https://www.facebook.com/
Meanwhile, Holder mis-characterizes a tragic event, then uses it to push his nefarious agenda. Holder at his best!
Finally, using MLK's Ebenezer Church as his venue, Holder whips it up to applause in the hope MLK's legacy and rational philosophy will justify his own. (See 1 below.)
===
This from a dear friend in response to the Ferguson video I posted in the previous memo. My friend is a pro and knows what he is talking about:
"As a career (35 years) law enforcement officer, I’ve followed the Ferguson affair with extra close interest. I couldn’t possibly agree more with the video. There is no other explanation to the unserious, scandalous, response to the incident from this disgraceful president. After the initial incident unfolded in the media, I told anyone who would listen that there was no possible way the officer did what the dishonest (so called) witnesses professed. Unless he had suddenly lost his mind, there was no way he shot a surrendering suspect multiple times. I arrested hundreds of people. If any of them had done what Michael Brown did, I would have certainly shot them until they stopped. He did his job. I’m appalled that he is considered the bad guy."
===
Obama's modus operandi is "never let a crisis go to waste". His former chief of staff and now mayor of Chicago espoused as much.This is the game anarchists play and what they depend upon - a crisis begets an opportunity for advancing their demands because emotions swamp judgement and clear thinking.
Whites are afraid to speak out for fear of being bludgeoned physically and or/ verbally. Particularly is this the case when a provoked white police officer has killed a black person.
No one who breathes should be surprised by Obama's involvement in and response to Ferguson, nor should they be surprised at Holder's. Ferguson created a classic opportunity for the demagogues and hustlers to twist facts, stir up the unwashed and get face time knowing the media would accommodate them by rushing to their side.
Media and print organizations are loaded with un-professionals and reporters who are incapable of objectivity. Why? Because they have been taught by radicals who have taken over our college and university campuses and departments of Literature, History,Economics, Arab Studies and Communication.
The Ferguson scenario is happening with increasing occurrence because of the immediacy of technology and, though, I suspect it has begun to wear thin (Fortunately Americans have short attention spans and Obama is capable of creating a crisis dejur.). Meanwhile, as long as Obama remains president progress toward a solution is for another day.
Furthermore, as long as people inhabit the world there will be prejudice and acts of racial discord and those who are dedicated to spreading seeds of hate and discord in order to advance their specious causes. Obama and several of his minions now occupy this role and that is tragic but then the 'stupids' have only themselves to blame because they allowed themselves to be manipulated, bought his message and then re-elected him.
Yes, I believe with each crisis progress can be made in terms of our racial problems and no doubt, one day, this will be the case but the prospect of that remains a distant dream as long as passion trumps reason and our nation is led by a president who has contempt for our history. (See 1a below.)
===
Random postings of the beautiful, humorous and ugly!
Pensive Dagny
.jpg)
Blake?.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
===
Are critics capable of listening? (See 2 and 2a below.)
Is Obama substituting Iran for Israel as our new partner? (See 2b below.)
Three letters published in WSJ that should be read! (See 2c below.)
====
David Solway is angry and makes the point Obama can envision a world without America. (See 3 below.)
===
We hit 18 billion in debt today. Mazel Tov to Obama and those politicians who speak out of both sides of their collective mouths.
Once interest rates begin to rise the servicing of this debt will consume a great proportion of Federal Income and the impact will become more noticeable and dangerous.
When s--- hits to fan is anyone's guess but it will.
===
Off to a Baltimore wedding and returning Sunday!
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1) Holder to Issue Rigorous New Racial Profiling Standards
Speaking at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta - the church where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. preached - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that he will soon unveil long-planned Justice Department guidance aimed at ending racial profiling.
Holder traveled to Atlanta to meet with law enforcement and community leaders for the first in a series of regional meetings around the country. The president asked Holder to set up the meetings in the wake of clashes between protesters and police in Ferguson, Missouri.
"In the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement. This will institute rigorous new standards - and robust safeguards - to help end racial profiling, once and for all," Holder said. "This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing."
Tensions between police and the community in Ferguson boiled over into violent confrontations in August after a white police officer shot a black teenager. Protests turned violent again last week after a grand jury declined to indict officer Darren Wilson in the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Holder's meeting in Atlanta included a closed roundtable discussion with law enforcement and community leaders followed by a public interfaith service and community forum.
The meeting came on the heels of President Barack Obama's request to federal agencies Monday for recommendations to ensure the U.S. isn't building a "militarized culture" within police departments. The White House also announced it wants more police to wear cameras that capture their interactions with civilians. The cameras are part of a $263 million spending package to help police departments improve their community relations.
The selection of King's church as the site for the meeting was significant. The most successful and enduring movements for change adhere to the principles of non-aggression and nonviolence that King preached, Holder said.
"As this congregation knows better than most, peaceful protest has long been a hallmark, and a legacy, of past struggles for progress," he said. "This is what Dr. King taught us, half a century ago, in his eloquent words from the Ebenezer pulpit and in the vision he shared from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."
While the grand jury has made its decision, the Justice Department continues its investigation into the death of Brown and into allegations of unconstitutional policing patterns or practices by the Ferguson Police Department, Holder said to loud applause.
Holder also told the crowd that the meetings he's convening around the country are just the beginning and that he wants to start a frank dialogue and then translate that into concrete action and results.
Holder's comments were well-received by the audience. When a small group of people interrupted his speech with chants, Holder applauded their "genuine expression of concern and involvement" and got a standing ovation from the crowd.
Holder, who plans to leave the position once a successor is confirmed, has identified civil rights as a cornerstone priority for the Justice Department and speaks frequently about what he calls inequities in the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system. He has targeted sentences for nonviolent drug crimes that he says are overly harsh and disproportionately affect black defendants and has promoted alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders.
Last year, as part of the Justice Department's "Smart on Crime" initiative, he instructed federal prosecutors to stop charging many nonviolent drug defendants with offenses that carry mandatory minimum sentences - punishments that he said were contributing to overcrowded prisons. The Justice Department has also broadened the criteria for inmates seeking clemency in hopes of encouraging potentially thousands more inmates to apply, and Holder backed changes in federal sentencing guideline ranges that could result in tens of thousands of drug prisoners becoming eligible for early release.
Holder also has publicly discussed the need to ease tensions between police departments and minority communities. The Justice Department has also targeted flawed police departments, initiating roughly 20 investigations of local police agencies - including Ferguson - in the past five years. A new pilot program announced weeks after the Ferguson shooting will study racial bias in American cities and recommend ways to reduce the problem.
He has spoken about race in sometimes personal terms, recalling after the Ferguson shooting instances in which as a younger man he was stopped or confronted by police without cause. He has also said he understands mistrust of law enforcement in minority communities
1a) Ferguson's Potemkin Protests
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-
Revolutionary Tourism: As shattered glass, car fires and protests blight Ferguson, an interesting fact is emerging: Nearly all of the arrestees hollering revolution are from other cities. Obviously, this isn't about Michael Brown.In the latest batch of radicals busted over the weekend for disturbing the peace in Ferguson, 15 of the 16 didn't even live in Ferguson. They were from places as far away as Chicago and New York.
It's no anomaly, either, but a pattern.
Police said that of the 51 protesters arrested in the protests of Aug. 19 and 20, 50 were from places like New York, Des Moines and Chicago.
They come from groups like the ANSWER Coalition, the New Black Panthers, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Organization for Black Struggle and the Soros-linked U.S. Human Rights Network.
So any talk about riots and mayhem in Ferguson being a spontaneous uprising or a grass-roots civil society effort by Ferguson's locals is nonsense.
The mayhem is imported, the work of professional leftists who have taken an unfortunate local police shooting of a doped-up teenage criminal and made it into an international "narrative" about U.S. race oppressiveness — purely to serve their predetermined ends.
And those ends are worth noting. As reported by CBS News, their shouted slogans include: "The only solution is a communist revolution!" "Who do we want? Darren Wilson! How do we want him? Dead!" and "Turn your guns and shoot the bosses down."
No society can survive long with those values. It's not surprising that few Ferguson locals made those calls or got caught burning shops and kicking in store windows.
It's the work of leftists who have taken an unfortunate incident and unleashed mobs and mayhem, in the Cloward-Piven-like hope of triggering enough disorder to create conditions for a communist revolution, just as Lenin did in 1917.
They are overwhelmingly white, well-heeled and linked financially to rich leftists with little stake in helping Ferguson to heal racially and see its business community recover.
They come to town as New York's now-Mayor Bill De Blasio once put on his sandals and went to Nicaragua to spread revolution and then packed up and went home. They're revolutionary tourists in a revolutionary tourist wonderland, taking home red-tinged memories.
It may be a great vacation for leftist troublemakers and good for fundraisers and TV ratings, but it's no local uprising. That story is as fake as a three-dollar bill.
and then there's this earlier article...
With relations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and coalition ally Yair Lapid at a nadir, it appears that the current Israeli government will soon be dissolved and the Jewish state will be heading back to the polls only two years after electing the current Knesset. Many Israelis are understandably annoyed at what they rightly perceive as a parliamentary crisis that is more about perceptions than substance. Nor is the prospect of Netanyahu being forced to face his people again riling most of his foreign critics. But rather than merely yawning over the prospect of another vote or buying into the distortions being published about the issue that helped sink the coalition, those inclined to take a dim view of Netanyahu should take a good look at the polls and draw some conclusions about the facts of Israeli political life even if they don’t jive with liberal conventional wisdom about the country.
Netanyahu’s apparent decision to force Lapid to accept a humiliating defeat in the Cabinet or accept new elections is, among other things, another illustration of the former journalist not being quite ready for prime time when he parachuted into Israeli politics. Though the charismatic leader of the Yesh Atid Party was the big winner in the last vote, his decision to join the government and become finance minister was a classic rookie error. Lapid’s reputation as a fresh new voice hasn’t survived the ordeal of government responsibilities. Netanyahu has run circles around him in parliamentary maneuvering and Lapid’s pointless opposition to a largely symbolic compromise bill proclaiming Israel to be a Jewish state has put him at a disadvantage both within the Cabinet and with the Israeli electorate. Polls show Yesh Atid likely to lose almost half its strength in a new election and no one, even his most bitter opponents, has the slightest doubt that Netanyahu will still be prime minister when the next Knesset is eventually sworn in.
But the most salient point to be gleaned from this bickering has nothing to do with the substance of that bill or even the way Lapid’s impending fall from grace demonstrates the apparently ironclad rule of Israeli politics that dictates that new centrist parties are doomed to decline after doing well the first time out. Instead, the most important lesson here is that the next election will likely illustrate the same truth about Israeli politics that the last two votes confirmed: the dominance of Israel’s right-wing parties.
If the polls are vindicated by the results, all a new election would achieve would be to reshuffle the deck in the Knesset to make the next government a bit more right wing. Yesh Atid’s mandates may go to a new center-right party led by former Likud cabinet minister Moshe Kahlon that would become a new focus of concern about the economy and social justice while not likely to disagree much with Netanyahu on the peace process or the Palestinians. Tzipi Livni, the former main challenger to Netanyahu but lately his sometime ally will also find herself diminished and will almost certainly have to join with some other party to stay relevant. Meanwhile one of Netanyahu’s main antagonists on the right, Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home Party will likely gain seats and, in conjunction with Avigdor Lieberman and the Likud (which will also gain by running on its own without Lieberman) form a huge right-wing block around which other parties will have to join.
What’s missing from this discussion is the complete absence of a credible alternative to Netanyahu who might represent the views of liberal critics of the prime minister who think Israel needs to be saved from itself. That’s not just because no one thinks Yaakov Herzog, the leader of the Labor Party, is ready to be prime minister, but rather to the fact that the combined strength of the Israeli left—even if anti-Zionist Arab parties are added to their number—makes them non-competitive.
Despite the never-ending critiques of J Street or the Obama administration, the overwhelming majority of Israelis continue to reject the parties that espouse such views.
Like the last election, the next one in Israel will likely be fought on domestic issues rather than the traditional arguments about war and peace despite the last summer’s war in Gaza, stalled talks with the Palestinians, or the Iranian nuclear threat. Though Americans, including many Jews, find it hard to believe, there is actually a strong consensus in Israel that peace talks with the Palestinians are pointless and that territorial withdrawals in the West Bank would be suicidal.
That’s why, no matter how all the small and medium sized parties sort themselves out in a vote, Netanyahu will be reelected with ease. Those Americans who think that Netanyahu is leading Israel in the wrong direction are entitled to their opinion. But they should ponder whether the people of Israel—the ones whose lives are at risk in this conflict—know more about what is good for their country than J Street.
2a) Former AP Staffer Pens New Media Bias Exposé
Former Associated Press Jerusalem bureau reporter and editor Matti Friedman created something of a sensation in August when he wrote an essay for Tablet magazine in which he explained how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters.
The Atlantis article is too long to post but you can do so if you choose to read it as follows:
2a) Former AP Staffer Pens New Media Bias Exposé
Former Associated Press Jerusalem bureau reporter and editor Matti Friedman created something of a sensation in August when he wrote an essay for Tablet magazine in which he explained how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters.
Friedman is now back for more, this time in The Atlantic, giving another eye-opening insider’s look at what makes the media tick when it comes to reporting from Israel and the Palestinian territories.
A highly recommended read, Friedman’s essay covers issues such as how editors deliberately avoid publishing negative stories about the Palestinians, the unhealthy relationship between journalists and international organizations and how Hamas is able to manipulate a willing international press corps:
Most consumers of the Israel story don’t understand how the story is manufactured. But Hamas does. Since assuming power in Gaza in 2007, the Islamic Resistance Movement has come to understand that many reporters are committed to a narrative wherein Israelis are oppressors and Palestinians passive victims with reasonable goals, and are uninterested in contradictory information. Recognizing this, certain Hamas spokesmen have taken to confiding to Western journalists, including some I know personally, that the group is in fact a secretly pragmatic outfit with bellicose rhetoric, and journalists—eager to believe the confession, and sometimes unwilling to credit locals with the smarts necessary to deceive them—have taken it as a scoop instead of as spin.During my time at the AP, we helped Hamas get this point across with a school of reporting that might be classified as “Surprising Signs of Moderation” (a direct precursor to the “Muslim Brotherhood Is Actually Liberal” school that enjoyed a brief vogue in Egypt). In one of my favorite stories, “More Tolerant Hamas” (December 11, 2011),reporters quoted a Hamas spokesman informing readers that the movement’s policy was that “we are not going to dictate anything to anyone,” and another Hamas leader saying the movement had “learned it needs to be more tolerant of others.” Around the same time, I was informed by the bureau’s senior editors that our Palestinian reporter in Gaza couldn’t possibly provide critical coverage of Hamas because doing so would put him in danger.
The Atlantis article is too long to post but you can do so if you choose to read it as follows:
2b) Ditching Israel, Embracing Iran
By Lee Smith
Last week, the Obama White House finally clarified its Middle East policy. It’s détente with Iran and a cold war with Israel.
To the administration, Israel isn’t worth the trouble its prime minister causes. As one anonymous Obama official put it to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, what good is Benjamin Netanyahu if he won’t make peace with the Palestinians? Bibi doesn’t have the nerve of Begin, Rabin, or Sharon, said the unnamed source. The current leader of this longstanding U.S. ally, he added, is “a chickens—t.”
It’s hardly surprising that the Obama White House is crudely badmouthing Netanyahu; it has tried to undercut him from the beginning. But this isn’t just about the administration’s petulance and pettiness. There seems to be a strategic purpose to heckling Israel’s prime minister. With a possible deal over Iran’s nuclear weapons program in sight, the White House wants to weaken Netanyahu’s ability to challenge an Iran agreement.
Another unnamed Obama official told Goldberg that Netanyahu is all bluster when it comes to the Islamic Republic. The Israeli leader calls the clerical regime’s nuclear weapons program an existential threat, but he’s done nothing about it. And now, said the official, “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”
In other words, the White House is openly boasting that it bought the Iranians enough time to get across the finish line. Obama has insisted for five years that his policy is to prevent a nuclear Iran from emerging. In reality, his policy all along was to deter Israel from striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The way Obama sees it, an Iranian bomb may not be desirable, but it’s clearly preferable to an Israeli attack. Not only would an Israeli strike unleash a wave of Iranian terror throughout the region—and perhaps across Europe and the United States as well—it would also alienate what the White House sees as a potential partner.
The negotiations with Iran were only the most obvious part of the administration’s policy of pressuring Israel. The White House knew the Israelis would have difficulty striking Iranian nuclear facilities so long as there was a chance of a deal. Jerusalem couldn’t risk making itself the enemy of peace and an international pariah. All Netanyahu could do was warn against the bad deal Obama was intent on making.
The White House used plenty of other tools to pressure Jerusalem. For instance, leaks. Virtually every time Israel struck an Iranian arms depot in Syria or a convoy destined for Hezbollah, an administration official leaked it to the press. The White House understood that publicizing these strikes would embarrass Bashar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah and thereby push them to retaliate against Israel. That was the point of the leaks: to keep Israel tentative and afraid of taking matters into its own hands.
Another instrument of pressure was military and security cooperation between Israel and the White House—the strongest and closest the two countries have ever enjoyed, say Obama advocates. It allowed administration officials to keep even closer watch on what the Israelis were up to, while trying to make Jerusalem ever more dependent on the administration for its own security.
Don’t worry, Obama told Israel: I’ve got your back. I don’t bluff. The Iranians won’t get a bomb. And besides, the real problem in the region, the White House said time and again, is Israeli settlements. It’s the lack of progress between Jerusalem and Ramallah that destabilizes the region. As John Kerry said recently, the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process is what gave rise to the Islamic State.
From the White House’s perspective, then, Israel is the source of regional instability. Iran, on the other hand, is a force for stability. It is a rational actor, Obama has explained, pursuing its own interests. The White House, moreover, shares some of those interests—like rolling back the Islamic State.
The fact that Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani now calls the shots in four Arab capitals—Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Sanaa—makes him the Middle East’s indispensable man. Compared with the one-stop shopping Obama can do in Tehran to solve his Middle East problems, what can Israel offer?
The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, finally clarified last week, is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Islamic Republic. The question is whether the White House has also misunderstood the character of a man, the prime minister of Israel, whose courage they mock.
2c) Arab Denial of Israel Means There Will Never Be Peace
The Palestinians were offered a state 65 years ago by the U.N. and they said no. The reason they said no was because by saying yes, they would have had to agree to the creation of a Jewish state also.
Andrew Roberts’s Nov. 22 op-ed “From an Era of Refugee Millions, Only Palestinians Remain” is correct but incomplete.
First, the Arab states refused to integrate the Palestinian refugees into their societies in order to be able to use them as political and military excuses to go to war against Israel.
Second, there were also Jewish refugees who had to flee the Arab countries who went to Israel.
Third, the Palestinians want to remain refugees so that they continue to get money from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Once they are not considered “refugees,” that funding will stop. The Palestinians living in “refugee camps” in Gaza or the West Bank are still living in what was called Palestine. They may be a few miles away from where they used to live, but they are still living in “Palestine.” The problem between Israel and the Palestinians is not territory or creating an independent Palestinian state. The problem is the Palestinians’ refusal to allow the Jewish people to have an independent state. The Palestinians were offered a state 65 years ago by the U.N. and they said no. The reason they said no was because by saying yes, they would have had to agree to the creation of a Jewish state also. From 1949 to 1967 the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control. They could have created a Palestinian state at any time and didn’t need Israel’s approval, but all they wanted to do was to destroy the Jewish state.
For as long as the Palestinians and the Arab world refuse to accept the existence of Israel, there will be no peace there.
Joseph Schnitzer
Woodmere, N.Y.
Originally formed in 1949 to provide relief to 652,000 dislocated Palestinians, UNWRA is today the largest single U.N. agency, becoming almost a regime unto itself; it assists some five million individuals, including refugees, their descendants and descendants of their descendants. Its current annual budget is around $2 billion and it employs a staff of 25,000 workers, composed mainly of local Palestinians (one need not wonder where their political loyalties lie.)
No wonder that with such an interwoven symbiotic relationship, the “refugee” problem persists.
Eric Schlusselberg
Teaneck, N.J.
Between 1948 and 1972, more than 820,000 Jews had to leave various Muslim countries and were resettled in Europe and the U.S., with some 600,000 going to Israel. These Middle Eastern Jews were resident in these various countries for over 2,000 years. And when they left, it was under threat for their lives after repeated pogroms, riots, lynchings and bombings of centers of Jewish life. No help or support was offered by the U.N., and no claims for restitution were made for lost property in these Middle Eastern countries. Second, most of the Arab refugees who fled Israel in 1948 did so at the request of the invading Arab armies. They were told to flee and make room for the Arab armies, and when Israel was defeated they could claim the property of the Jews. Any fair assessment would conclude that the U.N., enabled by the Arab states and other Muslim nations, created the Arab refugee problem and to this day perpetuates the refugee status of these people for political reasons.
Paul C. Ross, Ph.D.
Rydal, Pa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Imagine a World Without America? Obama Can
Did the president watch Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary as a how-to guide to weaken the republic?
By David Solway
In Marked for Death, Geert Wilders argues that Islam has marked not only him but ultimately every freedom-loving individual and so-called “Islamophobe” for death because of the supremacist nature of its doctrines. What outrages Wilders, in addition to the Islamic threat and the demographic inroads the religion of war is carving into the European urban landscape, is the scandalous complicity of Europe’s governing elites, leading to the eventual subversion of the continent. Although Wilders does not address American vulnerability in any detailed way, what must surely strike a disinterested observer is the equal complicity with which the commander in chief of the United States is pursuing a program of American decline. On the domestic, economic, military, and foreign policy fronts, Obama is energetically and probably irretrievably weakening the country he has sworn to defend, with surprisingly little concerted opposition, or even awareness, from many politicians or from the still-infatuated members of his constituency.
In Marked for Death, Geert Wilders argues that Islam has marked not only him but ultimately every freedom-loving individual and so-called “Islamophobe” for death because of the supremacist nature of its doctrines. What outrages Wilders, in addition to the Islamic threat and the demographic inroads the religion of war is carving into the European urban landscape, is the scandalous complicity of Europe’s governing elites, leading to the eventual subversion of the continent. Although Wilders does not address American vulnerability in any detailed way, what must surely strike a disinterested observer is the equal complicity with which the commander in chief of the United States is pursuing a program of American decline. On the domestic, economic, military, and foreign policy fronts, Obama is energetically and probably irretrievably weakening the country he has sworn to defend, with surprisingly little concerted opposition, or even awareness, from many politicians or from the still-infatuated members of his constituency.
To start with Islam, it is mind-boggling to observe an American president vigorously facilitating the Islamic imperial agenda in a number of different but equally effective ways. He could not do better — or worse — if he were a transplanted Qatari sheikh. One notes the infamous Cairo address with its bloat of lies and factoids. The UN speeches, such as “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The elevation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into sensitive posts in his administration. Islamic outreach through official institutions such as NASA, once designed for space exploration, now, apparently, for Muslim apologetics. Iftar dinners at the White House. Congratulatory letters to mosquesand his designation of terror attacks as “workplace violence,” “man-caused disasters” and “traffic incidents.” His concessionary engaging in a secret correspondence with Iran’s anti-American and anti-Semitic Ayatollah Khamenei. The withdrawing of troops from Iraq, thus opening the way for the establishment of the Islamic State. The purging of FBI training manuals of all reference to jihad. And the interviews in which Obama claims that the U.S. is “one of the biggest Muslim nations.” (In actuality, professing Muslims count for 1.5% of the American people, in comparison, for example, to Muslims amounting to 13% of India’s census.)
But it doesn’t stop there. Obama is not only manifestly pro-Islam; he is demonstrably anti-American. His policies across the board are all of a piece. Domestically, his economic projects have been calamitous. Obama has pied-pipered the nation to the brink of fiscal ruin, “increasing the national debt,” as Conrad Black writes, “from the $10-trillion accumulated in 233 years of American independence prior to 2009 to $18-trillion in six years.” His racial interventions have set race relations back a generation or more — most recently his urging the Ferguson rioters to “stay on course.” His attack on the Constitution is systematically undermining the republican nature of the U.S. Former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey cites the president for violating the Constitution 24 times with regard to Obamacare alone.
Writing in the Washington Times on Constitution Day of this year, Robert Knight has listed 14 major such violations among an ever-growing number. Obama’s refusal to secure the permeable southwestern border is an open invitation to a veritable invasion of illegals and jihadists. His executive order to issue a temporary reprieve on the grounds of prosecutorial discretion, to delay deportation, and to provide work permits for millions of illegals is certain to create dismay, resentment and confrontation on a national scale: “No president has ever exercised his discretion as broadly as Obama,” said the Washington Post. His mishandling of the Ebola crisis is only another example of anti-colonial politicking, placing American citizens at risk by allowing flights from infected West African countries into the U.S. The list goes on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment