Some Basic Economic Truths

During the summer of 1985 my oldest son, Mark, decided to leave his job as a chemistry teacher in a Silver Spring, Maryland, Catholic Boy’s High School to complete his Master’s thesis and his Doctoral work in Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Oklahoma.  With little money to finance the move, he was looking for ways to transport his wife; his five-year-old stepson, Chris; and his four month old infant son, David, from Washington, D.C. to Norman, Oklahoma.

Having recently retired from my job with a major oil company in suburban Philadelphia, I offered to help with the move.  So, on the appointed day I drove to Silver Spring and loaded every cubic foot of my trunk and my rear seat with some of their belongings.  As we headed west on Interstate 70, my son took the lead in a borrowed Mercury station wagon, with every cubic foot filled to capacity; my daughter-in-law followed close behind in their worn-out old Toyota, the baby strapped into a car seat beside her; and I brought up the rear with five-year-old Chris riding “shotgun” in the passenger seat beside me.

The trip across the country was not up to my usual standard for cross-country driving.  Since the Interstate highway from Indianapolis to St. Louis was completed, but unposted, I had always taken that to mean that they wanted me to use my own discretion.  As a result, I was accustomed to driving the 1.030 miles from Philadelphia to St. Louis in just under fifteen hours.  But on our trip in August 1985, from the D.C. area to St. Louis, it was drive two hours, nurse the baby, drive two hours, nurse the baby, and on and on.  Then, after a night’s rest in St. Louis we set out again the next morning for the last leg of our trip from St. Louis to central Oklahoma.

As we had lunch in a roadside restaurant in Joplin, Missouri, I remarked that we were just a few miles north of Camp Crowder, Missouri, where I spent the first week of my U.S. Army military career, and that I’d like to revisit the place sometime just to see if it was the same as it was in the summer of 1953.

That was the last word on the subject until we crossed the Missouri/Oklahoma state line fifteen or twenty minutes later.  It was then that young Chris said, “Grandpa, tell me about some of your war wounds.”

Not wanting to go into detail on how I was machine-gunned by a group of South Koreans in a “friendly fire” incident during basic training, I decided to tell him some stories about wounds I received when I was a boy, just a few years older than he.  So I proceeded to describe a long ugly scar I have on my right knee that I received when I was just ten or eleven years old.  When I had described the scar, Chris said, “Grandpa, how did you get that wound?”

I said, “Well, as I recall, my friends and I were at the local ballpark in my hometown, crawling around under the bleachers, when I knelt on a broken soda bottle.”  To which he replied, “What were you doing crawling around under the bleachers?”

I said, “We were looking for small change, nickels and dimes that people had inadvertently dropped while watching a softball game.”

“Why were you looking for nickels and dimes?” he asked.

To which I replied, “We wanted to buy some sodas.”

He thought for a moment, a puzzled look on his face.  Then he said, “Grandpa, you can’t buy a soda for five or ten cents.  Sodas cost sixty cents.”

Not when I was your age,” I replied.  “When I was your age we could by a soda for five cents.”

That came as a big surprise to him.  He said, “How did that happen, Grandpa?”

I said, “The Democrats did it.”

“The Democrats did it?  Why did they do that?”

Thinking I’d impart a bit of economics wisdom, I said, “Well, the Democrats discovered many years ago that if they passed a law taking money away from people who have jobs and who work for a living, and give it to people who don’t have jobs or who don’t want to work, the people who get the free money will always vote for them on election day.  That helps to create what we call inflation and that’s why a soda costs a lot more than five cents today.”

This was obviously a new concept for him and I could almost hear the wheels turning in the seat beside me.  Finally, he said, “Grandpa, could the Democrats pass a law that would make candy free?”

I replied, “Sure they could.  But think about it… if the Democrats made a law saying that candy would be free, how long do you think the people who make candy would continue to make it?”

New concept; I could hear the wheels turning again.  Then he said, “Grandpa, am I a Democrat?”

I said, “Well, it’s too early to tell.  We’ll have to wait a few years to find out.”

Then he asked, “Grandpa, could the Democrats make a law that some candy would cost money and some would be free?”

I replied, “Yes Chris, the Democrats could make some candy free and others that would cost money.  But are you asking whether the Democrats could make a law saying that the kind of candy you like would be free and all the rest would cost money?”

A big smile crossed his face.  He nodded his head and said, “Yeah!”

I said, “You’re a Democrat.”

I’m happy to report that my step-grandson has turned out just fine, in spite of his Democratic leanings as a five-year-old.  He graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Economics and is now a successful executive with a major Oklahoma City bank.  But now, thirty years later, there is evidence that many who were as ignorant of basic economic principles as my grandson was at age five, are still burdened by the same economic illiteracy.

The proof of what I say can be found in the television commercials of a company called Lear Capital, Inc.  In their most recent TV ads they tout the current low price of silver, showing a two dimensional graph in which the abscissa, or x-axis, represents time, and the ordinate, or y-axis, represents the fluctuations in the price of silver.  If one were to believe the graph, the market price of silver during a significant time period represented on the graph dipped to less than the price of production.  In fact, that claim is made quite clearly in the Lear Capital voice-over.

When I saw the ad I couldn’t help but be reminded of my grandson’s attitude toward the candy market when he was just five years old.  The fact that a precious metals marketing firm would continue spending big bucks attempting to convince television viewers that mining companies are continuing to mine silver when the market price is less than the cost of production, is proof that there are some adults out there in TV land who still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

When I posed the hypothetical question to my grandson thirty years ago, asking him how long he thought candy manufacturers would continue to make candy if there was no profit in doing so, it never occurred to me that, some thirty years later, silver miners might be doing just that.

However, there is some empirical evidence that there are fewer consumers who might fall for that advertising scheme than we might think.  Another Lear TV ad that has run on a daily basis for many months proclaims that the first one-hundred callers to their 800 number will receive up to $500 worth of free silver… just for calling their number.  If, in fact, callers to that 800 number are actually given silver coinage, they could be given a silver ten-cent piece, just for their taking the time to listen to a sales pitch, and the marketer could still claim truth in advertising by hanging their hats on the words “up to.”

Nevertheless, it is frightening to think that Madison Avenue advertising firms have such a low opinion about the economic smarts of the American people that they would air such an insulting advertisement.  My step-grandson has discovered some important economic truths.  Apparently, some in the corporate world and on Madison Avenue have not.

Strong “culture war” bills filed in Massachusetts Legislature – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Bills filed by MassResistance, LGBT lobby, Planned Parenthood, and others.

The Massachusetts State House often leads the country in radical legislation — but also in pro-family people fighting back! This session there were some extremely good pro-family bills filed, and a number of terrible, destructive anti-family bills. As usual, MassResistance is in the thick of the battle.

Here are bills to watch this session. [NOTE: So far there have been no public hearings or action taken on any of these bills. We will update this page as it happens. Also some bills have been filed in both the House and Senate.]

Major pro-family bills – filed by MassResistance

An Act regarding parental notification and consent
H439  Sponsor: Rep. Joe McKenna  Co-Sponsors: Jim Lyons, Shawn Dooley, Marc Lombardo, Donald Humason, Angelo D’Emilia, Donald Berthiaume, Randy Hunt, Kevin Kuros, Nicholas Boldyga
This is an effective Parents Rights Opt-In bill that has been badly needed for years. It amends the current parental notification law, Ch. 71 Sec. 32A, written by Parents’ Rights Coalition (now MassResistance), expanding upon it and modernizing it to address current conditions. The current law is outdated and prone to abuse, particularly on homosexual and transgender issues. See further description and text of bill here. 
Referred to Joint Committee on Education

An Act regarding surveys in public schools
H382  Sponsor: Rep. Colleen Garry  Co-Sponsors: Keiko Orrall, Nicholas Boldyga, Jose Tosado, Ryan Fattman, Benjamin Swan
This requires parental notification and consent for questionnaires, surveys, and similar evaluations given to schoolchildren regarding certain private, personal and family issues. Many of these surveys are also quite graphic and sexually explicit. It’s become a huge problem for parents. See a further description and text of bill here.
Referred to Joint Committee on Education

An Act protecting children and parents
H2781   Sponsor: Marc Lombardo  Co-Sponsor: Jose Tosado
This bill dismantles the state-funded Massachusetts Commission for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth. That widely-reviled group includes some of the most radical homosexual and transgender activists in the state. This “Commission” receives hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to push explicit homosexual and transgender programs in the public schools, as well as at off-campus “Youth Pride” day activities. See a further description and text of bill here.
Referred to Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Other pro-family bills

An Act relative to parental notification for out-of-school-district counseling referrals
H408  Sponsor: Randy Hunt
This bill was written to protect parents from school officials steering vulnerable kids to hardcore outside homosexual organizations without parents’ knowledge or consent. There was a last-minute phrase added to this bill that we’re not comfortable with, but this bill still should still be passed.
Referred to Joint Committee on Education

An Act relative to privacy and safety in public accommodations
H1320  Sponsor: Colleen Garry
This is a well-meaning bill, but it doesn’t go far enough. It basically protects single-sex public facilities and education facilities from the transgender/cross-dressing agenda and encroachment by the latest push to extend the current transgender rights law into public accommodations. We think that ALL areas of life, including employment, housing, etc., should be protected from this government-forced lunacy.
Referred to Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Major anti-family bills – filed by LGBT lobby & Planned Parenthood

An Act relative to abusive practices to change sexual orientation and gender identity in minors
H97  Sponsor: Kay Khan
This cruel and dangerous bill is being aggressively pushed by the LGBT lobby across the country. It would ban all professional counseling to youth who want to help work out their unwanted homosexuality or transgender issues. Many youth in this situation have been sexually molested and need help desperately. It is basically the same bill we helped defeat last year, and they’re back again.
Referred to Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

An Act relative to healthy youth
H448  Sponsors: James O’Day, Paul Brodeur  S265  Sponsor: Sal DiDomenico
This “comprehensive sex ed” bill is Planned Parenthood’s major legislative goal for this session. It requires public schools to teach broad sexuality and “relationship” issues, both normal and homosexual, in all grades. It also requires compliance with the infamous radical Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Frameworks,which is currently optional for schools. Throwing a bone to pro-family groups, it directs schools to teach about abstinence — but in conjunction with the “importance” of using contraception and “safer sex activity,” which defeats the purpose. The bill also waters down the current Parental Notification Law.
Referred to Joint Committee on Education

An Act relative to gender identity and nondiscrimination
H1577  Sponsors: Byron Rushing, Denise Provost  S735 Sponsor: Sonia Chang-Diaz
This bill is a major goal of the LGBT lobby this year. It extends the infamous transgender rights and hate crimes law passed a few years ago to also cover public accommodations – including restrooms, locker rooms, gyms, and anything used by the public. If this passes, men dressed as women can use all womens’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa. This is also being pushed across the country.
Referred to Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Other anti-family bills

These are important to watch out for because several are very dangerous bills. But they are not the major ones being pushed by the anti-family lobby.

An Act to protect access to confidential healthcare
H871  Sponsor: Kate Hogan  S557 Sponsor: Karen Spilka
This bill, sponsored by Planned Parenthood, allows children to get contraception and other sexual related “health” services (including abortions) that are paid for by health insurance, without the knowledge of the health insurance subscriber (i.e., the parent).
Referred to Joint Committee on Financial Services

An Act An act relative to youth emancipation
S860  Sponsor: Barbara L’Italien
This insidious anti-parent bill initiates a program where “youth who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning” can declare themselves “unaccompanied and without a guardian” and be handed over to the care of homosexual groups. The parents will have no more parental rights over their child. The homosexual groups can use state funds for housing and support services to “care for” the child.
Referred to Joint Committee on the Judiciary

An Act to improve health care for young women
H2070  Sponsors: Ellen Story, David Linsky
This is an evil bill that would allow a girl fifteen years old or younger to get an abortion without the consent of her parents. A “medical professional” (i.e., Planned Parenthood employee), other adult family member, or a judge could authorize the girl’s abortion instead of the parents.
Referred to Joint Committee on Public Health

Various bills to repeal the “sodomy laws” and similar statutes still on the books
H1568   H1569   H1572  H1573  Sponsor: Byron Rushing
H1653  Sponsor: Chris Walsh
Most people aren’t aware that Massachusetts law still refers to homosexuality as “the abominable and detestable crime against nature.”  There are also a number of similar laws still on the books. Some examples are found in: Chapter 272, Section 34  (“Crimes against nature”) and Chapter 272, Section 35  (“Unnatural and lascivious acts”). Every session the “progressives” try to repeal them, often by filing multiple bills to do the same thing. So far, we’ve managed to keep them all from passing.
Referred to Joint Committee on the Judiciary

An Act providing health education in schools
H339 Sponsor: Marjorie Decker  S248  Sponsor: Harriette Chandler
This bill requires all schools to teach “age-appropriate” sexuality education and requires compliance with the infamous Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Frameworks, which is currently optional. It also waters down the current Parental Notification Law.
Referred to Joint Committee on Education

An Act regarding comprehensive sexual education and violence prevention programs
H366  Sponsor: Gloria Fox
Another “comprehensive sex” bill targeting children. This bill uses the excuse of “violence prevention” to require that schools in all grades teach about HIV/AIDS, reproduction, sexual health, “family life,” and similar topics.
Referred to Joint Committee on Education

An Act affirming a terminally ill patient’s right to compassionate aid in dying
H1991  Sponsor: Louis Kafka
This is the “Assisted Suicide” bill that was thankfully voted down by in a state-wide referendum in 2012. Kafka files it every session, but we doubt it will get traction this time.
Referred to Joint Committee on Public Health

BANNED FILM: Hillary Clinton Exposed [full version]

hillary the movie posterTyler Bass from Forbidden Knowledge TV writes, “In the middle of the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries, the District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the nonprofit political advocacy group Citizens United from releasing a documentary targeting Hillary Clinton. The district court ruled that the conservative 501(c)(3)’s release, backed by unknown corporations, had run afoul of campaign finance law. Only after the entire election concluded would the Supreme Court vindicate Citizens United and thereby open the floodgates to a political reality where, many fear, corporate entities and unions carry undue influence.”

Today Democrats use the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United to rally their followers against any who support conservative groups. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in an April 15th, 2015, email to party members states, “Hillary Clinton calls for anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment. Hillary Clinton just laid out her top priorities at her first campaign event — and called for an END of dark money in politics.”

The question is whose money?

Bob Heller notes:

Its hard not to laugh, but this is no laughing matter. Hillary Clinton says there is to much money in politics as it is reported she will raise over $2.2 billion in her campaign to become president. This is about 50% more than Obama raised who also said there is to much money in politics.

Ms. Clinton is also disturbed that some CO’s earn to much. But she has no compunction raising tens of millions of dollars from them. She says the disparity in income between the rich and middle class is terrible. She should know considering the enormous wealth she and Bill Clinton amassed using their exalted political offices.

It might seem strange to a lot of people that she doesn’t consider herself overpaid when she give a 45 minute speech and is paid between $200 and $350 thousand dollars plus thousands of dollars more in perks.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to expose Hillary for what she really is the largest campaign fundraiser in post-modern American politics.

Watch the full version of the “Dark-Money” Anti-Hillary Film a Federal Court Silenced produced by Citizens United in 2008 – Hillary: The Movie

Prominent Jewish Republicans Host Fundraiser For U.S. Senator Ron Johnson

NEW YORKApril 14, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Manhattan real-estate developer and hotelier Ian Reisner recently hosted a private fundraiser for Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee. Holocaust survivor Sam Domb and former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlmanwere among the leading Jewish Republicans and other conservatives who supported this effort.

Senator Johnson, who has begun campaigning for re-election in 2016, acknowledged the business leaders in the audience. He wondered, “Would any of you ask President Obama to negotiate on your behalf?” After the laughter subsided, Johnson listed his numerous concerns with Obama’s pending nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran’s dictatorship. Johnson also specified several amendments that he plans to introduce to assure that the U.S. Senate reviews and votes on this deal.

Those gathered at Reisner’s Central Park South penthouse included a bipartisan group of Jewish business leaders — both committed Republicans and several traditionally aligned with Democrats.

“As CEO of Major Automotive Companies, Inc.,” said Bruce Bendell, a longtime Democrat-leaning donor, “I respect Senator Johnson’s history as a business leader and now as someone who is dedicated to undoing the economic damage of the Obama years and restoring dynamic growth to our society.”

The participation of Bendell; American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) founding trustee Jonathan S. Canno; and entrepreneur Tzvi Odzer, among others, reflects growing Jewish support for Republicans. This parallels the widening rift between Jews and Democrats in light of Obama’s abundant disrespect for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the White House’s worrisome overtures to the ayatollahs.

“I saw up close the death and devastation of radical Islam at Ground Zero on the evening of September 11, 2001,” Ian Reisner recalled. “I don’t want to see New Yorkers once again incinerated by Islamic extremists from the Middle East.”

As the reception concluded, Kalman Sporn, Vice Chairman of the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference, presented Senator Johnson with a rare coin excavated at Masada, site of the Israelites’ brave stand against their Roman oppressors in the year 73 A.D. Sporn brought Reisner on his first trip to Israel in 2000, where they visited a military base and met Benjamin Netanyahu. Ian Reisner strongly has supported Jewish causes ever since, including Manhattan’s Museum of Jewish Heritage and the National Jewish Outreach Program.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin) attends campaign fundraiser hosted by Manhattan real estate developer Ian Reisner (right). Source PRNewswire.

Emerson College Poll: California May Be In Play For 2016 Presidential Race

BOSTONApril 14, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new poll conducted in California by the Emerson College Polling Society (ECPS) suggests that the perennially blue state, which has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, may be in play for the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton holds a commanding 46-point lead over Senator Elizabeth Warren, her nearest potential rival for the Democratic nomination. However, in head-to-head matchups with the top two GOP contenders, Jeb Bushand Scott Walker, Clinton’s 53% to 47% edge is within the poll’s margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

California Republicans are split on who their candidate will be. Among those who plan to vote in the GOP primary, Bush and Walker are tied at 17%, physician Ben Carson trails by two points at 15%, and TexasSenator Ted Cruz is at 11%. Nearly 1 in 5 are undecided.

Harris is Leading the U.S. Senate Race

The poll also looked at the U.S. Senate seat being vacated in 2016 by the retirement of Democratic incumbent Barbara BoxerCalifornia Attorney General Kamala Harris is leading a hypothetical field with 23% of the vote, followed by former eBay executive and 2010 gubernatorial loser Meg Whitman at 13%. Rocky Chavez, the only Republican to officially enter the race so far, came in third at 9%.

Water is the Top Issue

Water scarcity is the biggest issue facing California according to 31% of those polled, followed by immigration (21%) and jobs and the economy (13%). Seven in ten Californians (71%) support the mandatory water-use restrictions imposed by Governor Jerry Brown, including 48% who are strongly supportive. Only 18% oppose the cuts. Asked where they would make major reductions at home, 44% said they would reduce watering lawns and plantings, 15% cited showers and baths, and 9% would stop filling their swimming pools. 14% would make no reductions.

Worry is highest (41%) in the agriculturally important Central Valley region. A much larger percentage of Democrats (83%) favor water restrictions than Republicans (60%) and non-aligned voters (55%).

EDITORS NOTE: The ECPS survey was conducted statewide in California in English and Spanish from April 2-8, using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The survey sample consisted of 881 registered voters. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3.2% with a 95% confidence level. The full survey methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com

The Betrayal Papers: Part V – Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

Introduction: 

The Betrayal Papers have thus far investigated and explained the Obama administration and their alliance with the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The articles analyzed several aspects of White House policy, foreign and domestic, and compared them to the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Parts V and VI will explore the personal ties that bind Obama, as well as the progressive American left, to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is a portrait of a conspiracy that has reached unprecedented heights of global control.

“A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”

Has there ever been a president whose personal history is so murky, so questionable, and so baffling? All one must do is recall the allegations, still open for debate and research, that checker Obama’s background. Laid out below are some of these allegations, not to be proved or disproved, but to remind the reader that Obama’s personal history is replete with question marks.

  • A 1991 promotional literary pamphlet featured a short biographical sketch of Obama, and claimed he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
  • What is his actual name? The only publicly available school record for Obama lists him as an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro.
  • Moreover, on an immigration document from 1965, Obama’s mother included the name “Soebarkah” under Barack Hussein Obama. This is likely a name given to him by the Islamic cult of Subud, to which his mother proudly and openly belonged.
  • For a reason yet to be explained, Obama’s Social Security number begins with the prefix 042, which corresponds to Connecticut, a state in which Obama has never lived.
  • Regarding his academic records, recall that Obama attended three universities: Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University (his admission to which coincides with a $25 million dollar donation from the Saudi’s to the Harvard Law School). His academic records with these three institutions have never been revealed, despite efforts by investigative reporters. The student body president at Columbia University during Obama’s time there, Wayne Allen Root (once the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate), has stated publicly that he never met or even heard of Obama while at Columbia, and cannot find any classmates of his who remember him either. Root, like Obama, was a political science major.
  • While campaigning for President, candidate Obama presented himself as a “Professor” of Constitutional Law while at the University of Chicago. Yet this turned out to be untrue. In fact, he was a “Senior Lecturer,” a title and position significantly less prestigious than Professor.
  • Finally, the best known and most researched of these allegations is the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. From his days as a candidate in the Democrat primary, the place of Obama’s birth has been in contention. While Obama has insisted he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, there are others who claim he was born in Mombasa, Kenya; there’s even a copy of his purported Kenyan birth certificate. Moreover, apparently trustworthy sources swear that the Long Form Birth Certificate is a forgery.

All these questions leave the investigator with only one choice: to define Obama not by his inconsistent biographical details, but by his associations and actions.

The Communist Prelude: Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s Mentor

As documented extensively in Paul Kengor’s book The Communist, Davis ranks high among Obama’s early life influences. A literal card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Davis was considered by the FBI an enemy of the state.

  • Frank Marshall Davis, a known Soviet Communist and admirer of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, was a friend of Obama’s mother’s father, Stanley Dunham.
  • The Communist Davis lived in both Hawaii and in Chicago. He was Barack Obama’s mentor through the 1970s, until his departure for Occidental College in 1979.
  • Davis was also a pornographer. In his book Sex Rebel, he wrote excitedly about having sex with minors. Pedophilia was unusual for Communists of the era: Harry Hay, another Communist and associate of Davis, was reportedly an advocate of NAMBLA, the National Man-Boy Love Association.
  • In 1995, in a broadcast on Cambridge Municipal Television, Barack Obama described Davis as “a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps” and “fairly a well-known poet.”

Irrespective of the publicly accepted, sanitized biography of young Obama, the historical facts establish that his primary political mentor was a Soviet Communist sex offender, introduced to him by his mother’s family.

Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are

George Soros

George Soros, aka György Schwartz, is the Hungarian-born billionaire investor and financier behind a tangled constellation of progressive front organizations. Among these front organizations are: The Open Society Foundation/Institute, ACORN, Think Progress, the Center for American Progress, Code Pink, Occupy Wall Street, National Council of La Raza, the Tides Foundation, MoveOn.org, the New America Foundation, and the International Crisis Group. As one writer wrote succinctly in 2011, “Essentially, the entire leftist wing of the Democrat party, including the President can be tied to George Soros in some way.”

  • Soros was born in 1930 in Budapest, Hungary, to a Jewish family. He grew up in wartime Hungary and was an admitted Nazi collaborator who turned other Jews over to the Nazi authorities. To this day, he has stated that he has no remorse for his actions of turning in Jews to the Nazis and having their property confiscated. As Soros said to 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft it was “the happiest time of my life.”
  • Soros is a financial manipulator and breaker of currencies. In 1992, Soros crashed the British pound when he made a bet it would correct against the Deutschemark.
  • Soros has a history of using government influence for personal gain. In 1999, (Bill Clinton’s) Secretary of State Madeline Albright blocked a $500 million loan by the U.S. Import-Export Bank to the Russian oil company Tyumen. Tyumen planned to use this money to acquire one of Soros’ companies and a Siberian oil field, and apparently Soros felt his deal wasn’t sweet enough. A few months later, Albright did indeed approve the loan, but only after Soros was guaranteed additional protections for his interests at the expense of Tyumen.
  • This pattern repeated in 2009, when the U.S. Import-Export Bank announced a “preliminary commitment” to loan $2 billion to the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras. This caused the shares in the company to rise 27.9% from April 2009-August 2009 (the time of the announcement). Soros, a major shareholder in the company, profited handsomely.
  • In 2002, French authorities prosecuted Soros for insider trading. In 2012, the government of Russia issued an arrest warrant for Soros for violating Basel II financial regulations.
  • Obama’s foreign policy and the Arab Spring are intertwined with Soros interests. In 2008 the International Crisis Group (aka ICG, a Soros front), issued a paper that urged the Egyptian government to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to form a political party. Anyone with knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Egypt from the 1940s onward, which include assassinations and terrorism, understands the necessity of the Egyptian government’s hard line on the terror group.
  • Interestingly, ICG is also home to Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the Obama administration’s lead investigator for Benghazi, as well as Robert Malley, who was recently appointed by Obama to a prominent position to lead Middle East policy, despite a history of connections to Hamas.
  • In a 2011 op-ed for the Washington Post, Soros himself referred to Israel – not Hamas – as the “stumbling block” in Middle East peace. In the same piece, Soros encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to be given a seat at the table in Egyptian political life, and urged Obama to support the Arab Spring overthrow of ally Mubarak.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn

Of all the nefarious personal relationships of Barack Hussein Obama, the bloodthirsty couple of Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dorhn are the most unsettling. In the 1960s, Ayers and Dohrn were notorious radicals, anarchists, and terrorists – declared enemies of American society.

Ayers and Dorhn hosted a meet-and-greet and fundraiser for candidate Obama when he first ran for public office. Indeed, Obama’s political career was launched from the couple’s living room in Hyde Park.

  • Bill Ayers’ father was Tom Ayers, President of Commonwealth Edison (the power company of Chicago) from 1964-1980, and Chairman from 1973-1980. The Ayers family was close to the corrupt Daley political machine and involved in various philanthropic causes, and Bill was a son of considerable privilege. The Ayers family connection to power production is important to note in connection with the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will be detailed in Part VI.
  • Despite his mainstream upbringing, Ayers gravitated to terrorism and revolution. In 1969, he, Dorhn, and other radicals founded the Weather Underground. From its inception until the early 1980s, this group of nihilist anarchists would claim responsibility for targets that included police, an R.O.T.C building, the home of a judge, New York City Police Headquarters, and The Pentagon.
  • Dorhn and Ayers lived for a time as fugitives together, and eventually married. But due to legal technicalities neither Ayers nor Dorhn ever served time for their crimes.
  • The couple has two sons. Both were, curiously, given Islamic names: Zayd and Malik.
  • Ayers has admitted not once, but twice that he is author of the Obama’s memoir, Dreams of my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, published in 1995.
  • On September 11, 2001, a review of an upcoming book by Bill Ayers appeared in the New York Times. In the memoir Fugitive Days, Ayers recounted his time on the lam. Wrote Ayers in the book, the lines which were reprinted in the Times the morning of September 11: “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” and “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
  • A few hours after that edition of New York Times hit newsstands on 9/11/2001, four planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda. Two of them brought down the World Trade Center. Another crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. And the other slammed into the Pentagon, once a target of Bill Ayers, scarring the symbol of American military might and killing 125 people.
  • Consider the psyche of Dohrn (from 1991-2013 a professor at Northwestern Law School) who, upon hearing of the horrific murder of actress Sharon Tate (where a fork was stuck into her nine-month pregnant belly) by psychopath Charles Manson’s gang, stated: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate’s belly. Wild!” Dohrn then adopted the “fork salute” for the Weatherman.
  • Years after 9/11/2001, Dohrn and Ayers would openly associate with Islamic terrorists. First, in connection with the 2010 “Peace Flotilla,” a terrorist smuggling operation originating from Turkey that sought to arm Hamas in Gaza. The rabid couple’s attraction to terrorism was enabled by the Soros front group, Code Pink.
  • In 2011, Ayers and Dohrn teamed up with Code Pink once again when they crashed the revolution in Egypt’s Tahrir Square to help oust American and Israeli ally Hosni Mubarak. Reliving their youth, they pulled a page from their old playbook, teaching the protestors how to organize their very own “day of rage.”

Valerie Jarrett

No figure in the administration holds more sway over Barack Obama than his Senior Adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Officially in charge of the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, her Twitter handle – vj44, as in “Valerie Jarrett, 44th President” – conveys a truer sense of her power. Yet not even one American voted for President Jarret.

  • Valerie June Bowman Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran in 1956 to James and Barbara Taylor Bowman. An examination of Jarrett’s family is the key to understanding her influence in Chicago.
  • Jarrett’s father James, a Howard University graduate, was, at the time of her birth, working as a physician and geneticist in Iran. Her mother Barbara’s family is deeply connected to Chicago politics. Jarret’s maternal grandfather was Robert Taylor, who was on the board of the Chicago Housing Authority, a municipal corporation. To this day the Robert Taylor Homes, a public housing project, bear his name.
  • A political appointment, Jarrett was not subjected to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Yet according to every published account, it is she who is the true center of gravity in the administration. Ranging from healthcare “reform” to negotiating with terrorist Iran, the Senior Adviser, not the President, calls the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • The few murmurings which have come out regarding Jarrett’s omnipresence in the White House have not been flattering. According to one former administration official, “It’s pretty toxic… She went to whatever meeting she wanted to go to—basically all of them—and then would go and whisper to the president. Or at least everyone believed she did. … People don’t trust the process. They think she’s a spy.”
  • Even Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, according to author Jonathan Alter, was “tired of being undermined by Valerie Jarrett” when he resigned from his position.
  • Given Jarrett’s political force in the capital, the media’s curiosity about Jarrett’s background, governing principles, ideological beliefs, and business dealings has been conspicuously lacking.
  • One of Robert Taylor’s (Jarret’s grandfather) business partners was Rufus Cook. Rufus’s ex-wife, Ann, is a cousin of Jarrett’s. Cook is also a legal counsel for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, based out of Chicago. In 2007, the country was shocked when a video emerged that showed the pastor of Obama’s church, Reverend Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, saying of September 11, 2001, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” This was a borrowed line, originally spoken by the Nation of Islam’s silver-tongued spokesman, Malcolm X, referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
  • Indeed, TUCC’s Reverend Wright and NOI’s Louis Farrakhan are thick as thieves. In 1984, Wright and Farrakhan traveled together to Libya to meet the “Mad Dog of the Middle East,” Muammar Gaddafi.
  • Another Jarrett cousin is Antoinette “Toni” Cook Bush, daughter of Rufus and Ann. In 2013, Toni, a Chicago lawyer, was hired as the head lobbyist for News Corp, owner of Fox News. This is perhaps why Jarrett has been spotted dining with News Corp CEO, Australian Rupert Murdoch.
  • Jarrett’s family has direct connections to Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett’s father in law, Vernon Jarrett, was a journalist who worked with Frank Marshall Davis Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers. In his younger years, explains Kengor, Vernon Jarrett “had been elected to the Illinois Council of American Youth for Democracy, the CPUSA youth wing.” Finally, Robert Taylor (mentioned above) was on the board of Chicago Civil Liberties Union with Frank Marshall Davis.

Jarrett, who met Obama in 1991 and introduced him to Michelle, is a part of their family. Given her connections and power, is it any surprise that she recently said to The New York Times Magazine, “I intend to stay [in the White House] until the lights go off.”

Tony Rezko

Antoin “Tony” Rezko is the Chicago-based Syrian-American slumlord who arranged a corrupt deal for the Obama’s home. Rezko, who is currently serving a 10 ½ year prison sentence and was known for influence peddling through bribery, crafted a special deal in which he loaned money to the Obamas and donated to their campaign organization … all while setting them up in a mansion in Hyde Park.

  • Obama’s relationship with the corrupt Rezko goes back decades. Rezko tried to hire Obama to work for his real estate company Rezmar when he graduated from Harvard Law School. In 2008, Obama stated that Rezko was a “friend” whom he had “known for 20 years.”
  • The Chicago Sun-Times estimated that Obama had received “$168,308 from Rezko and his circle.”
  • In 2005, Rezko arranged the purchase of the Obamas’ home in Chicago. Because the Obama’s were not in the financial position to purchase the house at the time, Rezko made a deal with the owner to purchase the adjoining empty lot next to the home at above market price to compensate for the Obamas’ below market offer on the home ($1.65 million versus the $1.95 asking price).
  • The Rezko case unfolded before the nation as Barack Obama was ascending to the presidency. It embroiled Patrick Fitzgerald (who was previously known for prosecuting Vice President Cheney’s chief-of-staff Scooter Libby), Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich (who is serving a 14 year jail sentence), Obama, and Rezko.
  • The convicted felon Rezko is an associate of international criminal and former Saddam Hussein agent, Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi.

Nadhmi Auchi

The Iraqi operator Nadhmi Auchi is the sort of rarefied sort of gentlemen you would normally come across in a spy novel. On the surface, Nadhmi Auchi is a business magnate, a dynamo philanthropist, and an honored citizen of many countries. As was explained by a former senior official of the Defense, State, and Commerce departments, John A. Shaw, Mr. Auchi made a name for himself as the international financier and arms dealer extraordinaire of Saddam Hussein. By 1980, Auchi was an asset of the British foreign intelligence service, MI6. (So multi-faceted is this billionaire mystery man that he has his own dedicated Wikileaks page.) Auchi and Tony Rezko were partners in real estate and pizza.

  • Contemporary to the timeline of Obama’s political rise in Chicago, Auchi was building an influence operation one brick at a time in the very same city. His ties from the Middle East to America’s Midwest made his enterprise a conduit of Middle Eastern money into the United States of America.
  • Shaw writes, “Nadhmi Auchi, despite his purchased respectability in England, was the financial eminence behind the Chicago-Arab combine, and the man who, with Rezko, helped invent Barack Obama as a political star.” Through Tony Rezko, his local bagman, Auchi financed and guided Obama (and Jarrett) into the Oval Office.
  • While a large shareholder in BNP Paribas, Auchi was involved with the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, which was based on the sale of Iraqi oil.
  • In 2004, Auchi was banned from entering the U.S. for scamming the Pentagon on an Iraqi cellular deal he helped broker. After securing rights to Iraq’s cellular services, Auchi went on to corner the market on power contracts for the post-war transition, as well.
  • If Soros personifies the Progressive wing of Obama’s politics, it is Auchi that personifies the wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Auchi’s stances on litmus test issues tell who he is, politically speaking, in the Middle East. Auchi is anti-Semitic, and led support for the Turkish terror flotilla (an operation which ties him to Ayers, Dorhn, and Soros).
  • It may seem an odd dichotomy that two people in low cost housing, Valerie Jarrett and Toni Rezko, and two artful and sophisticated investors, Auchi and Soros (both of whom are convicted of financial crimes in France), ushered Obama to the presidency. Yet each one of these individuals shares one lethal trait: they are masters at using government for their personal gain.
  • Auchi has a history of suing his critics, and silencing those who cause too much trouble. His reputation as an aggressive litigator and someone who won’t hesitate to kill may have convinced journalist David Ignatius to think twice about disclosing his knowledge of Auchi’s activities. For instead of a nonfiction book, Ignatius did indeed pen a spy novel, The Bank of Fear, based on Auchi’s career.

Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said

Rashid Khalidi is an anti-Semitic professor and historian of Palestine. Khalidi is currently the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. During their Chicago years, the Obamas were close friends with Khalidi and his wife, Mona. They were also friends with Edward Said, Khalidi’s mentor.

  • Throughout the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at the University of Beirut, he routinely spoke on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization.
  • The Obamas and Khalidis have been friends for decades. When in Chicago, the Obamas regularly dined with the Khalidis.
  • In 1998, the Obamas attended a banquet which featured Edward Said as the keynote speaker. Said, a Palestinian-American (now deceased), had long been a critic of the State of Israel, which he referred to as being in “illegal military occupation since 1967.”
  • In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama when he was running for Congress. The following year, the Woods Foundation (where Obama served as a Board member) donated $40,000 to Mona Khalidi’s charity.
  • As one pro-Palestinian activist phrased it in 2008, when Obama’s views on Israel and Palestine were a subject of controversy: “I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates.”

With the benefit of more than six years of hindsight, it is clear that Barack Hussein Obama (with the eager cooperation of Secretary of State John Kerry) has been the most anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian president in United States history.

Conclusion

A man does not become President of the United States without very high powered connections. Usually these connections are accumulated through a long career of public service, whether in the U.S. Congress, Executive, or on the state level. Obama rose to the Presidency after serving a scant four years in the U.S. Senate, two of which were spent running for President. Prior to that, he served an unremarkable seven years in the Illinois State Senate.

Before launching his political career in the living room of American anarchists, Obama was a community-organizing lawyer for progressive groups. Among them was ACORN, which was instrumental in creating the housing bubble.

With such little authentic biography available, we are forced to define Obama by his friends. They include financial and political manipulators and fixers, corrupt businessmen and international criminals, card-carrying Communists and FBI-identified enemies of the state, terrorists foreign and domestic, and their academic apologists.

Part VI will conclude The Betrayal Papers with a look at the various interconnected schemes of the above-named Obama associates.

RELATED VIDEO:

Hillary Clinton Thinks Common Core “A Good Idea”

Hillary Clinton was in Iowa today, campaigning.

According to The Guardian’s live blog coverage by Tom McCarthy, Hillary Clinton is sympathetic towards “the plight of Common Core.”McCarthy reports::

Clinton bemoaned the plight of Common Core educational standards, a good idea she said had been taken hostage by the political debate.

Implicit in Clinton’s message is that Common Core would have been just fine except that it became entangled in politics.

Get a clue, Hillary: Common Core was birthed in politics.

But I think you know that.

The National Governors Association (NGA) is one of two organizations that holds the Common Core copyright. That right there is a problem for a so-called “state led” education initiative.

Then there is U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan using federal money to pay for two Common-Core-associated testing consortia– and announcing as much in 2009, before there even was a Common Core.

Never mind that the other Common Core copyright owner, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), has a CEO, Gene Wilhoit, who thought it would be a good idea to ask billionaire Bill Gates in 2008 to bankroll Common Core.

Politically-connected edupreneur David Coleman– who did business in 2002 (the early days of No Child Left Behind) with Arne Duncan during Duncan’s time as CEO of Chicago Public Schools– was with Wilhoit when he asked Gates for his money.

Then, a few years later, Wilhoit moved on from CCSSO and was replaced by former Pearson associate, Chris Minnich.

Following his CCSSO retirement, Wilhoit conveniently joined Coleman’s Common-Core-centered for-profit-gone-nonprofit, Student Achievement Partners.

And Coleman moved on to become the president of an assessment company, College Board.

So, you see, Hillary, Common Core was never “not political.”

On June 12, 2015, my book on the history, development, and promotion of Common Core, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?, will be released.

Clinton should read it.

But back to Iowa.

At least Hillary publicly admitted her sympathy for Common Core.

This puts her on the same side as another 2016 presidential hopeful: Republican Jeb Bush.

However, according to McCarthy’s report of Clinton’s campaign kickoff in Iowa, Clinton plans to dodge directly addressing education in her campaign:

Clinton laid out four campaign planks: 1) revitalizing economy 2) supporting families 3) getting dirty $$ out of politics 4) defending against threats seen and unseen

Surely she knows that she will be asked again and again– and again– about Common Core and its lead-balloon, federally-funded consortium tests.

Clinton will have numerous occasions to “bemoan its plight.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Common Core Ties to Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia [+video]

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Unanimously Approves Iran Nuke Review Legislation

Our Iconoclast post title about a denouement today on the P5+1 Iran Nuke agreement review legislation was realized this afternoon in a unanimous Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote approving a compromise measure. The Committee action reasserted   Constitutional prerogatives forcing President Obama to relent his opposition. The vote was 19 to 0 based on the compromise language worked out between Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ranking Member Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). Assenting to the new version of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review  Act of 2015, originally co-sponsored by embattled  New Jersey U.S. Senator Bob Menendez and Sen. Corker, were two Committee Members, announced GOP Presidential Contenders, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL).  Corker had not been a signatory to Arkansas Tom Cotton’s letter that was sent to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic in Tehran apprising them of the Senate’s advice and consent on major treaties and agreements.

This legislative victory preserves the right of the Congress to review changes in the prevailing sanctions against Iran occasioned by the presentation of the Administration of any definitive agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran by the intended date of June 30, 2015.  Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif announced at a ministerial meeting in Spain today, that negotiations leading towards a possible definitive agreement would start April 21st in Lausanne, Switzerland.  U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said the House would approve the veto proof measure. A vote on the measure should reach the floor of the Senate shortly, at which time Amendments might be introduced for possible consideration.

Tower report noted:

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the committee, said that the legislation, which passed 19-0, “absolutely, 100% keeps the congressional review process — the integrity of it — in place.”

The compromise language, which was worked out by Corker and ranking Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin (D – Md.), shortened the amount of time of Congress would get to review a nuclear agreement with Iran from 60 days to 30, and softened some other provisions of the bill.

The bill is consistent with a poll released today by Suffolk University showing that Americans favor congressional review of any nuclear deal with Iran by a wide margin—72% to 19%.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that President Barack Obama would sign the compromise bill, reversing the administration’s longstanding objection to any congressional oversight of a potential nuclear deal with Iran.

The New York Times reported how quickly Administration opposition to the legislation had folded:

Why Mr. Obama gave in after fierce opposition was the last real dispute of what became a rout. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, but had decided that a new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made enough changes to make it acceptable.

“We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the committee’s chairman, had a far different interpretation. As late as 11:30 a.m., in a classified briefing at the Capitol, Mr. Kerry was urging senators to oppose the bill. The “change occurred when they saw how many senators were going to vote for this, and only when that occurred,” Mr. Corker said.

Mr. Cardin said that the “fundamental provisions” of the legislation had not changed.

But the compromise between him and Mr. Corker did shorten a review period of a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran’s ending support for terrorism.

The agreement almost certainly means Congress will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement.

Under the agreement, the president would still have to send periodic reports to Congress on Iran’s activities regarding ballistic missiles and terrorism, but those reports could not trigger another round of sanctions.

The Times reported possible floor actions that might resurrect original provisions:

The measure still faces hurdles. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, fresh off the opening of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, dropped plans to push for an amendment to make any Iran deal dependent on the Islamic Republic’s recognition of the State of Israel, a diplomatic nonstarter.

But he hinted that he could try on the Senate floor.

“Not getting anything done plays right into the hands of the administration,” Mr. Rubio said.

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, abandoned an amendment to make any Iran accord into a formal international treaty needing two-thirds of the Senate for its ratification, but he, too, said it could be revived before the full Senate.

The measure will be brought up for a floor vote later this month and is expected to pass both the Senate and the House in near veto proof form.

It is clear that the victors in this battle are the Republican Majority and concerned Democrats who have been monitoring polls and constituent opinions regarding Congressional Review prerogatives.  In retrospect  Sen. Cotton’s letter and the March 3rd address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before a Joint Meeting of Congress alerted  Americans to problems with the P5+1 framework for a deal  announced on April 2nd despite the objections of President Obama and certain leading Democratic minority members of both the Senate and House. Perhaps the diktats announced last Thursday by Ayatollah Khamenei demanding the lifting of all sanctions upon signing of an agreement and denial of intrusive IAEA inspections of military nuclear weapons development sites conveyed to Senate Democrats that there were different opinions about the two Facts Statements. The one released by the State Department versus that of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. Add to that was Monday’s removal of a 2010 moratorium on the sale of an advanced Russian S-300 air defense system to Iran an indication that President Putin and Ayatollah Khamenei could void weapons sanctions agreements at will.

The losers in this episode are Secretary Kerry and President Obama. How those negotiations go starting April 21st will determine if Congress will have anything to review on June 30th.

RELATED ARTICLE: Commentators On Arab TV: Obama Supports Iran Because His Father Was A Shi’ite

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Corker (R-TN) and Ranking Member Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). Source: Politico

April 14, 2015: ‘Jew-Hate Day’ in the U.S. Congress

jew-hate-revised-geller

For a larger view click on the image.

On Tuesday April 14, 2015 Muslim Terror leaders with on organization called “American Muslims for Palestine” which specializes in Jew-Hatred and disinformation about Israel are walking around the United States Congress demanding that our elected Representatives change federal law thereby making it harder to investigate Muslim terrorists.

I know, crazy stuff, but it is happening right in broad daylight! Thank Allah that we at The United West are experts at investigating Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and exposing their influence operations for all Americans to understand and properly respond. To accomplish this we are launched a five-part investigative series entitled: “Muslim Terrorists Lobby 114th Congress.”

Our show today, features Clarion Project National Security Analyst, Ryan Mauro, who specifically identifies several Muslim Brotherhood terror leaders who are organizers of this Congressional influence operation. Moreover, Ryan will reveal documentation that links Republican Conservative icon, Grover Norquist to a terror rally that was held in front of the White House in October 2000.

This information reveals how far and wide this Muslim Brotherhood influence operation has been active.

Watch this show as it is FULL of critically important information to help all Americans properly, professionally and legally DEFEAT this Muslim Brotherhood political influence operation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu Not the Cause of Obama’s Dislike of Israel

Commentators On Arab TV: Obama Supports Iran Because His Father Was A Shi’ite

42% of Muslims in Canada think Islam and West “irreconcilable”

Islamic State beheads “blasphemer” with meat cleaver

Islamic State cartoon shows Obama beheaded by Jihadi John

UK Pro-jihad Muslim group boasts: “negotiating with Tory & Labour leadership”

Rubio enters GOP Presidential Primary as ‘tomorrow’s candidate’ — says Hillary is so ‘yesterday’

After making his 2016 presidential campaign official Monday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a speech to supporters in Miami on April 13th, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. EST.

“The Republican Party, for the first time in a long time, has a chance in this election to be the party of the future,” Rubio told donors in a preview of his speech. “Just yesterday, we heard from a leader from yesterday who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow.”

“Yesterday is over,” stated Rubio.

Learn more about the Marco Rubio campaign at MarcoRubio.com.

Blacks Are Begging the Republican Party

In the immortal words of former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, “to every man there comes a time when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a great and mighty work; unique to him and fitted to his talents; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be his finest hour.”

The Republican Party is currently being tapped on the shoulder and being asked to do “a great and mighty work, unique to them and fitted to their talents.”

They are being tapped on the shoulder by the Black community who are begging the Republican Party to give them a reason to vote Republican in next year’s presidential election.

The Black community gave Obama 94% of its vote in 2008, not just because he was Black; but because he said he was “change we could believe in.”

Obama said he would get the U.S. out of all these “unnecessary” wars; indirectly giving Blacks the impression that he would then redirect the money spent on war to dealing with the high Black unemployment rate, the lack of access to capital for Black entrepreneurs, shoring up the failing schools within the Black community, both secondary and college.

Six and a half years after Obama was “tapped on the shoulder;” he has indeed been found “unqualified and unprepared for the moment that could have been his (and America’s) finest hour.”

By any and all objective measurements, the Obama presidency has been an abject failure for Blacks: double digit unemployment, declining home ownership, shrinking net worth, decreasing college enrollment, especially at Black colleges, and non-existent government contracting opportunities for Black businesses just to name a few.

Republicans still have time to show the Black community that the party is prepared for this moment that could be its finest hour, but time is running out.

They need to start with something very simple: tell the Black community in no uncertain terms, that they are wanted and welcomed in the Republican Party.

Then the Congressional leadership must convene a series of private meetings with “the right” Blacks in education, business, the clergy. This is not to be confused with them meeting with Blacks that they are “comfortable” with.

Republicans have a history of favoring Blacks who will tell them what they want to hear, versus Blacks who will tell them what they need to hear.

Obama has done more to destroy Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) than any other person in this country’s history with the policies coming out of his Department of Education. What are Congressional Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to repair this damage?

Government contracting opportunities for Black entrepreneurs has all but dried up under Obama. Banks refuse to loan money to many small business owners. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to change this?

The Black church is furious with Obama over his aggressive push for homosexual entitlements and his refusal to protect their commitment to faith if they receive government funds for after school activities for their church member’s kids. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to protect a church’s right to freely practice their faith without government interference?

Obama has intentionally done everything in his power to drive a wedge between Blacks and his administration. There is no poll that can accurately measure the disappointment and frustration Blacks have with Obama.

They are literally begging the Republican Party to give them substantive reasons to vote for them. But they first must be made to feel welcomed in the party.

The party must build relationships with the more than 200 Black newspapers in the country and spend advertising dollars with them. The party must stop being afraid to challenge the NAACP and the National Urban League when they are advocating liberal policies that will continue to adversely affect the Black community.

They must establish a surrogate program of “credible Black Republicans” that can represent the party on various radio and TV shows. The party has shown an extreme amount of incompetence and a total lack of understanding when it comes to branding the party within the Black community.

During presidential elections, Republicans average about nine percent of the Black vote. That’s with doing nothing. Just imagine what can happen with a little effort. Realistically it is very doable to get between 15-20% of the Black vote next year; but only if the party starts now with constructive engagement with the Black community, Black media, and Black organizations.

What a tragedy if this moment also finds the Republican Party “unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be its finest hour.”

Terror Leaders in Congress, Today!

clare lopez photo

Clare Lopez

On Monday April 13th and Tuesday, April 14th, Muslim Terror leaders are walking around the United States Congress demanding that our elected Representatives change federal law thereby making it harder to investigate Muslim terrorists. I know, crazy stuff, but it is happening right in broad daylight!

Thank Allah that we at The United West are experts at investigating Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and exposing their influence operations for all Americans to understand and properly respond. To accomplish this we launched a five-part investigative series entitled: “Muslim Terrorists Lobby 114th Congress.”

” Our show today, features retired CIA Operations Officer, Clare Lopez who specifically identifies several Muslim Brother terror leaders who are organizers of this Congressional influence operation. Currently Clare is the Vice-President of Research and Analysis for the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C. Our investigative team also raises the very serious question – Why in the world should an elected Member of Congress give any time to KNOWN terrorists who have a written agenda that includes destroying the essence of the Capitol building in which they are meeting?

Watch this show as it is FULL of critically important information to help all Americans properly, professionally and legally DEFEAT this Muslim Brotherhood political influence operation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

42% of Muslims in Canada think Islam and West “irreconcilable”

Islamic State beheads “blasphemer” with meat cleaver

Islamic State cartoon shows Obama beheaded by Jihadi John

UK Pro-jihad Muslim group boasts: “negotiating with Tory & Labour leadership”

Marco Rubio: A New American Century [VIDEO]

Foreign policy is taking center stage in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Marco Rubio is announcing his run for the Republican presidential nomination. His theme is “A New American Century”.

Ken McIntyre in his column Marco Rubio Runs for President on America’s Place in the World writes:

To the extent primary voters question the wisdom of putting forward another first-term U.S. senator for president, Rubio fans counter not only with his rise to the speakership of the Florida legislature but his engagement with key foreign policy questions in the Senate.

Last May, delivering the Republican address that counters President Obama’s weekly message on radio and online, Rubio boiled down his post-9/11 thinking on the subject:

Today, foreign policy is an important part of our domestic policy. And our economic well-being is deeply dependent on our national security. The problem is that President Obama doesn’t seem to understand this. Instead of shaping world events, he has often simply reacted to them. And instead of a foreign policy based on strategy, his foreign policy is based on politics.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State demands $30 million for Christian hostages

Visit to a Mariupol Hospital Shows Ukraine War’s Toll

The Problem With International Outreach to Iran

Why Presidential Announcements Matter

15 Facts About Hillary Clinton

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Daily Signal.

Freedom of Disassociation: Indiana Edition by STEVEN HORWITZ

“Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday’s repugnances are today calmly accepted — though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it.” — Leon Kass

First, let me say how happy I am to have my column back at the Freeman. I look forward to being here every other week alongside Sandy Ikeda and Sarah Skwire.

If you’ve spent any time on the Internet in the last couple of weeks, you’ve found it abuzz with opinions on Indiana and gay rights. The passage of the state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has generated all kinds of commentary from both left and right, and most of it is misguided or overwrought.

I’d like to offer a few of my own thoughts on these matters, which, I think, add up to a call for both tolerance and freedom of association — as well as a rejection of repugnance as the basis for public policy.

Tolerance lies at the core of the libertarian worldview. Living peacefully with each other means accepting our differences and allowing others to engage in behavior that we might dislike but that does not harm third parties. “Anything that’s peaceful” is our lodestar, as Leonard Read often reminded us. Such tolerance does not require that we associate with people we disagree with, only that we leave them in peace. And this idea cuts to the core of the debate in Indiana.

If, like me, you think that gays and lesbians are not doing anything harmful to anyone, and that they should be treated just like other human beings, you might call the behavior of those who refuse to, for example, provide photography services at a same-sex marriage “intolerant.” Perhaps it is, but those who have such views are not engaged in any attempt to prevent gays and lesbians from getting married — or anything else — by refusing to provide them with a service. They are, in fact, tolerating them, but also refusing to associate with them.

Tolerance does not mandate association.

Any idea of tolerance that mandates association will quickly get us into trouble. If, for example, you object to those who refuse to sell their products or services to gays and lesbians because homosexuality runs counter to their deeply held beliefs, would it not be a far worse form of intolerance to make it illegal for them to act on their religious beliefs? After all, your side is willing implicitly (or explicitly) to back its intolerance of religious convictions with coercion — you know, guns, fines, and prisons — while the other side’s intolerance involves only the simple and peaceful refusal to sell.

To repeat: those who refuse to sell are not preventing people from behaving peacefully; those who would make the refusal to sell illegal are.

If, like me, you are bothered by the behavior of those who won’t deal with gays or lesbians, you shouldn’t make matters worse by using state power to engage in true intolerance. Instead, demonstrate how much you really care about tolerance by using persuasion and disassociation to change the behavior you find intolerant.

To see how real tolerance, persuasion, and disassociation in civil society can work, consider this story from Texas. A narrow-minded store clerk objects to a mom letting her little girl wear a boy’s suit. Mom’s friends hear the story and then give the store bad reviews online. (And unlike the small, Christian-owned pizzeria in Indiana, no one threatened the owners or threatened to burn down the store, both of which would be crossing the line that separates real tolerance from coercion.) The store pulls its Facebook page after people leave critical comments. Mom was not actually “denied service,” because she immediately declared she wouldn’t patronize the store due to the clerk’s attitude.

What didn’t happen?

No one sued, used violence, called the police, or said, “there ought to be a law.” People used words, reputation, and the power of exit to persuade others of who was right and who was wrong. This is how it should work. We don’t need a law. The mom had choices and exercised them, and the clerk and store paid a price for indulging their views on gender stereotypes. This is peaceful conflict resolution involving the rights of expression, exit, and disassociation — no need to get the state involved. Tolerance, after all, does not mean we have to like everything everyone else does. It only means we can’t and shouldn’t stop them from doing anything that’s peaceful.

Too often, we try to make laws on the basis of our mere dislike for others’ behavior. As a favorite Internet meme of mine says, “Everything I like should be mandatory and everything I don’t like should be banned.” This sort of reaction to our repugnance at the behavior of others is a real danger to liberal societies.

Whether it involves outlawing peaceful behavior, forced association, or state-sponsored discrimination, using repugnance as the basis for enacting laws is itself repugnant. What we end up with, after all, is poisonous discourse and a social order that is increasingly coarse and uncivil.

Why are people threatening the owners of a small pizza shop in Indiana who, hypothetically, said they would peacefully refuse to cater a same-sex wedding? What underlies such threats is the belief that repugnance (in whatever form it takes) justifies coercion. That belief also helps explain why others are so vehemently opposed to giving same-sex couples legal equality. Whether it’s repugnance at people’s religious beliefs or repugnance at the thought of two people of the same sex being married, such an emotion does not suffice to trump fundamental freedoms.

Sacrificing fundamental constitutional rights and our commitment to equality before the law isn’t worth the warm glow of an ephemeral “victory.” The trade-off is simply too steep — as is the slippery slope it could put us on.

About Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Micro-foundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

Iran’s Cheating Heart

Country and Western Icon, Hank Williams wrote a ballad back in the 1950’s, “Your  Cheatin’ Heart”.  Perhaps there is a new version in the international arena, “Iran’s Cheating Heart”.  Iran’s track record of evading inspections by the IAEA under prior Additional Protocols has been, shall we say, less than fulsome. Add to that the Islamic Regime’s non compliance with requests by the IAEA for information on so-called previous military developments (PMD). Especially the barring of inspections at the military explosives test site of Parchin, where there appears to have been concealment  of  tests of nuclear triggers. We raise this because President Obama in his announcement of  the framework for a final agreement to be negotiated by June 30th had talked about “robust intrusive inspections.”  Moreover, he said, “ If Iran cheats, the world will know about it”. Further,  Secretary Kerry when asked during an NPR interview on April 8th about Iran’s PMD said that would be part of the negotiations.

Yesterday, Ayatollah Khamenei in his first public statement on the P5+1 Political Framework  stirred up a hornet’s nest of  controversy about major differences between the State Department Fact Sheet and Iran’s “understanding”.  Khamenei  said that all sanctions would be lifted  immediately upon signing of a definitive agreement, adding that PMD was off the table.  The Wall Street Journal  (WSJ) in its report on these latest disagreements over the political framework announced April 2nd drew attention to what Khamenei said:

It must absolutely not be allowed for them to infiltrate into the country’s defense and security domain under the pretext of inspections. Military officials must not allow strangers into this private domain under the pretext of supervision and inspection, or stop the defensive development of the country.

The WSJ noted this myopic comment of the eponymous senior administration  official:

We see the Iranians working to build support for the deal back home, which is a positive signal of their intent to complete the final agreement.

The Wall Street Journal cited  the usually clear-eyed Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), chief Congressional critic of the P5+1 framework, saying:

As each new day reveals a new disagreement, it’s increasingly clear that Iran, in fact, failed to reach agreement with the United States and its partners on a political framework.

michael-makovsky-Michael Makovsky, executive director of the Jewish Institute  for National  Security Affairs  (JINSA) in  the current  edition of The Weekly Standard dissected the reality of those ‘robust intrusive inspections’ under Additional Protocols between Iran and  the IAEA in an article, “Iran’s Cheating: Can’t Trust, Can’t Verify”. First off, Makovsky notes there is “no Additional  Protocol”:

There is a model Additional Protocol that the IAEA uses as a basis for negotiating a specific agreement with each individual country tailored to its situation. Indeed, this provision opens the door to yet another round of haggling with Iran, making it impossible to know what exact measures Iran will end up being bound by.

But we do know, and this is the second concern, that no Additional Protocol contains the sort of “anytime, anywhere” inspections that UNSCOM provided for and that experts agree is necessary to police Iran’s program. What an Additional Protocol would likely contain, according to the framework agreement, is an expansion of the number of facilities subject to inspections—to include Iran’s uranium mines and centrifuge factories—and stricter requirements for advance notice of any nuclear facilities Iran plans to construct.

On why  the Military test site at Parchin is important:

If Iran decides to sprint for a nuke, however, it won’t do so in a uranium mine; it will do it at one of its enrichment plants, most likely a clandestine plant, potentially hidden on a military base. It is precisely such sites that the IAEA has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get access to for years. Of particular concern has been the Parchin military complex, where the IAEA suspects Iran tested high-explosives for a nuclear weapon. Yet inspectors have never been allowed to set foot on the site, watching instead as satellite imagery showed Iran demolishing the suspected site and paving it over to conceal any evidence of its cheating.

Then there is  Iran’s track record on ‘implementing “ Additional Protocols:

Third, there is the ambiguity of the term “implement.” Iran has previously “implemented” an Additional Protocol. In 2003, about the same time it was cheating on its agreement with the Europeans, Iranian leaders signed an Additional Protocol with the IAEA. Indeed, for the next two years they actually observed it. But in early 2006, Iran announced that it would no longer abide by the Additional Protocol and curtailed inspectors’ access. They could well try to pull the same stunt again. And according to a “fact sheet” released by the Iranian foreign ministry, Iran believes it has only committed “to implement the Additional Protocol on a voluntary and temporary basis for the sake of transparency and confidence building.”

Not only our intelligence but even Israel’s is deficient when it comes to  detecting Iran’s  covert  nuclear program:

U.S. intelligence services have a dismal track record of detecting clandestine nuclear efforts and predicting breakout—in North Korea, Pakistan, and India, for example. Israeli security officials have admitted in private that they too have significant gaps in their knowledge about Iran’s facilities. This is not an indictment of American or Israeli intelligence capabilities; it is simply very challenging to detect covert nuclear activities. Permitting Iran to keep its vast nuclear infrastructure largely intact, as the JCPOA does, only compounds the challenges the United States and the world will have in detecting Iranian cheating.

If Iran has been engaged in cooperative nuclear weapons development with North Korea, as we have written, that compounds the difficulty of detecting covert sites for storage of fissile material and research on nuclear warheads for those  ICBMs it is developing.

Makovsky concludes:

An intrusive inspections and verification regime is the sine qua non of any arms agreement, especially with a congenital cheater like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unfortunately, the JCPOA fails on this crucial issue, by not demanding complete information about the extent of Iran’s past nuclear weapons research and eschewing “anytime, anywhere” inspections of all facilities. In other words, it is currently worth no more than the paper it might have been written on.

There’s an old Southern phrase in the U.S. that appears apt in the current controversy over what was intended in the P5+1 Political Framework  for a nuclear agreement  with Iran:  “this dog won’t hunt”.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is courtesy of Breitbart.