This Black Man appreciates the Police Exposing Black Toddler Cursing Video

/in , /by

Liberal’s reaction to Omaha Nebraska police exposing the ignorant thug mindset behind the shocking video of a black toddler cursing is yet another example of liberals getting it all wrong; all about making themselves feel good – tolerant, superior and compassionate. Rather than severely condemning the child’s parents for abusing the toddler, liberals are ripping into the police; calling them racists.

The Omaha Police Officers’ Association is catching heck from the city’s police chief, the ACLU and at least one community leader. These liberals accuse the police of antagonizing the city’s large black community.

Insistent on viewing everything along racial lines, liberals fail to realize that the disturbing video is offensive to all decent Americans. One could call it a bit racist for liberals to assume Omaha blacks would be more offended by the police rather than black parents abusing their child.

A liberal media outlet actually accused the police of using the video to reinforce racial stereotypes that are unfair to the black community.

As a black person, I say to you liberals, “Stop it!” Your nauseating bigotry of low expectations does not help our cause. You are nothing more than enablers along with Sharpton, Jackson and the modern so-called civil rights advocacy community.

Clearly, declining moral standards and a lack of personal responsibility are devastating the black community; epidemic school dropouts, abortions, out-of-wedlock births, substance abuse, black-on-black crime and incarcerations. And yet, anyone daring to point out this huge elephant in black America’s living room, especially if they are white, is vilified.

Bitter, lazy, victim and entitlement mindset blacks are celebrated by liberals. Motivated, ambitious, self reliant and proud to be an American blacks are viewed suspect by liberals; traitors to their blackness.

I was appalled when CNN’s Piers Morgan and other liberals in the media condescendingly celebrated Rachel Jeantel, a witness in the Trayvon Martin trial. Morgan called Jeantel “one smart cookie”. Jeantel is a 19 year old black woman who is still in high school and admitted that she can not read cursive. Her first language is urban thug, using ignorant terms such as “Creepy a** cracka.” which liberals say should be respected as a cultural thing.

On an airplane, I overheard the conversation of a young black woman articulating her desire to attend law school. As a black person who has always refused to be forced inside the liberal’s box for acceptable black behavior, I suspect this ambitious black youth has had to endure accusations of her trying to be white; speaking English correctly, good grades and plans for law school.

The way liberals treat blacks in America is disgusting and humiliating. According to liberals, the destruction of the black family and every other issue plaguing the black community is the result of whitey’s insensitivity, apathy or conspiring against blacks. Ridiculous.

Rather than truly dealing with high drug abuse and crime rates in the black community, liberals whine about too many blacks going to jail. The liberal condescending producers at the Oxygen channel tried to give us a reality show titled, “All My Babies Mommas”; celebrating a serial impregnating black rapper with 11 babies by 10 black women. How low rent low expectations is that? The arrogant producers were shocked upon receiving push-back from the black community.

The video of the black toddler cursing was posted online by the perpetrator. And yet, liberals are having a cow because police exposed the shocking child abuse and alerted the public about the under-reported “thug cycle”. Why are liberals attacking the messenger? Answer: Publicizing bad behavior by blacks is politically incorrect.

Consequently, the knockout game and polar bear hunting (blacks punching out whites) goes under-reported by the mainstream liberal media.

With liberal enablers as our friends, we in the black community do not need enemies. For decades, these “friends”/advocates have told us we are inferior in need of lowered educational and moral standards and government intervention to succeed. Conservative blacks find liberal’s pandering and condescension repulsive and extremely offensive.

Thus, I tip my hat to the Omaha police for exposing the shameful black toddler cursing video.

Until liberals honestly address bad black behavior and begin holding them accountable, the decline of the black community will continue. True friends/advocates to not constantly seek to lower the bar, they inspire you to come up higher.

Benghazi: A Tale of Three Senators

/in , , , , /by

In a time where courage is a precious commodity on Capitol Hill, a Democratic U.S. Senator has set an admirable example of statesmanship in stark contrast to two of her former colleagues.

Senator Diane Feinstein of California, the Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee has sounded the alarm over the escalating threat from Jihadist terrorism and released a report in the pursuit of the truth about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012.

Senator Feinstein’s words and deeds stand in stark contrast to those of former Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the former and current Obama administration Secretaries of State.

Senator Feinstein recently correctly defined our enemies as a “very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community” – in a warning that terrorism is on the rise. During a December 1st interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator Feinstein noted,

I think there is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community. And that is, that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this, is Islamic sharia law and the concept of the caliphate. And I see more groups, more fundamentalists, more jihadists, more determined to kill to get where they want to get. So, it’s not an isolated phenomenon. You see these groups spread a web of connections. And this includes North Africa, it includes the Middle East, it includes other areas as well.

It took great courage for Senator Feinstein to publicly identify the enemy and describe the basics of the doctrine that underpins their actions. She knew full well that her democratic base will be very uncomfortable with her bold truth about a problem that is devastating our country yet no one wants to identify including the president. Her words were like a breath of fresh air. Few Republicans, much less Democrats, on Capitol Hill have done as good a job of articulating the threat we face from Jihad.

Unfortunately, Feinstein’s former colleague, Secretary of State John Kerry, is not nearly as well informed as she is. He has uttered nothing to indicate that he has any grasp of the enemy threat doctrine and what makes our enemies “tick.”

In fact, just this week, Kerry parroted the long-discredited theory that terrorism is caused by poverty. In remarks delivered during a visit to the Vatican, Kerry proclaimed poverty to be the “root cause” of terrorism.

This isn’t the first time Kerry has regurgitated such nonsense. Speaking at the Global Counterterrorism Forum in the wake of the Jihadist terrorist attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, Kerry called for “providing more economic opportunities” for youth to prevent them from being recruited to terrorism.

Perhaps Kerry has forgotten that Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire who left a life of luxury in Saudi Arabia to wage global jihad? Or maybe he forgets that the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was no pauper either. He was a professor of surgery and practicing physician at one time in his native Egypt before he turned to jihad. Then there is current captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was well off enough to come to the United States to earn a degree in engineering from North Carolina A&T.

There is no actual evidence that poverty causes terrorism. Jihadist terrorism has its roots in the doctrine known as sharia. Jihadists have come to commit acts of terror from a variety of lifestyles, nationalities and socioeconomic backgrounds. There is no evidence to indicate that poverty is a prerequisite for Jihadist terrorism, despite what Kerry says.

In fact, Kerry’s statement shows a profound confusion and naïveté when it comes to the war with which we are faced. Fortunately, Senator Feinstein doesn’t have the same problem that Secretary Kerry has.

In fact, as Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein has just released a new, bipartisan report on the Jihadist terror attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012, that goes a long way toward dispelling some of the myths surrounding that attack and assigning accountability for what went wrong.

Among the report’s findings:

  • The attack was NOT a spontaneous act of violence touched off by a protest in reaction to a video about the prophet Mohammed.
  • The U.S. government did not do enough to prevent the attack or protect the diplomatic facilities.
  • The Obama State Department had ample warning of a dangerous security situation in Benghazi but failed to take proper action to secure lives and property.
  • The Obama intelligence community issued statements after the attack that turned out to be wrong and then was slow in correcting those incorrect statements.

Feinstein’s committee’s candid, accurate report is quite different from the testimony before the Senate delivered by Senator Feinstein’s former colleague, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on January 23rd, 2013. Who can forget the shameful prevarications and doublespeak from Hillary Clinton that day?

But worst of all was this cynical and infamous passage:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

Congratulations to Senator Feinstein for identifying the mistakes for which Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible and laying out the facts for the American people that Benghazi was PREVENTABLE, because to us, it DOES make a difference!

Women Voters This Year and Beyond

/in , /by

Men when in the company of other men have no hesitancy to admit they have no idea why women are so different in so many ways.

Well, viva the difference, but one does have to wonder why so many women of the present era feel no need for a man as a husband or father.

In May, the Census Bureau released a report noting that more than six out of ten women who gave birth in their early 20s were unmarried. “Overall,” a Washington Post article reported, “36 percent of all births in the United States were to unmarried mothers in 2011, the year that the census analyzed from answered in the American Community Survey.” Among whites, it was 29 percent. Among blacks, it was 68 percent.

For the second year in a row, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 40.7% of the babies born in the United States were born to unmarried mothers. That is very bad news.

It is an enormous commitment when a man asks “Will you marry me?”, but are we in an era when the answer is “No, thanks” or “Why?”

This is happening when women in general still earn less than men, encounter more problems borrowing for a car or a mortgage, and, if the Internet match-up services ads are true, are still are looking for Mr. Right. Their problem often is that he has done a Google search and learned she would involve a big investment. Many men choose to remain single these days or as the divorce rate indicates, to opt out of marriage.

None of this has anything to do with the 2014 midterm elections or the ones in 2016…or does it?

Well, yes it does. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, columnist Gerald F. Seib said “The gender gap is alive and well in American politics. Indeed, it may be the defining characteristic of our political system as next year’s midterm elections beckon.”

“We are not talking here just about the well-established pattern in which women are more likely to vote Democratic and men Republican in presidential elections. That’s true, but it appears to be only the tip of a gender-gap iceberg.” And here’s where it gets scary for conservatives of both sexes, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 52% of men want Congress under Republican control “while just 38% of women feel that way.”

The poll reported that 49% of women say they approve of the job (Obama) is doing; just 37% of men approve. In either case, the numbers are too high because he has done the worst job of any President of the modern era or earlier.

Seib reported that “women are more likely to give the President high grades on leadership qualities, overall competence, and improving America’s image abroad.” This is so absurd it defies any explanation. “College-educated women, in short, emerge as a core Obama constituency.”

That might not be the case in 2014 because The Hill reports that, based on a Dec 23 CNN/ORC poll, support for Obamacare is dropping rapidly and “The drop in support indicated could be particularly troubling for the Obama administration because almost all of it came from women, whose opposition rose from 54% to 60% in a month.” The poll cited by Sieb indicates that Republican woman—more than 80%–dislike Obamacare.

The gender gap is well documented and in 2012 it was the largest in the history of Gallup’s polls—20 points—since the polls measuring it began in 1952.

One thing needs mentioning and that is the extraordinary Republican women. There’s Rep. Michelle Bachman, Sen. Susan Collins, and Gov. Jan Brewer, to name just a few in positions of political leadership and others like columnists Peggy Noonan. Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter. The list is much longer, but it tells me that the GOP is fortunate to have them.

Clearly, the Republican Party has to undertake a major effort to draw more women into the party and, right now, it is a divided party as the GOP establishment wage battle with the Tea Party Movement that challenges their control.

It must also strongly refute the Democratic Party’s lie that the GOP has “a war on women.” There is no such war.

The GOP, however, need not look to the League of Women Voters for any support. Despite its claim to be non-partisan, it has for decades tilted in favor of the Democratic Party and liberal policies. The League is pro-abortion, favors environmentalism, and a greater role for government in all aspects of the lives of women and men.

Who knows? The 2014 and 2016 elections may signal a shift in the liberal views of women voters. If so, that is bad news for the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party has to do a much better job of enlisting the support of American women.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Winning Republican Strategy: Freedom vs Control

/in , , /by

The difference between Democrat and Republican political philosophies has never been so clearly divided – boiling down to two words: FREEDOM vs CONTROL. Patriotic Americans understand the freedoms set forth under representational government by: “We the People.”

Question is: “Will Republicans unite to play their winning card?”

While the ever-so rigid left marches in lockstep doggedly sticking to failing policies: the age-old Democrat Tax & Spend, disregard for $18 trillion debt, over-reaching regulations that require semi-trucks to haul paperwork into the halls of Congress (of course, never to be read) … “The Age of Paranoia” is alive as NSA spies devour our mail, drones threaten flyovers and voters appear totally disgusted with “Big Sam” CONTROL.

Job creation is barely mentioned these days, except in a photo op. Instead Liberals steadfastly march towards income redistribution (a.k.a. income equality), while using inflammatory social issues to paint Republicans as “mean” and “uncompromising.” Don’t they realize it’s Republicans who are anti-Big Sam? While America is witnessing the high-speed decline of our culture, plummeting education scores, behind-the-scenes rogue powers spy on citizens for untold reasons … why?

It would be a blessing if the TEA Party vs Establishment dogfight could unite for the sake of freedom! It’s credibly possible that their conflict is fueled by a Liberal machete wielding power to tarnish and strike down the opposition. In reality, qualifying reasons why Republicans lost in 2012 had more to do with “hidden scandals” and little to do with political punditry. The best medicine, at this critical juncture, is a Republican truce to welcome “ALL Americans under the Republican Party Banner of freedom” – it could be an effortless victory.

Ronald Reagan would advise the party to adhere to the 11th amendment: “Not to speak ill of your own.” However, Reagan’s masterful leadership skills would have elevated him to the higher level than in-fighting and name-calling. (Reagan was a long time Democrat before he saw the light, which is why we should encourage all Americans to join us!)

In reality, free-minded citizens of all stripes can tackle a healing America by joining under the “United We Stand Republican Banner.” This is our best hope! Dr. Ben Carson, the new star on the block, wisely expressed “politics are about principle, not party!” Believe me, with this kind of clarity, America will soon shine again!

As Republicans spat, behind the scenes, the Liberal master plan is scheming to destroy our best candidates through lies like: “The GOP has no ideas.” Hard-working House Republicans would be frustrated to hear this as their 150 bills to create jobs, cut the budget and audit the Fed are disregarded. Harry Reid simply side-tracks them on his desk with no chance for a senatorial concluding vote. After all, Harry Reid’s stealth plan for massive amnesty requires jobs for our new citizens, as he needs to buy their votes for jobs to assure a one-party system!

Harry Reid’s stranglehold on America is camouflaged through the pen of his co-conspirators, the American liberal press majority. After all, his greedy power grab is unquenchable and must remain a secret because on a daily basis Big Sam imposes piles of regulations, treads on private property rights, free speech, and tugs at the heartstrings of liberal voters to trap them into a web of lifetime of dependency and strict control.

A renewed Republican Banner may initially create adamant opposition. When the ego is put aside and our traditions are honored, the efforts of our Founders will prevail. “The TEA Party was inspired by the Spirit of the Boston Tea Party of 1773 whose rallying cry was `No taxation without representation,’ and the modern TEA Party movement portends political fairness to benefit the American people through fiscal responsibility and less government interference in the lives of citizens. While the Republican Party was formed in 1854, by people who were opposed to slavery, and today freedoms principles remain lofty to support the US Constitution and inspire Americans towards “The American Dream.”

Uniting under freedoms principles will save America!

Economy – America’s free-market economy with a pro-business government will re-invigorate confidence.

National Defense – Republicans support President Ronald Reagan’s approach to America’s national defense as essential: Peace through strength, based on freedom and the will to defend it.

Health Care – Republicans support common-sense reforms that will lower costs, ensure quality health care that Americans deserve, and end lawsuit abuse while protecting the physician-patient relationship.

Education – Republicans believe in a world-class system of primary and secondary education with high standards so all students can reach their potential and parents are empowered.

Energy – Republicans believe in energy independence that encourages responsible production of all types of energy in a responsible and clean way, while opposing Cap & Trade Legislation to impose a national energy tax on families and small business that would kill jobs and raise utility prices.

Courts – Republicans believe a judge’s role is to follow US laws, and our Constitution as opposed to making decisions from the bench.

Let “Election 2014” evolve into a clear TWO word choice: Freedom vs Control.

Théâtre de boulevard à l’Elysée

/in , , /by

Our oh so French president, embroiled in a romantic triangle, is using the right to privacy as a fig leaf to cover his wayward masculinity. Having deftly installed the strong-headed Valérie Trierweiller in the First Lady’s passenger seat without lawful matrimony, he turns the tables on us and we’re supposed to pretend we don’t know. Like innocent children.

What’s behind that fig leaf? It’s the boîte à outils [toolbox] he has been talking about since he was elected to the highest office. We thought he would use it to crank up the economy. Unemployment, crime, and the debt went up; income, investment, and exports went down, his approval ratings plunged to the low 20s but, unbeknownst to voters, the toolbox was devoted to loftier goals… in the arms of a beautiful film star.

Now that the whole world knows about his romantic escapades what is left? His private… his private life. The private life of public figures, he declares, should not be exposed to public scrutiny. Really? International media tittered delightfully over the concept of First Girlfriend…though First Concubine would be more accurate. Yes, le concubinage notoire—living together in full view– still exists as a legal category in France. But First Common-law Wife doesn’t sound very glamorous. And what if le président normal decided to make it un ménage à trois? First Girlfriend and First Chick [copine]? Would it still be his own business and none of ours? Then again, how do we know it’s just a triangle? It could be a hexagon, in the image of la belle France familiarly known as l’hexagone.

If the private life of public figures is no one’s business why are scandal magazines, their paparazzi, and their readers only interested in gossip about high profile public figures? Multitudes of men and women in France cheat on their wives, mistresses, husbands, lovers, sweethearts and fiancés without hitting the front pages.

There is a lot of Gallic shoulder shrugging this week in France, especially on the Left that prides itself on its progressive values. It’s fair to assume that the boys-will-be-boys attitude wouldn’t apply if it were une présidente slipping out on her husband or First Boyfriend to spend torrid nights with a 20 year-old gigolo or a 60 year-old Qatari billionaire … Wouldn’t the public need to know?

We didn’t know, when the newly elected President Hollande proudly introduced his male-female parity cabinet, that the President of Parity was treating his companion like a frumpy bourgeois wife. Now, shocked and humiliated by the revelations, she has taken” get thee to a nunnery” refuge in the hospital. Doctors have reportedly prescribed a 10-day sleeping cure. If Bernadette Chirac had been hospitalized every time her husband had a quick frolic in the gilded hay she would have become a permanent resident of the betrayed and deceived ward. François Mitterand kept his mistress and their daughter in style, on public funds, including the secret service protection that was supposed to be covering his lawful wife. He wiretapped, harassed and threatened journalists who might have revealed the secret they all shared. When President Mitterand’s First Lady, First Mistress, legitimate sons, and out of wedlock daughter walked side by side in the funeral procession, respecting his last wishes, those journalists who had known all along went gushing about how elegant it was to see them joined in mourning. No hard feelings.

This time, too, journalists knew about the president’s trysts. Including, presumably, the fiercely independent Valérie Trierweiller who continued to work at Paris Match when her sweetheart became president. What did she think when he stayed out all night? That he was in the office jiggling his boîte à outils trying to figure out where to put the stimulus and finally get some satisfaction from the economy? A mistress betrayed is doubly wounded. And better equipped than a naïve spouse to recognize the telltale signs of a cheating lover. The Hollande-Trierweiller couple has unashamedly admitted that they kept their liaison secret from 2005 to 2007 when he was living—in concubinage– with Ségolène Royal and their four children.

It’s not really funny. A president doesn’t have the right to drag his nation into this kind of flighty behavior. It makes a mockery of international relations. All those state visits, the protocol, the red carpets and black-tie dinners, the curtseys and baise-mains… under false pretenses. From the Queen of England to the prime minister of anywhere, madame Trierweiller was accepted in a spirit of non-judgmental modernity when in fact she was already being shunted to a supporting role.

In retrospect we realize that it is François Hollande who pushed his private life in the public face. If he wanted to be free to follow his impulses wherever they might lead, he should never have involved his momentary mistress in the affairs of state. Now what? According to rumors wafting out of Valérie Trierweiller’s hospital room, she’s going to give him blow for blow as soon as she recovers, she’s willing to stay on if he publicly and privately says it’s over with Julie, she is devastated because the president has not come even once to visit her… The diagnosis is “extreme nervous tension”– a nervous breakdown.

Yes, it’s true that mores differ from one culture to another but it is wrong to think that French society is indifferent to the issue of integrity raised by the president’s sentimental twists. Social media, I’m told, are dumping on Valérie Trierweiller, who has been widely disliked, but many intelligent opinion-makers are shocked by the brutality of her disgrace, and they don’t blame Closer, the magazine that exposed it.

What’s so modern about the way this unmarried presidential couple went on the rocks? It’s a mixture of bourgeois théâtre de boulevard tainted with lingering contempt for women, and royal court intrigues, with a touch of spicy African polygamy as the co-wives cackle in the media courtyard.

There’s no way of knowing what’s going to happen next. Dame Trierweiller could save her honor and her feminist badge by sending a valet to take her belongings from the presidential palace, and retiring to her private apartments. The “I do as I please” president could bring Julie Gayet into the Elysée a week from now, next month, or never. And how will the president maintain his composure if the spurned mistress decides to feed the gossip mill? He can’t tell her that private affairs should not be aired in public!

Beyond the current media flutter and silly statistics, French citizens may well be thinking that if the president put in a better performance in the public sphere they might have more opportunity to enjoy their own private lives.

I’ve Got the Barack Obama Blues

/in /by

I have a case of the Obama blues, a nagging depression that is exacerbated daily by having to listen to the endless lies he tells about everything when he isn’t blaming Congress, the Republicans, and everyone else for the horrid state of the economy and his rejection of the leadership America demonstrated through both World Wars and since.

Listening to Obama say that he intends to ignore Congress and selectively not enforce the laws it passes is such a serious threat to the Constitution and to our most fundamental freedoms that it is impossible not to be depressed by this grossly incompetent, historically ignorant, and pathologically narcissistic president.

The Republican Party seems to be suffering from the same ailment, but one bit of good news was the recent gathering of Republicans that showed some gumption when they voted to reject CNN and NBC as primary debate hosts, given their announced intention to air dramas whose only intention is to re-write Hillary Clinton’s history of failed policy making.

The old go-along-to-get-along GOP senators and representatives undermine the other elements, chiefly the Tea Party Republicans elected to bring a stop to Obama’s destruction of the economy and their party. They are joined in this by a former, but strangely quiet element, the evangelicals concerned with social issues, and independents who lean toward conservative policies.

The fact that the mainstream media, with a few exceptions, are little more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party adds to the general feeling of being up against forces that undermine the well-being of the nation. It is depressing to see how the scandal of the Benghazi attack has been swept under the carpet. It is depressing to know that the “newspaper of record”, The New York Times is just a communist rag, but one that sets the agenda every day for most of the rest of the news media.

Adding to my unhappiness is the knowledge that Obamacare is now the law of the land despite being a complete disaster that is killing jobs, driving physicians to leave the profession, imposing death panels, and increasing the cost of health insurance for everyone. Recall the avalanche of Obama’s lies that we could keep our personal doctor and not have to change our insurance provider. The illegal delay in implementing one element and the many politically inspired waivers are testimony to the way this bill is already a monumental failure.

Knowing that the government can and probably will monitor all my electronic communications—emails and telephone calls—is depressing; particularly since it ignores the Fourth Amendment. Tyranny is just around the corner if limits and oversight are not vigorously applied to the NSA and God knows who else is doing this.

The President has surrounded himself with men and women who demonstrate such contempt for the public that I find that depressing too. Whether it is the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency or the new Secretary of the Interior, the message is the same. If you don’t spout global warming/climate change lies, you are not welcome to work for these and other government agencies. Their attitude says that, if the thousands of new regulations being generated will harm the economy, we don’t care. We are not public servants; we are the President’s appointees.

For someone who has spent most of his life during America’s ascendency as a superpower and seen presidents from both parties demonstrate leadership that brought the former Soviet Union to its knees and encouraged a booming economy, it is particularly galling to watch a man who has said in so many ways that he does not like America, does not like its military, does not care about the ancient tradition of marriage, does not want to take steps to stem the traffic of illegal aliens, would eliminate the Second Amendment in a hot minute, and would far prefer to take another vacation and play along round of golf than shoulder the responsibilities of the presidency.

He knows the news media will protect him. He knows that adding more and more Americans to welfare programs such as food stamps makes them dependent on the government, He knows that Americans are too beset with their own problems, paying their mortgage or rent, raising children, and dealing with the rising cost of living, to devote much time or attention to what he is doing to them and the nation.

Ours is a nation with a short-term memory and, in too many cases, no memory or knowledge at all of our history and the values that lifted us to former greatness.

The Obama blues are the result of two elections with very bad results; elections that very well may have been stolen by the kind of chicanery we associate with “Chicago politics” in a state that keeps putting its governors and elected representatives in jail.

The sadness that invades my days comes from knowing that this feckless, Marxist ideologue and fan of Islam is quite literally ruining the lives of millions of American, old and young, destroying and delaying their dreams and plans.

There is a cure for the Obama blues. It is citizen participation in the forthcoming 2014 midterm elections that could maintain and expand Republican control of the House, and return it to power in the Senate. There is no other option.

Failing that, Obama will have no brake on his “fundamental transformation” of America into a banana republic.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Looking Down the Barrel of the Apocalypse: Why It’s Impending–Maybe This Spring

/in , /by

Summary: 1900+ years ago when the apostle John recorded his vision in the book of Revelation, he quoted the sealing angel as crying loudly, “Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of God in their forehead,” Revelation 7:3.

The Fukushima disaster has impacted the Pacific and many sea creatures.  How should we understand this passage?

In the Bible prophecy, the sea may be symbolic of people where “the waters…are peoples and multitudes and nations.” in Revelation 17:15. Because of this imagery, the United States is seen as beginning in the wilderness, Revelation 12:6, or rising up out of the earth in Revelation 13:11, where it is described as a lamb-like beast—gentle, peace-loving and a symbol of Christ—a Christian nation.

But a change occurs. It speaks like a dragon [legislatively by its laws] and causes fire to come down from heaven [Hiroshima, Nagasaki?] and causes the world to make an image to the previous beast that early Americans held to the the Old World Order that they had fled. The US, speaking like a dragon, is making a New World Order. The United Nations will bring the end-times as it causes all to be marked that they cannot buy or sell without compliance that includes false worship, Revelation 13:11-17.

But in the above imagery, the US arises out of “the earth” (uninhabited New World) as opposed to the sea representing peoples and nations of the Old World. So when the angel says, “Hurt not the earth” until a sealing occurs in God’s servants, we haven’t been hurt yet, but the fuse is lit; radiation is coming.

How Long Do We Have?

That’s a question that terminal patients ask, and maybe we should too! Some say Alaska may be uninhabitable by October 2016, Hawaii by Jan 2015, our entire west coast by June 2017, based on graphic documentation.

Snow in St. Louis has already been found to have radiation levels that are twice normal, but it hasn’t hit the alarm with mainstream media yet. What will it take to get our attention?

In the following chapter, Revelation 8:11, “many  men died because of the waters, because they were made bitter.” They were called Wormwood. Russian translations call it Chernobyl, implying radiation. The context of those trumpet plagues in Revelation 8 are a sequel to an earthquake, Revelation 8:5.

We might blame the earthquake and tsunami in Fukushima, but for reasons beyond the scope of this article, the apocalyptic events of Revelation may be expected to have biblical timing—like God said, “I will execute judgment” in the context of Passover, Exodus 12:12.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but this spring, Passover will be accompanied by a “blood moon” reported by Pastor Hagee who believes in a rapture.

Harry Reid is Killing the Senate

/in , , /by

In his 2005 book, “The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate”, Lewis L. Gould began by noting that the Senate was intended “to provide a legislative check against the potential tyranny of unrestrained majority rule.”

“The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a Senate that would function as a wide and judicious check on both executive power and the House of Representatives. They did not imagine a body that would act as a rubber stamp for an incumbent president. Nor would they have been pleased to see the Senate so focused on allocating federal appropriations to contributors and constituents.”

By 2005, Gould had concluded that “the Senate had become more often an impediment to democratic government rather than a place to express sober second thought on national priorities.”

Nearly a decade ago, he concluded that “A profound sense of crisis now surrounds the Senate and its members. Critics allege that it is an undemocratic place where the national interest received only fitful attention.”

On January 8th I happened to watch CSPAN as the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, addressed the problems that were worse than even when Gould was writing about the Senate. The subject of his address to fellow Senators was “Restoring the Senate” and it received little or no media coverage.

Rule changes instituted by Majority Leader, Harry Reid, had turned the Democrat-controlled Senate into the rubber stamp the Framers had feared. It was Reid and then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who had pushed the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—through both houses in 2009; a 2,000-plus-page bill that was famously voted upon by Senators who had not even had time to read it, let along take the time to debate it. By 2010, voters returned control of the House to the Republican Party.

Obamacare had given rise to the Tea Party movement and the growing numbers of independent voters in the 2014 midterms will likely return power in the Senate along with voters unhappy with Obamacare and the President’s preference to rule by executive orders to bypass Congress. These days, in addition to Obamacare, the Tea Party movement is devoted to ensuring that the Constitution is not ignored.

McConnell, addressing the members of the Senate, said, “even if you’re completely at peace about what happened in November, even if you think it was perfectly fine to violate the all-important rule that says changing the rules requires the assent of two-thirds of Senators duly-elected and sworn, none of us should be happy about the trajectory the Senate was on even before that day or the condition we find it in 225 years after it was created.”

Kimberley A. Strassel, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, was much freer to address the problem. In a Jan 14 column, she wrote “The popular judgment that Washington’s dysfunction is the result of ‘partisanship’ misses the crucial point. Washington is currently gridlocked because of the particular partisanship of one man: Senate Majority leader Harry Read. And Republicans are warming to the power of making that case to voters.”

Noting that the 113th Congress is often called the least productive in history, Strassel pointed out that “The Republican House in fact passed more than 200 bills in 2013. Some were minor, and others drew only GOP votes” but “the laws all went to die in Mr. Reid’s Senate graveyard.”

“Mr. Reid took over the Senate in early 2007 and it functioned just fine in the last two years of the Bush administration. It didn’t suddenly break overnight. What did happen is the Senate Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority in the first years of the Obama administration—when Mr. Reid got a taste for unfettered power—and then the GOP takeover of the House in 2011.”

“That is when the Senate broke, as it was the point at which Mr. Reid chose to subvert its entire glorious history to two of his own partisan aims. Protecting his majority and acting as gatekeeper for the White House. Determined to protect his vulnerable members from tough votes, the major leader has unilaterally killed the right to offer amendments…Determined to shield the administration from legislation the president opposes, Mr. Reid has unilaterally killed committee work, since it might produce bipartisan bills.”

“Here’s how the Senate ‘works’ these days,” wrote Strassel, “Mr. Reid writes the legislation himself, thereby shutting Republicans out of the committee drafting. Then he outlaws amendments.”

“It isn’t that the Senate can’t work, it’s that Sen. Reid won’t let it.”

In addition to a President who is seen by more and more Americans as a liar and an incompetent, they are often unaware of the critical role that Harry Reid has played in thwarting the normal process of the Senate to debate—and amend—legislation. While Obamacare is the President’s legacy legislation, it was created in the Senate, a body which does not have the Constitutional right to initiate legislation that imposes taxes, an authority granted only to the House. And the Supreme Court ruled that it was a “tax” and permitted its implementation!

In his address to the Senate, McConnell said of Obamacare, “The chaos this law has visited on our country isn’t just deeply tragic, it was entirely predictable…the Senate exists to prevent that.”

Harry Reid is killing the Senate and only American voters can save it by replacing the Democratic Party majority there.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Author: Obama not the Antichrist – He’s just Clearing the Way

/in , /by

A prominent evangelical pastor, author, and radio host has a new book – and even though it’s not on the bookshelves yet, it’s creating a bit of a stir.

That is how Charlie Butts from OneNewsNow.com begins his article titled “Author: Obama not the Antichrist – He’s just clearing the way“.

Butts writes:

The book Perfect Ending: Why Your Eternal Future Matters Today is written by Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church, Dallas. The book is about the events leading up to the return of Jesus and the period when a dictator – commonly called the Antichrist – will rule over all the nations of the world.

Jeffress tells OneNewsNow the reason some folks are upset is that he referred to “Barack Obama” and “the Antichrist” in the same sentence. According to an advance copy of the book, he writes:

“For the first time in history a president of our country has openly proposed altering one of society’s (not to mention God’s) most fundamental laws: that marriage should be between a man and a woman …. While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in God’s law and still win reelection by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose God’s laws without any repercussions.”

In talking with OneNewsNow, the pastor explains: “I want to be clear: I’m not at all saying Barack Obama is the Antichrist. In fact, I’m sure he’s not – and one reason I know that is the Bible teaches the Antichrist will have higher poll numbers than Barack Obama.”

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: Pastor Jeffress’ book is slated to be released on Tuesday, January 21, 2014.

A Message to White America: More Racial Protectionism from Eric Holder and Arne Duncan

/in , , , , /by

When the concept of doing a website was presented to me, initially I scoffed thinking there wouldn’t be enough critical material daily to comment on — boy was I wrong. Every day I am amazed at the insanity I witness in our America and here is another example.

According to a report in The Hill, Attorney General Eric Holder is at it again with his racial preference policies,

Attorney General Eric Holder called upon the nation’s school districts Wednesday to rethink “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that he said disproportionately punish minorities and push too many students into the justice system. Alarming numbers of young people are suspended, expelled or even arrested for relatively minor transgressions like school uniform violations, schoolyard fights or showing ‘disrespect’ by laughing in class,” Holder said during a speech in Baltimore.

What did his remarks really mean? They accompanied the release of new federal guidance from the departments of Justice and Education encouraging (i.e. threatening) schools to adopt disciplinary policies that are “fair, nondiscriminatory, and effective.” The guidance offers parameters for punishment as governed by federal civil rights protections, alternatives to exclusionary discipline and a comprehensive list of regulations on the books in every state.

So now the US Department of Justice under Eric Holder will use its power to enforce “civil rights protections” in school disciplinary actions. In fact, the DoJ and DoEd are putting schools on notice that they are prepared to use their authority to investigate the claims of racial disparity in the punishment of students.

And of course the American Civil Liberties union (ACLU) is thrilled with this policy. The ACLU offered research showing that black students make up 36 percent of those expelled, though they represent only 15 percent of students.”

Not to be outdone by Holder in the “stuck on stupid” category, Education Secretary Arne Duncan stated, “Positive discipline policies” can actually foster safer school environments, without a heavy reliance on suspensions and expulsions. Schools also must understand their civil rights obligations and avoid unfair disciplinary practices.

I taught high school for one year in Deerfield Beach, Fla and in the end, it was such an enjoyable experience breaking up fights daily, that I decided to return to the combat zone of Afghanistan.

Teachers are already disrespected and attacked, not feared. There were students at Deerfield Beach who steered clear of the lunchroom for fear of being picked on or engaged in a fight. A kid was stabbed while I was on the faculty there.

Yes, this violence on campus was perpetrated 8 out of 10 times by black students, male and female, but it had nothing to do with racial disparity. It had everything to do with a lack of discipline and control.

When a young man took a swing at me while I broke up a beat down that he and three others were giving a young man already on the ground, it had nothing to do with civil rights. It had everything to do with a criminal behavior which does not belong in a learning environment – and he was expelled. Now imagine under these new guidelines and rules, DoJ and DoEd would initiate an investigation.

Liberal progressives don’t want to tackle the problem they created, the decimation of the black family. Fifty years ago only six percent of births in America were out of wedlock Today the number is 72 percent in the black community. There was a time when “acting out” at school resulted in having to stay after school and worse, a call home to mom and dad — talk about a beat down.

Common core — now this — the progressive socialist dream of state-run education is coming to fruition. But what is even more heinous is the message being sent that race is an excuse for bad behavior in our kids, an acceptable excuse at that. It means the death spiral for education in the black community will increase as we overlook or reward the most abhorrent conduct.

Perhaps this is why Holder and Obama want Debo Adegbile as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division considering his defense of Black Panther and cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, when he was leader of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. There is no doubt that someone skilled enough to defend Abu-Jamal would be perfect to institute this policy of racial protectionism of juvenile criminal behavior.

This is my clear and succinct message to white Americans. How long will it be before “you people” realize you have elevated someone to the office of president who abjectly despises you — not to mention his henchman Holder. Combined they are the most vile and disgusting racists — not you.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Blueprint for Tyranny

/in , /by

There are lots of Americans who, after the first five years of living under the governance of Barack Hussein Obama, have concluded that, among his most notable characteristics, he is an incompetent, a pathological liar, a Marxist, and, fearful as the prospect is, a potential dictator who will not leave office when a new President is due to be sworn in.

The fears are largely based on the astonishingly lax Congress that, with the exception of Rep. Darrell Issa and the House Oversight and Reform Committee, has done little to investigate the many scandals that litter the Obama administration.

It doesn’t help that the Department of Justice and possibly the FBI have been politically corrupted.

It doesn’t help when the Commander-in-Chief has forced a significant number of the armed forces top generals and admirals into early retirement or removed them from duty. The question is why.

It doesn’t help when we learn of the purchase of millions of dollars of ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security and other measures that appear to be turning it into an internal army.

Politics in America is a metaphoric war in which the worst is thought of any President in office by those in the opposing party. It isn’t always this way. Reagan enjoyed a relatively non-partisan relationship with Congress, but Andrew Jackson was regarded as a tyrant by many. Now his face is on the twenty dollar bill.

I got to thinking about the way tyranny and despotism has been and in many nations still is the rule throughout history and existing today. The U.S. Constitution was written to ensure that its three branches would act as a brake on each other. If there was one thing the Framers did not want it was a monarch or despot.

The opposite of U.S. history is found in the history of Russia which has been replete with czars, followed by communist dictators, Lenin, Stalin, and others. These days it is Vladimir Putin and his grasp on power has been the subject of protest by a new generation of Russians.

kicking-the-kremlinA new book, “Kicking the Kremlin” by Marc Bennetts, a British journalist working out of Moscow, tells the story of Putin’s rise to the office of president of the then-new Russian republic following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. He was appointed prime minister in 2000 by Boris Yeltsin who had replaced Gorbachev. At the time, Putin was a former KGB Lieutenant Colonel who had served five years in East Germany recruiting spies when Gorbachev was in charge. In 1998, after serving in administrative posts, he returned to the Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB.

As Bennetts notes, “In less than a decade, the little-known prime minister that Yeltsin had told to ‘take care of Russia’ had transformed himself into a modern day czar in the Kremlin, eliminating all but the most stubborn opposition to his rule. Early on he established control of the media.

“The Russian constitution stated clearly that no president could serve more than “two consecutive terms.” But Putin had no plans to surrender power. In 2007, he picked Dmitry Medvedev to be his puppet to serve as president and, in turn, Medvedev named him to be prime minister and he became head of the governing party, United Russia. It was clear that Putin was still calling the shots. Two years into his term, Medvedev proposed extending the presidential term from four years to six. “It would grant Putin, upon his return to the Kremlin, the opportunity to remain in power until 2024” if elected president again. He was.

The hope that corruption and nepotism would be curbed and that an independent judiciary and police force would be established was dashed.

“Traumatized by a world war, revolutions and almost total economic collapse at the tail end of the twentieth century,” wrote Bennetts, “many Russians have first-hand experience of the dangers of rapid political and social change. That is why Putin’s message of stability had remained so attractive to so many, for so long.”

While Obama is now engaged in a campaign aimed at “income inequality”, corruption in Russia soared to a point where, in 2013, Credit Suisse noted that “Worldwide, billionaires collectively account for 1%-2% of total household wealth; in Russia today 110 billionaires own 35% of all wealth.” However, “large swatches of the country are still wallowing in Third World poverty…And all this in a country that possesses the world’s largest natural gas reserves, the second-largest coal reserves, and the ninth-largest crude-oil reserves.”

A major characteristic of Putin’s regime has been the suppression of any opposition. It is marked by the assassinations of journalists and of politicians. Leaders of the opposition who organized mass protests in Moscow were jailed and even Pussy Riot, a girl’s band, that spent forty seconds in a Moscow cathedral were sentenced to seven years in jail. Laws were passed to make protest leaders and participants subject to jail for their opposition.

“Putin’s inauguration in May 2012 for a third presidential term was not so much a national celebration of sovereignty as a highly disciplined military operation,” wrote Bennetts. “And the number one threat to the head of state? The Russian people.”

Here in America the last major protest in Washington, D.C. was organized by the then-new Tea Party movement and was focused to stopping the enactment of Obamacare. It attracted nearly a million or more Americans. There have been few such protests since, but on May 16, “American Spring” is slated for a major protest march against Obama.

The protests in 2011 and 2012 against Putin were ruthlessly put down by government forces. By 2013, half the Russians no longer believed what they were being told by television. Similarly, Obama’s approval ratings are falling fast due to massive unemployment and disappointment.

America is not Russia, but Americans are growing increasingly concerned about the way Obama is governing the nation. They should be.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMN: Rules of Engagement: Operation American Spring – May 16, 2014 in Washington, D.C.

Republicans’ War on the Impoverished

/in , , , /by

I have written about the huge opportunity Black dissatisfaction with Obama presents to the Republican Party. It’s time to speak directly to Black Republicans and GOP congressional leadership about dissatisfaction with the loyal opposition.

Last week marked the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty,”  legislation that Johnson outlined during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964.  This was Johnson’s response to the poverty rate at the time hovering around 20 percent.  Talk of poverty normally conjures up images of Black faces, but the reality is that in raw numbers, there are more Whites in poverty than Blacks.  But, as a percentage of the population, the poverty rate of Blacks exceed that of Whites.

According to the U.S. Census of 2010, the overall poverty rate is 15.1 percent of the population. For non-Hispanic Whites, it is 9.9 percent, 12.1 percent of all Asians, 26.6 percent of all Hispanics persons of any race) and 27.4 percent of all Blacks.

The War on Poverty was a logical program if you believed in big government.  Also, to my conservative Republican friends (Black and White), please understand the historic context behind the Black community’s seemingly embrace of big government.

While many conservatives were aggressively embracing Jim Crow, segregation, and racial discrimination, our only ally was the federal government.  Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are but three examples.

So, it’s not so much that Blacks are in love with big government, but without big government, Blacks would still be in slavery, have separate but unequal schools, would not be able to vote, or be able to eat in the restaurants of our choosing. Those are undeniable facts.

Yet, last week, I saw and heard many Black Republicans on TV, radio, and in newspapers criticizing Johnson’s War on Poverty.  While I was in agreement with the substance of their message, I didn’t hear or see any workable alternatives to address intractable poverty.

I saw Republican congressional leaders giving major policy speeches at  conservative White think tanks; but they never appeared before Black organizations. Even when it comes to optics, Republicans tend to be tone deaf.

Increasing the minimum wage is not the solution to poverty; more preferable is enhancing job skills through education (college or vocational).  When will congressional Republicans take this message to an HBCU with the launch of a major policy initiative? Obama’s record with the HBCUs is abysmal and can be exploited politically.

Another issue is the plight of small business, the economic engine of our country.  They are the job creators, not the Fortune 500 companies.  Yet, small business owners are finding it almost impossible to access credit from the very banks the federal government bailed out only a few years ago.

Congressional Republicans, what is your policy solution? When will congressional Republicans visit a successful business such as World Wide Technology (WWT) in St. Louis to give a major policy speech on small business issues?  WWT is the largest Black-owned business in the U.S., with annual revenues in excess of $ 5 billion and led by David L. Steward,  a major donor in Republican politics.

When will congressional Republicans partner with the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, led by Robert L. Woodson, Sr., to address the values issue within the Black community?  He is doing some things with Congressman Paul Ryan, but our leaders need to do more, especially in terms of private funding.

So, to my Black Republican friends and congressional leaders, always remember that it is easy to be against something.  But what are you for? Blacks are thirsting for answers to the problems facing them.  As a graduate of Oral Roberts University, I am reminded of what Oral would always tell us, “Go into everyman’s world and meet them at the point of their need.”

If you truly believe the Republican message can really turn around the lives of those that have been hurt by liberalism and big government, when will you take your solutions to the marketplace of ideas in those communities?

Just think back to your elementary school days when the teacher asked a question and you knew the answer.  You threw your hand up in the air and could not wait for the teacher to call on you; and when she did and you gave her the right answer. Remember how good you felt inside?

Well, Jeremiah had a similar experience in the Bible in Jeremiah 20:9, “… But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.”

Blacks’ disenchantment with the Democrats and Obama is the match that should ignite a fire within the Republican Party in regards to the Black vote. But there won’t be a spark among those ranks until Republicans present a genuine program for Black America, not an endless list of what they are against.

Christie’s Crisis

/in , , /by

I watched the 107 minute press conference by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Thursday, but I must admit that I almost fell asleep towards the end. What struck me at the time was that I had not seen anything comparable from President Obama regarding the many scandals such as Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting of Tea Party and comparable groups, Benghazi, and the Obamacare debacle.

Gov. Christie didn’t just offer a prepared statement, take a few questions, and leave. He stayed on. He took full responsibility for the closing of lanes to the George Washington Bridge by over-zealous staff, announced the firing of two top aides, and promised a further investigation of what occurred and why. Then he answered a barrage of questions.

The focus on the event is the result of countless predictions that he would face Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The Governor has become a celebrity politician as the result of his personality and dramatic reelection in a state that is heavily Democratic. He gained a lot of attention for facing down the powerful teacher’s union and addressing the state’s fiscal problems.

He also gained attention for his “style” of governance. A former U.S. District Attorney for New Jersey, he had put a lot of politicians in jail and, as Governor, often challenged those who questioned those who challenged him and showed his toughness on the issues. “I am not a bully,” he said in the press conference, but his assertive nature was, for many New Jerseyans, part of their support.

Did his staff and appointees absorb some of that “attitude”? Brigid Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University (NJ), said, “It is not too much of a logical leap to connect the rhetoric that the governor has used with the tone of public servants in his administration, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the disdain that is evident in these documents comes from the top down.”

Those thousands of documents, however, reveal no connection to the Governor.

Born in New Jersey, grown to maturity, and a resident here, my interest in the Governor stems in part from watching him over the many years he has been a public servant. This is the first time he has faced such a crisis and he took full responsibility. That is quite a contrast with Obama who has never taken responsibility for anything and often stated he was unaware of them until he read about it in the newspaper, something that occurred to Christie when a New Jersey daily revealed the content of emails regarding the lane closures subpoenaed by the state legislature.

I voted for Christie twice, am a registered Republican, and am politically conservative. I never voted for Obama. That doesn’t mean I have been happy with his politics that includes an antipathy toward gun ownership, an inclination to believe the environmental nonsense about global warming or some energy-related issues.

What is occurring, however, is a huge effort by the liberal mainstream press to discredit and eliminate him from being a potential Republican presidential candidate to oppose Hillary Clinton. It is the same press that has done its best to ignore the many Obama scandals and those that compose the history of Hillary, the most recent of which was her failure to respond to the Benghazi scandal when she was Obama’s Secretary of State. She signed onto the huge lie that the attack was the result of a video nobody ever saw.

AA - Cristie and ObamaThe same press thought his close relationship with Obama following the devastation of superstorm Sandy on the New Jersey shore was wonderful. He was trying to get the federal government to respond swiftly to the needs of citizens who had lost their homes or had their businesses ruined. That’s what a Governor is supposed to do. Christie also campaigned for Mitt Romney when he was running for President.

Christie’s politics make a lot of conservatives wary. He appointed a Muslim to the judiciary in New Jersey and he did a John Kerry on same-sex marriage, having been against it until he was for it. During his second campaign his campaign coffers were enriched by more donations from Democrats than Republicans! He failed to assist Ken Cuccinelli when he ran for Governor of Virginia. Et cetera.

Until the lane closing scandal, the mainstream press was touting him heavily. Now they see an opportunity to remove him from those who might challenge Hillary in 2016, assuming she will run. Hillary has so many scandals that political pundits might pause in their predictions. What she represents is four more years of the Obama agenda.

At this writing, there is no way of knowing if Gov. Christie will come out of the bridge lanes closing relatively unscathed or whether it will end his position as a Republican front-runner. The fact is that the GOP has a number of politicians who can replace him in 2016 if that occurs. The Democrats never mention anyone other than Hillary, nor is the impact of Obamacare on the November midterms and the outcome in 2016 ever mentioned. Right now the President is desperately trying to focus attention on the utterly bogus “income inequality” nonsense.

For now, Gov. Christie, a gifted politician, has three more years of overseeing 65,000 state employees and his legislative agenda in New Jersey. For now, the mainstream press will have a field day covering him.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMN: Feds Probe Christie over Sandy

Does Ariel Sharon’s Death Mean Messiah Is Soon To Come?

/in , /by

Preeminent Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri said so before his own death and Sharon’s stroke.

WorldNetDaily.com with numerous awards for journalism, offers insight into a Kabbalistic Rabbi Kaduri who had a large and loyal following in Israel. In the final days before his death, he shared with his followers that “he met the Messiah who would come after the death of Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.”

Two months later, Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke and was in a coma until his recent death. Kaduri died the month after Sharon had the stroke in 2006. Before his death, he left a letter that he said was to be unsealed one year after his own death.

When it was made public, the name of the Messiah, whom Kaduri met after years of praying and fasting, was ‘Yehoshua’ – a Hebrew name, a variant of Yeshua that was translated as Jesus from Greek.

So how might this all play out? Not like most people would expect! When asked about the end of the world, Yeshua (Christ) admonished us to understand Daniel’s book that was “sealed until the time of the end,” Daniel 12:4.

Gabriel told Daniel that his “vision is at the time of the end,” Daniel 8:17. It was about a ram that got its horns broken, said to be the kings of Media and Persia. Today those areas are Iraq and Iran.

This supports a double application for Daniel with us living in the time of the end, and it suggests an impending war against Iran.

Daniel 8 is also linked to Daniel 9 with the time period of 70 weeks determined, cut off (chawthak in Hebrew) from the 2300 days in Daniel 8. But Daniel 8’s 2300 days has no starting point until we see in Daniel 9:25 from a decree to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah would be 69 weeks.

The decree cited was that of a Persian king, Artaxerxes. His decree was in 457 BC, but 69 weeks later, no Messiah showed up. Therefore, the 69 weeks were weeks of years which fit Jewish reckoning of a day for a year in Numbers 14:28 and Ezekiel 4:6.

69 weeks of years (483 years later), Yeshua was anointed by the Holy Spirit at his baptism, circa 27 AD.  His death in the midst of the 70th week (3 1/2 years later) fit the prophecy of Daniel 9:26. He was “cut off” by Jewish leaders’ rejection.

Jewish rejection of the Messiah was also foretold in Isaiah 53:4-7–“He was wounded for our transgressions…as a lamb to the slaughter,” fulfilling the Passover imagery at Passover circa 31 AD.

But if Daniel 8 has a second application in “the time of the end,” and Daniel 8 is linked to Daniel 9 as suggested above, Messiah (anointing) could be an anointing of God’s people as in Ezekiel 36:24-28, to include Christians who accept the Torah (statutes and judgments in the text) and Jews who accept the Messiah, seen also as the two sticks that become one in the next chapter, Ezekiel  37:16,17.

The starting point for this is shown in Daniel 9:25—“From the decree to restore and build Jerusalem to Messiah (anointing, Ezekiel 36:24-28) is 69 weeks.”  What is meant by a decree to restore Jerusalem?

This implies that Jerusalem will be destroyed, as Zechariah 14:1,2 suggests for end times: “All [Arab or United?] nations will be gathered against Jerusalem to battle. The houses rifled, the women ravished… Then the Lord will go forth to fight against those nations.”

Could it happen as “Arab Spring” with the “blood moon” that comes this Passover, April 2014?

Having Jewish friends and grandmother Giebel (el often Jewish like Ezekiel, Daniel) who was a Sabbath-keeper, I’m hopeful that the Jews can consider Rabbi Kaduri’s message of the Messiah as Yeshua, because heeding Yeshua’s warning in Matthew 24:15 could have spared millions of Jews in 70 AD when he warned of followers to flee when they saw military. And why not a loving Messiah giving a credence to his identity (and warning) to his people through an esteemed rabbi? Arab Spring?

For reasons beyond the scope of this article, that timing may be correct. For more information on Rabbi Kaduri click here.

The Three Things You Don’t Need Robert Gates’s Book to Know

/in , , /by

“Excerpts from a new tell-all book made quite a splash in Washington yesterday. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates apparently blasts President Obama on foreign policy and the U.S. military in his upcoming book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” writes Amy Payne from the Heritage Foundation.

But as Heritage’s James Jay Carafano said, “You don’t need a book from the former Secretary of Defense to know that many of the decisions Obama made during Gates’s watch were a disaster.”

Gates started as Secretary of Defense during President George W. Bush’s second term, and Obama asked him to stay on during his first term.

The revelations from Gates’s book come as no surprise to Heritage experts, who have been warning that Obama has made decisions based on his personal preference for domestic policy—at the expense of America’s standing in the world and our men and women in uniform.

Here are three things you don’t need to read the book to know.

1. President Obama is reaping what he has sown on foreign policy.

“The President has never had a coherent approach to foreign policy,” explained Heritage’s Ted Bromund. “Instead, he entered office with a string of liberal platitudes about the world and a deep desire to focus on domestic policy.”

Obama’s style? “Instead of leading from the front, the President emphasized multilateral institutions (such as the U.N.), international law, and engagement with hostile regimes,” Bromund said. The essence of the Obama Doctrine—the President’s foreign policy approach—is that Obama has “placed hope above reality” when dealing with countries like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, said Heritage’s Luke Coffey.

2. Lessons learned in conflict are costly.

Fighting terrorism and state-sponsored enemies is a deadly business. As the focus of 2014 turns to the Administration’s promise to pull out of Afghanistan, the specter of Iraq looms large.

“The withdrawal from Iraq was a colossal failure,” says Carafano, Heritage’s E. W. Richardson Fellow. “Violence is higher today than when Obama took office. The country is near civil war.”

And our enemies haven’t taken a break.

“We are already seeing the Taliban and al-Qaeda staging a comeback following Obama’s mishandling of the surge in Afghanistan and the drawdown of forces planned in 2014,” Carafano said. He wrote yesterday that “what we need from the White House is leadership that reestablishes America’s ability to influence outcomes in the region for the good—rather than trumpeting easy ‘fixes’ while doing as little as possible.”

3. The state of the U.S. military matters.

During Gates’s tenure, the military began to shed war-fighting capabilities, canceled missile defense programs, and compromised on readiness. Again, this reflected the place of defense among the President’s priorities. But this directly impacts America’s ability to respond to a crisis.

“Throughout his Administration, the President has sought—successfully—to cut the defense budget. But, inevitably, there came a time when he thought it was right to use force,” Bromund said. “His successors will, at some point, be in exactly the same position, perhaps when action really is in America’s vital national interest—but by that point, his cuts will have made successful action difficult or even impossible.”

America has to be ready to defend itself—and reducing the military’s capabilities carries the risk that the country may not be ready when action is needed.

Decisions have consequences. Heritage’s Carafano and Distinguished Fellow Kim Holmes predicted years ago that Obama’s approach to foreign policy would prove to be bad for America and the world.

“Ultimately, the Obama Doctrine will force friendly nations to look elsewhere, not to Washington, for arrangements that bring them greater security. And that will make this a far more dangerous world indeed.”