School Shooting Prevention: See Something, Say Something Stunning list: Cops stop dozens of school attacks before they happen Chelsea Schilling When it comes to horrific school attacks and shootings, “See something, say something, do something” is apparently a policy that really does … Continue reading
Theme Quotes—Truth Matters
Light …allows us to see things as they really are. It allows us to discern between truth and error, between the vital and the trivial. ~Dieter F. Uchtdorf
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. ~3 John 1:4
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ~John 8:32
It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. ~1 John 5:6
Remember—it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. ~Thomas Paine
Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. ~Thomas Paine
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell
You don’t have to believe in God for him to exist. ~Rush Limbaugh
“You must have eyes that know what to look for.” Gandalf, Lord of the Rings
Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it. ~Edmund Burke
Therefore my people are gone into captivity because they have no knowledge.~Isaiah 5:13
Take heed that no man deceive you. And many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many; And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived. ~Matthew 1:5,9,37 JST
National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts
How Intelligence Works (When it Does)
Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press
Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.
Why Today’s Agencies are Not Trusted
So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet.
And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest.
Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.
Coats, Pompeo Careers Built on Substance
We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.
Intelligence Collectors Need Guidance on What to Look For
This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.
Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.
Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.
Reagan’s Intelligence Analysts
This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because everyone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.
Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.
Read Full Article Here
Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax
Another Huge Global Warming Data Scandal
RUSH: I need to tell you something that you’re not going to see in the Drive-By Media, and it’s huge. In setting this up, I want to remind you why I have spent so much time on the whole subject of climate change and global warming throughout the entirety of this program, 29 years.
A Front for Socialism
It is because that issue, climate change, contains every element of extreme liberalism and socialism that needs to be understood and opposed. Climate change, if they succeed in this, climate change is close to health care in terms of, if you get nationalized climate change, nationalized health care, then you are very close to totally controlling the way people live their lives.
You have succeeded in restricting people’s liberty and freedom in perhaps the greatest way you can. That’s why climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is of such paramount importance to me, because it’s not just a single issue. It’s every wet dream the left has encapsulated in an issue. It has government control, it has tax increases, it has the expansion of government, it has decisions and mandates of what kind of car you can and can’t drive, what kind of food you can and can’t eat, what you can do with your own private property. It would go a long way to eliminating the concept of private property.
The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures
I mean, it’s just horrible. And it turns out there’s yet another scandal of totally fake data that was purposely made up and lied about right before the Paris accords that was designed to sway duped nations into spending, wasting millions of dollars in implementing policies designed to stop runaway temperature increases when there have not been any. And the fake data came from the United States. It came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the people that give you your weather forecast.
It was exposed by a whistleblower in the organization who had seen enough, a scientist named Bates, a Dr. Bates, and he had had his fill of the lies and the distortions.
The Daily Mail on Sunday in the U.K. revealed a landmark paper exaggerated global warming. It was rushed through in time to influence the Paris Agreement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.
RUSH: To the global warming hoax. I want to remind you that Donald Trump is ridiculed to this day for claiming… All my little buddies on their tech blogs and many places on the left still ridicule Trump for claiming that global warming is a hoax started by the ChiComs to make American businesses uncompetitive. Now, global warming is a hoax. It is a hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting population of the world who have been blamed for doing great damage to our climate through no fault of their own.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon
The CO2 is pollution. The stuff that you exhale is pollution. Barbecue pits and driving around your SUVs emits the greenhouse gas. The earth is broiling! The earth isn’t gonna be habitable in another 35 years. But there is redemption, and that is if you let government take over and if you stop driving these behemoth cars and let government tell you what kind of car to drive.
Stop eating Big Macs, beef, and all this other stuff and agree to tax increases and globalization. Let the United Nations basically determine how nations can function; then you can redeem yourself. And for every Prius you see on the road — for the most part, not all, but for the most part — you see a dupe. You see somebody who actually thinks they’re saving the planet, doing good. Everybody wants their lives to have meaning — and if you can save the planet, man, can you feel proud of yourself! You feel like your life has meaning.
So you go out, you buy an electric car or you keep your thermostat at 79 or 80 in the summer, and at 65 in the winter — and you sweat your butt off and then you freeze — and you’re saving the planet and all that. It’s bohunk. We don’t have the power to stop climate change, which means we don’t have the power to affect it at all. We can’t stop it. Lord knows we’ve been trying. Anyway, the point of all this is that there’s enough clear evidence out there that it is a hoax, that data is faked, that data is forged. But the Drive-Bys will not believe ’cause it’s a leftist cause, folks.
The reason that I’m so devoted to explaining this issue over and over is because it contains practically every aspect of liberalism that is dangerous.
That’s why it is a seminal issue to the left. Everything they want is wrapped up in it. Every bit of power, every bit of control. You couple climate change and health care, and freedom as you have known it ceases to exist. It is that evil, and it is that dangerous. And I’m gratified most polling data today shows that we’re nowhere near a majority of Americans who accept it or believe it or even consider it to be crucial.
It doesn’t stop the media from portraying it is an issue that all the right people agree with, that all the smart people agree on. If you don’t see this, then you’re a denier, you’re a kook, you’re equivalent to people that didn’t admit the Holocaust and so forth. The first substantive indication we had that this stuff is all faked and phonied up was a hack of an email server at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. in which the whistleblower there was somebody within the climate change movement, the so-called scientific community.
By the way, there’s another reason that… It’s real simple how this is not science. All you have to hear them say, “A consensus of scientists agree.”
There is no consensus in science. Science is not a democratic thing. It doesn’t get a vote.
A consensus of scientists thinking the earth is flat, for example, it doesn’t make the earth flat. There is no vote. A consensus of scientists doesn’t mean anything. In this issue, it means that they found all the scientists who are being paid via the grant process to produce research that the sponsors want.
And they get their consensus. Algore has become filthy rich off of this hoax. The emails at East Anglia indicated — emails from scientist to scientist back and forth, back and forth — indicated and illustrated how they were changing and faking data from the Medieval period. They have to show throughout history temperatures much lower than today in order to make people believe that there’s an unstoppable warming going on that can be tied to industrialization. You go back to the Medieval period when we didn’t have any industrialization at all.
There were no fossil fuels, for example, so the only thing putting CO2 in the atmosphere was cows via methane and humans exhaling. But aside from that, you know, ’til the railroads came along and the Industrial Age. Smokestacks, factories, and this kind of thing. So they want to try to tie this unstoppable, dangerous warming to the invention of the combustible-fuel engine and progress related to that, as a means of indicting capitalism.
Climate change is basically an anti-capitalist, pro-communist enterprise.
You haven’t seen it yet, and I doubt you will see it. I know you won’t see this in the New York Times, and therefore my little tech blogger buddies will never see it. You won’t see it at BuzzFeed, which means my tech blogger buddies will not see it. You will not see this in the Washington Post; you won’t see it on the ABC, CBS, NBC. It’s in the Sunday edition of the U.K. Daily Mail. Headline: “Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data — The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming.
“It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change. America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.” In other words, the culprit in the latest exposing of the hoax is NOAA! They run all the weather satellites supposedly collecting all the temperature data.
“The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 … never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.” In other words, up until this report came out, there hadn’t been any warming, and the climate change people were alarmed.
This report says the fact that there was no warming was a mistake, that there was no pause, that record heat breaking had continued to happen when everybody thought there was no warming taking place. And they said instead of the fact that no warming took place that in fact temperatures have been rising faster than anybody expected.
This report was “launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
” The problem these people are all having is there hasn’t been any warming in the last 15 to 18 years. Actually (sigh), even to say that gives their existence some credence. (sigh) But it has to be done to illustrate this.
There hasn’t been any warming! Their climate models said that by now temperatures would be X degree warmer and sea levels would be X centimeters higher.
None of it’s happened, and so they have to come up with an excuse for it. They have to come up with a reason for the “pause” in the warming. “The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organization that is the world’s leading source of climate data,” which is NOAA, “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
“A high-level whistleblower has told” the Daily Mail… This is an American scientist. His name is [Dr. John] Bates, he works at NOAA, and he’s fed up seeing what he’s seeing. He told the U.K. Daily Mail “that [NOAA] breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and [U.K. Prime Minster] David Cameron at the U.N. climate conference in Paris in 2015,” . . . .
which, by the way, Trump says we’re pulling out of and we’re not gonna live by, and thank goodness for that.
But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”
They made it up, just exactly what happened with the email chains and threads at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The report that was submitted to scientists and world leaders before the Paris meeting was never subjected to rigorous internal evaluation, the kind that this whistleblower himself had devised. This is the old peer review. They had not run the new report by anybody to let them review it, to make sure that it was right. It was not evaluated. Somebody just wrote it up and submitted it.
“Dr. Bates’ vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden –” He objected at the time, “You can’t do this. You can’t do this. We’re lying, it isn’t right.” But his superiors at NOAA overrode his observations in what he says is “a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”
Again, the Pausebuster paper is the paper presented to people like Obama and others before the Paris meeting is to say, “You know what, that pause that we think we’ve had for 15 years, it actually hasn’t been a pause. We have been setting heat records these last 15 years. We need to act even faster than we ever knew.” It was all lies. There was no truth to it.
“The whistleblower’s disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal. … In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data.”
This does not surprise me. I think this whole movement is fraudulent because I don’t think that they can accurately tell us what global temperatures were in the 1600s and 1700s, the 1800s, just not possible. The tree trunk data, tree ring data, ice core, it’s all made-up stuff to be beyond our ability to comprehend. They’re scientists, they wear the white coats, we, therefore, believe them.
The ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’
The fact of the matter is it has been much warmer previous times on earth than it is today. That cuts against every theory they’ve got about industrialization and burning of fossil fuels creating CO2. But before you even get to that this whole thing is bogus to me because I don’t believe that we human beings are capable of doing what we are being accused of doing. Because if we were, we would be able to stop the process.
By the way, and I’m not convinced that the warming is bad, even if it is happening. And we know it is. The climate is never constant. You know, the big question for me, folks, is one about the vanity and the arrogance of all this. These people in the scientific community promoting this hoax have got everybody believing that the temperatures and the climate and everything as of this moment in the history of the earth is what’s normal, and any deviation from the present is a crisis.
How do we know what is normal? You know, ice ages have lasted 10, 20, hundreds of years, and they ended. How did they end? What caused the ice to melt way back when before there was fossil fuel? Way before there was humanity living lives of progress, what ended ice ages? What brought about warming areas when we weren’t doing anything to cause it? The answer is, it’s way beyond our pay scale.
We just simply don’t have the ability to do this. And the evidence is — to show you how inept they are, we supposedly have had a pause — this is how stupid they are, folks. Listen to me, look at me. We supposedly had a pause for 15 years. During those 15 years, why didn’t they say, “See? Our research is working. See? Our suggestions are working. Our reduction of CO2, our elimination of SUVs, our increased usage of the electric car, whatever, is working, we need to do more of this.”
Why did they greet the pause as a problem, instead of looking at it, “Wow, we can say we’re succeeding, we can say that we’re on the right track, we need to double down on the kind of restrictions we’ve already –”
They’re so stupid politically they didn’t even realize an opportunity to claim success and credit. They saw a pause as panic city. I’m telling you, folks, this is the biggest bunch of fraud, one of the biggest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on a free people in I don’t know when.
Social Experiment, Immigration Ban Protesters, and Liberal Hypocrisy
Refugee in House (Social Experiment) at Muslim Ban Protest
Trump immigrant-ban protesters asked if they’d let refugees live with them. Here’s how they respond.
Well-known video prankster Joey Salads — who also performs self-described “mind-blowing social experiments” — said he conducted a mock solicitation on hidden camera at Los Angeles International Airport amid protests against Republican President Donald Trump’s temporary immigrant ban.
So, arming himself with spectacles and a “Feel the Bern” T-shirt, Salads went “undercover, as a leftist” to ask the question: Would protesters be willing to put their money where their mouths are and offer to let refugees live with them?
Approaching a group of protesters sitting on a ledge at LAX, Salads introduces himself as a member of an outfit that “just got approved by the commissioner of naturalization.”
He then asks if any protesters would be willing to “give donations or to possibly offer shelter.”
Salads’ first victim says, “I have no resources. Sorry.”
A second guy writes in a “small donation” on the clipboard, Salads notes in the video, but declines to offer shelter.
Another guy says he’s “not able to do that” when asked to provide shelter to refugees.
“I live with a man who is a Trump supporter,” one woman replies, “so I don’t think he’d go for it.”
“I’m very interested in helping,” one guy answers. “I’m a little apprehensive, and I also have a female roommate who’s, like, a very nervous girl … but I’m very interested.”
“How many refugees will you be willing to hold?” Salads asks him.
The guy says he has only a couch to spare.
When Salads tells him that would be enough — in addition to providing “food and water” — the guy wonders how long he’d have to keep that up.
“Until legislation passes,” Salads replies.
“I don’t know that I could commit to that,” the guy answers.
A female who told Salads she lives by herself and is “also apprehensive” did request to be added to an email list — but another who says she lives in a studio with her boyfriend indicates she doesn’t have enough space.
One guy standing on a ledge with signs around his neck gets a little miffed with Salads’ continued pressing: “I already answered you, OK?”
US Marine Steven Gern Video tells Truth about Trump Travel Ban, goes Viral
Patriot Steven Gern gives true first hand account of what the Trump travel ban means for our national security. Don’t believe the hypocritical protestors and fake news outlets. This man knows the truth.
Just here to tell the truth. Thank you all for your support.
Statue of Liberty not about Immigration
The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration
RUSH: It happens every time I reveal what to me is common information. I check the email, and there were a bunch of people that were shocked to learn the Statue of Liberty wasn’t about immigration. It shows you how successful left-wing-created narratives have been. The Statue of Liberty represents Libertas, Roman goddess of Liberty. She bears a torch liberty. She bears a torch and a tabula ansata. It’s a tabula that evokes the law on which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.
That’s what words are on the Statue of Liberty, words that commemorate July 4th, 1776. A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet. (Are poets anything other than socialists and communists?) Her name was Emma Lazarus, and her poem was called The New Colossus, and it included the lines, “Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
That was not part of the creation of the Statue of Liberty. It was not delivered with the Statue of Liberty. It came later. The poem written by Emma Lazarus was written to help raise money for the statue’s pedestal. We had to build the pedestal, which is also a room underneath the statue. A bronze tablet bearing the Emma Lazarus poem was only put inside the pedestal in 1903. And yet there’s Lester Holt out there on NBC holding out the Statue of Liberty as a beacon to immigrants as so that’s what it was intended to be, fighting against Trump’s executive order of the weekend. They have nothing to do with immigration. Zilch.
Liberals Rewriting History
RUSH: I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but I’m a stickler for reality and detail, and I hate liberal rewrites of things because it’s lies and it’s designed to create emotions in people that cause actions which are not helpful to the country. And that’s essentially what liberalism has done is feed off of and promote emotions over thought and fact. Lester Holt last night on NBC Nightly News:
“Behind me, the Statue of Liberty, which for nearly 130 years has symbolized the welcome arms of a country of immigrants,” is how he opened the program. The NBC Nightly News. However, he said, “But tonight she also stands as a symbolic flash point in a country in the midst of soul-searching over the limits of its generosity in an age of international terrorism. It’s total BS, folks. The Statue of Liberty was given to America by the French. Even now, I run into people that didn’t know that. It was donated by the French as a tribute to liberty and freedom and independence in 1886.
It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration, the American Revolution. It was supposed to arrive in 1876, but it didn’t make it. It was 10 years late, or eight years late, depending on how you look at it. It was not until 1903 that they decided they needed to build the pedestal. They needed money for it, and they commissioned that poet, Emma Lazarus, to write what she wrote, and that line, of course is, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and that’s all it’s taken.
That was not part of the gift.
The statue was not intended to recognize immigration. It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom. If you think they’re intertwined, don’t be misled. Here’s Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state during the Clinton years — who stood by Bill Clinton during all of his womanizing, during all of his misogyny, during all of his reprobate behavior. Here’s Madeleine Albright standing by the guy. She was on CNN this morning. Chris Cuomo, who probably doesn’t know anything I just told you about the Statue of Liberty, said, “You’ve got the Statue of Liberty on your lapel this morning. What is the concern about the ban that you have, Madam Albright?”
ALBRIGHT: Every part of it, Chris, because what it is is… In many ways it’s anti-American and what this country stands for. It is we are a country that has been, uh, created and, uhh, populated by people from other countries, and so, uhh, the Statue of Liberty’s message is, in fact, one of which open arms and welcoming people. And, umm, I, uh, do think that there are tears in the eyes of the statue at the moment.
RUSH: No. The statue doesn’t cry. The statue is a statue. It’s made out of bronze. It doesn’t cry. There aren’t any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty ’cause there aren’t any eyes, and the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants. What it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom! It doesn’t say, “If you’re from a war-torn area, come on in.” We have laws that deal with that! The Statue of Liberty does not grant anybody entry into the United States of America. The Statue of Liberty does not say, “You want in? This is the way! Come right over here to Ellis Island, and we’ll send you through there.”
It’s not what it means. Now, I imagine some of you are saying, “Rush, did you get a little overboard on this?” No, folks. It may sound like I’m going a little overboard, but I’m a stickler for truth and fact here, and this is all being used to work up what is already deranged lunacy on the left. It’s fanning the flames of this stuff by furthering the misinformation and the lies that people are getting to keep that emotional flame supposedly burning in the minds and the hearts of these leftists who, in truth, are miserably unhappy.
War on Christianity— a Defining Moment of Obama Presidency
The one act that defined President Barack Obama
Peter Heck – Guest Columnist
How appropriate it was that President Obama delivered his farewell address from Chicago, the crime capital of America … for it is indeed his crime against a humble group of nuns that will be forever etched in many people’s memory.
I was unable to watch President Obama’s Farewell Address last Tuesday night delivered appropriately in the crime capital of the country, Chicago, Illinois. That didn’t break my heart because I found myself indifferent to the spectacle for a number of reasons.
I do think it is fitting that presidents give farewell messages. But given the venue and setting President Obama had chosen, it was fairly easy to surmise that this would be a final political rally/national lecture, which admittedly I had little desire to endure. Though I think this president has great stage presence, I have felt for quite some time that he has been oversold as an orator and worse still, he has given almost the exact same speech for nearly eight years. So for my own sake, and for the sake of my Obama-loving friends who didn’t want to hear my snark as they wept their final goodbyes, I skipped the speech.
Obviously I’ve offered many criticisms of the Obama administration the last eight years that I have no desire to rehash. Future generations will have a better grasp on how to regard the success or failure of his time in office, and so I won’t bore you with my guesses as to what they will conclude. I will simply recount the one lasting legacy of Barack Obama that will always be emblazoned in my memory. When I think of him, I will think of this. When I reflect on his promised era of hope and change, I will be drawn to this image.
Despite your personal feelings on his coolness, his character, his charisma, or his competence, Barack Obama will forever be the president who worked diligently to put the gun of government to the heads of the Little Sisters of the Poor, demanding that they either pay to destroy children in the womb or be crushed.
You can’t candy-coat that. You can’t hide it. You can’t pretend it wasn’t what it was. For 177 years, the Little Sisters of the Poor has been a large Roman Catholic religious ministry that takes vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, and hospitality. Serving the Kingdom of God on earth in over 30 countries, they have one stated mission: to care for impoverished people as they near the end of their lives. As Ashley McGuire describes, “The only fight they go looking for is to make the last days of some very downtrodden people brighter and happier, to send as many people into the next life surrounded by love, not garbage.”
Barack Obama knew that, personally. And regardless, he instructed his administration to rewrite executive regulations nine separate times to ensure these nuns be forced to either violate their conscience by helping distribute abortifacients, or be fined $70 million a year and out of existence. Their beliefs, their ministry, their cause, and even the incredible work that they do was secondary to President Barack Obama’s devotion to funding and expanding the destruction of infants with tax dollars.
The President’s own lawyers admitted in court that there were compromises available that would have met their objectives while sparing the Sisters’ consciences. But President Obama refused. Using the coercive power of the state to compel nuns to pay for abortion drugs became an issue of pride for this small man.
His obsession was so out of touch that the Supreme Court, divided as it is, issued a unanimous ruling telling Obama that he must find another way. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg joins hands with Clarence Thomas to rebuke your fixation with forcing nuns to violate their consciences, you have reached the pinnacle of ideological extremism.
After 22 years of torture in a Cuban prison for his refusal to sign a government document supporting Fidel Castro, Armando Valladares was honored by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. In his speech, he said of the Little Sisters of the Poor, “They know what my body knows after 22 years of cruel torture: that if they sign the form…they will be violating their conscience and would commit spiritual suicide. If they did this they would forfeit the true and only wealth they have in abandoning the castle of their conscience.”
That President Obama failed to ever respect that eternal truth is both pitiful and shameful. And it’s why I’m beyond elated to bid him a permanent farewell.
History Lesson from Soviet Union Fall
Glazov: 3 Lessons on the 25th Anniversary of the Soviet Union’s Fall
If all these pieces fall into place, President Trump will succeed, as Reagan did, in setting the stage for yet another glorious chapter – a chapter that sees an Evil Empire stagger to its knees and then, when finally shamed and crippled, cast where it belongs: on the ash heap of history.
December 25 marked the 25th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. On this occasion, it is urgent for us to reflect on 3 key lessons that the fall of the Evil Empire provided. They are lessons that the new incoming Trump administration must put into action immediately vis-à-vis our enemy in the terror war.
Lesson #1: Go on the Offense Against Islamic Supremacism
While we know that the Soviet Union collapsed, on many realms, from within, the record is clear that President Reagan also fueled the collapse. By moving against détente and beyond containment, Reagan’s aggressive anti-communism saw the U.S. take on a strategic offensive against the Soviet Union which led to victory. As Paul Kengor has documented in his book, The Crusader, Reagan fought not to just contain, but to win. His administration’s massive defense build-up, support of anti-communist rebels around the world, support of dissident movements behind the Iron Curtain, promotion of SDI, and many other aggressive policies put a heavy pressure on the Soviet Union that ultimately broke its already fragile legs.
Thus, we see how in our present-day conflict with Islamic Supremacism, we need to go on the offensive. In order to do that, we must first take two crucial steps. The first step is to name the enemy; the second is to formulate an actual doctrine against him. As Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad, the U.S. government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. The new incoming Trump administration, therefore, must articulate a threat doctrine analysis and then shape it into a Reagan-like doctrine of offense.
Lesson #2: Deceive the Totalitarian Enemy into Being Pluralistic
In Reagan’s War,( See Book Review) Peter Schweizer revealed how the Reagan administration cleverly promoted the process of change within the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic system. This was a brilliant approach, seeing that Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika clearly triggered communism’s collapse.
Henry Kissinger has shrewdly delineated how Gorbachev’s effort to reform, as well as to salvage, Soviet communism was the very ingredient that fueled its disintegration. Indeed, once Moscow ended its total and intrusive control of its satellites, and once it allowed free discussion, it signed its own death warrant. Gorbachev wanted to de-Stalinize, yet he could not do so without destroying the regime itself. Kissinger writes:
Gorbachev’s gamble on liberalization was bound to fail. To the degree that the Communist Party had lost its monolithic character, it became demoralized. Liberalization proved incompatible with communist rule — the communists could not turn themselves into democrats without ceasing to be communists, an equation Gorbachev never understood.
To be sure, the whole idea of de-Stalinization was based on the assumption that the Soviet regime could survive without its despotic component; that it could endure a reconciliation with its past. But a legitimate examination of the causes of Stalinism could not occur without an uncensored evaluation of Leninism, which the Soviet system could not allow without risking the de-legitimization of its entire foundation.
This is a crucial lesson for our leadership in the terror war. But first, let us be clear: we must not buy into Natan Sharansky’s naive assumption that all people want freedom. They do not, especially Sharia-believers. The dark consequences of the so-called “Arab Spring” taught us this painful lesson well, as we witnessed the process of “democratization” in the Middle East lead to a totalitarian Islamist Winter.
But this does not mean that we do not heed one of Sharansky’s profound implications: that we must follow Reagan’s example of undermining the enemy by encouraging certain tyrannical entities to behave like pluralists. There is huge potential in nudging tyrants to open up free discussion and to hold their terror back – for freedom and spoken truth have a corrosive effect on tyranny’s chains. Indeed, just imagine, for instance, if leaders within the Islamic world started showing off how pluralistic they were and began allowing a free and honest discussion on the ingredients of their prophet Mohammed’s life.
Lesson #3: Verbally Take the Moral High Ground
In his June 1982 speech before the British House of Commons, President Reagan announced that he had a long-term plan “which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history.” The next year, on March 8, 1983, he famously called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” Four years later, in June 1987, he challenged Gorbachev to “tear down” the Berlin Wall. All of these pronouncements were crucial in the U.S. strategy of defeating Soviet communism. They upped the stakes and achieved moral clarity. They cut the dividing line between the good guys and the bad guys, and they called out the Soviets for the evil oppressors that they were. In so doing, these pronouncements also made it clear that the future was not on the Soviets’ side.
William F. Buckley, Jr. profoundly noted that by calling the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire,” Reagan had formulated the galvanizing summation to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and, consequently, “the countdown for Communism began then.” And indeed, two years after challenging Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, the wall came down.
The Moral difference between American Liberty and Islamic Supremacism must be Spoken
The lesson here for the new incoming president is that the moral difference between our side and Islamic Supremacism must be spoken. The divide must be drawn in no uncertain terms.
President Trump can be most effective in this regard by bringing attention to all the victims of Sharia and Jihad, and emphasizing that Muslims are also the victims of Islamic Supremacism. One of the most urgent causes to promote is the women’s rights issue. American leadership must make it transparently clear, once and for all, which civilization stands for women and what entity denigrates and mutilates them.
Trump must deliver a special speech that unveils the victims of honor killings, acid attacks and female genital mutilation, and of forced veiling, forced marriage and forced segregation under Islam – and issue a concrete challenge as Reagan did to Gorbachev. He must point to the tyrannical wall of Islamic gender apartheid and pronounce unequivocally: Imams, muftis and clerics of the world, tear down this wall.
Trump must do this while simultaneously shattering the Left’s and Muslim Brotherhood’s favorite propaganda lie: that standing up to Islamic Supremacism and telling the truth about its inspirations is somehow instigating hatred of all Muslim people. This is a pernicious ploy based on a faulty conflation of Islam with Muslims. It must be made categorically clear that we are dealing with an ideology; we are not hating all the people who fall under its grasp.
There are millions of people who go under the label “Muslim” but who may not agree with, or follow, all Islamic mandates, or who may want to reform them, or who may not even know anything about them – or who may have simply been born into the religion and were never even given a choice as to who they wanted to be. We have no problem with these people. And as a matter of fact, our standing up to Islamic Supremacism is a defense of these Muslims because they are, like millions of Muslims around the world, also victims of Islamic Supremacism.
All in all, the point must be driven home that we are on the side of Muslim people, and especially of those, like Zuhdi Jasser, who seek to reform Islam and bring it into the modern world.
And so, in reflecting on these three lessons of the fall of the Soviet Union 25 years ago, we begin to gauge how, if applied with precision, they can help our new incoming president launch a winning strategy against our enemy in the terror war. Trump shows every sign that he can and will achieve this. He has demonstrated himself to be a good man who loves his country and who wants the best for it. He has shown a willingness to name the enemy and to take the war to him. He has also surrounded himself with all the noble and high-caliber people who are determined to set America on the winning course.
If all these pieces fall into place, President Trump will succeed, as Reagan did, in setting the stage for yet another glorious chapter – a chapter that sees an Evil Empire stagger to its knees and then, when finally shamed and crippled, cast where it belongs: on the ash heap of history.
Jamie Glazov is the editor of Frontpagemag.com. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of United in Hate, the host of the web-TV show, The Glazov Gang, and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Obama Lame Duck Actions:
Are Obama Sanctions on Russia based on Truth?
Making a Russian bear a Democratic scapegoat
Billy Davis, Steve Jordahl (OneNewsNow.com
Democrats needed a scapegoat after Hillary Clinton’s unexpected Election Day loss – and found it in Russia, says a political analyst.
People who understand how the Left operates knew what was happening in past weeks as President Barack Obama blamed the Russians for November’s outcome, says Sandy Rios, a Washington, D.C.-based talk show radio host for American Family Radio.
“They were laying the groundwork in case Hillary Clinton did not win,” observes Rios, “and they wanted to blame the win on something besides her.”
“The Russians hacked the election” has been the meme from Democrats and the media for weeks, alleging that the Russians purposely helped Trump defeat the Democratic nominee.
President Obama doubled down on that accusation Thursday when he announced punishment: 35 Russian diplomats would be expelled from the U.S., and two Russian-owned properties would be shut down.
The purpose, Obama said, was to punish Russian efforts to “harm US interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”
Russia was being punished for “hacking the U.S. presidential campaign,” according to The Associated Press.
In particular, Obama was sanctioning two Russian intelligence agencies, the GRU and the FSB, the story explained.
Podesta, in fact, was fooled by a “phishing email,” a common tactic by hackers that claimed to be from Google and asked him to change his password.
The hacked mails, later leaked by Wikileaks, revealed that the DNC cooperated with Clinton to defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders; Clinton demanded $12 million for Morroco’s king to attend a meeting; and Clinton’s hatred for “every Americans,” among other revelations.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has stated that there were no altered ballots or hacked voting machines, Daily Wire, a conservative news website, noted in a Dec. 17 story.
Under pressure to disclose proof of Russian government involvement, President Obama has said he will share details of the alleged electioneering with Congress in the coming days.
Democrats needed a scapegoat after Hillary Clinton’s unexpected Election Day loss – and found it in Russia, says a political analyst.
MOSCOW (December 30, 2016) — President Vladimir Putin has condemned a new round of U.S. sanctions against Russia but said Moscow will not retaliate by expelling American diplomats.