Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-25-2015, 02:31 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Wake Up America: Democrats at War with the People

From the Oval Office to numerous corrupted, liberalism-infected government agencies, Democrats arrogantly bully and govern with an iron fist against the will of a majority of Americans.
By Lloyd Marcus

Please forgive me for sounding like a doting dad, but I was blessed to watch my adult daughter play in the softball world series. I beamed with pride as the outfielders backed up when she came to bat. However, what I am about to report will further entrench me as a traitor in the minds of other blacks in my family.

My wife Mary alerted me to the latest horrific incidents of the Knockout Game that were ignored by the mainstream media. In New Jersey, a black thug knocked out an unsuspecting, defenseless white woman. In Baltimore, 50 black teens almost beat a 61-year-old white man to death. My former employer WJZ-TV Baltimore refused to mention in their coverage that the attackers were black. And yet, race is the first thing out of reporters' mouths in those rare incidences in which whites assault blacks. Stats show that blacks assault whites far more than vice versa.

I am the first to say all people are solely responsible for their behavior. However, I see these black assaults on whites as the fist of the Democratic Party punching out innocent whites – the hand of the Democratic Party pulling the trigger assassinating police officers across America.

Democrats with MSM assistance have successfully convinced many black youths to believe that white America is a collection of racist murderers and responsible for all of black America's woes. This Democrat-media insidious lie has caused black youths to feel morally justified in punishing their white nemesis.

Few people realize that the Democratic Party is at war with America. Yes, I am unequivocally saying everything the Democratic Party does is an attack on traditional morals and values. The party leadership is repulsed by our God-given freedom and rights written in the Constitution. Due to his radical education and perverted view of morality, President Obama believes that the world has too little because America has too much. He is using his presidency to dethrone America as the world power.

From the Oval Office to numerous corrupted liberalism-infected government agencies, Democrats arrogantly bully and govern with an iron fist against the will of a majority of Americans. In essence, the Obama regime gives the American people the finger daily.

From their perch of superiority, Democrats and liberal celebrity elitists believe that only they should be permitted to bear arms, rather than us hayseed commoners. These elitists live in massive mansions, drive gas-guzzlers, and use colossal amounts of fuel flying their private planes. Meanwhile, they lobby to force us peons to drive tiny tin cans, use public transportation, and “lower our carbon footprint” to “save the planet.”

Here are just a few examples of the Dems’ hidden war against Americans.

The nationwide epidemic of blacks attacking innocent whites is due to a clarion call to attack by Democrat-inspired and supported Black Lives Matter. What is so frustrating and crazy is that the BLM movement was founded on the lie that white cops and white civilians routinely murder blacks. Furthering this hate-generating lie, legitimizing and empowering the vile hate group, the Democratic National Committee has given BLM its blessing to host a presidential town hall – to discuss “racial justice.” Give me a break. Why not invite the KKK as well?

Then there is Kate's Law, which was voted down in the Senate by 44 Democrats. Thirty-two-year-old Kate Steinle, while enjoying a leisurely stroll with her dad on a San Francisco pier, was shot by an illegal who was convicted and deported numerous times. And yet, he kept coming back to the U.S.

Kate's Law is a mandatory five years in jail for felony illegals who keep coming back. To protect our families, a majority of Americans want Kate's Law. Democrats said, Screw you, America. We want to continue rolling out the welcome mat to illegals because we are working on giving them the right to vote. With all the government handouts we offer, we are pretty confident the illegals will become loyal Democrat voters. So screw Kate, her family, and you, America!

Another reason why Obama and the Democrats ignore federal law, encouraging the invasion of illegals, is because they believe that America has been too whitefor too long. I have to endure a rant from my wife every time she has to “press one for English.”

Despite national protest rallies and massive intense opposition from the American people, President Obama officially signed his insane Iran nuke deal, giving the world's largest sponsors of terrorism $150 billion. Iranians boldly chant, “Death to America.” Obama lied, claiming there are ballistic missile restrictions in his Iran nuke deal. There are not. And where will those missiles be pointed? The answer is America. Ponder that, folks.

By the way, a majority of American voters still oppose Obamacare. Obamacare is another example of the Democrats saying, Screw you – we're taking over your health care, deciding who lives or dies, whether you like it or not.

Average American Joe knows very little regarding what happened at our U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In a nutshell, Ambassador Stevens beggedSecretary of State Hillary Clinton for more security, saying they were sitting ducks for al-Qaeda terrorists. Stevens's request was denied. Nothing, including Stevens's and his staff's lives, would be allowed to contradict the Obama administration's lie that al-Qaeda was no longer a threat. Ambassador Stevens and other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on our consulate. Stevens's body was abused and dragged through the street.

To protect the administration's terrorism-is-not-a-problem lie, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Obama appeared on numerous TV shows insisting that the attack was a spontaneous protest sparked by an anti-Muslim video. Emails revealed that Hillary knew that the attack had nothing to do with a video and that it was a planned al-Qaeda terrorist attack.

Displaying the self-serving callousness of a sociopath, Hillary looked Pat Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, in the eye and promised to punish the producer of the video that caused the death of her son.

It is extremely chilling that a major political party places its liberal agenda above the lives and best interest of Americans. This is how their party rolls,
folks: Democrats versus the People.

In softball, my daughter is a natural. She hit a blast into the stadium lights, exploding them. Okay, I am exaggerating a bit. She did hit a ground-ball
single that drove in the winning run. That's my girl!

Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 01:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Iranian aggression since Obama nuclear deal looms as 2016 headache for Democrats

Iranian aggression since Obama nuclear deal looms as 2016 headache for Democrats

For any Democrat anxious to see the unpopular Iran nuclear agreement fade from public view between now and November 2016, it’s been a rough couple of weeks.

Headlines about the GOP Senate’s failed battle to stop the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action had all but disappeared when Iran launched an Oct. 11 test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Suddenly foes of the deal were back in the news, accusing Iran of breaking the agreement.

The White House and Iran countered that the launch did not violate the nuclear deal because it does not include missile testing. Even so, a group of Senate Democrats responded with a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry denouncing Iran’s move as a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and calling for “unilateral and multilateral responses.”

“There must be no ambiguity in our willingness to enforce Iran’s obligations under UN resolutions and the JCPOA,” said the Oct. 21 letter signed by 11 Democratic senators.

Only two of those — Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland and Charles E. Schumer of New York — voted against the deal.

The episode exemplifies a worst-case scenario for Democrats as they head into next year’s election, namely that Iran will give Republicans ample “I-told-you-so” opportunities by breaking the agreement, violating other international sanctions or keeping the issue in the public eye with recurring acts of aggression or anti-U.S. rhetoric.

House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Edward R. Royce weighed in after the formal adoption of the nuclear agreement on Oct. 18, known as Adoption Day, by ticking off a list of Iran’s recent transgressions, including Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani’s travel to Moscow in violation of sanctions.

“It’s sure tough to look at Iran’s actions over the last three months — let alone 35 years — and think Tehran will live up to its end of the nuclear bargain,” Mr. Royce said in a statement. “If this is what the last 90 days look like, the next few years look like a disaster.”

One day after the long-range missile launch, Iran was hit with more criticism for convicting Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian on espionage charges, prompting a blast from House Speaker John A. Boehner.

“President Obama’s gamble that a nuclear deal would lead to a more responsible Iran has already failed,” Mr. Boehner said. “This sham of a trial violated every international standard and made a mockery of Iran’s own legal system.”

Senate Republicans, joined by four Democrats, approved a resolution of disapproval Sept. 10 by 58-42 but were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to override President Obama’s veto.

The advocacy group J Street, which ran ads in favor of the nuclear deal leading up to the Senate vote, agreed that the ICBM test was a “gratuitous violation of a U.N. Security Council Resolution” but insisted that it did not breach the JCPOA itself.

“It’s not surprising that groups who oppose the JCPOA are seeking to cast every instance of Iranian bad behavior as a violation of it,” said J Street Vice President of Government Affairs Dylan Williams. “It would be much better for U.S. and Israeli security if those still hoping to kill the deal pivoted to working with the U.S. government to ensure its strict implementation.”

There’s little indication, however, that opponents of the JCPOA intend to back off given the enormous media and political campaign waged over the summer in an effort to defeat the agreement, which lifts economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear capability.

Opponents like the American Security Initiative and Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran outspent supporters like J Street as of Sept. 4 by a margin of $13 million to $2 million, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing Kantar Media.

Michael Pregent, executive director of Veterans Against the Deal, said his organization is weighing the possibility of more ads tied to the ICBM launch even before the election season gets underway.

“We’re contemplating putting something out talking about these violations,” said Mr. Pregent. “We’ll definitely be getting these up before implementation during the presidential election. We’ll highlight Iran’s violations. If the last 90 days are any indication of what Iran plans to do over the next 15 months, then we know that it’s not going to be a good year.”

The National Iranian American Council said on its blog that recent events may represent an initial response to the deal by Iranian “hardliners digging in” over “trepidation with shifting events while foreshadowing a continued struggle over Iran’s direction,” not a sign of things to come.

“This was far from unexpected, as many observers predicted an initial hardening as factions seek to balance against the success and popularity of [President Hassan] Rouhani and his team,” said the Oct. 16 post.

Even so, Mark Dubowitz, executive director of Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the ICBM test has direct implications for Iran’s compliance with the deal, which is aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“Iran is already in violation of the key U.N. Security Council Resolution (1929) that prohibits the development and testing of ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead,” Mr. Dubowitz said.

“This prohibition extends to the new USCR (2232) that will come into effect after Iran has complied with its nuclear commitments and that also gives effect to the JCPOA,” he said. “To permit Iran to develop with impunity one of the key elements of the nuclear trinity (ballistic missile, warhead, weapons-grade uranium) is to run a grave risk that Iran will continue on the path to the development of an atomic weapon.”

Adam Turner, general counsel and legislative affairs director at the Endowment for Middle East Truth, said the JCPOA’s actual prohibitions are still something of a moving target given reports that the Iran parliament approved an amended version earlier this month.

In addition, the official JCPOA is “very ambiguous, so it is hard to tell if even that is violated,” Mr. Turner said.

Certainly Republicans see the agreement as a winning issue given the polling prior to the Senate vote. A Pew Research Center poll released Sept. 8 found that those approving of the deal had fallen to 21 percent, with 49 percent disapproving.

“The Iran nuclear agreement is likely to be one of the major issues in 2016 because foreign policy has a Republican advantage,” said Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli, “and they intend on highlighting it.”

Last edited by Paparock; 12-03-2015 at 09:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2015, 02:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Local Democrat provides a platform for left-wing anti-Jewish hate.

Local Democrat provides a platform for left-wing anti-Jewish hate.
By Daniel Greenfield

Greenburgh (, a town in Westchester, an area which has some of the fastest growing Jewish suburban communities in the country, is an unlikely place to find hate groups holding forth in its Town Hall auditorium. It’s certainly not the place where you expect a man linked to a shadowy terrorist bank to be promoting hatred against Jews and Israel with the acquiescence of the town supervisor.

And yet, bomb-sniffing dogs( and metal detectors were the order of the day in the Greenburgh Town Hall as Jewish protesters( gathered outside while inside opponents of Israel denounced the Jewish State.

The Jewish Rapid Response Coalition( had come to stand up to hate, but found itself blocked and harassed while hate groups enjoyed the use of a taxpayer funded building. The event went ahead against the recommendation of Police Chief Chris McNerney. It went ahead even though its main speaker had defended terrorism and had authored an article titled, “Did Israel Really Think Hamas Would Turn the Other Cheek?”

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a sponsor of the event, was notorious for its participation in pro-Hamas events( Signs at rallies the organization had cosponsored in the past had included messages such as “Gaza is the Real Holocaust.”

Local observers, including the Edgemont Community Council(, attributed the disaster, which had put the town in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, to one man; Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner(

Feiner, a two-time failed congressional candidate, is a controversial figure even among Democrats. Ten years ago the New York Times had wondered what it was about him that seemed to “ignite in his fellow Democrats such a zealous desire to defeat him?”

Denied a seat in Congress, Paul Feiner had hung on to power in Greenburgh for decades, despite widespread resentment, and formed alliances with the extreme political left.

It is these alliances that are now coming back to haunt him.

Paul Feiner claimed that he was not “anti-Israel,” but argued that WESPAC(, one of the radical groups sponsoring the hatefest, “does some great things on social justice issues.”

When WESPAC (Westchester People's Action Coalition) had brought the “Made in Palestine” exhibit( glorifying terrorism against Jews to the Westchester County Center, other Democrats had denounced it as a “propaganda show for assassins” that demonstrated “anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish hatred, as well as tributes to terrorists.” Exhibits had included the Hamas symbol and a homage to “the first 13 Palestinian ‘martyrs.’” But other Democrats still remained in thrall to WESPAC’s hatred.

Three years ago, Paul Feiner had appeared at an event against “Islamophobia” organized by Priscilla Read, the coordinator of the local JVP group. While Feiner claims not to support the hate group’s agenda, he had appeared at an event organized by its militantly anti-Israel coordinator.

But Priscilla Read wasn’t the most troubling figure at the event.

Front and center was the former Chair of the WESPAC board, Khusro Elley( and a member of the Westchester Coalition Against Islamophobia( Elley had become famous as a key figure in the BCCI scandal(, which Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau had described( as “the largest bank fraud in world financial history.”

BCCI had been informally known( by law enforcement as the "Bank of Crooks and Criminals”. BCCI had been founded by Agha Hasan Abedi( to “fight the evil influence of the West”. Its account holders had included Osama bin Laden. Abedi also wanted BCCI to "fight the evil influence of the Zionists". Abedi had funded the Carter Center(, but the Abu Nidal terrorists who had targeted synagogues, Jewish teens and the Goldenberg restaurant in Paris also had their BCCI account.

Abedi had used Khusro Elley to pass along orders. BCCI is long gone, but Elley has remained active.

In ’09, Khusro Elley appeared at a WESPAC( protest against Israel’s self-defense in the face of Hamas terror. Elley bragged of getting a passerby to concede “that it was not all the fault of Hamas.”

On his blog, Elley ranted that the Jews control America. “No one can explain to me how a great nation like the US allows itself to be dictated by a few million Jews,” he wrote( The United States “is captive to a( minority with money.”

The former chairman of WESPAC’s troubling views didn’t stop with anti-Semitism.

He contended that(, “The Muslims can certainly take the credit for stopping the American Empire in its tracks by holding them to a stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Praising the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped inspire Al Qaeda, Elley wrote(, “Syed Qutub is a man demonized by the West but his book Social Justice in Islam should be required reading for all Muslims.”

This is the same book in which Qutb writes approvingly of Muslim "plunder, which consists of everything possessed by an unbeliever who has been killed by a Muslim". Qutb accused the Jews of monopolizing medicine and plotting to collect all the money in “the great usurious Jewish financial institutions.”

Qutb is better known for "Our Struggle with the Jews" in which he accused the Jews of inventing sex and materialism and blamed them for the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Hitler, according to Qutb, had been Allah's instrument for punishing the Jews.

Khusro Elley’s support for terrorism even appeared directly on the WESPAC site( where he is quoted as saying that, “The Lashkae Tayyaba and the Jaishi Mohammadi are people trained and bred by the Pakistan Army as freedom fighters to support the struggle of the Kashmiri people against the brutal suppression of their people by a 500,000 strong Indian Army.”

Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terror group funded by Bin Laden, was responsible for training the terrorists( that carried out the Mumbai Massacre, which included the brutal murder of Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his pregnant wife, Rivka. The dead Jews had been tortured by Khusro Elley’s “freedom fighters.”

Khusro Elley is a member of the Westchester Coalition Against Islamophobia. But the Coalition’s main mission seems to be attacking the Jewish State. Also listed in the Coalition is Priscilla Read of JVP. And Feiner had initially decided to allow the Coalition to use the Town Hall for yet another event featuring opponents of Israel while preventing a pro-Israel group ( from holding its own event.

After the Edgemont Community Council warned that Paul Feiner’s actions might be a potential violation( of the First Amendment(, a controversial upcoming event by the Westchester Coalition Against Islamophobia has been moved out( of Town Hall. This event was set to feature Bina Ahmad who had appeared at an event( showcasing the "art" of the head of Islamic Jihad in the US, an aspiring subway bomber, the American Taliban and a terrorist who threatened to murder the South Park creators for almost showing Mohammed in an episode of the series.

Bina Ahmad has described Israel( as an “Apartheid state.” She was a vocal defender of Shahid Alam( who had written that, “On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die - and to kill - for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity.”

Alan Levine, another of the WCAI panelists, is a JVP member( who has attacked mainstream Jewish organizations as “Islamophobic” and promoted a boycott( of Israel. Levine is a co-founder of Jews Against Islamophobia(; an organization which gained notoriety when its phony protest against the 9/11 Museum was exposed in viral photos( showing Muslim women in Hijabs holding up signs claiming to be, “Jews Against Islamophobia.”(

With two panelists linked to JVP, the latest event titled “Free Speech/Hate Speech” appeared to be yet another production of the JVP hate group and its allies. Responding to growing community outrage, Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner( announced that the next WESPAC hatefest would be moved out of Town Hall.

This may mean that Greenburgh residents will no longer be forced to foot the bill for bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detectors because of WESPAC. But Feiner has made it clear that he continues to support WESPAC and that leaves Greenburgh at risk of future disruptions caused by the hate group.

The effective response by members of the Jewish community and in particular, the Jewish Rapid Response Coalition(, shows how important it is to stand up to anti-Semitism. While major Jewish organizations were willing to let the hate continue, committed activists fought the good fight and won.

The JRRC has said that it will remain vigilant over the abuse of town facilities by WESPAC and its allies to spread anti-Jewish hate. And Greenburgh residents will have to decide if the price of Paul Feiner’s extremist political allies is too much for their bank accounts and their souls.

Last edited by Paparock; 12-03-2015 at 09:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 02:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Fighting the Real Foe

Fighting the Real Foe
It's not the Democrats the Republican candidates really need to worry about. It's the people who own the Democrats.
By Bruce Walker

The CNBC Republican debate, particularly the candid expressions of disgust by many of the Republican contenders at the blatant bigotry of the panel toward Republicans, brings home the real enemy of conservatives and genuine reform in America. That foe, of course, is the Leftist Establishment, which infests the media and operates in restraint of trade by colluding with notional "competitors" by presenting an identical ideological and partisan product.

Sock puppets like Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, and Biden are transparently dumb and ignorant, like all the straw bosses of leftism, and these folks instinctively grasp that without the vast army of largely invisible leftist cadres, these folks would lose power forever. Until conservatives publicly identify the real foe and then directly attack that real foe, nothing will change, and conservatives will become increasingly frustrated and depressed.

The acid test of the conservatism of any prospective Republican nominees ought to be their willingness to unify in common cause against this real foe, this vast and unaccountable Leftist Establishment. In the area of presidential debates, here is a fairly simple and direct answer: until Democrats have debates with conservatives querying Democrat candidates, Republicans should not have leftists querying Republican candidates. There are many excellent conservative analysts who are actually seeking the best Republican nominee and who could ask serious and intelligent questions not designed to hurt or to help a particular candidate.

But the Republican candidates ought to do more. These candidates ought to stop appearing on any news programs of the Leftist Establishment, and anyone who seeks to pander to that anti-conservative media should be condemned by the other candidates. Once the only way to reach voters was through the old "Big Three" media outlets, but today, every news outlet needs all the viewers it can get.

This ought to be very public, too, and the candidates, united, ought to accuse specifically all these media outlets as corrupt and biased backers of the left. When the leftist media is attacked as being leftist, it is forced into a corner (a corner, of course, of its own making). If these news outlets overtly appeared angry and leftist, well, that confirms the accusations, but silence is just as damning.

Moreover, making the presidential campaign against the giant and multi-billion-dollar corporations who collude against the public interest to present a single ideological and partisan position creates a legitimate and genuine battle line between rich and powerful corporations (the leftist media) and ordinary Americans, represented by the very diverse Republican field.

"The malefactors of the great wealth" was a term Teddy Roosevelt used to describe giant corporations acting against the public interest. T.R. was a Republican, and the phrase he used in 1907 sounds as good today for conservatives to describe those super-rich corporations who are never attacked by Clinton or Sanders because, in reality, those corporations control Clinton and Sanders and the whole left. Republican candidates ought to be asking these corporations how they ensure ideological diversity in their newsrooms, to state how many members of Republican and Democrat administrations are on their payroll, and to note the amount of air time given spokesmen for the two parties.

Republicans – and any Republican candidate who shrinks from this is much worse than simply a RINO – ought directly to accuse the leftist media of failing America and failing good government and objectivity, and state that any time a leftist flack on one of these outlets spends shamelessly pandering to the left during the next twelve months ought to be considered a corporate campaign contribution to the Democratic Party.

Moreover, Republicans ought to say that if the leftist media does not clearly mark these as in support of Democrats, that ought to be a direct violation of campaign finance laws, which require full disclosure (and which condemn as criminal conspiracy any attempt to get around the law by lying about advocacy). Don't pussyfoot around on this aspect; directly accuse the leftist media, its corporate officers, and its directors of criminal malfeasance, especially if they continue to lie about their advocacy and bias.

Any other giant corporation that blatantly deceived the public would be in trouble – indeed, these leftist media are often the first to call for the heads of other corporations who are dishonest – so all Republicans would be doing is to ask for the leftist media to be held to the same standard that it demands for other corporations.

This would energize conservatives, demoralize leftists, and allow the next Republican president to implement a true revolution by ignoring the real foe: the entrenched leftist media establishment.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2015, 03:54 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Report Reveals What Is Now the Largest Single Religious Group Among Democrats

Report Reveals What Is Now the Largest Single Religious Group Among Democrats and Democratic-Leaning Americans — and It’s Stunning

The largest, single religious group among Democrats is now the “nones”an umbrella group that includes atheists, agnostics and those unaffiliated with a specific faith, according to the second installment of the Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study.

The new report, titled, “U.S. Becoming Less Religious” — a follow-up to a highly publicized report that the research firm released in May — found that the growth of the “nones” has had a “particularly pronounced impact on the Democratic Party coalition.”

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults, the “nones,” as a singular religious group, now outnumber any other group, including evangelicals, Catholics, mainline Protestants and other religious cohorts.

Despite making up just 19 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults back in 2007, the unaffiliated now account for 28 percent, compared to the 21 percent who are Catholics and the 16 percent who are evangelicals.

Back in 2007, the proportion of Catholics was 24 percent and the proportion of evangelicals came in at 19 percent, according to Pew analysis.

As for Republicans, the biggest religious cohort in the 2014 wave of the study remains evangelicals, who made up 38 percent of the GOP in 2014 as opposed to 37 percent back in 2007; the second biggest group in 2014 was Catholics, down to 21 percent from 22 percent in 2007.

It should be noted that the unaffiliated cohort among Republicans also grew from 10 percent in 2007 to 14 percent in 2014.

The newly released report — which found decreases in the proportions of Americans who say they believe in God, pray daily and attend church — follows an earlier Pew Research Center report this year that documented a notable decrease in the proportion of Americans calling themselves Christians.

The “nones” are not necessarily atheist or agnostic, as TheBlaze has extensively documented. While the umbrella group most certainly includes non-believers, the latest report shows that 61 percent of “nones” still believe in “God or [a] universal spirit,” though that proportion is down from the 70 percent that was observed in 2007.

Read the latest Pew report in its entirety here>

Last edited by Paparock; 11-03-2015 at 03:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2015, 02:29 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation What the Steinle and Brown Shootings Reveal About Democratic National Strategy

What the Steinle and Brown Shootings Reveal About Democratic National Strategy
Democrats value political power above all things, including the rule of law, the lives of innocent young women, and the Constitution.
By Michael Bargo, Jr.

This year the nation was stunned by the deaths of two young people, Kate Steinle and Michael Brown. Each one became the focus of national media coverage. Each one involved a minority. In the Steinle case the alleged murderer is Hispanic while in the Brown case the person who shot Michael Brown was a white police officer.

But while both cases involved different minorities the portrayal of the two incidents was much different. Michael Brown, it was first reported, was an innocent, unarmed young black man whose only crime was in being black and having the misfortune of encountering an allegedly racist white police officer.

Kate Steinle was, allegedly, murdered by an illegal immigrant. Furthermore, the law enforcement authorities of San Francisco knew he was wanted by Federal law enforcement authorities, and that authorities had officially requested that San Francisco police detain him until he could be placed into Federal custody. This was because the alleged shooter of Steinle was convicted of seven felonies, had been deported from the U.S. five times, and had after each deportation, returned back to the U.S. He has allegedly stated that he returned to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city that does not enforce Federal immigration law.

Michael Brown was portrayed as an innocent victim of white oppression. The police officer who shot him was portrayed as racist, while the alleged murderer of Kate Steinle was not portrayed as exhibiting racism or racially motivated violence. Rather, the important thing about Kate Steinle’s alleged murderer was that his moral and ethical character was neither approved nor disapproved. In his case the media, and in particular liberal spokespersons, made an effort to downplay the violence.

Democrats politicized the violence of Michael Brown’s death but sought to de-emphasize any political aspect to the death of Kate Steinle. But while these two incidents were treated in opposite ways in reality they are both consistent with the strategy Democrats have with regard to minorities.
President Obama asked his Justice Department to investigate the Ferguson, Missouri police department for evidence of civil rights violations. In a detailed report the Justice Department found a pattern of conduct that violates some civil rights, there was not enough evidence to prosecute Police Officer Darren Wilson for federal civil rights violations in the Michael Brown incident.

Significantly, President Obama has not asked the Justice Department to investigate if Kate Steinle’s civil right to public safety was violated by the sheriff, the mayor, or San Francisco supervisors for failing to take positive actions to defend the rights of citizens against violence perpetrated by illegal immigrants. In fact, San Francisco officials continue to defend their policy of ignoring the 1996 Immigration Act, even though sanctuary status is a violation of Federal law. Between January 2014 and June 2015 San Francisco law enforce officials declined to enforce more than 10,000 “holds” requested by ICE, more than the rest of the U.S. combined. Obama has done nothing.

In 2013 S.F. Mayor Ed Lee signed an ordinance barring the city’s law enforcement agencies from cooperating with most immigration and custom’s enforcement requests. Yet no investigation has been started of Mayor Lee for his violations of Federal law and violating his oath to uphold the laws of the land.

So while Michael Brown’s death provoked a heavy-handed Federal investigation, San Francisco’s sanctuary policy does not. While they seem to be contradictory on their face, they are both consistent with the Democrat Party’s overall strategy: to encourage blacks to vote for their candidate in 2016, and to pander to the Hispanic vote in the 2016 election.

Michael Brown was black, and Democrats sought to stir up white racism in order to stimulate blacks to come out and vote for their party in 2016. This required resurrecting the old 1960s civil rights language, whether it accurately applied to the situation or not.

Kate Steinle’s alleged murderer is Hispanic, and Democrats sought to downplay the fact that he was an illegal immigrant with a very serious record of criminal behavior. The reason they did this was because they needed to defend their strategy of illegal immigration. They cannot afford to have any bad publicity; they want Americans to believe that illegal immigrants are just like anybody else, and are in the process of assimilating into American society.

Democrats do not want the public to see that illegal immigrants are getting away with defying Federal law. They have been promoting illegal immigration since the late 1970s and cannot risk losing the public’s support. They do not want illegal immigrants seen as criminals, such a perception would disrupt their goal of filling their sanctuary cities with illegal residents.

So while Kate Steinle and Michael Brown seem like very different cases, in reality they both are being used by Democrats to push their political agenda. One would imagine that Democrats would benefit by appearing to protect the law, that they would immediately indict Steinle’s alleged murderer and take all legal measures.

The reason behind this is that Democrats have always gained political power by controlling the largest urban areas of the United States, from Portland, Oregon and Los Angeles, to New York and Boston. And because all of these old strongholds of Democratic power have been losing population, and legal, Federally approved immigration procedures cannot provide enough immigrants to restore the population of these cities, Democrats have chosen to defy Federal immigration law. But in so doing they must also allow criminal illegal immigrants to be immune to prosecution.

Democrats also don’t want to scare illegal immigrants away from San Francisco. So they must protect the city’s reputation as a safe haven from Federal and criminal law. While this may seem outrageous beyond belief to the average law-abiding American, Democrats are more than willing to conceive of this strategy and do anything they must do to make it happen and keep it alive. To them it is a matter of preserving their political power, and they obviously value that above all things, including the rule of law, the lives of innocent young women, and the Constitution.

The result of all this manipulation of the public’s perception of criminal behavior is that violence against police is now on the rise and the criminal behavior of illegal immigrants continues to be ignored. This slow anarchy-creep is not a concern of Democrats, who are too busy whipping up Hispanic and black votes to be concerned with law and order. In fact in these two incidents law and order were pushed aside in deference to the will of the Democrat Party.

That this is a strategy of the DNC, or what I call the Democrat National Machine, is very clear. They created sanctuary policy, they created all the black ghettoes in the country, they control all the major metropolitan areas and they see their continuing dominance of government and Federal policy as dependent upon this control. Melissa Click of the U. of Missouri was simply being a good liberal employee when she sought to control media coverage of an event staged to continue the DNC’s strategy.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-13-2015 at 02:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2015, 06:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Question Symbolism


Most Never Got It! Listen Again and See If You Get It?

Subsitute Red States and Blue States for Red Pill and Blue Pill. Get it now? There is much more symbolism going on if you care to see it all.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-19-2015 at 06:16 PM..
Old 11-21-2015, 02:52 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb New DNC Ad Hits GOP For Using Term “Radical Islam”

New DNC Ad Hits GOP For Using Term “Radical Islam”

NOVEMBER 21, 2015

As the world still reels from jihad mass murder attacks in Paris and Bamako, and Israeli civilians are under daily siege from murderous Islamic jihadists, the Democratic National Committee is trying to make a virtue of willful ignorance, making a hero of the man they relentlessly doused with contempt and hatred for eight years, George W. Bush, and holding up as exemplary his denial of the nature of the jihad threat. “It’s a war against evil people,” Bush says of the war on terror in this ad — apparently that is as far as the DNC is willing to go and wants anyone else to go in naming the enemy in this war.

Meanwhile, Muslim clerics call for jihad murder from their pulpits. Muslims who commit mass murder scream “Allahu akbar” as they do it, and use Qur’an tests to determine who they will kill and who they will set free. But for the DNC, if you notice the Islamic character of the war against us even to the degree of using the weaselly term “radical Islam,” you’re “inciting fear.”

The DNC claims that to say “radical Islam” is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. That is tantamount to claiming that to say “Italian mafia” is to assert that all Italians are mafiosi. The distinction is not really that difficult: not all Muslims are terrorists, but Islamic terrorism derives from Islamic principles. Islamic advocacy groups have labored for years to obscure that simple truth, and the DNC is now working enthusiastically in service of their agenda.

“DNC Ad Attacking Republicans for Saying ‘Radical Islam’ Is Laughably Stupid,” by Alex Griswold, Mediaite, November 20, 2015:

A new ad from the Democratic National Committee attacks Republican presidential candidates for using the term “radical Islam.” Entitled “Inciting fear isn’t presidential,” the ad argues that the use of the term is offensive to Muslims.

I’ve seen my share of nasty, bizarre, and over-the-top political ads. But this may be the first that I can honestly say is just plain stupid.

To begin with, the ad is horribly tone-deaf. I don’t doubt that the decision-makers in the Democratic Party are horrified by the phrase “radical Islam.” But a new poll released today on the issue found that a supermajority of Americans agree that the United States is at war with radical Islam, including 56% of Democratic voters. Only 24% of the country agrees with the president. So right off the bat, the Democratic Party is attacking Republicans for a stance their own voters agree with.

But of course, the ad attacked Republicans for just saying “radical Islam,” not saying we’re at war with it. Well, 92% of Americans also say “radical Islamic terrorism” is a serious threat to the United States. But hey, at least the DNC is making inroads with that 8%.

To say nothing of the timing behind the ad. Literally any other time of the year, voters might have just rolled their eyes at the unbearable PC-ness of it all. But the DNC ad comes after a series of major terrorist attacks across the globe… and after President Barack Obama gave a speech in response that left the impression that he was more fired up about attacking his domestic critics than taking on ISIS. To attack Republicans for “inciting fear” about radical Islam in the wake of nonstop news about radical Islamic terror is just an unbelievable misfire….

Last edited by Paparock; 12-03-2015 at 09:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 02:54 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Radical Islam — The Invisible Enemy

Radical Islam — The Invisible Enemy
By Caroline Glick

As the cleaning crews were mopping up the dried blood from the stage and the seats of the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, a depressing act appeared on stage in distant Iowa.

Saturday night the three contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination took to the stage in Iowa for a debate. The moderator asked them whether they would be willing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the ideology motivating Islamic terrorists to massacre innocents. All refused.

Like her former boss, US President Barack Obama, former secretary of state and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton not only refused to accept the relevance of the term. Clinton refused to acknowledge what radical Islam stands for.

She merely noted some of what it rejects.

In her words, “I think this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.”

Her opponents agreed with her.

But of course, it is easy to understand what motivates Islamic terrorists. They tell us all the time. They want the world to be run by an Islamic empire. When they are in charge, they will kill, subjugate, convert or enslave all non-Muslims, except Jews. The Jews will be obliterated.

The attacks they carry out in the Western world are viewed both as battles for the soul of Muslims worldwide and as a means to terrorize non-Muslims into accepting subjugation.

True there are competing schools inside of the world of radical Islam.

On the one hand, there is the Sunni version of radical Islam propounded by the Muslim Brotherhood. They want the Islamic empire to be an Islamic caliphate. On the other hand, you have the Shiite version of radical Islam propounded by the Iranian regime in Tehran. Its adherents want the Islamic empire to be ruled by an ayatollah in Tehran.

For Americans and the rest of the free world though, this is a distinction without any real meaning. The radical Islamic goal of destroying America – and the rest of the world – is the same regardless of who ends up winning the intramural jihad contest. And as we have seen repeatedly in recent years, the sides are happy to come together to achieve their common goal of killing us and destroying our societies.

The Americans’ avoidance of reality is not unique. The Europeans also refuse to see it.

Following the jihadist massacres at Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher in Paris in January, French President Francois Hollande insisted that the attackers who killed in the name of Islam had nothing to do with Islam.

After jihadists in London beheaded British soldier Lee Rigby outside his barracks in 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that the attack, carried out in the name of Islam, had nothing to do with Islam.

The operational consequences of the West’s refusal to acknowledge the nature of the forces waging war against it have disastrous.

Radical Islam is an ideology that serves both as an organizing principle for civil societies and a military doctrine. By ignoring it, the US and the rest of the free nations of the world have made it impossible to conceptualize or implement a strategy for either discrediting it or defeating its adherents.

Rather than develop comprehensive plans for dealing with this enemy, the Americans, the Europeans and others have opted for a mix of policies running the spectrum from appeasement to whack-a-mole operations.

Abroad, appeasement has taken its most significant form in the US-led nuclear deal with Iran. As the largest state sponsor of terrorism and the most active radical Islamic imperialist force in the Middle East, Iran is the ground zero of radical Islam. It not only oversees and directs the operations of its puppets, like Syrian President Bashar Assad, and its foreign legions, like Hezbollah.

The Iranian regime has also played a key role in developing Muslim Brotherhood offshoots like al Qaeda, which received, and likely continues to receive training and direction from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. As for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, if Iran had been interested in preventing its rise, IS would never have taken over any territory in either country.

At home, appeasement of radical Islamic forces has involved embracing Muslim Brotherhood front groups and insisting that radical Islamic clerics are moderates because they aren’t pulling any triggers.

The West’s whack a mole war against radical Islam at home and abroad has meant that even as one group – like core al Qaeda – is cut down, it is swiftly replaced by other groups, like Islamic State. And if IS is eventually cut down, it too will be replaced by another group, and then reconstitute itself as IS when the West’s attention is taken up by the next major group.

Obama has enabled this state affairs by defining the enemy as narrowly as possible, reducing the whole sphere of radical Islam to a few secrete groups – like al Qaeda and IS – that he seeks to defeat or contain.

It is not simply that the whack a mole strategy doesn’t work. It is self-defeating. Since the radical Islamic trigger pullers in the West are usually no more than a few people who get together to murder people, insisting that someone has to be a card carrying member of a recognized terror group before authorities will go after him makes it almost impossible to find operatives and prevent attacks.

The murderers Friday may well never have received formal orders to commit their attacks from a central jihadist headquarters. They may have met at a mosque in Paris or Brussels and decided to do it. Certainly they needed no advanced training to mow down people eating dinner or watching a rock concert. They didn’t even really need to know how to shoot straight.

As for their explosives vests, all they needed was a guy with a working knowledge of explosives to set them up with the means to turn themselves into human bombs. Maybe he trained in Syria. Maybe he has a degree in chemistry from the Sorbonne. Maybe he is just good at following YouTube videos.

The most important component of Friday night’s massacre was the terrorists’ radical Islamic motivation. Their belief in their ideology motivated them to die killing innocent people. Everything else was secondary. They may have been inspired and loosely directed by the heads of IS. But if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed six months ago, they would have found another source of inspiration.

And that’s the main point. While Friday’s killers may have given their allegiance to IS, they were operationally and ideologically all but indistinguishable from their predecessors in the London subways in 2005 and the Madrid commuter rails in 2004 who hailed from al Qaeda. Likewise, while the US may have seriously degraded core al Qaeda in the Middle East over the past seven years, IS in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya is an organic extension of al Qaeda.

To defeat these groups, the US and its allies need to adopt a strategy that is rooted in an acknowledgment of the nature of our true enemy: radical Islam. Armed with this recognition, the nations of the free world can determine operational guidelines for combatting not only specific, secrete groupings of adherents to this ideology, they can develop overall strategies for combatting it at home and in the Middle East.

At home, such strategies require Western governments to penetrate, disrupt and destroy radical Islamic networks on the ground in a sustained, concentrated manner. In the Middle East, they require the free world to stop seeking to appease leaders, regimes and militias that support and ascribe to radical Islam.

Sunday night, a group of Parisians stood outside one of the sites of Friday night’s massacre and sang La Marseilles. Without fear, a woman garbed in the black robes of radical Islam stepped into the crowd and began bellowing out Allahu Akbar. She probably isn’t a card carrying member of IS. Rather, in all likelihood she is just someone who ascribes to radical Islam and so sees France as her enemy.

Assuming the women doesn’t belong to a terror group, French officials will not monitor her or her relatives. If she or any of her relatives murder their fellow citizens of France, authorities will probably say they were lone wolves.

Every day the US and its allies maintain their refusal to acknowledge that radical Islam exists and that the regime in Tehran, al Qaeda, IS, Hamas and all the rest are mere expressions of this larger ideology, the danger radical Islam poses to the survival of free societies will continue to mount and grow. Saturday night’s Democratic debate was a depressing reminder how low we have fallen.

It Is Definetly Invisible To Obama As He Refuses To Hear About It, See It, SpeaK Against It and He For Sure Has NO Intention to take ANY EFFECTIVE ACTIONS AGAINST IT!!! Obama's actions over the last two years should confirm that! Paparock
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2015, 03:28 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Democrats Empower Citizens to Restrict Constitutional Rights

Democrats Empower Citizens to Restrict Constitutional Rights
No one would suggest that restaurants have the right to ban Asians or blacks, but somehow because of the hysterical anti-gun rhetoric they are allowed to ban persons from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
By Michael Bargo, Jr.

In order to pursue their politicization of personal behavior, progressive Democrats have recently taken a troubling step. They have acted at both the state and Federal levels to empower citizens to take actions that clearly impair the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.

This is particularly evident in the treatment of two rights that were decided by the Supreme Court: same sex marriage and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. How these rights are treated proves that Democrats are once again bending and distorting the Constitution in order to use these issues to gain political support from their voters.

The contempt President Obama has for established order in Federal government, particularly in the manner in which he has ignored Congress, is well known. He has also stated that if he doesn’t like a law written by Congress, such as any law dealing with immigration, he will just ignore their proposed bills and declare his own by Executive Order.

Democrats have now empowered citizens to decide when and where other citizens may exercise their constitutional rights. This is most clearly illustrated in how government treats the rights of storeowners with regard to same sex marriage and concealed carry laws.

Examples abound. In Colorado when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, the state court ruled against the baker. The government has made sure that no bakery, florist or pizza place may refuse to serve a same sex couple. But in Illinois any storeowner can merely put a sign in their window and deny any citizen with a legal concealed carry permit the right to exercise their Second Amendment-based right to keep and bear a firearm.

Gay rights were first established in states by judges. In 2002 no state allowed gay marriage, but the number increased primarily through court rulings. This is a violation of states’ rights. But most of these same judges won’t defend concealed carry rights; perhaps because the Second Amendment wasn’t established by them.

Just imagine if a storeowner in Illinois used crime statistics to argue that he should be allowed to ban blacks from his store. Look at the facts; he/she may argue: blacks are 13% of the population yet commit 56% of the robberies, 28 % of the property crime, and 41% of the weapons arrests. The fact is, the black crime rate is higher than that of whites’. Yet no one, especially a Democrat who fights concealed carry permit laws, would dare suggest that this is a reasonable justification for a storeowner to ban blacks from entering their stores.

But storeowners fearing guns are allowed to discriminate against concealed carry permit carriers. However, there is not one iota of evidence that concealed weapon carriers commit crimes at a rate higher than non-carriers. The FBI doesn’t categorize murder or other crimes as to whether or not the perpetrator had a concealed carry permit. The crime rate for concealed carry weapons permit holders is, if you study FBI records, zero. While some murderers use legal guns, they do not have concealed carry permits, according to FBI data.

Yet, discrimination against concealed carriers is not only tolerated by Democrats, it is codified into Illinois state law. The chief law enforcement agency of Illinois, the IL State Police, makes a free No Guns sign available for download from the internet. This is the constitutional equivalent of a State Attorney General’s office distributing signs that state No Blacks Allowed.

And while people worry that concealed guns should be banned, the irrefutable fact is, when Chicago banned handguns for twenty five years FBI and Chicago police records revealed that the murder rate went up forty four percent.

This is state-endorsed discrimination, and someone with a conceal carry permit should sue a storeowner in Illinois for a violation of their rights, and the State of Illinois for mandating these Second Amendment violations. However, as I have noted before, there is no penalty for violating the Constitution, particularly when these violations are committed by Democratic politicians.

In Illinois, the resistance to gun ownership is maintained by Democrats who have supermajorities in both state houses. They have no evidence so they need to set up a fantasy issue of gun control merely in order to hang onto their voter support. The IL State Law 098-0063 called the Concealed Carry Act is 168 pages long. The Second Amendment is one sentence long.
It’s also an issue of equal protection of the law. It is difficult for Democrats to explain how Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have secret service protection whose members carry loaded handguns but civilians in Illinois are banned from carrying legal handguns to most public places. Equal protection also means equal protection under the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Justice Dept. has a website instructing citizens in how to file a Federal civil rights lawsuit. But to my knowledge this does not cover the topic of how to sue states for Second Amendment rights violations.

Somehow the right to exercise the Second Amendment is not listed as a civil right. Should a Republican win the presidency in 2017, he/she should immediately work to list/enforce the Second Amendment under the Civil Rights Act to assure Federal protection, enforced by the Justice Dept. so states cannot fabricate unreasonable restrictions as they do now in many states. SCOTUS has already given same sex marriage de jure civil right status. The right to carry a legal gun is clearly in the Constitution, same sex marriage is not.

The U.S. Constitution does not say that the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens can be regulated by small business owners. No one would suggest that restaurants have the right to ban Asians or blacks, but somehow because of the hysterical anti-gun rhetoric they are allowed to ban persons from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a legally owned gun.

Today drivers are allowed to drive a car until they violate motor vehicle laws. Laws such as DUI can limit their privileges. The same standards could be used with concealed carry permit owners; that their rights cannot be taken away until they violate laws. The concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to concealed carry permit owners. Yet state BMVs have no issue with assuming drivers are innocent of DUIs until proven guilty.

Another recent way Democrats have tried to take away rights is through the use of protesters at college campuses. The safe space movement tries to limit student free speech, even speech that is not abusive or in violation of the free speech of others. And this is being done through liberal persons who are public employees such as Melissa Click by the U. of Missouri. She made a clear reference to violence when she said “we need some muscle over here.” Her intention was to intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Democrats are desperate. They’ve lost the House and Senate, and need to cling to as many of the black and gun control voters as possible. It’s unfortunate that President Obama can’t use economic growth and middle class prosperity as sources of voter support.

Last edited by Paparock; 12-05-2015 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2015, 03:55 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Democratic party conducts outreach through leader of terrorist group

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and company's disturbing embrace of radical Islam.
By Joe Kaufman

In a push to do outreach to the local Muslim community, the Florida Democratic Party has officially recognized the American Muslim Democratic Caucus (AMDC), a group based in South Florida with members around the state. While this might look innocuous on its face, AMDC is headed by a woman, Ghazala Salam, who is the leader of a terrorist organization and has deep ties to various radical Islamic institutions.

Salam is the Community and Government Relations Director for the Florida chapter of CAIR, a group that only one year ago was labeled a terrorist organization, alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations was established in June 1994 as part of the American Palestine Committee, a terrorist umbrella group headed by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named by the United States Justice Department a co-conspirator for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. Since its founding, a number of CAIR representatives have served jail time and/or have been deported from the US for terrorist-related crimes.

CAIR-Florida, Salam’s chapter, reflects the same extremism as the national organization. In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where rally goers shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” Following the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, wrote, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” In August 2014, CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly wrote, “Israel and its supporters are enemies of G-d...”

Apart from CAIR, Salam is also involved with Islamic Relief, which like CAIR has been labeled a terrorist organization by the UAE government. Salam, along with her CAIR-Florida colleagues, helps coordinate a nationwide annual event run by Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA) called the ‘Day of Dignity.’ IRUSA is the American affiliate of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), Salam has been representing Islamic Relief for this event since at least October 2013.

Islamic Relief’s ties to terror are well known. The Russian government has accused Islamic Relief of supporting terrorism in Chechnya. Israel has banned the group, labeling it a Hamas front and arresting the organization’s Gaza Program Manager, Ayaz Ali, in 2006, for providing assistance to Hamas. Reports show that Islamic Relief has sent millions of dollars to and received tens of thousands of dollars from groups related to al-Qaeda.

The Chairman of IRUSA is Khaled Lamada. Lamada is also the co-chairman of the Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society (ICNA-MAS) national convention. ICNA has been linked to terrorist financing and has used the web to promote a number of terrorist groups, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Taliban. MAS, like CAIR and Islamic Relief, has been named to the UAE government’s list of terrorist organizations. Lamada has used social media to advocate for such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Ghazala Salam is the President of AMDC. The treasurer of the group is Safiah Maryam Khan, who is also the local Office Manager for CAIR. Last month, on November 15th, Khan posted a photo of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on her Facebook page, with the caption, ‘Hezbollah chief vows to continue fight against ISIL.’ Under it, Khan wrote, “We’re all in this together.”

On November 27th, a report in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel stated about Salam and her AMDC, “The 2016 elections will be the first her group has been an officially recognized caucus of the Florida Democratic Party.” The report then offered a photo pulled from the AMDC website of Salam, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Florida Democratic Party (FDP) Chairwoman Allison Tant Richard. The photo was taken at the June 2014 Florida Democratic Party Leadership Blue Gala.

Other photos from the gala contain South Florida imam Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, who, along with former President Bill Clinton, was a speaker at the gala. Shafayat Mohamed is the imam of the Darul Uloom mosque, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida.

Shafayat Mohamed has been thrown off a number of boards in Broward County for his actions against homosexuals. In February 2005, an article written by him was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God,’ claiming that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. As well, a number of al-Qaeda terrorists have spent time at Darul Uloom. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student of Shafayat Mohamed’s at the mosque, and now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader there.

Ghazala Salam has gotten close to Shafayat Mohamed. A video of Salam being interviewed by him for Al-Hikmat, the media arm of Darul Uloom, was published on the mosque’s website in June. As well, Salam has been honored in the last three bi-monthly newsletters of Al-Hikmat, and she was the recipient of an award at the 2015 annual Al-Hikmat award ceremony in May. Furthermore, the founding Vice President of Salam’s AMDC, Naima Khan-Ghany, hosts a weekly show for Al-Hikmat.

The Florida Democratic Party’s embrace of Salam and Shafayat Mohamed, individuals associated with terrorism and bigotry, is alarming and dangerous. It is evidence of high level infiltration into local government, and it must not be ignored.

If the Democratic Party wishes to retain a modicum of credibility, vis a vis its claims that it promotes peace and equality, it must remove AMDC from its ranks and distance itself from the likes of Salam and Shafayat Mohamed decisively and definitively. By not doing so, the party will have chosen to side with America’s enemies, at a time when the country is under threat of terrorist attack.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 04:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Chicago: The mess that Democrats made.

Chicago: The mess that Democrats made.
By Daniel Greenfield

Chicago is on fire. It’s America’s mass shooting capital. Its deadliest neighborhoods are gang territories prowled by thousands of killers with some of the highest murder rates in the world.

So far, 442 people have been shot and killed in Chicago this year. 2,540 were shot and wounded. 2,982 were shot. Fewer Americans died fighting Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War than in a year in Chicago.

On Christmas Day, two people were killed and 10 wounded. Chicago has tens of thousands of gang members and someone usually gets shot every 3 hours.
Or at least beaten up.

On Sunday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s African-American Deputy Chief of Staff was assaulted at a prayer vigil for a police shooting by an attacker shouting anti-Semitic slurs. Rapper King Louie, who coined “Chiraq” was released from the hospital after being shot seven times.

He blamed the devil. "The devil's working overtime. That's what's going on in Chicago."

But in Chiraq, the devil is a Democrat. Chicago Democrats are closely entangled with its 68,000 gang members who deliver the votes and the money. There are more gang members in Chicago than people of English ancestry. That makes them a powerful voting bloc. And Democrats bow to their wishes.

A Latin Kings member described how the vote organizing worked. “Every chapter had to vote for that guy… That was a direct order. That means you can’t say no.” Under the Dems, that’s Chicago democracy.

Chicago Democrats ritualistically demand gun control, but carefully avoid cracking down on their own political base. Obama calls for “common sense solutions” after every shooting, but like a good Chicago Democrat he voted against a 1999 bill to try anyone carrying out a shooting in school as an adult. Under Obama, Federal gun-crime prosecutions in Chicago have became as rare as honest Chicago Democrats.

His former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, whose only qualifications for the job were his ties to the Democratic political machine, has failed in every possible way. In his second year in office, the murder rate had climbed to levels it hadn’t seen in a decade and a thousand more people were robbed.

This year the murder rate will probably hit 500 again. And Emanuel is just 69 corpses short of racking up 2,000 kills on his watch. But he’ll never top the Daley clan who boast a combined total of 25,000.

Rahm Emanuel has rolled out a plan for handing out tasers to cops after rushing back from his Cuba vacation. That probably won’t help any of the 67 people who were shot in the face this year.

The only good news for Chicago is that it’s aging fast. The number of children and even young people has been dropping sharply. In forty years, the gang bangers may be too old to shoot each other.

Chicago is a dead city. It was shot and killed generations ago. Now it’s just lying in a gutter and waiting to die. As in Detroit, Baltimore and so many other once promising cities, the killers were Democrats.

Rahm’s public school chief, whom he called “the best and the brightest”, pleaded guilty in a corruption scheme for accepting kickbacks while writing in an email that she needed money because she had “casinos to visit”. That was convenient because Rahm had been pushing for a city-owned casino to fund schools. But under Democratic Party corruption, school corruption funds casinos instead.

Rahm Emanuel had a simple job. In true Chicago style, his job was a con job.

The con was attracting enough prosperous young people to slow down the rate at which Chicago will go bankrupt. Chicago has a $63 billion debt. It will be paying off bonds from 1993 in 2039 for public housing that was already torn down. It’s no wonder that its bonds were downgraded to junk this year.

But the rich, young people who were supposed to bail out Chicago didn’t show up. Instead they left. Their top reasons for getting the hell out of Chicago included high taxes and lots of shootings.

So Rahm Emanuel piled on even more taxes on top of taxes. He taxed cable, hotels, cigarettes, parking in garages (it’s 22 percent on weekdays) cloud-computing services and Netflix. Water and sewer rates nearly doubled. And more companies left. Many of them blamed the rising taxes.

The latest Democrat to run Chicago into the ground is out of tricks and out of options. Rahm was unable to fix Chicago’s finances. His tax hikes gave the left what it wanted in the short term while destroying the city’s future in the long term. Chicagoans are fleeing the city as if it had come down with Ebola.

But his attempts at technocratic progressive tinkering with school reform at the expense of the powerful and greedy Chicago Teachers Union (the organization called a strike demanding a 30% raise) made the organization and its crazed head, Karen Lewis, into his enemies. Rahm Emanuel had also done such politically incorrect things as trying to lure companies to move to Chicago which earned him a 1% label.

Rahm barely survived the last election even before the latest wave of anti-police protests. He had controversially mentioned the Ferguson Effect under which police officers stop fighting crime to avoid being put on trial, a reality that #BlackLivesMatter supporters from the White House on down respond to like vampires to sunlight. And so his time has come.

Firing his police chief, another best and brightest hire, hasn’t brought Rahm any time. And yet the one thing that everyone knows is that his replacement will be even worse.

Rahm’s last opponent, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, was caught posing with Latin Kings gang leaders who had been arrested after working on a political campaign. His son was arrested for threatening police officers as a member of the Two Six gang. Garcia’s protégé, Ricardo Muñoz, benefited from an election in which the Latin Kings turned out to vote for him on pain of being beaten up by other gang members.

Garcia was the “progressive” choice in that election. His plan was to raise more taxes including income taxes and sales taxes, along with a mysterious proposal for “something bold, something that we’ve never considered before in terms of figuring out the revenue side of things.”

Considering that he was running against a man who had tried to tax Netflix, there was no telling what unexplored taxation territory he wanted to exploit. And Garcia won 34 percent of the vote.

No matter what happens, Chicago is screwed.

The last Republican mayor of Chicago was born shortly after the Civil War. In his last year in office, the population of Chicago stood at around 3.4 million. A few years ago, the population fell to levels not seen in a century as the escape from Chicago continued.

Chicago’s population has been falling since the 50s. 200,000 fled between 2000 and 2010. Tens of thousands of homes stand vacant. In some neighborhoods 1 in 6 homes are empty. And with an underwater mortgage rate that hovers around 20 percent, they’ll soon have plenty of company.

Democrats killed Chicago’s future. All that’s left is a skeleton for the aldermen to pick apart, for the political machine to bankrupt and for activists to run against. It’s the same familiar cycle of Democratic rule that shrank the city, destroyed its economy, stole its jobs and drove away its families.

Chicago Democrats have two visions for the city’s future. The Rahm Emanuel vision is to try and lure new companies and workers to rob. The Lewis/Garcia vision is to double down on taxes for the political machine without even bothering to figure out who is going to pay for them.

Chicago’s bonds are already junk. If the radical wing of the welfare party gets its way, they’ll be toilet paper. If the moderate wing stays in power, they’ll still be toilet paper, but it’ll take longer.

If Rahm loses, he’ll join the flood of emigrants from Chicago. And if he needs a farewell speech, he can always borrow one from a more famous Chicago boss.
“I’m sick of the job. It’s a thankless one and full of grief. I’ve been spending the best years of my life as a public benefactor,” Al Capone complained. “Public service is my motto.”

Capone’s public service is also the motto of Chicago Democrats. That’s why Chicago is the way it is.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-01-2016 at 04:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 03:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation House Democrats Go to War Against Free Speech

Robert Spencer Moment:
House Democrats Go to War Against Free Speech


JANUARY 4, 2016

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Robert Spencer Moment with Robert Spencer, the Director of and the author of the new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS.

Robert discussed: House Democrats Go to War Against Free Speech, unveiling why H. Res. 569 is so dangerous.
Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch the very special Robert Spencer Moment: The Criminalization of Dissent, in which Robert reveals how those who reject establishment views are coming under increased law enforcement scrutiny: Click Here.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-04-2016 at 03:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2016, 04:22 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation This is bernie sanders

A disturbing look at the socialist senator's radical agendas, which are now mainstream in the Democratic Party.
By Discover The Networks

Throughout his presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has been Hillary Clinton's strongest rival, by far, for the Democratic nomination. Huge numbers of people are very excited about this 74-year-old Senator from Vermont. His campaign rallies have drawn massive crowds, sometimes in the vicinity of 30,000 attendees. The Washington Post and Bill Maher, among many others, have noted Sanders' “rock-star” appeal. And a recent poll of 75,000 voters in all 50 states found that Sanders had a higher approval rating (83%) among his constituents, than any other U.S. Senator. In short, Bernie Sanders is no fringe Democrat. Thus it is imperative for all Americans—whether they support him or not—to clearly understand who Sanders is, what he believes, and what he wants to make America look like.

When Sanders was a young man, he joined the Young People's Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. In 1963 he was an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, whose leadership subsequently grew increasingly militant, eventually culminating in the racist excesses of Stokely Carmichael, who exhorted blacks to “fill ourselves with hate for all things white,” and H. Rap Brown, who urged blacks to “wage guerrilla war on the honkie white man.” Sanders also worked briefly for the communist-led United Packinghouse Workers Union, and participated in a California hospital project organized by the American Friends Service Committee, an organization that unambiguously supported the Soviet cause while opposing America throughout the Cold War.

In 1971 Sanders joined the anti-war Liberty Union Party (LUP), on whose ticket he made unsuccessful runs for the U.S. Senate in 1972 and 1974, and for Governor of Vermont in 1976. Sanders's LUP platform called for the nationalization of all U.S. banks, public ownership of all utilities, and the establishment of a worker-controlled federal government.

Around 1976, Sanders left LUP and spent about two years as an amateur historian and film-maker, selling educational film strips to schools in New England. “His main project,” says the British newspaper The Guardian, “was a short documentary about his hero, Eugene Debs, an early 20th-century union leader who was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist party.”

From 1979-89 Sanders served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. At one point during his tenure, he sparked controversy when he hung a Soviet flag in his mayoral office, in honor of Burlington's Soviet sister city, Yaroslavl.

According to an Accuracy In Media report, Sanders during the 1980s “collaborated with Soviet and East German 'peace committees'” whose aim was “to stop President Reagan’s deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe.” Indeed, Sanders “openly joined the Soviets’ 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.”

In 1985 Sanders traveled to Managua, Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the rise to power of Daniel Ortega and his Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. In a letter which he addressed to the people of Nicaragua, Sanders denounced the anti-Communist activities of the Reagan administration and assured the Nicaraguans that Americans were “fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage” promoted by Reagan. “In the long run,” Sanders said, “I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” Sanders even invited Ortega to visit Burlington, though the Nicaraguan president declined.

By no means was Sanders's trip to Nicaragua his only trek to a Communist country. He also visited Fidel Castro's Cuba in the 1980s and had a friendly meeting with the mayor of Havana. In an August 8, 1985 television interview, Sanders said: “In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world, that all the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated the kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society.”

During the same interview, Sanders also stated that he “was impressed” with Nicaragua’s Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a Catholic priest whom Pope John Paul II had barred from celebrating Mass because Brockmann had defied a church rule forbidding priests from holding government jobs. Sanders characterized the foreign minister as “a very gentle, very loving man,” and called Daniel Ortega “an impressive guy” while criticizing President Reagan. “The Sandinista government, in my view, has more support among the Nicaraguan people, substantially more support, than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” said Sanders. “If President Reagan thinks that any time a government comes along, which in its wisdom, rightly or wrongly, is doing the best for its people, he has the right to overthrow that government, you're going to be at war not only with all of Latin America, but with the entire Third World.”

When Sanders in 1988 married his wife, Jane, the couple honeymooned in Yaroslavl, Russia. In an interview with that city's mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders conceded that housing and health care were “significantly better” in the U.S. than in the Soviet Union, but added that “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.”

By 1990 Sanders was a leading member of Jesse Jackson's National Rainbow Coalition, and he ran successfully for Congress as a socialist representing Vermont's lone congressional district. The following year, Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the socialist wing of the House of Representatives.

During each year of the Bill Clinton administration—starting in 1993, shortly after the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center—Sanders introduced legislation to cut the U.S. intelligence budget. He justified this approach by noting that “the Soviet Union no longer exists,” and that such concerns as “massive unemployment,” “low wages,” “homelessness,” “hungry children,” and “the collapse of our educational system” represented “maybe a stronger danger [than foreign terrorists] for our national security.”

In 2006 Sanders co-sponsored a resolution by Rep. John Conyers to impeach President Bush on grounds that he had led the United States into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

In November 2006 Sanders ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Then-Senator Barack Obama, whom Sanders described as “one of the great leaders” of that legislative body, campaigned enthusiastically on Sanders's behalf. When a Washington Post reporter asked Sanders just prior to the election: “Are you now or have you ever been a Socialist?” Sanders replied, “Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic Socialist.”

In 2007, Senator Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey together introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act, which was designed to tightly restrict the number of radio stations that any firm could own. It also sought to resurrect the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”—a measure that, if passed, would greatly diminish the influence of conservative talk radio.

Sanders has long maintained that “global warming/climate change” not only threatens “the fate of the entire planet,” but is caused chiefly by human industrial activity and must be curbed by means of legislation strictly limiting carbon emissions. In 2007 Sanders and Senator Barbara Boxer proposed the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which, according to an MIT study, would have imposed on U.S. taxpayers a yearly financial burden of more than $4,500 per family, purportedly to check climate change. In February 2010 Sanders likened climate-change skeptics to people who had disregarded the Nazi threat prior to WWII: “During that period of Nazism and fascism's growth … there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said, 'Don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!'” Accusing “big business” of being “willing to destroy the planet for short-term profits,” Sanders in 2013 said that “global warming is a far more serious problem than al Qaeda.” Stating unequivocally that “the scientific community is unanimous” in its belief that “the planet is warming up,” Sanders subsequently declared that the “debate is over.”

In September 2011, Sanders was the first U.S. Senator to support the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement, lauding its activists for focusing a “spotlight” on the need for “real Wall Street reform.” In March 2013, Sanders and fellow Senator Tom Harkin together introduced a bill to tax Wall Street speculators. “Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street,” said Sanders. He made no mention of government's role in creating those crises.

On April 29, 2015, Sanders announced that he was running for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, citing economic inequality, climate change, and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision as issues of particular concern to him.

In May 2015, Sanders told CNBC interviewer John Harwood that he was in favor of dramatically raising the marginal tax rate on America's highest earners. “[When] radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president,” Sanders said sarcastically, “I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.” When Harwood asked whether Sanders thought that was too high, the senator replied: “No. What I think is obscene, and what frightens me is, again, when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 [percent]. Does anybody think that is the kind of economy this country should have?”

In September 2015, Sanders's presidential campaign received the support of the former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who wrote: “I believe that among the Sanders supporters there are thousands who are dissatisfied, who are disgruntled, but who do not have a coherent left analysis, who therefore are open to our ideas as they weren’t before they got involved in the Sanders surge.... So, why don’t we joi[n] a Sanders local campaign or go to a mass rally?... We could have lists of places and projects where anarchists and others are working with people in projects that are using anarchist and community participatory ideas and vision. Places where Bernie supporters might get involved once they knew about them.”

In a September 14, 2015 campaign appearance at Liberty University, Sanders was asked: “If you were elected president, what would you do to bring healing and resolution to the issue of racism in our country?” Characterizing America as a nation “which in many ways was created … from way back on racist principles,” Sanders' reply made it clear that he viewed racism as a trait found chiefly in white people:

We all know to what degree racism remains alive in this country.... And I cannot understand, for the life of me, how there can be hundreds of groups in this country, whose sole reason for existence is to promote hatred [against] African Americans or gays or Jews or immigrants or anybody that is different from us.... [L]et us be clear, that when you have unarmed African Americans shot by police officers—something which has been going on for years—that is also institutional racism and cries out for reform.”

During a Democratic presidential debate on November 14, 2015—in the aftermath of the horrific ISIS terror attacks that had killed well over 100 people in Paris a day earlier—Sanders was asked if he still thought (as he had indicated on numerous prior occasions) that climate change was the biggest threat facing the world. He replied:

“Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism and if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world ... struggling over limited amounts of water and land to grow their crops and you’re going to see all kinds of conflict.... [W]hat happens in, say, Syria … is that when you have drought, when people can’t grow their crops, they’re going to migrate into cities. And when people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now. So, where you have discontent, where you have instability, that’s where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that.”

Bear in mind, as was noted at the beginning of this article, that Bernie Sanders is by no means an unusual Democrat. His worldviews, agendas, and values are, by and large, the same as those of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and any other leading Democrat you can name. Sanders is simply more candid than the rest in acknowledging—with great pride, in fact—that he is a socialist.

Thus, all that remains on election day is for Americans to decide if they want to live in a country—and raise their children in a country—modeled on the ideals of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-07-2016 at 04:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2016, 02:53 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Treasons of the democrats

Why progressives betray their country.
By David Horowitz

This article appeared in a slightly different version at NRO.

The Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky once described Stalinism as “the perfect theory for glueing up the brain.” What he meant to dramatize was the fact that a regime as monstrous as Stalin’s, which murdered 40 million people and enslaved many times more, was nonetheless able to persuade progressives and “social justice” advocates all over the world to act as its supporters and defenders. These enlightened enablers of Stalin’s crimes included leading intellectuals of the day, even Nobel Prize winners in the sciences and the arts like Frederic Joliot-Curie and Andre Gide. Brilliant as they were, they were blind to the realities of the Stalinist regime and therefore of the virtues of the societies they lived in.

What glued up their brains was the belief that a brave new world of social justice – a world governed by progressive principles - existed in embryo in Soviet Russia, and had to be defended by any means necessary. As a result of this illusion, they put their talents and prestige at the service of the totalitarian enemies of democracy, acting, in Trotsky’s words, as “frontier guards” for the Stalinist empire. They continued their efforts even after the Soviets conquered Eastern Europe, acquired nuclear weapons and initiated a “cold war” with the West. To the progressives seduced by Stalinism, democratic America represented a greater evil than the barbaric police states of the Soviet bloc. Even half a century later a progressive culture still refers to the formative phase of the Cold War as years of a “Red Scare” – as though the fifth column of American progressives whose loyalties were to the Soviet enemy, whose members included Soviet spies, was not a matter of serious concern, and as though a nuclear-armed, rapacious Soviet empire did not pose a credible threat.

How were these delusions of otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people possible? How were otherwise informed individuals able to deny the obvious and support the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship in history? How did they come to view a relatively humane, decent, democratic society like the United States as evil, while regarding the barbarous communist regime as its victim? The answer lies in the identification of Marxism with the promise of social justice and the institution of progressive values, which will take place in a magical socialist future. Defense of the progressive idea trumped recognition of the reactionary fact.

Once the Stalin regime was identified with the imaginary progressive future, everything followed – its status as a persecuted victim, and its adversary’s role as a reactionary force standing in the way of the noble aspiration. Every fault of the Stalin regime, every crime it committed if not denied by progressives was attributed to the nefarious actions of its enemies, most glaringly the United States. Once a promise of redemption is juxtaposed to an imperfect real world actor, all of these responses become virtually inevitable. Hence the glueing of the brain.

The Soviet Union is gone, and history has moved on. But the Stalinist dynamic endures as the heritage of a post-Communist left, which remains wedded to fantasies of an impossibly beautiful future that bring it into collision with the flawed American present. This left is now the dominant force in the Democratic Party. Its extreme disconnect from real world realities is encapsulated in its support for the transparently racist movement called Black Lives Matter, which attacks law enforcement and defends street predators, excusing their crimes with the alibi that “white supremacists” create the circumstances that make them commit criminal acts. This extremist movement has the “strong support” of the entire spectrum of the “progressive” left (including 46% of the Democratic Party, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll).

Black Lives Matter is a movement built on the fiction that police have declared an open season on innocent blacks. According to progressive fictions, police are the agents of a “white supremacist society” – a claim alone that should make one wary of the sanity of those who advance it. Facts belie the very basis of the claim that there is open hunting season on African Americans. African American males, accounting for 6% of the population are responsible for more than 40% of violent crimes. But a Washington Post report on all 980 police shootings of 2015 reveals that only 4% of fatal police shootings involved white officers and black victims, while in three-quarters of the incidents, cops were either under attack themselves or defending civilians,” in other words,” as Michael Walsh observed in the NY Post, they were “doing their jobs.”

One such job done by Officer Darren Wilson in the suburb city of Ferguson, Missouri, became the launching point for the Black Lives Matter movement and its malicious claim that innocent blacks were being wantonly gunned down by racist police. The alleged “victim,” Michael Brown had just committed a strong-armed robbery and refused to comply with Wilson’s order to surrender. Instead the 300lb street thug attacked Wilson in his vehicle, tried to wrest his gun from him, and then walked away before turning and charging him. Several warning shots failed to stop Brown, until one killed him.

Ignoring the facts, Black Lives Matter promoted the lie invented by Brown’s robbery accomplice, that Brown had his hands up and was attempting to surrender when he was shot. “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” quickly became the anthem of the movement. But this lie was refuted not only by black eyewitnesses testifying before the Grand Jury, and by forensic evidence, but by a review conducted by the Holder Justice Department, otherwise bent on demonstrating the existence of bigotry in the Ferguson police department. Meanwhile Black Lives Matter went about setting fire to Ferguson, causing millions of dollars of damage, because if there was no justice – no hanging of Wilson - there would be no peace, as the now familiar lynch mob slogan framed it. Black Lives Matter then set about taking its crusade to other cities, most prominently to Baltimore, where a career criminal named Freddie Gray became another cause celebre. Gray had suffered fatal injuries inside a police van where only another captive was present. As the Black Lives Matter inspired mobs began to gather in “protest,” Baltimore’s black Democratic mayor ordered police to stand down allowing them to destroy millions of dollars of property. The state’s black Democratic prosecutor then indicted six officers, three of them African American, on various ludicrous charges including first degree murder, although none except the African American driver were in the van with Gray.

The immediate result of Black Lives Matter’s war on law enforcement was an epidemic of crime, as police officers decided that aggressive law enforcement was dangerous to their careers and lives. Homicides in the St. Louis Ferguson area and in Baltimore jumped 60% setting records in the annals of criminal mayhem. Virtually all the victims were blacks, revealing the hypocrisy of a movement for which black lives didn’t really matter – the attacks on the law enforcement and the “power structure” and on whites did.

How could any reasonable citizen – let alone one with progressive aspirations - support a roving lynch mob like Black Lives Matter? How could half the Democratic Party support a movement that condemns America as a white supremacist society, disregarding the reality that the president and chief law enforcement officer and thousands of civil servants and elected officials including the mayors and police chiefs of large urban centers, like Memphis, Atlanta, and Philadelphia are black? (In Detroit the new mayor is actually the first white mayor in 40 years, while its police chief is still black). You can embrace the absurdity that America is a white supremacist society only if you are afflicted with the illusion that everybody is the same and all statistical inequalities affecting African Americans, like high crime rates, are not reflections of culture and character but marks of racist oppression. (This particular absurdity - universal as it is among American progressives and the current U.S. Department of Justice - is easily refuted: If statistical disparities proved racism, the National Basketball Association in which 95% of the starting multimillionaires are black would be an association controlled by black racists, as would the National Football League, while the National Hockey League would be under the thumb of white racists.) Progressives are delusional about black racism and black crime because they are in thrall to the vision of an imaginary progressive future in which social justice will guarantee that every individual outcome is the same.

Blindness to the accountability of inner city populations for their off the charts violent crime rates, and their failures to shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood is as characteristic of the progressive attitude as is its blindness to the betrayal of inner city communities by Democrats and progressives. The disgraceful conditions of America’s large inner cities is almost entirely the responsibility of these two political actors. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and numerous other sites of out-of-control black poverty, failed public school systems and black on black violence are 100% controlled by the Democratic Party and have been for 50 to 100 years. Yet 95% of the black vote and 100% of the progressive vote continues to go to Democrats who oppress African Americans.

Progressives’ sordid history of supporting criminals at home is accompanied by an equally dishonorable record of sympathy for America’s enemies abroad. The Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was one of the monsters of the 20th Century, launching two aggressive wars, dropping poison gas on the Kurds, and murdering 300,000 Iraqi citizens. But more than a million progressives poured into the streets of America to thwart our attempt to depose him. At first, the Democratic leadership supported the Iraq invasion as a just and necessary war. But three months into the war, with American men and women still in harm’s way, under pressure from the progressive left they turned against the war they had authorized, and for the next five years, conducted a malicious propaganda campaign, worthy of the enemy, to discredit America’s intentions and to obstruct its military mission.

Because the Bush administration chose not to defend itself by confronting the treasonous actions of the left – including the exposure and destruction of three national security programs – leftist myths about the Iraq War persist to this day, even in Republican circles. To set the record straight: Bush did not lie to seduce Democrats into supporting the war, and could not have done so, since the Democrats had access to the same intelligence he did. The war was not about stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as Democrats dishonestly claimed – it was about Saddam’s violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions designed to prevent him from pursuing the WMD weapons programs he had started. The Democrats’ betrayal of their country’s war effort crippled its progress, and with the election to the presidency of an anti-war leftist in 2009, led directly to the explosion of terrorism and bloodshed that has since engulfed the Middle East.

Nor was it just the surrender mentality of the Obama administration that fueled these catastrophes. With the full support of the Democratic Party, President Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and America’s mortal enemy, Iran, providing its Ayatollahs with a path to nuclear weapons and dominance of the region, and causing the Sunni Arab states to prepare for a Middle Eastern civil war.

Just as leftists acted as propagandists for the Soviet empire, discrediting America’s Cold War effort and conducting deceptive campaigns to hide Soviet crimes, so the left today disparages the Islamic threat and opposes security measures necessary to protect the homeland – most alarmingly the sealing of our southern border. Progressives have created seditious “Sanctuary Cities,” which refuse to cooperate with Homeland Security and the immigration laws in more than three hundred outlaw municipalities under Democratic control. Their betrayal has gone un-reversed for more than a decade and led to the needless deaths of numerous Americans at the hands of illegal alien criminals, of which there are more than 200,000 inside our jails alone, and obviously many more inside our borders.

Leftists and Democrats have also joined the Islamic propaganda campaign to represent Muslims – whose co-religionists have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents since 9/11 in the name of their religion – as victims of anti-Muslim prejudice, denouncing critics of Islamic terror and proponents of security measures as “Islamophobes” and bigots. In fact, 60% of religious hate crimes are directed at Jews, many inspired by the Jew-hatred that forms a core of Islam’s religious canon, along with its incitements to war against Christians and other non-Muslim “infidels.” “Imagine where the Jews would be,” asks Don Feder, “if a Jewish civil servant and his foreign bride shot up a Christmas party in Southern California. A Jewish psychiatrist murdered 13 and wounded another 30 at Ft. Hood, and two Jewish brothers planted bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.” Yet for progressives no heinous act by Islamic terrorists, nor deafening silence by Islamic communities in the face of the atrocities committed in the name of their religion, can prompt them to consider the problematic nature of Islam itself.

Exploiting the myth of Muslim persecution, progressives oppose scrutiny of the Muslim community, including its terror-promoting Imams and mosques. They immediately denounce proposals to screen Muslim immigrants as religious bigotry, and thus seal off any rational discussion of the problem. Led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats have enabled the Islamic assault on free speech, which is a central component of their campaign to create a religious theocracy that circles the globe. Most notoriously the president and his operatives cynically spread the lie that a video about Muhammad was behind the Benghazi terror attack. Speaking like an Ayatollah before the UN General Assembly, shortly after the attack, Obama declared: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” What an American president should have said is, “The future must not belong to those who murder in the name of Islam.”

By actions such as these, Democrats not only betray the 320 million Americans they are obliged to protect, but encourage the silence of the Muslim community, which has failed to expose the terrorists in its midst, or condemn the Imams and mosques that are preaching hatred of Jews and Christians, and promoting terrorist agendas aimed at Americans.

Our country is at a perilous crossroads, one that is made immeasurably more dangerous by a treacherous national party, which blames its own country for the crimes of its enemies, and by a political opposition too feckless and timid to hold its fellow citizens accountable for their treasonous acts.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-09-2016 at 04:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2016, 04:43 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

The slippery slope to destroy America’s First Amendment and prohibit all discussion of Islamic terrorism.
By Deborah Weiss

As ISIS rises, Democrat politicians forge down a slippery slope to destroy America’s First Amendment and prohibit all discussion of Islamic terrorism. After the San Bernadino ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, which left 14 dead and 22 others injured, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, America’s top law enforcement attorney, explained that her biggest fear was not more ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks, but “the rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric."

She threatened to prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric “edging toward violence” and proclaimed that the Department of Justice has already been investigating those whose language is characterized in this manner. “Edging toward violence” is, of course, not the constitutional standard for illegal speech in the land of the free. The correct legal standard set forth in “Brandenburg vs Ohio” by the Supreme Court is “incitement to violence.” The content of language has to explicitly encourage the violence with imminent lawless action the likely result. No doubt that Lynch’s “edging toward violence” standard will not be equally applied to the Muslims preaching “death to America” in American mosques.

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, echoed Lynch’s sentiment and argued that Americans cannot “drive [Muslims] into hiding” - as if anybody were actually doing that. Unfortunately, James Comey, Director of the FBI, who is usually strong on law enforcement, told the Muslim community, “if someone is terrorizing you based on your religion, let us know,” - conflating the mass murder of terrorist attacks with harsh words that might hurt someone’s feelings.

In the administration’s pattern of overt sympathy to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, it is telling that the Attorney General’s position was announced at a conference by a group named “Muslim Advocates for Peace and Justice,” as “peace and justice” is the official motto of the Muslim Brotherhood. Notably, American Advocates for Peace and Justice boast of its “strategic lawsuits” against the FBI, CIA, and NSA programs - apparently one of its main goals is to hamper law enforcement and national security efforts.

Let’s not forget either only recently in Tennessee the Attorney General Killian threatened that anti-Muslim speech “violates civil rights,” implying the threat of civil prosecutions for so-called “hate speech.”

All such rhetoric is mirrored if not directed by the White House as in a televised speech delivered in the wake of the California massacre, President Obama lectured Americans, scolding that, above all else, we should curb our rhetoric and refuse to define the war as America vs Islam “because that’s what ISIL wants.”

Now in the aftermath of a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks throughout Europe and America, Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill titled, “HR 569: Condemning violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” This bill contains nothing but inaccurate assertions, anti-freedom proposals and a complete rejection of America’s founding principles.

First, the bill asserts that “victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric face verbal, physical and emotional abuse.” It singles out Muslims despite the fact that FBI statistics demonstrate that hate crimes against Muslims are low compared to other groups - even with inflated reports by CAIR.

Yet, after a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks throughout the West, the bill’s supporters show no concern for the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks. Instead, they sympathize with the Muslim community, thus turning perpetrators into victims in a tactic known as “reverse victimization.”
Second, the bill conflates speech and actions, an important distinction both legally and factually.

The bill asserts that “hate speech” based on faith is in “contravention to the founding principles" of religious freedom. Suddenly the Democrats care about what America’s Founding Fathers believed! Unfortunately, they don’t seem to understand that our Founding Fathers also believed in freedom of speech. This assertion demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the First Amendment - a real problem when we are talking about elected officials sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The bill also fails to acknowledge that Islam in is not just a religion but a political ideology as well, with totalitarian aspects that are inherently anti-Constitutional. Enemy threat doctrine asserts that in order to win a war you have to know your enemy and name it by name. By refusing to identify the ideological threat motivating Islamic terrorism, elected politicians who co-sponsored this bill would have America on a suicide course - something certainly in “contravention” to the Constitution.

Repeatedly, the bill professes that America welcomes all faiths, beliefs and cultures. Against the backdrop of political correctness and multiculturalism emerges the false idea that all values and beliefs are equal. Yet, it is plain to see that Nazism, Communism and Islamism are NOT equal to the Judeo-Christian values of liberty, equality and human rights.

The bill argues that anti-Muslim speech plays into the “false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam…” and causes a violent reaction. This argument is not only faulty; it is dangerous! It plays into the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s notion that "hate" speech CAUSES terrorism. Terrorism is used to restrict speech on one hand and while on the other free speech is protrayed as the origin of terrorism. If the public is convinced that so-called “Islamophobia” causes terrorism, rather than the other way around, Westerners will ultimately conform to Islamic blasphemy restrictions.

However, Islamic terrorism pre-dates “Islamophobia.” Further, Islamic terrorism has ideological roots. Blaming terrorism on geo-political grievances or any other behavior by "infidels" is simply the present hook jihadists hang their hats on. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Until the West becomes part of an Islamic Caliphate and infidels subdue themselves into submission to Islam, jihadists will not be happy. Besides, America is supposed to be a nation of Judeo-Christian values including that of personal responsibility. This notion that it is OUR fault that someone else commits violence shifts the responsibility from the terrorists to those who make mere comments that the terrorists dislike.

Further, when Islamic terrorists groups say they are theologically inspired, this is not propaganda. It’s true. It’s the stealth groups, like CAIR, who claim there is no theological motivation, that are spewing forth disinformation.

Next, the resolution declares the Muslim civil rights need to be protected. But abridging Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech does not constitute a “civil rights protection.” Perhaps federal agencies designed to protect the security of Americans should focus on national security rather than restricting “rhetoric.” Just a thought!

Finally, the bill “affirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear. …” This is conjured up, as no such right exists. But if Democrats want people to live fear-free, they should address the very real threat of Islamic terrorism and stop worrying about people’s concocted constitutional right to be free from hurt feelings.

The Judeo-Christian values of freedom, equality and human rights, serve as the foundational underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. It is these values from which freedom flourishes and what sets America apart from the tyrannical regimes of other countries, including Islamic theocracies. Other countries, lacking these values, institutionalize the oppression of women, children, and religious minorities. Our values make America exceptional and cause us to be the envy of the world.

Yet, it is these same values that are eschewed by the far left, and increasingly by mainstream Democrat politicians, as evidenced by Democrat support of this bill. As of this writing, the bill is co-sponsored by 115 Democrats in the House (out of 188 Democrat total) and no Republicans.

There is no constitutional right to be free from offense. Yet, Democrat politicians ranging from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Philadelphia Mayor want the public to refrain, not just from gratuitous offense, but from truthful comments about the roots of Islamic terrorism.

Though H.R. 569 has no mandate to make legalrestrictions on speech, it creates an environment that makes hate speech laws easier to pass down the road. The threats of prosecution, the constant chastisement from political officials, voted in to uphold the Constitution but who are instead doing everything possible to violate its spirit, are sliding the United States down a slope toward legal incursions to freedom of speech. Because free speech is the basis from which political dissent, religious freedom, and other freedoms flow, speech restrictions are not just unconstitutional, they constitute an existential threat.

Once we start down this road, it will not be only gratuitous “insult” that is prohibited. Outlawed will be dissent on refugee and national security policy, as well as truthful comments about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But facts are stubborn things. And only the truth shall make us free. Tell everyone you know about the anti-Constitutional politicians who are supporting this bill.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-26-2016 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 03:39 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation What is at stake for america in bernie vs. Hillary

The revolution will either destroy America or the Left.
By Daniel Greenfield

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are the same candidate. They’re both leftist radicals with degrees in political science who held back some of their more radical ideas to pursue political office. In the two years that they served together in the Senate, they voted the same way 93 percent of the time.

They’re also political opportunists. Bernie Sanders, no less than Hillary, reinvented his political views, including his allegiance to Socialism, numerous times over the years. Sanders moderated his positions on everything from gun control to Israel when it helped his political career. He’s now modifying plenty of positions all over again in order to appeal to new and different voters.

Bernie Sanders is no more authentic than Hillary Clinton and she is no less radical than he is. Both her attempts to appear mainstream and his efforts to seem radical are political poses that they deploy to bring in money and support from major blocs within the Democratic Party. Underneath the theater, Hillary Clinton is a longtime Alinsky fan while Bernie Sanders stumbles trying to update his views with the current obsessions of the radical left on everything from immigration to gun control to race.

The real struggle isn’t over beliefs, but over tactics.

While Hillary Clinton and her allies are attacking Bernie Sanders over his radical backing for Single Payer, in 1993, she told her husband that “managed competition“ was a “crock” and that “single-payer” was necessary. Hillary had proposed her own version of “Medicare for All” and when asked if it would be a backdoor for single payer, said, “What are we afraid of? Let’s see where the competition leads us.”

As with many of her real positions, she backed away from it, but her explanation for it was telling. “Talking about single payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine and all the rest of this,” Hillary Clinton explained.

Clinton’s media allies don’t actually reject national socialized medicine when they criticize Bernie Sanders. They just believe, as she does, that the public is not ready yet to accept it.

Hillary Clinton is a radical whose strategy is pretending to be mainstream. As David Horowitz wrote about her, “It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one's agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them.” The classic example of this is H.G. Wells’ dialogue with Lenin in which he contended that the “essential difference” between the Evolutionary Collectivist and the Marxist was the belief that society could be transformed into a “into a Collectivist world system” without a violent revolution but “through a vast sustained educational campaign”.

This is a tactical debate that has significant implications for the lives of millions of American.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are how the Democratic Party and its leftist masters are having a bar fight about how fast and how hard to move the country toward the left.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both socialists. The debate over the use of the “S” word is about whether Americans are ready to openly accept Socialism. That is the same debate they are having over socialized medicine, banking regulations and a dozen different issues. It’s not about what is right, they both agree about the final endgame, but over what Americans will put up with right here and now.

After Obama, some on the left believe that the country is ready for an aggressive radical push. Others however want to consolidate Obama’s gains because they are worried that too much of the policy infrastructure that he put into place, such as ObamaCare, is on the verge of collapsing.

This is much the same argument that Wells had with Lenin as he insisted that, “Communism was pressing too hard and too fast, and destroying before it was ready to rebuild. They had broken down trading before they were ready to ration.” Today that would mean that Hillary Clinton and her supporters want to stabilize ObamaCare and then use its success to advance to Single Payer while Bernie Sanders and his supporters want to use ObamaCare’s failure to move on to Single Payer.

This same scenario would recur across a thousand areas of American life. Bans, interventions and regulations would drastically accelerate even from the Obama high. Unlike Obama, Bernie Sanders would not wait until his final term to do his worst. He would begin doing his worst from Day 1.

Bernie Sanders has already become a political prop within his own campaign. The old confused radical pining nostalgically for politics that were old when he was young is being ushered from rally to rally to yell about the banks and revolution at the behest of the real contemporary radicals. A Sanders administration would see him a prisoner of the hard leftists who were seeking someone, anyone, to push their agenda. If they can’t have Obama for a third term out front, they’ll settle for Sanders.

Sanders, like Obama, doesn’t really matter. It’s the people around him who set his agenda.

And yet he may be the biggest threat to the left’s agenda. The viability of the left’s American project has always depended on camouflage that hid its radical operations in plain moderate sight in the system.

Officially there is no left. There are only liberals or maybe progressives. There are dedicated public servants working to make life better for everyone. There are courageous reporters and committed activists. The media and academia used to deny to the death that they were of the left. Few Democrats were even willing to be called leftist because, like the Communist Party in the United States, the left wasn’t supposed to exist. And you couldn’t blame or oppose a thing that didn’t actually exist.

Bernie Sanders is putting the left on stage. And he’s pushing radical policies for which the left would be held accountable. That is why he really scares the more sensible parts of the left. They know that their strength lies in patience and concealment. They work within the system and avoid being seen as a foreign political movement with a Socialist agenda. That way even when something goes wrong, they duck the blame because there is never a distinct political movement that is associated with it.

The existence of the right is an obsessive topic in the media, but the existence of the left is only discussed in media outlets whose audience is already of the left.

The implications of a failed Bernie Sanders push to Single Payer terrify the left. The attacks on him by fellow leftists who also support Single Payer as an endgame are motivated by fear of exposure. They worry that a massive setback will undo their entire program going back to before Bernie Sanders was even born. And they are concerned about the consequences of radicalizing the country to the brink.

When Bernie Sanders shrieks about revolution, he is speaking in a political code that the left understands very well. It’s the same old debate between working within the system and radical destructive change now. Obama straddled the line, using rhetoric that told everyone what they wanted to hear. But Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are incapable of walking that line. And in a party radicalized by Obama’s backers, revolution is much more popular than making the system work.

Revolution is the crucible in which the left destroys societies, but also ultimately itself.

The struggle is a symptom of a left that has tasted American blood and is losing control. The left has hijacked the Democratic Party and has amassed vast institutional power in the government, the educracy and the non-profit sector. It has even built up a great deal of power in the corporate sector.

Many of its activists and funders see few reasons not to push for the endgame right now. And that may prove to be their undoing. Even if it won’t be Bernie Sanders, the rush has begun for the revolution.

That revolution will either destroy America or the left.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 02:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Bernie Sanders Beats Hillary in a Lying Contestl

The angry old leftist future of the Democrats.
By Daniel Greenfield

The future of the Democratic Party was two angry old leftists screaming at each other for two hours to decide who hates capitalism more.

With the MSNBC and the Democratic Party's logos on a red background, the stage was set for a redder than red debate. Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.

Bernie Sanders promised to end “a rigged economy” with Socialism, which is the very definition of a rigged economy. Both candidates showed their Socialist bona fides by rattling off the names of the corporations they hated the most. Bernie Sanders cheered normalizing relations with Cuba, ridiculing the idea that being Communist is objectionable. But he did express some concerns about the nuclear weapons being held by his fellow Socialists in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

NBC’s Chuck Todd, who was born for Archie Bunker to call him “Meathead”, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, whose giant fake eyelashes made it impossible for her to wear her trademark glasses, moderated a debate that had no reason for existing because none of the participants had developed a new idea since the 1970s (and in Bernie Sander’ case, possibly even the 1870s) and were just yelling the same things that they had yelled at all the previous debates, only louder, as if we hadn’t heard them the first time. The MSNBC audience applauded every line as if it were the only job they were qualified for.

Except maybe teaching gender justice or reviewing organic cruelty-free smoothie places on Yelp.

Meanwhile Bernie Sanders picked his ear and Hillary Clinton nodded frantically during every question as if she were a bobblehead doll that had come to life and wanted to go right from plastic to president.

Anyone who had the misfortune to sit, stand or sleep through the previous Democratic debates kept hearing the same tired lines both candidates have been repeating for months; rigged economy, Donald Trump's kids, the middle class bailed out Wall Street, a progressive is someone who gets thing done, political revolution, not radical ideas, not only did I vote against the bill and “Moozlimb” countries.

Maybe it’s too much to expect two career leftists with a combined total age of 142 to come up with any new ideas, but would it really have killed Bernie and Hillary to come up with some new lines?

Instead the future of the Democratic Party recited their memorized lines and rants from the previous debates. It got so bad that in response to a question about Afghanistan, Bernie Sanders reeled off the same exact rant about ISIS, Muslim souls and the King of Jordan that he had recited in the last debate until Chuck Todd gave up on the senile Socialist as a hopeless case and switched to Hillary Clinton.

The only thing that Bernie Sanders appeared to know about foreign policy was that Hillary Clinton had voted for the Iraq War twelve years ago and he hadn’t. That is the only thing he will ever know.

Don’t ask Bernie Sanders to find Afghanistan, Iran or Ukraine on a map. But wake him up in the middle of the night and he’ll tell you that he voted against the Iraq War and that we need to raise taxes.

But what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders lacked in the way of ideas, they more than made up for in volume. Hillary Clinton screamed, "I can get things done" as if she were pitching a product on an infomercial. Bernie Sanders ran his own telethon, stumbling over words as he boasted how much moolah he had taken in, “a million people” and “27 bucks a piece”.

Eat your heart out, Wall Street. Bernie is better at suckering small-time investors than you are.

Hillary Clinton compensated for her complete lack of likability by falling back on playing the victim. She accused Bernie Sanders of ignoring feminism, black people and gay rights. She sputtered that, “Senator Sanders is the only one who would describe me, a woman running to be president, as exemplifying the establishment.” Somehow a fabulously wealthy woman who is backed by the entire Democratic political establishment isn’t the “establishment” because of her gender.

Hillary Clinton had tried to use 9/11 as a shield for her Wall Street donations and now she switched to using Obama's Wall Street donations as her human shield. Accusing her of being bought by special interests was engaging in an “artful smear”, she indignantly insisted. Like Picasso or Jackson Pollock.

It was neither artful, nor a smear though. It was just common sense that no one was giving Hillary Clinton money because of 9/11. And a genuinely honest opponent would have made that case.

But when Hillary Clinton dared Bernie Sanders to accuse her of being bought off by special interests, the courageous political revolutionary turned tail and fled. Instead of confronting her with the facts, he began mewling something about Republicans and the Koch Brothers. Just as with the emails, Bernie Sanders backed off his criticism and showed that he didn’t have the spine to stand up to Hillary Clinton.

Under all the “authenticity”, Bernie Sanders is just as fake as Hillary. He paradoxically insists that he wants a political revolution, but that his ideas are not radical. After all his rants about the SuperPAC devil, he admitted that he had contemplated setting up his own SuperPAC.

Between Hillary Clinton’s painfully tight smiles and Bernie Sanders checking his watch, this debate was just another infomercial for a fake election between two candidates who voted the same way 93 percent of the time. All that was left was the inane rhetoric and memorized applause lines.

“A progressive is someone who makes progress,” Hillary Clinton blathered. No one asked her what progress she had ever made. Besides the progress from defending a 12-year-old girl’s rapist in Arkansas to defending her rapist husband in the White House.

“I want to see major changes in the Democratic Party,” Bernie Sanders demanded. He could just rename it the Communist Party.

“I have a record,” Hillary Clinton boasted. But that’s really up to the FBI. She promised the country half-a-billion solar panels, which it needs about as much as it needs another Clinton in the White House.

There was no truth in the New Hampshire Democratic debate, but it was child’s play to spot the three biggest lies.

“I say what I believe,” Hillary Clinton said. And somehow, no one laughed.

“I have been moved by my heart,” Hillary Clinton said in her closing statement. “I will bring my heart with me.” Medical records have already revealed that Hillary Clinton has no heart.

“I love this country,” Bernie Sanders said. And for once, someone else beat Hillary in a lying contest.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 03:29 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Four Types of Socialists

The Four Types of Socialists
Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people.
By Tom Trinko

With the rise of socialist candidates in the New Hampshire voting, it’s probably useful to look at what types of people feel comfortable with socialism.

There are 4 main types of people who believe in the false promises of socialism:

1) Politicians, like Bernie, and bureaucrats who think they can spend other peoples money better than the people who earned the money can.

Bernie is the latest in a long line of liberals who believe that the people lack the ability to decide for themselves how they are to live. People like Bernie believe that the enlightened few, such as him, have a responsibility to save the people from themselves.

Needless to say, there should be nothing more frightening to any American who believes that success comes from hard work and effort than a politician who believes that he’s wiser than the people he is supposed to serve and who believes that it’s luck, not dedication, that decides who succeeds in America.

Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people. After all, if the people are too stupid to wisely spend their own money they clearly need help in surviving life.

The attitude is very similar to the one slave owners used in an attempt to justify slavery. According to the slavers, Blacks just couldn’t take care of themselves and they needed the “helping hand” of white folk to survive. Today no one will say that Blacks can’t manage on their own, though many liberal policies clearly indicate that liberals don’t think Black people can make it on their own, but for some reason saying all the regular folk in America need the help of the liberal elites to live happy lives is considered an acceptable position for a politician to support.

This group is obviously small, consisting of the politicians who advocate socialism and the government employees who reap the benefits of ruling over the rest of the country, such as earning 78% more than the rest of us on average.

But they are also the most dangerous, because without them trying to sell socialism American’s freedom wouldn’t be at risk.

2) People who think that politicians and bureaucrats can spend the people’s money better than the people can.

There are probably not too many people who have money and who honestly think that the government will better know how to spend their money. If there were you’d see a lot more rich folks voluntarily donating money to the government.

When you hear a rich person supporting socialist policies, you can be fairly sure that those policies will benefit them via crony capitalism or because they can use loopholes to avoid paying the taxes that will be needed to support those policies.

3) People who think that politicians and bureaucrats will take money from other people and give it to them.

It’s fairly easy to understand how people who don’t work or who don’t pay taxes would be enthused about a socialist who promises them even more “free” stuff than they’re already getting since in their minds there is no downside for them.

Of course, there is a downside, higher unemployment in the short run and eventually the whole Greece thing, but the MSM ensures that the folks in this group never hear about the real cost of “free” stuff.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Clearly, this group of socialist supporters are all in for being bribed.

Sadly, the highly progressive tax system in the U.S. has led to more than 45% of American households not paying Federal income tax.

While many people who don’t pay taxes will do the honorable thing and not vote themselves more money there is still a huge pool of people who have every reason to fall for the siren lies of socialism.

4) People who believe in magic or that companies print money

Margret Thatcher said:

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s mone.

But some people think that businesses magically run printing presses in their basements so that when a business is taxed there is no impact on the cost of the business’s products or the wages the business can pay to its workers.

These are the folks who complain about the oil companies that make roughly $0.25 in profit from a gallon of gas, at $4/G, when the government, at least in California, gets close to $1.00/G.

Essentially these people believe that there is no end to “other people’s money”. They haven’t learned the lesson of Greece mainly because the MSM and our educational system fail to point out the connection.

Due to a poor educational system that tends to condemn capitalism, many young people, Bernie’s base, have no idea that things like “free” college will result in massive tax increases that they will either pay directly, if they can find a job, or indirectly, through higher prices for the things they buy.

They also have been trained to not make the connection between the disastrous failure of the VA, a nice example of government-run health care, and ObamaCare or the even worse “single payer” health plan that Bernie supports.

A common definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the results to change. Yet isn’t that precisely what someone like Bernie who condemns cost overruns and failures in the VA or the Pentagon is doing when he say’s that letting the government run the whole American medical system will be a great idea?

These people fail to understand that the Pentagon is no more inept than the rest of the government. Huge cost overruns and slow development processes are the result of an unresponsive government bureaucracy where failure is more often rewarded not punished.

These people condemn “big” business for being uncaring, but somehow fail to note that the biggest “business” of all, and hence the most uncaring, is the government.

To regain America we need to educate the people in groups 3 and 4 so that they realize that instead of bringing utopia, socialism will instead bring a uniform level of misery for all but the politicians, the very rich, and government employees.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 03:58 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Who Wants to be America's Top Socialist: Wisconsin Edition

The only thing we have to fear are senile leftists repeating memorized speeches.
By Daniel Greenfield

PBS, a venerable leftist institution long since past its prime, hosted two other leftist institutions past their prime, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, for the special Wisconsin edition of the Democratic Party’s newest hit show, Who Wants to Be America's Top Socialist.

“I believe in government,” Bernie Sanders declared. And that was the theme for the night.

A political party that does not believe in G-d or that 2 + 2 = 4 believes in and passionately loves government. Its perverted love affair with government gave birth to two political hacks who couldn’t manage to mow the lawn without setting it on fire, but who want to run the country and the world.

In an eye-meltingly mustard yellow jacket, the uniform of some alien space armada invading the planet, Hillary Clinton glared balefully into the camera and promised the nation twice as much free stuff in return for their submission to her ruthless rule. Bernie Sanders, who kept coughing as if he might not live through the debate, never mind the election, upped the ante to three times as much free stuff.

“Let’s not insult the intelligence of the American people,” Bernie Sanders insisted. “People aren't dumb.” The American people might not be dumb, but his voting base, which believes it can get free stuff without ever having to pay for it, still doesn’t understand how math works.

“I feel like we have to level with people,” Hillary Clinton said, while dodging and denying multiple investigations. The only time she has leveled with anyone is while running them over with her car.

The debate featured a spirited discussion on many key issues of vital importance to Americans such as Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s gender and who loves Obama more.

You know your party’s candidates are old and out of touch when the highlight of your 2016 political debate is an angry argument over Henry Kissinger. But Bernie Sanders, deep in the throes of senility, is still living in his glory days of voting against the Iraq War when he was a mere child of 61 years.

Bernie Sanders shouted, "This is 2016", as if surprised to find out what year it was.

Not satisfied to debate the Iraq War, Bernie Sanders decided to debate the Vietnam War. Somehow he didn't bring up his opposition to the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the American Revolution.

"I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger," Sanders screeched, reassuring those of his supporters still worried that the 92-year-old Kissinger is secretly running the country from the Upper East Side. And considering that his base not only carries around copies of The Report from Iron Mountain, but believes that it and Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor are real, they probably still aren’t reassured.

But this wasn’t just a debate between two senile Socialists mired in 19th century economic ideas; it was also a fierce battle between two candidates with so few ideas that they were literally reciting the same exact things that they had said at the previous debates.

Bernie Sanders launched into his same exact speech about Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, and the need for a 21st century Glass Steagel. In response to the same attack Bernie Sanders had already made about the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton launched into the exact same response about Obama turning to her and trusting her Judgment by making her Secretary of State.

The Democratic debate was like watching two senile folks having the same exact argument every single day without remembering that they had already had it.

Marco Rubio got a great deal of grief from the media for pivoting to a memorized speech, but the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination do almost nothing except pivot to their memorized speeches. During the last debate, Bernie Sanders responded to a question about Afghanistan by twice robotically pivoting to a memorized speech about ISIS and Iraq. And the media didn’t say a word.

In this debate, the senility problem got worse with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders not only reciting memorized speeches in response to almost any question, but reciting memorized speeches at each other in the same pattern of attacks and defenses over everything from campaign finance to Obama.

Both candidates could have just brought their tape recorders, put them down on their respective podiums and then spent the rest of the debate in the bathroom. And that would have been a better move because at least the country would have been spared listening to an argument about Henry Kissinger between two aged leftists proving their political purity while the country is out of work.

Political purity was really the only substitutive topic as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders fiercely debated over who loved Ted Kennedy more and who disagreed with Barack Obama less. In a surreal Orwellian moment, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders frantically piled on more praise for Obama’s tremendous economic accomplishments as if they were delegates to a Stalinist party congress.

A nation out of work and out of hope may however differ with their sunny view of Obama’s achievements.

Despite the mutual hateful glares, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had very little to disagree over that didn’t involve Henry Kissinger. They repeatedly pronounced their agreement with each other so many times that even their supporters had to wonder why they should even bother voting.

Half the time Bernie Sanders was repeating the same things Hillary Clinton had just said, only angrier and with arm movements that were unintentionally directing an orchestra playing The Internationale.

And, appropriately enough, Sanders opposed trade with every country except Communist Cuba.

Hillary Clinton strived to portray Bernie Sanders as a single-issue candidate who was unable to address the full intersectional binders of women, black people, Latinos and the LGBT community. Bernie Sanders responded by arguing that he will improve race relations by taking away tax breaks from the rich.

Bernie Sanders chewed up and spit out his stump speech in new and exciting ways, sometimes he ranted about Wall Street before promising to free all the criminals while reminding everyone that he had voted against the Iraq War, other times he promised to free criminals before vowing to lock up Wall Street and reminded everyone that he had voted against the Iraq War.

Hillary Clinton tried to see how many times she could mention “structural racism” for a social justice drinking game. “I am not asking people to support me because I'm a woman,” she claimed. And that’s true. This is what her surrogates keep doing when they threaten women with hell if they don’t vote for her. Like her SuperPACs, this has nothing to do with her and she’s also shocked at all the gambling going on at Rick’s Cafe.

There was one relevant question. In an unprecedented move, Hillary Clinton was asked about taking money from George Soros. And you didn’t have to be the old Nazi collaborator himself to gamble correctly that she would duck the question like the world’s tallest man at a limbo contest.

The first rule of puppetry is never admit to the existence of the puppeteer. And despite Bernie’s hollow rants about the 1 percent, he never spoke the name of the progressive Voldemort either.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Sanders said, quoting FDR, before calling for redefining the role of government, but the debate suggested at least two other things that Americans should also fear.
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum