GOP Candidate Releases Video: Global Warming 'Greatest Deception in the History of Mankind'

Natural Born Citizenship and History– Timeline

By GeorgeM  

 Here is the undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency:

Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.?
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11


MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happersett:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

In the 1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

——————————————————————–
Still Not 100% Sure? Here’s more!
Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution says:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

When the Declaration of Independence was adopted, the people of America broke free from British rule and were made US Citizens.

When writing the Constitution, they wanted to be sure they did everything possible to keep America perpetually secure and everlasting, by letting no one, except a Natural Born Citizen (born to two citizen parents) to be eligible for the Presidency. There is an OBVIOUS distinction in the Constitution between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen, which proves there is a difference or it would have just said citizen, for all the positions, instead of saying that the President and VP must be Natural Born, but all others need only be citizens.

The original text of Article 2, section 1, is not what it is today. Here is a timeline of the changes:
 June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

That was the original link, which if you search it, you will see it’s all over the web but you will also see that it has since been scrubbed. But I found another link, where you can read the letter:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0oWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter%22&source=bl&ots=1mgttvUzrt&sig=D56Q1n9tWRdgDFGkLLEf9zUR630&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jsAHT4aaNqH30gHP-5SWAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter%22&f=false

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA.  ”Obama” is not one. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Web Hosting Hub

Jun 16, 2014 Jeff Deist - What Ever Happened To "Peace" Officers?

US Republic now gone—Fully replaced by Dictatorship

By Sher Zieve 

 I have been writing about this time for, at least,  the last ten years.  It has now arrived.  It has occurred under Barack Hussein Obama. Those who say “Obama has now lost his political power” are either not seeing what’s going on or are willfully attempting ignorance.  As predicted, Obama’s power as dictator-in-chief is on the rise and growing exponentially every day.

Obama and his criminal syndicate are completely and tyrannically running the show in the USA.  US and Constitutional laws are not being followed—and have not been since Obama took the Office of POTUS—by Obama and the members of his ruling cabal.  Obama’s legal authority is to enforce the laws of the land.  Obama has—and is—doing neither.  Instead, he is writing and judging laws—replacing both Congress and SCOTUS. 

The Obama syndicate didn’t like SCOTUS’ Citizens United decision regarding political contributions from all—not just its own leftist supporters.  Therefore, the ObamaGov sicced its now-whollyowned IRS on Obama’s enemies conservative, Christian and observant Jewish organizations in order to keep them all from being politically active in opposing his Orwellian and subversive policies.  In an article from Huff Post—hardly a conservative or even “moderate” publication—Harlow Giles Unger writes:  “Nothing in the Constitution gives a president power to issue executive orders or proclamations with the force of law. The opening words of Article I of the Constitution are quite clear: “All legislative powers… shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” “

Obama’s message that the US’ Southern border is now wide-open has reached not only Mexico, but Central America and the Middle East’s jihadis…and they are entering what used to be a country—our country—by the thousands.  Obama’s—or perhaps Jarrett’s—strategy seems to have been and still does “Let them know we’re no longer trying to keep anyone out and that they can send their kids here so that the stupid American people will feel sorry for them.  Then, their parents can follow and be new Democrat voters!” Note:  Without well-maintained and policed borders, there is not a sovereign country.  And quite obviously the Islamic terrorist groups, drug cartels, human traffickers and Latin gangs (with MS-13 members reported to be in the forefront) are now entering at will.  Obama said he would “transform” what was once our country.  Transform to Obama means “obliterate”…and he has done so while Congress members still do nothing to stop him in the hopes that Obama will allow them to retain their “elite-ruler” status.

Obama has overtly turned against our veterans

Obama has overtly turned against our veterans, is in the process of criminalizing his opposition, is removing our Constitutional rights, has illegally opened our borders to all comers (effectively “providing aid and comfort to our enemies”—that’s treason) each and every day (BTW, the Obama-directed Copyright/Patent office’s decision against the name “Washington Redskins” globally removes the owners of the team’s rights to that which they have paid for decades) so that the destruction of our country will soon be completed.  And please don’t forget that Muslim Brotherhood members are running huge portions of the US federal government—including, but not limited to, the US DHS.

Impeaching Obama is interesting but—unfortunately—won’t work…and he knows it.  Ostensibly, impeachment would give Congress the right to provide them with discovery and subpoena Obama & Co.  The problem is that the Obama syndicate will not comply with any orders that do not comport with their own “kill the USA” agenda.  Just this week, the IRS issued the statement that ‘all of Lois Lerner’s emails, including those back and forth from the White House, have been lost due to a ‘computer glitch’.  I can hear the conversation from Obama’s dictator chambers now:  “Val, I love your idea!  Let’s go with it.  We’ll tell the peasants that we can’t find the emails or they’re lost…or whatever.  What can Congress or the stupid American people do to us?  Nothing!  Heck, they voted for their destruction twice when they voted us in.  Besides, we’ve militarized most of our government now to protect us while they and Congress let us do it.”  (Laughter is heard while Obama takes another drag on his cig and slugs down another beer).  “So, you take care of it and that Iraq thing, too.  I need some sleep so that I’ll be awake on the links in the Springs tomorrow.”

We have but one choice, folks, and it was always the only and inevitable one.  There are now no other options left.  Obama and his cabal must be physically removed from our White House. 
2Th 2:9 (NKJ) “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.”

Who Needs Congress When Obama Just Writes the Laws?:
 
The Dangers When a President Writes His Own Laws:

Charles Krauthammer: Can Obama write his own laws?:

U.S. Patent Office Cancels Washington Redskins Trademarks: 

‘Plot lines in Hollywood are more believable’: IRS ‘lost’ Lois Lerner’s emails and those of SIX other officials and kept it secret for MONTHS:

Muslim Brotherhood Goon Appointed As Sr. Secretary For U.S. Gestapo Homeland Security Scheme:

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?:

Canada Free Press

Greenhouse Gas Lunacy

By James Simpson  

 Once again, President Obama is circumventing Congress and using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a compliant and corrupt media to push his radical agenda. This time it is to save the world from climate change, formerly known as global warming at a time when there was actual evidence that the average global temperature was increasing, however slightly. But that was nearly two decades ago. Let’s set the matter straight, shall we?

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is a colorless, odorless “greenhouse gas” which currently comprises 400 parts per million (ppm), that is 0.04 percent of all atmospheric gasses—an infinitesimal amount. CO₂ concentration has increased by about 40%, or 120 ppm, (0.012% of atmospheric gasses) over the last 200 or so years. During that time, world mean temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

Global warming alarmists have used these observations to warn of future calamity. Many predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, or other effects including “flooding, drought, erosion, turbidity, debris in reservoirs, nutrient and pollutant loading, and wildfires.” The National Wildlife Federation claims that “Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe.” Don’t worry, though. Barack Obama promised to fix it all. Demonstrating early on his almost delusional arrogance, then-candidate Obama accepted his party’s 2008 presidential nomination claiming, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”

In fact, weather has not become more intense. Despite severe tornado damage from recent storms, the number of tornadoes in the past year is the lowest since 1954, and there has been no discernible upward trend in recent years. Similarly, as of June 10^th, the U.S. has not experienced a category three or higher hurricane for 2,787 days—a record. Wildfires are at their lowest since 1985, and again, this is not an anomaly. There is no discernible trend.

But even respected journals like National Geographic are playing fast and loose with the facts. On its “Global Warming Fast Facts” page, NG claims “Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.” But when you click through to the link, there is no mention of bears at all. Actually, Al Gore’s beloved bruins are doing just fine. A recent analysis found that since 2001, polar bear populations have increased, and that official estimates could have undercounted by as much as 9,000 animals. Canada has refused to put bears on their endangered species list despite pressure from U.S. environmental groups.

Global warming alarmists also keep insisting that there is a “consensus” that 97 percent of scientists believe manmade global warming exists and is an existential threat. Even NASA gets into the act, claiming that “97% of climate scientists agree.” The media have uncritically shouted the 97 percent shibboleth to the four corners of the globe, viciously attacking anyone who has the temerity to question it. A Talking Points Memo post demanded that “climate change deniers” be executed. An Austrian university musicology professor (what are his qualifications?), who ironically claims to oppose the death penalty, echoed the call. He did later apologize for it, however.

Even former NASA climate guru James Hansen has said that oil executives should face criminal trials for spreading doubt about global warming. This is the same James Hansen caught in the “ClimateGate” scandal, where he and climate scientists of the UK’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit deliberately manipulated world temperature data to support global warming claims. Most notoriously, Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick,” graph was found to be the result of a flawed study by Penn State University’s Michael Mann. No trials for Hansen, Mann or Gore yet, though.

Just like their other claims, the 97 percent figure has been widely debunked. Even the IPCC’s lead author, Dr. Richard Tol mocks the 97 percent figure. He states, “People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.” He refers to a report authored by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others that examined 11,944 “climate abstracts” in the scientific literature. But the authors of that study themselves found otherwise, noting that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” In other words, examining the abstracts alone found only 32.6 percent supported the notion of man-caused global warming. The 97 percent figure was derived by comparing the 32.6 percent with those who rejected (0.7%) or were unsure (0.3%), and essentially ignoring the rest.

In another study, authors claimed to have surveyed over 10,000 “earth scientists,” finding again that 97 percent agreed. Upon closer inspection however, one discovers that less than a third actually responded and that the survey was further stratified to analyze “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.”

 That subset yielded only 77 respondents, 75 of whom responded positively to the question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The 97 percent figure was thus based on only 77 people.

Meanwhile, a 2009 petition received over 31,000 signatures—more than any other petition on this subject—from physicists and physical chemists who agreed with the statement, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of … carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Most of the alarmist crowd has a strong vested interest in hyping global warming because they are being showered with research dollars to prove it. But cooler heads have remained resolutely skeptical, and for good reason. It is difficult, for example, to reconcile a 2009 study which found that a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ levels to 760 ppm, 34 million years ago, caused Antarctica to freeze over, with the modern arguments that: 1) current CO₂ levels half that high are causing Arctic ice to melt; and 2) CO₂ levels are at record highs, which some claim to be the “maximum safe limit.” Maybe CO₂ killed the dinosaurs too?



Meanwhile, as shown in the chart above, the average global temperature has not risen in 17 years, even trending downward since 2002, while CO₂ continues to rise—a fact which directly contradicts climate alarmists’ stated claims. A September 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) struggled to hide this seeming anomaly, and the organization was pressured by the U.S., Germany and other countries to do so. MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen characterized the IPCC report as “hilarious incoherence.” A 2012 study published in Nature magazine shows that global temperatures have not been historically high over the long term, even suggesting a downward trend.



Just for the sake of argument, however, we are going to completely ignore the foregoing and engage in a thought experiment. We will grant the left every single one of its assumptions. Nothing soothes lunatics more than to tell them they are “right,” so let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend they are.

Let’s generously assume that all of the CO₂ increase since colonial times was caused by man’s activity, and that 80 percent of it occurred after 1900. That would mean that man’s activity since 1900 increased atmospheric CO₂ by 96 ppm; (120 ppm x 0.8). This represents 0.0096 percent of all atmospheric gasses.

Let’s further assume the 1°C temperature increase was also solely caused by CO₂, and that 80 percent (0.8°C) of that 1-degree change occurred in the 20^th Century. (The actual temperature increase since 1900 is estimated to have been between 0.6 and 0.8°C.)

We will also generously assume that all along the U.S. has been responsible for 20 percent of these global emissions. This is somewhat more than our current contribution (16 percent in 2010, according to the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.) If the 20 percent figure were accurate, however, it would mean that over the past 114 years, America has been responsible for an increase in atmospheric CO₂ of 19.2 ppm (96 ppm x 0.2). That’s 0.00192 percent of all atmospheric gasses. If the relationship between CO₂ and temperature holds, we would therefore be responsible for 20% of the 0.8°C increase in global temperature since 1900, which equates to 0.16°C (0.29°F).

So if we buy the Left’s argument entirely, the big, bad US of A, the imperialist destroyer of the global environment, promiscuously burning excessive carbon fuels to satisfy its gluttonous, ravenous, insatiable appetite for warmth, air conditioning and automatic dishwashers, has raised global temperatures over the last 100 years a whopping one third of one degree Fahrenheit.

But here is where it gets truly insane. The Obama administration and its allies are telling us that reducing CO₂ emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent will bring a cornucopia of benefits, and they are willing to destroy the entire coal industry and force other conventional energy sources onto life support to accomplish this. However, power plants targeted by this rule produce only 38 percent of total U.S. manmade CO₂, and half this target has already been met.

So in actuality, total U.S. CO₂ will be reduced by only 5.7 percent (1/2 x 0.3 x 0.38) under this rule. This translates to a mere 1.026 ppm (0.057 x 18 ppm) representing 0.0001026 percent of atmospheric CO₂, for a temperature reduction of—wait for it—0.00912°C (0.16°C x 0.057). Converting to Fahrenheit yields 0.01642°F. Another way of saying this is that, if we are to take the left’s argument at face value, the average world temperature would decline from its historic average of 54.8°F to 54.784°F. That is less than three one-hundredths of one degree.
Liberalism is a mental illness.

But even this doesn’t tell the whole story. Our example assumes that all the recent climate change is due to man’s production of carbon dioxide. There are many so-called greenhouse gasses, and CO₂ does not have the greatest impact; water vapor does. See the chart below.



Source: RealClimate.Org
Furthermore, temperature has been increasing and decreasing in regular cycles over the past two hundred years. According to Friends of Science, a non-profit group comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals, “The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists China as the largest coal producer and consumer in the world, producing almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, and almost four times more than the U.S. In 2012, China consumed 49 percent of the world coal supply, compared to 11 percent by the U.S. Over the past 10 years, Chinese coal consumption has accounted for 83 percent of increased demand. Thus, it is not surprising that China is the world’s largest producer of anthropogenic CO₂, contributing 24.7 percent of the world’s total in 2010, the latest data available. This is 53 percent more than the U.S. produces, and China has no intention of slowing down. Current use and anticipated increases in carbon fuel use by China promises to swamp any decrease the U.S. is able to obtain.

In a Congressional hearing last September, EPA Director Gina McCarthy could not list a single effect EPA actions were having on any of 26 indicators of climate change, admitting, “It’s unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any those [indicators]—a visible change in any of those [indicators].” Her rationale was that it “positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue,” that could be used to prompt other nations to take action. But has the U.S. had any success influencing China on any front at all?

How about Russia or India, who together produce 11 percent of worldwide emissions? The EPA acknowledges the rule will have no impact on atmospheric CO₂.

 When the rule was finally announced, however, the EPA claimed it would bring copious benefits. Most media outlets and leftwing organizations sang its praises. The Union of Concerned Scientists called it a “climate game changer.” They compared Director McCarthy to Thomas Jefferson “at the Dawn of America,” and the EPA rule with the Declaration of Independence.

Most media ignored the serious economic impacts this rule will likely create. The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of over 500,000 jobs, a decline in average family income by $1,000 and a 20 percent increase in energy costs. The EPA acknowledged that electricity rates will rise, but if we can hold out until 2030, they assure us that prices will fall after that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed compliance costs for the new rule could exceed $50 billion per year. The Natural Resources Defense Council sides with EPA, claiming a maximum cost of $14.6 billion by 2020 with offsetting benefits between $37 and $60 billion. The liberal Brookings Institution, however, dismisses EPA’s claimed benefits as being exaggerated by as much as 15 times.

Other liberals acknowledge the scam but support it anyway. Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Steward said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” For comparison, the most expensive EPA regulation to date addresses mercury and costs $9.6 billion per year.

The carbon regulation will have a much broader impact on our economy.

Other countries are beginning to recognize the global warming lunacy for what it is: an opportunity for well-connected liberals to fleece their nations’ treasuries in the name of “saving the planet.” In my previous article, Germany’s energy chief, Stephan Kohler, was quoted as calling Germany’s Renewable Energy Act “sheer lunacy.” Newly elected Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is now is cultivating an alliance with Canada, Britain, New Zealand and India in an effort to oppose Obama’s call for onerous carbon regulation.

The EPA rule is sheer lunacy.

Canada Free Press

Obama's Children's Crusade

June 14, 2014
By James Lewis

 
 The Children’s Crusade that has invaded our southern borders has an amazing number of well-fed gangster types, grabbing their crotches and giving the finger to the news cameras. These adult-sized gangsters are not children, and they don’t act like children. They are doing sex, dope, and almost certainly work in criminal collusion with the biggest Mexican drug cartel, Sinaloa. They certainly look more like drug smugglers and mules for the youngsters who have apparently been abandoned by their real parents and by governments south of the border, to go wandering north under conditions that simply invite abuse.

Would you send your own kids in wild mobs to a strange land? Do Hispanics love and protect their children less than we do? No. This is another Obama agit-prop stunt, like the Tahrir Square “spontaneous demonstration” that brought Muslim Bro Mohammed Morsi to power in Egypt. Bill Ayers was involved in those demonstrations at Egypt’s borders with Gaza, where he agitated for the barriers to come down and let Hamas into Egypt. Then the Egyptians came to their senses, and overthrew Morsi for El Sisi, a man in the mold of Anwar Sadat.

Mob agitation is a standard operating tactic of these people, in close collusion with leftist media and agitator groups like the Ruckus Society, and of course our Rotten Media.
So now we have a U.S. president assaulting our southern borders. Think about that.

Isn’t it always the same in this administration?

Three power centers had to come together to fake this refugee crisis -- with the healthiest-looking refugees in history.

First is the Obama Administration, which has a long history of doing this -- based on Alinsky and ACORN training manuals. The Children’s Crusade is just another variation of Occupy Wall Street, filled with rich trust-fund kids from Upper Manhattan, who had to take the subway all the way down to Wall Street for their heroic demos against “the 1%” -- like their parents. Ayers always said that “kill your parents” is the key to 

The Revolution. Well, the Wall Street Occupishers trashed and excreted on the streets for the eager cameristas of the New York Times (which helped organize the demos), leaving the black and Hispanic workers of the Sanitation Department to clean up.

The second big power center colluding in this assault are governments south of the border, which always play footsie with the radical left down there, like La Raza, and the cartels.

Newspapers in Central America have been actively encouraging children to throw themselves on the mercy of the American people, and to overwhelm our Border Patrol. In any civilized nation that is criminal child abuse, and in this case it is large-scale, highly organized criminal child abuse, probably a defined crime against humanity.

Valerie Jarrett met “several times” with La Raza and its ilk, who want to turn the United States into “Azatlan.” -- because they are entitled to own this country, of course. Our Rotten Media are playing along, as we have seen a thousand times.

The third colluding organization is the Sinaloa Cartel, the biggest and most dangerous organized drug mob, which received arms from this administration in the Fast and Furious scandal. Sinaloa used those weapons to destroy their competition south of the border, and to intimidate the U.S. Border Patrol.
Sinaloa had to be involved in the Children’s Crusade, because they control the southern border, probably more effectively than we do.

What we are seeing therefore is an Obama-La Raza-Sinaloa alliance at work.

You need to know only three facts about Sinaloa: they are huge, they are very dangerous, and they have penetrated our political-media class in cities like Chicago. This follows Alinsky doctrine that the left rises to power by building alliances with the criminal mafia against the middle class.

This administration seems to love radical gangs of all kinds, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (slogan: 

All we want is to die in the way of Allah!); to Hamas, which has just received de facto recognition as part of the Pals; to Hizb’allah, the Iranian proxy terror group, which runs Lebanon and does widespread drug smuggling in South America; to Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, which is being supported by the United States and Qatar to head-chop all the infidels they want, in exchange for slicing up Assad’s control of Syria.

As SecState, Hillary Clinton allowed high-level Moob infiltration by such as Huma Abedin, her “close aide,” and former Moob magazine editrix. In this administration, if the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t know something, it’s not worth knowing.

Add that to Obama’s utter surrender to the mullahs’ nuclear program, and there is no more reasonable doubt: this administration sides with our most ferocious enemies.

That is the political context for the Children’s Crusade today, timed exquisitely to coincide with the amnesty bill the RINOs were going to help Obama to push through Congress.
Just an amazing coincidence, you see.

When the Democrats abandoned South Vietnam, desperate Vietnamese clung to the last helicopters lifting off from our embassy roof. They were truly desperate, because soon they were going to be killed or corralled in death camps, as we later saw from the Vietnamese Boat People, who sometimes made it on rafts to the safety of U.S. Navy ships, years later. Those people deserved our compassionate help to escape the death grip of Ho Chi Minh.

Today’s Children’s Crusade is a very different thing. These well-fed and reportedly sexually-active kids are not refugees. They don’t look desperate. Their long bus ride across the U.S. border is not an act of desperation, and their parents, aunts, and uncles are not far behind. No; this is an organized mob, run by adults (including Valerie Jarrett and her kind), in collusion with governments and mafias south of the border -- to give our radical leftist media a chance for another tear-jerking photo op for the Hopeless Suckers of America. This is community disorganizing the Obama way. It is the scofflaw pattern we have learned to expect from this Chicago Way administration. For the internationalist media it’s Hurricane Katrina playbook, repeated to the point of boredom. Haven’t we seen these stunts before?

Americans do not want to believe it, but everybody is beginning to smell massive corruption and national betrayal in this administration. We are seeing terrorist and gangland penetration. Terror gangs like Hizb’allah also deal drugs throughout Latin America. Just look at the facts.

The medieval Children’s Crusade ended in death and slavery for the children who were enticed into it. In this case, La Raza, ValJar, Obama and the Sinaloa drug cartel seem to be in collusion in a crime against human rights.

The DEA stated two years ago that the Sinaloa Cartel is “so deeply embedded in Chicago, we have to operate the way we do on the border.”

Which throws a whole new light on this administration. For example, the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal is usually thought to be an anti-gun stunt by Obama and Holder. But factor in the Sinaloa Cartel in Chicago, and Alinsky’s preaching for a radical alliance with the Chicago mafia -- then Fast and Furious begins to look like gunrunning to benefit the Sinaloa Cartel, so it could kill off the competition on the Mexican border. Sinaloa wants to break down border enforcement, and being armed to the teeth works just fine for them.

A similar political-mob alliance was negotiated in Chicago a dozen years ago by Jesse Jackson. Obama rose in the Illinois Machine, mentored by the Godfather, Emil Jones. Connect the dots...

When Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan right before the Bergdahl surrender speech at the Rose Garden, it was proclaimed to be a gesture of appreciation for the troops, despite the fact that Mohammed Karzai, the embattled but elected president of Afghanistan, didn’t want him there and remained aloof during the visit. (Imagine the media response if something like that had happened to George W. Bush.)

The fact  – as Karzai well knows – is that Obama is getting ready to surrender Afghanistan to the worst terrorist, woman-hating, child-abusing, America-fighting gangs, because that is his ideology.

Read that again if you don’t believe it, and then simply look at the facts. Obama’s Dreams of my Father is a tribute to his Mau Mau-supporting biological father, the Third World radical. The Mau Mau operated by head-chopping isolated white farm families in Kenya, slaughtering thousands before the Brit authorities brought them under control. .

That is standard operating procedure for “liberation terrorists” in Obama’s book. For Obama, the Al Qaeda affiliates who decapitated children in the Christian Syrian village of Ma’aloula were not committing the greatest evil humans are capable of. Those kids were only unlucky bystanders in the guerilla theater of jihadist Islam. The children and adults who were butchered in Nairobi’s Western Mall for the world to see were both white and black. But Al Qaeda didn’t care, because Allah will know his own when their souls fly to heaven for judgment. The 300 (by now) Nigerian girls who were stolen from their families and sold into Arab slavery -- like all the ancestors of American blacks -- are not really important in Obama’s cold mind. 

Nor were the young people in Tehran demonstrating against the sadistic mullahs in Iran at the start of this administration important. Who cares if mullahs quote from Allah to authorize the rape of women on death row?

The ACORN manual says it plainly: In politics, might is right. That is a Hitler slogan. Most Americans are political dopes and dupes, but some of us remember who gave Osama bin Laden safe haven in Afghanistan, to plan and execute 9/11/01. The Taliban are Wahhabi fanatics, a carbon copy of Al Qaeda.

The Haqqani network that captured Bowe Bergdahl is in cahoots with Iran, but Islamic fascists make tactical alliances all the time. They have a common enemy -- all the infidels of the world, especially America and Israel.

As for Western Europe, it has already surrendered to a massive infiltration campaign, paid for by the oil regimes.

A few weeks ago, Tony Blair wrote an article proposing that Europe must combine with Russia to fight Islamic imperialism. He is right -- Europe by itself has lost the will to live. Europe has more than 300 million educated people, but only Russia understands the danger of militant Islam, and acts without mercy. Soon enough, Europe will appeal to Russia for military protection. If our political class remains blind, deaf and dumb we may yet have to appeal to Putin and China to save us from the Obamas of this world.

American Thinker

Judge Jeanine Pirro Says Impeach Obama NOW!

Cantor out in Tea Party shocker

 By Russell Berman



 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the Speaker-in-waiting, was defeated Tuesday in a primary election by a little-known conservative economics professor, David Brat, in one of the most stunning upsets in modern political history.

Brat defeated Cantor, a six-term incumbent, despite having no experience in elected office and being outspent by nearly 20-to-1. The Associated Press called the race for Brat shortly after 8 p.m., an hour after polls closed in Virginia’s 7th District. Brat was leading Cantor, 56 percent to 44 percent, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

ADVERTISEMENT

For Cantor, the loss guillotines his fast rise through the House leadership, which many had expected would make him the first Jewish Speaker in history.

It is perhaps the most significant jolt to the Republican establishment since the emergence of the Tea Party in 2009. While conservative activists have ousted veteran Republicans such as Sens. Bob Bennett (Utah) and Richard Lugar (Ind.), a sitting majority leader has never been defeated in a primary election.

As recently as Friday, Cantor and his team projected confidence.
“I’m just not worried,” Cantor’s Richmond-based political adviser, Ray Allen, told The Hill. Cantor’s own polling showed him with a comfortable lead.

Brat told The Hill he was “peaking at exactly the right time.”
And indeed he was.

Brat hammered Cantor over his support for some parts of immigration reform, accusing him of pushing for “amnesty” for the children of illegal immigrants.
In the end, Cantor’s defeat may doom immigration reform for years to come.

Cantor, standing alongside his wife, Diana, made a brief appearance before dispirited supporters in Richmond.

He said serving as majority leader had been one of the highest honors of his life.

“I know there’s a lot of long faces here tonight, and, um, it’s disappointing, sure,” he said. “But I believe in this country. I believe there’s opportunity around the next corner for all of us. So I look forward to continuing to fight with all of you for the things that we believe in for the conservative cause, because those solutions of ours are the answers to so many of problems that people are facing today.”

There were warning signs for Cantor.

Tea Party activists recently ousted a close Cantor ally as the 7th District’s committee chairman.
On immigration, Cantor sought to neutralize the issue, running television ads attacking Brat as a “liberal professor” and sending direct mailers  that said he fought President Obama on “amnesty.”

“Barack Obama and Harry Reid: Pushing amnesty to give illegal aliens a free ride. Conservative Republican Eric Cantor is stopping this liberal plan,” said one mailer.

Unlike elections in Mississippi and Kentucky, major conservative and Tea Party groups did not flood Cantor’s district with money and rallies.

And Cantor poured money into the race from the beginning.

Wary of allowing Tea Party groups to turn his district into a top battleground, Cantor unleashed a an early and heavy barrage of negative ads against Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College who previously lost a race for the state legislature.

Cantor spent more than $1 million on the primary and attacked Brat for serving on an advisory board for former Gov. Tim Kaine at a time when the Democrat was pushing tax increases.

In the waning days of the race, conservative radio stars Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin boosted Brat and condemned Cantor for his positions on immigration.

The attacks came even as Cantor was under fire from advocates of immigration reform for his refusal to bring legislation to the House floor that would offer legal status for some people in the country illegally.

The Hill

Governor Palin Takes Down Team Obama

  By Sarah Palin via Facebook.

Barack Hussein Obama, there you go again. You underestimated the wisdom of the people, the valor of our vets, the patriotic pride of military families, and the moral courage of our servicemen. You are shocked that our collective jaw dropped when the inner circle you command told us an anti-American deserter met your standards of having “served with honor and distinction.”

Ralph Peters has an excellent op-ed about how some members of the media and Team Obama’s inner circle are flummoxed by the Bergdahl backlash they’re receiving (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/379481/print). They’re clueless because too few in that elitist bubble have ever served honorably in uniform. High on their newsroom pedestals, they’re looking down rhinoplasty noses on the rest of us wondering why we’re saying “no more” to leadership actions that are patently dangerous, certainly disrespectful.

Team Obama, you feel blindsided now because you’ve gotten away for far too long with your attitude of “we know best, so go back to sleep, ye little drudges.” You’ve gotten away with lying, and you’re trying to get away with lying again with talking points the liberals are parroting ad nauseam about “never leaving an American behind.” You lie. You’ve left Americans behind.

You continually show your inability to comprehend the values cherished by those volunteering to serve. Take, for example, your promotion of John Kerry despite his lecturing us that kids better study up or they’ll end up like one of “those guys” (you know, our soldiers) so dumb they’re “stuck” in the military fighting for us. Try telling that to guys like an accomplished Anchorage son, Lt. Graham, leading equally proud men fulfilling their duty still “stuck” in Afghanistan fighting for us.

From the apology tours, to the military cuts, to the VA scandal’s “death panel” rationing of care for vets, to the Commander-in-chief’s blundered references to corpsmen as, ironically, “corpse-men,” Americans have patiently endured Team Obama’s military cluelessness, but even your own base is abandoning you after this latest disaster.

Mr. President, you’ve been on our case since Day One, and your constant disparaging of conservatives is, you claim, just “keeping folks accountable.” In the interests of equality, I hope you can appreciate that now America is holding Team Obama accountable for the disaster that erupted from your unbelievable terrorist negotiations – a scandal with even more disastrous long-term consequences ahead. After so many fumbles, you crossed a line into dangerous territory atop soil created by the complete opposite of “honor and distinction.” We won’t follow you there. Nor, even, I predict, will previously politically correct church leaders, influential business tycoons, down-to-earth celebrities, and low-information voters. This is part of our nation’s great awakening.

You freed terrorists who were captured for a reason. Our brave ones sacrificed blood and treasure to keep America safe by doing what you send them into war zones to do – to get the bad guys off the street. You just undid that. The icing on this devil’s food cake is that you did it for an anti-American deserter whose actions have created even more harm for his comrades and former countrymen.

This deserter chose to put our soldiers in greater danger by abandoning his post and purposefully hooking up with the enemy after writing of his disdain for the USA. He told others he was ashamed to be an American. His own father proudly shared these comments with media back in 2012. He also proclaimed while in uniform, “The horror that is America is disgusting.”

And he’s the one you honor at the White House? Why not give the Rose Garden podium over to the families of the men who died during the rescue efforts mounted to find this ungrateful, disloyal, and dangerous one. In sympathy, you risked innocent lives to bring him back inside the security of the country he chose to leave! So, have you asked yourself what exactly were we “rescuing” him FROM? According to some reports, he actually renounced his citizenship, in addition to publishing his contempt for our nation, before cowardly trading himself from Team America to Team Taliban. In doing so out in the field, he may have aided our enemies of the Islamic Terrorist persuasion.

You obviously play way too much golf. At the cost of America’s faithful soldiers who’ll never get a second chance, on your scorecard a deserter gets the mulligan?

You underestimated the wisdom of the people, Commander-in-Chief, for we are horrified and disgusted by your secret negotiations with radicals to free five Islamic terrorists in exchange for an anti-American deserter whose actions got others killed. Even more disgusting is your celebration of the cowardly act that initiated this disaster.

- Sarah Palin

It's Personal: Confronting the Academy's Leftism

June 8, 2014
By Robert Oscar Lopez 

 
 Lately, there has been so much news about the academy’s leftism going insane, it would take about ten consecutive articles to rehash all that’s happened in the first half of 2014:

• crazy professors assaulting pro-life teenagers
• literature professors with no political background inveighing against Israel
• homosexual witch-burners wielding FOIA requests
• zombies shouting down panelists in chilling unison
• deans and provosts with no background in law enforcement judging rape cases
• commencement speakers axed to please petulant faculty subcultures.

All of that’s just your average Wednesday.  We could go on and on.

You know it’s bad when Nanny State Bloomberg has to read Harvard graduates the Riot Act over liberal bias on college campuses.  (I don’t think his speech was actually as good as Laura Ingraham seems to think it was, but that’s just me.)

But let’s climb out of the rabbit hole for a moment
Life is too short, and if you are an American Thinker reader, you know the deal already.  I will not bore you with the catalog of vanities coming out of academe.  Every year it gets worse, and yet there is no rock bottom.

Nonetheless, in the spirit of never surrendering, I am going to go about answering a basic question that has to haunt people who still care about the future of higher education in our homeland: how can this be?  How did the academy get this bad?  In gaining greater clarity about how such intellectual dereliction became possible, one might increase the tiny possibility that we can still change it.

It might be more comforting to quote some towering villains in intellectual history (Marcuse, Derrida, Foucault, Spivak, etc.) or cite a massive global conspiracy, but the truth is, it’s so much smaller and more irritatingly inane than all of that.  Put simply, the academy got this bad because the people running it became, as individuals, small-minded and cliquish and invidious.

To understand the big picture of leftist academic perfidy, you have to understand, first of all, the little picture: the parochial experience of the average university department.  It is in this cell that all the ruinous behaviors fester.

The Academic Department
Whether it’s science, business administration, or English, it’s roughly the same daily grind.
Imagine having to report to work every day so you can deal with ignorant people who think they’re geniuses.

You show up, and they all talk down to you as if you are a moron, even though you know much more than they do.  You try to speak up, politely at first, and eventually not so politely, but it doesn’t matter.  They will not let you talk.

If you force your way into the conversation, they will literally ban you from public venues; you will be blocked from listservs, deleted from the department newsletter, and prohibited from getting on meeting agendas.  Should those tactics fail, you may be accused of hurting the feelings of some protected group or bullying an innocent Eddie Haskell, so there will be a real gag order placed on you for months while diversity attorneys investigate.

They give each other awards, laugh at each other’s jokes, and carry on blithely as a social club that would be elitist, if it weren’t for the fact that their scholarly acumen doesn’t actually rise much higher than the average blog on the Huffington Post, which as it turns out, some of them write for.  Nothing is more ordinary and predictable than HuffPo, Salon, Mother Jones, or The Nation, but don’t tell them that.  They’re part of a bustling coterie of brainiacs.

The people you work with hate you because they assume you hate them – not based on any real evidence, but simply based on their presumptions about you because you are different from them – and since they won’t let you talk, you never have a chance to explain yourself.

If you breathe the wrong way, they have a right to feel offended, yet they can insult everything you hold dear and recklessly denounce groups you are affiliated with, and you never have the right to feel offended.  Ever. 

 You are the 1%, and they are the 99%.  And not in a good way – it’s not like you are the robber baron and they are the powerless masses.  It’s more like you are Emmett Till and the office is Money, Mississippi in 1955.

The Social Landscape of the Academic Department
Your colleagues fall into three basic categories.

1. The Good: Thirty percent are good people who want to do the right thing, but you can’t really reach them because all the other people in the department cloud their view of you like so much fog.  Since these are the people who everyone knows are principled, your adversaries will do everything in their power to thwart any real friendships between you and them, lest they see you for who you really are and come to defend you.

2. The Cowardly: Then there are the 45% who just don’t want any hassles.  They may be somewhat nice to you, but once you’ve been labeled as the bad guy, they will avoid you like the plague.  You can expect the occasional pleasantry from them, but they will never risk anything to help you, and helping you is always a risk because of the third category.

3. The Ugly: Lastly, about 25% of the department is composed of unscrupulous sadists.  Naturally, they hate you and will never change their minds about you.  Almost always they have some terrible past full of suffering that licenses all kinds of professional terrorism against others.

When you first start working there, the differences between these three categories mean a lot.  You forge some bonds, build some bridges.  Eventually, after getting savagely attacked and finding nobody to stand up for you – and after having to hire lawyers to keep your job – the distinctions of good, cowardly, and ugly lose all meaning.  They all melt into one gigantic puddle of sludge that you know you must sidestep.  If you step in them, you will sink.

They fear for their safety.  They believe that your continued existence in their midst might not only irritate them, but also harm them by exposing them to murderous plots by a military-industrial complex, Tea Party gunmen, or Christian zealots with torches.  If not you directly, then perhaps people you know might be tempted to drop by the office and commit illiberal genocide while they are in the neighborhood.  This explains why the police will keep an eye on you but will not help you when you get death threats, vandalism on your office door, or racist e-mails.

Welcome to my world
That’s what it is like to be the only outspoken conservative in a college that has thousands of left-wing faculty members.  It isn’t the political persecution that makes the experience so awful, though of course that is a problem.  It’s worst when it boils down to basic personal conflict.

The overarching dynamic is denial.  None of your colleagues can acknowledge that they are biased, since their bias is, first and foremost, the absolute conviction that their ideologically narrow and highly controvertible assertions are actually impartial and foolproof understandings of reality.  They do not even like to be called leftist; once in a while, in the heat of an argument, they might even fib about having once admired William F. Buckley.  (“Prove it,” I say.  “Show me one thing you published that ever praised him.”  No proof materializes.)

When I say they are ignorant, I’m not simply mirroring their condescension.  They almost never interact with anyone who disagrees with them on anything beyond minor cosmetic differences, whereas I can rarely be in the same room on a college campus with anyone who agrees with me.  Any idea I entertain is immediately vetted under the most scathing scrutiny from relentlessly hostile inquisitors.  Any idea they entertain is met with effusive affirmation and enshrined as expert consensus within minutes.

I have to understand the ideological camps to which I belong and the ideological camps to which they belong, none of which overlap.  Meanwhile, they have no critical outsider’s view of their own camps, which they do not even realize are camps of thought (they think they are merely intelligent and drawn to others who share their intelligence.)  Nor do they have any knowledge whatsoever of the camps outside of their fenced and sheltered academic world.  They don’t know of any right-wing academics except as two-dimensional caricatures lambasted in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  They have a strong aversion to Fox News but most likely never watched it, except when it’s excerpted by Jon Stewart.

They think the New York Times is a serious newspaper in everlasting pursuit of truth.  They believe what they hear on NPR and Democracy Now.

There was once a time when leftists were challenging orthodoxy and unearthing perspectives that had been censored and marginalized.  They were fighting the Man.  But seriously, how long ago was that?  Many departments no longer even have any of the hippies who shook things up in the 1960s.  Now you have a lot of people born in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, who possess none of the courage once required of the left, but all of the arrogance, funding, institutional cover, and tenure that they inherited by aping those aging hippies until the latter retired and passed the baton to them.

The saddest thing about working around a lot of leftist academics is that they are truly incapable of seeing themselves for what they are.  They believe they are neutral.  They think they have a diversity of viewpoints already.  Because they quarrel with each other over picayune differences, they don’t see the suffocating lockstep nature of their beliefs.  Worst of all, they think they are kind and benevolent people.

Quo vadis?
When we see the famous footage of a “feminist studies” professor stealing a teenage girl’s protest sign and then assaulting her in an elevator, it is so hard to fathom that the academy could have fallen so far.  It is easy to see the animalistic behavior and infer that nothing can be done.  I detect a small hint of gratuitous pleasure felt by conservatives in perusing sites like Campus Reform and partaking in the commonplace but ultimately futile exercise of “outrage porn.”

Our media hubs like FOX News encourage this self-satisfying stasis because they tend to focus on conservative students who are wronged by leftist faculty.  Rarely discussed are the few faculty who are conservative or center-left with a working conscience.  It is true that conservative students need our support and sympathy.  But most of those students are not going to work in higher education.  They’d be crazy to go into academia as it currently stands.  So as much as we need to rally behind them, doing so will never change the left-wing bias that eats away at American universities.

The monstrousness of the American academy is really an aggregation of all the mundane frictions that come from interacting with personalities who have, through a convergence of multiple social forces, fallen into a rut.  If there is ever to be a Reconquista of the academy, it will have to be carried out in the very place where we few conservative academics do not want to go: interpersonal relations.

I say, go there.

If you are reading this and you are, like me, a beleaguered and exceedingly rare rightist professor sticking it out behind enemy lines, you should feel a tremendous weight on your shoulders.  Nothing is going to improve unless you – and I – gird up for the worst kind of everyday battles.  We must fight the emotional and psychological warfare of department gossip, water-cooler snubs, committee dust-ups, mailroom subterfuge – all of it, the nasty, the sleazy, the venal, the incestuous, the soul-crushingly small and petty.  We must remind our colleagues, constantly, that we exist, even if it drives them into hysterics and triggers ever escalating forms of backlash against us.

If we give up and hide, if we start skipping department meetings, if we hide ourselves under bushels, we end up making the problem that much worse.  Conservative students won’t know there is another way of seeing our disciplines. Conservative readers won’t see any examples of people with their traditionalist tendencies dedicating themselves to scholarship.  And leftists will feel comfortable and utterly unchallenged – the way they feel, when they turn most dangerous.

Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.

American Thinker

The Obama Doctrine

June 8, 2014
By Karin McQuillan

President Obama thought trading a deserter for five top terrorists would be a PR coup.  What does this tell us about our president as a person?  At the most basic level, it shows that Obama does not share Americans’ visceral reaction to Bergdahl’s betrayal of his fellow soldiers and country.  Obama, and no doubt Kerry, thought a deserter could be palmed off as a perfectly fine hero.

Before rushing on to the usual chatter about Obama’s incompetence, his wanting to get attention off the VA, and his grandiose belief in his brilliance at negotiating with Islamist regimes, it is important to pause and consider why Obama’s gut reaction is so off.

Obama didn’t have a normal visceral reaction to the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, either.  Any normal person would have rushed to his post in the Situation Room to oversee a rescue attempt.  On that one, Obama skipped the Situation Room entirely, and the rescue attempt, and went to bed to get his beauty sleep for a Vegas fundraiser.  Something is off. 

Obama does not have a normal visceral reaction to Iran’s mullahs armed with nuclear weapons.  Just as the economic sanctions on Iran were beginning to bite, Obama lifted them entirely, restored Iran's frozen assets, left their nuclear weapons program intact, and told Israel there will be “negative consequences” if they take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.  He is obviously comfortable with a nuclear Iran.  That is strange.

Obama does not have normal visceral reactions to jihadi groups.

Our president worked to install terrorists in power in Egypt, where they had been successfully suppressed for sixty years.  He helped depose our ally Mubarak and did his best to hand over Egypt to the Muslim Brothers, a Nazi-jihadi group dedicated to sharia law, the worldwide caliphate, and killing all the Jews on the planet.  Obama is still punishing Egypt for rising up and getting rid of the Brothers, by withholding military aid.  This is not appeasement; it is not even collaboration – it is working for your enemy’s cause.

Barack Obama doesn’t have a normal reaction to the Palestinians, who are busy lobbing 8,000 missiles into Israel from Gaza – murdering, maiming and terrifying men, women, and children.  Our president has once again chosen to flout American law, which bans aid to Hamas, and announced we will be funding Hamas as part of a “unity” government.

Obama does not recoil at Arab villagers sneaking into Jewish homes to bash a baby’s head against the wall.  President Obama understands and sympathizes with the Islamic cause.  He is proud of that.  He thinks the Arabs are the aggrieved party, and that the Israelis should “walk a mile in Palestinians’shoes.”  Obama’s gut check on the Israelis and the Palestinians is off.

Obama wants the terrorists to win.  He mistakes them for a civil rights group.

He is not unique in this, which is why the left-wing media are happy to cover for him and promote his anti-American policies as normal politics.  The left wing of the Democratic Party, including Hillary Clinton, doesn’t believe that Islamists are implacable enemies.  There is no violent, organized, widespread supremacist Islamic movement based on the mainstream teachings of Islam.  The problem is America and Israel.  We are too successful, too powerful, too white, and too Western for the left’s taste.  Frustrated Muslims are justified in wanting to kill Americans and Israelis.  It is we who need to change our ways.

His progressive base applauds Obama as community organizer to the world, fighting for social justice for the poor, angry Muslims who only hate and kill because they are mistreated by colonialists and bullying cowboys.

To leftists like our president, we are the bad guys.  Sharia law is a right.  Israeli’s self-defense and sovereignty are wrongs.  Islam is a beautiful religion; Judaism and Christianity are backward and hateful.  Islamophobia is real.  The jihadi threat is not real.

Steven Emerson, head of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, lists numerous cases of jihad in America, including the mass murders by Army Major Hasan and the Boston Marathon bombing, where he believes Obama’s pro-jihadi homeland security policies hobbled the FBI from successful pre-emptive action.

“Numerous experts on Islamic terrorism like myself - and I had given 143 lectures at the FBI, CIA - were banned from speaking to any U.S. government counterterrorism conferences," Mr. Emerson told The Washington Times.  "Instead, these agencies were ordered to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”

The Obama administration has invited Muslim Brotherhood front groups, CAIR and others, to control FBI counter-terrorism training.  The FBI has been forced to never mention the term Islamic extremist.  The FBI is not allowed to describe the Koran as the teachings of Mohammed – it is the revealed word of God.  The Obama administration won’t allow the FBI to mention young Middle Eastern males.  The FBI is not allowed to link al-Qaeda to the first World Trade Center and Khobar Tower bombings. 

Calling this political correctness is to trivialize it.  If these policies were limited to discussions in the faculty lounge, they could be called political correctness.  When our president hands power over our homeland security to jihadi groups, it is collaboration with the enemy.

Obama has a pattern of promoting terrorist goals.  Obama knows his approach, if honestly reported to the public, would be hugely unpopular.  That is why he does it secretly and relies on his Democrat lapdog Congress and media to back him up.  Until Bergdahl, they covered successfully for him every time.

Perhaps Obama really does think Bergdahl served with honor.  Obama himself has carved out a gray zone with the jihadis, partaking equally of capitulation and treason.  The Obama Doctrine:  enable jihadis to dominate the West.

American Thinker