Tag Archive for: Obama

13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi a Stephen Coughlin Video Moment

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed 13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, focusing on a few crucial things not covered in the film.

And make sure to watch The Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveiled how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror: CLICK HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim migrant: “German girls are just there for sex”

Hugh Fitzgerald: Sticking to the Details

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Readers may donate through The Glazov Gang Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook.

Political Correctness and Barack Obama

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 12, 2016 was criticized by many. For us, the people of the former Socialist countries, it had been a very familiar political theater. The carefully choreographed speech was brought from the stratosphere of illusion and a calligraphy of misleading, which had nothing to do with the reality on the planet Earth. We were not surprised—we are used to the political theater of Stalinist’s ideology, the only achievement of Soviet Socialism. President Obama’s speech represented a quintessential form of the Stalin’s Political Correctness, which has been nourished by the liberals in America for the last several decades.

You won’t find a person in America’s social media who doesn’t use the term Political Correctness every day and many times a day. In his interview with Fox, the former FBI deputy director Kostrome said to Judge Jeanine: “Political correctness is killing us.” He is right, PC was designed to harm and destroy Western civilization. Yet, I am not sure that all the people using the term are familiar with its agenda, etymology, and creator. The author and architect of the term is Joseph Stalin and knowing this fact will help many to grasp the world politics of the 21st century.

Barack Obama forces me to return again to this subject. When I read that 76 per cent of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. They did not know that PC was a Stalinist ideological invasion into their culture, they just felt it intuitively. I also knew that they are the fairest people in the world and their dislike for PC shows them to be very sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against American interests.

Political Correctness is the Ideological Tool of Soviet Socialism.

Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the ideology of Soviet Socialism, the topic I have been writing about for the last twenty years. I called this war WWIII. There are four main components in my definition of an asymmetrical WWIII. They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs, and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness, which is falsely projects tolerance.

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.”  He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world was expressed by Karl Marx in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. He used Political Correctness.

We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called Soviet Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-faceted war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms. Speaking different languages and living in different countries, we all came to America from a collective microcosm of Political Correctness—a false narrative to alter the nature of the Truth. There is no surprise that the American people are angered and frustrated—this is a response to Obama’s war against the population. He is following the same way Stalin did to build his Soviet Socialism, which had never worked.

Yet, many Americans are still infected by the virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is – how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, survive for almost a century and still seduce a lot of people in the world today? The question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods of the Stalin’s social model—one of them is Political Correctness.

Does anybody in America or the world know the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

It seems that the nature of those two words, is very neutral indeed. In fact, those words are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods which are used to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting its ideological opponents. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia (News) in 1933, the time when major transformation was going on within the Soviet Union. Stalin called “Politically Incorrect” the leaders of the opposition. The American educator Herbert Kohl confirms my opinion:

“In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. “

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I have offered my version of the matter several times before:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of lies, the long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

And again I’d like to remind you about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. Stalin was so skillful at political intrigue that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigue. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood… And so lives America in the 21st century.

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of the Obama administration America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, the harm Obama has done to economy counts in billions, our morals are at their lowest level ever. All of this has a logical result—Socialism has never worked anywhere, it ended by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The history of the 20 century repeats itself in the 21st when manipulation and brainwashing of human minds goes undetected in America. We can’t continue down the path of “Democratic Socialism”: it is an oxymoron–Democratic can’t be Socialist and Socialism can’t be democratic. We must return to the values of our Founding Fathers. Now is the time to see clearly where we are going under the leadership of the party, called Democratic: Even the name is a false one. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about source of PC, yet, with his magnetic and unique personality, he symbolizes them all. We are witnessing an uprising against the bureaucracy of the Washington political class.

“I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!” – Clint Eastwood

‘Iran will now have more resources to divert to terrorism’

Can’t argue with that, Bibi.

“John Kerry Says the Middle East Is ‘Safer’ Thanks to Iran Deal Implementation — But That’s Not What Netanyahu Says,” by Sharona Schwartz, The Blaze, January 17, 2016:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran would free up more money for the Islamic Republic to pursue terrorism.

“What is clear is that Iran will now have more resources to divert to terrorism and its aggression in the region and around the world, and Israel is prepared to deal with any threat,” Netanyahu said at his weekly cabinet meeting, according to a transcript released by his office.

Netanyahu’s assessment stood in stark contrast with that of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who a day earlier said that both the world and the Middle East were now safer thanks to the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal.

“Today … the United States, our friends and allies in the Middle East, and the entire world are safer because the threat of a nuclear weapon has been reduced,” Kerry said Saturday in Vienna.

The Israeli leader vowed that his government would monitor “all of Iran’s international violations, including regarding the nuclear agreement, the ballistic missile agreement and terrorism.”

He also urged other countries to “enact severe and aggressive sanctions against each violation.”

“Were it not for our efforts to lead sanctions and thwart Iran’s nuclear program, Iran would have had nuclear weapons some time ago. Israel’s policy is exactly as it has been – not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu added….

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic jihadists kidnap three Americans in Baghdad

I am outraged by Iran’s Nuke Deal

I am outraged, deeply saddened and have lost all my respect for Western Powers and especially the Liberal government of Canada for accepting the evil Iran Nuke Deal and for endorsing that terrorist regime.

In January 1979, leaders of United States, England, France and Germany met in Guadalupe Island and had a three-day conference from January 3-7 where they decided to remove the Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and replaced him with a medieval minded jihadi Shiite Muslim ayatollah who was living in exile in France. They thought the Shah was too competent and modern for them. In this decision, the Iranian nation also played a huge role as without the masses power, the Western Powers  would not be able to topple the Shah.

At Guadalupe conf., the Western Powers decided to destroy the Middle East, and her peace, and stability which history has proved it and we know what happened since.

37 years later, yesterday on January 16, 2016, the World Powers completed their evil mission and signed a very dangerous #nukedeal with the Khomeneist regime in Iran and buried Peace, Freedom and Democracy in the Word. Sadly, the Iranian nation, still is asleep and cheerfully endorses this deal. The nation is without the clue that by this deal, the World powers have signed their oppression and locked them up in Iran-jail for eternity.

And West underestimated that while US releases $ 150B to Tehran regime, the Iran regime acknowledges 200,000 armed youth in 5 countries and  creating over 50 proxy Shiite terrorist groups only in Iraq and Syria.

Iran’s terrorist Forces, IRGC works outside Iran through it’s terrorist Quds Forces, which is led by their terrorist general, Qassem Soleimani creates massive unrest in the region through the Iranian proxies.

According to a report by AAWSAT.COM, “Tehran regime Acknowledge 200 Thousand Armed Youth in Five Countries.” Iran’s  IRGC has four major forces, which are the Ground Forces, Air Force, Navy, and Missile Force. Recently, and according to an expert who observes Iranian affairs, the IRGG introduced its fifth force, which is the “Electronic, Intelligence and Cultural Deterrence Force”.

Shabnam Assadollahi is a veteran human rights advocate who has worked extensively helping newcomers and refugees resettle in Canada and has distinguished herself as a broadcaster, writer and public speaker. While her primary and heartfelt interest focuses on the Iranian community and world events effecting women and minority communities in the land of her birth – she also advocates for the emancipation of women and minority religious communities worldwide. A resident of Ottawa she is active in community affairs including cultural, educational and humanitarian activities.

JCPOA’s blueprint for creating patient pathways for Iran to nuclear weapons and fortifying itself against sanctions.

Trudeau Liberals signed mass executions of thousands of voiceless Iranians by accepting this Nuke deal which has also ended the world Peace.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ANALYSIS: Obama’s fantasy of a new Iran endangers us all

Why Canada Shut down the Iranian embassy in Ottawa: Shut Down Iran’s Embassy in Canada by Christine Williams August 9, 2012

Iran’s “Fifth Column” Targets Canadian Schoolchildren by David Harris

Iran Infiltrates Canada, Calls to Attack America by Christine Williams July 11, 2012

Activists protest Iran’s execution of political dissidents

The Islamic Republic of Iran­­—State sponsor of Terrorism

Obama Administration stonewalling investigation into 113 terrorists inside U.S.

What could possibly go wrong, you greasy Islamophobe?

“Obama Admin Stonewalling Investigation Into 113 Terrorists Inside United States,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 11, 2016:

Leading senators on Monday petitioned multiple Obama administration agencies to stop stonewalling a congressional investigation into the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals implicated in terrorist operations after legally entering the United States, according to a copy of the letters.

The latest investigation comes just days after the Washington Free Beacon disclosed that an additional 41 foreign-born individuals who legally entered the United States had been arrested for planning a number of terror attacks.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) disclosed Monday that they had been pressuring the Obama administration for months to disclose the immigration histories of these foreign-born individuals implicated in terror plots.

Agencies including the Departments of State and Homeland Security have stonewalled these efforts, declining since mid-2015 to provide Congress additional information. This move has prompted speculation among lawmakers that the administration is withholding information to prevent the exposure of major gaps in the U.S. screening process for new immigrants.

“The American people are entitled to information on the immigration history of terrorists seeking to harm them,” Cruz and Sessions wrote to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the attorney general.

Similar requests for information issued sent in August and again in December have not been answered by the administration

The letter cites a recent Free Beacon report detailing that an additional 41 foreign-born individuals had been snagged on terrorism-related charges since 2014. The disclosure of these previously unknown accused terrorists brings the total number of foreigners brought up on terrorism charges to 113.

Sessions and Cruz note that at least 14 of those foreigners accused of terrorism were granted legal entrance to the United States as refugees.

“Many more came through other immigration programs,” they wrote. “A number of immigrant terrorists were even approved for citizenship. Others are the U.S.-born children of foreign migrants whose presence in the country would not be possible but for the immigration of their parents.”

Many of these recently implicated foreigners have been caught by authorities planning terrorist attacks on American soil, while others were found to be involved in efforts to provide funding and material to ISIS, according to an internal list of migrant terrorists codified by congressional sources and viewed by the Free Beacon.

Cruz and Sessions are requesting that the agencies in question fill out a chart that includes only partial information about the 113 accused terrorists.

A senior congressional aide familiar with the investigation said the soaring rate of immigration is taking a toll on the U.S. security establishment.

“The cost of high rates of Muslim immigration are clear: enormous security challenges combined with vast expenses to track and convict those here attempting to wound Americans,” the source said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Missoula, Montana! Beware! Refugees could soon be on the way

Cologne: Welcome party for migrants turned into mass groping

Pakistani boy cuts off his own hand after accidentally committing “blasphemy”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of a Permanent resident card is courtesy of the Associated Press.

Americans Oppose Unilateral Actions, Wary of Federal Government Gun Control

Despite a highly-publicized speech and a multi-week media blitz aimed at convincing the American people of the importance and legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s executive maneuvers on gun control, the American people remain unpersuaded. Polls show that Americans are unconvinced about the effectiveness of further gun control measures and are in opposition to Obama’s decision to work outside the traditional political process. An additional poll offers important insight in to one of the reasons the public has repeatedly rejected new federal gun controls.

A poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily on January 4-7 asked if stricter gun control would “hinder self-defense, protecting family” or “reduce crime/keep guns out of criminals’ hands?” Only 42 percent of those surveyed responded that stricter controls would stop criminals from acquiring guns. Moreover, the poll found that more members of the public believe an increase in gun ownership would lead to an increase in safety rather than an increase in crime. The poll also found that the vast majority of Americans agree that the Second Amendment “will always be a relevant and necessary safeguard against tyranny,” including 52 percent of Democrats.

Similarly, a Rasmussen poll conducted January 6-7 revealed that Americans question the efficacy of Obama’s executive actions, but it also showed the public is skeptical of the legitimacy of Obama’s decision to act unilaterally. Survey takers were asked, “Will the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales reduce the number of mass shootings in America?” A mere 21 percent believed that measure would be effective, while 59 percent answered that it would not. Further, indicating that at least half of Americans didn’t sleep through grade school civics, when asked, “When it comes to gun control, should President Obama take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed or should the government do only what the president and Congress agree on?” a majority of 58 percent answered that the president must work with Congress.

Part of the reason the Americans lack an appetite for gun control is revealed in another Rasmussen poll conducted January 10-11. The survey asked, “Do you trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws?” A staggering 59 percent of those polled do not trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly. A mere 28 percent trust the government with this task, while 13 percent were undecided.

These results are in line with broader measures of trust in the federal government. Since the 1970s, Gallup has routinely conducted a poll asking “how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government in Washington when it comes to handling [domestic problems] – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?” Under Obama, the federal government has breached Watergate-era lows in trust.

With a severe distrust of the government’s ability to fairly carry out gun control policies, the widely-opposed decision by Obama to go it alone on guns is unlikely to bring about the sort of togetherness across the political spectrum that Obama purports to seek. Those currently running for the Presidency that hope to reverse the climate of distrust with Washington might do well to exhibit trust in the American people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and their ability to make decisions through their elected representatives.

RELATED VIDEOS:

In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that, with his latest executive actions on gun control, President Obama has once again chosen to engage in political grandstanding instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Rep. Schweikert Introduces D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

Anti-Gunners Endorse Hillary Clinton for President

Obama Administration blocks visa waiver reforms to avoid upsetting Iran

“Recent congressional efforts to tighten gaps in the U.S. visa waiver program were blocked by the Obama administration out of fear the counter-terror effort would upset Iran.” The Iranians, meanwhile, seem to be going out of their way to do things that would upset the United States. They know who has the upper hand.

iran visa“Obama Admin Blocked Visa Waiver Reforms to Avoid Upsetting Iran,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 14, 2016:

Recent congressional efforts to tighten gaps in the U.S. visa waiver program were blocked by the Obama administration out of fear the counter-terror effort would upset Iran, which opposes the reform to the visa process, according to a letter sent by a delegation of leading senators to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Congress approved late last year a measure to tighten restrictions on those entering the United States via the visa waiver program, which facilitates travel between America and many European countries.

The law prohibits travel to the United States for any foreign individual who has since 2011 visited Iraq, Iran, or any other country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Obama administration threatened to waive the provision after Iran publicly opposed the measure and warned that it violates the nuclear agreement with Iran.

In a December letter to top Iranian leaders, Kerry promised the administration would veto the measure and work to uphold the nuclear agreement.

“The administration has the authority to waive” the counter-terrorism measures and will take steps to ensure the measures do not “interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” Kerry wrote to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the Iran deal, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that congressional efforts to tighten restrictions “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”

The Obama administration’s threat to veto the new counter-terror law sparked outrage among Republican lawmakers who accuse Kerry and his team of jeopardizing U.S. national security to appease one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terror.

“Iran-sponsored terrorists and militants are responsible for the death of more than 700 Americans,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and 12 other senators wrote to Kerry on Wednesday. “As you continue to engage with Mr. Zarif, we urge—rather than seeking to placate the complaints of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism—you to press him and his government to cease its support for terrorism and provide tangible evidence that it is doing so.”

The United States must make clear to Iran “that these reforms to the [visa waiver program] were not drafted with Iranian interests in mind, but U.S. national security interests,” the senators wrote.

Other lawmakers who backed the letter include Sens. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), and James Inhofe (R., Okla.).

The lawmakers expressed “grave concern” over Kerry’s effort to reassure Zarif and Iran.

While Iran maintains that the new counter-terror measure would harm its international business interests, the lawmakers affirmed that the Islamic Republic could exploit flaws in the U.S. screening process as part of its ongoing sponsor of terror operations.

“Iran-sponsored terrorists and militants are responsible for the death of more than 700 Americans,” the lawmakers wrote. “During the 1980s, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed over 290 Americans in Lebanon—including 241 U.S. servicemen in the Beirut Barracks Bombing of October 23, 1983.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Hugh Fitzgerald: Goodbye to Al Jazeera America

America Is Broken

Despite whatever President Obama said during his state of the union address, America the beautiful is broken.  Obama’s state of the union speech reminded me of his 2004 Democrat convention oratory.  His address was filled with socialist idealistic imagery, with attempts at igniting a passionate and mindless following by a misled and ill-informed sea of people willing to help him shove America over the cliff and unto the ash heap of history.

There were the typical political style utilization of numerous half-truths, hyperbole and non-sequiturs to make mostly non-existent and partisan points, while forging ahead with politics as usual.  To sum it up, it was a speech that became the hallmark of Barack Hussein Obama’s progressive political career.  There are some who believe he has retreated to his anti-American roots as a community organizer.

President Obama’s final presidential state of the union address provided a huge supply of sop to his far left anti-liberty political base.  It was also creatively molded to seem like a motivational speech of encouragement to a nation that in reality he disdains.  I am sure that Mr. Obama hoped that his speech would hoodwink  Americans into believing his presidency to be one of optimism, humanism, statesmanship and bi-partisan outreach.  Sure, if one is ignorant and totally void of understanding, Obama achieved that goal.  Taken in a vacuum, Obama’s speech probably secured that goal.

However, as time will reveal, it may quite likely be as ineffectual as using one of the “first black president” Bill Clinton’s state of the union speeches to characterize his presidency in isolation from Monica Lewinski.  “We the People” of America must refuse to accept the dregs of political leadership and raise our expectations.

Perhaps Americans should take a remedial course on civics, the constitutionally mandated role government and elected officials, including the president.  It has been said that knowledge is power.  As long as the people of America are either indoctrinated against the truth or simply not taught it in the first place, our rights will continue to be trampled away by big government.  At the same time, our republic as a whole s diminished in stature, power and wealth.

If president Obama truly desired to bring about a healing of the wounds his seven years has inflicted upon our republic, he could have done so during his state of the union address.  But rather, he remained on his long traveled path of promoting his doctrine of failed and wicked social, moral and political destruction.  Unfortunately, over 40 percent of the American people agree with Obama along with millions of illegal immigrants, Obama is emboldened in his gruesome goal to fundamentally change America into a land of muck, mire and misery.

The United States of America was envisioned as a blessed republic of “We the People” where the government was to be a servant of the sovereign citizens of our nation.  The government was also meant to be a mighty sword against evildoers and enemies of our republic, not a brutal beast of tyranny against law abiding sovereigns like you and I.  My Dad used to tell me that our nation and the government are both a reflection of the people of America.  Right now that is not a pretty picture ethically, morally, spiritually, or economically.

Throughout the duration of the president’s fifty nine minute state of the union speech he told half-truths and outright lies as well.  One major fib was his description of ISIS enemies as people riding around on pickup trucks and that they are not a threat to America’s existence.  The fact that he could say that with a straight face is jaw dropping.  Mr. Obama either forgot or chose not to mention that many murdering ISIS terrorists are cruising around in well fortified armored vehicles left behind by United States forces.  The Muslim ISIS are also heavily armed and with firearms and are plundering all whom they encounter, especially Black Africans and Christians.

I find it very interesting and telling how the president took people to task for daring to complain about or promote standing up to Muslims, who have come into America with a stated mission to change her.  But not once during Obama’s state of the union speech did he address the horrendous treatment of Christians or the millions of Black Africans who exist under the boot heel of Muslim abuse and humiliation.  Dear reader, it is put up or shut up time for us.  The status quo no longer has the ability to maintain or more importantly contain the forces of evil that are continuing to unite and attempt to beat America into submission to the will of enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Despite the fact that our nation’s standard of living is now lower than any time since the Korean War, or that the military is not the powerhouse it still was, even under the George W. Bush administration, or that the government schools are aiding our enemies by indoctrinating students against America and all that is good etc. etc. it is not yet over for our great republic.  All we have to do is seek providential guidance, reestablish real education and God’s forgiveness for allowing the destruction being heaped upon this country.  Then establish and stick to the political will to conduct the nation’s business in a manner that benefits our republics best interest.  Will it be difficult? Absolutely, but more importantly it will be well worth the effort.

God Bless You, God Bless America and May America Bess God.

Condensed version of Obama’s SOTU

The working people of the American Union marked the past year, the year of the historic 7th Obama government year, with new successes in economic development and advancement of the people’s well-being and cultural level.

All economic indicators are up. The Party has eliminated unemployment. The population of workers out of the workforce has gone down from ten million workers out of the work force before, to ninety-three million today. A clear sign that our central plan is on the right track.

Health insurance through ObamaCare has met even more success. Before ObamaCare the costs of healthcare for the workers was an astronomical 2.3 trillion dollars in 2007. Healthcare costs are now dramatically down from 2.3 trillion to only 4.1 trillion dollars annually today and are projected to go down more further faster!

On the world front the American standing in the world is the best it’s been in decades. Worldwide polls show respect for America has risen from 62% of those polled worldwide liking and respecting the United States seven years ago to 7% of the world liking and respecting the United States today. A dramatic increase by any measure. This new respect for America is due to the Party’s commitment to world peace which has resulted in global stability not seen before in our lifetime.

Domestic peace, too, has greatly increased. Again, the numbers speak for themselves.

In sum, the state of the Union is strong and you have every reason to be proud of the central planning and guidance of me.

You may stand, clap, and thank me now.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared in The Peoples Cube.

Obama: ‘There are no existential threats’, not even the Islamic State

These are words that are likely to be recalled bitterly in the coming years.

american sailors captured by Iran

American sailors captured by Iran. Photo: IRIB News.

“President Obama: ‘There Are No Existential Threats’ to the United States,” by Alex Griswold, Mediaite, January 12th, 2016:

In an interview with NBC’s Today on the morning of his final State of the Union address, President Barack Obama told interviewer Matt Lauer that the United States didn’t face a single existential threat as his presidency approached its end.

“It is sometimes important for people to step back and measure how far we’ve come,” Obama argued. “The economy right now is better than any other economy in the world by a significant margin. We remain the strongest nation on earth by far and there are no existential threats facing us.”

“If we make some good choices now, whoever the next president is, whoever is controlling the next Congress there, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t own the 21st century,” he said.

Lauer went on to ask Obama specifically about the threat posed by ISIS and other terror groups. “Your daughters are young ladies. When they get to be your age, President Obama, do you believe in your heart that they will be living in a world that is dealing with the threat of radical Islam on a daily basis?”

“I am absolutely confident we will have defeated ISIL,” Obama responded. “I don’t think we have to wait until they are 54 for that to happen.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Islamic State: How Viable Is It?

What Obama Got Wrong in the State of the Union

Fact-Checking Obama’s Final State of the Union

48 Tweets From Conservatives About the State of the Union

Iranian military seizes two U.S. Navy boats, holds ten American sailors

Islamic State jihad suicide bomber murders 10 in Istanbul

Benghazi: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

Excerpts from the forward to Mitchell Zuckoff’s book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi”:

Dean_Rusk,_Lyndon_B._Johnson_and_Robert_McNamara_in_Cabinet_Room_meeting_February_1968

Dean Rusk,Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert McNamara in Cabinet Room meeting February 1968.

“A BLOODTHIRSTY MOB BORE DOWN ON THE UNITED States’ poorly defended diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. Besieged American envoys and staffers withdrew to a locked room as fires set by the attackers drew closer. The Americans prayed and appealed for rescue, calling home to Washington and to nearby allies. If no help came, they feared one of three fates: They’d be killed by the invaders, suffocate from smoke, or be roasted alive. In the meantime, they’d fight.

The date was June 5, 1967.

War had just begun between Israel and Egypt, and morning radio reports in Benghazi were filled with false claims that US military planes had provided air cover for Israeli attacks or had bombed Cairo, less than seven hundred miles away. Hundreds”

[ … ]

“With no rescue in sight, Kormann took down from the wall a photo of President Lyndon Johnson and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson. He broke it from its frame, flipped it over, and wrote on the back that, whatever happened, they had done their duty. Everyone in the smoky vault signed the farewell note.”

[ … ]

Hillary+Clinton+President+Obama+Meets+Cabinet+__g1TiFp3W4l

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Robert Gates in cabinet meeting , November 2009.

“Forty-five years later, on September 11, 2012, the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi again came under sudden siege by a murderous mob. Again the attackers couldn’t reach their prey, so they plundered buildings and set fires with deadly intent. But this time, no British or other friendly troops were close enough to attempt a rescue.

With fires raging, gunmen swarming, State Department security officers taking cover, and the US ambassador missing, a call went out from one of the overwhelmed Americans: “If you don’t get here soon, we’re all going to die!”

George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

It is prophetic that the two attacks on American embassy personnel in Benghazi happened under the leadership of Democratic President Johnson and his Secretary of State Dean Rusk; and forty-five years later under Democratic President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It this a harbinger of things to come?

Please watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Official Trailer:

Why the Feds (Still) Own so Much of the Country by Steve H. Hanke

The recent “occupation” of government-owned lands in Eastern Oregon by disgruntled ranchers’ motivated Quoctrung Bui and Margot Sanger-Katz of the New York Times to produce an edifying essay on January 6th. It was aptly titled “Why the Government Owns So Much Land in the West.” Curiously, the NYT essay fails to mention one of the most significant, recent, and contentious attempts to “dispose” of federal public lands.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president for his first term in 1980, he received strong support from the so-called Sagebrush Rebels. The Rebels wanted lands owned by the federal government to be transferred to state governments. Their champion was James Watt, a self-proclaimed Sagebrush Rebel who became the Secretary of the Interior.

When I was operating as one of President Reagan’s economic advisers, an early assignment was to analyze the federal government’s landholdings and make recommendations about what to do with them. This was a big job. These lands are vast, covering an area six times that of France.

These public lands represent a huge socialist anomaly in America’s capitalist system. As is the case with all socialist enterprises, they are mismanaged by politicians and bureaucrats dancing to the tunes of narrow interest groups. Indeed, the U.S. nationalized lands represent assets that are worth trillions of dollars, yet they generate negative net cash flows for the government.

I first presented my findings and recommendations publically at the annual Public Lands Council meeting of September 1981 in Reno, Nevada. The title of my speech was “Privatize Those Lands” — privatize being a word Mrs. Hanke, a Parisian, had imported from France.

My Reno speech caused a stir. James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior, was furious because he wanted to hand over the lands to the state governments — exchanging one form of socialism for another. Needless to say, I thought I was in deep trouble. Hoping to avoid political immolation, I rapidly sent my analysis to the President.

Reagan instantly responded, taking my side. Better yet, he swiftly made my proposals the Administration’s policy. The president endorsed privatizing federal lands in his budget message for the 1983 fiscal year:

Some of this property is not in use and would be of greater value to society if transferred to the private sector. In the next three years we would save $9 billion by shedding these unnecessary properties while fully protecting and preserving our national parks, forests, wilderness and scenic areas.

reagan in his own hand book coverIt turned out that Reagan had already thought about this issue. The book Reagan, In His Own Hand (2001) makes that clear. This volume contains 259 essays Reagan wrote in his own hand, mainly scripts for his five minute, five-day-a-week syndicated radio broadcasts in the late 1970s. Reagan, In His Own Hand contains several essays on the subject that clearly foreshadowed his policy statement on privatizing public lands. His 1970s musings on public lands echo the writings of Adam Smith. While Reagan never cited Smith, he employed similar reasoning.

Indeed, Smith concluded in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that “no two characters seem more inconsistent than those of the trader and the sovereign,” as people are more prodigal with the wealth of others than with their own. In that vein, Smith estimated that lands owned by the state were only about 25% as productive as comparable private holdings. Smith believed Europe’s great tracts of crown lands to be “a mere waste and loss of country in respect both of produce and population.”

Unfortunately, political opposition — largely from ill-informed environmentalists and some Sagebrush Rebels, too — stopped Reagan from privatizing. U.S. nationalized lands remain ill-used and a constant source of dispute.

This post fist appeared at Cato.org.

Steve H. Hanke

Obama ordered CIA not to support 2009 Green Movement in Iran

As demonstrations and revolts swept the Muslim world during Obama’s first term, he was enthusiastic. He had encouraging words for the “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia, and even gave military assistance to their Libyan counterparts. During the third and last debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Obama sparred over which could express support for the Syrian rebels (who are dominated by Islamic jihadists) more strongly, and as Obama’s second term began, his administration was inching ever closer to military aid for those rebels. Yet there have now been three large-scale demonstrations in Muslim countries that Obama did not support — and those three exceptions are extraordinarily revealing about his disposition, as well as his policy, toward Islam.

The three pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013, and the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey in recent weeks. There is a common thread between these three that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; in Turkey, they were protesting against the Erdogan regime that is working hard now to establish an Islamic state. All the other demonstrations were not against pro-Sharia forces, but were led by pro-Sharia forces, and led to the establishment of Islamic states. To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered — in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.

In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes.

“Nuclear Deal Fuels Iran’s Hard-Liners,” by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2016:

The Obama administration’s nuclear deal was intended to keep Iran from pursuing an atomic bomb, and raised hope in the West that Tehran would be nudged toward a more moderate path.

But there are growing fears in Washington and Europe that the deal—coupled with an escalating conflict with Saudi Arabia—instead risks further entrenching Iran’s hard-line camp.

Since completion of the agreement in July, Tehran security forces, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have stepped up arrests of political opponents in the arts, media and the business community, part of a crackdown aimed at ensuring Mr. Khamenei’s political allies dominate national elections scheduled for Feb. 26, according to Iranian politicians and analysts….

But the ranks of reformists in Iran have been depleted. Many activists are angry at the Obama administration for failing to support them six years ago in a rebuff that hasn’t been previously reported.

Iranian opposition leaders secretly reached out to the White House in the summer of 2009 to gauge Mr. Obama’s support for their “green revolution,” which drew millions of people to protest the allegedly fraudulent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The demonstrations caught the White House off guard, said current and former U.S. officials who worked on Iran in the Obama administration.

Some U.S. officials pressed Mr. Obama to publicly back the fledgling Green Movement, arguing in Oval Office meetings that it marked the most important democratic opening since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Mr. Obama wasn’t convinced. “‘Let’s give it a few days,’ was the answer,” said a senior U.S. official present at some of the White House meetings. “It was made clear: ‘We should monitor, but do nothing.’ ”

The president was invested heavily in developing a secret diplomatic outreach to Mr. Khamenei that year, sending two letters to the supreme leader in the months before the disputed election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, said current and former U.S. officials.

Obama administration officials at the time were working behind the scenes with the Sultan of Oman to open a channel to Tehran. The potential for talks with Iran—and with Mr. Khamenei as the ultimate arbiter of any nuclear agreement—influenced Mr. Obama’s thinking, current and former U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials said the White House also was getting conflicting messages from Green Movement leaders. Some wanted Mr. Obama to publicly warn Mr. Khamenei against using force. Others said such a declaration would give Iran’s supreme leader an excuse to paint the opposition as American lackeys.

Mr. Obama and his advisers decided to maintain silence in the early days of the 2009 uprising. The Central Intelligence Agency was ordered away from any covert work to support the Green Movement either inside Iran or overseas, said current and former U.S. officials involved in the discussions.

“If you were working on the nuclear deal, you were saying, ‘Don’t do too much,’ ” said Michael McFaul, who served as a senior National Security Council official at the White House before becoming ambassador to Russia in 2012.

After a week of demonstrations, Iran’s security forces went on to kill as many as 150 people and jail thousands of others over the following months, according to opposition and human rights groups. Mr. Khamenei accused the U.S. of instigating the uprising. Iran denied killing protesters.

Some of Mr. Obama’s closest advisers, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , said in retrospect the U.S. should have backed the Green Movement. “If we could do it again, I would give different counsel,” said Dennis Ross, Mr. Obama’s top Mideast adviser during his first term. At the time, he said, he argued against embracing the protests.

A senior U.S. official said this week that the Obama administration argued against covert support for the Green Movement because it risked undermining its credibility domestically, not out of fear of Mr. Khamenei’s reaction. “We did not want to tar the movement,” the official said.

Mr. Obama pursued nuclear diplomacy with Iran using a two-track approach: ratcheting up economic sanctions while leaving the door open for direct negotiations.

Over the next four years, international sanctions cut Iran’s oil exports in half, and the value of its currency, the rial, dropped by two-thirds. The U.S. also succeeded in shutting off most of Iran’s financial institutions from the global economy, including Iran’s central bank.

In 2012, the White House, working through Omani intermediaries, set up the first direct talks with Iran. A year later, Mr. Rouhani was elected, and the negotiations moved more quickly toward an agreement.

Mr. Obama’s advisers said the White House’s cautious handling of Iran’s political opposition was the best course in 2009. The Green Movement wasn’t unified, they said, and didn’t have much of a chance to overthrow the regime.

Former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who led the protests, remain under house arrest in Tehran, despite pledges by Mr. Rouhani to release them. Thousands of student leaders and democracy activists who took to the streets six years ago were exiled to Turkey, Europe and the U.S., fearing arrest if they return home.

At a recent oil conference in Tehran, Mr. Rouhani’s energy minister, Bijan Zanganeh, answered questions about oil production and job promotion in the wake of the nuclear agreement. When pressed about the status of political prisoners, which include Messrs. Mousavi and Karroubi, he didn’t answer and instead jumped into a waiting SUV.

“A historic opportunity was missed” six years ago, said former Green Movement leader Heshmat Tabarzadi in an interview via Skype in Tehran. He has served intermittent jail terms there since 2009.

“There isn’t much of a Green Movement left,” he said.

RELATED VIDEO: Neda Agha Soltan, killed 20.06.2009, Presidential Election Protest, Tehran, IRAN

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cologne Muslim sex assaults were planned, Muslims traveled from France and Belgium to join them

UK government helps immigrants quash convictions for illegal entry into the country

Cologne Sex Assaults planned: Muslims traveled from France and Belgium to rape women

“Cologne violence was likely planned: German justice minister,” Agence France-Presse, January 10, 2016 (thanks to Bob):

BERLIN: Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas said Sunday that the shocking spate of sexual assaults during New Year festivities in Cologne was organised.

“For such a horde of people to meet and commit such crimes, it has to have been planned somehow,” he told Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

“No one can tell me that this was not coordinated or planned. The suspicion is that a specific date and an expected crowd was picked,” he said, adding that if confirmed, that would “take on a new dimension”.

Quoting confidential police reports, Bild am Sonntag said some North Africans had sent out calls using social networks for people to gather in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

Young men not only from Cologne, but as far as France and Belgium responded to the call to travel to the western German city, the newspaper said.

Cologne police said they have now recorded 379 cases of New Year’s Eve violence — ranging from groping to theft to two reported rapes — with asylum seekers and illegal migrants from North Africa making up the majority of suspects.

The allegations have stoked criticism of Merkel’s liberal open-door policy — which brought 1.1 million new asylum seekers to Germany last year.

RELATED ARTICLES:

German government predicts another million migrants in 2016

Obama ordered CIA not to support 2009 Green Movement in Iran because he wanted to court Khamenei

VIDEO: Gun Control Debate in the Sunshine State

Christian Ziegler, the Republican Party of Sarasota State Committeeman was on the Alan ABC Channel 7 to debate President Obama’s Executive Order on gun control. Ziegler was on the Alan Cohn Show. Cohn is anchor and managing editor of ABC 7 News at 7:00 p.m

In an email Ziegler wrote:

I appeared on WWSB ABC 7 tonight to debate Ed James III, Democrat for FL House, about President Obama’s Executive Order on Gun Control.

Click here to watch the debate and then, if you have any thoughts about this issue, please reply back to this email [Inform@christiangop.com] and share them with me.

-Christian Ziegler
State Committeeman, Sarasota County

Here is the video of the Alan Cohn Show debate:

RELATED ARTICLE: The Facts Behind 4 of Obama’s Claims About Guns