rush makes announcement about ob true religion

rush makes announcement about ob true religion–15kh.,b26

President Barack Obama delivered remarks from the White House Tuesday afternoon, ostensibly updating the American people regarding the terror attack in Orlando and what was being done to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

It is worth noting that finally, finally, Obama spoke the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” or some variant thereof, if only so he could snidely dismiss the words as meaningless and powerless, deriding them as a supposed “magic talisman” that would instantly defeat the Islamic jihadists if repeated three times in a row, or something like that.

But back to the point, which is the manner in which Obama spoke both about the terrorist attack and terrorists in general, and his political opponents who have the gall to point out the obvious nature of the attack and attacker — an act of radical Islamic terrorism perpetrated by a radical Islamic terrorist.

Fox News host and columnist Todd Starnes noticed the disparity in Obama’s attitude and tone when discussing the terrorists versus those calling out the terrorists, pointing out that Obama seemed “more angry” speaking about one over the other. Conservative talk radio king Rush Limbaugh noticed this discrepancy as well, posting a message to his Facebook page following Obama’s speech while still doing his show. “Have you noticed, by the way, that Obama really, really, really gets concerned about offending religious people? Oh, yeah, he really, really bothered out there about offending Islamists,” Rush wrote. “He doesn’t seem concerned about Christianity. He is a Christian,” he continued. “If he gets upset about attacks on Christianity, he never comes out (and) defends Christianity. He never, ever comes out, corrects the record about things his party says about Christians. No, he echoes them.”

Rush speaks the truth, as Obama said nothing regarding the disgusting attacks launched by the left toward Christians following a terrorist attack by a radical Muslim. Instead, he delivered yet another unwarranted and unwanted lecture about how Americans are hateful bigots and must be more tolerant of people who wish to behead and murder them.

He also launched yet another attack on the Second Amendment, our gun rights, and due process in his incessant bid to disarm Americans in the face of increasingly violent and deadly Islamist terror attacks.

None of this should be a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention for the past eight years, as it is little more than Obama’s standard fare every time there is some sort of terrorist attack or mass shooting.

source–rush, conservative tribune


Five things we learned from first Warren-Clinton appearance

Five things we learned from first Warren-Clinton appearance–47jh.,b43

By tapping Warren, Clinton could go a long way to reassuring progressives, including those who vigorously supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the Democratic primary campaign.But selecting Warren would also be a gamble for the risk-averse Clinton.Here’s what we learned from Monday’s event.

Warren is a much better orator than Clinton

Clinton has improved as a podium speaker over the years but, as she has acknowledged herself, she is “not a natural politician.” The disparity in skills between her and Warren was especially glaring on Monday. Warren delivered a barn-burner of a speech that took aim at Donald Trump, made a strong case for Clinton and drew an ecstatic reaction from the crowd.

Clinton was enthusiastically received as well, but her speech lacked the élan of Warren’s and often relied upon political boilerplate. Warren’s capacity to fire up a crowd could recommend her to Clinton as a running mate. But it’s equally plausible that Clinton and her aides would be wary of Warren’s potential to overshadow the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

That warmth of Clinton’s comments highlights how diligently she is working to build bridges with the left of the party. She needs to do that for a number of reasons. The main one is that many Sanders supporters are reluctant to back her. But several opinion polls have also shown Clinton’s lead over Trump considerably diminished in a multi-candidate field that includes Jill Stein of the Green Party and Libertarian Gary Johnson. A full 20 percent of liberal voters are considering backing a third-party candidate, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday. Clinton’s enthusiastic embrace of Warren could help keep them in the Democratic fold.

source–niall stanage, the hill,

Millennials SHOCKED When They Discover The Truth About Crooked Hillary

Millennials SHOCKED When They Discover The Truth About Crooked Hillary–47jh.,b43

Conservatives know that Hillary Clinton is one of the most crooked, misleading, untrustworthy presidential candidates in our country’s history.

However, we may not have been doing a good enough job at teaching the younger generation why the presumed Democrat presidential nominee would be detrimental to our country.

Campus Reform, a conservative news site for college students, recently polled several young adults and asked them to match different quotes to either Clinton or presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The challenge included statements such as the following:

  • This candidate wore a $12,000 suit while giving a speechabout inequality.
  • Which candidate said they carry hot sauce everywhere they go to “pander” to black voters?
  • Which candidate said, “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran if it attacks Israel. We would obliterate them”?
  • Which candidate made a joke about “colored people time” saying that black people are always late?
  • Which candidate suggested a 12-year-old rape victim made up accusationsbecause she enjoyed “fantasizing about older men”?
  • This candidate accepted millions of dollars from the kings of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Oman.

The matching candidate to each statement, of course, was Hillary Clinton. But, the participants in the challenge had no idea, and they were stunned when they found out.

“Oh, that makes me sad,” one woman replied.

“Wow,” another said.

Many of the young people interviewed admitted that they did not exactly trust the former secretary of state.

Watch the video of this millennial challenge below:

There’s no reason why a college-level, voting-age American should be unaware of Hillary Clinton’s many, many shortcomings.

If conservatives want to ensure that the future of our country is secure and prosperous, we must do a better job of informing our fellow voters, young and old, about what’s happening in American government and politics. By doing so, we can ensure that “Crooked Hillary” will be defeated in November.

source–Dennis Michael Lynch

:America’s Suicide……..Very sobering

:America’s Suicide……..Very sobering–37jh.,b40

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, ‘If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

‘Here is how they do it,’ Lamm said:

‘First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country…  History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures

‘Second, to destroy America , invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

‘Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec ‘ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricy and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, ‘I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.’

‘Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.’

‘My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology…’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.’

‘My sixth plan for America ‘s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precept.

‘Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book ‘1984..’ In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: ‘War is peace,’ ‘Freedom is slavery,’ and ‘Ignorance is strength..’
source–ron adams, hispanic quebec, atlantic monthly,

Five years of horror in Syria-

Five years of horror in Syria—17h.,b12-3

In their hometown of Deraa the slogan of the Arab spring: “The people,” they wrote, “want  to topple the regime.” Syrian security forces caught the boys and tortured them.  When news of the regime’s crime spread, thousands around the country filled the streets of their cities. towns, and villages to make their voices heard. Their protests were peaceful, but the response of Bashar al-Assad’s troops was not. They slaughtered unarmed demonstrators and tortured others in jail. Eventually, the people picked Up arms to defend themselves. Those whom President Obama later deprecated as “former doctors, farmers. pharmacists, and so forth” with no chance against “a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah.” none the less fought back. The clerical regime in Tehran was i helping its Syrian ally Assad to crush the opposition like insects. If he helped the farmers and pharmacists to defend themselves and their families, Obama reasoned, it would  damage his chances of doing a deal with the cruel regime  that was Assad’s partner in slaughter.

Because the White House saw no strategic logic to arming the opposition, or setting up a no-fly zone or a buffer zone to protect them, malign forces filled the vacuum. First there was the Islamic State and later Russia, and the death toll mounted. Five years and hundreds of thousands of deaths into what has become the most devastating conflict of the 21st century, the war shows no sign of ending. Five years later, it’s still difficult to see the magnitude of it clearly. And some of the key figures are either confused or obfuscating.

Nowhere in John Kerry’s statement listing ISIS’s gruesome I s crimes against Christians, Yazidis, Shiites, and others is there any mention of Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian despot and his allied forces, including Iran, Hezbollah, assorted Shiite militias from around the region, and Russia, are responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the conflict. most of them targeting the country’s Sunni Arab population. To obscure the Syrian butcher’s bloody role is to participate in a cover-up of war crimes on a massive scale.,  It is not difficult to see why the Obama administration chooses to divert attention away from Assad’s gory campaign—the president wanted a nuclear deal with Iran, and to get it he had to play nice with the clerical regime, which includes, as Obama explained, respecting Iran’s “equities” in Syria.

Five years on and the Syria conflict has become a three headed monster—a genocide, an increasingly large multipower war involving states and nonstate actors, and a refugee crisis. The world has seen nothing like it since the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. What makes the Syria conflict even more dire, even more consequential is that it affects two major regions of the world, the Middle East and Europe. Indeed, according to some European officials, the Syrian refugee crisis is an existential threat to the EU.

Where the White House has not actively partnered with the regime in Tehran and its allies, it has chosen to excuse Iranian actions. Ballistic missile tests? No big deal. The kidnapping of 10 American sailors? They were treated really well and released the next day. Laying waste to two of Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic missions in Iran? Riyadh was asking for trouble. A genocide in Syria perpetrated by Iran’s ally Assad with a huge assist from Iranian forces? That’s the price you have to pay for a historic nuclear agreement. Obama says he has as much to lose as anyone if the Iran deal goes wrong. It’s got his name on it, he says. So does the war in Syria.

source–weekly std-3/28/6, lee smith,

The selling of the Iran deal

The selling of the Iran deal–16h.,b62

The interview was something of a get—the profile by veteran journalist David Samuels  which would be published in the May 8 New York Times Magazine accurately describes Rhodes as “the Boy Wonder of the Obama White House. Samuels notes that nearly everyone I spoke to about Rhodes used the phrase ‘mind meld'” to describe his relationship with President Obama.

ln his own words—and presumably his statements reflect the president he has a mind meld with—Rhodes and other White House officials brag about manipulating the media. They credit themselves with creating a foreign policy narrative divorced from reality to push through the Iranian nuclear deal. This revelation, coupled with increasingly widespread recognition that the Obama administration lied about key details of the Iran deal, has understandably caused an uproar.

“We created an echo chamber,” [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslangaht of freshly minted experts cheerleaders for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given to say. Rhodes boasted to Samuels that  reporters were easy to manipulate. thanks to the elimination of veteran correspondents and foreign news bureaus: “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

The easiest way for the white house to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of  which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them—” “I can name them,” [Samuels] said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging. Price laughed.

They elect  who they’re going to believe.” For those  in need of more  traditional-seeming forms of validation, handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldbert of the Atlantic and Laura Rozen of Al-Monitor helped retail the  administrations narrative. “Laura Rozen was my RSS feed,” Somanader offered. “She would just find everything and retweet it.”

It would be hard to overstate how little reason the media had to trust the Obama administration on Iran. Initially, officials lied about even the existence of bilateral talks with Iran. The official narrative was that negotiations were keyed to the election of the “moderate” president of Iran Hassan Rouhani in 2013 State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki  would later confirm reporting that talks with Iran actually began in 2011.

As for why journalists would carry so much water for the Obama administration, the simple answer is that they shared the administration’s passion for a deal with Iran. Rozen’s slavish devotion to Obama’s Iran policy, for one has been something to behold.

Late last summer, the Associated Press broke the news the Obama  let Iran make a deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency to “self-inspect” its own Parchin nuclear site. The terms of this side-deal with Iran were never disclosed to Congress as required by the Corker-Cardin law that assented  to the deal. In a Daily Beast column that now looks incredibly prescient. Naval War College professor Tom  Nichols noted that the political and media response to the AP’s revelations looked very coordinated and oddly lacking in substance.      And perhaps the most spurious such question was Rozen’s baselessly wondering if the documents obtained by the AP were Israeli forgeries.

Qassem Soleimani, responsible for killing American soldiers in Iraq, began violating sanctions against Iran by visiting Europe, Rozen asserted his travels were lawful. In January when Iran boarded an American vessel in the Persian Gulf, she responded  to a photo of the Americans being held captive by tweeting, “looks like they are making friends.

The  fact that the leaked news of in ft American sailors being taken captive Rhodes was trying to keep it a secret–would overshadow Obamas  State of the State of the Union address later that same day. When the controversy over the Rhodes profile launched a slew of criticisms directed at her, one of Rozen’s notable supporters tweeted, “Laura Rozen has been the best & most informative feed on #IranTalks.

What’s notable about Goldberg is his incredible access to the White House, including multiple interviews with the president.

Goldberg last profiled Obama in the April edition of the Atlantic, and  the interview caused quite a stir because Obama openly insulted American allies.

Rockefeller family pave millions to liberal and pro-Iranian groups advocating a deal with Iran. And the Wall Street Journal further reported that the  White House, and Ben Rhodes specifically, was helping direct the efforts of those groups to pressure Congress on  the Iran deal.

Much of the pro-deal money was distributed via an antinuke foundation called the Plough  shares Fund Ploughshares has been | law giving money to an antiproliferation group called the Institute for Science and international security. aka “the good ISIS.” ISIS stopped getting money a few years back and its president David Albright has-so far declined to say it was because the organization wouldn’t support Obama’s Iran deal.

The terrifying reality of  a nuclear Iran note withstanding, what may be most troubling about this episode is how this manipulation of the press has become the new political playbook and how willing the pawns are to be manipulated. In 2014, Rhodes sold a band of liberal interest groups on the Iran deal, calling it “the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.” It’s an apt comparison because the selling of Obamacare perfectly tracks the dishonest machinations of the Iran deal. I

First, tell a bunch of brazen lies designed to soften political resistance, e.g., “Obamacare will be deficit neutral” and “if you like your health insurance you can keep it.” Second, get a bunch of court Stenographers to be “force multipliers” in the press— Ezra Klein, then at the Washington post  and the new republic Jonathan Cohn were relentlessly on message, as were hundreds of other reporters on the “JournoList” email list Klein maintained. So enlisted were mediasavvy wonks such as MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who later admitted to being deceptive about aspects of the law to sell it, along with deep-pocketed liberal foundations.

Third, when reality catches up with the narrative—Obamacare is going to cost trillions, and millions are losing their health insurance—call on the same echo chamber that lied in the first place to gaslight the critics. have them alternately insist everyone this was going to happen or that it’s a small price to pay for being on the right side of history, and, finally. have your fellow-travelers bask in achieving your political objective even though the trail of self-serving lies left behind seriously erodes the public ^ trust necessary to govern in the future.

“A Stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the a—hole who is the president’s foreign policy guru.” The substance of the article wasn’t much more restrained. Ricks compares Rhodes to “the Kennedy smart  guys who helped get us into the Vietnam War. Does he know how awful he sounds?”

‘It’s jarring when you consider that Obama’s two signature accomplishments, Obamacare and the Iran war deal, were both achieved by systematically and deliberately lying. Rhodes is leaving the White House in a few months and likely knew exactly what he sounds like—a man who deserves credit for executing a winning strategy.

Rosen reported that the State Department had surreptitiously edited the official recording of a December 2013 press conference. An exchange where State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki admitted to Rosen the administration had been lying about when the Iran talks began had been excised from the full recording on excised from the full recording on YouTube channel.

source–weekly std-5/23/16, thomas ricks, mzrk hemingway, nyt magazine, ned price, tanya somander, jeffrey goldberg, laura rozen, jen psaki, corker-cardin law, quassem soleimani, abbas aslani, tablet magazine, arms control assoc., ezraklein, new republics,



The Hillary myth-

The Hillary myth—47h.,b43

Hillary Clinton sounds like Paul Ryan on the economy.  She says she’s for  growth, and long-term growth.” She would abandon the slow-growth economics of President Ohama and  return us to those wonderful days in the 1990s when husband Bill was in charge. This is a different Hillary Clinton  from the one we’ve seen in the debates.

This Hillary Clinton is entirely mythical. She doesn’t exist. As the Democratic party has lurched to the left. she has lurched with it. While talking up growth, she has proposed no incentives to produce it. She relies on government spending to stir growth, Obama’s woeful policy. On tax cuts, she’s for boosting the top rate on individual income to 45 percent, the highest in three decades. Under her complicated plan. the tax rate on capital gains would jump from 23.8 percent to 39.6 percent, then to 47.4 percent with surtaxes. The Tax foundation  concluded her tax hikes would cut annual growth by 1 percent and shrink incomes by at least 0.9 percent That’s a recipe for less job creation, more wage stagnation, fewer business startups, and despondent country.

She  attacks NAFTA and opposes the new Pacific trade treaty she once championed as the “gold standard” of free it’s trade. Bill Clinton pushed through welfare reform that  dramatically reduced poverty and welfare dependency. She would expand welfare with a new subsidy for child  care and much more. And rather than defend his 1994 crime bill, she apologizes for it.

On the minimum wage, she’s flipped twice, first to $12 an hour, then saying she’d sign a bill setting the wage at $15. She answered Sanders’s call for free public college with a scheme for debt free college. She shifted his way on raising social security benefits and promises to make “the  rich” pay for it. She’s taken steps toward a single-payer, government health system. which Sanders favors. To counter his desire to ban fracking, Clinton says she’ll create a maze of regulatory roadblocks to make fracking nearly impossible. Either way, the cost of energy will soar, hurting the lower class and poor disproportionately.

As president she could instantly create a lockstep five-vote liberal majority with her replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia.

And no doubt she would. There’s already talk of the Hillary Court’s elimination of restrictions on abortion, reversing the Citizens United decision liberalizing campaign finance, ending the death penalty, forcing nonmembers to pay union dues, reviving an expansive reading of the commerce clause to  justify government interference in the economy, and reinterpreting the Second Amendment to outlaw an individual’s right to bear arms. None of this is farfetched with Clinton.

Her lies are so numerous and palpable—that it takes 13 minutes for” a new video to show even a fraction of them. In the past two weeks. She lied about her stated intention to shut coal mines, she lied in referring to the FBI’s criminal investigation of her private email operation as a “security review”

The FBI doesn’t do security reviews. She lied in claiming to have never sent national security secrets by email. The lies never stop. She denied telling the parents of two security guards that an anti-Muhammad video caused rioters to kill rioters them in Benghazi, Libya. Irrefutable evidence shows she If knew she was lying.

Hillary deal with the corruption associated with her since  she collected on a $100,000 on a 1,000 investment in cattle futures in 1978. The Clinton Foundation, which is more a slush fund than a charity, is only the latest and most extravagant example. Foreign governments and unsavory billionaires have donated millions, Bill Clinton was hired to speak for as much as $750,000 a pop. Only on national security and foreign policy does the Hillary myth come close to the truth She is said to be a  to hawk.  she’s become the friend of  generals and she approves of military intervention on occasion.  a surge of troops in Afghanistan. She favored leaving a residual force of troops in Iraq. as Obama did initially. She claims tough sanctions against Iran where her idea. She was against the surge Iraq.

source weekly std-5/23/16, economist, citizens united, fred barnes