Sunday, February 3, 2013

Current Events - February 3, 2013

Rove Declares War on Tea Party

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has begun. On one side is the Tea Party. On the other side stands Karl Rove and his establishment team, posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the “biggest donors in the Republican Party” have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project. The Times reports that this new group will dedicate itself to “recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.” The group points to candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Richard Mourdock in Indiana as examples of Tea Party primary picks going sideways in major Senatorial battles.

But it is American Crossroads and its ilk that have run the GOP into the ground. Spending millions of dollars on useless 30,000-ft. advertising campaigns during the last election cycle, training candidates to soften conservatism in order to appeal to “moderates,” blowing up the federal budget under George W. Bush as a bipartisan tactic – all of those strategies led the party to a disastrous defeat in 2012. The Tea Party, which may nominate losers from time to time, also brought the Republicans their historic 2010 Congressional victory. If Tea Party candidates lose, it’s because they weren’t good candidates; if GOP establishment candidates lose, it’s because they weren’t good conservatives. The choice for actual conservatives should be easy.

But it isn’t. The Bush insider team that helped lead to the rise of Barack Obama insists that they, and only they, know the path to victory. As the Times reports, Conservative Victory Project won’t merely protect incumbents – it will challenge sitting Congresspeople of the Tea Party variety, including six-term Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who may run for Senate. “We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Law told the Times – with whom he seems far too friendly. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.” 

Law claims he’s acting under the rubric of William F. Buckley, supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. But Law is no judge of that. Neither is Rove. Their advice led to the epic Romney defeat, in which conservatives were told to vote for Romney in the primary since he was the only candidate who could win

Grover Norquist correctly points out that the Rove mission is nonsense. “People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Norquist. “We’ve had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly.” In truth, conservatism wins elections so long as the messenger doesn’t implode. Rove’s view, however, is that conservatism takes a back seat to the best quasi-conservative messenger.

But victory for conservatives isn’t Rove’s goal. He’s a political insider par excellence, and he’s playing for his political life in the aftermath of 2012. If that means declaring war on the Tea Party, so be it.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/03/Rove-declares-war-Tea-Party 

PK'S NOTE: I would add an eleventh item: Republicans (established/Progressives) vs Conversatives.

Top 10 things to fear in 2013

There is much to fear in 2013: from foreign hot spots to liberal legislation. Take a look at this list and prepare for the worst.

1. Gun grab
President Obama began the year crafting a comprehensive package to combat gun violence, signing 23 executive actions and sending legislation to Congress to restrict types of weapons and ammunition. While the bill is unlikely to pass the House, Obama and his Democratic allies, not wanting to waste a crisis, will continue their crusade to try to restrict gun rights.

2. Crushing debt
The fiscal cliff deal not withstanding, plan on seeing another trillion dollars of debt added to the nation’s balance sheet in 2013—bringing the total amount of borrowing to over $17 trillion—with three more Obama years still to come. At some point, this crushing debt will cause inflation, interest rate or currency woes for the country, and higher interest payments will increasingly crowd out other spending programs.

3. Moribund economy
The administration likes to point to a decline in the unemployment rate as a sign of a rebounding economy, but the main reason for the drop in the rate is an unprecedented flood of Americans who have left the workforce and stopped looking for jobs. The new fiscal-cliff tax increase, along with the end of the payroll-tax holiday, will deal a double blow to the economy. Expect more news like this: During Obama’s first term, food stamp recipients soared as did the number of people collecting federal disability insurance.

4. Obamacare implemented
As 2014 approaches, so does the full implementation of Obamacare. This year will be full of surprises as the Department of Health and Human Services rolls out volumes of regulations, mandates and taxes associated with the massive health care plan. There will be plenty to fear as the full scope of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act comes into view.

5. Iran’s threat to Israel
Iran steadily marches toward completing a nuclear weapon as Obama’s hoped-for first-term dialogue with Tehran never materialized. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s red line for action drawing frighteningly closer, 2013 is likely to be the year of an Iran-Israel showdown.

6. Arab Spring run amok
The Arab Spring uprisings continue to reverberate throughout the Middle East. The Syria civil war continues unabated, the Egyptian political scene is tumultuous, and Libya is a cauldron of Islamic extremism waiting to explode. Now Mali is teetering on a takeover by terror groups, forcing the French to send troops to stem their advance, while hostages are slaughtered by al Qaeda sympathizers in Algeria. From Timbuktu to Damascus, expect the turmoil to continue in 2013.

7. Budgetary clashes
There is much on the budget horizon to fear, as Congress already has battles lined up over automatic sequestration cuts, along with the need to complete the budget that funds the current fiscal year, and another date with the (newly extended) debt-ceiling limit. Every time there is a budget crisis, the ensuing deal to fix the problem seems to make matters worse, so this many showdowns can lead to nothing good.
8. Immigration debate heats up

Democrats upped their share of the Hispanic vote in 2012 and recognize that the ongoing demographic shift necessitates action on immigration reform. Expect a big push in Obama’s second-term with both the president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying they will seek a comprehensive measure. Expect the Democratic bill to be long on ways to extend amnesty provisions and short on border enforcement.

9. North Korea nuclear program
 Kim Jong-Un remains an enigma after a year as the Hermit Kingdom’s leader, but one thing is clear: North Korea will continue its march toward developing a nuclear weapon and a long-range missile capable of reaching the United States. Obama’s lack of attention to the matter during his first term only makes the situation that much more fearful.

10. Global warming alarmism
Environmental backers of the president didn’t get much in his first term and are looking for action on carbon emissions and climate change. Expect Obama to make a strong second-term push to enact an agenda by administrative fiat via the Environmental Protection Agency that Congress couldn’t pass even when controlled by Democrats.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/02/top-10-things-to-fear-in-2013/

High school student suspended for having a picture of a gun

The hysteria being ginned up by gun control advocates claimed another victim; a high school kid was suspended for possessing a picture of an AK-47.


Daily Caller:

Yet another student has been suspended for having something that represents a gun, but isn't actually anything like a real gun.
This time, Daniel McClaine, Jr., a freshman at Poston Butte High School in Tan Valley, Arizona, made the mistake of setting a picture of a gun as the desktop background on his school-issued computer.
The picture shows an AK-47 lying on a flag, reports KNXV-TV. The gun isn't his, McClaine assured the ABC affiliate in Phoenix. He found it on the Internet and liked it, partly because he is interested in serving in the military after graduation.
A teacher reportedly ratted McClaine out after noticing the Soviet-era rifle on the computer. McClaine originally received a three-day suspension.
After McClaine's father contacted the local press, Florence Unified School District officials suddenly decided that the younger McClaine could return to school on Monday.
District policy states that students cannot use school-issued laptops to send or display "offensive messages or pictures," explains KNXV. Students also cannot use them to produce, retrieve, send or forward images that are considered "harassing, threatening or illegal."
It's not clear who determines what is "offensive" or "threatening," or the basis upon which the determination was made in this case.
McClaine maintained that he read the guidelines but did not think that a picture of a gun could threaten or offend anyone.
The poor, naive kid; this is the age of Obama. A picture of a gun is "offensive" and "threatening" because politics and ideology demand he be made an example of. His crime is "wrong thinking" - maintaining a positive view of something deemed politically incorrect. 

Despite rescinding the suspension, the message has gone out loud and clear. There is only one "correct" way to think. Any deviation will result in punishment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/high_school_student_suspended_for_having_a_picture_of_a_gun.html

Supreme Court to Review Case on Obama’s Forged Documents

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.

As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.

On Feb. 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.

The Supreme Court‘s website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz’s application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.

Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama‘s passport records.

It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama’s passport records.

On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:
The case . . . provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.
The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 petitions annually in regular conferences. About 100 are selected for further judicial consideration. In this filtering process, the votes of four justices are needed to advance a case. On her website, Dr. Taitz argues that Obama has used false identification, an alias, a fake Social Security number, forged birth certificates and Selective Service applications. [ See a comparison of a regular birth certificate versus one submitted by Barack Obama in this photo. ]

Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama’s claimed Social Security number (042-68-4425) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.

This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery.

The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as “unworthy of further discussion”. Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama’s first inauguration as the nation’s 44th chief executive.

A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama’s birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team’s conclusion that Obama’s birth certification is “definitely fraudulent”. After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.

In April 2011, the White House retracted the Hawaii certificate and replaced it with a long form version. Around the same time, business tycoon Donald Trump sent a team of investigators to the state of Hawaii to question Obama’s real place of birth

Said Trump:
He [Obama] spent $2 million in legal fees trying on to get away from this issue, and if it weren’t an issue, why wouldn’t he just solve it? I wish he would because if he doesn’t, it’s one of the greatest scams in the history of politics and in the history, period. You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country. Right now, I have real doubts.
The issue gained steam in the midst of a highly contentious election year as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gained favor among the voting public. In May 2012, the president’s former literary agent Acton & Dystel produced a previously unpublished leaflet stating that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. The promotional booklet was written in 1991 when Obama was at Harvard Law School. It was intended to be part of an Obama autobiography but the project was cancelled.

In Oct. 2012, just days before November presidential elections, Mr. Trump offered to donate $5 million to Obama’s chosen charity if the commander-in-chief would disclose his college and passport records. Trump had hoped that the disclosures would shed light on where Barack Obama was born, his citizenship status, and whether or not he was admitted to college and law school as a foreign exchange student. President Obama ignored Trump’s challenge in media interviews and refused to release the requested records.

However, comedian Bill Maher did issue a challenge to Mr. Trump to produce his birth certificate in exchange for $5 million donated to the latter’s favorite charity. Maher made the offer on Jan. 7 on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno”. On Tuesday, the real estate tycoon produced a birth certificate showing that he was born in New York City. Trump’s lawyer then issued a letter asking the HBO host to make good on his $5 million offer.
Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump’s birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. Please remit the $5 million to Mr. Trump immediately and he will ensure that the money be donated to the following five charities in equal amounts: Hurricane Sandy Victims, The Police Athletic League, The American Cancer Society, The March of Dimes, and The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/01/30/supreme-court-to-review-case-on-obamas-forged-documents/

President Obama wants immigration reform to fail so that he can blame the GOP

President Obama just signaled that he is not interested in immigration reform.  He just told us that he wants a pathway to citizenship rather than working with the bipartisan deal that includes border security, guest worker visas and ultimately a path to legalization.


President Obama wants a path to citizenship right away and did not mention "guest worker visas" in his speech.  He has to know that those are "poison pills" for many Republicans, including the 4 Senators who are part of the compromise.


What's President Obama up to? He wants immigration reform to fail. He wants to propose unrealistic plans and blame "los terrible republicanos" again. 


Most of all, he does not want an "up or down" vote because that will show that a lot of Democrats are uncomfortable with immigration reform too.  


Remember The Dream Act vote of 2010 that did not pass because of Senate Democrats?


The Democrats have always been uncomfortable with "guest worker" visas. It won't be any different this time around when we get into details.


Let's hope that Senator Rubio and the others understand who they are negotiating with. Unlike President Bush in 2007, who was committed to a bipartisan solution, President Obama is not. He wants the issue, the distraction and the opportunity to give a lot of meaningless "5 de Mayo" speeches proposing reforms without specifics.


President Obama has one objective: He wants "hispanos" to show up in 2014 so that the Democrats have a chance to keep the US Senate and pick up the House. Without Hispanos, the GOP will do well in 2014 especially if we keep learning about the real cost of Obama-Care.


Yes, President Obama does not want Hispanos talking about Obama-Care, a stagnant economy and the massive deficits that their children are about to inherit. 


Again, President Obama wants to distract Hispanos and blame the failure of immigration on "los terrible, racista y anti-imigrante republicanos".


I hope that Senator Rubio understands that he is doing business with a first class demagogue in permanent campaign mode rather than a serious leader who wants solutions.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/president_obama_wants_immigration_reform_to_fail_so_that_he_can_blame_the_gop.html

12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals Against Liberals

Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the President on down is playing by his rules in the political arena. Not all liberals have read his book or know his name, but his tactics have become universal. Sadly for conservatives, when two evenly matched forces go head-to-head outside of a fairy tale, the side that tries to play nice usually ends up with its head in a box. So, don't lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — Rules for Radicals
1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Boycotts have fallen out of favor on the Right because the Left has used that tactic to target conservative radio. This is a mistake. That's because there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals and we're much more capable of using the tactic effectively. There are roughly 120 million people who identify with conservatism in this country and almost twice as many Christians. When there are threats that Christians and conservatives will refuse to go see movies, stop buying products, or cancel subscriptions, it will scare some people straight. That threat should be used and carried out much more often.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people. Want to know why Republicans are so terrible at reaching out to minorities? Because identity politics works really, really well and conservatives tend to oppose it on principle. So, white Republicans are constantly trying to go outside of their experience and reach out to minorities who are generally disinclined to listen to them because they have the wrong skin color. When the GOP accepts reality, adopts the tactics of the Democratic Party, and starts paying off our own Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons to reach out to minority groups and call Democrats racists, we'll start making inroads with minorities for the first time in decades.

3) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. The GOP often foolishly retreats from social issues. This is a huge mistake in an era when 76% of the country is Christian and most liberals find sincere Christian beliefs to be repellent. We don't have to preach at anyone, wag our fingers, or turn into legions of Ned Flanders, but we shouldn't be afraid to talk about our Christian beliefs, stick up for Christians who are under attack, and hammer the Left for its anti-Christian bigotry. Conservatism is a pro-Christian ideology and liberalism is an anti-Christian ideology. We should never be afraid to drive that point home.

4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. This is something conservatives have gotten much better at in the last few years, but we seldom take it far enough. If we did, a tax cheat who advocates higher taxes could certainly never be our Treasury Secretary, Barack Obama would be afraid to associate with race hustlers like Al Sharpton or one percenters like Warren Buffet, and Al Gore would have either given up his mansion or his status as the leader of the cult of global warming.

4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they're incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.

6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. Sometimes Republicans get too serious about politics. Why not hold a fund raiser at the gun range? What's wrong with having Kid Rock or a bunch of popular country musicians play at a massive voter registration drive? How about building some giant puppet heads of our own, featuring Nancy Pelosi injecting botox into her face or Barack Obama punching the Pope in the stomach? A little controversy and fun draw in the eyeballs and gets people excited.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This one seems self-explanatory, but in practice, it can be tough to keep things on a timeline. This is what happened to the Occupy Movement, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Republican race for the presidency, too. If it goes on too long, people sour on it whether it’s a war, an election, or a tactic.

8) Keep the pressure on. Conservatives fall down on this one all the time. Just when Obama's SuperPac was starting to feel real pressure over taking a million dollar donation from Bill Maher, conservatives eased up. This is also why liberal film stars feel so comfortable trashing conservatives, Christians, and Americans -- even right before their film comes out. It's because we get offended, shrug our shoulders, and then almost immediately let it go. Sometimes, an apology doesn't fix everything. How often do liberals accept an apology at face value and let an issue go?

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. How about we treat the Left to some of its own medicine? Libs throw a pie at a conservative author on campus; then we promise to shower every liberal speaker on the same campus with garbage. They post a conservative address online; we post two liberal addresses online. They hold a protest at someone's house; then we hold a protest at someone's house. They hit one of our politicians with glitter; we hit one of their politicians with coal dust. Liberals have a mentality that says, "Everything we do is harmless, but everything conservatives do is potentially dangerous." Yet, we're usually too well behaved to copy their tactics. Mimic those tactics once or twice and the Libs will freak out so hard that they'll start declaring it to be off limits for everyone, including their own activists.

10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. When you launch an attack, tie it in as part of a theme and never stop hammering the theme as long as it's true and it works. John Kerry is a flip-flopper, Bill Clinton is a liar, Barack Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy -- tie your attacks into themes that can be picked up on social media, talk radio, cable TV, and in the blogosphere over the long haul. Why does McDonald's keep running ads? Because it may be that 50th ad or 100th ad you see that gets you to go buy a Big Mac, just as it may be the 50th or 100th time someone hears that Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy before it sticks.

11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. The winner in politics is almost always whoever is on offense. Liberals understand this in an intuitive way that most conservatives don't. We think because we have this wonderful, honest, logical response to a charge that we're scoring major points -- but, except in rare cases, it's not true. If you're spending all of your time refuting the charges that you're extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor -- you're losing. That's because some people will assume where there's smoke, there's fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be. Additionally, if you're busy defending yourself, you can't go after the other side. Defend when you absolutely have to, but make sure most of your time is spent attacking relentlessly attacking.

12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Honestly, this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one, since liberals always seem to be clamoring to rip out some functional necessity of American society so they can replace it with an ill-defined hodgepodge of ideas that they think will shift power their way or be less "mean." Our ideas work; so coming up with a constructive alternative is seldom a problem.

13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Conservatives tend to do well with this one until they get to the last part. Polarization is at the core of the Left's strategy. According to liberals, if you're conservative, you hate blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, women, the poor, the middle class, the environment, and probably a half dozen other groups I've forgotten. Even when something is in front of our face, conservatives shy away from polarization. What's wrong with pointing out how hostile the Democratic Party has become to Christianity? Why not point out the truth: that most white liberals are racists who think black Americas are too stupid and incompetent to compete with white Americans, which is why they push Affirmative Action and racial set asides? Why not note that liberals want poor Americans to stay poor and dependent, because as long as they do, they'll keep voting for the Democrat Party? There's a reason Barack Obama bows to foreign leaders, is constantly apologizing for America, attended an anti-white, anti-American church for 20 years, and it's why his wife was proud of the country for the FIRST TIME because she thought it was going to elect her husband. The sad truth is that these are people who hate and despise this country. Why do you think "hope and change" appealed so much to Obama that he made it his theme? When you look at America as an evil, racist, unfair, horrible place to live inhabited by ignorant trash and "bitter clingers," what else would you do other than hope for change? If you love this country and the values it represents, the people in the White House not only don't share your values, they hold people like you in utter contempt.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full/

A “Conspiracy Theory” Based at The New York Times
The Obama Administration is facilitating the activities of foreign jihadists and al Qaeda throughout the Middle East, while claiming that it is fighting al Qaeda and that the organization has been “decimated.” This monumental deception is being carried out not only by the administration but its supporters. It is a crime that has cost four American lives in Benghazi and three in the kidnapping and hostage crisis in Algeria.

The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) is running interference for the Obama Administration by attacking those, like Senator Rand Paul, who are trying to expose the suicidal policy.

In an item headlined, “Senator questions Secretary of State about right-wing conspiracy theory,” CAP says Paul used Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “to advance a bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory involving alleged gun-running from Libya to Syria, via Turkey.” The basic facts about the so-called “right-wing conspiracy theory” have been reported by The New York Times, hardly a right-wing propaganda organ. And the “conspiracy” also involves Qatar, the host and sponsor of Osama bin Laden’s favorite television channel, Al Jazeera, now poised to get into 40-50 million American homes through the purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.

The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration “secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar” in 2011 and that “Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants.” These rebels stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans, in a major foreign policy scandal that continues to this day. It was the reason for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton exchange.

It’s true that the paper claimed the U.S. was somewhat caught off-guard by the arms going into the hands of anti-American jihadists. But that is hard to believe, considering that Qatar, the sponsor of “Terror TV” Channel Al Jazeera, is a close ally of the Obama Administration. The administration has approved the entry of “Al Jazeera America” into the U.S. media market, even though Qatar evaded the law requiring federal approval of a foreign acquisition of a U.S. company that has national security implications. Obama’s Department of Justice refuses to enforce the law that requires Al Jazeera programs to be labeled as foreign propaganda when aired in the U.S.

Any notion that all of this is happening by accident has been undermined by an additional report from the Times that the CIA was using Turkey and “a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood” to send weapons to Islamists fighting the regime in Syria. The weapons were being “paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” the paper reported.

By ignoring these facts, which have not been disputed, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is playing a role in the current controversy and scandal which is comparable to what the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) did in regard to U.S. policy toward China in the 1940s. The IPR was an unofficial arm of the State Department which facilitated the Communist takeover of China in 1949. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found the IPR to be “an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence.”

CAP can be said to be an unofficial arm of the State Department that is facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of such countries as Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The evidence shows that the administration is working hand-in-glove with avowed enemies of the United States. As bad as this is, the jihadists getting U.S. support through Turkey and Qatar will eventually turn their attention to the U.S. homeland, setting the stage for another 9/11 attack. When they do so, the new “Al Jazeera America” will be their mouthpiece, in the same way that Al Jazeera ran a story describing the Mali terrorists as “gentle.”

In fact, the kidnapping and murder of three Americans by al-Qaeda terrorists in Mali is clearly another manifestation of this policy because the arms the U.S. helped send to the “rebels” in Libya may have been used by these same terrorists to kill the American hostages.

It is in this context that Rand Paul asked Hillary Clinton, “…it’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton responded, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And I will see what information is available and…”

Paul interjected, “You’re saying you don’t know?”

Clinton: “I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.”

This is stonewalling of the worst kind. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and has to be knowledgeable of the policy that she is helping to implement.

There was a time, as noted, when Congress had committees and subcommittees which examined the betrayal of American interests by investigating domestic groups like the IPR. Today, the Center for American Progress openly pushes the same agenda as the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies of the United States and members of Congress have no way to officially question what they are doing and why.

Except for a few members such as Senator Paul, Congress is asleep at the switch, unable or unwilling to even question the ongoing betrayal. Indeed, Rep. Michael McCaul, the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has been silent regarding the illegal Al Jazeera purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.

Also Reads:

Obama, The Left and the National Football League

"One, how is this any business of the President of the United States? Two, incautious commentary is never what it seems out of a Leftist. These utterances signal something altogether different than what it seems on the surface.
Unions.
Since Unions are the enforcers of the Left, and their stated and hated enemies are Owners of anything, it stands to reason this early sniping from a safe distance on the PR/Media manufactured "issue" of damaged grown men is just the early testing fire of the war to come."

ACLU, Unions Sue Michigan Over Right to Work Law

"During the contentious passage of ObamaCare in March 2010, Democrats often (usually) met behind closed doors, locking out Republicans. When a new version of the 2,700-page bill was introduced, votes were scheduled within hours so that legislators couldn't actually read it. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
There was no outcry then from the ACLU or other civil libertarian groups. But in Michigan, it's another story."

No comments: