Tag Archive for: Democrats

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

The format of the Democratic debate was altered at the last minute to give each candidate time to give a statement about the Paris terror attacks at the beginning of the debate.

Speaking first, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.” However, it remains to be seen how Sanders would lead this fight since he advocates a non-interventionist approach and says that theU.S. should only have a very limited supporting role in the fight in Syria. Sanders believes that the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly identified the enemy as jihadists, rejecting the non-descript terminology used by the Obama Administration who calls them “violent extremists.” Clinton made no sweeping promises as Sanders. Rather she said she would be laying out “in detail what I think we need to do to with our friends and allies — in Europe and elsewhere — to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorisim.” She stressed that “all the other issues we want to deal with depend on us being secure and strong.”

In his opening statement, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that the events in Paris spoke to the new face of “conflict and warfare” in the 21st century, and as such, required “new thinking, fresh approaches.” O’Malley remarked that “we have a lot of work to do to better prepare out nation and to better lead this world into this new century.”

Polling shows that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated last night’s Democratic presidential debate, particularly on national security.

Public Policy Polling came out with the first post-debate poll that showed 67% of Democratic primary voters declaring Clinton the overall winner of the second presidential primary debate and 75% saying they most trust her on national security of the three candidates. The following is a summary of the national security positions taken by each candidate during the debate:

Hillary Clinton

She aligned herself closely with President Obama throughout the debate but presented three areas of difference on Islamist extremism: Identification of the enemy; support for Syrian rebels and an implicit criticism of President Obama for suggesting that “containment” of the Islamic State is a sign of success.

Right off the bat, Clinton repeatedly used Islamic terminology to define the enemy as “jihadist.” She also seemed to understand that the root of violent jihad is in the Islamist ideology, which she emphasized is not subscribed to by most Muslims. She described the adversary as “Islamists who are jihadists,” but she did not discuss whether she believes that “moderate Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood should be embraced as allies against “jihadists” like the Islamic State.

The second point of difference came when she was asked about President Obama’s claim that the Islamic State is “contained” shortly before the Paris attacks. While Clinton avoided criticizing the president directly, she rejected containment as a measure of success, saying it is impossible to contain a group like the Islamic State and only its defeat is acceptable.

The third point of difference was on Syria. She explained that she urged President Obama to equip moderate Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war to prevent jihadists from creating a safe haven. Clinton believes that developing allies on the ground in Syria would have given us a valuable ally today.

Clinton also suggested a tougher approach towards the Gulf states and Turkey. She said it is time for them to “make up their mind about where they stand” on the fight against jihadism.

On the topic of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that preceded the rise of the Islamic State and the collapse of Iraqi security forces, Clinton said that the withdrawal was in compliance with a U.S.-Iraqi agreement signed by the Bush Administration. After U.S. forces left, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decimated the Iraqi security forces with his sectarianism and cronyism. This, combined with the civil war in Syria and other regional variables, enabled the Islamic State to seize large parts of Iraq.

She defended the NATO military intervention in Libya to topple Gaddafi by pointing out the large amount of American blood he had on his hands from supporting terrorism. Clinton also mentioned how the Libyans elected moderate leaders after he fell. She addressed the civil war in Libya by saying the U.S. should provide more support to the current moderate Libyan government.

On the topic of Syrian refugees, Clinton said she agrees in principle with bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. (as O’Malley advocates) but only if they are completely vetted. Her tough language on vetting suggested that she envisions overhauling the process to become stricter, but she did not present a specific proposal.

Unlike Sanders, she would not commit to cutting the defense budget but promised to closely review military spending. She cited Chinese moves in the South China Sea and the increased aggressiveness of Russia, such as its broadcasting of a new drone submarine that can be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.

Clinton is currently the frontrunner by a mile. She leads nationally with 55% in an average of polls; leads Iowa with 54%; is in second behind Sanders in New Hampshire with 43% and leads in South Carolina with 65%. You can read our factsheet on Clinton’s positions related to Islamism here.

Bernie Sanders

As we mentioned in our coverage of the recent Democratic forum, Sanders views the threat as being rooted in an Islamic ideology but—unlike Clinton—advocates a non-interventionist approach. His argument is that the U.S. should only have a very limited supporting role because the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims. He again stated that the fight with the Islamic State is part of a “war for the soul of Islam.”

Sanders rejected a strategy of pursuing regime change, apparently referring to the Syrian dictatorship and the removal of the Gaddafi regime in Libya when Clinton was Secretary of State. He cited U.S.-backed regime changes in places like Chile and Guatemala as counterproductive mistakes.

He spoke out in favor of cuts to the defense budget. He argued that U.S. military spending is far too high and that much of the excess costs are not even necessary for fighting terrorism.

Sanders is currently in second place overall. He is the runner-up nationally with 33%; is in second place in Iowa with 30%; leads in New Hampshire with 44% and is in second place in South Carolina with 17%. You can read our factsheet on Sanders’ positions related to Islamism here.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

At the recent Democratic forum, O’Malley embraced the camp that believes Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of political grievances against the U.S. He did not repeat his ludicrous claim that U.S. troops overseas and the operation of Guantanamo Bay are the chief reasons for the strength of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

However, during the Saturday night debate, he acknowledged that the threat comes from an Islamic ideology. Unlike Clinton who defined the enemy as “jihadism,” O’Malley defined it as “radical jihadists”—which begs the question: What is a “non-radical jihadist?”

In describing where the Islamic State threat emerged from, O’Malley pointed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and especially the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He said that many of ISIS’ current members used to be a part of the Iraqi military until we fired them. There is truth to that statement, but it seems to suggest that O’Malley remains committed to the belief that the “root cause” of the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorists are mistreatment and political grievances, rather than ideology.

O’Malley continued to embrace a non-interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. should not be trying to overthrow dictators. He then seemed to contradict himself when he said the U.S. should take the lead in fighting “evil.”  He said his “new” foreign policy would be one of “engagement” and “identifying threats” as they gather.

On several occasions, O’Malley cited the need for human intelligence sources as part of his strategy—but that’s nothing new and it’s not a strategy. Everyone agrees that more human intelligence is needed.

He reiterated his support for bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., up from the current 10,000 that President Obama plans to bring in. He did not address how they would be vetted and taken care of, especially when a poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% feel positively or somewhat positively towards the Islamic State.

O’Malley is in last place among the three remaining candidates. He is in last with 3% nationally; last in Iowa with 5%; last in New Hampshire with 3% and last in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on O’Malley’s positions related to Islamism here.

You can read the Clarion Project‘s comprehensive factsheets on each party’s presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism by clicking here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin: GOP Debate

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

Former Marine Captain declares war against Obama’s Migration of Syrian Muslims to U.S.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Jonathan McConnell, former Marine Captain, veteran of two tours in the War on Terror and candidate for U.S. Senate, called for immediate legislation to halt Obama and the Washington ruling class from settling Syrian refugees in America.

“Our values and way of life are under attack by radical Islamic terrorists. Many of these terrorists are exploiting the refugee crisis in Syria — just as I predicted months ago — to gain entrance into Western nations, possibly including the United States,” stated McConnell.

“I have fought on the front lines in the War on Terror, including the border of Syria. I have seen first hand the havoc and carnage these terrorists are capable of inflicting. Common sense in the War on Terror is not common and we need leaders with a proven history of fighting for America and against radical Islam.

“36 year Washingtonian Richard Shelby, as recently as two months ago, refused to take the lead and to take the fight to the radical Islam and terrorists. We must win the future. We must defeat radical Islam and terrorists. We must be willing to fight and have leaders with the experience and knowledge to win this fight against radical Islam.

“We must stand up to the Obama administration and radical Islam and say enough is enough.  This is a failure of leadership by the Obama administration and a failure of oversight by Congress.  We must not allow Syrian refugees into the United States until we can effectively vet and research those seeking entry to ensure they pose no threat to the safety of Americans. American safety must always trump political correctness.

“It is not enough for individual governors to request blockage of radicals into our state. Our leaders inWashington must be willing to stand up to the Obama administration to stop any of these radicals from gaining entry to the U.S.  What good is a state blockage if a radical can be located just over the state border and then travel to our neighborhoods and communities to wreak havoc?

Washington career politicians have failed us. They have the ability to enact legislation preventing refugees into America who have not been vetted. Washington insiders know the current process does not come to close to credibly vetting refugees to ensure the safety of our communities, families and way of life. Yet they refuse to lead.

“No credible leader in Washington believes these refugees are thoroughly being vetted so why do they bow to political correctness and refuse to stand up to Obama and for Americans? Alabamians need a proven fighterand Americans need leaders of courage and conviction. Months ago I was calling on D.C. to prevent radical refugees from entering the U.S. and today I call again for legislation to stand up to Obama and radical Islam.

“As the next U.S. Senator from Alabama I will stand up to Obama and against radical Islam. Alabamians deserve a Senator willing to fight for America,” he concluded.

In 2009 McConnell founded a global security firm to continue fighting terrorists, providing security for ships across the world against terrorists.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Jonathan McConnell, shown at the Port of Mobile, who operates Meridian Global Consulting, a company focused on protecting ships at sea.

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror by Ryan Mauro

The remaining three Democratic presidential candidates participated in a forum with MSNBC last Friday and it exposed very important divisions within the party about the sources of Islamist terrorism. One side sees it as an ideological battle and the other sees it as a repercussion of Muslim grievances against American policy.

Senator Bernie Sanders described the war with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a battle for the “soul of Islam” whose primary participants must be Muslim. Because he sees it as a Muslim-on-Muslim conflict where the West is caught in the crossfire, Sanders thinks it is counterproductive for the U.S. to take the lead in fighting the Islamic State.

Sanders said he disagrees with President Obama’s decision to send ground troops to Iraq to aid the Iraqi security forces. The U.S. should play a supporting role, he argued, but the surrounding Muslim countries should be the only ones to send in ground forces to fight it out with the Islamic State.

The viewpoint of Sanders about the nature of the war puts him more in line with Clinton than with Martin O’Malley.

“Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories,” Clinton said in an interview withThe Atlantic in August 2014.

She also said the U.S. needs to have an ideological strategy like it had during the Cold War, when we had “a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism.”

The difference between her and Sanders is in how to respond to the ideological threat. Clinton is far more interventionist and believes in pro-actively promoting democratic values, whereas Sanders sees the threat as something that is mostly in the hands of the Muslim world to solve.

O’Malley separated himself from the two at the Democratic forum by claiming that military experts have informed him that the two biggest recruiters for Al-Qaeda and ISIS are the presences of U.S. military forces on the ground in the Muslim world and the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists.

The statement means that O’Malley sees Islamist terrorism as a byproduct of perceived mistreatment of Muslims by U.S. policymakers. This puts him more in the camp of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (whose son, Rand Paul, is currently running) and President Obama. This viewpoint is contradicted by the words of Islamist terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and basic logic.

The three candidates represent three different camps within the Democratic Party: An interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Clinton); a more non-interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Sanders) and a non-interventionist view that blames “blowback” from U.S. policy for sparking the Islamist threat (O’Malley).

Click here to read the Clarion Project’s fact sheets on each presidential candidate’s positions related to Islamism.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

Carson Calls on IRS to Terminate CAIR’s Tax-Exempt Status

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Democratic Candidate (L to R): Marin O’Malley, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Refugee Resettlement [or] Treason?

Atop the list of very hot topics in the USA circa 2015 is the topic of refugee resettlement, the importing of problem children from parts of the world that do not like America much. And in a post 9-11 America, with the free world still at war with “radical Islam” all over the globe, why shouldn’t it be a hot topic?

Americans must get the facts on U.S. Refugee Resettlement

The first U.S. refugee resettlement policy was established by President Truman in 1948, when the USA took in more than 650,000 displaced Europeans in the wake of World War II. The original intent of the policy was to provide political asylum for foreign citizens not only displaced by war, but still at risk in their home countries due to their objections to political circumstances at home.

In 1975, the Democrat controlled 94th congress expanded that policy to include a broadening definition of “refugee” – “A refugee is someone who has fled from his or her home country and cannot return because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” The “social engineering” aspect of the policy was now in place…

The Democrat controlled 96th congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, adopting the United Nations (UN) ever changing definition of refugee and allowing the UN to standardize the resettlement services for all refugees to be admitted to the U.S., under the powers of the Executive Branch, administered by the US State Department.

This means that refugee resettlement is in no way associated with “immigration” under the legislative control of congress, at present. US refugee resettlement is being controlled by the United Nations, through the US Executive Branch and State Department.

Refugee resettlement in the USA has been systematically altered from that of its original humanitarian intent, to a full-blown “social engineering” program designed to forever “fundamentally change” the United States by simply importing foreign anti-American interests, planting anti-American cells across America and altering the political demographics of the United States.

YES… resettled refugees get to VOTE! And so can “illegal immigrants”

The current Obama refugee resettlement policies are even worse… The unbridled UN run refugee resettlement program is now being used to import what could easily be described as “Islamic sleeper cells” from all over the Middle East to cities all across the United States. In short, our “generosity” in the world is being used to destroy the United States, again…

Working through the following “volunteer organizations” which are “highly paid” for their “volunteer services,” our Federal Executive Branch sworn to uphold the Constitution, faithfully execute the laws as created by Congress, and provide for the “common defense” of the nation and its legal citizens,” is intentionally “aiding and abetting” known enemies of the United States via the refugee resettlement program.

  • Church World Service
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries
  • HIAS
  • International Rescue Committee
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
  • U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops/Migration and Refugee Services
  • World Relief

These organizations referred to as Voluntary Agencies (volags) or Resettlement Agencies, all actively participate in “aiding and abetting known enemies of the United States,” acting in concert with the Obama Administration and US State Department, as Congress sits idly silent… and all of these organizations are receiving billions in taxpayer funding from our Federal government to carry out this mission.

Obama’s refugee policy meets that of the UN, but violates that of the U.S. demonstrating once again, Obama’s affinity for Global Interests at the expense of U.S. sovereignty and security. Obama is the greatest threat to all U.S. interests here and abroad and he must be dealt with swiftly and completely.

Both illegal and legal immigration are a huge problem in the United States, due to Executive Branch refusal to faithfully execute the standing immigration laws passed congress, and fraudulent court opinions regarding all sorts of “citizenship” issues designed to undermine the rule of Constitutional Law in America, and support “social change” via “social justice.”

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions is ringing the alarm! But who is listening?

“The U.S. has already taken in four times more immigrants than any other nation on Earth. Our foreign-born population share is set to break every known historical record. Since 9/11, we have permanently resettled approximately 1.5 million migrants from Muslim nations inside the U.S.  Ninety percent of recent refugees from the Middle East living in our country are receiving food stamps and approximately 70 percent are receiving free healthcare and cash welfare.  All of the nearly 200,000 refugees the Administration is planning to bring over the next two years would be entitled to these same benefits the moment they arrive.  Since we are running huge deficits, every penny of these billions in costs will have to be borrowed and added to the debt.  This refugee expansion would be in addition to the 1 million autopilot green cards handed out each year by the government to mostly low-wage migrants, including a large share from Middle Eastern nations.”

“Our schools, job markets and public resources are already stretched too thin. And, even at current rates, we have no capacity to screen for extremist ideology, as we have seen with the surge of ISIS recruitment in Minnesota’s Somali refugee community.”

Hence, the massive top-down push to teach Islam in American schools via the Common Core curriculum.

Betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government, or “fundamentally change” the demographics of society or systems of self-governance under a Constitutional Republic, a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state, the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery, tyranny and aiding and abetting known enemies of the country in an overt effort to destroy the country from within, these are all crimes in the United States, a crime which falls under thelegal definition of treason.

Despite rhetorical claims of a “peaceful religion” seeking “equality” in the free world, the basic tenet of Islam remains a global caliphate, the Islamization of the free world. This is exactly what folks like Valarie Jarrett’s father-in-law were writing about in 1979, in “Islamic Purchase of the U.S. Presidency.”

Even Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee Tulsi Gabbard recently accused Obama & Co. of aiding and abetting known enemies of the United States in an HBO interview with Real Time host Bill Maher, who had no choice but to agree, based on the inescapable mountain of evidence.

As the FBI steps up a full scale criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s active role in the attacks in Benghazi, The Washington Times reports “A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.”

Every bit of this is public confirmation from even some of the most unlikely sources, that the entire Obama regime is criminally corrupt and acting in a manner that can only be described as treason…

When an administration acts in such a manner, the U.S. Constitution says we should immediately Impeach, try, convict, remove from office and then proceed to a full scale criminal prosecution once the individuals involved are private citizens subject to criminal charges.

The North American Law Center (TNALC.org) drafted proper proposed Articles of Impeachment against Obama and released them to House Republicans and the public in July of 2014. Over a year later, no action has been taken, as almost every American, now including many Democrats, are talking about Obama crimes daily, in the open…

As patriot writer Rick Wells asks, “Where are all the Patriots” who are the only people in America who can or will hold these criminals accountable for their intentional destruction of the United States.

If “the people” are no longer interested in holding elected officials accountable for even treason, then the United States of America is already dead and gone…

It isn’t refugee resettlement…. It is TREASON! If “the people” won’t act on treason, there is nothing they will act on.

SNL Skewers Democrat ‘bounty’ over Trump appearance – Dems Trumpophobic?

CNN reported:

For a moment, viewers’ hearts jumped when someone could be heard screaming “Trump is a racist!”

The heckler turned out to be Larry David, who showed up as Bernie Sanders in the show’s cold open.

“I heard if I yelled that they’d give me $5,000,” David said.

Trump said with a shrug, “As a businessman I can respect that.”

A Latino group had offered a $5,000 “bounty” to anyone in the show’s audience who would yell “Trump is a racist” during the NBC broadcast.

The Democratic National Committee War Room sent out an email prior to Trump’s appearance on Saturday Night Live. It contained this infographic:

dnc war room 2

dnc war room 1

The Florida Democratic Party in an email stated:

With Rick Scott, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio, we thought Republicans in Florida couldn’t get much scarier.

Then came Trump.

Did you see him in Jacksonville, trash-talking Hispanics, slamming Obamacare and vilifying the EPA? And get this: A new University of North Florida poll puts Trump ahead of the rest of the candidates!

It appears Democrats are Trumpophobic?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump gives SNL its biggest ratings in years

Hillary Clinton’s Latest Lie: She’s A Friend Of Israel

U.S. Liberal Jews Continue to Support Obama, Abandon Israel

Barack Obama pledged on the campaign trail in 2008 “to fundamentally transform” the United States, and perhaps consistent with that promise his presidency has been marked by a transformative indifference to legal process and constitutional procedure.  He most recently showed his disregard for the system of checks and balances by cajoling Congress to endorse his Iran deal despite the American public’s overwhelming disapproval.  He did so by misrepresenting the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran, failing to disclose side deals that make substantive enforcement unlikely and effective monitoring impossible, and mustering his partisan lackeys in the Senate to block a Republican resolution disapproving the deal – even as many of them acknowledged that Iran would certainly violate it.

Though establishment Jewish organizations condemned it, the sad reality is that many American Jews – including the majority of Congressional Jewish Democrats – supported the deal, just as they have supported the most anti-Israel president ever to occupy the White House.  The truth is that unified Jewish opposition by itself could not have defeated the deal; Jews have neither the numbers nor power to sway Congress, despite what conspiracy theorists might say about pervasive Jewish influence.  However, the goal of opposing the deal was not simply to defeat it, but to avoid giving the Jewish stamp of approval to a foreign policy that contravenes US interests and poses a genocidal threat to Israel and her people.

Unfortunately, attempts to withhold Jewish imprimatur were dashed by liberals whose support was used to bless the deal and validate the administration’s ridiculous claims that it will somehow bolster Israeli security and regional stability.  Jewish proponents seemed unmoved by Iran’s continuing anti-American rhetoric and threats to annihilate Israel; and some of them even mocked Israel’s existential concerns as overreactions.

No matter how often Obama excuses Islamists, insults Israel, or spits in the face of Jewish history, progressive Jews continue to support him with Pavlovian devotion.  And in justifying his corrosive Mideast policies, they demean Jewish historical rights and national aspirations – often repeating anti-Semitic slanders that have been embraced by the political left.

When Obama’s minions besmirched the patriotism of the deal’s critics, insinuated that Netanyahu was orchestrating domestic opposition to it, and identified its opponents with those who “rushed to war with Iraq,” they cagily invoked traditional canards of undue Jewish influence and warmongering.  Many Jewish progressives sold their souls by rationalizing or agreeing with such comments, or simply failing to chastise the evocation of classical stereotypes while the president claimed with faux innocence to be hurt by accusations of anti-Semitism.

Progressives will never admit that their actions provide cover for anti-Semites who deny Israel’s right to exist and excuse Islamic terrorism.  They delude themselves into believing that the BDS movement is engaging in legitimate political speech, that Palestinian revisionism supersedes objective Jewish history, and that progressive anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic.  And they remain devoted to a president whose policies have enabled Islamists, undercut Israel, and compromised American strategic interests.

The willingness of Jewish progressives to whitewash left-wing anti-Semitism reflects their estrangement from traditional values, ignorance of history, and failure of moral resolve.  It also connotes their attachment to a political ideology that excuses Jew-hatred and radical Islam with trite homilies about the evils of colonialism.  They falsely regard Israel as a colonial creation and western imperialism as the cause of Islamic radicalism, but ignore the long history of Islamic holy war, conquest and subjugation.  Likewise, they overlook the fact that civilizational friction between the Muslim and western worlds started not with the Crusades, but with the spread of jihad across Europe hundreds of years earlier.

Many progressives believe that anti-Semitism is simply a response to bad Jewish behavior.  In their view, the nadir of such behavior was the establishment of Israel at the putative expense of the Palestinians – a people whose apocryphal national identity was created for the purpose of repudiating Jewish history and the legal underpinnings of the modern Jewish State.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claimed to be following her “Jewish heart” in supporting Obama’s Iran deal, under which the Iranians will achieve nuclear breakout by the end of the agreement if they comply and much sooner if they don’t.  Given that credible intelligence sources indicate the Iranians have numerous covert facilities and will continue to enrich uranium under cover of the agreement, nuclear breakout will likely occur sooner rather than later.  This should be troubling to all members of Congress, particularly in light of Iran’s continuing anti-American incitement and threats to destroy Israel.  It is difficult to see how the “Jewish heart” can be called upon to sanctify an unenforceable agreement with a bad actor who promises a new Holocaust.

The progressive identification with policies that threaten Jewish survival, however, may well run deeper than simple partisan politics.

The compulsion to rationalize the president’s treatment of Israel and progressive anti-Semitism may be rooted in a ghetto mentality or the same pathological impulse that triggers Jewish self-loathing.  Certainly, not all progressives are self-haters; many are just ignorant of tradition and history and, accordingly, have no frame of reference for evaluating their questionable political loyalties and jaundiced views on Israel.  Some hold as an article of faith that liberalism is synonymous with Jewish values and that criticism of Israel is in the spirit of Jewish self-reflection, even when that criticism portrays Israel as a colonial occupier or apartheid state.

However, Israel is neither of those things under any objective analysis, and to claim otherwise bespeaks either ignorance or malice.  The litmus test for whether criticism of Israel crosses the line is whether it ignores history, distorts facts, or adopts the tropes of anti-Semitic rhetoric and propaganda.

Lack of knowledge does not necessarily imply bad faith, but willful ignorance and knowing distortions do.  Those who advocate the revisionist Palestinian narrative, rationalize Islamism as a response to western provocation, or deny the Holocaust are not simply naïve or misguided.  Neither are those who mangle history, condone political anti-Semitism, or condemn Israel’s identity as a Jewish State without criticizing the religious or ethnic character of the twenty-two Arab-Muslim states in the Mideast.

The persistence in applying one standard to Israel, which respects individual rights and the rule of law, and another standard (or none at all) to Arab and Muslim nations that suppress minorities, women, and political dissent, is malicious and dishonest.

The belief that unbalanced criticism of Israel reflects Jewish values is fostered by a mainstream press that actively promotes the Palestinian cause and delegitimizes the Jewish State.  In this biased mediaenvironment, stories that cast Israel in a negative light are deemed newsworthy no matter how dubious their sources.  Similarly, Jews who reject Israel, support BDS, and eschew traditional values are presented as authoritative and often used to counterbalance charges of progressive anti-Semitism.

Evidence of Jew-hatred on the left abounds, and yet progressives deny its existence or rationalize it as a response to Jewish transgressions.  They often disparage Israel in the vilest of terms and support Islamists who preach genocide, but deflect accusations of prejudice by pointing to Jews who do the same.  They ask how they can be considered anti-Semitic when there are Jews who also condemn Israel, repudiate Jewish history and snub tradition; and this rhetorical deceit is abetted by those liberals who fail to expose its calculated dishonesty.

The real question, however, is not whether animosity towards Israel and the Jews is absolved of its hateful impetus by the complicity of certain segments of Jewish society, but whether Jews who engage in such odious conduct are themselves anti-Semitic.  There can be little doubt that self-hatred is a potent form of anti-Semitism, which for generations has motivated turncoats and apostates to emulate their aggressors, torment their own people, and degrade their own communities.

Not all Jewish liberals who support the president are self-haters, but they’ve become so detached from normative values and priorities that they are unable to recognize when political ideology threatens Jewish continuity and survival.  Moreover, their affinity for Mr. Obama as the apotheosis of the progressive agenda blinds them to the harsh realities his administration has created.  One need only consider how American retreat and weakness have empowered Russia, China and ISIS – and how Iran has been emboldened by the nuclear deal – to see that Obama’s policies have set the stage for geopolitical disaster on a global scale.

Russia is increasing its footprint in Europe and the Mideast, propping up the Assad regime, and attacking US-backed rebels in Syria, while Iran is testing long-range missiles, funneling arms to Hamas, sending troops into Lebanon to strengthen Hezbollah, and increasing its involvement in terrorism.  Meanwhile, Obama’s military and humanitarian failures have caused a tidal wave of Syrian refugees to swarm Europe with disastrous political, social and economic consequences.

Those who believe that “Jewish heart” mandates support for policies that threaten the US and Israel – or for a president who finds moral equivalence between knife-wielding terrorists and their Jewish victims – need to question their own purity of heart, clarity of vision, and soundness of priorities.

There is no legitimate Jewish interest in supporting an administration that undermines Israel, appeases Islamists, and facilitates the nuclearization of Iran.  Political chaos and dysfunction may coincide with the president’s agenda, but they are antithetical to real Jewish values.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva. It is reprinted with permission from the author.

Clinton, O’Malley Say Americans Are Their Enemies

In the days since last week’s debate between candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, some commentators have suggested that Americans have seen enough, that no additional Democrat debates are necessary. In one respect, those commentators are right. In just a few seconds during the debate, the two candidates who harbor the most extreme views on guns showed why they shouldn’t be entrusted with our country’s highest elected office.

It happened when the candidates were asked, “which enemy are you most proud of?”

Of the five candidates onstage, the only supporter of the right to arms, former U.S. senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb—who had already answered a question about gun control by saying that people have the right to defend themselves—said that the enemy he was most proud to have had was the one who wounded him with a grenade during the Vietnam War. Webb didn’t elaborate, but he was referring to an occasion on which, as a Marine Corps 1st Lieutenant, he led an attack against a communist bunker system, an action for which he was awarded the Navy Cross “for extraordinary heroism.”

However, the other four candidates—gun control supporters one and all—reflexively associated the word “enemy” not with America’s overseas adversaries, but with other Americans.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee tempered their answers, at least, Sanders saying only that “Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry . . . do not like me,” Chafee saying that the “the coal lobby” is a group he’s “at odds with.”

By stark contrast, however, Hillary Clinton and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, far and away the most extreme gun control supporters running for president, showed no such restraint. O’Malley said his enemy is the five million member “National Rifle Association.” Clinton went further, naming not only “the NRA,” but also the health insurance companies, the drug companies, Republicans, and only one group of people who are not Americans, “the Iranians.”

How things have changed. In 2004, during the keynote speech at the Democratic Party National Convention, then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama said, albeit with questionable sincerity, “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.” In 2007, presidential candidate Obama claimed that he wanted to unify the country and break it out of what he called “ideological gridlock.”

Today, tempted with the opportunity to indulge herself in the deadly sin of hate before a national TV audience, the leading candidate for the same party’s presidential nomination did so without hesitation or remorse. She gleefully said that she considers tens of millions of Americans to be the “enemy.” She equated the NRA, American business interests, and Republicans with those whose signature chant is “Death to America.” And the party faithful in the debate hall cheered her with the same enthusiasm Obama’s “one America” speech received 11 years ago.

It was an ugly moment, but it shouldn’t define the character of our political disputes going forward. In deciding to whom to entrust the presidency of the United States between now and Election Day 2016, all Americans, regardless of viewpoint, should hold candidates to a standard higher than what Hillary Clinton appears capable of delivering.

The Economics of a Toddler and the Ethics of a Thug by Donald J. Boudreaux

Reflecting on the recent Democratic debate, Dan Henninger reports that Bernie Sanders said that he would fund his plan to make college free for students “through a tax on Wall Street speculation” (“Bernie Loves Hillary,” Oct. 15).

This statement reveals the frivolousness of Mr. Sanders’s economics. If such speculation is as economically destructive as Mr. Sanders regularly proclaims it to be, the tax on speculation should be set high enough to drastically reduce it.

But if — as Mr. Sanders presumably wishes — speculation is drastically reduced, very little will remain of it to be taxed and, thus, such a tax will not generate enough revenue to pay for Mr. Sanders’s scheme of making all public colleges and universities “tuition-free.”

That Mr. Sanders sees no conflict between using taxation to discourage (allegedly) harmful activities and using taxation as a source of revenue proves that he ponders with insufficient sobriety the economic matters on which he pontificates so sternly.

Excerpted from Cafe Hayek.

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Look Inside the Courtroom Where Property Owners Fight the Government to Get Back Their Cash, Homes, and Cars

Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins slam Left for giving Islam “free pass” despite Muslim terrorism

What is noteworthy about this is how selective and one-sided Maher and Dawkins are. They’re all upset about the Marxist anti-Semite Maryam Namazie being banned from speaking at a university because of her views on Islam, but have never said a word while for years Pamela Geller and I and others who tell the same truths about Islam that Namazie tells (and more consistently than she does because we do not support the “Palestinian” jihad as she does) have received the same treatment from universities and other venues. Maher and Dawkins would never think of speaking out on our behalf because they would likely think of us as “right-wing bigots” — as Sam Harris last year dismissed critics of jihad terror besides himself and his friends as “fascists.”

What Maher, Dawkins and Harris don’t seem to realize is that they only think of us as “fascists” because the same Leftist/Islamic supremacist smear machine (including their pal Namazie) that is now going after them for their “bigotry” has for years defamed us in exactly the same way, for saying essentially the same things they do about Islam. We are “right-wing” because the smear machine has called us “right-wing” for years — when I have never taken a public position on anyissue other than those involving jihad and Sharia, and the claim that defending free societies against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is a right-wing issue, or constitutes “fascism,” is a media fiction.

I expect that Maher, Dawkins, and Harris wouldn’t be caught dead in the company of Pamela Geller or me, even though we note the same truths they do and defend the same freedoms they’re defending. That is testimony only to the effectiveness of the defamation campaign that has now turned against them, for the same reason its organizers targeted us. And as long as their indignation about the threat to the freedom of speech and the hollow truncheon of the “Islamophobia” charge remains restricted only to those on the Left, it remains inconsistent and hypocritical.

“Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins Slam Liberals for Giving Islam ‘Free Pass’ Despite Link to Terrorism,” by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post, October 5, 2015:

Two of the most famous atheists in the world, HBO host Bill Maher and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, slammed liberals who they say are giving Islam a “free pass,” despite the human rights abuses being committed in Muslim countries and by Islamic extremist groups around the world today.

Dawkins was a guest on Maher’s “Real Time” on Friday, where Maher said it is “ridiculous” that some make out Muslims to be a “protected species.”

Dawkins added that people sometimes believe that those criticizing Muslims are racists.

Maher and Dawkins both took aim at liberals they said would shoot down free speech in order to protect Muslim sensitivities. Dawkins pointed out the case of Warwick University’s students’ union declining atheist and critic of extremist Islam Maryam Namazie the opportunity to speak at the school in October, out of fear of offending the religion.

Maher has himself faced push-back for his own university appearances, with University of California at Berkeley students starting a petition last year seeking to bar the HBO host from speaking at 2014’s fall commencement ceremony, due to his “racist” views on Muslims.

“If you can’t speak your mind at a university campus, where can you? I mean that’s what universities are about. It’s about free speech,” Dawkins said.

“So they think that if you you criticize Islam you’re being racist and you’re absolutely right that the regressive [liberals] give a free pass to Islam,” the atheist author continued. “They’re kind of right about everything else, I mean, they’re right about misogyny and all of the other good things. But in the case of Islam, it just gets a free pass and I think it is because of the terror of being thought racist.”

Maher added that those who criticize Islam are also called “Islamophobes,” which he said was a “silly word that means nothing.”

Maher, Dawkins, and other atheist authors, such as Sam Harris, have been criticized by religious commentators, such as Reza Aslan, for blaming Islam for the rise of terrorism….

Aslan added that such anti-theists get their ideas “from the most simplistic, the most unsophisticated and the most knee-jerk reaction to the very real problem of religious violence around the world,” and argued that it is “nothing less than idiotic to blame religion for religious violence without recognizing the multiple factors that are involved in violence of any sort.”

“Multiple factors” are “involved in violence of any sort.” This from a man who accused Pamela Geller and me of complicity in a murder that was initially blamed on “Islamophobia” but that turned out to be an Islamic honor killing. Aslan, of course, refused to retract.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Exclusive: Hate mail Irving mayor and police received over Ahmed Mohamed clock victimhood hoax

Islamic State blows up ancient Arch of Triumph in Palmyra

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Media’s Bias

Have they no shame? Can America’s ideologically constipated, left wing, mainstream media get any worse? The answer appears to be yes. After largely ignoring the gruesome Planned Parenthood videos and instead focusing on Marco Rubio’s wife’s driving violations, they have now moved on to Donald Trump and Kim Davis.

You likely saw the widely reported story about the two brothers from Boston who allegedly beat up a homeless man and, after being caught, were reported to have told police officials, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.” But, did you see the other headline? The headline that read, “Alleged Manhattan Gunman was an Elizabeth Warren Supporter”?

Unless you read Conservative Review, Breitbart, or Heavy.com, then the odds of you reading this story are minuscule. The general premise the ideologically slanted mainstream media has been working with in its attempt to ensure maximum distribution of the Trump headline while suppressing the Warren headline, is “Conservativism inspires violence.”

Exposing media bias in cases like this is critical because the members of the media who are promoting the Trump story were not saying, “political speech inspires violence” they were saying “CONSERVATISM inspires violence.” Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen this theme appear in the writings of media figures on both the reporting, and opinion, sides of the media house.

Far left opinion columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post tried this same sleight-of-hand trick when he disingenuously tried to pin some of the blame on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Loughner, writing that she should “consider being quiet for a while” after the shooting. Robinson, either not bright enough to realize that his Palin hit piece was an anti-free speech screed, or so ideologically married to hard-left ideology that he was blind to the irony, penned a piece just three years later, absolving President Obama, Al Sharpton, and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for the actions of cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley (who was reported to have been inspired by a movement these far left political figures vocally supported). Robinson jumped the credibility shark in his subsequent piece by writing that they “are in NO WAY responsible” (emphasis mine).

Other committed leftist columnist, Dana Milbank, also of the Washington Post, is another hypocrite anxious to sacrifice his credibility for Internet clicks from rabid leftists. Milbank, who was quick to celebrate civil disobedience on the part of immigration activists who aligned with his ideologically leanings, even asking the President to join in the protest where illegal immigrants were present, was, hypocritically, quick to condemn civil disobedience in the case of Kim Davis. Milbank ridiculously attempts to explain away his hypocrisy by claiming that ignoring the law is okay as long as it doesn’t involve “ignoring court orders.”

Sadly, Milbank is serious with his outrageous attempt to be logical and consistent. In Milbank’s bizarre world, it’s okay to violate clearly written laws which conflict with far leftist ideology because this is the “good” civil disobedience, not involving “court orders” but, when a registered Democrat such as Kim Davis, engages in an act of civil disobedience, based on a sincere religious objection, and the cause conflicts with leftist thinking, then she deserves to be jailed. Don’t try to make sense out of this because you will pull your hair out in the process.

These blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisies are not an accident. The organized left doesn’t believe in principled civil disobedience, they believe in the accumulation of power at any cost, the Constitution and the rule of law be damned. If jailing Kim Davis in perpetuity would advance their end game of dismantling the traditional family and instilling cultural relatively from the home, to the school, to the government, then that is exactly what they would do. The far left’s inclination will always be to suppress opposing political views because the movement’s scandalous flirtations with socialism can only evolve into a successful marriage if government force is involved and, tragically, history is clear on this.

Whether it’s punishing religious freedom, verbal policing on college campuses, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel’s push for regulating political speech online, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s push for expanded control over the web, the IRS, and their targeting of conservative groups, or the President’s dangerous rhetoric, directed at his political opposition, they will continue to take every opportunity to try to intimidate conservatives through the media, the regulatory and law enforcement infrastructure, and the legislative process.

So just stop pretending. People in positions of public influence such as Eugene Robinson and Dana Milbank should just be honest and tell America how they really feel. If you disagree with us we will support whatever means we need to do, including, but not limited to, destroying your name, jailing you, lying about you, and creating disingenuous false narratives, to ensure that we crush and silence you.

Information is power and the ability to see and bring attention to the constant stream of obvious media hypocrisy is a weapon we must employ to counter their endless feed of bogus narratives. It can be depressing to watch leftist activists pretend to be unbiased journalists or rational opinion writers but, on a positive note, we are winning the long game. Yes, we are winning due to the commitment of many conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans to exposing media trickery. Pulling back the curtain and exposing media bias has dissolved the trust between the media and Americans searching for the truth. Keep up the fight and whenever you see these examples of bias, get your letter to the editor ready, fire up your social media accounts, cancel your subscriptions, and get your game face on. This fight is too important to lose.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Dharapak | AP Images.

VIDEO: The Left Wing Liars Club

We hit back at the tired old lies of the left on the Iraq War, George W. Bush, the economy, the Islamic State and Obamacare.

A Biden-Warren Ticket in 2016?

Will Joe run, or will he not?  That is the question.  If I had to venture a guess I’d say that, before year’s end, Hillary Clinton will be either sitting on the bench or exchanging her large selection of polyester pantsuits for a selection of orange or black-and-white striped jumpsuits.  Her campaign is in steep decline, and when the talking heads on the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC begin to devote major segments to the question of her political future, the end cannot be far away.  But who do the Democrats have to replace her?  Unlike Republicans, the Democrats have little or no “bench” strength.  Bernie Sanders, the doddering old socialist from Vermont is drawing large crowds, but we can’t be sure if people come to hear his plan for turning the U.S. economy into another Greek economy, or if they come to see whether or not the Black Lives Matter storm troopers will once again drive him from the speaker’s platform.

On Saturday, August 22, Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was summoned to Biden’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington.  And while their meeting was not videotaped for public consumption, there’s not much doubt about the subject matter of their chat.  They discussed the very real possibility that Hillary Clinton will soon be forced out of the race, perhaps with criminal indictments lodged against her.

So exactly who is Elizabeth Warren and what has she ever done, if anything, to make her a viable candidate for president or vice president of the United States?  Warren has roughly the same presidential qualifications as Barack Obama, who was roughly as qualified as, say, Rosie O’Donnell.  Yet they are the sort of candidates most liberals prefer because they’re full of you-know-what.  In other words, like Obama, she has no presidential qualifications whatsoever.  And wouldn’t it be fun to see Warren, who has spent her entire adult life lecturing about personal and corporate bankruptcy, debate Donald Trump, who is not only skilled at using the bankruptcy statutes to his benefit, but who has become a multi-billionaire trying not to go bankrupt?

Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1978, and has since taught at a number of major law schools, including Houston, Texas, Michigan, Penn, and Harvard.  During that academic career she has gained fame as a leading authority on the subject of bankruptcy law.

Warren freely admits that for most of her adult life she was a Republican.  However, she has also explained that she became a Democrat in 1995 when she stopped believing in a free market economy… i.e., capitalism.  In fact, it is she who has taught Barack Obama to say that, if you’ve achieved some financial success in your life, or if you’ve built a large and profitable business, “you didn’t do that yourself… someone else did that for you.”

In 2012, after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, the Boston

Herald reported that Prof. Warren had described herself on Harvard job applications as being part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian.  In the debate that followed it could not be proved that she had any Indian blood whatsoever in her lineage.  Instead, she supported her claim by saying that, as a young woman, she could remember her older brothers speak of their Native American heritage.  And since it looked good on a Harvard job application she simply ran with it.

Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, defeating Senator Scott Brown and regaining the Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, the fact that she was the first female senator from Massachusetts was rarely mentioned by Warren or other Democrats… presumably because they did not wish to call attention to the fact that the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts was Republican Ed Brooke, elected in 1966, some 46 years earlier.

And that brings us to vice president Joe Biden.  The current vice president of the United States grew up in Scranton, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware, where his father worked as a used car salesman, providing a practical grounding for Biden’s later political career.  He met his first wife while he was a student at the University of Delaware and she a student at Syracuse University.  Even at that early stage of their relationship he told her that his long term goal was to become a member of the United States Senate by age 30, before running for president of the United States.  During his college career he majored in history and political science, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965, ranking 506th in a graduating class of 688… not necessarily the greatest predictor of long term success at the top of the political world.

After earning a law degree in 1969 Biden was elected to the Newcastle County (Delaware) Council, and just two years later he ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, on December 18, 1972, just days before he was to take his seat in the U.S. Senate, he suffered the first of two major family tragedies in his life.  His wife and three children were involved in an auto accident while Christmas shopping in a small town west of Wilmington.  His wife and year-old daughter were killed and his two sons were seriously injured, but both recovered fully.

During his Senate career, which spanned six full terms, he was a member and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee where he gained a well-deserved reputation for being wrong on almost every significant foreign policy issue.  He was also a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving as chairman of the committee for eight years and ranking minority member for eight years.  He served as chairman in 1987 when Senate Democrats conducted the shameless public “drawing and quartering” of conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and as ranking minority member in 1982, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a partisan sideshow that Justice Thomas referred to as a “high-tech lynching.”

In 1987, Biden launched the first of two campaigns for the presidency.  However, in September 1987 he was publicly denounced for having plagiarized several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party.  His dishonesty quickly became a national issue and he was forced to abandon his presidential ambitions.

But then, beginning in 2003, Democrats began to take notice of a young man they thought might be a future Democratic presidential candidate, an attractive young black man from the south side of Chicago, a former “community organizer” and a sitting member of the Illinois state senate, a man named Barack Hussein Obama.  The only problem was that, having been born with dual US-British citizenship, and having acquired dual US-Kenyan citizenship at age 2, Obama was

ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

To solve that problem, Democrats introduced two resolutions in the 108th Congress in 2003, and two resolutions in the 109th Congress in 2005, all aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution to make Obama eligible for the presidency.  They even went so far as to pluck him from almost total political obscurity and gave him the plum assignment of making the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  It was the political launching pad that sent Obama to the United States Senate in 2005 and to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

But Democratic leaders were still concerned about Obama’s lack of eligibility and his complete lack of experience.  In an attempt to submerge the issue of his ineligibility, Democratic leaders caused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairman of the 2008 Democrat National Convention, and Alice Travis Germond, convention secretary, to delete the words, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” from official nominating certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifications that allowed state election officials to print ballots.

Although one would think that either the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or at least one member of the U.S. Congress, Democrat or Republican, would care enough about the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility, that was not the case.  All failed in their constitutional obligations and in November 2008, the low-information voters of the United States caused Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be elected president and vice president of the United States, respectively.

But there was a reason Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate.  Democrats knew from the outset that, not only was Obama totally without experience and qualifications, he was hopelessly naïve and was unable to utter a simple declaratory sentence without having a teleprompter telling him what to say.  To resolve that problem they caused Biden to be selected as Obama’s running mate.  With Biden occupying the vice president’s chair, he would be in a position to whisper in Obama’s ear, hopefully preventing him from making any really stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way things worked out.  Within five minutes of entering the Oval Office, Obama made it quite clear to Biden and everyone else that he didn’t need anyone’s advice.  What we have witnessed since that day is much like a high school student who won a Kiwanis Club “President for a Day” contest and who arrived at the White House with no one but his high school social studies teacher (in Obama’s case, Valerie Jarrett) as his principal advisor.

On May 30, 2015, Biden suffered the second major personal family tragedy of his life.  His son, 46-year-old “Beau” Biden, a former attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer.  It is reported that the younger Biden’s deathbed wish was that his father seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

With the impending demise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, there is every reason to believe that

Biden will enter the race.  But there is also every reason to believe that, if he does, Democrats across the country will use Beau Biden’s death, shamelessly, as a sympathy factor to help gain support for his campaign.  They used that tactic in 1964 to help LBJ win in the wake of JFK’s death, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t use the same classless tactic again in 2016.

Democrats now own the Iran Nuke Deal like the Republicans owned Iraq

This writer argues that the Democrats  now own the Iran issue like the Republicans owned Iraq.  They are at the mercy of the Ayatollah and if things go south, the Congressional Democrats will bear the consequences since Obama will be long gone. People remember who causes harm and sometimes actions and votes have consequences.

The security of the U.S., Israel, allies and indeed the whole world is at stake.  Senators who promised Obama their vote still have time to reconsider the consequences of their vote and avoid the trap Iran has laid for them.


The Democrats Now Own Iran. They’ll Soon Wish They Didn’t

By Jonathan S Tobin

This morning, President Obama got what he’s been working toward all year. With Senator Barbara Mikulski’s announcement that she will vote to support the Iran nuclear deal, the administration got its 34th vote in the Senate, thus assuring that the president will have enough support to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval of the pact. Mikulski was just the latest of a number of Senate Democrats to throw in with the president on Iran. The only suspense now is whether Obama will get to 41 and thus have enough for a filibuster and prevent a vote on the deal from even taking place.

Leaving aside the terrible damage the deal does to U.S. security and the stability of the Middle East, the most far-reaching effect of the deal is that from now on Democrats own Iran. From this moment forward, every act of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, every instance of Iranian aggression and adventurism as well as the Islamist regime’s inevitable march to a nuclear weapon can be laid at the feet of a Democratic Party. With a few exceptions, the Democrats fell meekly behind a president determined to prioritize détente with Iran over the alliance with Israel and the need to defend U.S. interests. By smashing the bipartisan consensus that had existed on Iran up until this year, the Democrats have, in effect, become the hostages of the ayatollahs. This is a decision that will haunt them in the years to come.In analyzing the struggle that was ultimately won by Obama, it must first be acknowledged that the outcome was determined primarily by a mismatch in terms of the relative power of the two sides.

Though the Iran deal is a threat to U.S. security as well as to the interests of moderate Arab regimes who are as afraid of Tehran as Israel, the pro-Israel community, and AIPAC led the fight against the agreement. Though AIPAC can generally count on bipartisan support on any issue it cares about, it never had a prayer of beating an administration that was prepared to do and say anything to get its way. Once the president made clear that he considered the nuclear deal to be the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy, the chances that even the pull of the pro-Israel community could persuade enough Democrats to sustain a veto override were slim and none. In order to achieve that victory, Obama had to sink to the level of gutter politics by smearing his critics as warmongers and slam AIPAC with the same sort of language that earned President George H.W. Bush opprobrium. But the president’s ability to twist the arms of most of the members of his own party to back him was never really in doubt. It was a defeat for AIPAC but not one that should impact its ability to continue to be effective on Capitol Hill.

It must also be noted that this outcome was only made possible by the utter stupidity and cowardice of key Republican leaders — especially Senator Bob Corker — that led to their agreement to a bill that reversed the treaty ratification process. The Corker-Cardin bill that gave Congress the right to vote on the deal was represented at the time as a bipartisan triumph but the Democrats were laughing up their sleeves the whole time. Instead of demanding that the president present the deal to Congress as a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds vote of approval, Obama was able to ram this awful deal down the throats of a reluctant country and Congress by only being able to have enough votes to sustain a veto. It would have been better for the country had the GOP stood on its ground on the treaty issue since that would have left Obama to pursue his original plan, which was to treat the deal as a simple agreement that required no Congressional action at all. At least then the deal would have been seen as another end run around the Constitution by a lawless president. Instead, he gets to pretend that Congress has ratified the deal when, in fact, large majorities oppose it in both the House and the Senate.

But the most important point to be gleaned from Obama’s seeming triumph is that he and his party now bear complete responsibility for Iran’s good conduct as well as its nuclear program.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Curse of the Obama Doctrine

Are CEOs Overpaid? by Gary M. Galles

Are corporate managers and CEOs overpaid?

Many politicians rail against “overpaid” corporate managers. But these attacks overlook the issues of risk and uncertainty.

Workers agree to compensation before performing their work. Consequently, their compensation reflects not a known value but their expected value when arrangements are made.

Managers who turn out more productive than expected will have been underpaid, those less productive than expected will have been overpaid. But examples of the latter don’t prove managers are generally overpaid.

As performance reveals productivity, competition will also bid compensation of superior managers up and inferior managers down. And we must consider the present value of that entire stream, not a given year’s results, to evaluate managers’ productivity versus pay.

No manager is always right, but not every mistake is proof that they’re overpaid. They are paid for superior, not flawless, judgment — fewer mistakes, but not no mistakes.

That is another reason top managers of large enterprises will be very highly compensated. A 1% higher probability of being right on a $1 billion bet is very valuable, and even more so for a $10 billion bet. But even the best will err sometimes, so mistakes don’t prove shareholders are overpaying for managerial judgment.

This is part of a series of micro-blogs by Professor Galles responding to frequently asked questions on economic issues. If you have a question, emailAnythingPeaceful@FEE.org. 

Today’s Democratic Party is full of Moonbats

I have been at this game of politics for some time now.  Even before I became a talk show host, I was involved in politics.  As an adult, I was elected as a Senator to my College Student Government and I was even appointed as the Chairman of the Student Aid Research Committee also known as SARC.  I spent a full year going to Albany, New York where I had to lobby the state Assembly and the Senate for more student aid for the state and it was not a pleasant experience. I got an education about how the system works and how the left and the right promise the sun to your face, but in reality they can’t even deliver the moon.

Unfortunately the truth is nothing has improved.  In fact one could argue that things have actually gotten worse because our nation has been forced further to the left even when the American public wants things to be more right of center. What we have today is a Republican Party that is now what the Democratic Party used to be and we now have a Democratic Party that has moved so far left that it’s become filled with people and ideas that were once limited to Socialists and Communists. The left has become full of Moonbats.

It has been said that the full moon has an effect on human beings and that people tend to be a little more off their rocker when that orb is high, full, and bright.  But it now seems that the moon is full all the time because they defend the murderous actions of Planned Parenthood and give the excuse it is nothing more than a woman’s health issue.  We have the Black Lives Matter movement that seems to think Black Lives only matter when a white police officer kills a black person but they forget the fact that black people kill more black people every year.  They also forget the fact that Planned Parenthood aborts more black babies every year but the only thing that matters to them is what a white police officer does to a black suspect.

We also have Global Climate Change which used to be called Global Cooling, however, the science and actual, real life observance of the climate and weather proved that the planet was not cooling off which would have brought about another Ice Age. Then the left changed their words and their meaning to Global Warming but again the same thing happened.  The science and the actual live reality did not match the doomsday scenario that those Moonbats told us was going to end civilization as we know it. When they no longer could fight reality, those Moonbats shifted gears yet again.  They now call it full on Man Made Global Climate Change and we also have a US President who spouts this rhetoric almost daily. The problem is, like many who are of the ruling and wealthy class, they are hypocrites when it comes to this Global Warming Moonbattery because the president and those rich and famous folk will fly private jets that burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel and then ride in limousines that burn hundreds of gallons of gasoline just so they can give a speech or make an appearance in support of this fake science.

Let’s not forget that we have millions of people who have decided to invade our sovereign nation simply because they say they want a better life and they know they break our laws but we are to let them in and let them stay anyway.  If we do not let them stay and if we do not give them all the government services and benefits that used to be reserved for legal citizens then we are anti human and bigoted.  Forget the fact that no other nation on the planet allows what we are allowing and yet the left is completely silent on that fact.

Also let us not forget we have a presidential candidate within the Democratic Party, who is at the top of the political election polls that has been embroiled in scandal after scandal after scandal.  This candidate has been caught in lie after lie after lie.  Yet somehow this candidate remains that party’s top choice. We know she lied then covered up the lie about a number of issues. In fact we had a former president resign his office for a crime far less serious than what this Democratic Candidate is accused of and has already proven to have done. Yet somehow, when anyone, especially those on the right bring this up, they are the ones who are evil, mean spirited, misogynistic, and bigoted, and need to be silenced.

Which brings me to my last example of many and trust me there are many.  Freedom of speech, according to the Moonbat left, is reserved for those who spew the same hatred they do.  If you speak of anything that resembles the truth but it makes folks feel bad then you need to be silenced.  In fact they believe in selective freedom of speech so much that even the President of the United States has openly said that we need to amend the 1st Amendment and change and limit the free expression of speech and ideas.

Yes folks, there is a full moon over the United States of America and the creature that flies by its liberal light are called Moonbats.  They can only be defeated at the election polls which is why we who are not Moonbats need to vote for and elect the most Conservative candidate available that can win.  It is the only cure.  It is the only solution.

If we don’t then our entire nation will be overrun by Moonbats.  And frankly, there has never been a nation in history that has survived when it was taken over by Moonbats.

Do you really want the United States to be the next civilization destroyed by Moonbats?