===
===
We have a president who swore to enforce the laws of this country. We have a president who enforces laws that earn him votes and enforces laws he likes, disregards those he does not like.
He has not gone to the trouble of calling the family of the young girl who was killed by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco but he is quick to comment, light up the White House when those of his race are shot. Nor has he spoken out about the rise in black on black shootings, most particularly in his home city of Chicago, and the increase in police killed as a result of his criticisms of police forces along with that by Mayor de Blasio. They have yet to speak out against thuggish anarchists who inhabit The Black Lives Matter crowd (See 1 below.)
We have a president who swore to protect and defend our nation. He withdrew troops that finally calmed Iraq allowing the vacuum to be filled by ISIS. He swore to protect Syrians from gassing and failed to do so. He blamed a video for the deaths of four Americans and that turned out to be a lie. He sent his Secretary of State to re-boot with Russia and that , not only failed, but he withdrew protective anti-missiles supplied to NATO , and did not lift a finger to supply Kurds or Ukrainians and the list of other failed policies and actions is endless.
He emptied Guantanamo of radical Islamist terrorists, words he neither can pronounce or connect.
Obama loves wedge issues. He knows by constantly stirring the pot he can keep everyone off base while making end runs around Congress and trashing the Constitution. He has time to change the name of a mountain and to demagogue weak knee members of his party to support an agreement with Iran that disregards every commitment he and Kerry vowed to enforce.
What a disgrace and the consequences of his presidency have yet to truly surface because he maneuvered their effect to occur after he has left office but the debt he incurred is visible now.
Yet, those who point out these facts are deemed biased, are called racist. Those who stand for the enforcement of laws are told to stand down while those who enter the country illegally, commit crimes and killings are rewarded with safe havens and handouts.
No wonder the aggrieved and disgruntled turn to loudmouths as a solution for the mess this incompetent, arrogant, liar of a president has brought upon our nation.
Yet when Obama's party clings to another liar, who happens to wear a skirt and places herself above the law because 'what difference does it matter' is the best she is capable of, we hear deafening silence. (See 1a below.)
It is little wonder America is in decline. (See 1b below.)
Meanwhile a feckless world that cannot defeat radical Muslims and fascist Islamist leaders is being deluged with refugees fleeing tyrants. Welcome to the 21st Century.
===
Let's hear about another worthless president's dumb prediction:
Stephen Moore: "Famously in the 1920s, the U.S. Department of Interior projected less than a few decades' worth of recoverable oil in the United States. Jimmy Carter declared in 1980 that by 2000 we’d be nearly out of oil — running on empty. Last month, the Department of Energy reported that the U.S. hit a new energy milestone: We produced 9.52 million barrels a day. That was very close to the highest output level in recorded history. So much for running out. Something else has happened in recent weeks that almost no one — least of all President Obama — would have predicted. The price of oil fell below $40 a barrel. Adjusted for inflation, that makes oil cheaper today than at almost anytime in history. Adjusted for wages, we work less to buy gasoline and oil today than nearly ever before. ... The reason we never run out of 'finite' resources is that human ingenuity runs forward at a far faster pace than the rate we use up oil, gas or food. ... Then why do we listen to the same crowd of doomsayers who still say we are running out of oil or that the earth is going to heat up into a fireball? Their credibility and their 'scientific consensus' have rarely been right. They are like the boy who cries wolf over and over. ... Paul Ehrlich once said that one thing the world will never run out of 'is idiots.' Alas, he was right for once."
===
The Demwits are so frightened about the prospect of losing power they are grasping at anything and seem ready to go with Doofus!
===
Obama golfs in Cape Cod, changes the name of a mountain in Alaska, whines about climate change while Putin makes Arctic inroads and China sends ships off the coast of Alaska.. (See 2 and 2a below.).
===
Progressive education will be the final lock placed on America's lost freedoms as the next college schooled generation is turned against the very country that secured their freedom while nations, who seek to do us harm, build their abilities starting with our president who thought turning the other cheek and apologizing for America's role in the world would calm the waters.
The Iran Deal Obama has shoved down our throats, as with Obamacare, was sold as a way to prevent Iran from going nuclear but actually guarantees, based on a theoretical delay, Iran has the legal right to become a nuclear nation. A legacy of lies! (See 3 below.)
===
Will Republican Leadership do anything about Obama's Iran Deal or will they roll over as usual and play dead? (See 4 and 4a below.)
==
Now for some humor: http://biggeekdad.com/2015/08/
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
1a)
The Demwits are so frightened about the prospect of losing power they are grasping at anything and seem ready to go with Doofus!
===
Obama golfs in Cape Cod, changes the name of a mountain in Alaska, whines about climate change while Putin makes Arctic inroads and China sends ships off the coast of Alaska.. (See 2 and 2a below.).
===
Progressive education will be the final lock placed on America's lost freedoms as the next college schooled generation is turned against the very country that secured their freedom while nations, who seek to do us harm, build their abilities starting with our president who thought turning the other cheek and apologizing for America's role in the world would calm the waters.
The Iran Deal Obama has shoved down our throats, as with Obamacare, was sold as a way to prevent Iran from going nuclear but actually guarantees, based on a theoretical delay, Iran has the legal right to become a nuclear nation. A legacy of lies! (See 3 below.)
===
Will Republican Leadership do anything about Obama's Iran Deal or will they roll over as usual and play dead? (See 4 and 4a below.)
==
Now for some humor: http://biggeekdad.com/2015/08/
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
mysterious government "fund". So like it or not, we are paying $29,000,000 to these people and the only reason I can see is that they are black. (and NO, my liberal friends, that's not a racist comment; it's just a fact)!!!How much is going to family of Kathryn Steinle? Nothing, Nada. To the Chattanooga Servicemen families? Zippo, Zilch, Zero from this
By Reuters 6/19/15 at 4:31 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department will fast track the sending of $29 million to South Carolina to help families of victims of the mass murder of nine churchgoers at a historic black church in Charleston, a Justice Department spokesman said on Friday.
1a)
Hillary and the Hackers
The former secretary of state’s private server hid her emails from the U.S. government, but not from China, Russia and other adversaries.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/BLEND IMAGES RM
One of the best lines of the U.S. presidential race so far comes from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. “It’s sad to think right now,” he joked in the first round of Republican presidential debates, “but probably the Russian and Chinese governments know more about Hillary Clinton’s email server than do the members of the United States Congress.”
A cheeky zinger with a serious point: It would be alarming if, as U.S. intelligence veterans worry, Chinese, Russian and other hackers were able to steal U.S. secrets through Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.
Yet the cybertheft would also be perversely appropriate. Because for all their differences, Mrs. Clinton’s email schemes and the Chinese and Russian cyber campaigns share a certain symmetry: They all rely on the fact that in cyberspace, it’s easier to misbehave and, if caught, easier to brazen it out.
To most people, the digital world is an esoteric abstraction. So we generally have a hard time recognizing the severity of misdeeds committed in cyberspace. Consider the upstanding citizens who would never shoplift yet download pirated music and movies. Among other effects, such permissiveness gives an asymmetric advantage to anyone who wants to exploit it, from individuals like Mrs. Clinton to the hacker armies of China and Russia.
Opinion Journal Video
Best of the Web Columnist James Taranto discusses the media’s spin on the FBI investigation into the presidential candidate’s private server. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Tech lingo often makes things worse. Yes, Mrs. Clinton used a private server to handle her emails as secretary of state. But that description is anodyne compared with the less technical reality: Before assuming one of the most sensitive jobs in government, she devised a unique personal system to hide tens of thousands of public documents. Later, facing a congressional investigation, she deleted whatever she wanted, in effect tossing stolen goods into a backyard bonfire.
The destruction of evidence recalls the 18-and-a-half minutes of conversation excised from Richard Nixon’s Oval Office recordings, but the Clinton camp wants voters to think her email affair is much more complicated, and far less outrageous, than Nixon’s tape-tampering. Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri recently deflected questions by saying: “Now everybody’s an expert on wiping servers. I don’t know how all that works.” In other words: Nothing to see here but tech mumbo-jumbo.
As for misbehavior on a macro scale, China’s efforts thrive on technical opacity and a kind of overwhelming force that seems to inure Americans to abuses. The 2013 Blair-Huntsman commission found that China’s anti-U.S. industrial espionage had amounted to “the greatest wealth transfer in history.” The Obama administration assumes that Chinese hackers this year purloined the medical records of some 80 million Americans insured by Anthem—one in four people nationwide. Previous targets in America of what U.S. officials say were Chinese hackers have included gas pipelines, the electric grid and nuclear labs.
Russian hackers—thought to be less numerous but more sophisticated than their Chinese counterparts—have targeted U.S. corporate giants and America’s European allies. A 2007 assault paralyzed Estonia’s government ministries, parliament, banks and media. Estonia is an ex-Soviet state entitled to protection as a member of NATO. A European official asked then, “If a member state’s communications center is attacked with a missile, you call it an act of war. So what do you call it if the same installation is disabled with a cyberattack?” NATO still doesn’t have an answer.
China and Russia wouldn’t likely carry out such assaults if they required attacking convoys of Brink’s trucks, or deploying agents into hospital archives with Minox spy cameras, or blasting through infrastructure cables on foreign soil. But digital-era theft, invasion of privacy and sabotage are quicker, murkier transgressions. Even when Beijing and Moscow are identified as perpetrators, many victims seem to respond with little more than a shrug.
Hillary Clinton must be hoping that most Americans will ultimately shrug about her email abuses, too. At the moment, though, it appears from her sliding poll numbers that many Americans have started to see through the digital haze and draw analogies to old-fashion wrongdoing.
In all these cases, small and large, the jury is still out. Meanwhile U.S. intelligence officials will continue diverting scarce time and attention to the task of trying to figure out what advantages China, Russia and other adversaries may have gained if there was a convergence of their hacking campaigns and Mrs. Clinton’s email shenanigans.
Mr. Feith is a Journal editorial-page writer based in Hong Kong.
| 1b) The problem with appeasement By Cliff May
"Appeasement" gets a bad rap but, strictly speaking, the word implies nothing more than an attempt to make peace. If aggrieved adversaries can be pacified by reasonable concessions, what's wrong with that?
Of course, when most of us talk about appeasement, we have in mind the policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who, in 1938, went to Munich in the hope of appeasing Germany and thereby achieving "peace for our time." Winston Churchill famously admonished him and predicted, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
It's only fair to make two points in Chamberlain's defense. First, he did not originate the policy of appeasement. Starting in the 1920s, many in Britain believed that too much blame for the First World War had been heaped on Germany's shoulders and that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust. Given that premise, the possibility that appeasement might lead to reconciliation was hardly baseless. In "The Roots of Appeasement," the great historian Sir Martin Gilbert described this effort as, initially at least, "a noble idea, rooted in Christianity, courage and common sense."
Second, throughout the 1930s, war-weary Britons allowed their martial vigor to diminish even as Germany was aggressively rebuilding its military might. Churchill recognized how reckless this was, but his arguments proved unpersuasive, in part because his opponents branded him a "warmonger." The result was that by the time of the Munich meeting, Chamberlain could not credibly threaten to use force to stop Germany from marching into the Sudetenland or anywhere else on the continent.
So is appeasement a good policy or a bad policy? I would argue that it is, at best, a delaying tactic. "An appeaser," Churchill also observed, "is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." But when in history has a tyrant or an empire builder ever been permanently conciliated?
I suspect you know where I'm heading. For six and half years, U.S. President Barack Obama has reached out to America's clench-fisted adversaries and enemies. During his first months in office, he attempted to "reset" relations with Russia. To demonstrate his commitment, he canceled the missile shield the U.S. had promised to install in Poland and the Czech Republic. We now know that Vladimir Putin, then Russia's prime minister and now its president, was not propitiated. What we don't know is how far Putin will go, and into which neighboring countries in addition to Ukraine and Georgia.
The following year, Obama turned a blind eye to the Green Revolution against Iran's theocrats. Similarly, in 2011, he declined to support peaceful dissent against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. Next, he declined to support the secular opposition that coalesced in response to the Assad regime's brutal repression of that dissent. This was a gift not just to Assad but also to his patrons, Russia and Iran.
This year, the president re-established diplomatic relations with the Castro regime in Cuba and promised to restore trade relations -- concessions that have so far gone unreciprocated. Cyber attacks by China and North Korea have not been rewarded, but neither have they elicited any serious consequences.
As for the deal Obama has negotiated with Iran, it will enrich and empower the Islamic republic's rulers. In exchange, they are promising to delay a nuclear weapons program that they claim never existed.
It's only fair to point out that these policies are less a departure from the past than the extension of a long-developing tendency. Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan did not seek to appease the Islamic republic but neither did he make Iran's rulers pay a steep price for the invasion and occupation of the U.S. embassy and the detention and torture of American hostages. He responded fecklessly to the 1983 slaughter of 241 American service members in Beirut as well as other atrocities directed against Americans by Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon.
Then-President Bill Clinton also did nothing about the 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen, an act of war "planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran," according to a federal court ruling in 2006.
This update: Last week, the Saudis reportedly captured the reputed mastermind of that attack, Ahmed al-Mughassil, a senior leader of another Iranian-backed terrorist group, Hezbollah al-Hijaz (the Hijaz is a region of Arabia). He had been living in Beirut under the protection of Lebanese Hezbollah.
It's worth noting that the families of Khobar Tower victims have never received compensation. Instead, under the Iran agreement, billions of dollars will be released to the rulers responsible for the slaughter.
Those who orchestrated Iran's attempt to blow up Cafe Milano in Georgetown in 2011 have gotten away with it, too. Two years ago, Manssor Arbabsiar, an Iranian-American, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role but, according to prosecutors, he had been recruited by a senior official in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful organization in Iran.
There have been a few exceptions to this trend. In negotiations with the Soviets, Reagan really did prefer no deals to bad deals. President George H. W. Bush forced Saddam Hussein to disgorge Kuwait. Clinton used air power to save Muslim communities in the Balkans. President George W. Bush toppled the Saddam regime and, eventually, found a general capable of defeating both al Qaida in Iraq and Iranian-backed Shia militias. Obama backed rebels fighting Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
From all these experiences, lessons can be learned. Not among them: that there's no viable alternative to appeasement and that appeasement should therefore be enshrined as America's default policy in a world where free peoples are, increasingly, an endangered species.
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) The Real Arctic ThreatObama focuses on global warming while Putin’s neo-imperialist dreams continue to spread north.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, aboard a cross-country vehicle, arriving at a research center in Russia’s Franz Josef archipelago in the Arctic Ocean in 2010. PHOTO: ALEXEI NIKOLSKY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Obama is on a three-day visit to Alaska that will include a stop north of the Arctic Circle. The focus of his trip is climate change. Some of my Senate colleagues and I recently returned from the Arctic, and while we saw the challenges of melting polar ice, we also saw a greater and more immediate threat. It is a menace that many assumed was relegated to the past: an aggressive, militarily capable Russian state that is ruled by an anti-American autocrat, hostile to our interests, dismissive of our values, and seeking to challenge the international order that U.S. leaders of both parties have maintained for seven decades.
Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperial ambitions are clear enough in his attempt to dominate Russia’s neighbors, Ukraine most of all. But his ambitions increasingly extend to the Arctic and Europe’s northern flank. That is where I and my colleagues met with leaders and security officials from Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
Like the U.S., these nations don’t want a return to the Cold War. But Russia’s aggressive behavior has led them to conclude President Putin wants exactly that. They see Russia’s undeclared, grinding war on Ukraine as a test both for Moscow’s campaign to reassert Russian dominance of its so-called near abroad and the response of the trans-Atlantic community.
As polar ice melts, Russia is rushing to nationalize and control new waterways across the Arctic Ocean that could open not simply to commercial shipping, but also military and intelligence activities. Vast natural resources, including oil and gas, could become available for exploitation, potentially transforming the Arctic into a new theater of geopolitical competition.
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on the renaming of Mount McKinley and the president’s visit to the Arctic. Photo credit: Associated Press.
Officials from each of the countries I visited expressed the same concern: Russia is threatening the security and prosperity of the Arctic and Northern Europe by assertively deploying its military power, patrolling its neighbors’ coastlines both above and below water, and building or reopening numerous military outposts across the region.
Russian provocations and territorial claims in the Arctic also threaten U.S. national-security interests. Russia’s military expansion in the Arctic and North Atlantic appears to be an attempt to establish de facto control over these vital areas, much as China is seeking to do in the South China Sea. In both cases the U.S. response has so far been feeble. That is alarming, because freedom of the seas is essential to the modern way of life. Any action by Russia that impedes movement in the Arctic may ultimately threaten the peace of the Atlantic and the intercontinental ties between the U.S. and our closest allies and trading partners in Europe.
Defending America’s national interests in the Arctic will require bringing renewed energy to our alliances and partnerships. This year the U.S. assumed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council for two years. During that time we should make recognition of Mr. Putin’s hegemonic ambitions a top priority and increase cooperation with our Arctic partners to deter Russia from instigating a new “great game” in the Arctic.
We must also provide robust support for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. But amid budget constraints and worsening global crises, the Arctic challenge is stark. Traveling in the region often requires heavy icebreakers. Russia currently operates 27 of these vessels. The U.S. has two, one of which is not currently operational. As U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft told Newsweek in July: “We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now. We’re not playing in this game at all.”
On Tuesday President Obama proposed to start planning for construction of new icebreakers. That’s only modest progress. Without the proper capabilities, the U.S. gives Russia a free pass to establish facts on the ground that will be hard to rebut.
Ultimately, Mr. Putin’s ambitions—from Ukraine and the Baltics to the Arctic and North Atlantic—require the trans-Atlantic community to return to a mission that too many assumed was no longer necessary: deterrence. We must project strength to prevent conflict.
Moscow is waging a Cold War updated for the 21st century, employing modern military tactics and weapons systems, conducting sophisticated information-warfare operations and using advanced cyber and space capabilities. It is not that the U.S. and our allies are doing nothing in response to this new Russian threat, but nothing we are doing has been successful in establishing deterrence.
To be successful, the U.S. must end the arbitrary caps on defense spending imposed by the Budget Control Act and return to a strategy-driven defense budget. America’s European and NATO partners must spend more on defense—at a minimum, meeting the NATO commitment of 2% of gross domestic product. But they also have to spend strategically by investing in interoperability and high-priority and high-demand systems, including missile defense, aerial refueling and unmanned aerial vehicles.
The good news is that some European countries are responding to the new strategic realities in Europe. Norway continues to be a leading military power in Europe. Sweden, which has suffered brazen Russian incursions into its territorial waters and airspace, is planning a defense-spending increase to improve training and acquire vital military capabilities, including submarines, fighters jets and air defenses.
The Baltic States are stepping up as well. Estonia has developed some of the world’s most advanced cyber capabilities. Latvia plans to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2018. Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė tells me that her country is boosting its defense spending by a third next year.
With each of these nations, and other European and NATO allies, the U.S. must encourage greater security cooperation, robust military exchanges and exercises, and improved intelligence capabilities to deter Vladimir Putin’s quest for a new form of Russian empire.
Mr. McCain, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Arizona.
2a)
Five Chinese Navy Ships Are Operating in Bering Sea Off Alaska CoastChinese naval presence off Alaskan coast appears to be a first
Five Chinese navy ships are currently operating in the Bering Sea, off the coast of Alaska, the first time the U.S. military has seen such activity in the area, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.
The officials said they have been aware in recent days that three Chinese combat ships, a replenishment vessel and an amphibious ship were in the vicinity after observing them moving toward the Aleutian Islands, which are split between U.S. and Russian control.
They said the Chinese ships were still in the area, but declined to specify when the vessels were first spotted or how far they were from the coast of Alaska, where President Barack Obama is winding up a three-day visit.
“This would be a first in the vicinity of the Aleutian Islands,” one defense official said of the Chinese ships. “I don’t think we’d characterize anything they’re doing as threatening.”
Pentagon officials also said there was no information suggesting the Chinese ships had gone through the Bering Strait, a narrow waterway north of the sea that abuts Alaska.
China’s defense ministry couldn’t be reached to comment.
The presence of the Chinese ships so close to U.S. shores is the latest demonstration of how China’s military is rapidly expanding its operations far from its own coast to protect the nation’s growing global interests.
The Chinese naval activity comes as Mr. Obama visits Alaska and the Arctic region to highlight climate change. The naval operation also comes just before Chinese PresidentXi Jinping presides over a World War II Victory Day parade on Thursday that the U.S. and its allies fear is being used to showcase China’s new military strength and ambition.
Mr. Xi is heading to the U.S. in late September for a state visit, which has already been overshadowed by tensions over Chinese military activity, including alleged cyberattacks on the U.S. and island-building in the South China Sea.
China says its military activities aren't designed to threaten any other nation but are expanding in tandem with its economic power, as well as its interests and responsibilities around the world.
The Pentagon official said there were a “variety of opinions” on how to interpret the Chinese ships’ deployment.
“It’s difficult to tell exactly, but it indicates some interest in the Arctic region,” the official said. “It’s different.”
China has shown growing interest in using the so-called Northern Sea Route to transport goods between Asia and the West via the Arctic in recent years as melting polar ice has eased access for shipping. The route can take several days less than the journey via the Suez Canal.
The first Chinese vessel to sail the entire Northern Sea Route was an icebreaker called the Snow Dragon in 2012 and some Chinese commercial ships have used the route since, according to state media.
Beijing also has shown growing interest in exploiting energy resources in the Arctic region and in 2013 became a permanent observer to the Arctic Council, whose members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S.
A search of Chinese state media and military statements online revealed no record of any previous naval deployment to the Bering Sea.
China and Russia held joint naval exercises off the Russian Pacific coast—about 2,000 miles west of the Bering Sea—between August 20 and 28, according to the official Xinhua News Agency.
Seven Chinese ships took part, including two destroyers, two frigates, two landing ships and one supply ship, Xinhua said but it gave no details about where the vessels went afterward.
China’s navy confined itself to patrolling the nation’s coast for the first five decades after the Communist takeover in 1949. But in the past few years, it has ventured deep in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and even the Mediterranean Sea.
The Chinese navy has taken part in antipiracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since 2008 and held joint naval drills with Russia in the Mediterranean in May. Last year, Chinese navy ships made their debut at U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific, or Rimpac, joint naval drills in Hawaii.
U.S. officials said an uninvited Chinese spy ship observed the Rimpac drills from international waters just off Hawaii. China’s defense ministry said at the time its ship operations complied with international law.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Let the left-wing indoctrination begin
By Todd Starnes
-It's no secret that our nation's public universities want to transform American young people into a bunch of hyper-sensitive, intellectually-neutered cream puffs.
But now – they're trying to deconstruct gender identity by parsing pronouns.
Across the fruited plain, institutions of higher education are turning their taxpayer-funded fiefdoms into gender-neutral zones where free thought is outlawed. I've got several incidents to share with you – so pour yourself a glass of iced tea and prepare to be dumbfounded.
Consider what happened to Moriah DeMartino, a 21-year-old conservative student at Maryland's Hagerstown Community College.
College officials turned down her request to establish a campus chapter of Turning Point USA, one of the nation's most influential student non-partisan conservative organizations. Instead, the college suggested she join the political science club.
"I have determined that both Republicans and Democrats, as well as any other political parties, are able to be fairly represented as members of the currently existing club, without the creation of any additional clubs," Dean of Student Affairs Jessica Chambers told Campus Reform.
Chambers touted the political science club as a "non-partisan, but inclusive" group that exposes students to "the principles of political science in a true objective manner with respect to all student rights."
But Miss DeMartino tells me the advisor of the club is an "extremely liberal professor."
"He's the man I approached about my club and he instantly shut me down," she said. "I'm really frustrated right now and I'm really upset."
For the record, the college does maintain clubs for women's rights and LGBT students – but not conservatives. No surprise, said Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
"More times than not administrators and deans are using their positions of power to block conservative viewpoints on campus," Kirk told me. "We have seen this time and time again. Administrators have been trying to silence the conservative point of view." But when it comes to imposing draconian liberal ideology on students, no one can come close to Washington State University.
Campus Reform reports a number of students have told students they will be punished if they use words like "illegal alien," "male," "and "female."
It's a good thing I didn't attend Washington State University. I would've flunked out during roll call.
The syllabus for a "Women & Pop Culture" class warned students that using any "oppressive and hateful language" could result in a failing grade.
Oh yeah, the professor has a problem with white folks, too.
"Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in every day social structures and institutions," the syllabus outlined.
Another professor told white students they are expected to "defer" to non-white students. That's just a fancy way of telling all the pale faces to shut their pie hole.
Last week I reported on the University of Tennessee's quest to introduce gender "inclusive" pronouns into the Big Orange lexicon. Instead of he and she, students and professors were encouraged to use words like ze and zir. "We should not assume someone's gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems," wrote Donna Braquet, the director of the university's pride center. "Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth."
I receive correspondence weekly from parents and students who are troubled by the influence of liberal ideology on university campuses.
And it's not just happening at public schools. Get a load of what the kids had to endure at American University – a private school in Washington, DC.
Incoming freshmen were instructed to introduce themselves by name, hometown and "gender pronoun," according to Young America's Foundation (YAF).
"I found that this school has an obsession with political correctness," freshman Tristan Justice told The New Guard. "Despite being informed that American University was a very liberal campus, I went to orientation with high hopes that it wasn't as bad as it sounded, but I was wrong."
Welcome to an education system operated by the tolerance and diversity crowd, Tristan.
I really feel bad for American moms and dads – I really do. They send off their kids to college as decent, freedom-loving people. But they return home as gender-neutral, secular progressives who can't figure out whether to leave the toilet seat up or down. Our institutions of higher learning need a courtesy flush, America.
Todd Starnes is host of "Fox News & Commentary," heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
The Only Way to Block the Iran TREATY: Sue ObamaThe last hope to keep Iran from going nuclear
By Robert B. Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender
Emergency Prescription for Senate: [1]—Pass rule that abolishes the filibuster; [2]—Pass resolution declaring the Iran nuke deal to be a “treaty”; [3]—Defeat the deal; and [4]—Sue President Obama to enjoin him from implementing the deal.
A tsunami of support for portraying the Iran nuke capitulation as a “treaty” must culminate in an ironclad commitment to litigate. The Supreme Court will then be able to negate Obama’s (mis-)portrayal thereof as an “executive order.”
This conceptualization was exhaustively promulgated and painstakingly documented in five prior essays. Provisional endorsement thereof has emerged from other authors, albeit none explicitly advocated filing a lawsuit comparable to that which pends against ObamaCare (c/o Speaker Boehner).
The potential need to sue Obama was predicted in May and corroborated in July. Fundamental components of this approach focused on its “treaty” and “rule-of-law” components. The most-recent essay conceptualized the legal justification for this initiative, and Jerry Gordon has detailed, comprehensively, “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” and “Denouement Looms for Congressional Action on the Iran Nuclear Pact.”
During recent months, myriad incarnations of this approach were promoted by legal-authority Andrew C. McCarthy, accomplished-author Caroline B. Glick, and constitutional-scholar Dr. John C. Eastman (personal communication, August 19).
Dr. Eastman wrote:
First, because only a “treaty” is the Supreme law of the land, a mere executive agreement could not overturn statutorily-imposed sanctions. And neither, in my view, could a change in the constitutionally-mandated default rule for adopting a treaty. Second, if that is true, then a members of the Senate who, collectively, had the votes to prevent ratification of a treaty would have standing to challenge the process that negated their vote. That’s the Coleman v. Miller case on all fours.
Professor Alan Dershowitz challenged the president’s power to enter into long-term deals with foreign powers without congressional consent by simply declaring an important deal to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty. “[G]eneral and permanent commercial regulations with foreign powers must be made by treaty, but…the particular and temporary regulations of commerce may be made by an agreement of a state with another, or with a foreign power, by the consent of Congress” (Gibbons v. Ogden).
During recent days, others have homed in on this goal. Jerome M. Marcus, Esquire claimed, “Congress has the right to see the full negotiating record, not just the final product or strategically-leaked details.”
Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, examined a federal district court initiative to allow the Senate to approve the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty, and not an executive agreement; it is based on the view that the Constitution “does not allow Congress to give away its treaty-reviewing role to the president” by having adopted the Corker-Cardin Bill.
Jim Geraghty advised that Republicans “Use our senatorial nuclear option to stop Iran’s radioactive nuclear option” by proposing: “Scrap the filibuster, pass a resolution declaring the Iran deal a treaty that requires Senate authorization, introduce the text of the Iran deal, and vote it down.”
Also during recent days, however, Leftists gloat that the “congressional fight on [the] Iran deal is all but over” while invoking hyperbole when—unwittingly ironically—claiming that “[t]he Iran nuclear deal is President Obama’s Iraq troop surge.”
Meanwhile, venal arguments favoring the deal have emerged that are both soft-sell (when President Obama claimed, to a Jewish-American group, “We’re all pro-Israel”) and hard-sell (when a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators claimed “rejection of the nuclear deal could lead to radicalism in Iran”).
Also, the International Atomic Energy Agency—now claiming poverty—reported Iran may have built an extension to part of its Parchin nuclear site, since May.
Concomitantly, the blame-game against Republican leadership has justifiably surfaced. For example, belatedly it has been recognized that “an Iran deal filibuster will be Corker’s folly” since—regardless of his motive—he failed legislatively to preclude the ability to overcome a filibuster.
Recognizing that Congress will NOT “have a say,” as promised in May, Republicans have not proposed anything substantive to counter the bleak political landscape. Indeed, despite again exclaiming, “The President’s Iran deal makes the world less safe,” no viable solution was proffered during the Weekly Republican Party’s Address and a face-saving effort to enact additional sanctions cannot suffice.
Some claim that states cannot be forced to comply with international treaties unless Congress has passed statutes giving them effect (Medellín v. Texas, 2008) and, in fact, thatstates can add new sanctions. Yet, the president can initiate executive agreements with foreign states without the advice or consent of the Senate, and executive agreements are binding over states’ constitutions, laws, and policies (U.S. vs. Belmont, 1937). Nothing here can offset the upwards of $150 billion “signing-bonus.”
Adopting a defeatist attitude is premature, however, for the Corker-Cardin-Menendez Bill has been nullified due to the absence of initial/subsequent “informed consent.” Not only does Obama continue to maintain secrecy regarding key (known to be faulty) inspection regimes, but he dropped sanctions against conventional arms (that Tehran and Moscow already exploit) against explicit reassurances contained in congressional testimony, as recently as one week prior to announcement of the accord on July 14.
This treaty must be ratified by a 2/3-vote of those present prior to implementation. Yet, it should be defeated because this “bad” deal could easily be improved, as has been extensively and near-universally averred by multiple experts over the summer. This approach would also preclude its being perceived as a Congressional-Executive Agreement, which is implemented via passage of a joint-resolution of both Houses.
When it doesn’t survive advise/consent, it is hoped that Obama won’t go rogue, as was suggested when Secretary of State Kerry did not reflexly say he would “follow the law” governing existing congressional sanctions if Congress voted to override a veto (“I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the President and determining what the circumstances are”).
If he does, because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—and Speaker Boehner—pledged to do everything possible to block the deal, he must sue President Obama. In the process, he will be enhancing world security and sustaining the overwhelming will of the American people.
Only the U.S. Senate can rescue (Judeo-Christian) Western Civilization from the Administration’s perfidy and collaboration with Islamists.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a physician-activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com . Lee S. Bender, Esquire, is an attorney, activist and co-author of the book, Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z . (Deeply appreciated are publication decisions by Messrs. Thomas Lifson and Joseph Picard, who legitimized dissemination of prior incarnations purely on their merits; acknowledged also is editing support, inter alia , by Messrs. Richard Baehr and Ted Belman, who honored heartfelt pleas.)
4a)
Iran Pact's Secret Side Deals: A National Security Fraud
According to the Obama administration, there are no secret side deals to the nuclear agreement with Iran. And if there are, it's not true that Iran will be inspecting itself.
And even if Iran will be inspecting itself, the side deals are a separate arrangement and not part of the nuclear deal, and the issue they're intended to address — past Iranian nuclear weapons work — doesn't matter.
What's going on here?
First, we know there are secret side deals that were not mentioned in the Obama administration's rollout of the Iran nuclear agreement. The administration provided classified (that is, secret) briefings on the side deals to Congress during the week of July 20, in which it claimed that U.S. diplomats have been briefed on the side deal documents but have not seen them.
Obama officials told Congress that the side deals are routine International Atomic Energy Agency arrangements that were being briefed in a classified setting because they are confidential agreements between the IAEA and Iran.
So if the side deals are secret, from whom are they being kept secret? The U.S. Congress, apparently. According to an Aug. 18 Washington Free Beacon story, Iran sent a letter to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano threatening him with physical harm if he revealed information about the side deals in meetings with members of Congress during a visit to Washington.
Why are these agreements secret?, you may ask. The reason appears to be that they are not routine IAEA agreements but an unprecedented scheme under which Iran will inspect itself to collect evidence of the "possible military dimensions" (PMD) of its nuclear program.
Resolving the PMD issue is crucial for verification of the Iran deal by establishing a baseline of Iran's nuclear weapons-related activities.
The Obama administration and its supporters are trying to deflect the side deals story by downplaying these agreements as irrelevant and unimportant. These are telling arguments, since they go to the heart of why the secret side deals came about.
The appearance of secret side deals on the PMD issue was surprising, since Secretary of State John Kerry said in April that this issue would be addressed in the final nuclear agreement. He reportedly tried and failed to resolve this issue with an offer to Iranian officials in late May or early June.
After Iran rejected this offer, Kerry started saying that resolving the PMD issue was unimportant because it involved issues of the past. Kerry also made the following incredible statement on June 16: "We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they (Iran) were engaged in."
Former U.S. intelligence officials strongly disputed this claim.
It's too coincidental that, after Kerry could not resolve the PMD issue during the nuclear talks, they appeared in secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran as part of a bizarre plan barring the IAEA access to PMD-related nuclear sites and using Iranians to collect nuclear samples.
What's even more suspicious is that a first draft of a side deal document shown to the Associated Press had several peculiarities suggesting that it was not drafted by the IAEA or Iran.
Because the AP says two officials assured that the draft is genuine and almost identical to the final version, I believe the peculiarities indicate that the document was written by a third party who is a foreign policy amateur, possibly an aide to Kerry or someone in the Obama National Security Council.
This makes sense because the side deals are almost certainly a U.S. initiative to quietly drop the PMD issue by separating it from the nuclear agreement and placing it in a secret IAEA-Iran agreement that the American people and Congress cannot see.
As such, the side deals violate the requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act), which requires that the administration provide to Congress all documents associated with the Iran nuclear agreement — including all side agreements.
The secret side deals amount to national security fraud by the Obama administration. There are many reasons for members of Congress to vote against the Iran deal, but it's hard to see how anyone in Congress can vote for it in light of this deliberate attempt by the Obama administration to conceal from Congress its effort to drop a crucial benchmark needed to verify Iran's compliance with the agreement.
• Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He followed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department and the House Intelligence Committee during his 25-year government career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
