Americans have been duped to believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a sweet little religious man who spends all his waking hours in monastic prayer.
WRONG! This “Supreme” leader is an unstable, psychopathic, Jew-hating, SUPER wealthy theocratic dictator!
He is the LAST man who should be given Atomic weapons by the Obama Administration.
Check out our latest 30 Second Video about the now, most dangerous man on earth.
Just trust her. Truly, just trust her: to know precisely how much energy we ought to use, where it should come from, how it should be generated, how we should get from here to there, and the effects that her plan will have on the global — the global! — climate, not just in the near term but decades or a century from now.
If you do this, you will have embraced “science,” “reality,” “truth,” and “innovation,” and, also, “our children.” If you don’t go along, you not only reject all those good things; you are probably also a “denier,” the catch-all epithet for anyone doubtful that the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and her czars know better than the rest of humanity how to manage their energy needs into the future.
Hillary’s campaign seems designed to prove that F.A. Hayek was a prophet.
That brilliant economist spent 50 years explaining, in book after book, that the greatest danger humanity faced, now and always, was a presumption on the part of intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats that they know better than the emergent and evolving wisdom of social forces.
This presumption might seem like science but it is really pretense. Civilization arises from, is protected by, and advances through the dispersed knowledge of billions of individual decision makers and the institutions that arise from them.
Hayek called the issue he was investigating the knowledge problem. Society needs to know how to use scarce resources, how to navigate a world of uncertainty, how to form rules that turn struggle into peace. It is a problem solved through freedom alone. No ruler, no scientist, no intellectual can substitute for the evolving process of decentralized decision making and trial and error.
The message is bad news for people like Hillary, who is supposed to embody the ideology called “liberalism” in America. Yet it is anything but liberal. It seems to know only one way forward: more top-down control. That’s a tough sell in times when everything good so obviously comes from anything but government, and, meanwhile, governments are responsible for every failing sector from health to education to foreign wars.
But here’s the problem. People like Hillary Clinton are stuck in an ideological vortex with no way out. Government planning is their thing, and they refuse to recognize its failures. So they press on and on, even to the point of preposterous implausibility, such as the claim that government can know everything that is necessary to know in order to plan the entire energy sector with the aim of managing the climate of the world.
Economist Donald Boudreaux puts matters this way: “why should someone who cannot ensure the proper use of a single private server be trusted with the colossal power necessary to design and to oversee the remaking of a trillion-plus dollar sector of the U.S. economy (a sector, by the way, in which this person has zero experience)?”
With this presumption comes the inevitable hypocrisy.
After unveiling her plan to ration energy use and plaster the country with solar panels, Ms. Clinton boarded a private jet that uses more fuel in one flight hour than I use in a year. “The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour,” wrote the muckraker who did a public service in exposing this. “The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.”
Notice how rarely it is mentioned that the US military, with hundreds of bases in over a hundred countries, is the worst single polluter on the planet. If we really believe in human-caused climate change, this might be a good place to start cutting back. But no, there’s not a word about this in any of Hillary’s plans. Government gets to do what it must do. The rest of us are supposed to pay the price, bicycling to work and powering our homes with sunshine and windmills.
When I first read about her energy plan, my response was: Why would any self-interested politician make the need for reduced living standards a centerpiece of her campaign? After all, her speech was made in a setting piled high with bicycles (oddly reminiscent of Mao’s China), while demanding a precise path forward for energy and everything that uses it (oddly reminiscent of Lenin’s first speech after he took control of Russian economic life).
As it turns out, people aren’t that interested. Sure, most people tell pollsters that they favor renewable energy to stop climate change. You have to say that or else risk being denounced as a denier. On the other hand, it seems like very few people really care enough to forgo the benefits of modern life, which is probably what will save civilization itself from plans like hers. Note that days after release, her pompous video only had only 54K views — pathetic given her celebrity and how much money her campaign is spending, but encouraging that nobody seems to put much stock in her plan for our future.
It’s extraordinary how quickly one branch of the political class has leapt from the delicate and ever-changing science of climate monitoring to the absolute certainty that extreme and extremely specific application of government force is the way to deal with it. Writes Max Borders: “The sacralization of climate is being used as a great loophole in the rule of law, an apology for bad science (and even worse economics), and an excuse to do anything and everything to have and keep power.”
The last point is critical. Everything done in the name of public policy in our lifetimes has become a handful of dust, yielding little more than unpayable debts and unworkable programs, and leaving in its wake an apparatus of compulsion and control that robs society of its inherent genius.
What to do? Give up? That’s not an option for these people. Instead, they find a new frontier for their schemes, a new rationale to sustain a failed model of social and economic organization.
I can think of no better words of rebuke but the closing of Hayek’s Nobel speech in 1974:
If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.
He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.
There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.
The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.
Yes, it surely ought to.
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.
Editors Note: This is a guest column written by reader Julia.
For all of you doing research on Refugee Resettlement where you live, you must now also find out what is happening on the low income housing front as well. You may find your local elected officials and local developers are too cozy with the federal bucks that come their way to advance the Obama Administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing initiative. And, of course the big question is, would some squishy Republican president ever have the spine to turn this around once in office? Looks like it may be up to you, in ‘pockets of resistance,’ to raise awareness and fight this locally for now in addition to hitting your US Senators and Members of Congress when they are home for the August recess.
Here is Julia (emphasis is mine):
Stanley Kurtz has done extensive writing on what is now titled the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation. Kurtz believes that Obama blames suburban tax-flight for urban decay and that AFFH is a way to annex the suburbs back into the cities.
Message to Republicans…..
But, let’s look at AFFH in context with other actions of the Obama administration and the Democrat party. These actions include in part, the Department of Justice’s actions to prevent the implementation of voter i.d. laws; challenges to state attempts to require proof of citizenship in voter registrations; lawsuits over state legislative redistricting; the efforts to increase immigration; and the push to get immigrants to become citizens.
Groups such as The New Americans Campaign, Cities for Citizenship, etc. are working in conjunction with the Obama administration to accomplish the administration’s push to get immigrants to become citizens. It is generally believed that these efforts along with the administration’s policy to increase immigration are being undertaken to further the Democrat party’s goal to create a majority Democrat voting populace.
AFFH will create a database that categorizes each zip code by race and establish rules that essentially have the goal of ensuring that no neighborhood will have a population of more than 50% whites.
The end result will be that no voting district in the United States will be majority white.
Since the Democrat party counts on minorities categorically voting Democrat, it can be concluded that the 50% threshold was set to ensure a majority Democrat voting populace in every legislative district in the United States.
AFFH will thus serve the same purpose as Obama’s immigration policies – pertaining to both legal and illegal immigration – to create a one party system by changing the population. Obama’s immigration policies will change the population in the aggregate by adding more minorities whom they call “new Americans” and AFFH will distribute them to each and every voting district.
Robert Romano, senior editor at Americans for Limited Government, presciently said in a 2014 WND article by Leo Hohmann, “[AFFH] allows (the feds) to gerrymander for political purposes. It’s a way to get around whatever Republican gerrymandering had gone on after the 2010 election cycle. If they are doing this for low-income or disadvantaged purposes, well, what does that tell you? Low income tends to vote for Democrats.”
It seems clear that the Obama administration, through AFFH, intends to take away any benefit that the GOP may have in current GOP dominated voting districts. If the Democrats are proved correct that minorities categorically vote Democrat, AFFH will ensure a never ending Democrat control of the U.S. political system.
Paul Sperry wrote in the New York Post that AFFH and its database infrastructure are intended to outlast the Obama administration. Cecilia Muñoz, co-chair of Obama’s White House Task Force on New Americans and Obama’s domestic policy adviser has said that she is tasked with “making sure Obama’s historic immigration policies get ‘institutionalized.”
If the GOP does not take action to counter these programs, the GOP may likely cease to exist and the country’s republic form of government may forever be a mere facade to Obama’s hope and change transformation.
See also, Stanley Kurtz’s recent article, “ How You Can Stop Obamazone.”
And, John Perazzo’s article “Black Skin Privilege: To Be The Wedge For a The Totalitarian Future – Obama’s race-based plan to turn Congress Democratic, forever.“
This post is filed in our category entitled, Comments worth noting/guest posts. We have also categorized it in our new ‘Pockets of Resistance’category as guidance for resistance fighters throughout the country. Maybe assign a couple of members of your group to find out what is going on to bring low income housing to your town. Housing availability, of course, is the limiting factor determining how many refugees and other migrants will colonize your town.
AKRON, Ohio /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “Congress has to read the bills, if they want to claim they represent us,” declares Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. “The ‘Read the Bills Act’ restores fiduciary duty in Congress.”
Under the Read the Bills Act (RTBA, S. 1571), members of Congress would have to sign an affidavit indicating they’ve read the bill or heard it read to them before voting “For” the bill. Courts would be prohibited from enforcing laws that didn’t meet this requirement.
“You can’t claim ignorance of the law as a defense in court,” Babka continues. “So there shouldn’t be any excuse for politicians to pass huge bills they haven’t read.”
Senator Paul has been featuring this issue as one of his priorities while on the campaign trail. The Senator himself observes that, “Too often in Congress, legislation is shoved through without hearings, amendments or debate. Elected officials are rarely given an adequate amount of time to read the bills in full, and unlike Rep.Nancy Pelosi, I believe we must read the bills before passing them into law.”
RTBA also requires the bill to be posted online for seven days before the final vote. This, Senator Paul notes, will give Americans “sufficient time to read and give input to Members of Congress as they consider legislation.”
This simple, “transpartisan” act is hard for members of Congress to accept. But Americans love it. Grover Norquist, in his book, Leave Us Alone, called the bill an essential reform for transparency, applauding the fact that it prohibits sneaking-in last minute deals.
Babka commends Senator Paul. “He’s not only re-introduced this bill, which would be a law that would protect individuals, but he’s also put forth a Read the Bill rule, which would require the Senate to have a waiting period of bill publication for the vote. Truly, he’s committed to this issue.”
To help attract more co-sponsors to Senator Paul’s bill, DownsizeDC.org offers a free tool for constituents to deliver letters directly to their Representative and two Senators. Here’s the link: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
RELATED ARTICLES:
50 Years of Dysfunction: The Failures of Medicare and Medicaid
How Rich Corporate Elites Are Lobbying Lawmakers to Crush Marriage Advocates
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey’s comments today before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the American people do not face a choice between a flawed Iran deal and war with Iran, as President Obama and his administration have insisted:
“President Obama’s entire premise for his deeply flawed deal with Iran was destroyed today by a simple question and an honest response.
“President Obama has been trying to scare the American people into believing that we must accept his terribly negotiated deal with Iran, or resign ourselves to war with Iran. Under questioning by Senator Joni Ernst today, General Martin Dempsey unequivocally dismissed that argument, and with it President Obama’s entire justification for this terrible compromise of America’s national security.
“With each passing day, President Obama’s case for this agreement with Iran crumbles bit by bit. In just the past week alone, Secretary John Kerry has failed miserably in trying to defend this deal before members of Congress and the American people as each day brings new disturbing details about the scope and breadth of this administration’s concessions to the mullahs in Iran. We’ve learned about secret side deals the Iranians entered into with International Atomic Energy Agency. We’ve learned that Iran will be allowed to submit its own samples to prove it’s not cheating, which defies all common sense. We’ve learned that the president allowed Iran to continue developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching our shores, and administration officials have even indicated that they are not certain whether President Obama would abide by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and maintain sanctions on Iran if Congress rejects this deal.”
Earlier today, Rubio participated in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the nuclear deal with Iran where he challenged the president’s proposition that the United States would be isolated if Congress rejects this flawed deal.
“Why I find this all absurd is this idea that somehow the U.S. must now do this, because the world would be really upset at us,” Rubio said during the hearing. “The last time I checked this country saved the rest of the world on at least two occasions in the last century. I don’t remember the last time the world saved America.”
A video of Rubio’s remarks and his exchanges with witnesses is available here:
NEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Hearst Television Inc., one of the country’s largest television station groups and a Peabody- and Cronkite-award-winning leader in television and digital political journalism, today announced it will televise the August 3 Voters First Forum, featuring GOP presidential candidates, in the 27 local Hearst markets across the United States. The forum is produced and hosted by New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper and C-SPAN.
The two-hour forum will start at 7pm ET at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, on Monday, August 3. Currently 14 candidates are scheduled to appear: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson,Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul,Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker. Jack Heath of Manchester’s WGIR-AM Radio, host of the station’s New Hampshire Today program, will moderate the forum. Each candidate will have approximately five minutes to answer questions individually on the stage.
Hearst Television, collectively reaching nearly 21 million households, will provide the C-SPAN telecast to its stations for local broadcast. The forum will air on either the station’s primary or digital channel and will be streamed from its website. This enables broadcast-only viewers in these markets the opportunity of seeing the forum as part of Hearst Television’s ongoing Commitment 2016 initiative, which will include multiple debates at the national, regional and local levels, as well as other special political coverage leading up to November 2016.
Hearst Television reaches millions of viewers throughout key election states. Three Hearst stations serve viewers in the first three caucus and primary states: WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, and WYFF-TV in Greenville, South Carolina.
“This is an opportunity for us to provide our viewers a chance to see and hear from the large majority of the GOP candidates in advance of the first national debate,” said Emerson Coleman, vice president, programming, at Hearst Television. “There are more than two million households in the cities we serve that may not otherwise have the ability to view this important event on television.”
C-SPAN will show the forum, in its entirety, on C-SPAN TV, C-SPAN Radio, and via livestream on C-SPAN.org. In addition to C-SPAN, the Union Leader, WGIR-AM and St. Anselm, forum co-sponsors include: I-Heart Networks; the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette; KCRG –TV, Cedar Rapids; the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier; and WLXT-TV, Columbia, S.C.
About Hearst Television
Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 31 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 32 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 19% of U.S. television households. The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs. The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences. Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry’s premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service. Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation. The Company’s Web address is www.hearsttelevision.com.
A third, and more graphic undercover video released by the Center for Medical Progress shows technicians tweezing through aborted fetal tissue for baby parts to sell.
I would like to see how Planned Parenthood and the likes of Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) and Nancy Pelosi (D) try to spin this video off as just being heavily “edited.”
Here is a portion of the Center for Medical Progress press release about their newly released video, followed by graphic still captures of the video.
Episode 1 introduces Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. “I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says O’Donnell, who fainted in shock on her first day of work in a Planned Parenthood clinic when suddenly asked to dissect a freshly-aborted fetus during her on-the-job training.
For 6 months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. O’Donnell describes the financial benefit Planned Parenthood received from StemExpress: “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”
Episode 1 also shows undercover video featuring the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde concludes that payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”- Center for Medical Progress
Here are the images. Again, these are graphic and appalling.
Has the case for defunding Planned Parenthood been made?
I thinks so.
You can watch the entire video here:
RELATED ARTICLES:
Jeb Bush was director of philanthropy that gave tens of millions to Planned Parenthood
March of Dimes Admits 5 Local Chapters Donated to Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood Faces Allegations From Former Clinic Worker in Graphic New Video
Study Finds an Increased Rate of Teenage Girls Use Morning-After Pill
How Planned Parenthood Gets Its Money, Explained in 90 Seconds
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Shark Tank. Please share this story on Facebook below. Tweet it! Google+ it! LinkedIn it!
A CNN/ORC poll released today sent an important message to President Obama and Secretary Kerry: the majority of the respondents said Congress should reject the Iran nuclear pact, The poll found:
On the President’s biggest accomplishment since then — the nuclear agreement reached between the U.S., its allies and Iran — most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.
Some opposition to the deal may be fueled by skepticism. A CNN/ORC poll in late June, conducted as the deal was being worked out, found that nearly two-thirds of adults thought it was unlikely the negotiations would result in an agreement that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The new poll finds a sharp partisan gap on whether Congress should approve the deal, with 66% of Republicans and 55% of independents saying Congress ought to reject it and 61% of Democrats saying it should be approved. Younger adults, who tend to lean more Democratic, are more apt to favor the deal: 53% of those age 18-34 say approve it, while 56% of those age 35 or older say reject it. There is also an education divide on the deal, with 53% of college graduates saying the deal should be approved, while just 37% of those with a high school degree or less formal education saying they think it should be approved.
Looks like Kerry and Obama have failed to make the case for Congress to approve the Iran nuke deal. This CNN/ORC poll represents a big swing from April when the framework for the JCPOA was announced. If this trend continues with the INARA hearings resuming after the August recess those 13 Democrat swing votes in Senate and 30+ in the House will be in a quandary. That would make it difficult for New York Senator Chuck Schumer ,the incoming Senate minority leader, to deliver votes to support Obama on this issue. This poll result throws in doubt the LA Jewish Journal poll of American Jews released last Thursday.
This should bolster Israeli PM Netanyahu, the vast majority of Israelis and the GOP majorities in Congress that the JCPOC is a “very bad deal”. The message is if you can’t verify then you can’t trust.
RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Knows Iran will Use its Nukes on Israel
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of President Obama in Ethiopia. Source: ABC.com.
Secretary of State Kerry speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan on Friday, July 24th, ‘blamed Israel” and by inference “American Jews” if Congress rejects the Iran nuclear pact. He said:
So, folks, I got to tell you, if this continues, what I’m witnessing, where there’s this fear that is governing the—and emotion that is governing people’s thinking about this program, I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed.
Watch Kerry’s presentation on the Iran nuclear pact at the CFR on this YouTube video:
His remarks indicated that he didn’t read the L.A. Jewish Journal Survey on the Iran nuclear pact issued on July 23rd, a day prior to his CFR presentation. In our Iconoclast post this past weekend about the Journal survey suggesting that half of American Jews polled 49% approved the Iran nuclear deal versus less than 28% of all Americans. If you add in his performance Thursday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warning Israel not to sabotage Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program under the JCPOA then he has some reality problems. Kerry appears to have supped from the poisoned chalice of the Internationalist Jewish conspiracy the notorious Anti-Semitic Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We hope that is not the case.
Rafael Medoff posted a response on The Weekly Standard blog yesterday, “Kerry Warns: Jews Will Be Blamed If Congress Sinks Iran Deal.”
Secretary Kerry made his remark in an address to the Council of Foreign Relations on July 24. He appeared to be not merely predicting that Israel might be blamed, but hinting that the Obama administration itself might do the blaming. And since the administration has repeatedly claimed that rejection of the agreement will lead to war with Iran, the implication of Kerry’s statement seems to be that Israel, the Jewish state, would be to blame for such a war. The possibility that the blame would be extended to Israel’s supporters in the United States has already been raised by President Obama himself, in his warning that unnamed “lobbyists” and “money” were trying to block the Iran deal.
The possibility that the blame would be extended to Israel’s supporters in the United States has already been raised by President Obama himself, in his warning that unnamed “lobbyists” and “money” were trying to block the Iran deal.
One unfortunate comparison brought to mind by this kind of talk is an episode involving the pundit and unsuccessful presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. In the months preceding the first Persian Gulf war, Buchanan charged that “there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East—the Israeli defense ministry and its ‘amen corner’ in the United States.”
In another broadside, Buchanan named four prominent supporters of war with Jewish-sounding names as being part of “the Israeli Defense Ministry’s amen corner in the United States.” He accused them of planning to send “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown” to the Persian Gulf to do the fighting.
New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal described that remark as a “blood libel,” and Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman called Buchanan’s statements “an appeal to anti-Semitic bigotry.”
RELATED ARTICLE: Sharansky Calls on U.S. Jews to Stand Up to White House Over Iran Nuclear Deal
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Secretary of State John Kerry speaking on the Iran nuclear deal at the Council on Foreign Relations on July 24, 2015. Photo by AP.
Tweet of Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran.
President Obama is visiting Kenya his ancestral home. It was here that his father grew up, was sent to college in Hawaii where he met Obama’s mother, became a minor government official, a man who was an alcoholic and who died in an alcohol related car accident.
President Obama was not there to visit his estranged family, he was there to push his LGBTQ agenda. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta was not-on-board with his nations most well known “citizen”, as Obama joked.
The Conservative Post reports:
During a conference with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Obama spoke about supporting gay marriage “right.”
Kenya’s penal code states that sexual activity between same-sex partners is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.
Here are Obama’s remarks…
From IJReview via CNN:
“When you start treating people differently not because of any harm they are doing to anybody, but because they are different, that’s the path whereby freedoms begin to erode, and bad things happen. And when a government gets in a habit of people treating people differently, those habits can spread.”
“As an African-American, I am painfully aware of what happens when people are treated differently under the law.”
Kenyatta’s response…
“The fact of the matter is Kenya and the U.S. share so many values: common love for democracy, entrepreneurship, value for families — these are some things that we share. But there are some things that we must admit we don’t share. Our culture, our societies don’t accept.”
“It is very difficult for us to be able to impose on people that which they themselves do not accept.. This is why I repeatedly say for Kenyans today the [gay rights issue] is generally a non-issue. We want to focus on other areas.”
Wow. Take this Obama!
President Obama making this his main issue has also drawn the ire of the Iran’s Supreme leader, who posted a picture of Obama committing suicide on Twitter. Iran doesn’t have a gay problem, they hang them.
Obama has commit political suicide both in Kenya and in Iran with his nuclear deal.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Barack Obama greeted by Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta, right, on his arrival at State House in Nairobi, Kenya, July 25, 2015. Ben Curtis/AP Photo.
“Schumer is not a Shomer” were the words emblazoned on dozens of placards that were held by some of the 12,000 people who flooded Times Square last week to protest the “Death to America/Death to Israel” deal that Barack Obama and his cronies made on July 14th with––to this day, to this hour––a palpably belligerent, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Iran.
The placards––and the demonstration in front of the senator’s New York City office the next day––were to implore him to stop evading the subject with mealy-mouthed language (“I’ll go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”) and to reject the deal outright, vote against it in Congress, and convince at least 13 of his colleagues on the left to vote against the horrific deal. Congress is now reviewing the deal and will vote on September 17, in less than 50 days.
In short, to block the Iran deal, 67 Senators need to vote against it; 59 Senators are already committed to doing just that; and 14 are undecided, Sen. Schumer among them.
New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said that, “We have listened to Senator Schumer for years and how he takes every opportunity to explain the origin of his name Schumer and what it means for him to be a proud “Shomer”––which in Hebrew means protector. Now is the time to live up to your claim and put your words into action.”
Last week, The New York Post asked Sen. Schumer 10 key questions about Iran––including if he had any input into the agreement, what he thought of its 24-day advance notice for inspections, and whether the deal raises new concerns for Israel––none of which he has answered to this day!
To Schumer’s lame statement that he is “studying the issue,” the Post responded: “Studying the issue? Please. There’s nothing to study: Just nix the deal, Chuck….Schumer doesn’t need to `study’ the deal. He needs to study his conscience.”
Personally, I can hardly remember a Sunday-night news broadcast since Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 when he wasn’t in front of the camera proposing actions to keep his uber-left constituents happy.
He was Chuckie-on-the-spot when it appeared that Adidas might outsource production overseas, in a plant where Schumer said 100 workers were at risk. But for the past three years, as the ayatollahs have menacingly threatened to annihilate Israel, deadly silence from Schumer. One-hundred potential injuries more important than over-six-million deaths!
He was an early and enthusiastic backer of the national disaster known as Obamacare, and is a reliable opponent of guns, an advocate of open borders, and a full-throated supporter of abortion.
When the Planned Parenthood medical ghouls came out last week to reveal their sale of infant body parts (and the exquisite care taken to “crush” the fetus in strategic places, the better to preserve those parts), deadly silence from Schumer. I guess the 1.2-million fetuses destroyed each year in the U.S. are, in Schumer’s mind, equal to over-six-million expendable Israelis, not even worthy of mention.
But I digress. This article is not to discuss the, ahem, value systems of leftists.
In June 2008––five months before Barack Obama began to occupy the White House––Senator Schumer wrote an op-ed in The Wall St. Journal, stating that cooperative economic sanctions from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China could topple Iran’s theocratic government.
Clearly, the passage of time and his current position have changed his tune. Today, Schumer is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin. But Schumer has his eyes on a bigger prize, to replace Harry Reid in 2017.
So there you have it. Schumer’s dilemma is clear––to be a loyal lackey to Barack Obama, the better not to lose his potential position of power, or to be the New York Jewish Senator he was in the past, a vocal and impassioned supporter of Israel.
For a full three years, Senator Schumer has known about every facet of the deal being made by the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) P(for permanent members)5+1 group (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France, plus Germany).
Silence, deafening silence, thundering silence, craven silence, immoral silence––week after week after month after month after year after year after year! Such is the picture of the abject lust for power, so overpowering that it eclipses even a vestige of the character and moral fiber that once existed.
Now is the time of reckoning, writes Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary magazine online. “For once, Schumer must choose. It is one thing for those whose support for Israel has always been secondary to their left-wing ideology or pro-Obama partisanship (such as the J Street lobby or the National Jewish Democratic Council) to endorse this brazen act of appeasement. For Schumer, a man who has staked his career on being the shomer (guardian) of Israel’s security in Congress, it would be a stunning betrayal that he would never live down.”
Tobin then poses an ominous warning: “Even if [Schumer] chooses to vote in favor of a resolution that seeks to nullify the pact, he may also work behind the scenes to ensure that at least 34 Democrats back the president so as to ensure that an Obama veto won’t be overridden.”
Is there any doubt that Schumer––silent for three long years on this doomsday deal–is more than capable of this kind of treachery?
Rabbi Aryeh Spero, known as “America’s Rabbi,” is the author of Push Back and Why Israel Matters to You” and serves as the president of Caucus for America. Like Tobin, he questions Schumer’s seeming paralysis.
The Iran deal, he says, “is Plan A for the ultimate annihilation of Israel, annihilation through active offense and by making Israel’s defense impossible. To Iran, Mr. Obama has made the most earth-shattering compromises in the annals of history. Even Chamberlain did not provide Hitlerwith a $150 billion to arm–up.
“This whole deal would go nowhere, be dead on arrival, if the most powerful Democrat right now in the Senate would announce it as DOA,” Rabbi Spero continues. “That man is Sen. Chuck Schumer. Where is he? No one knows what he will do. Why should we be guessing? He should be out there, at this moment, saying No to this accord. Why should the Israelis have to live another moment in fear and anxiety? Where is his compassion? Schumer should stifle the accord now!”
My friend Howard Bockner from Canada echoes the rabbi’s sentiments. “The US and Europe are now in bed with Iran. Israel––like the Jews in pre-war Europe––is expendable. And if Israel is made expendable you can be sure that Jews in the Diaspora will be next. That has been Obama’s Plan A all along––installing the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt to cancel the Israel-Egypt Treaty, which failed. So he doubled down on Plan B––knocking out Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. He is also guaranteeing U.S. help to Iran against any sabotage of its nuclear facilities, i.e., putting Israel into a straight jacket.
“However, this has not all played out,” Bockner adds. “Saudi Arabia and Egypt, now two allies of Israel, will shortly get the bomb courtesy of the Russians (who don’t care who they sell to). Turkey, Algeria, and others will also be lining up for nukes, and the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of non-state players will increase. Therefore, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is now much closer.”
Plan A, indeed. There is no measuring the lengths and depths Obama will go to when it comes to defending his indefensible deal. According to Lee Smith at Tablet magazine, “Obama is using a dog-whistle. He’s hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits—like dual loyalties, moneyed interests, Jewish lobby—to scare off Democrats tempted to vote against the [deal] because they think it’s a bad deal. If they do come out against the agreement—if they line up, for instance, with the new organization AIPAC formed, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran—to warn the public “about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal,” then he’s going to tar them as dual loyalists who are willing to send Americans out to make war on behalf of Jewish causes.
According to writer Michael Ledeen, it is the mullahs who did not sign the deal in Vienna. “They don’t want to make a deal with the Great American Satan, even though they do want the American concessions, above all the huge sums of money we’ve promised them. Now comes Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei…talking as if the agreement itself is in question.”
Imagine that…Khamenei rejects the deal, but Schumer has to “go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”!
You’d think that just as a practical matter, Schumer’s choice would be easy. As Ari Lieberman writes in Front Page magazine, “Schumer will be around long after Obama is gone and will have to deal with the mess that will inevitably occur when Iran cheats—and let’s be clear, Iran will cheat. From building secretive underground centrifuge facilities at Fordow to illicit procurement activities in Germany, the Islamic Republic’s history is replete with a record of cheating and fabrication.”
Military historian Victor Davis Hanson warns of the perils of appeasement, be they to countries, an Iran-obsessed resident of the White House and his trusty lapdogs, or a squishy senator.
“While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the U.S. later on.
“In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.”
A lawsuit by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch seeks to block Barack Obama’s perfidious treaty with Iran from being unconstitutionally ratified. The lawsuit names U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Congressman Patrick Murphy, who all voted for the bill, and Obama who signed it into law. These representatives acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is posted at www.FreedomWatchUSA.org. The U.S. Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it. A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution to make any other form of international agreement. The agreement, Klayman says, will existentially endanger not only Israel but Europe and the United States.
In addition to the Times Square rally and protest in front of Sen. Schumer’s office, a groundswell of concerned citizens is flooding the White House, urging their elected representatives to vote AGAINST the Iran Nuclear Accord.
Here is the Capitol Hill Switchboard number is: 1-202-224-3121
Here is how to reach Senator Schumer’s office: 1-202-224-6542
Here’s how to reach Congressman Steve Israel: 1-201-225-3335
Suggestion: add the above two numbers to your smartphone and make it a point to call them every day until the vote. Takes two minutes!
Join the following organizations, which have been at the forefront of defending Israel and holding Schumer’s feet to the fire:
I didn’t mention Senator Kirsten Gillibrand because, as the NY Post says, she is simply Schumer’s “hapless little poodle.”
Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, a finance expert in NY City who organized and emceed the Times Square rally, said that he recently saw a picture of the gone-missing Gillibrand on the a milk carton. He exhorted the crowd to put pressure on Schumer to nix the Iran deal. “Chuck, this is your moment! This is your time to make the decision…or we will throw you the hell out of office!”
I also didn’t mention Hillary Clinton, who could not find it within her the other day to counter an anti-Semitic question with a defense of Israel. Except for her first run for the Senate in 2009, when she pandered shamelessly for Jewish votes, she has never been a friend of Jews or Israel, the latest proof being that she endorsed the genocidal Iran deal.
She is like Obama, who has been known to say “I’ve got Israel’s back.” How true. Both of them have put a big fat target on Israel’s back, this one earmarked for nuclear war heads!
RELATED ARTICLE: Iran can buy a lot of terror with $100 billion – The Boston Globe
On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split decision, declared that the institution of marriage is not limited to individuals of opposite genders… one man and one woman. Five of the nine justices found a way to conclude that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage between same-sex couples. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.” His words were more appropriate to a lonely hearts club newsletter than to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution has nothing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage. He wrote, “If you are among the many Americans… of whatever sexual orientation… who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
It didn’t take long for the states to make their feelings known. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton referred to the decision as, “A judge-based edict that is not based in the law.” Paxton cited the 1973 abortion decision, Roe V. Wade, as another example of how the U.S. Constitution “can be molded to mean anything by unelected judges.” He went on to say, “But no court, no law, no rule, and no words will change the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child. And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.”
And now that the Supreme Court has placed their stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, we find that liberals and Democrats are reaching beyond that decision to find ways of making us “swallow” other items on the gay lobby’s agenda. For example, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA24) has introduced the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015, requiring that the terms “husband” and “wife” be stricken from federal law because she feels they are patently “anti-gay.” She would prefer to see those terms replaced with more “gender-neutral” terms such as “spouse” or “married couple.”
In Portland, Oregon, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners and operators of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery, have been ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industry (OBLI) to pay $135,000 in damages to Rachel Cryer, and her wife-to-be, Laurel Bowman. The dispute arose last year when Cryer and Bowman asked the Kleins to bake a cake for their upcoming same-sex wedding. And when the Kleins declined, saying that to make a wedding cake for the event would represent a violation of their religious beliefs, Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint with the State of Oregon. In their ruling, the OBLI found that “the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Any thoughtful person must conclude that the same-sex marriage decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has brought the nation to a “tipping point.” It has brought us to the point where the alternatives available to We the People… alternatives that were once thought to be only remote possibilities… are now realities, staring us directly in the face. The alternatives are, in order of preference, a) massive civil disobedience, b) widespread 10th Amendment nullification by states and local communities, and finally, c) dissolution of the Union, otherwise known as secession… by far the most draconian of the three alternatives.
What five Supreme Court justices, Barack Obama, liberal Democrats, gays, and lesbians apparently fail to understand is that they have forced the country so far to the radical left that they may have finally reawakened a “sleeping giant,” once known as the “silent majority.”
Already, black pastors across the country have announced that, instead of being forced to marry same-sex couples, they will engage in massive civil disobedience. The vast majority of those pastors are men and women who have always urged their parishioners to support the Democrat Party and its candidates. The Obama administration, under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, have been highly selective in which laws they enforce and which they prefer to ignore. If the Obama administration decides that they will side with the LGBT wing of the Democratic Party, will black pastors across the country sit idly by as their colleagues are arrested and hauled off to jail?
In her new book, ¡Adios America!, Ann Coulter reminds us that Democrats have not been able to win a majority of the white vote in presidential elections since 1948. It is a trend that had been developing for many decades and there is little doubt that it is the unstated purpose behind the existence of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. As Democratic strategist Patrick Reddy is quoted as saying in a 1998 Roper Center report, “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy, has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a decade. It will go down (in history) as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”
In other words, what the Democrats have done methodically over the past 50 years is to import the votes that they were unable to attract among traditional working-class European-Americans. And now that they are importing millions of new voters from Mexico and Central America, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa, apparently under the theory that they will be “eaten last,” one has to seriously wonder how many years we have left as the home of capitalism and the freest nation on Earth.
To be elected president or vice president of the United States requires a total of at least 270 votes in the Electoral College. Through the strategic spending of other people’s money, especially among minorities in the major urban areas of the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Upper Midwest, Democrats have fashioned an electoral map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22 states with a combined total of 257 of the needed 270 electoral votes.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base of 23 states with a combined total of 191 electoral votes. That leaves a total of 6 swing states… Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral votes. In order for a Republican to win in 2016, and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the solid Republican states, plus all six of the swing states. They could afford to lose either Colorado’s 9 electoral votes or Iowa’s 6 electoral votes, but not all 15. To lose both Colorado and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia would leave them with a total of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an electoral majority.
That analysis brings into sharp focus just how close we are to sliding over the “tipping point” into the dustbin of world history.
The Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a time when the American people would elect a totally incompetent and constitutionally ineligible man, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya, to two consecutive terms in the White House, followed immediately by the first female president who also happens to be, if not the most corrupt, one of the most corrupt political figures in U.S. history.
But still, there are positive signs of life in the body politic:
But, in the end, should all else fail, there is still the alternative of secession. The 25 states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming would make one helluva fine country… a country with secure borders, a second-to-none military, the world’s most productive economy, and long term energy independence.
I’m sure we would also allow the states of Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio to join us if only they would agree to behave themselves and to make life inside their borders unbearable for liberals, radical Muslims, illegal aliens, and other undesirables. The bottom line is this: we no longer have a margin for error. If we wish to have a long term future as a constitutional republic we cannot afford to elect another Democrat to the Oval Office in 2016. We are at the tipping point of our nation’s history and one more misstep could easily send us off to political oblivion.
To borrow a phrase from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the national motto for 2016 must be, “Friends don’t allow friends to vote Democratic!”
RELATED ARTICLE: Transgender Only Modeling Agency Opening in This City
This is a round-up of sorts of some migration news coming out of Europe….
Deutsche Welle tells us: Google recently pulled a controversial map showing the location of all refugee homes in Germany for fear it could fuel right-wing violence.http://www.dw.com/en/attacks-
From the Christian Post:
Syrian Christian refugees living in Sweden say they were forced out of their asylum house by Muslim refugees who demanded they hide their crosses and banned them from using communal areas in the home they shared.
The Christians, comprised of two families, were seeking asylum after fleeing from the Islamic State in Syria. And the place they were staying at housed around 80 people with many being Syrian Muslims.
While Swedish police said they weren’t notified about the harassment, immigration officials visited the residence to outline the government’s rules for those who continue to live in asylum housing.
[….]
The violence of ISIS against Syrian Christians and other citizens who refuse to obey Islamic law knows no bounds.
The article goes on to tell us of some of the horrors facing the remaining Christian population of Syria.
Also from Sweden, see Gatestone on the ‘unaccompanied refugee children’ situation there where everyone knows the “children” are mostly young men over 18 years old.
See Breitbart News:
Denmark’s capacity to admit migrants is near breaking point. With 12,000 refugees searching for a place to live, nearly a third of the nation’s struggling municipalities say that they have little to offer newcomers.
In the Czech Republic, Syrian and North African refugees are not welcome, but more Czechs willing to take in Ukrainians.
From Ceskenoviny:
The Czech Republic should not accept any refugees from Syria, this is the view held by 71 percent of Czechs. When it comes to the refugees from North Africa, the figure stands at 72 percent.
The view that some immigrants from Syria and North Africa should be accepted is held by 26 percent and 24 percent of Czechs, respectively.
Ireland goes along with EU plan and will double its refugee intake.
From Big News Network.com:
DUBLIN, Ireland – Ireland is to more than double its intake of refugees as part of a European Union plan to relocate up to 40,000 refugees which is being coordinated in response to the unprecedented migration crisis in the Mediterranean.
Under the EU plan, a number of ‘hotspots’ in Italy and Greece will be established where migrants will be registered and fingerprinted. Individuals who are identified as likely to be genuine refugees can be put forward for relocation to another EU country where they will be given the opportunity of protection, while irregular migrants will be returned to their home country.
Ireland has agreed to relocate 600 people over the next two years. This is in addition to the country’s previous commitment to resettle 520 refugees directly from areas affected by conflict, and the humanitarian search and rescue missions undertaken in the region by the Naval Service which saved more than 3,300 refugees.
The Slovak government: we will only take Christian refugees as permanent residents.
From the Slovak Spectator:
THE SLOVAK government remains reluctant to take in refugees within the proposed European schemes and has recently conceded to accept 100 people from Syria under the condition they are Christians, but has agreed to provide temporary shelter for migrants that have already arrived in Austria.
Based on a recent bilateral deal, some 500 refugees seeking asylum in Austria will stay in Slovakia temporarily, until their asylum process is finished and, based on the results, they will either move back to Austria or be deported from the EU.
In Germany there is more news accusing “rightwingers” of torching asylum facilities.
From Deutsche Welle:
The rate of violence perpetrated against refugee homes in Germany in 2015 has already outstripped the whole of 2014. The Interior Ministry has warned that right-wing violence is on the rise in the west of the country.
[….]
According to a statement from Germany’s Interior Ministry on Thursday, there have been more attacks on homes for asylum seekers in the first half of 2015 than in the entirety of 2014.
Read the article, there is an admission that a growing number of these cases are perpetrated by people with no known affiliation. Hmmm! Is that what happens when a government is so obviously not responsive to a large number of its citizens? By the way, the article also tells us that these arson attacks were originally confined to the Eastern parts of Germany, but have now spread into the West. Fascinating that we hear nothing of this in the US media.
I’m sure there is much more news from Europe. If I see something interesting as the day goes on, I’ll add it.
For our entire archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ click here.
Democratic Party leader Barack Obama is doing in 2015 with the Iran Nuclear Deal what another Democrat Party leader did with a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994. That Democrat is Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary is running for the White House in 2016.
Perhaps it is time to read excerpts from what President Clinton said on October 18th, 1994:
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea‘s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.
This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
[ … ]
Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.
This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea‘s isolation.
[ … ]
Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we’ve made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure…
Sound familiar? Here are the comments by President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal:
History shows us what happened with the North Korean nuclear arms deal. Today North Korea is exporting its nuclear and missile technology to other nations, such as Iran, with impunity.
As Yogi Berra once said this is Déjà vu All Over Again.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Meet 7 Dangerous Iranians Who Will No Longer Be Sanctioned
Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere
Ted Cruz: Because of Iran Deal, Jihadists ‘Will Use Our Money to Murder Americans’
Investigative Project on Terrorism: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration
With the release of a second video showing yet another Planned Parenthood doctor talking about the harvesting and selling of aborted baby body parts, a new allegation has surfaced.
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a proponent of Eugenics, the racial cleansing of American society. In Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12, Sanger wrote:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Kelsey Harkness from The Daily Signal reports:
Following allegations that Planned Parenthood is selling aborted fetal body parts for profit, black pro-life leaders are calling to defund the organization and address what they call “targeting” of their community.
“It’s an open secret that they are targeting the black community, that they have located their facilities within a two-mile walking radius of a black or Latino neighborhood…and they are coming after black women,” Catherine Davis of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition told The Daily Signal while gathering with other pro-life leaders in Alexandria, Va.
To hear that this organization is allowed by our government to do that kind of targeting is very disturbing to me. I call it today’s 21st Century Jim Crow.
Davis, a longtime critic of Planned Parenthood, said the only difference between Planned Parenthood and Jim Crow is that “we can’t see” the targeting because it occurs inside abortion clinics.
In 1926 Margaret Sanger was a guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, New Jersey. Sanger wrote in her biography:
Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.
Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.
In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York.
RELATED ARTICLES:
REPORT: Aborted Baby Parts Being Used to Grow Human Organs in Rodents
Planned Parenthood Pulls Names of Corporate Donors After Coca-Cola, Ford and Xerox Object
The Relationship Between Planned Parenthood and Redefining Marriage
Meet the 41 Companies That Donate Directly to Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood videos should appall even pro-choice advocates – Boston Globe
Caught on Camera: Planned Parenthood Executive Haggles Over Cost of Aborted Baby Body Parts
Planned Parenthood Spent $679,596 in 2014 to Help Elect These Candidates
Rand Paul Vows to End Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood
16 Tweets Reacting to Another Video Exposing Planned Parenthood
RELATED VIDEO: Brit Hume Commentary on Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts:
EDITORS NOTE: Kate Scanlon from The Daily Signal compiled these 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.
1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”
“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”
“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.
According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.
She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.
“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families
9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal
10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”
“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race
11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.
“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.
Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt
12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939
13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”
“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.
RELATED VIDEO: Mike Wallace interview with Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood:
