The Betrayal Papers: And the Press Says Nothing…

by on March 18th, 2015

The first four parts of The Betrayal Papers have presented a nearly unfathomable scenario: a takeover of the country by a foreign, hostile party. (See Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.) This supplemental article addresses the problem of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the nation’s capital and throughout the American establishment.

The United States of America, primarily through the political left and Democrat Party, has been virtually colonized by the Muslim Brotherhood. Also known by their Arabic name, Ikhwan, they are a totalitarian, terrorist Islamic group that seeks our destruction because we are a free people.

We witness the Muslim Brotherhood’s planned destruction of America in many areas of contemporary life. A purposefully weak economy fails to produce the capitalist dynamism that has defined America for generations, and many millions remain unemployed. Abroad, the Muslim Brotherhood’s domination of American foreign policy instigated and backed the failed “Arab Spring,” which may ultimately result in Iranian domination of the Middle East. We feel their suffocating effects on our democracy every day, as our freedoms, traditions, opportunities, and rule of law slip away. The people suffer as prices continue to rise and the public sinks into a bottomless pit of debt.

The hostile, conquered government in Washington strangles our liberty each time Obama, like a self-crowned emperor, passes new regulatory laws without Congress.

Each of these trends is related to the predominant problem in America today: the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to a place of eminence in American government – the Executive, the Presidency. The People’s office, established by Article II of the Constitution, is now either occupied by a Muslim Brother in Barack Hussein Obama, or a man who happens to go along with their every policy at every turn.

To understand the nature and evil of the Muslim Brotherhood, recall their intimate involvement with Hitler’s Nazi war machine and Holocaust. This genocidal syndicate has birthed virtually all major Islamic terrorist groups and their various offshoots. Financially, they have the backing of the Qatar, whose ruling Al-Thani family is likely the world’s richest family.

Within the United States, Muslim Brotherhood finger prints are on the administration’s biggest scandals: IRS targeting of conservative groups, eavesdropping on the press, the scrubbing of counterterrorism material of the words “Islam” and “Muslim,” NYC police murders in December 2014, Benghazi, and more.

In Syria and Iraq, to the extent that these countries still distinctly exist and are not viewed as part of an emerging Islamic caliphate, the Muslim Brotherhood is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS and the entire Arab Spring. The Obama-backed project to replace strongmen in the region (e.g. Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad) is such a failure that Libya today is in a state of anarchy, occupied by ISIS’s bloodthirsty armies, who are training to invade Europe.

Paralyzed by Inaction and Complicity

The U.S. Congress refuses to act. They are in denial, and paid well to be so. Lobbyists and government perks keep them fat, happy, and stupid. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a regional headquarters in Doha, Qatar, home of the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Indeed, some of America’s most respected companies do business with Al-Thani family, who last year pledged $1 billion to the terrorist government, including Hamas, in Gaza.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Why Moral Values Matter

by on March 18th, 2015

By Alan Caruba

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
– John Adams (1735 – 1826), second President of the U.S.A.
It’s hard to consider the success of the book and film “Fifty Shades of Gray” without thinking that America has become morally bankrupt in terms of its views toward sexuality and, of course, in other ways as well.
At about the same time I was thinking this, a recent issue of The Wall Street Journal had an article titled “Unmarried…With Children.”
Let me say up front that, having spent the bulk of my life in the last century, I have been a witness to the changes that have occurred and they portend a society that in many ways is in deep trouble. It is not one in which I would want today’s generation of children to grow up. That said, today’s children are drenched in all manner of information for good or ill that was simply not accessible to earlier generations. Since it reflects the views of popular culture, it often conveys the wrong lessons.
In my youth and up to around the 1960s, some thirty years, the America in which I grew up disapproved of casual sex, abortions, unmarried people living together, pornography, and comparable issues. That has changed.
The article cited the fact that “More than a quarter of births to women of childbearing age—defined here as 15 to 44 years old—in the past five years were cohabiting couples, the highest on record and nearly double the rate from a decade earlier, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2011 to 2013.”
And here’s a statistic that really caught my attention: “Cohabiting parents now account for a clear majority—59%–of all births outside marriage, according to estimates by Sally Curtin, a CDC demographer. In all, 40% of the 3.93 million births in 2013 were to unmarried women.” Moreover, “It is mostly white and Hispanic couples who are driving the trend, not black couples, experts say.”
“Affluent, highly educated Americans still largely marry before starting families, and single mothers remain more common among the poor.”  There was a time when the vast majority of Americans regarded marriage as the bond that had to first exist before a family was started.
There was a time when single motherhood was considered shameful from a moral point of view and understood to be harmful to society in general. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center study, a third of single mothers aren’t working, meaning they are likely to depend on government welfare. Feminists may call this “liberation”, but for those experiencing it, it is called poverty.

Click to continue reading “Why Moral Values Matter”
Go straight to Post

Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution in Brazil

by on March 18th, 2015

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

With the Middle East in turmoil and Russia’s Vladimir Putin threatening nuclear war, most of our media have missed a big story south of the border. President Barack Obama’s fellow Marxist, Dilma Rousseff, is coming under tremendous pressure to resign her presidency in Brazil. As many as three million Brazilians took to the streets on Sunday to demand the impeachment of Rousseff, a former Marxist terrorist, and the end of the rule of the Brazilian Workers’ Party.

Such a development would be a major blow to the anti-American left in Latin America, which has been operating since 1990 under the rubric of the São Paulo Forum, a pro-communist movement started by Rousseff’s predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva, and Fidel Castro.

In a growing scandal, the treasurer of the ruling Workers’ Party has been charged with corruption and money laundering linked to the state-run oil company, Petrobras, a firm which has benefited from U.S. taxpayer loans provided through the Export-Import Bank under Obama.

While Obama has attempted to stifle oil development and production in the United States, his administration officially launched an “energy partnership” with Brazil in August of 2011. “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,” Obama told a group of Brazilian business leaders.

Some stories appearing in the Western press did note that as many as one million Brazilians turned out on Sunday to protest massive corruption linked to the Rousseff administration. One photo from the march showed a Brazilian waving a sign that said, “We won’t be another Venezuela,” a reference to another Marxist basket case of economic failure and corruption.

But sources contacted by Accuracy in Media say the turnout was far larger, with as many as three million Brazilians in the streets.

Alessandro Cota, a Brazilian who is currently a philosophy and political science researcher at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, told AIM, “This March 15 is certainly a new beginning for Brazil and probably the end of the dreams of all those who wanted to turn the largest country of Latin America into a socialist republic. After 12 years under the rule of the Brazilian Workers’ Party—8 years under President Lula (2003-2011), and 4 years under President Rousseff (who was re-elected last October for another four-year turn)—the Brazilian people, tired of waiting for opposition politicians to take action against the government, took the lead and decided to make history by themselves.”

Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, President of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, said, “Never and nowhere has a government been so completely rejected by its own population. But it is more than that. It is not only the rejection of a government, or a President. It is the rejection of the whole system of power that has been created by the Workers’ Party, which includes intellectuals and opinion-makers in the big media. People are no longer afraid of going against the Workers’ Party.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

"Playing Hide & Seek With Common Sense" and "Pet Peeves & Pet Heroes"

by on March 18th, 2015

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Although I understood that when George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, America did not enter the state of Nirvana. Far from it. Bush banned incandescent bulbs; wasted fifteen billion dollars fighting AIDS on a continent where those suffering from the disease were convinced that the surest cure was having sex with a young virgin; and micromanaged the war in Iran by insisting that we re-build every structure a minute after either we or the enemy had knocked it down.

In the meantime, Republican senators fluttered their collective eyelashes at Ted Kennedy, hoping in their girlish hearts that he would invite them to the senior prom.

I had assumed that after the shellacking they took over the next few years, they had learned their lesson. But, obviously, I was mistaken. Mea culpa.

Over the past 52 months, the Republicans have taken back 14 seats in the Senate and over 70 in the House, and yet they have once again assumed the role they clearly find most comfortable; namely, serving as geishas for the Democrats.

In the Senate, Mitch McConnell refuses to use any of the weapons against the Democrats that Harry Reid used so effectively against the Republicans, so that, for all intents and purposes, the Democrats are still in control. Making matters worse, we have Senators Flake, Hatch and Graham, voting to confirm Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder’s hand-picked successor at the Justice Department, even though she has already testified at her confirmation hearing that she regarded Obama’s executive amnesty to be constitutional.

Then, when rookie Senator Tom Cotton campaigned to get his fellow Republicans to send a letter to Iran’s theocratic despot, letting the Ayatollah Khomeini know that if he signed a nuclear agreement with Obama, absent Senate approval, it wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on, he couldn’t even muster a simple majority. In case you’re wondering about the identities of the seven sniveling holdouts, they are, in alphabetical order, Lamar Alexander (TN), Dan Coats (IN), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Tom Corker (TN), Jeff Flake (AZ) and Lisa Murkoski (AK).

An interesting aspect of the rumored treaty with Iran is that, at the very least, they will be able to pursue nuclear energy to their heart’s content, which is more than the liberals, taking their marching orders from environmental zealots, will allow us to do. How is it we’re not insisting that Iran start relying on solar panels and windmills for its energy needs?

Although nuclear energy is cheap, available and safe, and would make us energy independent for the foreseeable future, we haven’t built a nuclear plant since the 1970s. Perhaps if America could go to Switzerland and negotiate with John Kerry we, too, could start building centrifuges for peaceful purposes.

♦ It is delightful to watch Hillary Clinton swing in the breeze and endlessly amusing to watch her defenders circle the wagons and try to ward off the arrows, but I can’t help wondering about those pathetic excuses for human beings.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Hillary Clinton’s Tangled Web of Lies

by on March 17th, 2015

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

While some liberal commentators may continue to dismiss the coverage of Emailgate as “nonsense,” and a “fake scandal,” the fact remains that Hillary Clinton’s ongoing lies regarding her exclusive use of private email while serving as Secretary of State constitute just more of a long trail of deceptions reaching back to her youth. In 2008 Accuracy in Media published a column by the now-deceased Jerome Zeifman, the Democratic Party’s general counsel for the Watergate investigation. I had several conversations with him in his final years.

Zeifman was openly critical of Mrs. Clinton. Having worked with her during the formative years of her career, he had tremendous insight into her early character, which continues today. “Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust,” he commented for AIM in 2008.

Some have said that Zeifman “fired” Mrs. Clinton; but she was let go as one of a number of staff no longer needed. But as Zeifman said back in 1998, “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.”

Mrs. Clinton’s unethical practices during the Watergate investigation included “erroneous legal opinions,” “efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel,” and a general “unwillingness to investigate Nixon,” according to Zeifman.

The Democratic strategy of the time was to “keep Nixon in office ‘twisting in the wind’ for as long as possible” so that Republicans could not reclaim legitimacy, and so that a Democrat could gain the presidency, he wrote. Such cold political calculations ignored the damage that President Nixon was doing to the country in favor of acquiring political power.

“According to her boss, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, Hillary met with Teddy Kennedy’s chief political strategist—a violation of House rules,” Ben Shapiro recently wrote for Front Page Magazine. “She then manipulated the system to avoid investigating Nixon, hoping he’d stick around long enough to sink Republican election chances in 1976, letting her boy Teddy into the White House.”

Yet Mrs. Clinton is involved with The Clinton Foundation, and likes to present herself as an idealist. For example, her most recent press conference to address concerns about Emailgate was held in the United Nations building right after she finished a speech on women’s rights.

Back in 2008 Ron Rosenbaum of Slate Magazine called this ongoing dichotomy “Hillary I vs. Hillary II.” The first Hillary is an “idealistic believer in helping and healing children,” he writes. The second is a Machiavellian, which Rosenbaum cast as an “idealistic Machiavellianism, the use of complex tactical manipulation to achieve noble idealistic goals.”

Which is why up to $16 million in taxpayer funds will have been sent to the Clintons by Election Day of 2016, with some of it allocated to the “salaries and benefits of staff at his family’s foundation,” according to Politico on March 12. “But scrutiny of the act—and of the vast financial empire built by the Clintons—is poised to intensify as questions mount about the family’s commingling of personal, political, government and foundation business,” it reports.

Like so many in the media, in 2008 Rosenbaum refused to accept the rotten core—that Mrs. Clinton might have actually been cynical and politically calculating at such an early age.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

A Pox on Politicians

by on March 17th, 2015

By Alan Caruba
Nobody likes politicians, but everybody votes for them.
Perhaps the most quintessential American theme throughout its history has been the role politicians have played in creating it—we call them our Founding Fathers—and the endless role of those who have wanted to take us in the wrong direction or at least tried to.
I have known a few politicians and some were very good men and others reflected the very human goal of gaining wealth and power. The fact that voters have often made some very good choices says much about democracy and we need to be a bit more optimistic about it.
What differs today from the past is the enormous, indeed obscene, amount of money required to get elected and reelected. In general, it has always helped to have a bankroll to serve in public office and our first President was not only the most highly regarded man of his times, but a very wealthy plantation owner from Virginia.
I love reading history because, as the Chinese philosopher Confucius advised, “Study the past if you would define the future.”  One of America’s finest historians, Thomas Fleming, has had a new book published, “The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation.” It is very entertaining and, over all, very astonishing. Most of the things we learned in school about them and their era are, generally speaking, wrong.
These two great figures of our Revolution, the creation of the Constitution, and their terms in office ended their lives disliking one another. As Fleming notes, “Most Americans are unaware that such discord ever existed.”
“A series of political clashes had gradually destroyed their friendship and mutual respect the two men had enjoyed at the start of Washington’s presidency. Ultimately, they became enemies. Small, slight James Madison, whose brilliant political theorizing won the admiration of both men, was forced to choose between these two tall antagonists.”  America owes Madison an eternal debt of gratitude, but it was Washington and Jefferson who tend to dominate the teaching of our early history.
How different are history would have been had there not been a George Washington. Eleven years older than Jefferson, he had no formal education but read voluminously to prepare himself for the leadership that was a natural part of his character. He relentlessly pursued the Revolutionary War for seven years against the greatest power of his time and he won it.
Jefferson, by contrast, never put his life on the line. He studied law and became a passionate revolutionist most famed for his authorship of the Declaration of Independence. As Governor of Virginia, he was a failure.
“Washington,” says Fleming was “first, last, and always a realist…but he combined this realism with a surprisingly strong faith that America was destined to become a beacon of freedom for men and women everywhere.” By contrast, “Jefferson tended to see men and events through the lens of a pervasive idealism.”
It may be an over-simplification to say that Washington was politically conservative while Jefferson was a liberal.

Click to continue reading “A Pox on Politicians”
Go straight to Post

Trevor Loudon: “Democrats are all either communists or cowards.”

by on March 17th, 2015

Hat Tip: The Right Planet

From: Politichicks.com

Never one to hold back, author and activist Trevor Loudon discusses his new book ‘The Enemies Within’ with Ann-Marie Murrell at the 2014 South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention.

Go straight to Post

Is John Kerry a Moron?

by on March 16th, 2015

By Alan Caruba
I can recall John Kerry, Obama’s Secretary of State, from the days he testified to a congressional committee and slandered his fellow soldiers as the spokesman for Veterans Against the Vietnam War in 1971. I was appalled then and my opinion of the man has not changed since those days. I opposed the war, too, but I did not blame it on the men who were conscripted to fight it, nor did I believe the charges he leveled against some of them.
These days Kerry is engaged in securing an agreement with the Iranians, if not to stop their program to make their own nuclear weapons than to slow it to a later date. Never mind that the Iranian government is listed by our own government as a leading sponsor of terrorism worldwide or that they have signed such agreements in the past and then tossed out the inspectors.
Kerry is convinced that the Obama administration can get an agreement that is, in his own words, “not legally binding”, nor is it a treaty that the U.S. Senate would have to vote for or against. In point of fact, President Obama can make the deal—sign the agreement—just as Presidents have done for over two hundred years. It can then be abrogated by whoever the next President will be.
Why Obama and Kerry are doing this defies my understanding. It gives the Iranians more time to reach nuclear capability. It is opposed by every nation in the Middle East. It puts every nation within reach of Iran’s missiles at risk and it virtually guarantees the destruction of Israel, a goal of Iran’s Islamic Revolution from the day it was born. Kerry is negotiating with people who took our diplomats hostage in 1979 and have played a role in the deaths of many Americans since then.
Is John Kerry a moron? I think so.
I asked myself this question in regard to another area of U.S. policy which the Secretary of State is also championing even if millions around the world have concluded otherwise.
On March 2nd, Kerry addressed the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C, telling them what he has been saying in many forums. Let us understand that “climate change” is the name being used to replace “global warming”, because the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the past 18 years or so. And let us understand that “climate change” has been happening for 4.5 billion years.
Kerry said, “So when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, ‘Well, I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that elementary truth’?”
The problem with this is that human beings are not causing the planet’s climate change. Forces far greater than humans are involved, not the least of which is the Sun.
As for science, its most fundamental methodology is to constantly challenge the various ‘truths’ put forward as theories until they can be proved to be true by being independently reproduced. Nothing about the “global warming” theories has been true. All of the computer models on which it was based have been proven inaccurate.

Click to continue reading “Is John Kerry a Moron?”
Go straight to Post

Obama’s Treason is the New Patriotism

by on March 16th, 2015

When Republicans complained that Obama refused to talk about Islamic terrorism, he accused them of playing into the hands of ISIS by demanding that he identify the enemy we’re fighting.

 When they spoke out against his Iranian nuclear sellout, he accused them of “wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran”. Those hardliners would presumably toe a harder line than Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who responded to Obama’s outreach in his first term by saying, “The Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’” and who stated last year that “This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it.”

(The Supreme Leader of a country which stones teenage rape victims and rapes teenage girls so that they don’t die as virgins, also claimed that “The European races are barbaric.”)

If the moderate Supreme Leader that Obama is dealing with wants Death to America, what could the real hardliners want for America that’s even worse than death? A third term of Obama?

Meanwhile Joe Biden, Obama’s number two, accused Republicans of undermining Obama. This would be the same Biden who threatened to impeach President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear program and who blasted Bush and the idea of an Axis of Evil at a fundraiser in the home of a pro-Iran figure.

Biden undermined President Bush’s efforts to rein in Iran’s terrorism by voting against listing the Revolutionary Guard, which was supplying weapons to help the Taliban kill American soldiers, as a terrorist group (a position he shared with Kerry, Hagel and Obama) and berating Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not negotiating with Iran and Assad.

The toadying of “Tehran Joe” to Iran had already reached its absolute lowest point when Biden responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11 by suggesting, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran.”

The administration that Biden is part of has instead been releasing $490 million a month to Iran.

Biden, along with Kerry and Hagel, became notorious as the Tehran Trio during the Bush years for their advocacy for Iran and Assad, and their appearances at pro-Iranian lobbying groups and fundraisers despite criticism from Iranian democracy advocates. Biden, Kerry and Hagel, Obama’s VP, the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of Defense, all appeared at American-Iranian Council events, a group whose founder stated that he is “the Iranian lobby in the United States.”

Treason doesn’t get more treasonous than that.

Obama and Biden, along with their political allies, are trying to spin their shameless pandering to a terrorist state as patriotic and opposition to it as treasonous. The New York Daily News denounced senators opposed to an Obama deal giving Iran the ability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons as “Traitors”. The administration’s social media allies’ hashtag dubbed Republicans opposed to Iran’s nuclear weapons as #47Traitors.

Traitors oppose terrorists getting nuclear weapons. Patriots like Joe Biden not only support it, but they blast a president trying to stop it while collecting $30,000 at a pro-Iranian fundraiser.

“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?” Sir John Harrington cynically observed.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Ferguson is NOT America

by on March 15th, 2015

By Alan Caruba
The wounding of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, and earlier in New York City the assassination of two police officers are disturbing events for all Americans as they represent a hostility that threatens a safe, secure society wherever one lives.
Shooting police is an invitation to anarchy. That there have been protests and parades of late advocating this should be a matter of deep concern to all of us, no matter our race.
Ferguson, however, is NOT America if one looks at its population and the incredibly poor governance they have endured. You get the government for which you vote or when you neglect to vote.
Ferguson is atypical of the nation. As James Langston notes in his book, “America in Crisis”, in Ferguson “the growth of the black population relative to whites is a recent occurrence. In 1990, blacks comprised 25 percent of the city’s population but that percentage grew to 52 percent in 2000 and 67 percent in 2010.”
“The demographic transition was not followed by a corresponding transition in black access to political positions, the police force, union representation, and the like. The recency of the demographic transition likely has altered the city in ways that do not characterize other contemporary major cities in the United States, especially those that are majority black like Detroit or Atlanta.”
As noted in the Department of Justice report of an investigation occasioned by the shooting of Michael Brown by a white police officer, local governance was a factor in the lives of its black citizens that has invoked protest and resentment.
“Ferguson,” notes Langston, “is unusual in the degree that the city uses the municipal court system and the revenue it generates as a way to raise city funds. This created a financial incentive to issue tickets and then impose excessive fees on people who did not pay.” For the record, this occurs in other comparable communities.
“Data bears this out. Ferguson issued more than 1,500 warrants per 1,000 people in 2013 and this rate exceeds all other Missouri cities with a population larger than 10,000 people. Ferguson has a population of just over 21,000 people but issued 24,000 warrants which add up to three warrants per Ferguson household.”
This, however, is not that unusual in Missouri. An article by Joseph Miller, published in the March edition of The Heartland Institute’s Budget & Tax News noted that excessive use of traffic fines is not that uncommon in Missouri. “Of the 20 cities in the county with fine collections exceeding 20% of total revenue, 13 are contiguous with one another in a 25-square-mile section” and described this as “a daily burden for local residents.”
What the media has reported regarding the number of blacks killed in police shootings is a bit deceptive. There is no question that “the disproportional number of blacks that are killed in police shootings”, says Langston. “Blacks comprise 13 percent of the U.S.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin