Let’s hope the Netanyahu invitation is just the first of many, then. One minor but symbolic way that Boehner can strike back at Obama’s executive overreach is to invite various western leaders to speak whose own policies align more with Congress’s than the White House’s. First invitee, obviously, should be Stephen Harper to discuss the benefits of building the Keystone pipeline. Next invite goes to French prime minister Manuel Valls, who declared war on an enemy that our own leaders are now afraid to name. Third invite could go to Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi, who’ll have an interesting view, I’ll bet, on whether Obama was right in the SOTU that we’re making gains against ISIS in Syria. If Boehner can’t stop Obama from blowing up separation of powers, he could at least invite foreign dignitaries to reality-check him.
The smartest SOTU coverage? It was here. We entirely ignored the boob-a-palooza.
We ignored the Obama SOTU this week. That alone cements our claim to have provided the best coverage. But there are other, earlier reasons to consider our coverage as the best.
But there is an issue of such paramount importance that it must go to the forefront in the battle against treacherous Barack Obama. This issue has the added benefit that it can be successfully fought and won because so many Obama Dimocrats will likely join with Republicans to fight Obama.
We might get our wish. The Keystone Pipeline issue is small potatoes (less relevant to with the drop in oil prices) and should not be the keystone of Republican opposition to Obama. Make the fight about something really meaningful. Make our wish come true congressional Republicans.
Barack Obama is like a cracked LP record from before CDs and the digital world of MP3s. Obama repeats and repeats and repeats his threat to veto any new Iran sanctions bill passed by Congress. Now Boner has trumped the bonehead with a smart move which we kinda sorta begged for too.
Hey, when he does something this smart let’s call “Boner” by his proper name and title – Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner.
The new Republican controlled Congress of the United States should invite Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi to speak before a joint session – soon after Barack Obama delivers his “State of the Union” speech. This would not require permission from Barack Obama so it can be done easily and would be a powerful rebuke of Obama’s appeasement/pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies.
Boner, er, Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner, done did real good. He borrowed our idea and tweaked it to help get votes for a new Iran sanctions bill which will need 67 votes to override the Obama veto.
President Obama warned Congress last night that he would veto any sanctions legislation on Iran, saying it would derail U.S. negotiations in the Middle East. But John Boehner isn’t ready to sit out the battle over Iran’s nuclear program, and on Wednesday, he invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress next month.
“[Obama's] exact message to us was: ‘Hold your fire.’ He expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while he cuts a bad deal with Iran. Two words: ‘Hell no!‘” Boehner said during his weekly press briefing on Wednesday. “We’re going to do no such thing.”
Boehner said that he did not consult with the White House before extending the invitation to Netanyahu. And the White House is not happy, because it heard about the invite from Boehner’s office, not from the Israelis.
Boehner’s office confirmed that Netanyahu has accepted, and will give a speech to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 11. The date is significant: It’s the 36th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. [snip]
The speaker said in a statement Wednesday that he invited Netanyahu “to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.”
This is real smart. And it is not just for show;
Boehner’s invite adds fuel to a potential showdown between Congress and the White House over Iran, one that could lead to the first successful veto override of Obama’s tenure as president. Twelve Democrats in the Senate have previously cosponsored legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. If they continue to call for sanctions alongside their Republican colleagues, the Senate may have the two-thirds majority necessary to override an Obama veto.
This might not only help get the votes to override an Obama veto but might also help Netanyahu winhis election which will take place on March 17 of this year. Way to go Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner!
Heavens to Mergatroyd, Heavens to Betsy even… this all sounds too good to be true. No way, just no way Obama Dimocrats will dump Obama in order to fight for truth, justice, and the American way. No way right? Way:
Menendez: Obama Iran Rhetoric Sounds ‘Straight Out Of Tehran’
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the Obama administration’s Iran rhetoric for sounding “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran” and supporting “the Iranian narrative of victimization” before a Senate hearing on Wednesday.
“The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization, when they are the ones with original sin, an illicit nuclear weapons program going back over the course of 20 years that they are unwilling to come clean on. So I don’t know why we feel compelled to make their case” he stated.
This Netanyahu invite and focus on Iran sanctions is the third smart move by the GOP. The first two came before the November 2014 elections. If this keeps up we’ll have to retire the “Boner” and refer to him with the longer moniker – Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner.
Update II: Gay marriage? The Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage. So what does this have to do with immigration? For that matter what does this have to do with ObamaCare? Noah Rothman makes a case for The Supreme Court’s possible gay marriage gift to the GOP in 2016. It’s mostly a “take the issue off the table” argument.
So why do we think that this weirdly timed gay marriage case is to be heard this term with a decision likely in June as a boon to the GOP? Try this: Chief Justice Roberts would love to rule in favor of gay marriage at the same time he rules against ObamaCare subsidies and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. This way the Supreme Court gets praise (on gay marriage) and attack (on ObamaCare and illegal immigration) from the left and praise (on illegal immigration and ObamaCare subsidies) and attack (on gay marriage) from the right. Positioned right on the center of the political chessboard and protected from attacks is just where the Roberts Supreme Court wants to be.
Well, it’s not entirely a Kabuki performance – maybe more a dress rehearsal for the show that tops the bill: the courts. The Republican controlled House went on the record with its vote and that can only help the real immigration fight WHICH TAKES PLACE TODAY.
What do we think is going to happen? We believe the district court will rule with the plaintiffs. Then upon appeal the 9th circuit will overturn the district court. This then sets up the same circumstances we discussed as to the ObamaCare Halbig cases - the plaintiff states will reject an en banc appeal and instead go directly to the Supreme Court. Ordinarily the Supreme Court would side with the 9th Circuit and defer to the government and Obama but Obama’s imperial rule will force the Supreme Court to side with the plaintiff states and clip Obama’s wings on immigration (as well as on ObamaCare). That’s our best prognostication – we are sure others will disagree and they will walk down the street with their umbrellas open as we stroll on the sunny side.
To recap, several states which now add up to 25 filed on December 4, 2014 a lawsuit targeting Obama’s imposition of a change in immigration law via executive orders and departmental policy changes. The states seek injunctive relief and believe they satisfy the three prong test for such relief. On December 24, 2014 the government filed its response (which can be read in PDF form HERE) to the lawsuit.
On Sunday, January 11, 2015 the plaintiff’s filed a detailed brief of the damage Obama’s amnesty inflicts on their finances. To counter the claim of standing with citation of damages to them by the 24 state plaintiffs, on Tuesday twelve states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus curiae brief with the court (pdf file is HERE) claiming Obama’s imperial overreach does not harm them but is wonderful and profitable.
Obama amnesty to impose billions in costs on states, lawsuit alleges
25 states detail financial burdens resulting from non-deportation order in lawsuit
President Obama’s new deportation amnesty will impose “billions of dollars in costs” on states, they told a federal court this week — including more than $130 for each Texas driver’s license issued to illegal immigrants under the policy.
More than 1,100 pages of documents submitted by Texas and two dozen other states suing to stop the amnesty detail the costs in depth, and include sworn affidavits from state officials, federal immigration officers and others arguing that the amnesty will increase illegal immigration, leaving the states with even bigger burdens.
Wisconsin said the illegal immigrants granted amnesty would be eligible to apply for concealed weapons permits at a cost to state taxpayers. Indiana said it will end up paying unemployment benefits to the illegal immigrants. And in Texas, officials said they’ll have to hire more than 100 new employees to process hundreds of thousands of driver’s license applications, with state taxpayers shelling out more than $130 per applicant.
“The states will lose money,” Texas, which is leading the lawsuit, told Judge Andrew Hanen in legal papers.
These cases typically founder on the question of standing. It’s why two days before today’s hearing there was a scramble by the twelve states saying all is well and wonderful. Mocked by many, the Texas led case appears to meet the question of standing:
The case turns on two key factors: first, whether Texas and the 24 other states that have joined the lawsuit can show they or their residents stand to suffer from the president’s policies; and second, whether Mr. Obama’s actions go beyond case-by-case discretion and tread on Congress‘ power to write laws and set policy.
Texas and its fellow states argue the licenses and other benefits prove they will suffer, which means they have “standing” to sue in court.
They also painted a compelling picture of the program as a rubber-stamp rather than the careful case-by-case decisions the Obama administration claims.
Texas says a 95 percent approval rate for applicants for the existing amnesty for so-called Dreamers shows the program is a rubber stamp. The state even filed an affidavit to that effect from Kenneth Palinkas, head of the labor union of officers who process the applications.
“Leadership has intentionally stopped proper screening and enforcement and, in so doing, it has guaranteed that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk,” Mr. Palinkas said.
Texas also says the administration has repeatedly hurt its own case with the way it’s gone about attacking states that have cracked down on illegal immigration, while trying to make its own amnesty programs as generous as possible.
In one instance, the administration argues that states don’t have to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants — thus saying there’s no financial burden to states from the amnesty. But the administration is currently arguing in another case out of Arizona that states must issue driver’s licenses to those granted the amnesty and work permits.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the administration, meaning that all of the states under its jurisdiction, including three of the plaintiff states in the Texas case, do not have a choice.
In another example, Texas submitted the declaration of a labor economist who said that because the illegal immigrants would become legal workers but still aren’t eligible for Obamacare, they are cheaper to hire for some businesses. Texas said that’s exactly the kind of “economic harm” that courts are allowed to step in and fight.
The Obama administration told the court that judges don’t have the power to stop the president’s use of discretion. [snip]
“The state lawsuit is about politics, not policy or the constitutionality of the executive actions,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, which has filed briefs in the case defending the policy. “Ultimately, we — along with scores of legal experts — believe the courts will prove that President Obama’s immigration policy is legally sound.”
Meanwhile, the Cato Institute has filed briefs challenging the program. [snip]
“All of this is pretty new in the sense that the administration is coming up with creative ways of governing without Congress,” he said.
Cato’s involvement is intriguing because, as a libertarian-leaning think tank, it generally agrees with legalizing illegal immigrants. But Mr. Shapiro said sometimes “something can be good policy yet bad law.”
Advocates are already preparing for the government to accept applications. A first round, for those brought to the U.S. as children, will begin by Feb. 20. A second round, for illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, will follow 90 days later.
Barack Obama has veto power over whatever congress can pass and that is why the courts must intervene if law is to rule the nation. In this, the plaintiffs chose their venue well:
U.S. President Barack Obama drew the short straw in a lawsuit by 25 states seeking to block efforts to loosen immigration restrictions: The judge who will decide the case has previously assailed him in that arena for turning “a blind eye to criminal conduct.” [snip]
Hanen may prove a tough sell. The judge, whose courthouse is located on the Mexican border, accused the Department of Homeland Security last year of complicity in cross-border child smuggling.
“The DHS should enforce the laws of the United States — not break them,” Hanen said in a written opinion.
Hanen, who was appointed by Republican George W. Bush in 2002, rebuked the agency for “completing the criminal conspiracy” by delivering undocumented children caught at the border to their parents living illegally in the U.S. The judge complained in a December 2013 opinion that the undocumented parents weren’t arrested or deported after being reunited with their kids, and taxpayers were footing the transit bills.
The biggest beneficiaries of the conspiracy, Hanen said, are the Mexican drug cartels that control the border smuggling rings, who’ve learned to rely on the U.S. government to “finish the job of the human traffickers” if they get caught.
“Instead of enforcing the law of the United States, the government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it,” Hanen wrote in his opinion that followed a string of child-trafficking convictions in his court. “A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct.”
“At its core, plaintiffs’ suit is a generalized disagreement about the scope of the prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch of the federal government, in the exercise of exclusive federal authority over immigration,” government lawyers said in a filing today in the Brownsville court.
That authority, under prior rulings of the Supreme Court, includes the right to “decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all, including because of immediate human concerns,” White Houe lawyers said.
Immigration officials must focus their limited resources on deporting criminals and recent border-crossers, because Congress singled these groups out for priority handling without providing sufficient funding to accomplish the job, the White House said in the filing.
By shifting away from “low-priority aliens,” DHS can spend more on rounding up dangerous immigrants and those without family ties to the U.S., they said.
The Obama administration told Hanen it believes judges don’t have authority to decide if the president abused his power by changing immigration laws singlehandedly, without Congressional approval.
Under a 1985 Supreme Court ruling, “an agency’s decision not to exercise its enforcement authority, or to exercise it in a particular way, is presumed to be immune from judicial review,” White House lawyers said in court papers. [snip]
Brownsville has just two federal judges – Hanen and an appointee of Democratic ex-President Bill Clinton — and they evenly split all incoming civil cases, according to the court’s website and a courthouse clerk who confirmed the case-assignment protocol but declined to give her name.
“The assignments are random” between Hanen and the other judge, Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office, said in an e-mailed response to questions on how Texas decided where to file the case.
Plaintiffs chose their venue well and lucked out in the random draw. If they can’t win now in this district court….
BROWNSVILLE – A federal judge in Brownsville will hear oral arguments Thursday from Texas and 24 other states that want to block President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, which shields about 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen is expected to decide whether the lawsuit opposing Obama’s plan on immigration should proceed and its implementation suspended because of the perceived harm claimed by the 25 plaintiff states.
“It is a case we lawyers call a case of first impression in the sense there never has been one like it,” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at New York University School of Law. “There is not a direct precedent for this action to know the law is clearly on one side or the other.”
On Nov. 20, Obama announced his executive action, which greatly expands the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and includes a deferred action program for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
In response, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the incoming governor, filed a lawsuit to block the action, arguing the president overstepped his legal authority by not getting congressional approval. Twenty-four other states and attorneys general, most of them Republican, have since joined the Texas-led lawsuit. [snip]
Legal scholars say the issues of deferred action and executive discretion on matters of immigration have been upheld in court many times before, and yet predicting the outcome of this lawsuit is difficult because of its unprecedented scale.
“Under current case law, there is no basis to find this action illegal,” Chishti said. “But there has never been a case of 5 million, and therefore one might argue that prior cases don’t apply.” [snip]
But non-citizen students are already eligible to attend public schools under a 1982 Supreme Court decision – similarly immigrants are currently eligible for emergency health care coverage under existing law, casting doubt whether a claim of financial harm would hold up in court.
Asserting a legal and constitutional authority he himself said he did not have, President Obama is going rogue, issuing an executive amnesty to 4 to 5 million illegal aliens. [snip]
Thus does our constitutional law professor-president “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States he has twice swore to uphold?
Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic. Future presidents will cite the “Obama precedent” when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency.
We have just taken a monumental step away from republicanism toward Caesarism. For this is rule by diktat, the rejection of which sparked the American Revolution. [snip]
Immigrants who waited in line for years to come to America, and those waiting still, have egg on their faces. Why, they are saying to themselves, were we so stupid as to obey U.S. laws, when it is the border-jumpers who are now on the way to residency and citizenship?
The courts do not want to intervene in a fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch. But they will have to. It’s that “rule of law” thing.
Update: Below, in our main article, we posted two suggestions for the American congress. The first is to invite Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi to speak before a joint session of congress soon after Obama bores everyone with his lies about the State of the Union. The second suggestion is to ban travel from residents of European “no go zones”.
We discussed this mayor earlier and the spirit of Voltaire, as another mayor has termed the fight for the West. We can’t extol these courageous speakers too much however, so here is the mayor:
The new Republican controlled Congress of the United States should invite Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi to speak before a joint session – soon after Barack Obama delivers his “State of the Union” speech. This would not require permission from Barack Obama so it can be done easily and would be a powerful rebuke of Obama’s appeasement/pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies.
In our first article of the year we contrasted and compared Barack Obama to the courageous Egyptian President. Long ago we concluded, that like a thieving cashier, Obama’s “mistakes” all fall towards one side of the ledger which just happens to benefit terrorist organizations and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. By July 2013 Obama’s pro Muslim Brotherhood actions could no longer be denied:
This Obama support for the Muslim Brotherhood is not a new development. Barack Obama against the advice of Hillary Clinton, but urged on by John Kerry, decided his “brand” was more important than the interests of the United States in Egypt not only during his Cairo speech, but also during the “Arab Spring”.
In that article we noted that then Egptian President and Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi proved himself as bad or worse that American ally Mubarak – but Barack Obama did not demand his ouster as he did with Mubarak who as crooked as he was also loyally supported the United States.
“Mr. Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Wisner’s key backer, was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time — even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away.
Seething about coverage that made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo, the president “made it clear that this was not the message we should be delivering,” said one official who was present. He told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to take a hard line with his Egyptian counterpart, and he pushed Senator John Kerry to counter the message from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wisner when he appeared on a Sunday talk show the next day.”
Instead of joy when Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi was forcibly removed from office Barack Obama attempted to impose sanctions on Egypt. Sanctions were imposed on al-Sisi Egypt because the Muslim Brotherhood was removed by the Egyptian military. Big Media Obama backers expressed outrage that the Muslim Brotherhood won an election then were booted out by the Egyptian military. That the Muslim Brotherhood tried to use democratic elections to destroy democracy and impose Sharia Law (exactly as Hillary Clinton warned) did not restrain the howls from Obama, Big Media and the Left.
That vipers brood we call Big Media believed Obama was the Messiah in 2008. The same Big Media also believed in the nonsense of the “Arab Spring”. We were not fooled. We knew “Arab Spring” meant “Iron Veil”.
Egyptian President al-Sisi is not a paragon of virtue or democracy. But on the battle against Islamic terror and Muslim extremism al-Sisi is the most important General in the world. Congress should invite him to speak to the American people.
The ramifications of the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris might prove even more significant than the Muslim terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
What next? Many do not seem to see that Hillary Clinton 2016 is rocked by the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris. We noted above how Hillary Clinton proposed a rational policy and clear headed thinking when it came to the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. In the past Hillary has also spoken in very clear language and courageously so whether it was on women’s rights in Beijing or the circumstances which would lead America to “obliterate” Iran.
Such clear expression of policy horrified the appeasement left.
“This is what we call smart power — using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect, even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions,” she continued. “That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.”
“Empathize” is not what is to be done with Islamic terrorists. There is no need to understand them. There is only a need to kill them or capture them in order to interrogate them and extract information from them which will lead to the destruction of any and all Muslim terrorist organizations and their supporters.
Now is not time for Hillary Clinton to expand and revise her remarks. Now is the time for Hillary Clinton to consider the damage she does to herself when she tries to appease appeasers on the left.
Another problem opened up against Hillary Clinton by the Muslim terrorist attacks against the Charlie Hebdo offices is the eventual return of Benghazi. On Benghazi the claim was made and at times seemingly acquiesced to by Hillary that a silly Youtube video was to blame for the deaths of four Americans including the ambassador.
The problem is that the creator of the Youtube video was put into prison. There was not much protection but rather abuse of the free speech rights of the small time producer of the small bore video. The parallels to Charlie Hebdo’s product is striking and at some point this issue will rear it’s ugly head. Again, now is not the time for Hillary Clinton to speak. Now is the time to think about what the message is and how the attacks on these issues are to be truthfully and effectively replied to.
Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has a reputation of no nonsense toughness. Which brings up another suggestion we have and another problem/solution for Hillary Clinton, all presidential candidates, and the Republican members of the American Congress to consider.
The American Congress should pass a travel ban on the citizens of any and all European countries who reside in what are known as “no go zones”. In France there are over 750 of these “no go zones” wherein civil law is overthrown by Sharia law.
In these “no go zones” women are subjected to genital mutilation and we doubt there are any gay bars, safety for Jews or Christians, free speech rights, or any activity we in the West understand to be basic human rights.
In these “no go zones” Muslims are able to organize their communities as they wish to do without any interference by civil authorities. If civil authorities attempt to enter the “no go zones” they are attacked by Muslims who believe they are not part of the Western societies they inhabit. Is there any wonder that gun control France produced so many gun toting terrorists in the Paris attacks?
For 2016 what is needed is clarity of purpose. Even the Socialist Prime Minister of France, thus far blind to the full flower of antisemitism in France, is full of clarity:
PARIS — Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday that France was at war with radical Islam after the harrowing sieges that led to the deaths of three gunmen and four hostages the day before. New details emerged about the bloody final confrontations, and security forces remained on high alert.
“It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity,” Mr. Valls said during a speech in Évry, south of Paris. [snip]
The crisis and its aftermath presented a major challenge to President François Hollande and his government, which are facing deep religious and cultural rifts in a nation with a rapidly growing Muslim population while simultaneously coping with the security threats stemming from Islamic extremists. Large numbers of French citizens have been traveling to Syria and Iraq to fight with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL.
The French Socialist government is scrambling because they understand that their failures lead to the National Front and the victory of Marine Le Pen. If the Socialists fail to protect the Rights of Man and Woman – Le Pen will be mightier than the sword of Islam:
France now faces an existential dilemma. By most independent estimates France now has a Muslim population of 6 million, or almost 10% of its 65 million people. If we assume that just 1% of this population are radicalized to the point of engaging in or providing support for terrorist activities, that is a pool of 60,000 individuals. We are not speaking of 60,000 potential bombers or shooters, but a support network that will allow a much smaller number of terrorists to blend into the broader population. In the “no-go” zones of France now effectively ruled by Muslim gangs, moreover, the terrorists can intimidate the Muslim population. France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory, which means that it cannot conduct effective counter-terror operations.
To put that number in context, the whole prison population of France is less than 70,000, of whom 60% are Muslims. It only takes a few dozen trained terrorists with an effective support network to bring ordinary life to a stop in a major city. France has had the toughest enforcement policy against radical Islam among the major European nations, as Daniel Pipes observes. But French security clearly has been overwhelmed. The use of assault rifles and (reportedly) a rocket launcher by highly-skilled gunmen in the center of Paris is a statement of contempt towards the authorities on the part of the terrorists.
The means by which France could defeat the terrorists are obvious: To compel the majority of French Muslims to turn against the terrorists, the French authorities would have to make them fear the French state more than they fear the terrorists. That is a nasty business involving large numbers of deportations, revocation of French citizenship, and other threats that inevitably would affect many individuals with no direct connection to terrorism. In the short term it would lead to more radicalization. The whole project of integration as an antidote to radicalism would go down the drain. The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most French Muslims simply want to stay in France and earn a living.
Watching the horrifying events in Paris this week, I have found Churchill’s great speech of November 12, 1936, coming to mind. It is one of Churchill’s prophetic speeches — I believe in the Prophet Churchill — decrying the complacency of the government in the face of the gathering storm in Germany.
“So they go on in strange paradox,” Churchill asserted in Parliament of those responsible for the defense of the land, “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years – precious, perhaps, vital, to the greatness of Britain, for the locusts to eat.”
Toward the end of his speech, Churchill rendered this judgment: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
President Obama and his administration refuse to name our enemy. They continue to yammer incessantly about “extremists.” An edict has gone forth to those in the executive branch of government that Islam is not to be mentioned, unless it is to be appeased and defended. Even General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, refers to the need to combat “extremists” and “extremism.” The corruption of thought and language appears to be thoroughgoing.
The Republican Congress and every man and woman who wants to run for president in 2016 must speak to history. This must be the moment we in the West stand in blood for our values. This, as in earlier times, must be our finest hour when our actions protect our values.
Update III: In France the latest Muslim killers have been killed. Both Muslim killer brothers have been killed and their hostage freed alive. Also the killers in the Jewish grocery have been killed. Reports are that their hostages have been freed also but nothing has been confirmed.
Update II: There is a possible third incident in Paris and we are privately getting reports about something odd in New York City.
In New York City the FDR Drive in front of the United Nations was shut down by police but we can’t find out why. The Drive eventually reopened. Obama is engaged in publicity stunts in Tennessee so the FDR Drive was not shut down due to a visit by B.O.
Update: The Chickens continue to roost for the left in scenes reminiscent of Hitchcock’s The Birds. Overnight, the news focused on the killer brothers in gun control Paris holed up in a Paris suburb (Open Thread: Charlie Hebdo killers in hostage standoff) printing plant. The killers have a hostage and threaten to kill him.
Then this morning, more news. Another AK-47 armed Muslim in gun control France has invaded a grocery store (which we have heard referred to as Jewish owned or “Kosher” deli) and holds at least five hostages in the 12th arrondissement of Paris. This killer Muslim is responsible for the death of a police woman the previous day.
None of the above will deter the kook left in America. Bill De Blasio and Barack Obama along with assorted leftist kooks are more worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” instead of the Muslim terrorists they invite to attack the West.
De Blasio and Obama policies and language do indeed invite attacks because they essentially declare the West an open city prepared to welcome invasion. And let’s not let France off the hook for the terror attacks either. France has allowed “no go” Muslim communities to perpetuate a soft invasion of the West generally and France/Europe specifically.
Wait until the next French elections and other elections across Europe. The earlier moves towards the right and demands to stop the soft Muslim invasion of Europe will accelerate with electric swiftness.
The Wednesday terror attack in Paris will continue the crisis of the Left in every country of the West.
The West and the values of Western Civilization are under attack. From the Left in the West all that is heard is appeasement. Appeasement, surrender, and collaboration worst than any seen since occupied Paris in the 40s. But now it is the Left that is under direct attack so the times they are a changing.
Earlier this week we witnessed ObamaCare advocates at Harvard University crimson in their fury as the ObamaCare chickens came home to roost. It was fine with the Cambridge set to ram ObamaCare up the rectum of America like a carcinogenic thermometer as long as others paid the bill.
The Harvard ObamaCare hawks cheered on the corruption of the law and denounced opponents of ObamaCare as “racists”. Now the chickens from their roosts are shit*ing on the eggheads in Harvard Square and the eggheads don’t like the bill they have to pay for the poisonous meal they themselves cooked.
The Hollywood Left too finds itself covered in sh*t as the North Korean chickens empty themselves on celebrity heads. As 2014 came to a close a major Hollywood studio came under a modern day cyber terror attack more horrifying than Ben Affleck at Pearl Harbor.
Obama Hollywood supporters like George Clooney, always ready to smear as “racists” anyone who warned against the weakness of Quisling Obama, discovered that Obama’s naive “lead from behind” style attracted threats and attacks sufficient to cripple the Sony Hollywood dream factory. Clooney’s Hollywood brethren found not a red carpet pizzazz premier but instead a major Christmas-time movie release relegated to the Youtube wasteland. Obama’s response to the successful infamous and unprecedented 21st century warfare attack? Weak sanctions on a state so debauched and pillaged no sanctions can hurt.
Now Charlie Hebdo the “strongly antireligious and left-wing” Paris weekly finds it’s curtains soaked crimson with the blood of at least a dozen of its top talent and staff. Why the attack? The religion of peace is at work again.
After the successful Hollywood terror attack by North Korea no big studio will dare make another movie that will take on the corruption and human rights atrocity that is North Korea. The attack on Charlie Hebdo raises the question as to whether the French, Europe, America, the West and the great civilization which is the West will surrender to the barbarians at the gate.
So you want good news? You want predictions? You want to forget that there are still two more years of incessant boobery from stinky B.O.? We’ll put a pink glow on your cheeks.
Close your eyes and imagine a president who spoke a tough truth to a tough audience on a tough topic instead of taking a three week vacation. Hey! We found the president. It’s the president of Egypt.
On New Year’s Day the president of Egypt lambasted Muslims much like we have for a long time. We’ve got us a president!:
Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi made an extraordinary speech on New Year’s Day to Cairo’s Al-Azhar and the Awqaf Ministry calling for a long overdue virtual ecclesiastical revolution in Islam. This is something no Western leader has the had the courage to do, certainly not Barack Obama, despite his Muslim education.
Accusing the umma (world Islamic population) of encouraging the hostility of the entire world, al-Sisi’s speech is so dramatic and essentially revolutionary it brings to mind Khrushchev’s famous speech exposing Stalin. Many have called for a reformation of Islam, but for the leader of the largest Arab nation to do so has world-changing implications.
Today is the first day of jury selection in the Bastard Boston Bomber trial so we will quote just a tasty morsel of the President’s speech:
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now. [snip]
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
The president of Egypt is kicking ass. The asses he is kicking are known to kill presidents of Egypt (such as Sadat) so it takes some whole lotta courage to say this to that audience. We’re not expecting much in the way of results from this one speech. We suspect Egypt will have to chop Muslim Brotherhood necks before long. But we’ve called for Muslims to stand forcefully against the Muslim creeps and we therefore applaud the Egyptian president.
Now, contrast and compare the president of Egypt with a certain boob currently occupying the White House and various government owned golf courses. Does the Boob regularly applaud Nigerians in America who place a high value on education and regularly excel? Does the Boob isolate the Eric Garners and Mike Browns who threaten their communities with criminal acts? Or does the Boob prefer to elevate fellow race-baiter and shakedown artist Al Sharpie:
Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist?
Then you need to pay Al Sharpton.
For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence. [snip]
“Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton.
And Sharpton, who now boasts a close relationship with Obama and Mayor Bill de Blasio, is in a stronger negotiating position than ever.
“Once Sharpton’s on board, he plays the race card all the way through,” said a source who has worked with the Harlem preacher. “He just keeps asking for more and more money.”
Sharpie has shaken down companies and governments on behalf of gambling interests, car companies and just about anything a scam artist can devise. We recall the Sharpie attempted shakedown of Sony Music for millions with desperate Michael Jackson charging “racism” and claiming that his extortion attempt would help all black people.
Because Boob Obama does not denounce criminality so as to not upset his fanboys and fangirls we get the comedy of the Brunch Bunch. The Brunch Boobery involved restaurant disruptions which likely only antagonize L.A. and New York liberals grazing on light fare and mimosas. It would have made some, not much, but some sense if the Brunch Bunch swarmed a Chick-fil-a. But of course these protests are not about common sense.
According to a Reuters report, this Monday a New York judge will hear arguments on whether to disclose grand jury testimony in the Garner case. We hope the judge agrees to violate the sanctity of the grand jury in this case just so that we can be proven correct in our immediate analysis that the initial news reports on this case would once again be proven to be entirely erroneous. Pants up, don’t loot.
Good news? Well, global warming or climate change or whatever we are supposed to call it now is still paused at best/worst. The “pause” started in 1998 and still paused. Should we give credit to Bill Clinton? Or should we castigate and spit on Bill Clinton or whoever it was that hit the “pause” button? That darn Bill Clinton might be the death of us all if global warming is not a killer but a savior. Say whaaat????:
“While the climate of the earth has changed over the millennia as a result of natural factors – principally changes in the tilt and orientation of the earth’s axis and rotation, and in the shape of its orbit around the sun – those changes occur far too gradually to have noticeable effects over a period of mere decades. In their current phases, moreover, they would be gradually cooling the earth – taking us to another ice age – if they weren’t being more than offset by human-caused warming.”
That’s the White House Science Adviser John Holdren talking. So now, if we accept global warming should be blamed on human activity, we should be glad because the man made global warming has stopped glaciation and an ice age? So is the politically correct response to global warming (in the beginning of January as the cold sets in) a hearty Yay!??? Or is the politically correct answer a shivering “bring on the cold extinction of humanity”??? We’re as confused as Al Sharpton at a tax audit.
Speaking of tax audits, if you are oppressed by ObamaCare, prepare for a tax audit of your subsidy. ObamaCare will continue to provide many laughs this year. The first comedy on ObamaCare published this year is a history of ObamaCare from Steven Brill, with the apt title “America’s Bitter Pill”:
Brill devotes fifty pages to another Obamacare shortcoming, the early malfunctioning of the Web site. He originally thought that the site would be a showcase for what government could do. But, on the train back from his initial round of interviews in Washington, he glanced at his notes and realized that he had been given seven different answers to the question of who was in charge of the launch of the federal exchange, including an “incomprehensible” organizational chart with four diagonal lines crossing one another and forming a “lopsided” triangle:
Should we be amazed, and disappointed, at how Obama treated the nitty-gritty details of implementing the law as if actually governing was below the pay grade of Ivy League visionaries?
Absolutely. This failure to govern will stand as one of the great unforced disappointments of the Obama years.
There’s a sucker born every minute and Brill must have been born on the two second mark. How anyone who purports to be smart could have thought that ObamaCare would float like a lotus on the lake is astounding. But there’s one born every minute… and that’s how Obama was elected.
Their biggest headache in 2015? How to talk about Obama.
It’s a typical Politico article written by an O.D. who was once and maybe still is on Hopium. There’s a bitchy title that masks the flattery of Obama in the text itself. For instance:
Democrats are grappling with the reality that the Obama presidency is nearing its end, and they don’t know what to say about it. That question, more than any other, will likely define the Democratic Party debate in 2015 as the next presidential race gets underway.
If President Barack Obama had approval ratings safely above 50 percent, and the middle-class was flush, Democrats would have no hesitation wrapping themselves in the Obama banner. Conversely, if Obama were presiding over an economic collapse, failed war or White House scandal, there would be as many proud Obama Democrats as Hoover Republicans.
Instead, Democrats will face an Obama record that can be interpreted as either a historic advance of liberalism or a colossal disappointment, and on which the public mood appears to be shifting back and forth across the line. Most recently, building on an improving economy and a decisive series of post-election moves like the new opening to Cuba, he has climbed back to dead-even in approval ratings, Gallup reported, after 450 days in negative territory. The choice depends on which data points you emphasize and, more importantly, where you think the trend lines are headed.
It escapes the notice of Politico that Obama’s numbers generally improve at every year end of his presidency. Maybe the rise in popularity is due to the weeks of vacation in December. But this we know, in every year of his presidency Obama’s numbers are in free-fall by March. In Summer’s heat Obama melts away. In 2012 Obama was saved in November by a savage attack campaign against an hapless Romney and hundreds of millions of dollars to fool the public. But even after reelection in November, by January 2012 Obama was once again in the toilet and not even memories of the recent Sandy Hook massacre could get a gun control measure passed.
Still Politico agrees with us that the issue in 2016 will be Barack Obama:
Should Democrats marshal all the positive data available to make the case that Obama’s record proved activist government worked, bolstering the case for an extra helping of liberalism to solve outstanding problems? Or should Democrats keep Obama at a distance, and treat the past six years as just another chapter in the decadeslong assault on the middle-class, proving that Obama’s watered-down compromises were incapable of eradicating the rules rigged for the top 1 percent? [snip]
Elizabeth Warren is presently leading Team Half-Empty. In her major speeches, such as her 2012 convention address, her July 2014 Netroots Nation keynote and her most recent Senate floor slam of Citigroup, Warren doesn’t cite much of the Obama record outside of the creation of her signature Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She goes as far as suggesting the problem of Wall Street dominance has gotten worse on Obama’s watch, saying things like: “Now the biggest banks are even bigger than they were when they were too big to fail in 2008.” Warren’s populist ally Sen. Bernie Sanders looks past Obama to rip “the status quo, which includes a 40-year decline of our middle class.” Neither excoriates Obama personally, but their rhetoric treats him at best as an impotent bystander to corrosive corporatism and his record as useless to the progressive cause.
As the presidential race shifts into gear in 2015, much rides on how the expected Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton navigates these various poles in the Democratic big tent. Assuming she runs and maintains her wide lead among Democrats, she will have more say than anyone as to how Democrats define their post-Obama future.
The bitter 2008 primary fight has conditioned observers to look for daylight between Clinton and Obama, and surely she will pick her spots. But in an October appearance at The Economic Club of Chicago, she sounded like an Obama surrogate. The American economy “currently is the envy of the world,” she insisted, saying “the very hard choices the president and his economic team made early on in the administration laid the groundwork, both to prevent worse economic consequences and to begin the climb out of the deep hole we were in.” (Yes, she even turned her “Hard Choices” book title into praise for her former rival.) If she sticks to that message, she will be moving the Democratic Party away from both Warren and Schumer, tying it to a robust defense of the Obama record.
To say the least and in the most tepid manner possible, that seems like a loser strategy.
The writer of the Politico article is Bill Scher, a “senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future” who is well connected. What is Bill Scher shilling for? What is the new “progressive” answer from the left to economic woe? What is the new “progressive” recipe for the economy?:
As the New York Times’ David Leonhardt wrote in November, the Democrats have lacked a clear “short-term” economic plan, because their inclination is toward reforms that lack immediate bang for the buck. “Some of the policies that Democrats favor, such as broader access to good education, take years to pay off. Others, like reducing medical costs or building new roads, have an indirect, unnoticed effect on middle-class incomes.” The same can be said of any unrigging of rules such as installing new bank regulations or eliminating corporate tax breaks. Leonhardt’s recommendation for a lightning strike is a middle-class tax cut. The Washington Post’s populist columnist Harold Meyerson proposes it be a payroll tax cut.
A MOTHERFU*KING TAX CUT!!!!!!! That’s the progressive answer to the excuses of why nothing Obama has done works so do what the Republicans suggested back in January 2009 – A MOTHERFU*KING TAX CUT!!!!!
Exit laughing. It’s gonna get funnier folks. In 2015 Obama will boob and boob again. That’s our very safe prediction.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."