Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN

Jettison the Empire to Save the Republic 2015

In 1951 President Harry Truman ignored the advice of General Douglas MacArthur who rightly perceived that it was China that was the real threat. Truman fired MacArthur and doomed American troops to a limited war which dragged on for two more years.  Then when General Ridgeway and his meat grinder defense had bled the Chinese white, President Eisenhower refused to mount an offense and claim the victory instead settling for a peace that is no peace.

In 1973 the Watergate Congress took the lead in throwing away the victory our heroes had won in Vietnam.  In 1991 President George Bush I threw away the victory in the First Gulf War by not going to Bagdad and deposing Salaam Hussein.  Then he compounded the error by not supporting the Southern Shia or the Northern Kurds both of whom he had encouraged to rebel against the dictator.

Following this post-World War II tradition of not declaring war and not retaining victory George Bush II led us into Afghanistan but instead of finishing the job at Tora Bora or leaving once the Taliban were crushed he/we stayed on for a nation building exercise that has now cost more than 2,000 lives.  After the attacks of 9-11 we had every right to chastise the Taliban for sheltering and protecting the al Qaeda terrorists.  We defeated these Islamic fundamentalists in two months.  We smashed their power structure and drove them out of the country, a just punishment for facilitating and shielding the perpetrators of the sneak attacks on our nation.  We won the war but we never pacified the country.

That is when we should have declared victory and left with the admonishment, “If you do it again we’ll do it again.”  Instead we have stayed and stayed and stayed for what has become America’s longest war.

There can be no doubt that our heroes have fought with skill and valor.  And there can be no doubt that where Bush turned it into a nation building crusade to spread democracy among the tribal peoples of central Asia Obama turned it into a political prop for his re-election.  All the while during both administrations our soldiers have been dying and being wounded for something other than the national interest.  Our policies are subservient to the political ambition of the Progressives who have captured both political parties, of the cronies who control the major industries, and the life-tenured black-robed infallibles who decide what the Constitution means.

One sure way to end up in a bad situation is to fight the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.   The Middle East is disintegrating.  Our so-called allies, the Sunni states want us to fight for them in a thousand year-old sectarian religious war between them and their Shia co-religionists.

This brings me to several questions.  If the Shia states of Iran and Syria and their affiliated militias are such an existential threat to them why aren’t they willing to fight?  If the Sunni Reaction to the Shia is ISIS whom we have declared to be the next BIG thing, the one we are sworn to degrade and destroy and our Sunni allies have been supporting them or at least refusing to fight them either, why should we?  There is an old saying, “When your enemies are killing each other….let them.”

War is the deathbed of empires.  Look at History and see how war has debilitated and destroyed empires from Rome to Britain to the USSR.  Today we have been bled dry by endless wars for peace.  Our economy cannot seem to recover from the late great recession.  Our leaders are not really engaged in foreign affairs.  We are adrift as they concentrate on fundamentally transforming us into a Progressive utopia.

Now is not the time for another war whether it is against the Shia states or militias or against the Sunni ISIS.  Our allies seem to want us to fight both ends against the middle.  A formula which will lead us to disaster: we can’t afford more war and our people will not support more war.

Let’s give peace a chance.

The crushing weight of maintaining hundreds of bases around the world which are akin to precinct houses for a world police department is draining us dry and not making us any friends.

Why should we still defend a Europe that has a GDP as large as ours?  Why can’t they defend themselves?  Why can’t South Korea with a GDP more than 40 times that of the North defend themselves?  Some might say all right maybe we shouldn’t still be defending nations that can defend themselves but what about Russia?

Look at this situation.  Russia did not annex Crimea, was a part of Russia for centuries, is the home to the Russian Black Sea fleet and is populated by mostly Russians, until after a western backed coup toppled the democratically elected government of the Ukraine.  If Russia wanted to conquer and absorb all of the Ukraine they could have accomplished that within a few weeks at most.  The Eastern part of the Ukraine, the part that is in revolt against the western imposed government in Kleve is populated by a vast majority of ethnic Russians who have always wanted to be re-united with the motherland.  This is a European problem.  Let the Europeans deal with it. We have enough problems of our own.

Entangling alliances were not a part of the original model for the United States.  From the time of the Founders and for more than 100 years afterward we believed they would involve us in quarrels and rivalries which were really none of our concern.

This was more than a policy.  This was an expression of the American people through their government that did not change no matter which political party occupied the White House.  This expressed how we viewed ourselves in the world.  We contrasted the virtues of our Republic with the corruptions of European power politics and imperialistic overreach. From 1789 until the WWII, except for our relationship with Panama, the United States did not enter into treaties of alliance with anyone. In the 70 years since the end of the war, however, in a dramatic reversal of national policy, we have allied ourselves with:

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY PARTIES: United States, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom.  During 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia were added to the list.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND PARTIES: United States , Australia, New Zealand.

PHILIPPINE TREATY (Bilateral) PARTIES: United States, Philippines.

SOUTHEAST ASIA TREATY: PARTIES: United States, Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

JAPANESE TREATY (Bilateral): PARTIES: United States, Japan.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA TREATY (Bilateral): PARTIES: United States, Korea.

RIO TREATY PARTIES: United States, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Looking at this long list of people we have pledged to support with the blood of our finest and the treasure of us all I ask myself where were all these countries after 9-11?  Where are they now?  And why should we bear the burden of their defense.  Critics of America love to point out that our defense budget is larger than the next five countries combined.  And that is true.  However it is true in large part because we have taken on the burden of their defense.  Look at the people we have pledged to cover with our umbrella.  Try to find one that is spending even 2% of their GDP for their own defense.

Enough is too much already. We are not Atlas.  We cannot carry the weight of the world on our shoulders, and if we are Atlas isn’t it time that we shrugged?

I stand with our George Washington.  He advised us in his Farewell Speech,

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all….

Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded…. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest….

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence…the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republic Government….

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible….

‘T is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world….

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies….”

I also stand with Thomas Jefferson who said in his first Inaugural Address, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

What’s to be done?  Can I offer some solutions as well as comment on the problems?

Close the overseas precinct houses.  Bring our troops home.  Stand ever ready to defend ourselves.  Offer fair trade with all; if you put tariffs or restrictions on our goods we will put them on yours.  Defend our borders.  Restore limited government, individual liberty, and economic opportunity at home instead of wasting ourselves building nations for people who want to be left alone.

In other words, jettison the empire to save the Republic.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

 

THE COMMUNIST ARM OF OBAMA TAKES AWAY FREE SPEECH -Federal Attorney Warns Posts Against Islam Could Get You Prison Time

If you have seen the stories around the globe of how cartoonists, journalists and people simply posting tweets or Facebook posts has gotten them in hot water with Islam and even the government, then you have probably said, “That can’t happen in America,” right? Well hold on to your seat my friend because you are in for a rude awakening.

Barack Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division, want Americans to know that if you say something negative towards Islam or Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you. They will be having an event called “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” on June 4, the same day Obama is scheduled to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

The Tullahoma Times reports,
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.

Killian also wants to portray Oklahoma City Bomber Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols as Christians and then link them to terrorism in the same fashion as Islamic jihadists. Please, the entire Christian community came out against the actions of the OKC bombing and neither of these guys were Christians, nor were they following the teachings of the Bible. The Islamic community has yet to condemn terrorism and the Qur’an clearly teaches them to commit violence (See video above). They hide behind certain words to mask the terrorism they are to engage in via the Qur’an. Instead, the Qur’an teaches them to actively engage in jihad. For a thorough dealing with jihad and its historical meaning and understanding, I highly recommend Lebanon-born Walid Phares’ book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America. That will help you see clearly that nothing has changed in nearly 1,500 years of Islamic history.

However, the criminal Attorney General Eric Holder seems to be backing Killian and Moore. Judicial Watch reports,
In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.
image: http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SignIslamFreeSpeechWesternTerrorism.jpg
SignIslamFreeSpeechWesternTerrorismThe DOJ actually became the first to assure Muslims it is dedicated to protecting them. I don’t recall this administration doing the same thing for Christians who are constantly having inflammatory videos and posts put up by Muslims.

Second, Muslims and Arab Americans have “helped build and strengthen our nation”? While I grant there are many Arab Americans who have come here legally, integrated with our society and lived among us and have contributed greatly to the society, I can’t give a full stamp of approval that we have been strengthened by Muslims. In fact, I would say we have been weakened by Muslim influence, specifically I’m talking about those currently in the Obama administration and the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Additionally the Tullahoma Times indicated that the goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles. While I grant that every person who calls themselves a Muslim is not engaged in terrorism, the reality is that because of the teachings of the Qur’an, you cannot trust what they say, but respond to what they do. Virtually all Muslim mosques in America are funded by Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries. Virtually all of them also, in turn, fund the Islamic Society of North America, which aligns itself with the Brady campaign to attack the Second Amendment. Additionally these Muslim groups are doing just as the Obama DOJ is doing and that is to go after the First Amendment.

Killian said, “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

So let’s get this straight, the First Amendment is there to protect Islamists in their speech, but not Christians? I see clearly now. Killian clearly doesn’t understand that whole part about “Congress shall make no law” regarding not only the establishment of a religion, but also “impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press” among other things. This means his claim about federal law in this matter is completely unconstitutional and he should be removed from his office.

You’ll recall back in August 2012 that Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez refused to affirm the First Amendment rights of Americans to speak out against other religions. He was questioned four times and all he did was beat around the bush. This is the creeping Sharia that we and many others are warning about.
One wonders just how long it will be until we will be forced to defend our freedom of speech with our freedom to keep and bear arms from Islam and its co-conspirators in government.

Finally, I often hear the famous quotation from Voltaire, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Well, for those posting this claiming that this should be applied to Christians or Jews, I suggest you take a second look and see who is bringing the hammer down now.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/federal-attorney-warns-negative-posts-against-islam-could-get-you-prosecution-imprisonment/#cieGPeskxDRWBH9p.99

Mayor takes stand against Muslim Shariah courts

beth-van-duyne-2

When a group of imams tried to bring a form of “Shariah light” to Texas, they met an unlikely foe – Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne.

Now, Van Duyne has been thrust into the national media spotlight, and her city is being called “ground zero” in the battle to prevent Islamic law from gaining a foothold, no matter how small, in the U.S. legal system.

Van Duyne’s name and picture has popped up on Facebook pages and Twitter feeds across America in recent days, casting her with equal enthusiasm as villain or hero, depending on one’s political outlook.

She’s either the mayor who stood up to the Muslim Brotherhood or the “Islamophobic bigot” looking to cash in politically on fears about Islamic terrorism.

The media frenzy was touched off by reports that an Islamic tribunal was being set up in the Dallas, Texas, area. A group of imams from surrounding mosques would sit on what they call a “mediation panel,” as defacto judges, and mediate disputes between Muslims who voluntarily submit to its edicts. They denied this was a Shariah court, saying the panel would mete out nonbinding decisions in business disputes, divorces and other family matters “in full accordance with the law.”

Van Duyne wrote a blistering Facebook post last month in which she vowed to “fight with every fiber of my being against this action.”

Get the details on how to stop Islamization of America – $4.95 today only!

She worked with state legislators to craft a bill that would declare it illegal for any U.S. court to adopt any foreign legal system for the basis of its rulings. Islam was not mentioned in the bill, nor was any religion.

Last Thursday the Irving City Council voted 5-4 to endorse the bill before a packed room full of mostly angry Muslims.

When called on by the Council of American-Islamic Relations to apologize for her February Facebook post, Van Duyne flatly refused. She also appeared in the national spotlight in an interview with conservative media icon Glenn Beck.

She’s been practically canonized by some websites while becoming the target of journalistic hit pieces from others.

Her local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, cast her as a petulant demagogue who uses “gifted speaking skills” to “get a crowd on her side.”

“The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero among a fringe movement that believes Muslims – a tiny fraction of the U.S. population – are plotting to take over American culture and courts,” the Dallas Morning News reported. The newspaper then quoted local imam Zia Sheikh as saying the mayor’s stance “fuels anti-Islamic hysteria” and is “very Islamophobic.”

But to conservatives who have watched one city, state and federal leader after another kowtow to the threats and demands of CAIR, she is a breath of fresh air.

“The U.S. is a constitutional republic ruled by constitutional law. If Muslims want to live under Shariah law, fine, then let them move to a country that is ruled by Shariah law,” wrote Greg Polkowski in a March 24 Facebook post. “The problem is they come here for the freedom and opportunities that aren’t available in their home countries (usually Muslim controlled) and upon arrival decide they want to change the U.S. to reflect the political/religious environment they left. This reminds me of a sign I’ve seen posted by a few swimming pools over the years, ‘We don’t swim in your toilet, please don’t pee in our pool.’”

The Dallas Morning News attacked Van Duyne’s supporters as followers of “fringe websites.”

“Van Duyne had spent the last month criticizing and questioning a Muslim mediation panel, conflating it with a court in an interview seen around the country. That night, she pushed the council to endorse a state bill whose author had targeted the panel.

“The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero on fringe websites that fear an Islamic takeover of America.”

While eager to denigrate Van Duyne’s supporters, the Dallas newspaper closes its eyes to the dubious reputation of the group demanding apologies, CAIR. More than just a fringe element, CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which are terrorist elements.

CAIR is known in the U.S. as a nonprofit advocacy group for Muslim-Americans, but in 2007 U.S. prosecutors named it an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-funding case against the Holy Land Foundation charity. The charity was convicted of supporting Hamas, which is on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. When President Obama took office in 2008 the trial was shut down and investigations into CAIR ceased. In fact, the president has sought counsel from CAIR officials in matters of Homeland Security and law enforcement, acceding to its demand that the FBI scrub from its training manuals all references to radical Islam.

Yet, despite its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Dallas Morning News and countless other U.S. media outlets continue to quote its officials as credible representatives of all U.S. Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization by scores of countries, including even some Arab and Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, along with Russia, Israel and others.

Dr. Mark Christian grew up in a prominent Muslim family in Egypt and converted to Christianity as an adult. He has been disowned by his family.
Dr. Mark Christian grew up in a prominent Muslim family in Egypt and converted to Christianity as an adult. He has been disowned by his family.
Dr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood activist, said such “mediation panels” would not be tolerated in Egypt. But the ignorance of American government officials makes them easy prey for CAIR’s intimidation.

“The concept of ‘Shariah mediation’ to settle disputes between Muslims here in the U.S. is indeed disturbing.” he said. “It is the first step in establishing a parallel system of government within our own system.”

After fleeing Egypt, Christian lived in Great Britain before coming to the United States.

“I have seen these tribunals in operation in Britain,” he said. “They supplant the laws of the host nation by forcing Muslims to abandon their inherent rights under our law and submit instead to Shariah, many times to their own detriment.”

“I applaud the mayor for her strength of conviction. She isn’t denying rights to Muslims; she is preserving them for Muslims.

“She is, however, denying the Muslim Brotherhood one of their chief tools in controlling Muslim populations in free nations.”

CAIR’s alliance with leftists in the U.S. media and so-called “watchdog” groups like the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center assures that whenever someone criticizes CAIR and points out facts about its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood they get branded as “Islamophobic” or “bigoted.”

Thus, it’s no surprise that most politicians cower at the sight of a CAIR spokesman and avoid at all costs saying anything that can be seen as remotely anti-Islam.

But the mayor of one small city in Texas seems to dance to a different drumbeat.

WND requested a phone interview with Van Duyne Tuesday but was told by her secretary that she had urgent city business to tend to.

“I wish to see her character in every elected official in our nation,” Christian said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/mayor-wont-back-down-from-muslim-brotherhood/#AsYTuVDRit3gmbjp.99

FEMA To Deny Funding To States Without Global Warming Plans

th-151-300x180
Next year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will start denying disaster funding to states that don’t incorporate global warming into their emergency preparedness plans.

Governors looking for disaster preparedness funding will have to start reporting on how man-made global warming will impact their states such as “more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels,” according to FEMA.

FEMA’s updated guidelines for disaster planning don’t affect federal relief funding for after a natural disaster like a hurricane or flood, but the guidelines essentially force some state governments to acknowledge the alleged risks of man-made warming.

InsideClimate News reports that most states have not updated their disaster planning to include global warming because FEMA’s 2008 policies didn’t have this requirement. Some states, like New York, however, have updated their disaster planning.

Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2015/03/fema-to-deny-funding-to-states-without-global-warming-plans/

ISRAEL – BEWARE OF OBAMA

By Michael Goodwin

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-FILM
First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.
Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.
The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.
It’s just like old crimes

Reader Stephen Shapiro agrees that the bad old days of “Taxi Driver” are coming back to Gotham. “Only last night, my wife noted the same thing when walking up Broadway from the Theater District,” he writes. “The sidewalks were packed with illegal sellers of cheap trinkets and maybe stolen goods. Like it was decades ago.”
Step right up, NYers

P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” but the sentiment applies better to Albany than the circus. After all, who are the greater fools: ticket buyers who believe in sword swallowers and fire-eaters, or taxpayers who believe Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislators will clean up corruption?
School vow is more blah-blah-blasio

There he goes again. Mayor Bill de Blasio is making promises that make no sense and saying things he can’t possibly believe.

Putzie is so desperate to fend off state changes to his control of city schools that he is promising to apply crime-control techniques to educrats. “We’re going to hold every one of the principals to the same kinds of standards that our precinct commanders are held to via CompStat,” he declared.

That’s crazy talk for two reasons.
First, he and Chancellor Carmen Fariña say repeatedly they don’t like mainstream educational standards, especially a heavy use of standardized tests for evaluating students and teachers. Throw in their cutback of suspensions for disruptive students and their willful expansion of union power, and it’s hard to see on what basis they will measure principals’ performance.

Second, his reference to the Police Department as the gold standard of accountability would be valid — if de Blasio weren’t mayor. He is taking away so many enforcement tools from the NYPD that shootings and murder are soaring and evidence mounts that cops are under orders to ignore many quality-of-life crimes. With cops increasingly reduced to responding to crimes already committed, it is unclear what standards de Blasio is using to measure police commanders.
In truth, the similarity between the mayor’s approach to schools and crime reveals the danger of his incoherent philosophy. He’s a central planner of the Soviet model who doesn’t trust principals, teachers or cops to exercise their professional judgment. Ideological to the core, he’s imposing his political prejudices on their authority despite his lack of experience and training.

His decisions amount to micromanagement, not leadership, and represent the height of arrogance from a man who is late for virtually every public engagement.

Here’s an offer: He starts to show up on time, and we start to take him seriously.

Sheriff Joe plea: Rein in Obama ‘power grab’

by Bob Unruh

border_fence
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is asking an appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rein in the massive power that would be granted to President Obama and future presidents if a lower court’s decision stands.

The ruling threw out a legal challenge to Obama’s executive-memo driven amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens, despite the fact that amnesty was rejected by Congress and the plan would contradict state law.

Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to step into the case thrown out earlier by Judge Beryl Howell.

Arpaio contends the administration’s claim that “prosecutorial discretion” allows Obama to promise the benefits of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens is wrong.

“What is to stop a future president from simply directing the Internal Revenue Service to stop collecting taxes on capital gains or stop collecting income taxes above a rate lower than set by Congress?” asked a reply brief and request for oral argument filed Monday.

“Indeed, who would have standing to challenge taxes left uncollected from another person? What is to stop a future president from refusing to enforce environmental laws, labor union protections, securities laws, voting rights laws, or civil rights laws, on a claim of prosecutorial discretion?

“May a future president direct the IRS not to collect the penalty supporting Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate,’ producing actuarial collapse?”

“Appellees ask this court to endorse this power grab. Constitutional government in the United States would end in all but name. Any future president may ignore the law claiming ‘prosecutorial discretion’ wholesale.”

The brief contends that the issue is not a “policy dispute” as the government claims.

“The executive branch seeks to raise its own ‘policies’ above congressional statutes. Executive branch policies are not the ‘supreme law of the land’ as congressional enactments are.”

The brief also notes that in a similar case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already has issued a preliminary injunction halting Obama’s executive amnesty, because the administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Hanen now has ordered the Obama administration to be in his courtroom later this week to explain why the administration apparently is not abiding by his preliminary injunction.

Arpaio’s case aims for a ruling that the president’s actions are unconstitutional.

He argues that while the power to execute laws, residing in the executive branch, includes the ability to resolve questions, “it does not include unilateral implementation of legislative policies.”

The president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and not take executive action to create laws, he points out.

Klayman earlier told the appeals court that, according to the Office of Legal Counsel, Obama didn’t have the authority to order amnesty.

That agency concluded, “The executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.”

“Yet the appellees are doing exactly what OLC warned them not to do. Appellees’ programs are not prosecutorial discretion but rewriting the statutes. Appellees seek to grant amnesty to an estimated 6 million (53 percent) of the estimated 11.3 million illegal aliens that congressional enactments command them to deport,” Klayman has argued.

WND reported earlier when Arpaio said his local government had spent at least $9.2 million extra on detention and other costs because of Obama’s first “deferred action” plan providing some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens.

Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country.

In their case filings, Arpaio and Klayman have argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty.

The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies, called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through Congress.

Klayman has contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.”

“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents.”

He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law.

WND also reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/sheriff-joe-plea-rein-in-obama-power-grab/#haK5gy8Dtpdu7eXv.99

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN