All Posts (30907)
![]()
.
by J. Kenneth Blackwell
by Gidget Fuentes
by David Limbaugh
by Thomas Sowell
by LISA DAFTARI
All Words Matter
by Susan Stamper Brown
![]()
.
by DR. ROBIN MCFEE
by ABIGAIL R. ESMAN
by SLATER BAKHTAVAR
by LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC
by Con Coughlin
All Words Matter
by Susan Stamper Brown
And the whirlwind in which we find ourselves is a nation so filled with unchecked anger and hatred it seems we can’t go a week without a cop killing, this time in Baton Rouge.
In this age of instant news, people feel compelled to react instantly before facts come out, aided by race-hustlers who consistently fan the flame of division with inflammatory words and then step back to watch the world burn. In response to the Baton Rouge killings, President nObama lectured Americans must “temper our words and open our hearts.”
Hi pot, meet kettle.
Cleveland’s Police Patrolmen’s Association president, Detective Steve Loomis, who spoke to Fox News while events were still unfolding in Baton Rouge says nObama’s own words are to blame.
“It’s absolutely insane that we have a president of the United States and a Democrat governor of Minnesota making the statements they made less than one day after the police-involved shootings,” Loomis said, “And those police-involved shootings, make no mistake, are what absolutely have triggered this rash of senseless murders of law enforcement officers across this country. It’s reprehensible. And the president of the United States has blood on his hands that will not be able to come washed off.”
The damning comments Loomis referenced were nObama’s: “When incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our citizenry that feels as if, because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same…” And Minnesota Gov. Dayton’s: “Would this have happened if the driver were white, if the passengers were white? I don’t think it would have.”
Not long after, five officers were killed by a man who reportedly had it out for white people. And now, three more officers were killed on July 17.
It’s as simple to understand as an indisputable law of the universe: cause and effect. Coddling groups conceived in and fostered by hatred will reap bloody-bad results.
Ask slain Baton Rouge officer Montrell Jackson’s sister Joycelyn Jackson. The Washington Post reports she understands the anger fueling the Black Lives Matter movement, but still believes “God gives nobody the right to kill and take another person’s life…It’s coming to the point where no lives matter.”
And she’s right. In reality, though, all lives matter, but if you say that you’ll be labeled a racist. I suppose Jesus was also a racist in that he died for all, regardless of skin color. A song I learned as a kid went like this: “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world; red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight; Jesus loves the little children of the world.” My how America’s changed.
Days before he was assassinated, slain Officer Jackson prophetically posted on Facebook that he was “tired physically and emotionally,” and said he wondered if the city he loved, loved him back. “In uniform,” he wrote, “I get nasty hateful looks and out of uniform some consider me a threat…These are trying times. Please don’t let hate infect your heart…”
Obviously, Jackson’s alleged assassin allowed hate to fill his heart. The Daily Caller reports the shooter, Gavin Eugene Long “was a former Nation of Islam member” who “railed against ‘crackers’” on his YouTube Channel. The New York Daily News reported that in another video Long defended the Dallas cop shooter saying, “It’s justice. You know what I’m saying.”
Yes, Gavin, we got what you were saying. You showed us in Baton Rouge.
And mark my words, this mayhem will continue unless hatred is replaced with God’s love and forgiveness. Then sanity will return to the citizenry and law and order to this nation. God spoke to Job out of a whirlwind, so maybe there is hope for us in ours.
![]()
.
Hours after opposition leader Isaac Herzog hysterically and falsely alleged, from the Knesset podium, that “the blossoms of fascism are rising in Israeli society,” the Senate committee announced that the OneVoice organization unlawfully used US taxpayer money to conduct a political campaign to bring down Netanyahu in 2015.
In 2013-14, OneVoice received $465,000 from the US State Department to conduct a campaign to raise domestic Israeli support for the State Department- brokered peace process with the PLO.
In December 2014, the Knesset called an early election. The same month, OneVoice merged with a new group called V-15, or Victory 2015. Together they led a campaign to unseat Netanyahu. OneVoice informed the State Department, through then-consul- general in Jerusalem Michael Ratner, of its intentions.
According to the Senate report, Ratner unlawfully subsequently deleted his communications with the group regarding its anti-Netanyahu campaign.
To run the pro-peace process campaign, the State Department gave OneVoice money to build databases of Israeli voters, to train campaign cadres and to build a major online presence. OneVoice used these US-financed resources for its campaign to overthrow Netanyahu in contravention of US law.
From the perspective of the Israeli public, the Senate report is illuminating for two reasons. First, it reveals the true nature of the crisis in Israel’s relations with the US. Second, it demonstrates how foreign government-funded Israel-registered NGOs harm the country.
From the outset of Barack nObama’s presidency, which has overlapped Netanyahu’s tenure as prime minister, the Left’s central argument against Netanyahu has been that he upended Israel’s alliance with the US.
The Senate report shows that this claim is a lie.
The Senate report shows that the nObama administration has used the Israeli Left as its agent to advance its Israel policy – a policy that the Israeli public rejected in three successive elections. That policy requires Israel to renounce its rights to Judea, Samaria and united Jerusalem and cede those territories to the PLO.
After the peace talks failed, the administration’s leftist Israeli agents used the resources the US paid for, to wage a massively funded campaign to demonize Netanyahu with the aim of unseating him in the general election.
In other words, the Israeli Left, which warns about a breach with Washington, has been the main beneficiary of and a partner in facilitating and expanding this breach.
To the extent that Netanyahu shoulders any responsibility for this state of affairs, he is responsible for his failure to rein in the Left or to call it out for its anti-democratic behavior.
And this brings us to the uproar the Left raised at the Knesset on Tuesday against the NGO law. The updated text does nothing to stop this sort of subversion by foreign governments working with the Left. All it does is require foreign government-funded Israel-registered organizations to note that they are funded by foreign governments on their official communications. So what is behind their uproar? To understand, it is first necessary to understand how foreign government funding of Israel-registered groups harms Israel. Understanding the nature of the damage also points to the direction the Knesset must go to repair the damage.
Israel is harmed by these relationships in three ways. The first two are apparent in the OneVoice story. First, they harm Israel’s public discourse and through it, our democracy.
OneVoice/V-15 based their US-funded and -directed campaigns on the central claim that they were grassroots groups of regular Israelis who felt the time had come to stand up and be counted. In other words, they claimed they were the silent majority.
Variations of this claim of native authenticity stand at the root of all the operations of foreign- funded NGOs.
As the Senate investigation showed, in the case of OneVoice, this claim is entirely fraudulent. It is also a fraud when staked out by the likes of B’Tselem, Peace Now, Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence and dozens of other groups, which receive the bulk of their funding from foreign governments. If it weren’t for their foreign funders, they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing.
By presenting themselves as grassroots Israeli voices, when in fact they are paid representatives of foreign governments who act to advance the interests of those governments in Israel, these groups distort the domestic discourse. We think we are talking to Israelis who are invested in the future of this country. But we are actually talking to Europeans and Americans whose loyalty is not to Israel and its future and indeed is often hostile to Israel. The Israelis we face are not independent actors. They are paid contractors of foreign powers.
This brings us to the second type of damage that these groups cause Israel. They facilitate the West’s anti-Israel policies.
Anti-Israel governments need to sell their hostile policies to their electorates. They need to fund them. To do so, they need to build and maintain domestic support for their political war against the Jewish state. To secure this support, these government quote the findings of studies that they paid their Israel-registered NGOs to carry out for them.
So not only does foreign government sponsorship of Israel-registered NGOs harm Israel’s democratic order. It causes massive damage to Israel’s ability to defend itself abroad.
The last way that foreign government-funded NGOs harm Israel isn’t reflected in the OneVoice example. But it is reflected in the action of hundreds of other NGOs funded by foreign governments, every day.
Foreign governments use Israel-registered NGOs to gum up the works of the Israeli judicial system to impede the operations of the entire government.
And they do this deliberately.
Take the Norwegian Refugee Council for instance.
According to a recent report by NGO Monitor, between 2011 and 2013, the Norwegian government- funded NRC gave Israeli and Palestinian groups $20 million to file lawsuits against the Israeli government in Israeli courts. During that period, the sponsored groups – among them Yesh Din and the Public Committee against House Demolition – filed 677 suits in local courts and the Supreme Court.
According to NGO Monitor’s report, a lawyer affiliated with the NRC program stated that these cases are an attempt to “try every possible legal measure to disrupt the Israeli judicial system.”
In his words, “As many cases as possible are registered and... as many cases as possible are appealed to increase the workload of the courts and the Supreme Court to such an extent that there will be a blockage.”
To sum up then, foreign governments work through Israel-registered NGOs to harm Israel by weakening its democracy, obstructing and weakening its justice system and weakening its international position.
And against these damaging operations, all the Knesset has done is require these groups to mention they are funded by foreign governments on their official communications.
In other words, the Knesset has so far failed to deal with this large and growing problem.
So what can be done? To repair the actual damage, rather than go through the motions, the Knesset needs to pass three laws.
First, we need to have a full picture of the relationships between these groups and their foreign funders. Who initiates their projects? Who oversees them? What does the Norwegian Ambassador tell B’Tselem’s director when he hands her the monthly check? In January, Ad Kan revealed that Breaking the Silence gathered information about IDF weapons systems, tactics and troop movements from reservists.
Who tasked the “Israeli” organization to do so? Once the public knows the answers to these questions, these groups’ ability to distort the public debate and so harm our democracy will be vastly curtailed.
To this end, the Knesset must pass a law requiring groups that receive funding from foreign governments to report the contents of all of their communications with those governments. Europeans governments refuse to divulge the details of their relationships with these groups. And as the State Department’s deletion of its emails to OneVoice makes clear, the US does as well. The reason for their secrecy is obvious.
The purpose of their relationships with these groups is subversion.
OneVoice used a resource – a voter database – whose creation was financed by the US government.
When native Israeli V-15 workers knocked on voters’ doors and urged them to bring down Netanyahu, it would have been useful for the public to know that those campaign workers were trained on the US taxpayers’ dime, and that they knew its addresses because the State Department paid for V-15’s voter rolls.
The Knesset must pass a law requiring all groups that use resources in their work that have been funded by foreign governments to report the foreign origin or ownership of those resources.
Finally, there is the lawfare issue.
The government is sued by foreign government- funded Israel-registered NGOs nearly every day. The lawsuits are only made possible and often directed by those governments. Their objective is to prevent the smooth functioning of the government and legal system.
The Knesset should pass a law that requires foreign governments that fund lawsuits through NGOs to be identified as parties to those lawsuits in court documents. So, too, foreign governments that sue the government should be required to pay court costs.
Foreign states have chosen to use undiplomatic means to influence government policies. The Knesset needs to make sure that these means are brought out in the open so we can know what we’re dealing with.
This finally returns us to Herzog and his fellow leftists, and their unhinged, libelous response to the passage of the toothless NGO law this week. Those libels were part of an ongoing campaign by Herzog and his comrades to delegitimize the government and Israeli society as a whole as an illegitimate gang of brownshirts in training.
Now that we understand the collaborative relations between the Left and foreign governments, we realize that these statements are part of the deal.
Herzog and his colleagues, who benefit from these subversive operations by foreign governments, help them along in their efforts to delegitimize the country.
After all, that’s what friends are for.
The time has come to put an end to this travesty.
As the Left showed on Tuesday, yet again, it has no intention of cleaning up its act. Subversion is the only card it has left. To save our democracy, the Knesset needs to stop beating around the bush and get to work.
By Jiri Valenta and Leni Friedman Valenta
“Unafraid, Bi-Partisan, Uphold U.S. and Freedom”
Although we have been equal opportunity writers in attacking politicians of both stripes, we readily confess that we are presently supporting Donald Trump as the agent of peaceful revolution we need.
Nevertheless, we have viewed sympathetically the campaign of Bernie Sanders, a decent man who has been grinding many of the same axes against a “rigged System” as Trump. Thus, not eager to see the ring of Mordor placed on corrupt Hillary’s finger, we share the anger of the Sanders supporters at the DNC’s hugely unfair treatment of him.
Some DNC e-mails hacked from Hillary’s private server by the famous Guciffer, confirm the conclusion of former Editor-in-Chief of the New York Times Edward Klein. His book, The Truth About Hillary, pictures, “a Nixon disciple of hardball politics.” Agreeing is Bob Woodward, who broke the Watergate case, and has repeatedly compared her to Nixon.
The content of some of the DNC hacked e-mails now retrieved, confirm our earlier warnings to Bernie Sanders. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is Hillary’s instrument, just as Haldeman and Erlichmann, the famous Watergate duo, were Nixon’s. Like Nixon, Hillary does not get her own hands dirty, but she is in charge.
One of the hacked emails is from DNC CFO Brad Marshall dated May 5 2016, that reads as follows: “From:MARSHALL@dnc.org To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 03:31 Subject: No shit."
“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God? He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist”.
We consider this remark offensive to Southern Baptists, Kentuckians, West Virginians and Jews. One of us worked closely with Southern Baptists. They are unmatched in their support for Israel, regarding the Jews as God’s chosen people. Debbie was working with Brad Marshall. Didn’t she know his “dirty tricks,” Nixonian line of thinking?
In response to Debbie’s own hardball tactics, Mika Brzezinski, one of the anchors of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, suggested several weeks ago the DNC chairwoman had been unfair to Sanders and should step down. Meanwhile Sanders himself demanded her ouster.
On May 18, enraged Debbie tried to punish Mika for her demand. “This is the LAST straw,” wrote Debbie to DNC Communications Director, Luis Miranda. Please call [MSNBC President] Phil Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize.” Despite Debbie’s demand for “heavy manners,” Mika has not done so to date.
On May 21, Wasserman Schultz also wrote to Miranda that the very idea Sanders would oust the DNC leader from her position if he is elected was silly, because Sanders would not be the nominee. How did she know then?
We have also warned Bernie how Hillary and her hench-people operate . In our November 13, 2015 “Open Letter to Bernie Sanders: Bolshevik vs Menshevik,” we urged him to hit back the hardballs or lose. Essentially, Hillary, the acolyte of 60’s radical Saul Alinsky is what Clinton aide Paul Bengala called her-- a “Bolshevik.” He was referencing her uncompromising oppressive management of her White House team under her.
The latest leaked DNA e-mails confirmed the biased, rigged and unethical election operation, managed by Ms. Wasserman-Schultz -- surely following Hillary’s guidelines.
In our Open Letter to Bernie voiced our suspicions about a media person, who asked Sanders during the campaign if he had dual citizenship in Israel. The reporter, WAMU liberal Radio Host Dianne Rehm, said she had seen his name on a list circulated on the internet and that someone on Facebook said to ask the question. Did that person work for Hillary, Debbie or cunning Bill?
Sanders, who had spent some younger years on a kibbutz, bristled when questioned by Rehm, and affirmed he was an American citizen only. Rehm apologized to viewers, but we still wonder if the question was asked to reveal his Jewish background in the effort to hurt his chances with some voters.
From the get-go, Debbie has run the DNC in politically correct Bolshevik fashion for her sponsor, Hillary. Students of Russian politics, we were reminded of Lenin and his allies management style in coping with Central Committee’s opponents. The nomination was rigged from the start with the almighty super delegates, much resembling the so-called “hundred reds” appointed by Mikhail Gorbachev’s for the Congress of People Deputies. Super delegates do not exist in the GOP.
We are not suggesting that our Florida congresswoman, Wasserman Schultz, Jewish herself, has anti-Semitic proclivities. Perhaps Debbie herself is not aware that congenital liar Hillary is not the supporter of Israel she pretends to be, but a long-time advocate of the Palestinian cause.
All new converts to Hillary-ism, some of them prominent American Jews and unrepentant defenders of” W”-Condi’s catastrophic, 2003 invasion of Iraq, should review Ed Klein’s findings. He reports how Hillary, running for Senator of New York in 2000, “… had attended secret fund -raisers sponsored by Muslim groups, some of which were dedicated to destruction of Israel” and “realized she had painted herself into a corner!” Added Klein, “She was “booed” off the stage during a Solidarity for Israel rally at the Israeli consulate in New York.”
She and Obama not only supported Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, they punished the new leader, Al Fatah El Sisi, who saved Egypt from another Islamist regime. Both, she and her running mate, Tim Kane have ties with Muslim radical groups, and vigorously support the disastrous 2015 nuclear deal with Shiite Iran.
In light of all this, we agree with writer Barbara Olson’s judgment of Hillary, “The supreme irony is that Hillary, a 1960’s liberal, … has become even more darkly Nixonian in her outlook and methods – though without Nixon’s knowledge, statesmanlike substance and redemptive Quaker conscience.”
Leni Friedman Valenta, a Brandeis and Yale-educated playwright, is a former Democratic Municipal Chair of Westwood N.J., contributor with Jiri to scholarly journals and editor of our jvlv.net, Institute of Post-Communist studies and Terrorism website. Dr. Jiri Valenta, a former Brookings Fellow, prominent author and present member of Council on Foreign Relations, has served for more than a decade as a member of the National Committee on Soviet Jews with Nathan Sharansky, Ellie Wiesel and Richard Pipes.
With all his hollow promises of building a wall, bringing jobs back to America, repealing Obamacare and bombing terrorists combined with his constant spew of lies directed at Ted Cruz and family, Donald Trump has managed with help from his “bought and paid for” media sycophants to accumulate enough votes to become the presumptive candidate for President! At the convention anti-Cruz establishment opportunists sold their votes to put Trump over the top securing his nomination as GOP candidate for President of the United States. Trump won! So why did the “Trumpster” minions boo Senator Cruz excessively during his speech at the convention while applauding Trump’s lies all knowing that only congress can do all the things that he promised? Was this all planned by Trump? Why does he continue to attack Senator Cruz? Is it because Cruz, a devout Christian, wouldn’t endorse a person who viciously attacked him with lies or because Cruz told all Americans to vote their conscience? Who is the real loser here?
Trump needs all the help he can muster to win the presidency. A gentleman or true conservative would have apologized to Ted Cruz in public and asked for his support instead of burning the bridge. Unfortunately, Donald Trump is not a conservative nor is he a gentleman. Trump is a Republican in name only. So as Americans here we are once again forced to decide between two prolific liars for President , a documented incompetent and corrupt politician in Hillary Clinton and another narcissistic wannabe thug in Donald Trump. Which candidate would you trust with the keys to your home? Is it time to stay home and allow Democrats to finish the job of transforming America
into their new Progressive Nanny State Utopia? Only then could all Americans finally understand how left wing Democrat policies have destroyed the greatest Free Capitalist Society on earth. Or do we vote status quo for the GOP congress giving Trump “Obama like” overreaching unconstitutional powers so he too could single handedly destroy the United States? The only other alternative we have as voters is to take our anger out on those in congress who went against our demands and are responsible. Time to hold our nose once again and vote for Trump while cleaning house of establishment RINO representatives and replacing them with only true constitutional conservatives. This will be our last chance to restore America to the Constitutional Republic our forefathers envisioned.
Words Have Meaning… they cut across time and space, they empower the powerless
What are words but the jealous rendition of man’s imagination… laid bare for the world to see. It is with words that we pontificate the ways of men, too establish governments and laws. It is with words that we build up and tare down… it is with the power of the pen that we turn swords into plow shares and redirect the power of mankind to a better purpose.
Hence, let our words speak of liberty and defend the cause of justice… for without liberty and justice we are but prisoners of tyranny and the lesser angels of mankind. Let us exalt the rhetoric of peace and love… let us embrace the soundness and eloquence of truth… that we may all have peace and prosperity, purchased with the sweat of our own labor and endeavors.
For, the wicked speak words of deceit… looking to confuse and destroy the rational minds of our Nation with folly… foolish dreams of utopian delights… where no man need work or struggle for self, but every man becomes part of the collective, a mere cog in the machinery of the State…
Words have meaning and the words of our President cut sharply across the grains of liberty… denying our heritage and promising the foolish what they can not have… Another’s property, labor, and self worth. These are innately the rightful dominion of the individual…not the State or the collective.
Let us therefore find the words with which to beat back the errant ways of the foolish… the evil machinations of a government that seeks to bind us all, to itself… A collective driven by an evil wind. Freedom is not free and for the free to remain free they must be prepared to resist the bitter nature of mankind… first with words but never alone… words must be backed by action… or they are but sounding brass and tinkling bells, the stories of children, impetus vessels of little worth.
BY:
RA NELSON
COL. US Army (ret)
Unless President Obama, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) of this nation goes on prime-time TV and makes an announcement similar to the following; the ambushing and killing of LEOs will continue to increase and spread across this nation. I'm reminded of an old Randolph Scott western I recently watched, titled; "A Lawless Street". What's happening here now, if not stopped, will certainly lead to a lawless nation; and ultimately all-out anarchy. This situation is unprecedented. A cop in one part of the nation is accused of and/or not found guilty of unnecessarily killing a Black person; and some black thugs thousands of miles away, randomly ambushes and murders a White cop; who may have on that very same day, rescued or saved a Black person from death or serious injury. It is absolutely inconceivable and astonishing that Commander-in Chief, Obama has not gone on prime time TV and made a statement similar to the following: "As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of this nation; I'm greatly saddened and regretful that it has even become necessary for me to make a speech such as this. However, I want to make this absolutely clear. I will not tolerate LEOs' unnecessary killing of anyone; Black, White, or otherwise, period. Nor will I tolerate the ambushing and killing of LEOs. There are over six hundred thousand LEOs in this nation. And as in every society, race, and profession; and yes, even the ministry and politics; there is the good, the bad, and the ugly. Thankfully for this nation, the vast majority of LEOs are extraordinarily good, brave, compassionate, and professional people. So listen up and listen carefully. I've directed the Attorney General to closely monitor the judicial process and outcome of controversial killings by LEOs; and the ambushing of LEOs. My bottom line is that in either case; those found guilty in a court of law shall receive the maximum sentence allowed by existing law. And one final warning; if a LEO is found not guilty, I will not tolerate any rioting and lawless behavior in response. And if necessary; I shall authorize deployment of National Guard Troops. And I would expect Governors and Mayors to unleash the full force of their law enforcement capabilities to stifle any such incidents; and to arrest and prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law; period"!
![]()
.
by Stefan Frank
The criticism of Cruz might be valid, and it might not be. It depends upon what were his motivations.
If motivated by electoral / 2020 viability calculations, the criticism is amply warranted. If by personal motivation, it gets more complicated.
Let us not forget that Trump spent the primaries impugning his character “Lyin’ Ted.
Trump insulted Cruz’s wife.
Trump then went on to impugn Cruz’s father with the implication that he was involved with the Kennedy assassination.
Done throughout the primaries with tweets that in tone and verbiage more befitting an adolescent middle-schooler than a candidate for President of the United States of America.
Trump never apologized for any of that. Draw your own conclusions regarding what the original behavior and subsequent failure to apologize says about Trump.
While such impugning would be appropriate against liar-Hillary especially since that would be fact-based, it is not when both untrue and directed against a competitor in your own party.
If I were Cruz, I’d be hard-pressed to “endorse” any man who’d behaved that way to me and my family. In fact, I’d question the character, integrity and backbone of any man who did not seethe with outrage over such conduct to his family. Indeed, had Cruz gone on to endorse Trump, I’d start to question Cruz’s character as he’d be showing a willingness to throw his personal and family reputation aside merely for meeting some political expectations that he forget it all and endorse, as if nothing ever happened.
Cruz did tell people not to stay home and to vote their conscience for candidates who would defend the Constitution — while not an endorsement of Trump, it was also in effect “freeing” his supporters from “Never Trump.” Somewhat the point Newt Gingrich made later when he spoke. Given the circumstances, that could be considered a significant concession to Trump and the GOP.
I’m not sure anyone could have asked or expected more from Cruz. In a sense, Donald Trump has reaped what he sowed.
![]()
.
by John Grady
by CATHY HINNERS
by BETSY MCCAUGHEY, PHD
The post-Ukraine economic sanctions have been weak; the declamatory denunciations, a mere embarrassment. They’ve only encouraged further reckless Russian behavior — the buzzing of U.S. ships, intrusions into European waters, threats to the Baltic States.
NATO will now deploy four battalions to front-line states. In Estonia, they will be led by Britain; in Lithuania, by Germany; in Latvia, by Canada; in Poland, by the United States. Not nearly enough, and not permanently based, but nonetheless significant.
In the unlikely event of a Russian invasion of any of those territories, these troops are to act as a tripwire, triggering a full-scale war with NATO. It’s the kind of coldblooded deterrent that kept the peace in Europe during the Cold War and keeps it now along the DMZ in Korea.
In the more likely event of a “little green men” takeover attempt in, say, Estonia about 25 percent ethnically Russian, the sort of disguised slow-motion invasion that Vladimir Putin pulled off in Crimea, the NATO deployments might be enough to thwart the aggression and call in reinforcements.
The message to Putin is clear: Yes, you’ve taken parts of Georgia and Ukraine. But they’re not NATO. That territory is sacred — or so we say.
This is a welcome development for the Balts, who are wondering whether they really did achieve irreversible independence when the West won the Cold War. Their apprehension is grounded in NATO’s flaccid response to Putin’s aggressive revanchism, particularly in Ukraine. nObama still won’t provide Ukraine with even defensive weaponry. This follows years of American accommodation of Putin, from canceling a Polish-Czech missile defense system to, most recently, openly acquiescing to Russia’s seizure of a dominant role in Syria.
And what are the East Europeans to think when they hear the presumptive presidential candidate of the party of Reagan speaking dismissively of NATO and suggesting a possible American exit?
The NATO action takes on even greater significance because of the timing, coming just two weeks after Brexit. Britain’s withdrawal threatens the future of the other major pillar of Western integration and solidarity, the European Union. NATO shows that it is holding fast and that the vital instrument of Western cohesion and joint action will henceforth be almost entirely trans-Atlantic — meaning, under American leadership.
The EU, even if it doesn’t dissolve, will now inevitably turn inward as it spends years working out its new communal arrangements with and without Britain. Putin was Brexit’s big winner. Any fracturing of the Western alliance presents opportunities to play one member against another. He can only be disappointed to see NATO step up and step in.
After the humiliating collapse of President nObama’s cherished Russian “reset,” instilling backbone in NATO and resisting Putin are significant strategic achievements. It leaves a marker for nObama’s successor, reassures the East Europeans and will make Putin think twice about repeating Ukraine in the Baltics.
However, the Western order remains challenged by the other two members of the troika of authoritarian expansionists: China and Iran. Their provocations proceed unabated. Indeed, the next test for the United States is China’s furious denunciation of the decision handed down Tuesday by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague — a blistering, sweeping and unanimous rejection of China’s territorial claims and military buildup in the South China Sea.
Without American action, however, The Hague’s verdict is a dead letter. Lecturing other great powers about adherence to “international norms” is fine. But the Pacific Rim nations are anxious to see whether we will actually do something.
Regarding Iran, we certainly won’t. Our abject appeasement continues, from ignoring Tehran’s serial violations of the nuclear agreement the latest: intensified efforts to obtain illegal nuclear technology in Germany to the administration acting as a kind of Chamber of Commerce to facilitate the sale of about 100 Boeing jetliners to a regime that routinely uses civilian aircraft for military transport particularly in Syria.
The troop deployments to Eastern Europe are a good first step in pushing back against the rising revisionist powers. But a first step, however welcome, seven and a half years into a presidency, is a melancholy reminder of what might have been.
![]()
.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
(townhall.com} ~ The answer to where you go next after you’ve hit rock-bottom depends on whether rock-bottom was your goal in the first place.
Either way, we’ve arrived. Look around. Turn on the news, if you’ve allowed your last meal time enough to digest. We’re here…at the bottom…and it’s not pretty. That is, unless tearing America to shreds by creating irreparable division is your intention.
Racial division will be President nObama’s legacy. But it didn’t have to be this way, given the dark-skinned Oval Office occupant who gave the impression that his effervescent presence alone would be enough to improve race relations.
But, you’ve got to at least give it the old college try -- to do what’s best for America, not use your position to sow discord and stir up trouble and division like nObama did while speaking at the slain police officer memorial service in Dallas July 12.
“None of us is entirely innocent and this includes police departments,” said the Great Divider, in the presence of family members, colleagues, and friends of officers slain by an assassin who said he “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”
Sickening.
His speech had the potential to be his best ever -- until he went full-politics during a time meant for mourning, making a laughably false claim that it is easier for a teenager to get a Glock than a computer or book.
Why the gun lecture?
nObama’s rush to judgment time and again concerning these incidents suggests he filters the world through a prism that refracts a reality based on biased perspective, not facts.
From Boston in 2009 to Dallas today, he repeatedly castigates police prior to gathering full information about circumstances. From Poland, before facts were gathered regarding the Minnesota and Louisiana officer-related shootings, nObama rushed to judgment -- saying the shootings were “symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year...” Had he paused, he’d have discovered at least one of the officers was not white.
And the disunity pot was again stirred, violence erupted not long after -- with the assassination of white police officers in Dallas. Officers were also shot in Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee.
People concerned about racial disparity ought to read “The War on Cops” book by Heather MacDonald. On a recent Rush Limbaugh show MacDonald cited some interesting facts highlighting that more whites and Hispanics are killed by cops than blacks. In fact, somewhere around 12 percent to four percent respectively. She also said blacks are dying at a rate “six times higher than whites and Hispanics combined…because they commit homicide at eight times the rate higher than whites and Hispanics combined.”
But no one wants to talk about that or what’s happening in nObama’s hometown, Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reported on July 11 that around 2100 people were shot in nObama’s no-guns-allowed metropolis. “A total of 43 people were shot during an 11-hour stretch Friday night into Saturday morning” running up the grand total of 344 homicides this year.
Doesn’t it make sense that police officers would find themselves confronting suspects and using force on occasion -- in certain minority neighborhoods where people are killing each other?
Fox News Channel’s “Kelly File” hosted a diverse panel July 11 to discuss racism, police and potential solutions which quickly morphed into a Jerry Springer-like show when things got heated and people made outrageous statements like the police should be abolished.
At that moment, it became quite clear to me that the best place to go after hitting rock-bottom is to our knees. The division in America cannot be fixed by anything less than Divine intervention. We are witnessing what happens when a nation turns away from God and attempts to fix things on its own
FLASH!!!
Yet ANOTHER ongoing shooting spree by Islamic terrorists at a mall in Munich. At least FIFTEEN reported dead s so far.
And it's happening prior to Hillary's announcement of her veep choice. Np dpibt Obama, Lorretta Lynch and the queen herself, Hillary Clinton, are wondering in raw anger, "WHY DID THEY HAVE TO DO THIS ONE [NOW]???!!! How are we going to fuggin clean THIS ONE up?"
It seems that the German people haven't given the Islamists enough "compassion, unity and love", right, Lynch?
Perhaps the Germans need to "change the way they think", right, Barack?
No, wait a sec. It just has to be this HOT, HOT, global waming weather, right, Kerry?
Well, at least the Hillary has already raked in MILLIONS from the Saudis thru the Clinton Foundation, huh. WHEW!
FLASH!!!
Yet ANOTHER ongoing shooting spree by Islamic terrorists at a mall in Munich. At least FIFTEEN reported dead s so far.
And it's happening prior to Hillary's announcement of her veep choice. Np dpibt Obama, Lorretta Lynch and the queen herself, Hillary Clinton, are wondering in raw anger, "WHY DID THEY HAVE TO DO THIS ONE [NOW]???!!! How are we going to fuggin clean THIS ONE up?"
It seems that the German people haven't given the Islamists enough "compassion, unity and love", right, Lynch?
Perhaps the Germans need to "change the way they think", right, Barack?
No, wait a sec. It just has to be this HOT, HOT, global waming weather, right, Kerry?
Well, at least the Hillary has already raked in MILLIONS from the Saudis thru the Clinton Foundation, huh. WHEW!
![]()
.
by FRED FLEITZ
The FBI investigation had a bizarre ending to it. FBI recommendations are never made public as this one was. Attorney General Loretta Lynch had been compromised by her politically disastrous but legally consequential meeting out of the view of the media with Bill liar-Clinton just one week before Comey's announcement. Whatever they discussed, the overwhelming public impression was such that Lynch removed herself and her senior aides from the case, effectively leaving the FBI to have the final say. This is unheard of in the post-Hoover FBI.
The Comey announcement itself gave two reasons for recommending against indictment. One was that "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case. That is not a judgment the FBI gets paid to make. The FBI's job is to gather, present and evaluate facts and evidence, not predict what prosecutors might do with it. The other stated reason for recommending against indictment was that though liar-Clinton may have been "extremely careless" in handling state secrets, she was not "grossly negligent," which is the standard required by the espionage statute.
Yet Comey also acknowledged that liar-Clinton sent state secrets to nongovernmental colleagues who lacked national security clearances, that those people were hacked by hostile intelligence services and that she used her numerous non-secure mobile devices recklessly while inside the territorial borders of those hostile governments. If all that is somehow extremely careless but not grossly negligent, then many who have done far less than liar-Clinton -- and have been prosecuted and convicted -- were wrongly prosecuted.
Since Comey's announcement last week, several new factors have come to light. One is that the DOJ never presented any evidence to a grand jury. It never sought subpoenas from a grand jury. This is unheard of in major criminal investigations because the FBI alone has no subpoena power and needs a grand jury to issue subpoenas for it.
The absence of a sitting grand jury also makes one wonder about the circumstances under which and the purpose for which the DOJ obtained immunity for Bryan Pagliano, liar-Clinton's internet technology adviser. She paid him $5,000 to migrate her public and her secret State Department email streams from the government's secure servers to her own non-secure servers. Immunity, which is essentially the pre-indictment permanent forgiveness of criminal behavior, cannot be given lightly and can only be given in return for testimony -- usually to a grand jury or a trial jury. Strangely, that was not the case here.
Nevertheless, liar-Clinton's persistent problems with personal honesty have brought her face to face with three more criminal investigations. One is for public corruption. The second is for perjury. And the third is for misleading Congress.
The public corruption investigation has been underway for a few months. The allegations are that she exercised the powers of her office as secretary of state to enrich her husband and herself. The evidence here is ample. There are dozens of documented instances in which foreign governments and individuals received beneficial treatment from her State Department -- usually exemptions from compliance with American laws or regulations -- and then collectively gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the liar-Clinton Foundation at a time when it was not a registered lawful charity.
The second investigation liar-Clinton faces is for perjury. This arises out of a Freedom of Information Act civil lawsuit during which she swore in writing and under oath, citing the phrase "under penalty of perjury," that she surrendered all of her work-related emails to the State Department. When she left the State Department, she effectively took all of her emails with her. Then, when the FOIA cases began, she returned about half of what she had taken, claiming that the other half was personal.
The FBI found that she failed to return thousands of work-related emails, some of which she and her lawyers attempted to destroy and some of which they succeeded in destroying. Who ordered the destruction?
Finally, liar-Clinton will most likely be confronted with charges of misleading Congress. Misleading Congress consists of intentionally creating a false impression in response to material congressional questions. She did this when she denied to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that she had sent or received emails via her home servers that contained state secrets.
The FBI found 110 emails in that category, at least two dozen of which were at the highest level of protection that the government accords its secrets. She also told that same committee that she had surrendered all her work-related emails to the State Department.
Former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens was tried twice after a trial that ended with a hung jury, he was ultimately acquitted for misleading Congress when he was forced to speak to a House committee about the contents of his blood and urine as a baseball player. liar-Clinton has misled Congress about her lawful obligations as secretary of state, and she skates free.
Back in the Whitewater days, when the propensity of both Bill and liar-Hillary Clinton to lie routinely and naturally first became apparent to the media and the public, the late, great New York Times columnist William Safire referred to Mrs. liar-Clinton by a moniker that enraged her husband. He became so fearful of the truth and so furious with Safire that he publicly threatened to punch Safire in the nose.
Safire called liar-Hillary Clinton a congenital liar. He was right. That was 20 years ago. Some people never change.
Last night it became quite evident where the country stood politically speaking. On the left the masses stand FOR "progress"; which is ,simply just the latest term for socialism and communism. In turn, they stand AGAINST States' sovereignty; which is another way of describing the individual Natural Rights of American Citizens which is acknowledged, assured and protected by the USConstitution.
To the "right", the loudest delegates, who had applauded Ted Cruz's call for the individual rights of the States to write their own laws and to choose their own.paths. The delegates applauded his call for the 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights of ALL American Citizens as well as putting "America first" and to build a Wall at the border. Ted Cruz TWICE honored the nine year old that was the daughter who is one of the victims of the five police officers that were murdered in Dallas.
These things and more were loudly applauded by the delegates - UNTIL it became evident that Cruz was not going to endorse the nomniee - despite the FACT that he opened his speech by cngratulating Trump for winning the nomination and having stood FOR the positions Donald Trump took on the border / immigration, Islamic terrorism, the economy as well as the FAILURES and CORRUPTION in Washington, DC. Once it became evident that Cruz was not going to endorse the nominee, everything that he stood for, including his mentioning the nine year old the second time, was then BOOED! Once again his wife, Heidi, was yelled at w/ total disrespect; and she needed to be escorted for protetion.
At any moment, had Ted Cruz showed Trump's family any level of disrespect?
Which "pledge" was Cruz, or ANY of the candidates for that matter,,was or IS he supposed to honor; the one written on a worthless piece of paper which was for the sole purpose of political expedienncy, to which the likes of Kasich, who governs the very State that hosting the Convention btw,, and Jeb Bush didn't even appear in Cleveland - although NO headlines are spitting at their faces as they are Ted Cruz's. Hav you even noticed that?
The Trump supporters are saying that Cruz should have endorsed Trump - for PERMITING him to speak at the Convention in the first place. If such is the case, WHY did Trump ALLOW Cruz to speak - KNOWING the contents of Cruz's speech prior?
Donald Trump's rise was very much because Washington DOES NOT honor their OATHS of Office - to uphold and the Constitution. THAT is the "pledge" that matters to me.
Time will tell son enough if Trump will honor the PROMISES he made during the past year. If he will also go along w/ the century old status quo and the further epxansion of this authoritarian federal govt. I genuinely hope I'm wrong about Trump. I hope that his liberal past is not preface.
Luis
.. , stood
![]()
.
by Daniel Pipes
by SUSAN JONES
Political crusades, bureaucratic empires and lucrative personal careers as grievance mongers have been built on the foundation of that assumption, which is almost never tested against any facts.
A recent article in the New York Times saw as a problem the fact that females are greatly under-represented among the highest rated chess players. Innumerable articles, TV stories and political outcries have been based on an "under-representation" of women in Silicon Valley, seen as a problem that needs to be solved.
Are there girls out there dying to play chess, who find the doors slammed shut in their faces? Are there women with Ph.D.s in computer science from M.I.T. and Cal Tech who get turned away when they apply for jobs in Silicon Valley?
Are girls and boys not allowed to have different interests? If girls had the same interest in chess as boys had, but were banned from chess clubs, that would be something very different from their not choosing to play chess as often as boys do. As for chess ratings, that is not subjective. It is based on which players, with which ratings, you have won against and lost to.
Are women and men not to be allowed to make different decisions as to how they choose to spend their time and live their lives?
Chess is not the only endeavor which can take a huge chunk of time out of your life, and unremitting efforts, to reach the top. If you want to become a top scientist, a partner in a big law firm or a top executive in a major corporation, you are very unlikely to do it working from 9 to 5, or taking a few years off, here and there, to have children and raise them.
Applying the same unsubstantiated assumption to differences in "representation" between different racial and ethnic groups likewise produces many loudly expressed grievances, political crusades, and millions of dollars from lawsuits charging discrimination -- all without a speck of evidence beyond numbers that do not match the prevailing assumptions.
People who base their conclusions on hard facts often reach very different conclusions than those who base their conclusions on the preconception that outcomes would be even or random in the absence of somebody treating somebody wrong.
Something as simple as age differences among groups can doom any assumption of even or random outcomes.
If every 20-year-old Puerto Rican in the United States had an income identical with the income of every 20-year-old Japanese American -- and identical incomes at every other age -- Japanese Americans as a group would still have a higher average income than Puerto Ricans in the United States. That is because the median age of Japanese Americans is more than 20 years older.
People with 20 years more work experience usually make higher incomes. And age difference is just one of many differences between groups.
You can study innumerable groups in countries around the world today, or over centuries of recorded history, without finding a single example of the even or random outcomes that are used as a benchmark for determining discrimination.
Nevertheless, courts of law -- including the Supreme Court of the United States -- use something that has never been found anywhere as a norm to which current realities are to be compared. Billions of dollars, in the aggregate, have changed hands as a result of individual lawsuits charging discrimination.
Life is undoubtedly unfair. But that is not the same as saying that the unfairness occurred wherever the statistics were collected. The origins of this unfairness often go back to different childhood environments for individuals or different geographic or cultural settings for groups and nations.
These differences between nations, as well as differences between individuals and groups, reflect the fact that the world "has never been a level playing field," as economic historian David S. Landes put it. Renowned historian Fernand Braudel said, "In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally."
How long will we continue to take something that has never happened, and never had much chance of happening, as a norm?
![]()
.
These former leaders would like it thought that high principle keeps them away from a GOP convention that would nominate Donald Trump. Petulance, however, must surely play a part. Bush Republicans feel unappreciated, and understandably so.
For Trump’s nomination represents not only a rejection of their legacy but a repudiation of much of post-Cold War party dogma.
America crossed a historic divide and entered a new era. Even should Trump lose, there is likely no going back.
Trump has attacked NAFTA, MFN for China and the South Korea trade deal as badly negotiated. But the problem lies not just in the treaties but in the economic philosophy upon which they were based.
Free-trade globalism was a crucial component of the New World Order, whose creation George H. W. Bush called the new great goal of U.S. foreign policy at the United Nations in October of 1991.
Bush II and Jeb are also free-trade zealots.
But when the American people discovered that the export of their factories and jobs to low-wage countries, and sinking salaries, were the going price of globalism, they rebelled, turned to Trump, and voted for him to put America first again.
Does anyone think that if Trump loses, we are going back to Davos-Dubai ideology, and Barack nObama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership is our future? Even liar-Hillary Clinton has gotten the message and dumped TPP.
Economic nationalism is the future.
The only remaining question is how many trade deficits shall America endure, and how many defeats shall the Republican Party suffer, before it formally renounces the free-trade fanaticism that has held it in thrall.
The Bush idea of remaking America into a more ethnically, culturally, diverse nation through mass immigration, rooted in an egalitarian ideology, also appears to be yesterday’s enthusiasm.
With Republicans backing Trump’s call, after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and the massacres in Paris, Nice and the Pulse Club in Orlando, Florida, diversity seems to be less celebrated.
Here, the Europeans are ahead of us. Border posts are being re-established across the continent. Behind the British decision to quit the EU, was resistance to more immigration from the Islamic world and Eastern Europe.
On Sunday, French President Francois Hollande was booed at memorial services in Nice for the hundreds massacred and maimed by a madman whose family roots were in the old French colony of Tunisia.
Marine Le Pen of the National Front, who wants to halt immigration and quit the EU, is running far ahead of Hollande in the polls for next year’s elections.
As for the foreign policies associated with the Bushes, the New World Order of Bush I and the crusade for global democracy of Bush II “to end tyranny in our world” are seen as utopian.
Most Republicans ask: How have all these interventions and wars improved our lives or our world?
With 6,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, and trillions of dollars sunk, the Taliban is not defeated in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida and ISIS have outposts in a dozen countries. Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen are bleeding and disintegrating. Turkey appears headed for an Islamist and dictatorial future. The Middle East appears consumed in flames. (Thanks to nObama)
Yet, despite Trump’s renunciation of Bush war policies, and broad support to talk to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the neocons, who engineered many of the disasters in the Middle East, and their hawkish allies, seem to be getting their way for a new Cold War.
They are cheering the deployment of four battalions of NATO troops to the Baltic states and Poland, calling for bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO, pushing for sending weapons to Ukraine, and urging a buildup on the Black Sea as well as the Baltic Sea.
They want to scuttle the Iranian nuclear deal and have the U.S. Navy confront China to support the rival claims of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia to rocks and reefs in the South China Sea, some of which are under water at high tide.
Who represents the future of the GOP?
On trade and immigration, the returns are in. Should the GOP go back to globalism, amnesty or open borders, it will sunder itself and have no future.
And if the party is perceived as offering America endless wars in the Middle East and constant confrontations with the great nuclear powers, Russia and China, over specks of land or islets having nothing to do with the vital interests of the United States, then it will see its anti-interventionist wing sheared off.
At issue in the battle between the Party of Bush and Party of Trump: Will we make America safe again, and great again? Or are globalism, amnesty, and endless interventions our future?
Do we put the world first, or America First?
Today in America, we can’t even go a day without hearing a story about the IRS abusing its power and unjustly harassing American taxpayers. Perhaps the most famous case in recent memory is the IRS’s targeted campaign against Tea Party members. The IRS’s unjust and discriminatory actions led Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) to write successful pieces of legislation that curtailed the agency’s power, all of which were signed into law by President Obama.
In a further attempt to rein in the IRS’s misuse and misappropriation of power, Sen. Portman has again stepped up to the plate and introduced a new bill, S.2809. This new bill seeks to constrain the agency's aggressive litigation tactics and prevent the outsourcing of audits to private law firms. This is good news, because the IRS has been known to outsource audits to liberal law firms for both political and financial gain.
The agency's audit of Microsoft is the greatest evidence of the need to pass Portman's new bill. Microsoft’s audit began nearly a decade ago and has still not been closed out. Year after year, the IRS has dragged Microsoft through one investigation after another in a desperate attempt to find the elusive smoking gun. Their never-ending request for Microsoft computer files and employee interviews has not been successful, and yet the IRS refuses to close the audit. They have also denied Microsoft’s request to have a hearing before the impartial and independent IRS Appeals Office. Microsoft has even politely asked that the IRS simply give them a dollar amount that they think is owed to the government so that the company can move on with its business.
Rather than working with Microsoft to find a resolution to the audit process, the IRS made the unlawful decision to bring in two private law firms to continue the audit investigation. The first is Quinn Emanuel, a liberal-leaning law firm that does not even list tax law as one of its 33 areas of practice. The other is David Boies’ law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner. David Boies’ name may sound familiar -- he was the Department of Justice lawyer assigned to break up Microsoft under the Clinton Administration.
Through the use of private law firms, the IRS is able to illegally sidestep many of the laws and principles our government was founded upon. Quinn Emanuel and Boies, Schiller & Flexner have been authorized to conduct examinations and take sworn testimony, and yet federal law states that only the Treasury Secretary and his limited delegates may perform such activities. As Senator Hatch stated:
"Unlike private contractors, Treasury Department officials are required to swear an oath to the Constitution and are subject to rules of conduct and federal law regulating their interactions with taxpayers.”
This action sets a dangerous precedent. By outsourcing their authority, the IRS is able to conduct investigations beyond the limits of the law and without any requirements for accountability.
Sen. Portman’s bill will place restrictions on the various tactics that the IRS employs in order to keep an audit going on infinitude. Taxpayers will now have a path to resolution that does not include going to court. Portman's bill will also put an end to the IRS’s ability to hire private law firms, all while ensuring that taxpayers have the right to an appeal with access to the independent IRS appeals office.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was correct when he stated that "Taxpayers need to be confident that they will be treated fairly, no matter what their background or affiliations." The Republican-controlled Congress should make the commissioner's vision a reality and pass the Portman Bill immediately. The American taxpayers are counting on the body to do so.