to impugn the other side or its motives. But we must recognize that we have serious, though not insurmountable, differences.
We do need each other in presidential elections, so we'd better be careful not to burn too many bridges. But from my perspective as a grassroots conservative, I must say that I don't believe the establishment has its ear to the ground; it is not hearing the American people, who are neither crazy nor extreme.
This is why establishment Republicans don't really understand Donald Trump's appeal. It's not because Trump supporters are politically unsophisticated. It's that they don't believe that seasoned Beltway politicians — the ones with all this vaunted experience — understand or care about the level of fear, angst, disgust, concern and outrage that ordinary Americans are feeling over the ongoing destruction of our nation. The establishment doesn't grasp the frustration of Americans who are sick of being told "no" and given all kinds of reasons — from many Republicans, no less — that we can't do anything to stop Obama. Establishment types don't understand why Trump supporters are not turned off by Trump for not being more refined and nuanced in his proposals rather than simply saying, "We need to kill the terrorists, and you guys keep telling us why we can't."
Establishment Republicans had better start listening because the more obtuse they are on Trump and demeaning to his supporters the more they are going to empower him. The more they conspire to take out Cruz based on his alleged lack of purity — focusing on the specks in Cruz's eye while ignoring the logs in some of their candidates' eyes — the more they are going to empower Cruz.
Grassroots Americans have had it, and they are fighting back. Nevertheless, I will support any establishment candidate if he ultimately wins the GOP nomination. Will the establishment support Cruz if he wins the nomination?
Let's vigorously fight for our respective candidates, but let's not destroy each other in the process, because we will need each other to defeat Clinton and save this nation.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh121815.php3#Ctfl23VKzAvZ6qaT.99
Administration, Please Continue to Spew Misinformation on Guns
By David Limbaugh
The Obama administration is not only at odds with America, as founded, but also woefully out of touch with ordinary Americans, and it is deceitful or delusional (or both) on guns.
President Obama twisted himself into a pretzel to deny that the San Bernardino, California, massacre was committed by Islamic terrorists. Even as facts accumulated — making the obvious undeniable — he continued to cling to the preposterous narrative that it was workplace violence. It's those high-stress jobs, you see, that cause otherwise peaceful people to fire up their time machines and go back to buy weapons to kill dozens of people who have nothing to do with their workplace grievances.
The ever-clueless White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, referring to recent shootings and the San Bernardino terror attack, said: "The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets the more people go out and buy guns. And that is both ironic and tragic."
In the first place, these liberals have never been able to refute the axiomatic truth that making our gun laws more restrictive would not have prevented the various mass shootings they invariably use to launch new salvos against gun ownership. So the fact that they even raise the issue after these incidents is obscenely dishonest, opportunistic and hyper-partisan.
In the second place, guns are not the cause of these shootings. Indeed, in many cases, guns could help prevent them or reduce injury and death. It is no accident that these evildoers often unleash their hellfire in gun-free zones.
In view of the facts, how could Earnest call it "ironic and tragic" that in response to these acts of violence, more people buy guns? It is not ironic, because people rightly believe they will be safer with guns, and the American people know that Obama and his ilk want to confiscate their weapons, which they make clear every time there's a mass killing involving guns. It's not tragic, either, because increasing gun ownership is quintessentially American and constitutional, and it increases the safety of the American people. What's tragic about that?
What is tragic is that this administration uses these terrible incidents, whether terrorism-related or not, to distort and politicize the gun issue. What is tragic is that it selectively cares about shootings depending on the identity of the perpetrators and victims and the motivation of the killers.
The administration barely blinks an eye at all the black-on-black gun shootings around the country, especially in Obama's hometown of Chicago, though far more people are killed by those often-gang-related gun killings than the mass shootings Obama always politicizes. It begins federal investigations when there's a shooting by a rogue cop but ignores the chronic inner-city murders where cops are not involved. It's not the killings that Obama cares about but his agenda. He showcases one type and ignores others to serve his political obsessions.
If President Obama cared about the safety and security of the American people, would he go out of his way to deny it when Islamic terrorism is obviously the cause and ignore that there is a disturbingly increasing pattern of such on American soil? Would he deceitfully pretend that ready access to guns and excessive gun ownership are the proximate cause of blatant acts of Islamic shootings?
To deny that Islamists, including those here at home, are at war with the United States and represent a threat to Americans puts Americans at greater risk. To make it harder for Americans to buy weapons to defend themselves puts Americans at greater risk. Why does this administration want to put Americans at greater risk?
Only God knows why Obama pursues his destructive policies, but more and more Americans realize that he is putting them at greater risk by trying to make them less safe personally and degrading our national security and our leadership presence around the world.
As ordinary Americans are fully aware of Obama's dangerous policies, it is neither ironic nor tragic that they are running out and gobbling up all the weapons they can get their hands on. It is eminently rational behavior for people interested in self-preservation.
So please continue to spew nonsense, Mr. Earnest, and even more Americans will wake up to this administration's recklessness.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh121515.php3#m2eXd43bmkDWwFpW.99
Legacy or bust
By Charles Krauthammer
Last Saturday, Barack Obama gained the second jewel in his foreign policy triple crown: the Paris climate accord. It follows his Iran nuclear deal and awaits but the closing of Guantanamo to complete his glittering legacy.
To be sure, Obama will not be submitting the climate agreement for Senate ratification. It would have no chance of passing - as with the Iranian nuclear deal, also never submitted for the Senate ratification Obama knew he'd never get. And if he does close Guanta namo, it will be in defiance of overwhelming bipartisan congressional opposition.
You see, visionary thinkers like Obama cannot be bound by normal constitutional strictures. Indeed, the very unpopularity of his most cherished diplomatic goals is proof of their prophetic farsightedness.
Yet the climate deal brought back from Paris by Secretary of State John Kerry turns out to be no deal at all. It is, instead, a series of carbon-reducing promises made individually and unilaterally by the world's nations.
No enforcement, no sanctions, nothing legally binding. No matter, explained Kerry on "Fox News Sunday": "This mandatory reporting requirement . . . is a serious form of enforcement, if you will, of compliance, but there is no penalty for it, obviously."
If you think that's gibberish, you're not alone. Retired NASA scientist James Hansen, America's leading carbon abolitionist, indelicately called the whole deal "bulls---."
The great Paris achievement is supposed to be global "transparency." But what can that possibly amount to when you can't even trust the reporting? Three months ago, the world's greatest carbon emitter, China, admitted to having underreported its burning of coal by 14 percent (later recalculated to 17 percent ), a staggering error (assuming it wasn't a deliberate deception) equal to the entire coal consumption of Germany.
I'm a climate-change agnostic. But I'm realistic enough to welcome prudent hedging against a possible worst-case scenario. I've long advocated for a multilateral agreement (unilateral U.S. actions being climatically useless and economically suicidal) negotiated with the most important players - say, India, China and the European Union - containing real limits, real numbers and real enforcement. That would be a genuine achievement.
What the climate-change conference produced instead was hot air, applauded by 196 well-fed participants. (Fourteen nights in Paris, after all.) China promises to begin reducing carbon emissions 15 years from now. India announced it will be tripling its coal-fired electricity capacity by 2030. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is effectively dismantling America's entire coal industry.
Looking for guidance on how the U.S. will fare under this new environmental regime? Take a glance at Obama's other great triumph, the Iran nuclear accord.
Does the American public know that the Iranian parliament has never approved it? And that the Iranian president has never signed it? Iran is not legally bound to anything . As the State Department freely admitted (in a letter to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) of the House Intelligence Committee), the deal "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document." But don't worry. Its success "will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures" and our "capacity to reimpose - and ramp up - our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments."
And how is that going?
On Nov. 21, Iran conducted its second test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in direct contravention of two U.N. Security Council prohibitions, including one that incorporates the current nuclear agreement - which bans such tests for eight years.
Our response? After Iran's first illegal launch in October, the administration did nothing. A few words at the United Nations. Weren't we repeatedly assured that any Iranian violation would be met with vigorous action? No worry, again. As U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power told a congressional hearing last week, "discussions are a form of U.N. action."
The heart sinks.
It was obvious from the very beginning that the whole administration promise of "snapback" sanctions was a farce. The Iranians knew it. Hence their contempt for even the prospect of American pushback: two illegal missile launches conducted ostentatiously even before sanctions are lifted and before they receive their $150 billion in unfrozen assets early next year.
Why not? They know Obama will ignore, downplay and explain away any violation, lest it jeopardize his transformative foreign policy legacy.
It's a legacy of fictional agreements. The proliferators and the polluters are not bound. By our own volition, we are.
Only Guantanamo remains. Within a month, one-sixth of the remaining prisoners will be released. Obama will not be denied.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer121815.php3#tCV84sfT2lXGzP92.99
Our Timid Military Leaders
By Walter Williams
This month, President Barack Obama's defense secretary, Ashton Carter, decreed that there will be 220,000 combat military jobs offered to women — including in Army special operations forces and the Navy SEALs. He said, "They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat ... and everything else that was previously open only to men."
Technological changes since the time of the M60 Patton, embodied in the M1 Abrams tank, mean that a woman can probably drive a tank. But what if track pads or a tank track has to be repaired in the field and under enemy fire? Such repairs pose a significant physical challenge to men, who generally have far greater strength than women. Will our military leaders relieve women from such a task, claiming that demanding equal performance creates a "disparate," sexually discriminatory impact?
Then there's hand-to-hand combat training, which comes near the end of the Army's basic training. Recruits spend a few hours facing off against each other in pugil stick bouts. Pugil sticks are padded training weapons used since World War II by each branch of the military to train service members for hand-to-hand rifle and bayonet combat. The object of the training is to subdue your opponent. Women are at a severe disadvantage because upper-body strength really counts. Given the timidity and character of today's military leaders, I predict several possibilities: Training with pugil sticks will be banned, or servicewomen will train only against other servicewomen, or, if the training is integrated, servicemen will be court-martialed if they knock out or knock down a servicewoman. Even if our military leaders fudge this aspect of training, what happens in actual combat when hand-to-hand skills are called upon? I wouldn't be surprised if today's military leaders call for an amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions to make the hand-to-hand killing of a female fighter a war crime.
What about other training standards? The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a 2-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 2-mile run. Equal fitness standards would wash most women out. "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that the average woman has 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than the average man. Women are less likely to be able to march under load — 12.4 miles in five hours with a 71-pound assault load — and to be able to crawl, sprint and negotiate obstacles with that load and move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load.
There are other differences between male and female troops. Women are twice as likely to suffer injuries and are three times more undeployable than men. Servicewomen are four times likelier to report being ill than servicemen. The percentage of servicewomen being medically unavailable at any time is twice that of servicemen. Then there's pregnancy. Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of military social engineering is the cover-up of failure. Officers who criticize double standards or expose official lies and deception about servicewomen's performance risk their careers. Those official lies and deception will eventually reveal themselves with unnecessary loss of lives on the battlefield.
Finally, the Selective Service System's website (http://www.sss.gov) reads: "While there has been talk recently about women in combat, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25." How can that, coupled with reduced performance standards, possibly be consistent with the Defense Department's stated agenda "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field"?
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams121615.php3#wKAWQWePw3mFTkcC.99
Attacking the Truth: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
he case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, involving racial double standards in admissions to the University of Texas at Austin, has an Alice-in-Wonderland quality that has been all too common in other Supreme Court cases involving affirmative action in academia, going all the way back to 1978.
Plain hard facts dissolve into rhetorical mysticism in these cases, where evasions of reality have been the norm.
One inconvenient reality is that racial double standards by government institutions are contrary to the "equal protection of the laws" prescribed by the 14th Amendment to the constitution. Therefore racial double standards must be called something else — whether "holistic" admissions criteria or a quest for the many magical benefits of "diversity" that are endlessly asserted but never demonstrated.
Such mental gymnastics are not peculiar to the Supreme Court of the United States. I encountered the same evasive language in other countries with group preference programs, during the years when I was doing research for my book "Affirmative Action Around the World." This was one of the sadder examples of the brotherhood of man.
When the courts in India tried to rein in some of the more extreme group quota policies in academia, that only inspired more ingenuity by university officials, who came up with more subjective admissions criteria.
At one medical school in India's state of Tamil Nadu, those criteria included extracurricular activities, "aptitude" and "general abilities" — as determined by interviews that lasted approximately three minutes per applicant. The ratings on these vague, wholly subjective criteria could then be used to offset some students' academic deficiencies, and thus preserve group quotas de facto.
Another common feature of group preference policies in various countries in different parts of the world is the illusion that these preferences can be confined to some transitional time period, after which the preferences will fade away.
Even in countries where a time frame was specified at the outset — as in Pakistan, India and Malaysia, for example — the preferences have persisted for generations past those cutoff dates. Yet the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly indulged in the same illusion of transitional group preferences.
Such preferences have not only extended in time, they have spread to more activities and more groups. In India, it was declared that preferential treatment in the academic admissions process would end there, and not extend to treatment of the preferred groups once they were students in the university.
Yet preferential grading of students admitted with lower qualifications became so widespread in India that these grades acquired the name "grace marks." In Malaysia, committees were authorized to adjust grades to enable the preferred Malay students to be — or to seem — more comparable to the non-preferred Chinese students.
In the days of the Soviet Union, professors were pressured to give higher grades to Central Asian students. In New Zealand, softer courses in Maori studies achieved similar results. In the United States, easy ethnic studies courses serve the same purpose. When I taught at Brandeis University, many years ago, an academic administrator confided to me that one of his chores was phoning professors to see if they would "reconsider" failing grades given to minority students.
Often the rationale for group preferences is to help the less fortunate. But, in countries where hard evidence is available, it is often the more fortunate members of less fortunate groups who get the bulk of the benefits. These beneficiaries can even be more fortunate than most of the people in the country at large.
India's constitution, like the American constitution, has an amendment prescribing equal treatment. But in India that amendment also spells out exceptions for particular groups. In the United States, the Supreme Court has taken on the role of creating exceptions to the 14th Amendment.
Many lofty verbal evasions are necessary, in order to keep the American people from catching on to what they are really doing when they claim to be merely applying the laws and the constitution.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell121615.php3#1rpWcApJvBKAHqgj.99
Attacking the Truth
By Thomas Sowell
Among the many sad signs of our time are the current political and media attacks on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for speaking the plain truth on a subject where lies have been the norm for years.
The case before the High Court is whether the use of race as a basis for admitting students to the University of Texas at Austin is a violation of the 14th Amendment's requirement for government institutions to provide "equal protection of the laws" to all.
Affirmative action is supposed to be a benefit to black and other minority students admitted with lower academic qualifications than some white students who are rejected. But Justice Scalia questioned whether being admitted to an institution geared to students with higher-powered academic records was a real benefit.
Despite much media spin, the issue is not whether blacks in general should be admitted to higher ranked or lower ranked institutions. The issue is whether a given black student, with given academic qualifications, should be admitted to a college or university where he would not be admitted if he were white.
Much empirical research over the years has confirmed Justice Scalia's concern that admitting black students to institutions for which their academic preparation is not sufficient can be making them worse off instead of better off.
I became painfully aware of this problem more than 40 years ago, when I was teaching at Cornell University, and discovered that half the black students there were on some form of academic probation.
These students were not stupid or uneducable. On the contrary, the average black student at Cornell at that time scored at the 75th percentile on scholastic tests. Their academic qualifications were better than those of three-quarters of all American students who took those tests.
Why were they in trouble at Cornell, then? Because the average Cornell student in the liberal arts college at that time scored at the 99th percentile. The classes taught there — including mine — moved at a speed geared to the verbal and mathematical level of the top one percent of American students.
The average white student would have been wiped out at Cornell. But the average white student was unlikely to be admitted to Cornell, in the first place. Nor was a white student who scored at the 75th percentile.
That was a "favor" reserved for black students. This "favor" turned black students who would have been successful at most American colleges and universities into failures at Cornell.
None of this was peculiar to Cornell. Black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math had serious academic problems trying to keep up at M.I.T., where other students scored somewhere within the top 99th percentile.
Nearly one-fourth of these black students with stellar qualifications in math failed to graduate from M.I.T., and those who did graduate were concentrated in the bottom tenth of the class.
There were other fine engineering schools around the country where those same students could have learned more, when taught at a normal pace, rather than at a breakneck speed geared to students with extremely rare abilities in math.
Justice Scalia was not talking about sending black students to substandard colleges and universities to get an inferior education. You may in fact get a much better education at an institution that teaches at a pace that you can handle and master. In later life, no one is going to care how fast you learned something, so long as you know it.
Mismatching students with educational institutions is a formula for needless failures. The book "Mismatch," by Sander and Taylor is a first-rate study of the hard facts. It shows, for example, that the academic performances of black and Hispanic students rose substantially after affirmative action admissions policies were banned in the University of California system.
Instead of failing at Berkeley or UCLA, these minority students were now graduating from other campuses in the University of California system. They were graduating at a higher rate, with higher grades, and now more often in challenging fields like math, science and technology.
Do the facts not matter to those who are denouncing Justice Scalia? Does the actual fate of minority students not matter to the left, as much as their symbolic presence on a campus?
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell121515.php3#uQRjCDxBx3pH2rQ2.99
These townsfolk are in court demanding substantive due process against their government
By George Will
If Pagedale, Mo., is a glimpse of the future, the future is going to be annoying. Pagedale might represent the future of governance unless some of its residents succeed in their lawsuit against their government. If they do, it will be because they successfully invoked the principle of substantive due process.
Pagedale is 1.19 square miles of St. Louis County. Approximately 93 percent of its more than 3,000 residents are African American and about 25 percent live below the poverty line. There is not much of a tax base for their government. But supposed necessity does not confer constitutionality on Pagedale's decision to budget on the assumption of a steady blizzard of capricious fines.
Pagedale residents are subject to fines if they walk on the left side of a crosswalk; if they have a hedge more than three feet high, a weed more than seven inches high or any dead vegetation on their property; or if they park a car at night more than 500 feet from a street lamp or other source of illumination; or if windows facing a street do not have drapes or blinds that are"neatly hung, in a presentable appearance, properly maintained and in a state of good repair"; or if their houses have unpainted foundations or chipped or aging layers of paint (even on gutters); or if there are cracks in their driveways; or if on a national holiday — the only time a barbecue may be conducted in a front yard — more than two people are gathered at the grill or there are alcoholic beverages visible within 150 feet of the grill.
All this and much more is because Missouri's legislature, noting excessive reliance on traffic tickets, put a low cap on the portion a community could raise of its budget from this source. So now 40 percent of Pagedale's tickets are for non-traffic offenses. Since 2010, such tickets have increased 495 percent. In 2013, the city collected $356,601 in fines and fees. But Pagedale's misfortune might be America's good fortune now that the constitutional litigators from the Institute for Justice are representing some Pagedale residents.
The institute argues that the city is subordinating the administration of justice to the goal of generating revenue, even limiting court hours in order to cause people to fail to meet requirements, thereby subjecting them to more fines. But the city's pecuniary interest in particular judicial outcomes, which creates an appearance of bias, is not the crux of the argument that the city is violating the 14th Amendment guarantee that Americans shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without "due process of law." The entire nation should hope that this small city's pettiness will be stopped by a court that says this: The due process clause, properly construed, prohibits arbitrary government action, particularly that which unjustifiably restricts individuals' liberties.
That is, the due process clause is not purely about process. As Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation writes, what distinguishes due process is an outcome that is not arbitrary. Granted, the Constitution's text does not explicitly infuse the concept of due process with substance. But there are implicit limits on government power, limits inherent in the idea of law. As Sandefur says, a legislative act that fails the tests of generality, regularity, fairness and rationality (being a cost-efficient means to a legitimate end) is not a law, so enforcing it cannot be due process of law .
Read as what it is — as the implementation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence — the Constitution guarantees government that secures individual rights by establishing lawful, meaning non-arbitrary, rule. So, in determining whether there has been due process, a court must examine not just the form of a statute or the procedural formalities that produced it, but also its substance. This is because, as Sandefur writes, the Constitution gives priority to liberty, not just to the democratic processes that produce government acts. Again, "the Constitution does not require just any process but due process." Were "due" simply a synonym for "democratic," the due process guarantee would guarantee nothing.
Governments are ravenous for revenue to fund the promises that purchase votes. But the governed are resistant to taxes. So governments increasingly resort to arbitrary behavior that is difficult to distinguish from theft. Which is why all Americans have a huge stake in the correct resolution of this case from a small Missouri city.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will121215.php3#wkGB9BeYvjSkiLkt.99
A needle of suspicion in an information haystack
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
If you were looking for a needle in a haystack, simple logic would tell you that the smaller the haystack, the likelier you are to find the needle. Except for the government.
Since Edward Snowden revealed the federal government's unlawful and unconstitutional use of federal statutes to justify spying on all in America all the time, including the members of Congress who unwittingly wrote and passed the statutes, I have been arguing that the Fourth Amendment prohibits all domestic spying, except that which has been authorized by a search warrant issued by a judge. The same amendment also requires that warrants be issued only based on a serious level of individualized suspicion backed up by evidence — called probable cause — and the warrants must specifically identify the place and person to be spied upon.
Because these requirements are in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, Congress and the president and the courts are bound by them. There is no emergency or public safety or wartime exception to them. These requirements cannot be changed by legislation; only a constitutional amendment, ratified by the legislatures of 37 states, can do so.
All of this is what lawyers and judges call black letter law — meaning it is well-understood, has not been seriously challenged and is nearly universally accepted. Except by the government.
The government — which thinks it can right any wrong, tax any event, regulate any behavior and interfere with any right — also thinks it can keep us safe from the terrorists among us by cutting constitutional corners, which it has done many times since Sept. 11, 2001. Among the constitutional corners it has cut is unleashing its 60,000 domestic spies upon us with orders to disregard the constitutional requirements for spying on Americans and gather all the data about us that they can by listening to phone calls and reading emails, as well as gathering the banking information, credit card information, utility bills, postal mail and medical records of everyone in America, without regard to individualized suspicion.
The government's behavior is premised upon the false belief that it can morally and constitutionally interfere with our natural right to privacy without due process and upon the absurd belief that surrendering personal liberty somehow keeps us safe.
As we know from the tragedy last week in San Bernardino, Calif., the government's strategy and practices failed to keep us safe. The governmental failure at San Bernardino was the confluence of a state government with antipathy and animosity toward the natural right of self-defense and a federal government attempting to devour far more data than it can handle.
The San Bernardino killings — like those in Newtown, Conn., at Virginia Tech, in Roseburg, Ore., and in Paris — occurred on or near government property where lawful guns were banned. These no-gun zones are the most dangerous places on the planet when a person armed to the teeth and determined to kill enters upon them.
In the no-gun zone in San Bernardino where the killings occurred, even off-duty or retired law enforcement personnel, trained and continually qualified in the use of firearms, and private people lawfully authorized to carry handguns are required to check their guns at the door.
Can the civilian use of guns keep us safe? Of course it can. The police simply cannot be everywhere. Anything that diminishes the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel environment of no-gun zones is an improvement over the carnage we have witnessed in them. Think about it. In every mass killing — every one of them — when someone with a gun arrives determined to stop the killing, it stops; the killer flees, is disabled, is killed or dies by suicide.
No-gun zones are not only unconstitutional legislative limitations on the natural right of people to use modern-day means for self-defense but also an invitation to disaster. And they are established by local municipalities with the consent of state governments.
The federal failure is born of an antipathy to constitutional norms and a reluctance to engage in meaningful human intelligence on the ground. Instead of gathering all they can about everyone, the feds should concentrate on those about whom there is some reasonable belief to warrant some investigation. The feds should know the neighborhoods where the suspicious live and work as well as they know their own computer screens.
Even the National Security Agency itself has admitted to data overload. In 2013, the director of the NSA at the time, Gen. Keith Alexander, was asked how many plots his spies had unearthed in their then-seven years of spying on everyone in the United States, and he replied under oath, "About 54." Then he corrected himself and amended his answer to one or two. When asked to identify them, he declined.
Why weren't a recently married couple with Middle Eastern backgrounds — one of whom had been born here, the other of whom had immigrated here and achieved permanent legal residence only through marriage, both of whom recently had been stockpiling huge amounts of military-style weaponry and ammunition, both of whom had just received more than half their combined annual income in a single wire transfer to their joint bank account, both of whom had been practicing the use of their hardware at a gun range, one of whom had been known to hate Jewish people and had suddenly left his local mosque — generally known to the all-seeing and all-hearing NSA?
Because the NSA has abandoned traditional techniques of on-the-ground, in-your-face human intelligence in favor of sitting in front of computer screens. And that has produced a haystack of data so gigantic in size that by the time the needle of terror plotting has been found, it is often too late.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1215/napolitano121015.php3#D0SQyMHqxeYXdzQU.99
National Security Profiling Is a No-Brainer
By Michelle Malkin
Calm down and think, America.
While everyone's undies are in a bunch over Donald Trump's proposal for a Muslim immigration moratorium, it is undeniable in a time of "heightened alert" -- when violent jihadists have no problem targeting their enemies here and around the world -- that national security profiling is imperative to our survival.
Yes, that means taking politically incorrect criteria such as ethnicity, nationality and religion into account when battling radical Islamist throat-slitters, suicide bombers and hijackers who incinerate children on airplanes traveling to Disneyland, plant bombs in their shoes, underwear, soda bottles and belts, and shoot up concert halls, restaurants, malls, Army bases and social services centers.
Yes, that means unapologetic government tracking of Arab and Muslim foreign students, high-risk Muslim refugees, Muslim chaplains serving in the military and in prisons, and Arab and Muslim pilots and flight students.
Yes, that means taking immigration status into account to apply increased, common-sense scrutiny of temporary visa holders from jihadist breeding grounds.
All temporary visa-holders -- foreign students, tourists, businesspeople and guest workers -- are here by privilege, not by right. Their visas can and should be revoked whenever necessary to protect national security.
It is not "un-American" to bar any new religious visas for dangerous Muslim clerics or to freeze visas issued to travelers from official state sponsors of terrorism.
It is not contrary to our "values" to prioritize the immediate removal of all illegal visa overstayers and deportation fugitives from terror-sponsoring and terror-supporting nations.
Should we have a special registration system for visa holders from jihadist strongholds? Hell, yes. After 9/11, the feds put in place a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System that required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as other at-risk countries.
The basic components included a more rigorous application process in light of the shoddy visa questionnaires and undetected overstays of the 9/11 hijackers; 30 extra minutes of interviewing at ports of entry; a digital fingerprint check and in-person registration after they arrived in the interior of the country; and verification of departure once they exited.
The targeted registration of certain foreign nationals already in the country (temporary visa holders including students, tourists and businesspeople) resulted in the detection and apprehension of at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at official ports of entry -- including suspected al-Qaida operatives who were caught trying to enter the U.S. after their fingerprints matched ones lifted by our military officials from papers found in Afghanistan caves.
But as I've reported previously, grievance-mongering identity groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, the late Ted Kennedy, and open-borders Republicans could not stand the idea of an effective national security profiling database. The Obama administration, which now disingenuously calls on Americans to be "vigilant," suspended the narrowly targeted NSEERS program in 2011 to appease the "Islamophobia!" shriekers.
Anti-profiling radicals want it both ways. They damn federal homeland security officials when they gather intelligence based on threat factors and behavioral factors -- and damn them in hindsight if they don't. FBI agents are condemned as bigots when they attempt the most modest of surveillance measures, and they are damned as bumblers when they fail to act on information gathered through those means.
Perhaps you've forgotten how Muslim groups balked after 9/11 when federal investigators went to mosques to ask about knowledge of terrorist attacks. What were they supposed to do -- go to Catholic nunneries and Buddhist temples instead?
Face it: Religious profiling is an essential tool in combating Muslim extremists carrying out an eternal religious crusade to kill nonbelievers and establish a global caliphate. If Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Hindus were financing and training a worldwide network of bloodthirsty jihadi operatives, America would be thoroughly justified -- obligated -- to gather basic intelligence data on relevant churches, congregations or temples.
Those who moan about any form of ethnic, religious and nationality profiling now will be the first to attack federal officials for not enough when another terrorist attack occurs. I'll never forget hypocrite Maureen Dowd, The New York Times' resident chaise lounge general, after the FBI admitted that it had resisted Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams' recommendation to profile Arab/Muslim flight students in the summer of 2001:
"Now we know the truth," she whined. "The 9/11 terrorists could have been stopped if ... the law enforcement agencies had not been so inept, obstructionist, arrogant, antiquated, bloated and turf-conscious, and timid about racial profiling."
Gee, Mo, what do you think caused that timidity? Hmm?
And let's remember amid this latest outbreak of anti-profiling hysteria that the same grievance groups who object to taking ethnicity, religion and national origin into account during wartime zealously defend discriminatory racial and ethnic classifications to ensure "diversity" on college campuses, guarantee government contracts for minorities, and achieve manufactured "parity" in police and fire departments.
In suicidal America, there's always a "compelling government interest" for using discriminatory classifications -- unless that compelling interest happens to be the nation's very survival.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin120915.php3#TVjZ1Ya1y2sXP3D4.99
Andrea Mitchell's Selective Concerns on Divisiveness
By David Limbaugh
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Andrea Mitchell accused Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of divisiveness. Trump's alleged divisiveness aside, this is rich from an acolyte of the most divisive president in history, Barack Obama.
Mitchell was referring to Trump's disputed claim that thousands of American Muslims celebrated the terrorist attacks on our soil on 9/11. Mitchell said: "It's not only that the facts are wrong. It's that what he is saying is so emotionally and politically powerful. He is lighting fires. He is turning people against people. ... The kinds of facts that he is misstating are so ... incendiary."
Divisiveness and incendiary rhetoric don't seem to bother Mitchell much when coming from Obama. She is so blinded by her adoration that she described his gauche selfie with two foreign heads of state during Nelson Mandela's memorial service in South Africa as "great" and a "human moment." She was visibly stunned when former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu called Obama "lazy" and "disengaged," and she asked him whether he wanted to apologize for his remarks.
This double standard from Mitchell and most of the rest of the liberal media is palpable. Obama's penchant for partisanship and polarization was apparent from the beginning, yet Mitchell and her cohorts not only ignored it but also actively protected him.
After Obama had been in office for only a few months, the Pew Research Center reported that "for all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades."
Nor was this a misleading, isolated snapshot, as Gallup reported Jan. 25, 2010, that Obama had been the most polarizing first-year president in its poll's history.
Obama has been the opposite of post-racial, repeatedly denouncing America's blemished history and exuding resentment toward America's record on race. He also decries America's income inequality and what he wrongly perceives as its colonialism and imperialism. He has relentlessly trafficked in identity politics.
He has shown little patience for opposing viewpoints, routinely mischaracterized Republican positions, demeaned Republicans as liars and insisted that they shut up, get out of the way and let him handle the mess he "inherited." He told one radio host that he needed people in Congress who wanted to cooperate. "And that's not Republicans," he said. "Their whole agenda is to spend the next two years trying to defeat me, as opposed to trying to move the country forward."
He said he didn't want Republicans to do a lot of talking but preferred they sit in back of the car. He called congressional Republicans "hostage takers" for opposing his tax policies. He told Latinos that people who believe in protecting America's borders "aren't the kinds of folks who represent our core American values." He tried to energize Latino voters by saying on Univision that Latinos must not sit out the 2010 congressional elections but must tell themselves, "We're going to punish our enemies, and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."
During an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton, Obama fully agreed with Sharpton's suggestion that blacks needed to vote in 2010 as if Obama were on the ballot, because the midterm election was about his agenda. Obama likewise told a Philadelphia audience that Republicans were "counting on young people ... and union members ... and black folks staying home." He didn't forget to play the gender card, as well, sending Vice President Joe Biden to a fundraiser in Philadelphia, where Biden compared Republicans to those who excuse rapists by blaming their victims.
Obama even showed his partisanship at a high-school back-to-school speech in Washington, D.C. He also derided Republicans as lazy Slurpee sippers who stand around doing nothing while Democrats struggle valiantly to improve the economy. He said Republicans had driven the car into the ditch but wanted the keys back. "You can't have the keys back," he said. "You don't know how to drive." At a campaign stop in Ohio, he portrayed those in the GOP as villains from "Star Wars." "They're fighting back," he said. "The empire is striking back."
Obama has been the first president in recent history to make it obvious that he cares about representing only certain coalitions and not all the American people. And this has not escaped the people's attention. For example, in 2011, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that only 35 percent believed that Obama had helped race relations.
In recent years, Obama has gotten even worse, blaming every mass shooting on gun rights advocates and stoking the flames of racial division in his rants against law enforcement. He routinely impugns Republicans as slaves of special interests and donors with no allegiance to principle. Of congressional Republicans, he said, "Folks are more interested in scoring political points than getting things done." He shows more contempt for Republicans than he does the Islamic State group. I could go on — for a long time.
But has Andrea Mitchell ever pointed out, much less complained about, Obama's intentional divisiveness? Of course not, because divisiveness is just fine with liberals if it advances their shared leftist agenda.
To call them hypocritical would be far too mild.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh120115.php3#KO54CUvP3xLMP2JQ.99
President Obama's Umpteenth Tired, Dishonest Speech on Terrorism
By David Limbaugh
Once again, President Obama emerged from his permanent sabbatical on the war on terror to inform us, in a bizarre address from the Oval Office, that he has things firmly under control and there's no need for us Americans to be concerned. Excuse me if I'm not comforted.
Obama has made quite clear that he is blind to the threat that radical Islam represents to America and the rest of the civilized world. He obviously believes that Islam produces no more or worse terrorists than any other religion or cult and that it is wrong to focus on the radical strain of Islam because it leads to discrimination against other Muslims — discrimination he seems to see under every rock.
We've repeated to the point of cliché that to effectively wage war, one must identify his enemy, and no one can rationally dispute this. But Obama can't bring himself to identify radical Islam, Islamism or Islamic terrorism as our enemy. His blindness may be from his sentimental childhood attachment to Islam. It may be that his leftist ideology compels him to see conservatives, Republicans and Christians as America's true enemies. But whatever it is, he is crippling the United States in this war and is making us increasingly vulnerable.
You could tell from Obama's body language and his hurried tones that his heart was not in his speech. He didn't want to be there. I suspect his advisers pressured him to make this speech because he had to do something to deceive the American people into believing that he is actually engaged and that we can trust him to lead us in this war. But he convinced no one with that lackluster address, in which he gave empty assurances that we are following a strategy that we all know to be nonexistent.
It's easy to recognize when Obama is passionate about something, such as when he talks about alleged Christian atrocities against Muslims hundreds of years ago during the Crusades, gun control, health care, income redistribution or global warming. But with the exception of gun control, those issues were not part of his speech, so he was noticeably indifferent and disengaged.
It took him four days to respond formally to the greatest terror attack on our soil since 9/11, and he acted as though he was just now devising a strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism, except that he actually didn't. He still didn't identify Islamic terrorism as the enemy. Instead, he was careful to narrowly define our enemy as ISIL, his annoying acronym for the Islamic State group, which most Americans refer to as ISIS.
Obama is so adamant about protecting the image of Islam that he bends over backward to remind us that there is no conclusive evidence that the murderous Islamic couple were acting on behalf of the Islamic State. It is amazing that he thinks that denying this link is somehow reassuring to us. To the contrary, we have more reason to be concerned about threats to our homeland if these two jihadis were radicalized and acting solely on their own, though that appears to be unlikely.
It's hard not to believe that there is something in the actual religion of Islam that motivates a disturbing number of its adherents to wage war against others inside or outside the religion of Islam who will not submit to their view of it. Obama can talk until he's blue in the face about how peaceful the religion is, but clearly, many Muslims worldwide don't subscribe to his view, and this has been the case since the inception of the religion.
This doesn't mean we should in any way discriminate against Muslims, most of whom, of course, don't subscribe to the radical version. But it does mean that we can't turn a blind eye to the radicalized elements of their religion, which are not limited to al-Qaida or the Islamic State. Try Boko Haram, for starters. It also does not mean that every time there's an Islamic act of terror, our putative commander in chief should rush to the lectern to assure Muslims that we are not at war with them and lecture the rest of us not to mistreat Muslims — which we are not doing. Obama is obviously far more interested in creating this straw man to knock down than in defining and destroying our enemy.
Obama keeps telling us not to give in to fear, but it's not so much fear of terrorism that is haunting us as it is the realization that our commander in chief is doing nothing to combat the threat. His entire tenure in office has been a saga of a president usurping and abusing authority, yet the one clear constitutional duty he has — to keep America safe and secure — he abdicates with striking disgrace. So no, President Obama, we are not afraid that we are incapable of defeating the enemy; we are mortified that we have a leader who won't lead and who has created a vacuum in the world and in the United States where our enemy can flourish.
President Obama, you underestimate the American people just as egregiously as you ignore the reality of our enemy. Please don't insult us anymore with your lies that you have a strategy to defeat an enemy you won't even acknowledge. No one with half a brain believes you anymore.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh120815.php3#luwh1MR38lq6VwXe.99
Squandered Resources on College Education
By Walter Williams
Most college students do not belong in college. I am not by myself in this assessment. Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson said, "It's time to drop the college-for-all crusade," adding that "the college-for-all crusade has outlived its usefulness." Richard Vedder, professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University, reports that "the U.S. Labor Department says the majority of new American jobs over the next decade do not need a college degree. We have a six-digit number of college-educated janitors in the U.S." Vedder adds that there are "one-third of a million waiters and waitresses with college degrees." More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, taxi drivers and salesmen. College was not a wise use of these students', their parents' and taxpayer resources.
What goes on at many colleges adds to the argument that college for many is a waste of resources. Some Framingham State University students were upset by an image of a Confederate flag sticker on another student's laptop. They were offered counseling services by the university's chief diversity and inclusion officer.
Campus Reform reports that because of controversial newspaper op-eds, five Brown University students are claiming that freedom of speech does not confer the right to express opinions they find distasteful.
A Harvard University student organization representing women's interests now routinely advises students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence and that might therefore be traumatic. Such students will be useless to rape victims and don't belong in law school.
And some college professors are not fit for college, as suggested by the courses they teach. Here's a short list, and you decide: "Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing," Swarthmore College; "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity," University of Virginia; "Oh, Look, a Chicken!" Belmont University; "Getting Dressed," Princeton University; "Philosophy and Star Trek," Georgetown University; "What if Harry Potter Is Real?" Appalachian State University; and "God, Sex, Chocolate: Desire and the Spiritual Path," University of California, San Diego. The fact that such courses are part of the curricula also says something about administrators who allow such nonsense.
Then there is professorial "wisdom." Professor Mary Margaret Penrose, of the Texas A&M University School of Law, asked, during a panel discussion on gun control, "Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th-century concerns?"
Perhaps the newest "intellectual" fad is white privilege. Portland State University professor Rachel Sanders' "White Privilege" course says "whiteness" must be dismantled if racial justice is ever to be achieved. Campus Reform reports on other whiteness issues (http://tinyurl.com/oof9wu3). Harvard's classes on critical race theory combine "progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed."
Back to those college administrators. Dartmouth College's vice provost for student affairs, Inge-Lise Ameer, said, "There's a whole conservative world out there that's not being very nice." She did, however, issue "an unequivocal apology" for stoking tensions with such a disparaging comment about conservatives to Black Lives Matter protesters.
After a standoff with other Black Lives Matter protesters, Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber acceded to demands that former Princeton President Woodrow Wilson's name be removed from the campus because of his behavior as U.S. president. President Wilson was a progressive and an avowed racist who racially segregated the civil service and delighted in showing D.W. Griffith's racist "The Birth of a Nation" to his White House guests. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo's recent column suggests that a worthier target for Black Lives Matter protesters would be Abraham Lincoln, who he says was "the most publicly outspoken racist and white supremacist of all American presidents" (http://tinyurl.com/jza7ntf).
The bottom line is that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, "There are notions so foolish that only an intellectual will believe them."
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120915.php3#u1vsUkaLvh54hJ8V.99
The President's Speech
By Thomas Sowell
When the President of the United States asks the television networks to set aside time for him to broadcast a speech from the Oval Office, we can usually expect that he has something new to say. But President Obama's speech Sunday night was just a rehash of what he has been saying all along, trying to justify policies that have repeatedly turned out disastrously for America and our allies.
This was not a speech about how the Obama administration is going to do anything differently in the future. It was a speech about how Obama's policies were right all along. Obama is one of those people who are often wrong but never in doubt.
The president struck a familiar chord when he emphasized that we shouldn't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. How many people have you heard blaming all Muslims?
Even if 90 percent of all Muslims are fine people, and we admit 10,000 refugees from the Middle East, does that mean that we need not be concerned about adding a thousand potential terrorists — even after we have seen in San Bernardino what just two terrorists can do?
The first responsibility of any government is to protect the people already in the country. Even in this age of an entitlement mentality, no one in a foreign country is entitled to be in America if the American people don't want them here.
Obama's talk about how we should not make religious distinctions might make sense if we were talking about handing out entitlements. But we are talking about distinguishing between different populations posing different levels of danger to the American people.
When it comes to matters of life and death, that is no time for the kind of glib, politically correct rhetoric that Barack Obama specializes in.
Obama may think of himself as a citizen of the world, but he was elected President of the United States, not head of a world government, and that does not authorize him to gamble the lives of Americans for the benefit of people in other countries.
The illusion that you can take in large numbers of people from a fundamentally different culture, without jeopardizing your own culture — and everything that depends on it — should have been dispelled by many counterproductive social consequences in Europe, even aside from the fatal dangers of terrorists.
Most refugees in the Middle East can be helped in the Middle East, and many Americans would undoubtedly be willing to financially help Muslim countries like Jordan or Egypt to care for these refugees in societies more compatible with their beliefs and values.
The history of millions of European immigrants who came here in centuries past was fundamentally different from what is happening in our own times.
First of all, those immigrants were stopped at Ellis Island to be checked medically and otherwise, and were allowed to get off that island to go ashore only after they had met whatever legal standards there were. Otherwise, they were sent back where they came from.
More fundamentally, people came here to assimilate into the American society they found, not to become isolated enclaves of aggrieved foreigners, demanding that Americans adjust to their languages, their values and their ways of life.
Like so much that President Obama says, his talk of "stronger screening" of people coming into the United States is sheer fantasy, when even his own intelligence officials and law enforcement officials say that we have no adequate data on which to base a meaningful screening of Syrian refugees.
When Obama spoke of the danger of our being "drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria," that was yet another fantasy, that wars are optional.
When terrorists are at war with us, we cannot simply declare that war to be over, whenever it is politically convenient, as Obama did when he withdrew American troops from Iraq, against the advice of his own generals. That is what led to the rise of ISIS.
Our only real choice is between destroying ISIS over there or waiting for them to come over here and start killing Americans. As in other cases, Obama has made a choice that reflects politics and rhetoric, rather than reality.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120815.php3#u2bAHcWBsBRXeILb.99
Remember Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941.
Our Military was depleted in a dangerous world; a weak America is an invitation to tyranny. It's still true today!
The America-Basher in Chief Rolls On
By David Limbaugh
How could America have twice elected a president who not only can't stand America but also won't perform his constitutional duty of defending it?
Even some former administration officials and rank-and-file Democrats are finally recognizing that there is something strange about a commander in chief who declines to listen to his advisers on terrorism, won't read their daily briefings and is uninterested in their threat assessments.
It's sad that so many refused to take Obama seriously when he promised to fundamentally transform America. It's inexcusable that the media and so many naive voters believed that his radical past and his ongoing affiliation with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist church were irrelevant. It's disgraceful that a man who pledged to unite America on race, gender and income groups has intentionally polarized us to a point not seen since the 1960s. It's contemptible that he has used his office to alienate citizens from law enforcement officials throughout the nation. It's abominable that he is systematically dismantling our defense capabilities and approaching foreign policy as if his actions and inactions had no more consequences than a chalkboard exercise by a clique of airheaded leftist professors in their faculty lounge.
Islamist terrorists are waging a global war against America and our allies, and the president won't even identify our enemy. He sees Christians, Republicans and conservatives as the real threat to America — the distorted version of America, that is, that he envisions. He continues to trash America on foreign soil at every opportunity.
I (and others) have long been saying that Obama is obsessed with apologizing for America. Many of us documented his world apology tour, whereby he deeply criticized this nation at every stop of his globe-trotting junket. Yet his shameless defenders say he was just building bridges and alliances. Talk about a bridge to nowhere.
I wonder whether these intellectually dishonest defenders will still deny that Obama is apologizing for America after hearing his words from Malaysia last week. Actually, I don't wonder. They'll love it. They are fellow America haters and have never been more ecstatic about a president — one who is finally using the immense power of the presidential office to tear this nation apart.
If you think my words are harsh, it's only because you are not talking to people all over this nation who are feeling and thinking exactly as I am. They are legion. They are fed up. They are not having any more of it.
At a town hall meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Friday, Obama denigrated the United States for its hypocrisy, its "growing inequality" and the inadequacies of our political system. A Martian traveler might well conclude that this man hasn't occupied the Oval Office for the past seven years. Why doesn't Obama just go on TV and confess that his entire presidency has been a failure — by his own regrettable benchmarks?
Concerning America's hypocrisy, he told his rapt audience that we have to have some humility and not tell other nations what to do because we don't have such a great track record ourselves. We've meddled in other nations' internal affairs, and we have problems in our own country. Here again, Obama forgets that he has been president and that he has improperly intermeddled with other nations, especially our reliable ally Israel. And problems in our own country? I know this is news to the utopian left, but every nation is always going to have problems.
He particularly lamented our "growing inequality" and even blames it for our divisive politics and cynicism — two conditions to which he has been the greatest contributor for years. What's that you said about hypocrisy, Mr. Obama?
But he gets the biggest prize for audaciously complaining about our political system, claiming that money is overwhelming ideas. Politicians are listening more to their wealthy contributors than to "ordinary people."
Well, that may be true as far as it goes. We conservatives are tired of the ruling class and the establishment elite and their incestuous lobbyists, but we don't believe that the left's proposals of suppressing speech are the solution. And if anyone's hands are dirty on this score, Obama's are.
More importantly, Obama has no credibility in complaining about politicians who fail to listen to the American people — whether or not because of money. No one listens less to the people than he does. No one is more self-assured with less justification than he is. The American people are aghast at his arrogant refusal to defend America and listen to his advisers, his insistence on bringing terrorist-imbedded refugees and immigrants into this nation, his bizarre assertion that global warming is a greater threat to this nation than Islamic terrorism, his endless lies on Obamacare, his constant slandering of this country, and on and on.
It will be a sheer joy when we have a new president, God willing, who genuinely loves this nation and sees it as a force for good throughout the world and begins to return it to that path. No, this nation is not over, but it needs to turn back to its founding principles and believe in itself again.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh112415.php3#VtQf8LldDY4zcYlv.99
Storm trooper tactics by bands of college students making ideological demands across the country, and immediate preemptive surrender by college administrators — such as at the University of Missouri recently — bring back memories of the 1960s, for those of us old enough to remember what it was like being there, and seeing first-hand how painful events unfolded.
At Harvard, back in 1969, students seized control of the administration building and began releasing to the media information from confidential personnel files of professors. But, when university president Nathan Pusey called in the police to evict the students, the faculty turned against him, and he resigned.
At least equally disgraceful things happened at Cornell, at Columbia, and on other campuses across the country. But there was one major university that stood up to the campus storm troopers — the University of Chicago.
After student mobs seized control of a campus building, the University of Chicago expelled 42 students and suspended 81 other students. Seizing buildings was not nearly as much fun there, nor were outrageous demands met.
Clearly it was not inevitable that academic institutions would follow the path of least resistance. Most of the leading academic institutions have multiple applications for every place available in the student body. Students who are expelled for campus disruptions can easily be replaced by others on the waiting lists.
Why then do so many colleges and universities not only tolerate storm trooper tactics on campus but surrender immediately to them? That is just one of a number of questions that are hard to answer.
Why do parents pay big money, often at a considerable sacrifice, to send their children to places where small groups of other students can disrupt their education and poison the whole atmosphere with obligatory conformity to political correctness?
Why do donors continue to contribute millions of dollars to institutions that have become indoctrination centers, tearing down America, stifling dissent and turning group against group?
There is no compelling reason for either parents or donors to keep shelling out money to colleges and universities where intolerant professors and student activists impose their ideology on academic institutions. Too often these are campuses with virtually no diversity of viewpoints, despite however much they may be obsessed with demographic diversity.
It is not hard to tell which campuses are strongholds of ideological intolerance, where individual students dare not express an opinion different from the opinion of their professors or different from the opinions of student activists. There are sources of information about such places, systematically collected and evaluated.
One outstanding source of such information is a college guide which rates colleges and universities on their ideological intolerance, giving a red light rating to institutions where such abuses are rampant, a green light where there is freedom of speech and a yellow light for places in between.
That college guide is "Choosing the Right College," which is by far the best of the college guides for other reasons as well. It gave the University of Missouri a red light rating, and spelled out its problems, two years before Mizzou made headlines this year as a symbol of academic cowardice and moral bankruptcy.
The University of Chicago gets a green light rating as a place where both conservative and liberal students are allowed free rein. Some engineering schools like M.I.T. get green light ratings because their students are too engrossed in their studies to have much time for politics, though Georgia Tech gets a red light rating.
Other red light ratings go to Duke, Vassar, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Wesleyan and many others. More important, the reasons are spelled out. There is also another source of information and ratings of colleges and universities on their degree of freedom of speech. This is a watchdog organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
If parents and donors start checking out intolerant colleges and universities before deciding where to send their money, the caving in to indoctrinating professors and storm trooper students will no longer be the path of least resistance for academic administrators.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120215.php3#tCLb3Z0JGu8fiUqm.99
Can We Learn From Europe?
By Walter Williams
Earlier this year, my column asked, "Will the West Defend Itself?" I pointed out that America's leftists and progressives believe that the U.S. should become more like Europe (http://tinyurl.com/nfk2c4d). I wonder whether they also want to import European policies that created barbaric extremism among its Muslim population.
France's recent tragedy is not surprising, given some of its policies that are not widely publicized abroad. France has no-go zones, which are officially called "zones urbaines sensibles," or sensitive urban zones, where police are reluctant to go. Some of these zones are dominated by Islamic extremists. According to some reports, there is hardly a city in France that does not have at least one ZUS. It is estimated that there are more than 750 such zones in France. According to The Washington Times, "France has Europe's largest population of Muslims, some of whom talk openly of ruling the country one day and casting aside Western legal systems for harsh, Islam-based Shariah." It appears that much of France's Muslim population has no intention of joining the French culture. Many French Muslims are hellbent on importing the failed components of their motherland, such as Shariah, the subjugation of women, suppression of free speech and honor killings.
But France is not alone in tolerating people who have little desire to abandon the culture from which they fled. Ingrid Carlqvist has written an article titled "Sweden Descends into Anarchy" (http://tinyurl.com/pdk3lta). Carlqvist says, "Once upon a time, there was a safe welfare state called Sweden, where people rarely locked their doors." She adds: "Since the Parliament decided in 1975 that Sweden should be multicultural and not Swedish, crime has exploded. Violent crime has increased by over 300 percent, and rapes have increased by an unbelievable 1,472 percent."
One Swedish policeman says, "The situation is slipping from our grasp," referring to some no-go areas, such as Tensta and Rinkeby. "If we're in pursuit of a vehicle, it can evade us by driving to certain neighborhoods where a lone patrol car simply cannot follow because we'll get pelted by rocks and even face riots. These are no-go zones. We simply can't go there." As a result of the increasing danger, Swedes are arming themselves in unprecedented numbers and sales of home alarm systems are booming.
Elliot Friedland, writing for the Clarion Project, has an article titled "Belgian Government Admits It Has Lost Control of No-Go Zone." Security and Home Affairs Minister Jan Jambon says the government does not "have control of the situation in Molenbeek." Molenbeek, a district of Brussels, has been referred to as "Europe's jihadi central."
Two of the terrorists who carried out the recent attacks in Paris were found to be from Molenbeek. Terrorist plots connected to this neighborhood include the 2001 assassination of anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud; the 2004 Madrid train bombings, which killed 191 people; the 2014 attack on a Jewish museum in Brussels; the January attack on a kosher grocery in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo shootings; and the August attack on a Paris-bound train, in which an Islamic terrorist was overpowered by three Americans.
There are zones where the government has lost control in Germany, England and most other European countries, too. Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, explained the situation confronting Europeans: "For us today, at stake are Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations and, more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition. Today the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all."
Europe provides a valuable lesson for Americans. Most Americans, including me, welcome people to our country who come here, as immigrants have in the past, to become Americans. We don't welcome people who wish to import the failed culture from which they fled. We could extend the welcome mat even further if we abandoned the welfare state. We have far too many Americans living off the earnings of others. We don't need to encourage others to do the same.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120215.php3#g1pyfx4h0xmZiwrU.99
Obama's Pathological Blindness
By David Limbaugh
It's hard to believe we twice elected a president who refuses to defend the United States. I think people who used to dismiss our criticism of President Obama as extreme are now realizing just how naive they were.
On the morning before the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, Obama was bragging that ISIS is contained. Are you kidding me? Even before the attacks everyone knew ISIS was on the march and couldn't possibly be contained. What have you done to contain them, by the way? And why are we even talking about "containment" instead of wholesale destruction of a known enemy? What is Obama's strategy?
He obviously has no strategy, because he refuses to recognize we're at war. The truth is that Obama is willfully blinded by his warped ideology, to which he has far more allegiance than the United States. No matter what evidence, facts or reality indicate, Obama will reject them if they don't conform to his worldview and his distorted perceptions.
He doesn't believe we are in a war against ISIS. He insists ISIS doesn't represent the religion of Islam, a religion for which he has obvious sympathy dating back to his early childhood. He won't even take ISIS' word for it.
Obama thinks that if we utter the term "Islam," "Islamist," or "Muslim" within 30 paragraphs of the term "terrorism," we are going to incite millions of otherwise peace-loving Muslims to violence.
Hmm. Does anyone, anywhere, any time think any Christians would respond in violence if you insulted them? I didn't think so.
Obama, John Kerry and everyone else associated with this recklessly confused administration refuse to say Islamists were responsible for the terrorist attacks in Boston. Now they are refusing to say they are responsible for Paris. They choose to see them as random acts of violence and "violent extremism."
All the Democratic presidential candidates are on the same page, intentionally ignorant — no, actually deceitful about the connection to Islamism. The Paris attacks were performed by organized, violent, Jihadi, Islamic terrorists.
When asked about this bizarre blindness on the part of the president and now seemingly all Democrats, Hillary Clinton chose not to distance herself from the administration's insanity but to embrace it, even double down on it. She would not utter the name of that religion. We do not want to infuriate millions more Muslims.
Well, if 95 percent of Muslims are peaceful wouldn't they join us in condemning these murders by Islamists? Do they think for a second that rational people aren't associating global terrorism with their religion? Isn't the burden on peaceful Muslims to demonstrate to us how much they abhor what is going on in the name of their religion? The numbers of Islamist terrorist attacks around the globe are staggering. Every other day we're hearing about a new one, and it's almost always from Islamists, so to say there isn't something in that religion — or how millions interpret it, anyway — leading people to violence just doesn't square with our common sense and our daily observations.
If we don't identify our enemy we cannot develop a strategy to defeat it. But worse, if we don't even recognize we're in a war then we most certainly won't fight, much less win, the war.
Of course we don't believe all Muslims or even the majority are violent, but the overwhelming percentage of terrorist acts around the globe are being committed by people who claim the mantle of that religion, and ISIS undoubtedly does. It is hurting us not to be realistic about that.
We've already seen the life-and-death consequences of this administration's conscious paranoia about calling Islamism by its name. This politically correct insanity was responsible for our failure to investigate Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan's known connections to violent Islamist ideas, and that failure arguably resulted in the deaths of thirteen people.
Obama's apparent non-strategy is to be patient and allow other nations to do what they will but to tiptoe softly so as not to offend Muslims everywhere, including his new bestie, the Iranian regime.
I'm not saying we shouldn't engage in the ideological battles and try to win hearts and minds, but we're not going to defeat ISIS without engaging them militarily — aggressively. The more victories they achieve, by the way, the more recruits they acquire, so good luck with the sweet-talking.
Obama insists on treating ISIS as a criminal cartel to be prosecuted rather than an Islamist nation-state marching toward a global caliphate.
While leaders of France and the rest of the world heard this sobering wake-up call in Paris and have resolved to join together to obliterate ISIS in an "all-out war," Obama indignantly informs us that nothing he's doing will change. How dare anyone question his policy or blame him for mischaracterizing the strength of ISIS, having no strategy to defeat them and not even recognizing that they are a bona fide enemy.
Americans are trembling in rage and disbelief as they watch this dangerously narcissistic commander in chief show no passion for defending the United States but gush with emotion over the prospect of dumping 10,000 Syrian refugees in our land without proper security screening. We see photos of him with Russian thug President Vladimir Putin and think to ourselves, "I hope Putin will talk some sense into him about ISIS."
What a surreal time we are living in. What an age of presidential denial. God help us.
Without the power to tax, politicians lose their power over the people... higher taxes...
Keep it Ringing!
Content copyright . Jim Mullen. All rights reserved.