Just a little ditty: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VmffgIqlAYA

and then: "Over the last several weeks, Janet and I have had the incredible good fortune to spend time with three individuals with tremendous knowledge regarding the situation int he Middle East and the ongoing negotiations with Iran. These individuals are Congressman Ed Royce - Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator Mark Kirk - the co-author of both the original Kirk-Menendez bill to increase sanctions on Iran and the current Kirk-Menendez bill to increase sanctions further should the negotiations fail, and Richard Fishman, the Managing Director and co-CEO of AIPAC. These three extraordinary men provide incomparable insights. I wanted to share some of these insights with you. I realize that you are aware of most, if not all of these facts but, taken in toto, they are cause for very deep concern. They are:

The Negotiations:

The original Kirk-Menendez bill was incredibly effective. Within a year of its passage in late 2011, the Iranian currency dropped over 73% in value, devastating the Iranian economy. This lead Iranian leadership to be concerned about the potential of regime change and was the only thing that brought them to the negotiating table.
Since the P5+1 negotiations began, the pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program has been consistently weakened:

The original goal was the complete abandonment of a nuclear infrastructure - uranium enrichment, plutonium production, new construction of reactors. It has now morphed into letting the Iranians continue to enrich uranium as long as they are a year from weaponization capability.
Since the start of negotiations, Iran has enriched enough uranium for two bombs, is building two new reactors, continues the construction of the Arak heavy-water reactor which will produce plutonium (used solely for nuclear warheads), and is on track for an ICBM by the end of 2015. All of this has been done with the tacit approval of the West's negotiating team.
Since the start of negotiations, Iran has been allowed to collect $490 million per month. This is enough to fund Hezbollah for over 40 years.
GDP growth in Iran, which went from an annual rate of +3.7% prior to the passage of the original Kirk-Menendez bill to an annual rate of -6.6%, has now recovered to +2.5%.

The lead American negotiator, Wendy Sherman, was the lead negotiator for equivalent negotiations with North Korea. When asked if she was concerned about ending up with the same result in the Iranian negotiations, she stated that, as far as she was concerned, the negotiations with North Korea produced a major success.
China keeps North Korea in check. North Korea does absolutely nothing without permission from China. There is no equivalent control mechanism for Iran.
Weekly, Ayatollah Khameini repeats his pledge to "eradicate Israel" while the Parliament chants "Death to America".

While the negotiations have been underway:

Iran has solidified control over capitals that encircle Israel - Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and now Sanaa, the capital of Yemen. Hamas, which is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, continues to control Gaza and vows to re-initiate its attacks on Israel. Recently, an Israeli airstrike took out a convoy just over the Syrian border in the Golan Heights, killing an Iranian General of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard along with the head of Iranian Intelligence in Syria. The conclusion of Mossad is that this was part of initial steps in setting up an attack infrastructure on Israel's Northeastern border.
The Iranians continue to build menacing assets in the Western Hemisphere:

There is a daily flight from Tehran to Caracus, Venezuela. It is estimated that there are more Hezbollah in Venezuela than there are in Lebanon. There is strong evidence that Iranian missiles, capable of reaching the the Southern region of America have been installed in Venezuela.
The Iranians are strongly suspected of being complicit in the recent suspicious death of Alberto Nisman, a prosecutor who was scheduled to report on the Argentinian administration's role in covering up Iranian involvement in the attack on a Jewish Community center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

The Iranians have made great strides in the development of nuclear triggering devices, warhead miniaturization, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. All of these have one and only one purpose, which is to deliver nuclear warheads globally. The Iranians do not need this technology to attack Israel. None of these efforts are covered in the P5+1 negotiations.

What will the world be like if Iran succeeds?

The Iranians will control the price of oil along with the Straits of Hormuz, through which the bulk of the world's oil flows.
The Sunni nations of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and the Emirates will, without question, arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The most volatile region of the world will now bristle with weapons of mass destruction.
With or without ICBMs, the Iranians will have the capability of manufacturing "suitcase nukes" and the ability to deliver them fairly simply to Europe and the United States.

What can we do?

The new version of the Kirk-Menendez bill will tighten sanctions should the negotiation deadline of March 31 come and go with no deal or a bad deal. The pending bill now has 68 Senators that have agreed to support the bill, which would make it veto-proof. There is deep concern that the administration, which is adamantly opposed to this bill, will be able to pick off enough Democratic votes to keep the bill from becoming veto-proof. Mitch McConnell will not, at this stage, introduce the bill for a vote until he believes he has enough votes to ensure it will pass with a veto-proof majority.
When the bill is introduced, AIPAC will be sending out an "Action Item" that will facilitate communicating with our Senators to register our support for this legislation. We must, MUST take action by both contacting our senators and then forwarding this Action Item to everyone we know, Jews and non-Jews alike, and imploring them to communicate their support for this legislation.

Mark Kirk, who suffered a major stroke several years ago, had this to say.: "When you have an event like this, you dance on the edge of your own mortality. You begin to ask yourself what have I done in my life, what have I stood for, what will I tell my maker when I meet him?" He said he has chosen to do everything in his power to make sure that Israel, and America, survive this evil."

If I am aware of this and now you are, rest assured Obama and our sleeping giant of a State Department are aware of this as well. The question is what are they doing about it? NADA! In fact I believe Obama is content to allow this to happen because he seeks a stalemate vis a vis America's ability to check Iran.

===

ISIS spilling over its banks. (See 1 below.)

===

Obama and his credibility gap.

Obama the expert at bait and switch.(See 2 and 2a below below.)

Phased Iranian Nuclear Deal Reportedly in the Works

John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif met in Geneva yesterday. According to AP, a “phased” deal is taking shape.

The United States and Iran are shaping the contours of a deal that would initially freeze Tehran’s nuclear program but would allow it to slowly ramp up activities that could be used to make nuclear arms over the last years of the agreement’s duration . . .

The idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement, by gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment program imposed as part of a deal that would also would slowly ease sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

===

Guiiani sticks to his guns. (See 3 below.)
===
I know several of these people personally. In fact Allen West will be our speaker next year at the SIRC's Annual President's Day Dinner, Monday, February 15.

Larry Thompson and his wife Brenda , who serves on the GMOA Board with me, gave their outstanding African Art Collection to the State Museum several years ago and are in the process of endowing a curator for the collection.

Star Parker gave a stem winder of a speech several years ago at the same Dinner, Allen will be speaking at next year and she receives and reads my memos.

I also post articles written by many more of these prominent conservatives whose outstanding careers and accomplishments transcend the argument that you cannot succeed unless you depend upon the government and/or can't overcome prejudice and tough challenges.

These people are role models for us all but because they go against the mush spread by those who are wrecking our nation with PC'isms and progressive nonsense they are looked down upon by many from their own ranks and castigated by the press and media who have a proven and vested interest in sending the wrong message.

Several of the new rising starts are Rep. Mia Love and Dr. Ben Carson. Stay tuned!(See 4 below.)
===
Whittle on immigration. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Islamic State’s Global Ambitions

ISIS—no longer a regional problem—is executing a complex strategy across three geographic rings.

By Jessica Lewis McFate And Harleen Gambhir

Last week’s Pentagon briefing outlined plans for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to retake Mosul from Islamic State, also known as ISIS. This strategy largely assumes that if ISIS is expelled from Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, pushed out of Anbar province and degraded in Syria, the organization will collapse because its narrative of victory will be tarnished and its legitimacy as a “Caliphate” will end.

That may have been true some months ago. But ISIS has adapted more quickly than U.S. strategy has succeeded, and it is pursuing a deliberate strategy to offset its tactical losses in Iraq and Syria with territorial gains in the Mideast and globally.

ISIS’s often stated objective is to “remain and expand.” This is not a mere defensive measure to preserve its combat power from destruction. Nor is it a mere recruiting slogan designed to replace some 6,000 ISIS fighters that Washington estimates have been killed since U.S.-led coalition airstrikes began in August. As Ms. Gambhir concludes in her recent Institute for the Study of War “ISIS Global Intelligence Summary,” open-source reporting indicates that ISIS is executing a complex global strategy across three geographic rings.

What the intelligence summary calls the “Interior Ring” is at the center of the fighting and includes terrain the group is named for, specifically Iraq and al Sham—i.e., the Levantine states of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel-Palestine. The “Near Abroad Ring” includes the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, extending east to Afghanistan and Pakistan. ISIS has claimed auxiliary operations or established what it calls “governorates” across this region.

The “Far Abroad Ring” includes the rest of the world, specifically Europe, the U.S. and Asia. Here ISIS is most focused on nearby Europe, which it terms “Rome” as a reference to the Byzantine empire, the great power adversary in decline during the rise of the early Islamic caliphs. ISIS distinguishes between established Muslim lands and those that host Muslim diaspora communities, and it uses different but interlocking strategies in each ring to expand its influence.

ISIS’s primary mission on the Interior Ring is defending the current territories it controls in Iraq and Syria from counterattack and undermining neighboring states. ISIS has suffered heavy casualties, mainly due to airstrikes by the U.S. and its allies and the effectiveness of forces on the ground, including Kurdish Peshmerga, the Iraqi Security Forces, and Iraqi Shiite militias. ISIS has lost the Syrian border town of Kobani, but it has not relinquished its strongholds in the Syrian cities of Raqqa or Deir Ezzour. Most important, its goal is to maintain control over Mosul, a city with more than a million residents, Fallujah and large swaths of Iraq’s Anbar province, where it is still carrying out sophisticated attacks.

This defensive stance in Iraq is one component of a larger strategy to regain the initiative elsewhere. ISIS’s recent foray into Libya, and its hostage-taking and executions of Egyptians and Jordanians, are a clear attempt to provoke offensive operations in those countries, and as such have largely succeeded. The goal is to polarize domestic populations to deter participation in the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS. The longer-term goal is to cause multistate failure in the region that spreads from the Interior Ring.

The primary mission of ISIS in the Near Abroad is territorial expansion. ISIS recently announced so-called governorates in Libya, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and “Khorasan,” the historic name for a region covering parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and India. The list may soon include the Caucasus. Its strategy in the Near Abroad is to find organized local groups and seed them with resources and training to increase their combat effectiveness.

ISIS is also fostering relationships with local jihadist groups capable of conducting simultaneous, independent military operations, especially in Libya and Sinai. These satellite groups, such as the Islamic Youth Shura Council in Libya and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in Sinai, can shape local conditions and prepare the ground for ISIS’s future expansion. Elements from the al Qaeda affiliate in the Caucasus, for example, recently defected to ISIS in part because of its more effective military organization.

The primary mission of ISIS in the Far Abroad is disruption of the current political order through terrorism and cyberattacks. As Ms. Gambhir notes in her ISIS intelligence summary: “ISIS-supportive hacking groups intensified cyberattacks throughout January 2015, striking a range of military, journalist, charitable, and government targets. . . . More than 19,000 cyberattacks targeted French websites in the week after the Charlie Hebdo shooting.”

Once focused on recruiting radical Islamists in Europe and elsewhere to join the fight in Iraq and Syria, ISIS now also encourages them to remain at home to recruit others and launch local attacks, such as those in France and Denmark. These attacks are intended to polarize Western societies and deter strikes on the ISIS core ruling stronghold in Iraq and Syria. ISIS believes this polarization will lay the groundwork for an all-out war with the West when the time comes.

In short, ISIS has adapted to the U.S.-led coalition campaign in Iraq and Syria by rapidly building a regional and global network that it can use to recruit and attack. In this way, it may well be able to sustain its global terrorist campaign if it loses terrain in Iraq and Syria—perhaps even if it is driven out of that region.

Nevertheless, the sustained control of territory in Iraq and Syria is essential to the legitimacy of ISIS by the terms they have set for themselves. Defeating ISIS there will deal the organization a severe blow. It will not, however, end the threat from ISIS either in Mesopotamia and the Levant or around the world.

The ISIS cancer has metastasized, as the al Qaeda cancer did before it. The two are now competing to see which can kill more people faster. It is past time to recognize the scale, scope and magnitude of the enemies America and its allies face and develop clearly stated global, regional and local strategies to fight them.

Ms. McFate, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is research director at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, D.C., where Ms. Gambhir is a counterterrorism analyst.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A credibility gap

By Fred Hiatt Editorial page editor

Can President Obama sell an Iran deal at home?

If his negotiators strike an agreement next month, we already know that it will be far from ideal: Rather than eradicating Iran’s nuclear-weapons potential, as once was hoped, a pact would seek to control Iran’s activities for some limited number of years.

Such a deal might be defensible on the grounds that it is better than any alternative, given that most experts believe a military “solution” would be at best temporary and possibly counterproductive.

But making that kind of lesser-evil defense would be challenging in any circumstances. Three conditions will make it particularly hard for Obama to persuade Congress and the nation to accept his assurances in this case: the suspicious, poisonous partisanship of the moment here, with Israeli politics mixed in; worries that he wants a deal too much; and the record of his past assurances.

The partisanship needs no explanation, but the record of foreign-policy assurances is worth recalling:

●In 2011, when he decided to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Obama belittled worries that instability might result. Iraq and the United States would maintain “a strong and enduring partnership,” Obama said. Iraq would be “stable, secure and self-reliant,” and Iraqis would build a future “worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization.”

Today Iraq is in deep trouble, with a murderous “caliphate” occupying much of its territory and predatory Shiite militia roaming through much of the rest.

●That same year, Obama touted his bombing campaign in Libya as a model of U.S. intervention and promised, “That’s not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya.”

The United States and its NATO allies promptly abandoned Libya, which today is in the grip of civil war, with rival governments in the east and west and Islamist terrorists in between.

●Obama also said then, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

That was before Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s barrel bombs, systematic and well-documented prison torture and other depredations of civil warkilled 200,000 of his compatriots , and drove millions more from their homes.

●In August 2011, Obama declared that Assad must “step aside.” In a background briefing a senior White House official added, “We are certain Assad is on the way out.” In August 2013 came Obama’s statement that “the worst chemical attack of the 21st century . . . must be confronted. . . . I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.”

No military action was taken, and Assad remains in power.

●In September, the president said his strategy for defeating the Islamic State “is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.” Shortly thereafter, an Iran-backed rebellion deposed Yemen’s pro-U.S. government, forcing the United States to abandon its embassy and much of its anti-terror operation.

●Just last month, in the State of the Union address, Obama presented his Ukraine policy as a triumph of “American strength and diplomacy.

“We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small by opposing Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine’s democracy,” he said.

Since then Russian forces have extended their incursion into Ukraine, now controlling nearly one-fifth of its territory. Russia’s economy is hurting, but Ukraine’s is in far worse shape.

This litany of unfulfilled assurances is less a case of Nixonian deception than a product of wishful thinking and stubborn adherence to policies after they have failed. But inevitably it will affect how people hear Obama’s promises on Iran, as will his overall foreign policy record.

That record includes successes, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden, warming ties with India and a potentially groundbreaking agreement with China on climate change. By most measures, though, the world has not become safer during Obama’s tenure. Islamist extremists are stronger than ever; democracy is in retreat around the globe; relations with Russia and North Korea have worsened; allies are questioning U.S. steadfastness.

Openings as well as problems can appear unexpectedly in foreign affairs, but the coming two years offer only two obvious opportunities for Obama to burnish this legacy: trade deals with Europe and with Pacific nations, and a nuclear agreement with Iran. That limited field fuels worries that administration negotiators will accept the kind of deal that results from wanting it too badly.

Whatever its contours, Obama would be making a big mistake to try to implement such a momentous pact, as administration officials have suggested he might, without congressional buy-in. But it’s not surprising that he would be tempted to try.

2a)

Divided over that speech, not over a lousy deal with Iran

Israelis may be deeply at odds over whether Netanyahu should go to Congress, but there’s consensual dismay at the nuclear agreement Obama is apparently pushing

By David Horovitz

It is time to reframe the dispute. We are not witnessing what is being widely depicted as a battle between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government over the timing, content and ostensible partisan implications of the prime minister’s scheduled March 3 address to Congress over Iran. We are, rather, watching the collapse of trust between the two leaderships over the critical issue of thwarting Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

t is not inexplicable only to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Obama administration appears hell-bent on leading the international community into a deal that will apparently reward the Islamist regime in Tehran for lying about its nuclear program by allowing it to become a nuclear threshold state, with the right to enrich uranium via thousands upon thousands of centrifuges.

The looming deal is similarly inexplicable to the political rivals of Netanyahu who are campaigning to oust him in general elections on March 17. “I’m worried about a bad deal as well, and [about the international community] caving into all sorts of Iranian pressure as well,” Isaac Herzog, the center-left Zionist Union leader who is Netanyahu’s leading challenger, said in a CNN interview on Friday.

Where Herzog and other Israeli party leaders differ with Netanyahu is over his handling of the crisis. Like Herzog, centrist Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid does not underestimate the Iranian threat. They just both think that Netanyahu is acting counterproductively and for domestic political reasons by preparing to lobby publicly against Obama in Congress, when they say he ought to be working to shift the administration more discreetly, behind the scenes.

Of course, party leaders like Herzog and Lapid have to publicly criticize and castigate the prime minister; we’re less than a month from elections, and their entire domestic political goal is to undermine Israeli public confidence in his leadership so as to unseat him.

In truth, it can hardly be doubted that Netanyahu has tried to impact the president’s stance in years of one-on-one conversations and in the endless top-level contacts between his officials and the Obama administration. The nature of the imminent deal — whose terms cannot be independently verified, but are profoundly troubling to such diplomatic veterans as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz — would indicate that private argument and entreaty have failed. His critics would suggest that had Netanyahu been more flexible on Israeli-Palestinian matters, ready to rein in settlements, more receptive to Arab Peace Initiative overtures, less confrontational with Obama, his Iran concerns might have gained a more resonant hearing. Perhaps.

Netanyahu is an unusually long-serving, but not a beloved prime minister. Some voters like his swaggering style; plenty of others don’t. His rivals on the left think his overall outlook is too bleak, that he’s missing opportunities for alliances with relatively moderate Arab states, that his economic policies are deeply misguided — that overall he’s been leading the country to disaster. His rivals on the right think he talks too much and does too little; “If you want to shoot, shoot, don’t talk,” carped Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, another would-be prime minister, on Friday, in a barely veiled assault on Netanyahu’s handling of the Iranian issue.

In these final weeks of the election campaign, the face-off with Obama has become one more issue for the challengers to use against Netanyahu, whose campaign is also stuttering amid a much-reported scandal over alleged abuse of funds at his official residence.

At any other time, the Iranian issue — the countdown to a deal, the troubling reported terms, the astounding US acknowledgment that it is no longer keeping Israel fully in the loop — would have overshadowed all other matters on the domestic agenda. But it needs to take center stage, even now.

Israel’s most important ally is led by a man who seems to believe that the Iran of the ayatollahs can be wooed toward, if not moderation, then what the West considers to be pragmatism. That it can be cajoled into setting aside its nuclear weapons ambitions, gradually reformed. This despite all the evidence of Iran’s unbridled ideological and territorial ambition, its expanding influence in the region, its promotion of international terrorism, its ongoing development of ever longer-range missile systems, and its relentless incitement against the state of Israel.

A president who refuses to acknowledge the core anti-Semitism of Islamic extremism — refuses even to recognize that a Sabbath-eve assault on a kosher grocery, carried out by an Islamist killer who specified that he was targeting Jews, was anything more than a random attack on folks in a deli — appears similarly unwilling to fully internalize the radical religious imperative that drives Ali Khamenei’s Iran.

Three years ago at a graveside in Jerusalem, the prime minister eulogized his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, for having “taught me, Father, to look at reality head-on, to understand what it holds and to come to the necessary conclusions.” It is that apparent disinclination by Obama to acknowledge what is playing out before all of our eyes, to face up to Iran’s pernicious ambitions, and to take the appropriate counter-measures, that is so galling and horrifying for Israelis as they watch the US-stewarded nuclear negotiations.

The prime minister says it would have been unthinkable to turn down the invitation to set out his concerns in the world’s most resonant parliamentary forum. His opponents say he risks turning Israel into a partisan issue and deepening the crisis in Israel-US ties for the sake of narrow potential political gain at home. But Israel and those who care for Israel should not be blindsided by the battling between Netanyahu and Obama, or between Netanyahu and his domestic rivals, over the Congressional speech.

They should be sounding the alarm to prevent a deal that would allow Iran to maintain an enrichment capability and other core aspects of its nuclear program. They must recognize that, were such a deal concluded, there would be insufficient will in the international community to move decisively to stop Iran when — rather than if — the ayatollahs subsequently deem the time is ripe to break out to the bomb. They must internalize, too, that even as a threshold state, Iran’s regional influence will grow still further, as will its capacity to assist Hezbollah and other Islamist terror groups bent on destroying Israel.

Those who care for Israel, in short, should look at reality head-on, understand what it holds, and come to the necessary conclusions. The growing fear in Israel is that when it comes to Iran, and despite his repeated talk of the unbreakable, unshakable alliance with Israel, the US president is failing to do so.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/divided-over-that-speech-not-over-a-lousy-deal-with-iran/#ixzz3SVk8JLHA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Giuliani Doubles Down on Obama Criticism

By Sandy Fitzgerald

Rudy Giuliani, saying his accusations that President Barack Obama doesn't love America "hit a nerve," continued hammering the president's foreign policy agenda Sunday and calling for a leader who gives the country optimism.

The former New York City mayor, speaking with John Catsimatidis on 970 AM's "The Cats Roundtable" program, told the grocery billionaire and key Republican donor that he's made similar comments before but this time it hit hard.

"I said it maybe 30 times before but somehow this time it hit a nerve, maybe because the president is on such defense for his unwillingness to face Islamic terrorism," Giuliani told Catsimatidis. "We need a American president more like Ronald Reagan who gave us a sense of optimism."

Giuliani has been under fire since Wednesday, when he attended a private dinner sponsored by Catsimatidis for Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate.

At the dinner, Giuliani commented that the president "doesn't love you. He doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up: to love this country."

By Friday, as the outcry arose about Giuliani's comment, including claims by some that it was racially motivated, he told reporters that Obama was brought up in a white family, but with communist and socialist values, and by Saturday, he told CNN that his secretary had fielded some death threats over his comments.

On Sunday's show, though, the former mayor showed no signs of backing down, making further attacks on Obama by claiming that he "turned on Israel," has refused to back the country's Middle East allies against Iran, and further has ruined relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I want a president who is not embarrassed to say America is the strongest power on Earth and we're going to assert ourselves and I want our enemies to be afraid of our president," said Giuliani. "That's the only way we will defeat these people.

"We’re not going to defeat with this namby pamby stuff about not being able to say 'Islamic terrorists.'"

Catsimatidis acknowledged that Giuliani got a "double take" for his remarks, but still defended his right to say what he did.

"I think everybody is entitled to their own opinion," Catsimatidis said. "I think he just got it off his chest. Maybe that's the way he felt personally. This is a free America, everyone can say what they want."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Listed below are Newsmax’s 100 Most Influential African-American Republicans. A caveat: not everyone on the list may be actually registered Republican. But these are individuals who have a public identity as Republican or ones who lean Republican.

1. Ben Carson — renowned pediatric neurosurgeon; likely 2016 presidential candidate
2. Colin Powell — former secretary of state; U.S. Army general
3. Condoleezza Rice — former secretary of state
4. Clarence Thomas — Supreme Court justice
5. Mia Love — U.S. congresswoman, Utah
6. Tim Scott — U.S. senator, South Carolina
7. Jason Riley — Wall Street Journal editorial writer; author, “Please Stop Helping Us”
8. Michael Powell — former chairman, Federal Communications Commission; president, National Cable & Telecommunications Association
9. Will Hurd — Texas congressman
10. Herman Cain — businessman; 2012 presidential candidate
11. Thomas Sowell — economist; author
12. Allen West — former congressman, Florida; ex-Army officer
13. Janice Rogers Brown — D.C. Circuit judge
14. Shaquille O'Neal — retired NBA star; actor
15. Michael Steele — former chairman, Republican National Committee
16. Antonio Williams — director of government relations, Comcast
17. Deroy Murdock — nationally syndicated columnist; businessman
18. Lynn Swann — NFL Hall of Famer; 2006 Pennsylvania gubernatorial nominee
19. Elbert Guillory — Louisiana state senator; former Democrat
20. Dwayne Johnson — athlete; actor
21. James "Bo Snerdley" Golden — producer, "The Rush Limbaugh Show"
22. James Earl Jones — Oscar-winning actor
23. Artur Davis — Montgomery, Alabama, mayoral candidate; former Democrat
24. Walter Williams — economist; guest host, "The Rush Limbaugh Show"
25. Judge Lynn Toler — star of "Divorce Court"
26. LL Cool J — rapper; actor
27. Herschel Walker — retired NFL running back and Heisman Trophy winner
28. Joseph C. Phillips — "The Cosby Show" co-star; Christian commentator
29. Shelby Steele — author, "The Content of Our Character"; documentary filmmaker
30. Joseph Louis Clark — former high school principal portrayed by Morgan Freeman in "Lean On Me"
31. Prince — pop star
32. Alveda C. King — pro-life activist; former Georgia legislator; ex-Democrat; niece of Martin Luther King Jr.
33. Boyd Rutherford — Maryland lieutenant governor
34. Nolan Carroll — Philadelphia Eagles cornerback
35. Richard Ivory — founder, HipHopRepublican.com blog
36. Larry Elder — talk radio host; columnist
37. Jimmie "J.J." Walker — stand-up comedian; iconic comic actor on "Good Times" in 1970s
38. Peter Kirsanow — member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
39. Robert P. Young Jr. — chief justice, Michigan Supreme Court
40. Don King — boxing promoter
41. Star Parker — president, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE); columnist; congressional candidate
42. Alan Keyes — former presidential candidate
43. Raphael "Raffi" Williams — deputy press secretary, RNC
44. Ward Connerly — former University of California regent; affirmative action foe
45. Crystal Wright — conservativeblackchick.com blogger
46. Armstrong Williams — radio commentator; author; media entrepreneur
47. Kevin A. Ross — host, "America’s Court with Judge Ross"; former Los Angeles Superior Court judge

Bill Whittle: Brass Tacks on Immigration

From a guaranteed right to hormone therapy for transgendered illegal aliens, to a prospective Attorney General saying that illegals have the same right to a job as US citizens or legal immigrants, the ongoing sham of the Obama administration's under-the-radar policies get seen in the light of day in Bill Whittle's latest FIREWALL.

TRANSCRIPT:

Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

As you may recall, a few months ago, President Barack Obama accomplished something with the stroke of his pen that had been deemed well beyond what he himself said was beyond his authority as chief: grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens through executive order.

So let’s get above the pit of criminality of both the act of illegally coming into ANYONE’S country – not just ours – and also above selfish venality of those who not only sanction such actions but in fact approve of and encourage them for their own political and financial gain. Let’s just get down to the brass tacks here on illegal immigration.

To do that, let’s look at two recent statements – one on the part of an active immigration official in the US government, and a second from the candidate for the highest law enforcement position in the land.

We’ll start with Kevin Landy, assistant director of the office of detention policy and planning for ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Federal government, discussing treatment options for transgendered illegal aliens once in US detention facilities.

((LANDY CLIP 35 SECONDS))

There are two important words buried in that bland bureaucratic response. One of them is especially important. Let’s listen again.

The first word is GUARANTEES, in other words, makes a binding promise. The second word is RIGHT. A right is something that cannot be taken away from you. Calling it a “right” means that someone has to provide it for you if you cannot provide it for yourself.

This official of the US government, Kevin Landy, has just stated that if you break US law by illegally entering the country then the citizens of the country whose laws you have violated are legally obligated to provide you with the hormone therapy necessary to your choice of lifestyle.

And now from the ridiculous to the sublime. Here is Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, being questioned by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama:

((LYNCH CLIP 32 SECONDS))

The candidate for the highest law enforcement official in the land has just stated that people who are here illegally have an equal right to the same job as people who are either US Citizens or legal immigrants here on work visas.

So now to the brass tacks.

First, if there are no such things as illegal aliens, as the advocates for open borders proclaim – then where does it stop? If seven million people can sneak across the border at night and be granted the same status, and the same benefits as US Citizens – social security, medicare, and the right to vote – then where do we stop? Why only seven million? Why not all seven billion people currently on planet Earth?

If three hundred and twenty million Americans are having money taken from them at gunpoint through taxation in order to GUARANTEE the RIGHT of one transgendered illegal alien to hormone therapy once they cross the border, then there is no line – none. None! – between that and them having to pay through their hard work and taxes the health care of any one of the seven billion people on planet earth who can manage to cross a two thousand mile long line on a map.

Second, if the candidate for the chief law enforcement position in the land says that someone entering the country by breaking the law is not only not going to be arrested and deported, but rather has the same right to take a job from US citizen or a legal immigrant on a work visa and condemning them to unemployment and dependency on the government, then what does that tell you about the person who nominated her to that office? And what does it say about his contempt for the people that elected him in the first place? And ultimately, what does it say about those people themselves?

This man, who says there comes a point where people have made enough money, who says that the people who pay the taxes for hormone therapy for illegal transgendered criminals didn’t build the businesses that write the checks that maintain his loving and generous reputation, is, as you may know by now, an avid golfer. The man who condemns rich fat cats with private jets flies in the biggest private jet in the world to the finest resorts in the world, and he does it all the time. Because he likes it. Who wouldn’t?

Does anyone actually think this individual is capable of that kind of lifestyle without spending one person’s money to buy the vote of another’s? And does anyone still doubt that any of these incompetents and losers are willing to not only destroy the laws of the nation, but the nation itself, in order to sate the lust for the money and power they are incapable of obtaining through their own efforts?

WATCH HERE

Middle East and Other Musings

Monday, February 23, 2015

Obama's Stalemate! Black Citizens Who Undercut The Liberal Dogma of Soft Prejudice!