SNAKE HUNTERS

An Informative Weblog

Name:
Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

NINETY Year Old fledgling Editor of Snake Hunters. Combat Veteran of WWII, 10th Mountain Division, Italy. AAU Swim Coach, 29 Palms, Yucca Valley, Calif. Mobile Park, Retail Furniture, Indian Gaming Casinos in San Diego County,Concessionaire/ CO + State Fair. This Editor is.Never "too busy" to confront enemies here at home, , or foreign enemies that hate our 1st Amendment Freedoms. IF YOU WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD... START BY READING THE VIOLENT HISTORY OF ISLAM... Read > Continuum Of Wars < in the Archives, dated March 25, 2010 - Then Print It, and pass along to folks you care about. Read great articles by Marshall Frank & Andrew C. McCarthy. Vigilance Is The PrIce We Must Pay To Save This Republic. Learn more about 'The Enemy Within'; Research 'StealthJihad' - - - > - PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH - YOUR UNWAVERING VIGILANCE WILL PROTECT THIS REPUBLIC - ' ***** Jerimiah 50.6 My people have been lost; their shepards have led them astray...

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Supreme Court Disasters

BY THOMAS SOWELL

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the United States says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both this year’s Obamacare decision and last year’s ObamaCare decision, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the actual words of the law, and decided that the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare Exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those federal subsidies to be paid anyway, to Exchanges up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

This decision makes next year’s choice of the next President of the United States more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.

Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.

Chief Justices appointed by Republican presidents have made landmark decisions for which there was neither Constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.

When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.

Nevertheless, Chief Justice Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.

And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance they want us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?
Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?

Saturday, June 27, 2015

A Prediction You Should Hope is Wrong


by Dan Friedman
In the coming years, it will be harder and harder for Americans to remain indifferent to Islamic terrorism, because so much of it will be close to home disrupting our daily lives and dividing the nation along a deep ideological fault line. We’ve already seen the split that followed in the aftermath of the Texas cartoon contest - as many condemned Pamela Geller as praised her.

That’s only a sample of things to come. As terrorist attacks in our nation become more frequent and more deadly, American thinking will become more sharply divided, pitting one side blaming the victims for being “provocative” against the other side blaming the Islamists for being terrorists. Depending on which worldview prevails, an oppressive atmosphere could settle over the USA – and for all and intents and purposes that would mean the terrorists have won a decisive battle in their Jihad to destroy our society and way of life.
The wild card in all this is the outcome of the 2016 election. It is probably our best (or last) hope.

Americans are not quick studies and are easily distracted. 9/11 was a warning most of us have already forgotten. If we don’t elect a president who loves our Constitution, shares our values, and is willing to do the hard work to reverse Obama’s damage, we will suffer a slow death like the frog in the kettle. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

BHO Creating Nazi Germany With A-Bombs


“You Were Given The Choice Between War And Dishonor. You Chose Dishonor And You Will Have War.”

-- Winston Churchill

[We are on the verge of one of history’s costliest mistakes. A blunder that will make the aftermath of Munich seem like a scraped knee after a trip on the sidewalk. Tragically, the horrible consequences will affect us for generations, compounded by the fact we let this happen in broad daylight right under our noses. In spite of the many warnings, we’ve allowed Obama to risk the destruction of everything civilization has built over the centuries - all in exchange for a few years of “quiet.” What makes this a great sin is that Heaven knows full well Obama did this with little or no resistance from we the people who could have stopped it. Be patient. We will not be disappointed - all Hell will break loose in due course. - D/F Top Copy, NYC]

Jun. 24, 2015


Click here>AP Exclusive: Document outlines big-power nuke help to Iran


By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — The United States and other nations negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran are ready to offer high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment to Tehran if it agrees to crimp programs that can make atomic arms, according to a confidential document obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

The draft document — one of several technical appendices meant to accompany the main text of any deal — has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes with little more than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.

With that deadline looming, Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Tuesday rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research and supported banning international inspectors from accessing military sites. Khamenei, in comments broadcast on Iranian state television, also said Iran will sign a final deal provided all economic sanctions now on Iran are first lifted — in a sign the Islamic Republic may be toughening its stance ahead of the deadline.

The West has always held out the prospect of providing Iran peaceful nuclear technology in the nearly decade-long international diplomatic effort designed to reduce Tehran's potential ability to make nuclear weapons. But the scope of the help now being offered in the draft may displease U.S. congressional critics who already argue that Washington has offered too many concessions at the negotiations.

Iran denies any interest in nuclear weapons but is prepared to make concessions in exchange for relief from billions of dollars in economic penalties. Beyond a pact limiting Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years, the U.S. and its negotiating partners hope to eliminate any grounds for Iran to argue that it needs to expand programs that could be used to make such arms once an agreement expires.

To that end, the draft, entitled "Civil Nuclear Cooperation," promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned.

Reducing the Arak reactor's plutonium output was one of the main aims of the U.S. and its negotiating partners, along with paring down Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium — like plutonium, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

Outlining plans to modify that heavy-water reactor, the draft, dated June 19, offers to "establish an international partnership" to rebuild it into a less proliferation-prone facility while leaving Iran in "the leadership role as the project owner and manager."

The eight-page draft also promises "arrangements for the assured supply and removal of nuclear fuel for each reactor provided," and offers help in the "construction and effective operation" of the reactors and related hardware. It also offers to cooperate with Iran in the fields of nuclear safety, nuclear medicine, research, nuclear waste removal and other peaceful applications.

As well, it firms up earlier tentative agreement on what to do with the underground site of Fordo, saying it will be used for isotope production instead of uranium enrichment.

Washington and its allies had long insisted that the facility be repurposed away from enrichment because Fordo is dug deep into a mountain and thought resistant to air strikes — an option neither the U.S. nor Israel has ruled out should talks fail.

But because isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium, the compromise has been criticized by congressional opponents of the deal.

A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said China was ready to help in re-engineering the heavy water reactor at Arak; France in reprocessing nuclear waste, and Britain in the field of nuclear safety and security.

He spoke on the eve of Wednesday's new round of nuclear talks in Vienna and demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the confidential talks.

Diplomats say the other appendices include ways of dealing with enrichment; limits on Iran's research and development of advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges and ways of making sure Tehran is keeping its commitment to the deal.

Iran has most publicly pushed back on how much leeway the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have in monitoring Tehran's nuclear activities. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is rebuffing U.S. demands that the IAEA have access to military sites and nuclear scientists as they keep an eye on Iran's present activities and try to follow up suspicions that the country worked in the past on a nuclear weapon.

But a senior U.S. official who demanded anonymity in exchange for commenting on the talks said Tuesday that the sides are still apart not only on how transparent Iran must be but all other ancillary issues as well. Separately, White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested the talks could go past June 30.

If a deal "requires us to take a couple of extra days ... then we'll do that," he said.

A delay up to July 9 is not a deal-breaker. If Congress receives a deal by then, it has 30 days to review it before President Barack Obama could suspend congressional sanctions.

But postponement beyond that would double the congressional review period to 60 days, giving both Iranian and U.S. opponents more time to work on undermining an agreement.

Earnest indicated that negotiations may continue even if the sides declare they have reached a final deal, in comments that may further embolden congressional critics who say the talks already have gone on too long.

He said that even past that point, ongoing "differences of opinion ... may require additional negotiations."



Tuesday, June 23, 2015

a la Fiorina

by Tabitha Korol

"There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world"

And so began a mythical, deceptive tale by Carly Fiorina, when she spoke in praise of Islam within a mere two weeks of their bombing of the World Trade Center. The concern is not that she was attempting to deceive others, but that she, a person who aspires to the presidency of the United States, was herself deceived regarding the true nature of Islam, and that she has never retracted her statements.

"{Islam's} armies were made up of many nationalities...{Islam} was able to create a continental super-state...within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins," and "the reach of this civilization's commerce..."*

As a religious leader, Mohammed converted few followers. As political and military leader, he was far more successful – torturing and beheading 700 stalwart Medinan Jews, raping and enslaving women, and conscripting the survivors for jihad (holy war). Thus he dominated different creeds and ethnic origins, replenishing his army with many nationalities, and increasing his wealth with booty.

“Within its dominion” is Fiorina’s euphemism for “living under domination.” All non-Muslims, slaves and women were treated with contempt, unequal under law but economically necessary. Although specific enmity was directed against Jews and Christians, the severe “jizya” tax was imposed on “infidels” as humiliation and punishment for rejecting Mohammed. This tax and many other discriminatory laws extended through the centuries to Nestorians, Syrians, and Romans of newly conquered empires, and further to animists, Buddhists, Hindus, Mongols, Greeks, and Armenians (the Armenian Genocide), who suffered torture and death.

Jews held trades and occupations that Muslims judged inferior - including “this civilization’s commerce,” diplomacy, banking, brokerage, espionage, working in gold and silver, and cleaning cesspools. The inevitable deterioration of relations between Muslims and the outside world meant more restrictions and social segregation for non-Muslims (dhimmis), but the subservient and useful survived.

"...It's military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known."

“Peace,” as the absence of discord, existed, depending on the beneficence of the ruling caliphate and internal/external changes, but from the twelfth to thirteenth centuries onward, tolerance decreased; intellectual, social and commercial life depreciated, and ever-increasing restrictions and deprivation for dhimmis were imposed.

"And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. It's architects designed buildings that defied gravity."

The inventions and contributions were made by victims of the Muslim jihadists who invaded the “infidel” world over 1400 years, enslaving, slaughtering, and plundering. Islam is antithetical to creativity, but based on envious resentment of the accomplishments of others. Their greatest achievement was their ability to expropriate every creative, innovative groundbreaking device of Islam’s victims and to fraudulently claim each as their own.

Fiorina’s reference to “buildings that defied gravity,” as in “air-borne,” surely defies logic, but she doubtless refers to the arches, which were already in use in prehistoric times by ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks. With the help of concrete made from lime and volcanic sand, Roman arches could support huge weight, and were soon adopted by Byzantine and Romanesque architects, evolving into the groundbreaking inventions of the Gothic arch and flying buttress in northern (Christian) Europe. Meanwhile, the Muslims also adopted the Syrian styles, followed with Greek, Byzantine and Persian, and later Chinese and Indian, architecture, to develop pointed, scalloped and horseshoe arches for mosques and palaces. Even the vaulted and hemispherical (domed) ceilings were invented by the non-Muslim Romans.

It's mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers and the creation of encryption."

The first positional numerical system was developed in 2nd millennium BCE Babylon, over 800 years before Islam; the first true “zero” was developed by mathematicians in the Indian Subcontinent. Persian and Arab mathematicians are believed to have adopted the Hindu-Arabic numerical system in India. The work of Italian scholar, Fibonacci, was crucial in bringing them to Europe and the world. Francois Viete, French lawyer, mathematician and privy councilor to Henry III and Henry IV, provided the step from “new algebra” to modern algebra.

Only an Islamist steeplechaser could leap from working with numbers to creating computers and encryptions centuries later. English polymath Charles Babbage, mathematician, philosopher, inventor, and mechanical engineer, conceived the first programmable computer (1830). Alan Turing laid the groundwork for computational science; Korad Zuse is credited as “the first freely programmable computer."

The earliest form of cryptography is on stone in Egypt (190 BCE), long before Islam. Ciphers were used by the Spartan military and in the 2000-year-old Kamasutra of India. It wasn't until the 9th century that Arab mathematicians and polymath Al-Kindi worked with cryptography.

"Its doctors examined the human body and found new cures for diseases."

Arabs had no scientific traditions; their scientists were largely Jews who were forcibly converted as a result of Islam's rampaging throughout the Near East, Egypt, and Libya. As a typical example, Jews and Berbers, who lived together harmoniously in North Africa, were overcome by 60,000 Islamic troops in 694, and the descendants of those who survived the massacre became “Arabic” philosophers and scientists.

A great physician, Egyptian Jew, Isaac Israel of Kairouan, immigrated to West Africa. His surviving works on logic, Aristotelian physics, and pharmacology became the standard for medical history, and it was from him that the greatest of “Arab” scientists, Avicenna (980-1037), drew inspiration. Known as the Aristotle of the East, Avicenna wrote in Arabic and became a vizier in Persia, but he was born near Bokhara, then heavily populated by Jews, and was probably of Jewish origin. Even so, physicians who attended lords and kings of Islam and Christendom were largely Jews.

Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration."

Jewish savants were largely responsible for the invention and development of instruments and astronomical tables that facilitated world-girdling sea voyages. The Jerusalem Talmud (tractate Avodah Zarah, Ch.3, fol.,42c) strongly implies the spherical nature of the earth. The astrolabe, used by Islamic astronomers as a guide to the sky and to tell time by the position of heavenly bodies, was introduced into the Arab-speaking world by a “remarkable Jewish genius, Mashala of Mosul, the phoenix of his age.” Astronomical tables, compiled by the Jew, Joseph ben Wallar at Toledo (1396), and in Aragon by Judaic specialists, including Emanuel ben Jacob (aka Bonfils de Tarascon), were used with the astrolabe.

The Jews were among the most notable cartographers, the most advanced being a Jew forcibly converted to Christianity. Christopher Columbus’s cartographers and other companions may have been conversos. The most reputable astronomer of the day, Abraham Zacuto (1452-1515), instructed Columbus on using the perfected astrolabe, also used by Vasco de Gama and Amerigo Vespucci.

In all these areas, Fiorina makes the absurd leap from recognizing Muslims as merely a people who used a product to being an innovative people who "paved the way" for the future. She made a similar leap of dissonance when she made corrupt trade agreements with Iran in violation of US trade sanctions, resulting in 30,000 workers laid off at Hewlett-Packard, and jobs shipped to China. We could remark in passing that, at the same time, her salary and perks also leaped – they more than tripled.

"When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive and passed it on to others."

How much creativity, ingenuity and innovation might we have had from those 400 million people slaughtered by jihadists over 1400 years? What greatness is Islam passing on to civilization now, beyond a high illiteracy rate, great intolerance and aggression? Their history is one of perpetual massacre, encouraged in their Qur’an and taught from early childhood. Their culture is one of unrest, riots and wars; and women’s fears of female genital mutilation, forced marriages, rape, and death for male honor. Their homes are microcosms of the greater tyrannical regimes.

Had Muslims the knowledge to be kept alive, how might it have been done? Of the 1.4 billion Muslims, 800 million are illiterate (60 percent cannot read). In Christendom, the adult literacy rate stands at 78 percent. Of the ten most literate countries, not one is Islamic. Muslims are the world’s poorest, weakest and illiterate. The combined annual GDP of 75 Muslim countries is under $2 trillion; America’s is worth $10.4 trillion. Muslims are 22 percent of the world population, yet produce less than five percent of global GDP, and diminishing all the time.

Over the past 105 years, 1.3 billion Muslims produced eight Nobel Laureates (only two won for physics and chemistry); compare this with a mere 14 million Jews (0.23% of the world population) who produced 170 Nobel Laureates.

Islam’s militaristic, supersessionist ideology that began 1400 years ago has remained unchanged. We know of no event that sparked the glory they claim, and no catastrophic event that might have forced a decline. Carly Fiorina is severely misinformed about the civilization that embraces our death and destruction and she confuses politically-correct theories for hard facts – no point from which to hold the highest-ranking position in the United States of America.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT
A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

by Marshall Frank

If black folks thought that opportunity, conditions and lifestyle were going to improve under the first black president, they must be sorely disappointed.

The statistics are overwhelming. Just about every economic, cultural, familial and criminal justice indicator points out that life is not better for blacks since Obama became president, unless you want to factor in the number of minority appointees he’s promoted into federal judgeships and other cushy government jobs.

Lauren Burke, a black columnist for BlackPress USA, reported in her article of January 2015: During Obama’s first 6 years in office, average black unemployment soared to 14 percent, compared to 10 percent in January of 2009 when Obama took office. There’s more:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, youth unemployment (ages 16-24), this time in 2014, was 14.3 percent. For blacks in that age group, it was nearly 25 percent.
Ninety-two percent of black males in Chicago, ages 16-19, are unemployed.
The Huffington Post reported that 72 percent of black babies in the U.S. are born to unwed mothers, i.e. fatherless homes. According to the Moynihan Report, that figure stood at 23.6 percent in 1965. So much for the war on poverty.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 the black poverty rate stood at 28.1 percent compared to 25.5 percent in 2005.
Single parent homes among blacks living below the poverty rate stands at 47.5 percent, while married couple families with kids stand at 8.4 percent.
In 2013, Non-Hispanic black males represented 37 percent of America’s prison inmates, above that of non-Hispanic whites (32%) and Hispanics, any race (22%).
The murder rate by blacks vs whites in the U.S. is striking. According to the 2013 FBI crime report, calculating per 1,000,000 members of the perpetrator’s race, is as follows:
Blacks killed by blacks: 58.94 per million

Blacks killed by whites: 0.77 per million

Whites killed by blacks: 9.83 per million

Whites killed by whites: 10.22 per million

According to these figures, blacks kill at a rate six times higher than non-blacks, while they represent only 13 percent of the population.

So how has the first black president faired at improving race relations, crime rates, economics, family life and opportunity for the blacks of America? Apparently, not very well.

While the president maintains a heavy schedule of fund raising, ceremonial commitments, vacations, speeches, political photo-ops, and over 220 games of golf, I’m one American who wonders why he hasn’t paid more attention to the plight of black America other than demonizing police officers.

If improving life for blacks was such a priority, why hasn’t the president and his wife, as well as members of his constituency, penetrated deep into black communities of America to learn more about the plight of real people. Instead, he’s lent his ear to the politically divisive rhetoric of haters like the Al Sharptons of this country. Barack Obama could be a lightning rod leading people of the black community – adults and kids—into making better decisions, following the path of education, developing self-worth and a sense of responsibility, to encourage men and women to marry and become stable families for kids, to stay away from drugs and gangs and criminal behavior. He could have empowered morality like never before. President Obama has had a unique opportunity in black America which no prior president ever had.

He should be visiting the bowels of urban America; Chicago south, Baltimore, L.A., Washington D.C., Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, and many more, teaching not preaching; role modeling, not blathering; leading not dividing. These should all be substantive missions, not politically motivated photo-ops showing him shooting hoops.

He could pass up a few of those fund raisers and golf games, and show up in Milwaukee, Boston and Harlem, minus hordes of journalists, to be with regular black people and to sincerely open his heart and mind, listening more than speeching. The impression he could make in the black community would be astronomical. He could make a huge difference.

With true leadership from a black president, awestruck young men and women would start cleaning up their act, with improved parenting and providing for their kids. Instead of bragging about his drug use as a young man, he could show remorse and impart the dangers and downsides of using. He could sit at a family table, breaking bread while listening to the hearts and feelings of black America from the proverbial horse’s mouth. He could give up half of those golf games and visit one city after another, talking to people in rehab centers, prison inmates, gang leaders, ministers, moms, dads, doctors, teachers, and yes, police officers.

But he has not. He’s done nothing other than broaden dependence on welfare entitlements, teaching people that there’s a lot of free stuff to be had out there. I doubt that visiting real people in real neighborhoods ever entered his mind. All the complaints about police, guns, racism and such, will not lower the poverty rate one iota, nor reduce crime among black youths, nor help young blacks find worthwhile employment.

Yes, Mr. President, you’ve had a golden opportunity. And you’ve blown it.
BlackMurdersChart

Click here: Employment and Unemployment Among Youth Summary

Click here: Is Black America Better Off Under Obama? | BlackPressUSA

Click here: Racial Double Standard: Black Unemployment Under Obama | The Federalist Papers

Click here: Black Single Mothers Are ‘Biggest Impediment’ To Progress, Journalist George Will Says (VIDEO)

Click here: The Moynihan Report (1965) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

Click here: BlackDemographics.com | POVERTY

Click here: The Obama Golf Counter – I will not rest until…

Click here: President Obama has now attended at least 400 fundraisers since taking office | Daily Mail Online

Monday, June 15, 2015

THE BLACK DILEMMA

The Black Dilemma -
FROM THE BALTIMORE SUN

This would be considered a Racist newspaper article by the politically correct Liberals in the USA. Ian Duncan is a "middle of the road" Reporter in political philosophy. He witnessed the chaos in Baltimore and has tried to understand it. What he is trying to rationalize is why after 150 years and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, have only a very few ( he refers to the DuBois 10% ) Afro-Americans have made it into the mainstream. How does the Government rationalize the incredible success of immigrant children from Asia, India and Latin America with less benefits, pulling themselves up into the middle and upper classes when an estimated 60% of the Afro Americans are unable to lift themselves out of poverty and being on welfare generation after generation. As always, I don't agree with everything Ducan writes, but he does raise a continuing fundamental problem of how a majority of Afro Americans are going to be productive members of Society.

“The Baltimore Sun” is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper. This very well written assessment of the situation in USA comes as something of a surprise.. some objective observations about other races that have come to the USA and successfully integrated into our society.

This article will obviously be called racist, and will upset the liberals, but they should really think about the message and this deeply rational point of view.



The Black Dilemma...

"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The liberal elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---

"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015


Sunday, June 14, 2015

The Hill-Billy Cash Pump

By Janet Tassel
Hillary Clinton: We knew her as a grim, charmless harridan; a pear-shaped harpy. Now, after reading Peter Schweizer's new book, Clinton Cash (HarperCollins, New York, May 2015), we see the ultimate Hillary, one of the world's truly scary women. Think Lady Macbeth, Messalina, Evita. Add Bill to the sordid picture and you have Bonnie and Clyde -- elected to high office, and lionized all over the world.

We know about Hillary's thousands of missing e-mails and unaccountable donors. What may be less known is how the Clinton double-scam works. Take, first of all, the so-called Clinton Foundation, whose stated purpose is "to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence," whatever that means. Founded in 2001, when Bill had just left office, it boasts a staff of 350, mostly Clinton cronies and insiders.

Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million dollars through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the United States but from foreign investors, businesses and governments…hungry for access to the corridors of American power.

Meanwhile, Hillary, as a U.S. Senator, was "gaining influence and power." During her tenure, "two-thirds of Bill's enormous speaking fees [came] from foreign sources." After she became Secretary of State, Bill's income from speaking fees "ballooned." Tens of millions of dollars "flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers."

Look at this in perspective; the Senate, before confirming her as secretary of state, wanted assurances on the subject of foreign donors and of transparency, so "Hillary promised that 'the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.'" On CNN, Bill added, "If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally…it's important to make it totally transparent." And finally, "the Clintons said they would seek preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions…from foreign governments of government-owned businesses."

Thus reassured, the Senate confirmed her. But the Clintons violated the commitment "almost immediately," failing "to disclose gifts amounting to millions of dollars from foreign entities and businessmen" in transactions "with serious national security implications."

Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by "close friends" or associates who happened to have business interests in these countries. Introductions were made, deals struck…. Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.

Such was the scenario when in 2005, "Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty, Kazakhstan," ostensibly to help the country's AIDS patients -- a miniscule number, between 0.1 and 0.3,% of the population -- but in reality to procure a deal with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, under whose despotic rule Kazakhstan was mired in corruption and human rights abuses.

One of the densest thickets in this book full of foreign names and alphabet soups of abbreviations, this chapter is the hardest to condense. The essence of the malodorous deal starts with Bill flying to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in Giustra's luxurious private jet. Giustra was looking to close a mining deal in Kazakhstan, and looking to Clinton for assistance. As he said, "All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can." The two established something called the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as part of the Clinton Foundation, whose activities just happen to be sited near mines.

Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy, wanted access to Kazakh mining. The day after Clinton and Giustra were feted at a banquet given by Nazarbayev, the two left Kazakhstan, with Giustra owning a 30 per cent stake in one uranium project and 70 per cent of another. Then, lo: "In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million," one of many subsequent huge donations.

Giustra meanwhile started directing shares of UrAsia to friends, including a big-time dealer named Ian Telfer, who received 2.2 million shares. And then UrAsia Energy merged with a South African/Canadian company called Uranium One, of which the same Ian Telfer would soon become chairman. The merger's largest shareholders happily began writing multimillion dollar checks to the Clinton Project and its latest bastard child, the Clinton Giustra project. Telfer committed $3 million.

Senator Hillary was silent through all of this, even though a part of the deal involved – incredibly -- Clinton's nominating the dictator and human rights abuser Nazarbayev as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Even Joe Biden objected to this farce, but ultimately the dictator was awarded the chairmanship.

But when Hillary became secretary of state, the field of opportunity, along with the flow of money, widened. Vladimir Putin, Bill's pal since 1999, had become Hillary's friend, too. And in June 2009, Russia's atomic nuclear agency, Rosatom, bought a piece of Uranium One. Uranium One had been "aggressively" buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010, the company owned or planned 61 projects in Wyoming, and held thousands of acres in Utah, Texas, and South Dakota. The plan was that Uranium One would control half of United States uranium by 2015. Then, also in 2010, "Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One."

The Russian acquisition meant giant payoffs for the shareholders in Uranium One, and unsurprisingly, "several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal," totaling approximately $145 million. None of these donations are listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures. Despite protestations in Congress, the Russian deal went through, and today Russia, having started the bid at 52 per cent, "owns the company outright."

Hillary, of course, was secretary of state in 2010. Moreover, as secretary of state she was a member of the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), set up "to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security." The Russian deal was approved by CFIUS in October 2010. Hillary's opposition would have been enough to stop it.

Shortly after the Russian deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow to give a speech. His fee: $500,000.

And so it goes. "The Clintons point our that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton Foundation." While this may be technically true, the hundreds of millions that flow into the foundation do make for quite a tidy bundle. And Bill's preposterously overpriced speeches are apparently yawners: His "go-to speech, entitled 'Our Common Humanity,' is largely about the work of the foundation."

But business is business, and the Clintons have apparently never met a dictator they couldn't do business with. The examples abound, from every corner of the world reachable by private jet. For instance in the "house of horrors" known as the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]:

Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner…. In October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10 million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including "individuals operating in [DRC] and committing serious violations of international law involving the targeting of children or women.

The warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, "belongs near the top of the list" of "nefarious criminal leaders in Africa." But the Clintons had hugely profitable deals in other "houses of horror," such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics.

When Hillary became secretary of state, Bill "booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each."

And what about the poverty-stricken people of Nigeria? When Bill appeared at an event there in 2013 to collect an award, "he handed out checks to schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their checks bounce."

Perhaps the saddest chapter in Schweizer's book is the one on Haiti, headed "Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style." You will remember the 7.0 earthquake of January 2010 that destroyed much of that ill-starred island, killing some 230,000 people and leaving millions homeless. It didn't take long for the Clintons to arrive. "With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill teared up as he described what he saw."

Esquire Magazine called Clinton the "CEO of a leaderless nation." In this "Super Bowl of disasters," the Clintons became the "referees," according to one contractor who was jockeying to compete. They parceled out jobs, as was their custom, to their friends, contributors, and cronies. For example, their old Arkansas buddy, Wesley Clark, arrived representing a Florida company, Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. "Innovida received a $10 million loan from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti":

Sadly the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio [the CEO of Innovida] was indicted and convicted of financial fraud. Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion, of using the money intended for relief victims to "repay investors for his and his co-conspirators' personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme." He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in jail. Innovida collapsed.

The chapter is filled with other fiascoes and swindles, with guest appearances by Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, and a petition prompted by Haitian lawyers for an audit of Clinton's ventures. In the meantime, however, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims' net worth hasn't changed, but that of the Clintons and their associates surely has.

Schweizer has written an explosive and damning book. It is no wonder that, according to Business Insider, he has had to arrange full-time security for himself and his family. Shades of Vince Foster.

Hillary Clinton: We knew her as a grim, charmless harridan; a pear-shaped harpy. Now, after reading Peter Schweizer's new book, Clinton Cash (HarperCollins, New York, May 2015), we see the ultimate Hillary, one of the world's truly scary women. Think Lady Macbeth, Messalina, Evita. Add Bill to the sordid picture and you have Bonnie and Clyde -- elected to high office, and lionized all over the world.

We know about Hillary's thousands of missing e-mails and unaccountable donors. What may be less known is how the Clinton double-scam works. Take, first of all, the so-called Clinton Foundation, whose stated purpose is "to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence," whatever that means. Founded in 2001, when Bill had just left office, it boasts a staff of 350, mostly Clinton cronies and insiders.

Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million dollars through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the United States but from foreign investors, businesses and governments…hungry for access to the corridors of American power.

Meanwhile, Hillary, as a U.S. Senator, was "gaining influence and power." During her tenure, "two-thirds of Bill's enormous speaking fees [came] from foreign sources." After she became Secretary of State, Bill's income from speaking fees "ballooned." Tens of millions of dollars "flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers."

Look at this in perspective; the Senate, before confirming her as secretary of state, wanted assurances on the subject of foreign donors and of transparency, so "Hillary promised that 'the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.'" On CNN, Bill added, "If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally…it's important to make it totally transparent." And finally, "the Clintons said they would seek preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions…from foreign governments of government-owned businesses."

Thus reassured, the Senate confirmed her. But the Clintons violated the commitment "almost immediately," failing "to disclose gifts amounting to millions of dollars from foreign entities and businessmen" in transactions "with serious national security implications."

Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by "close friends" or associates who happened to have business interests in these countries. Introductions were made, deals struck…. Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.

Such was the scenario when in 2005, "Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty, Kazakhstan," ostensibly to help the country's AIDS patients -- a miniscule number, between 0.1 and 0.3,% of the population -- but in reality to procure a deal with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, under whose despotic rule Kazakhstan was mired in corruption and human rights abuses.

One of the densest thickets in this book full of foreign names and alphabet soups of abbreviations, this chapter is the hardest to condense. The essence of the malodorous deal starts with Bill flying to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in Giustra's luxurious private jet. Giustra was looking to close a mining deal in Kazakhstan, and looking to Clinton for assistance. As he said, "All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can." The two established something called the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as part of the Clinton Foundation, whose activities just happen to be sited near mines.

Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy, wanted access to Kazakh mining. The day after Clinton and Giustra were feted at a banquet given by Nazarbayev, the two left Kazakhstan, with Giustra owning a 30 per cent stake in one uranium project and 70 per cent of another. Then, lo: "In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million," one of many subsequent huge donations.

Giustra meanwhile started directing shares of UrAsia to friends, including a big-time dealer named Ian Telfer, who received 2.2 million shares. And then UrAsia Energy merged with a South African/Canadian company called Uranium One, of which the same Ian Telfer would soon become chairman. The merger's largest shareholders happily began writing multimillion dollar checks to the Clinton Project and its latest bastard child, the Clinton Giustra project. Telfer committed $3 million.

Senator Hillary was silent through all of this, even though a part of the deal involved – incredibly -- Clinton's nominating the dictator and human rights abuser Nazarbayev as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Even Joe Biden objected to this farce, but ultimately the dictator was awarded the chairmanship.

But when Hillary became secretary of state, the field of opportunity, along with the flow of money, widened. Vladimir Putin, Bill's pal since 1999, had become Hillary's friend, too. And in June 2009, Russia's atomic nuclear agency, Rosatom, bought a piece of Uranium One. Uranium One had been "aggressively" buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010, the company owned or planned 61 projects in Wyoming, and held thousands of acres in Utah, Texas, and South Dakota. The plan was that Uranium One would control half of United States uranium by 2015. Then, also in 2010, "Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One."

The Russian acquisition meant giant payoffs for the shareholders in Uranium One, and unsurprisingly, "several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal," totaling approximately $145 million. None of these donations are listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures. Despite protestations in Congress, the Russian deal went through, and today Russia, having started the bid at 52 per cent, "owns the company outright."

Hillary, of course, was secretary of state in 2010. Moreover, as secretary of state she was a member of the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), set up "to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security." The Russian deal was approved by CFIUS in October 2010. Hillary's opposition would have been enough to stop it.

Shortly after the Russian deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow to give a speech. His fee: $500,000.

And so it goes. "The Clintons point our that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton Foundation." While this may be technically true, the hundreds of millions that flow into the foundation do make for quite a tidy bundle. And Bill's preposterously overpriced speeches are apparently yawners: His "go-to speech, entitled 'Our Common Humanity,' is largely about the work of the foundation."

But business is business, and the Clintons have apparently never met a dictator they couldn't do business with. The examples abound, from every corner of the world reachable by private jet. For instance in the "house of horrors" known as the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]:

Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner…. In October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10 million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including "individuals operating in [DRC] and committing serious violations of international law involving the targeting of children or women.

The warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, "belongs near the top of the list" of "nefarious criminal leaders in Africa." But the Clintons had hugely profitable deals in other "houses of horror," such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics.

When Hillary became secretary of state, Bill "booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each."

And what about the poverty-stricken people of Nigeria? When Bill appeared at an event there in 2013 to collect an award, "he handed out checks to schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their checks bounce."

Perhaps the saddest chapter in Schweizer's book is the one on Haiti, headed "Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style." You will remember the 7.0 earthquake of January 2010 that destroyed much of that ill-starred island, killing some 230,000 people and leaving millions homeless. It didn't take long for the Clintons to arrive. "With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill teared up as he described what he saw."

Esquire Magazine called Clinton the "CEO of a leaderless nation." In this "Super Bowl of disasters," the Clintons became the "referees," according to one contractor who was jockeying to compete. They parceled out jobs, as was their custom, to their friends, contributors, and cronies. For example, their old Arkansas buddy, Wesley Clark, arrived representing a Florida company, Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. "Innovida received a $10 million loan from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti":

Sadly the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio [the CEO of Innovida] was indicted and convicted of financial fraud. Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion, of using the money intended for relief victims to "repay investors for his and his co-conspirators' personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme." He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in jail. Innovida collapsed.

The chapter is filled with other fiascoes and swindles, with guest appearances by Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, and a petition prompted by Haitian lawyers for an audit of Clinton's ventures. In the meantime, however, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims' net worth hasn't changed, but that of the Clintons and their associates surely has.

Schweizer has written an explosive and damning book. It is no wonder that, according to Business Insider, he has had to arrange full-time security for himself and his family. Shades of Vince Foster.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Who Lost Iraq?

BY THOMAS SOWELL
After the pro-Western government of China was forced to flee to the island of Taiwan in 1949, when the Communists took over mainland China, bitter recriminations in Washington led to the question: “Who lost China?” China was, of course, never ours to lose, though it might be legitimate to ask if a different American policy toward China could have led to a different outcome.

In more recent years, however, Iraq was in fact ours to lose, after U.S. troops vanquished Saddam Hussein’s army and took over the country. Today, we seem to be in the process of losing Iraq, if not to ISIS, then to Iran, whose troops are in Iraq fighting ISIS.

While mistakes were made by both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, those mistakes were of different kinds and of different magnitudes in their consequences, though both sets of mistakes are worth thinking about, so that so much tragic waste of blood and treasure does not happen again.

Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place is something that will no doubt be debated by historians and others for years to come. But, despite things that could have been done differently in Iraq during the Bush administration, in the end President Bush listened to his generals and launched the military “surge” that crushed the terrorist insurgents and made Iraq a viable country.

The most solid confirmations of the military success in Iraq were the intercepted messages from Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq to their leaders in Pakistan that there was no point sending more insurgents, because they now had no chance of prevailing against American forces. This was the situation that Barack Obama inherited — and lost.

Going back to square one, what lessons might we learn from the whole experience of the Iraq war? If nothing else, we should never again imagine that we can engage in “nation-building” in the sweeping sense that term acquired in Iraq — least of all building a democratic Arab nation in a region of the world that has never had such a thing in a history that goes back thousands of years.

Human beings are not inert building blocks, and democracy has prerequisites that Western nations took centuries to develop. Perhaps the reshaping of German society and Japanese society under American occupation after World War II made such a project seem doable in Iraq.

Had the Bush administration pulled it off, such an achievement in the Middle East could have been a magnificent gift to the entire world, bringing peace to a region that has been the spearhead of war and international terrorism.

Germany and Japan had been transformed from belligerent military powers threatening world peace for more than half a century to two of the most pacifist nations on earth, in both cases after years of American occupation reshaped these societies. Why not Iraq?

First of all, Germany and Japan were already nations before the American occupation. There was no “nation-building” to do. But Iraq was a collection of bitter rivals — Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, for example — who had never resolved their differences to form a nation, but were instead held together only by an iron dictatorship, as Yugoslavia once was.

Replacing German and Japanese dictatorships with democracy after World War II was a challenge. But both countries remained under American military governments for years, slowly gaining such self-governing powers as the military overseers chose, and at such a pace as these overseers deemed prudent in the light of conditions on the ground.

American authorities did not rush to set up an independent government, able to operate at cross purposes because it was “democratically elected” in a country without the prerequisites of a viable democracy.

Despite the mistakes that were made in Iraq, it was still a viable country until Barack Obama made the headstrong decision to pull out all the troops, ignoring his own military advisers, just so he could claim to have restored “peace,” when in fact he invited chaos and defeat.

This is only the latest of Obama’s gross misjudgments about Iraq, going back to his Senate days, when he vehemently opposed the military “surge” that crushed the terrorist insurgency, as did Senator Hillary Clinton also, by the way.

Monday, June 08, 2015

JIHADISTS OF TOMORROW

By Tabitha Korol
Anti-Semitism is growing among German Muslim students. Following Koranic teachings, the early childhood brainwashing, and school books rife with politically biased indoctrination, these students openly declared that they will kill Jews, specifically threatening Max Moses Bonifer, student spokesman for the school system in Offenbach, Germany, a city of more than 16,000 Muslims. Teenage students in Landsberg, near Leipzig, were reported to be using Nazi slogans, and greeting “Heil Hitler,” with some sporting Hitlerian moustaches. Yet, despite the increase in anti-Semitism, Muslim and other immigrant students were exempted from partaking in the concentration camp visits required with the Holocaust educational programs.

”Severe intolerance and hatred does not happen overnight,” explains Dr. Tawfik Hamid, himself under threat from his co-religionists for teaching a peaceful understanding of Islam. "The indoctrination process, incremental and subtle, occurs in three stages – hatred, suppression of conscience, and desensitization to or acceptance of violence." It is completed when the formerly young and innocent are capable of violence without remorse, no different than the Muslims who attacked synagogues in Germany after Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas, or the Nazis who participated in the Kristallnacht pogrom of November 10, 1938.

The hate and intolerance of the Koran is reinforced during prayers five times daily. Beginning in early childhood, toddlers are taught to behead dolls, and young men delight in the worst animal cruelty that Australians have ever witnessed being done to their exported cattle. Films from Gaza show Palestinians “kneecapping” the cattle, stabbing their eyes, and hacking their throats open on the streets. Severe animal suffering precedes the slaughter of animals for the celebration of Eid Al-adha or Feast of Sacrifice (it also generates an extraordinary cash windfall for some of Pakistan's most dangerous militant groups).
These Muslim German students, along with their agitating professors, should be learning about the Holocaust through newsreels, books, and visits to the concentration camps. The excuse that their culture had nothing to do with this period of history is both untrue and irrelevant; history shows that Arabs were in lockstep with the Nazis. Islam, like Nazism, is an ideology that teaches superiority and subordination, consigning slaves, women, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others to different levels of humiliation and wretchedness. It is their theological imperative that Jews (and Christians) be subservient to Muslims; the success of infidels is an insult to Allah. Therefore, the chants and false accusations of “settlements,” “apartheid,” “colonizers,” “occupation,” are diversions and key words needed to trigger hatred and violence against Jews and Christians worldwide, as they have throughout their history.

Mohammed's wrath began with the Jews, who remained faithful to the Torah and rejected the Koran - with its more than 100 verses advocating the use of violence to spread Islam, and 123 verses about killing and fighting. .It continued when Muslims encountered the formidable Christian opposition in Eastern and Western Europe. Massacres were conducted when Christians primarily (but Jews, as well) earned “too much” wealth and power in Granada (1066), and when Christian communities in Middle Eastern countries identified with Crusaders. Muslims killed the Mongols, who had earlier destroyed their caliphate, together with their Christian and Jewish collaborators. Envy was a consequence of their teachings, causing Muslims to rage and slaughter when they noted the superior economic status of Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Therefore, in 164 verses, the Koran encourages jihad and looting from their victims, so that they may own what belongs to their perceived enemy. True to character, Muslims are unable to tolerate Israel’s superiority, the achievements of a mere 67 years of statehood. It is not about settlements or deeds but a deep-seated envy, exemplified by the Khomeinist International Union of Resistance conference held in Beirut (May, 2015). Resentful Muslim scholars came together to formally accuse Israel of all Islamic nations’ failures. The attendees admitted that they wished to “counter the arrogant world,” a reminder of their shame for not achieving the greatness of the West, the greatness they’d been promised in their Scriptures.

In a warped attempt to reverse their feelings of inadequacy, Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, as well as antiquities, artifacts and shrines worldwide. To overcome their deficiency, they produced an extensive, extravagant museum exhibit that lays claim to “1001 Inventions, the Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilisation,” many of which (perhaps all) may be traced to the ingenuity and industry of their conquered and forcibly-converted victims.

Islamists called Israel “arrogant” for being first responders to people who suffer from natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, famine) and for providing medical care to the victims of Islamic unrest (including surgery for Mahmoud Abbas’s wife and medical treatment for a Hamas leader’s sister). They sent no humanitarian aid to the infidel victims, but accused Israel of harvesting organs of the dead in Haiti when, in fact, families showed their gratitude for their care by naming their newborns “Israel.”

These desert people, whose Sharia law, ironically, is named for “the way of water,” have just witnessed Israel’s new capability of recycling water, producing enough to make their land flourish with food, and having more than enough potable water for themselves and a generous supply for wasteful Palestinians, (more than required by the Oslo Accord. California is already using Israeli water technology to combat its worst drought in history. Muslims are seething with resentment, yet the achievements that earn praise in the Islamic world are terrorist attacks. They cannot stand to be upstaged, but hope only to be the “best” when everyone else is gone.

In a June, 1938 letter, the Syrian Alawites told the French prime minister that the new Zionists “brought prosperity over Palestine without damage to anyone or taking anything by force,” and American historian Walter Laqueur noted, “No one doubted that the Arabs had benefited from Jewish immigration.” (The Arab population almost doubled between 1917 and 1940, wages increased, and the standard of living rose higher than anywhere else in the Middle East.) Still, Israel’s contributions made some Arab leaders in the Palestinian area become increasingly hostile to the Jewish community. Many affiliated with the rising Nazi movement, incited and instigated mob attacks against the Jews in 1920, ’21, ’29, and 1936-1939.

The connection between Islam and Nazism is undeniable. Palestinian Arab leader Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, an admirer of Adolph Hitler, recruited a Bosnian-Muslim Waffen SS unit, the notorious “Hanjar troopers,” that slaughtered 90% of Bosnia’s Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. SS chief Heinrich Himmler favored the recruits and established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.

Anti-Semitism among these German-Muslim students has become critical and life-threatening, and continues as they fail to integrate into their host society. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “It is absolutely necessary to counteract religious and political indoctrination among Muslim youth.” These words should have been spoken and acted upon yesterday, because the Muslim children of today have been groomed to become the jihadists of tomorrow.

Friday, June 05, 2015

Immigration Advocates Frightened
By 99-Pound Blonde

BY ANN COULTER

Third World immigration advocates Frank Sharry, Ali Noorani and Marc Andreessen aren’t shy about rushing to the press with pabulum quotes about how wonderful immigration is, but they don’t want to debate me, even to lie about all those benefits. They don’t want you to think about immigration at all. Although you will miss the lush analytical context of the full case made in my smash new book, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, here are some more startling facts from my book that the anti-American crowd doesn’t want you to know:

— If an illegal alien drops a baby on American soil, the entire family can access welfare programs that were supposed to be for U.S. citizens — in addition to the government assistance illegal aliens can collect right away, such as food stamps and housing subsidies, free medical care and free schooling.

— The Constitution did not make U.S. citizenship a game of “Red Rover” with the Border Patrol. Haha! Too late — I had the baby! The 14th Amendment confirmed the citizenship rights of former American slaves — not 21st-century freeloaders from China.

— Our ludicrous “anchor baby” policy was invented out of whole cloth by Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote in a Supreme Court opinion in 1982.

— On average, college graduates in the United States pay about $30,000 more in taxes each year than they get back in government services, while those without a high school degree get back about $35,000 more in government services than they pay in taxes.

— Only about 7 percent of Americans do not have a high school diploma, but more than a third of legal immigrants under the post-Kennedy immigration act and about 75 percent of illegal aliens do not have a high school diploma.
— Mexican immigrants send $20 billion back to Mexico every year — more than the U.S. sends to that country in direct foreign aid.
— The New York Times was saved from bankruptcy by one of the richest men in the world, Mexican Carlos Slim, whose fortune comes from illegal aliens’ sending money — most of it from the U.S. taxpayer — back to Mexico.

— Anything the Times says on immigration ought to be treated like a press release from a tobacco company about the low risk of disease from smoking.

— Contrary to repeated assertions that fences don’t work (by the Times, as well as a slew of Republicans, such as former Texas governor Rick Perry), after Israel completed a fence along its border in 2013, the number of illegal aliens entering the country dropped to zero.

— The country that put men on the moon can’t seem to build a wall like the one the Chinese built 700 years before Christ.

— Fully half of the fires on federal or tribal land investigated by the Government Accountability Office, where a cause could be determined, were set by illegal immigrants. (For suggesting as much, Sen. John McCain was denounced as a racist on MSNBC and in The Washington Post.)

— Illegal immigrants from Mexico planted a huge pot farm right in the middle of Sequoia National Forest, dumping pesticides and refuse within a few miles of the world’s tallest tree.

— The Sierra Club, which took a $100 million donation from hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum to be pro-illegal immigration, never said a word about it. Nothing the Sierra Club says about immigration — or the environment — can be believed.

— The government refuses to say how many foreign-born residents have been sentenced to prison in America. There is no attempt to count naturalized citizens at all, or legal immigrants in state prisons. Even illegal immigrants are counted only if the states have requested reimbursement from the federal government for those inmates.

— Instead, the government issues reports with its wild guesses about the number of aliens who are imprisoned in America. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants’ self-reports. The GAO goes by Bureau of Prisons data. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates.

— In 2010, New York state prisons held more than 4,000 inmates from 10 Latin American and Caribbean nations, and fewer than 150 inmates from all of Western Europe (most of whom were probably Muslims).

— There are already more Hispanics than whites in two states, New Mexico and California, and Hispanics are the largest minority group in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

HOW ABOUT LETTING THESE FACTS "COME OUT OF THE SHADOWS"?
___ ___

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

WHY WOULD A DEVOUT MUSLIM WANT TO WORK AT
ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH?

by Dan Friedman
[An age-old Koranic tactic: Using the infidel's system to bend it to Mohammed’s will. df]

{ Read Islam's Qur'an: 'War Is Deceit' Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52, #269 - reb }

{'Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every strategm of war' - Qur'an 9.5 }


clip_image004 by PAMELA GELLER

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who sued for discrimination after not being hired by Abercrombie & Fitch, because her insistence on wearing the Muslim hijab conflicted with their dress code.

Justice Antonin Scalia said of the 8-1 ruling, “This is really easy” – but neither he nor the Justices who voted with him showed any indication of realizing what was really at stake in this case.

She won an award of $20,000 in 2011, but a Court of Appeals overturned that, with the judge explaining: “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie before its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’ for religious reasons.” The Supremes should have taken the hint. They didn’t.

Why didn’t she? It wasn’t inconsequential, at least not for her. She spent the ensuing years suing, losing, suing again, appealing until her case reached the highest court in the land. So why didn’t she mention it? What was her agenda? That is perfectly clear now.

I ask you: what devout Muslim girl would want to work for a firm that peddles erotic, sexy clothes and soft-porn images? Their catalogue is not allowed in many homes. Many parents have rightly judged that it is too racy for their teenage daughters. So what is the pious hijabed one Samantha Elauf doing wanting a job like that?

It was all a set up. Why would Elauf want to work there? In order to force another major American business to accommodate Islamic norms – and this time, that sinister agenda won the aid of the United States Supreme Court.

It is more than suspect that this devout Muslim woman sought a career at Abercrombie & Fitch. Abercrombie & Fitch’s images in its advertising are soft porn. Why doesn’t Samantha Elauf apply for a job modeling for Larry Flynt’s magazine?
Samantha Elauf

What she sought was a lawsuit — litigation jihad, as evidenced by the participation of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, in her suit.

Hamas-CAIR pursues these “discrimination” lawsuits all around the country, pressing American workplaces to change the way they operate to accommodate Islamic norms. The goal is to establish and reinforce the principle that anywhere American cultural mores conflict with sharia, it is Americanism that has to give way.

This is exactly the pattern that I meticulously document in my must-read primer, Stop the Islamization of America.

And now the Supreme Court’s decision will ensure that there will be many more such cases, just as the mainstream media’s refusal to run Muhammad cartoons because Muslims kill over them only ensures that there will be more violent threats, more bloody demands for submission. Demands for accommodation result in…more demands.

Take, for example, the Hertz company. Hertz bent over backwards to accommodate its Muslim workers: they have prayer rooms, prayer times, etc. They just didn’t want the Muslim workers leaving work to pray outside of scheduled break times. Mind you, they could easily pray before or after work, but no. This imposes Islam on everyone else – just as Samantha Elauf wanted to do at Abercrombie & Fitch by demanding that they change their dress code and give up their right to set the public tone of their own company. After the initial surrender on Hertz’s part, Muslim workers began suing Hertz, charging “Islamophobia.”

Star Transport was sued for rightfully terminating two Muslims who refused to do their job. If these Muslim truck drivers didn’t want to deliver alcohol, then they shouldn’t have taken a job in which part of their duties would be to deliver alcohol. It’s that simple.

A Muslim woman sued Children’s Hospital Boston after being fired for refusing to get a flu shot. If you don’t want to take the necessary steps to work in a hospital and adhere to the rules to insure the health of the public at large, then don’t work in a children’s hospital.

A New Mexico Muslima sued Planet Fitness over its headgear safety rules. Obviously headgear is prohibited in this gym because it presents a safety hazard. But people’s safety be damned. This suit mirrored the melee that ensued at a New York Playland Park when park officials adhered to their safety rules in order to keep park attendees free from harm. Muslim visitors got angry that the park was enforcing its ban on headgear by prohibiting the women from wearing their traditional head coverings on some rides.

A Muslim woman who worked as a hostess at a Disneyland restaurant sued Disney. Like Elauf, Imane Boudlal wore the hijab, but the garment violated Disney’s dress code. Disney offered up a compromise hat for her to wear, but Boudlal refused, of course. It wasn’t about hijab; otherwise the cute cowboy hat that Disneyland offered Boudlal would have been fine (everyone on the floor at Disney wears costumes). It was about imposing Islam on the secular marketplace.

You’ll notice, big companies are always targeted. Hertz, Heinz, Target, Wal-Mart, Disney, and now Abercrombie & Fitch. Why? To set precedents.

And in all these cases, the company bent over backwards to accommodate these demands. But that’s always taken as a sign of weakness, and accommodation gives way to more demands

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative




Tuesday, June 02, 2015

BHO LETS CAT OUT OF THE BAG!
Obama Tells Israeli Tv News Channel 'No Military Solution To Iran's Nuclear Program'


by Dan Friedman
It should come as no surprise but Obama was lying about stopping Iran from the very beginning. He has now publicly admitted that he never had any intention to attack their nuclear facilities with force. He spilled the beans to Israeli TV in an interview today. I certainly hope Israel finally comes to grips with Obama’s treachery and make plans to act independently, or create a Mid East coalition of the willing to turn Iran’s nuclear weapons program into a pile of ashes. We now have ample evidence to know what makes Obama tick. There can be no doubt anymore. But we’re still waiting on Netanyahu and his government to show the world what they’re made of. df]

Obama tells Israeli TV channel no military solution to Iran's nuclear program

Associated Press

JUNE 1, 2015

JERUSALEM — U.S President Barack Obama reached out to a skeptical Israeli public in an interview aired Monday saying that only an agreement, not military action, can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Obama said "I can, I think, demonstrate, not based on any hope but on facts and evidence and analysis, that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough agreement."

Obama's remarks come as an end-of-June deadline for an Iranian deal is fast approaching.

"A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it," he said in excerpts from his interview with Israeli Channel 2 TV's investigative program "Uvda."

The full interview will be broadcast Tuesday night.

Israel has said the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran is a bad deal and that a military option is still on the table to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been tense at times and the Iran issue has been a source of contention between the traditionally close allies.

The proposed deal would freeze Iran's nuclear program for a decade, in return for sanctions relief. Iran insists that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, while the West fears it could allow it to build nuclear weapons.

Israel has long claimed a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to world peace and security, and it views a nuclear-armed Tehran as a threat to its very existence, citing Iran's repeated calls for Israel's destruction, its long-range missile program and its support for violent anti-Israel groups like the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

When asked how he would respond if Israel were to act militarily without notifying him, Obama said he "won't speculate on that."

He tried to pacify an Israeli public widely skeptical of the deal by saying "I understand your concerns and I understand your fears."





Thursday, May 28, 2015

WHAT'S LEFT


by Tabitha Korol

The Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman said that she would not use her platform of fame or share her strong leftist opinions inappropriately; therefore, she granted an interview to Steven Galloway, The Hollywood Reporter. Thus begins a peek into a leftist’s psychology. (No sunspecs required.)

Portman identified herself as being “quite leftist,” meaning that she is yet another person of Jewish heritage who has withdrawn from her birthright, and follows a distinct set of assumptions held by others – also described as “groupthink.” When asked if she feels uncomfortable about her Jewishness while in France, she offered a brief “Yes,” before deflecting to comment about “the danger of being a Muslim in many places.” The identity of whom the Muslims fear was conveniently not broached - it is their own rage and violence, products of their perception of Muslim supremacism.

France is considered the most dangerous country for Jews today and the Muslims the “main instigators of global anti-Semitism.” France’s Jews, 0.75 percent of the population, live in constant peril. Anti-Semitism has increased by 400 percent since the summer of 2014; 40 percent of violent crimes are committed by Muslims against Jews. Although French officials have deployed about 20,000 soldiers to guard the Jewish businesses and schools, crimes persist, such as:

· the boy who, returning home for Sabbath dinner, was accosted and pummeled by four men with iron pipes – his eye socket damaged, shoes stolen, cell phone intentionally trampled so he could not call for help.

· the 17 year-old girl who was pepper-sprayed and told, “Dirty Jewess, inshallah (Allah willing) you will die”;

· the Jewish mother who, while seated on a park bench, was attacked and beaten by three men;

· the young couple who was robbed in their apartment, the woman raped, her boyfriend restrained;

· the firebombs thrown at a Jewish community center in Toulouse, another at a synagogue;

· the three solders standing guard outside Nice’s Jewish center who were attacked and injured by a man wielding a knife;

· the anti-Semitic riots in Sarcelles (Paris suburb, “Little Jerusalem”), with slogans of death and slaughter.

These and others were carried out against Jews by Muslims, but Portman’s leftism precludes her identifying the criminals and their behavior.

As noted in The Religion of Peace online, close to 26,000 terrorist attacks were committed in the name of Islam since 9/11, and a recent article by Giulio Meotti cites 100,000 Christians per year. All other religions combined do not equal the terror wrought by Islam and no other religion requires the suffix “phobia” to bully others into silence lest they be accused of harboring “irrational fear” when the fear is perfectly rational.

No other religion demands respect while committing the most abhorrent crimes – and this is because Islam is a political, militaristic ideology couched in religion. Their mandate is to conquer and govern all others: immigrate (to a non-Muslim country), populate (increase and demand accommodation), and eliminate (city becomes Muslim), according to the Muslim Brotherhood’s 100-year plan of 1982. About 62 percent of the Quran curses unbelievers or calls for violence, yet, when once sharia is established as law, their own are also controlled harshly. In fact, Iran has been systematically purging (genocide) its own Arab population.

Surely, Portman should have noticed the preponderance of armed French soldiers on Paris streets, where once there were accordionists, flower sellers and romance. France’s oldest and second-largest city, Marseille, founded in 600 BC by Greek sailors, was once considered the European Capital of Culture, but is now ranked as Europe’s most dangerous city, having a 30 to 40 percent Muslim population. Portman and the Left will deny the cause of the violence and the climate of fear that turned the once-charming, coastal city into a no-go zone, where French law is irrelevant. In fact, the Left denies the existence of no-go zones.

Since the Left adheres to a mantra of multiculturalism and equality of people and religions, Portman calls “endangered Muslims” those who amass weapons, invade, and destroy. While one faction continues to attack Israelis and Jews at every opportunity, another faction is slaughtering Christians, beheading, burning, kidnapping, raping, and selling women and children into slavery. Islam is the only group that continues the slave trade. While Hitler and Nazism were responsible for about 60 million deaths, and Stalin and Communism about 80 million, Islam’s legacy over 1400 years approaches 400 million. The Left and mainstream media remain silent, and Portman proves that she is indeed on the Left by denying Islam’s gory history.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call all Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule, some quite graphic. Aloof from historical context, they proudly regard themselves as part of the eternal and unchanging word of Allah.

Portman has generously, but presumptuously, forgiven Dior fashion designer John Galliano for his several public anti-Semitic rants, yet denounces Prime Minister Netanyahu as racist for noting the growing Arab vote – that could credibly destroy the Jewish people’s only homeland. Blindly loyal to her destructive liberal doctrine, she prefers Palestinians have a home that was never theirs at the peril of Jews in the home that had been theirs for centuries. The Left prefers that Israel again cede land to those who already have a land mass one thousand times Israel’s size, and may be mobilized to slaughter Jews at the mere sound of a bugle. The Left is silent when Israelis are attacked from air, earth, and beneath the earth, but speak out for the rights of those who have Natalie Portman in their sight.

The pretty and talented Natalie Portman knows little about her own heritage and displays a shocking amount of ignorance of the facts, and her arrogance for defending the leftist fiction is indefensible. The irony is that her personal life is unacceptable to those she defends. Under Palestinian rule, Sharia, she would be stoned or beheaded for being of Jewish descent, a woman, outspoken, supporting same-sex marriage, believing in educating females, wearing “immodest” clothing, and having a child out of wedlock. She and her family are at risk now in France, in Israel, and in the United States, and the source is Islam. Sadly, our Leftist academia are no longer teaching their students to think and reason, and Natalie Portman is of that generation. If we add together the Islamists in our midst, the remorseless willfully blind, and the ignorant by indoctrination... I fear for what’s left.☼