Thank G-d he is on the fringes, and does not represent the views of most Jews in America. What nonsense. Another guy who thinks saying "Radical Islamic Terrorism" will make them disappear. Simplistic, utter nonsense, or in his words, just spewing nonsense, the same nonsense spewed here on a daily basis.
what does the asshole think he's accomplishing by calling it "workplace violence" or a "hate crime"?
like the resident fucking idiots, he's the one playing games with words yet he blames the other of doing such, and his words are not the biggest problems
his biggest problem is his inaction, his creating of ISIS, his biggest problem is that he's LOSING the war on terror
the whole world thinks he's an ASSHOLE, save for the dumbest of the dumb
fucking idiots
like the resident fucking idiots, he's the one playing games with words yet he blames the other of doing such, and his words are not the biggest problems
his biggest problem is his inaction, his creating of ISIS, his biggest problem is that he's LOSING the war on terror
the whole world thinks he's an ASSHOLE, save for the dumbest of the dumb
fucking idiots
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/An...ndo-massacre-harder-but-not-impossible-456741
"you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who works in Israeli law enforcement – or cares about public safety – who would want to implement the lack of gun control that the US is known for."
"you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who works in Israeli law enforcement – or cares about public safety – who would want to implement the lack of gun control that the US is known for."
Could be a new thread but no need. Caroline Glick destroys Obama's nonsense again. She even presents his side before incinerating the rubbish. If he doesn't want to mention radical Islam because it will harm the moderates..... Then why isn't he himself choosing the moderates? Read on....
===========================================================================
June 17, 2016
Column One: Obama and the moderate Muslims
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
By Caroline Glick, JPOST
As for as the White HOuse is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s top reporter, is President Barack Obama’s unofficial mouthpiece.
This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.
In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic… helped retail the administration’s narrative.”
Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of Obama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what Obama wants the public to believe about his position.
On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.
“Obama,” he wrote, “believes that [a] clash is taking place [not between Western and Muslim civilization but] within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”
Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.
Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with Obama’s position.
Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.
But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.
Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.
Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.
Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing…. It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.
Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!…
“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 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 Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”
Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.
No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.
Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.
He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.
Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.
Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.
Obama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.
Then there is Iran.
If Obama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has Obama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that Obama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Obama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.
Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like Obama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not Obama’s overarching strategy.
In the case of the Kurds, Obama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that Obama began actively supporting the Kurds.
Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.
Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since Obama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But Obama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.
To the contrary, Obama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.
Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.
The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of Obama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.
Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”
According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if Obama needed the tip.
So far from helping Muslim moderates, Obama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, Obama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom Obama has supported.
The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that Obama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.
Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.
How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.
The same leaders now support ISIS.
A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.
Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.
They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.
In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.
www.CarolineGlick.com
===========================================================================
June 17, 2016
Column One: Obama and the moderate Muslims
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
By Caroline Glick, JPOST
As for as the White HOuse is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s top reporter, is President Barack Obama’s unofficial mouthpiece.
This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.
In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic… helped retail the administration’s narrative.”
Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of Obama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what Obama wants the public to believe about his position.
On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.
“Obama,” he wrote, “believes that [a] clash is taking place [not between Western and Muslim civilization but] within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”
Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.
Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with Obama’s position.
Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.
But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.
Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.
Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.
Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing…. It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.
Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!…
“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 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 Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”
Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.
No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.
Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.
He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.
Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.
Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.
Obama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.
Then there is Iran.
If Obama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has Obama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that Obama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Obama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.
Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like Obama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not Obama’s overarching strategy.
In the case of the Kurds, Obama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that Obama began actively supporting the Kurds.
Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.
Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since Obama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But Obama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.
To the contrary, Obama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.
Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.
The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of Obama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.
Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”
According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if Obama needed the tip.
So far from helping Muslim moderates, Obama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, Obama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom Obama has supported.
The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that Obama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.
Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.
How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.
The same leaders now support ISIS.
A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.
Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.
They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.
In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.
www.CarolineGlick.com
Israel statement at 32nd session of UN Human Rights Council
14 Jun 2016
Statement delivered by Ambassador Eviatar Manor, Permanent Representative of
Israel to the UN in Geneva
Mr. President,
This is my final Human Rights Council session. I will leave you with these
observations:
- This Council’s priorities are wide off the mark. An agenda item
specifically dedicated to my country when the tragedies of Syria, Yemen,
Iraq, Libya, to name but a few, are unfolding and producing a tsunami of
refugees about to engulf Europe? And you expect us to take you seriously?
- Politicized debates, biased resolutions, preposterous reports,
discriminatory conduct and unfounded accusations characterize the attitude
of this Council and of the OHCHR towards Israel. In its latest press
release, following a terror attack in which 4 Israelis were murdered and
dozens wounded, the OHCHR expressed deep concern on the cancelation of
83,000 permits granted to West Bank and Gaza residents to travel to Israel
during Ramadan. It characterized the move as quote “amounting to prohibited
collective punishment” unquote.
Mr. President, the right to regulate entry of non-citizens into a country is
an integral part of sovereignty which all states enjoy. Furthermore, the
terms of existing bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements specifically
affirm Israel's right to prevent or limit entry of persons into Israel from
the West Bank and Gaza for security and safety considerations. Just one of
many examples of double standards regarding Israel.
Mr. President,
This Council has never cared for the human rights of Israelis;
This Council has lost its bearings;
This Council needs a moral compass;
This Council has an Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder regarding Israel;
This Council has not, does not and will not contribute to peace in our
region.
Think about it, and call me if you change your minds.
Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Jun 2016
Statement delivered by Ambassador Eviatar Manor, Permanent Representative of
Israel to the UN in Geneva
Mr. President,
This is my final Human Rights Council session. I will leave you with these
observations:
- This Council’s priorities are wide off the mark. An agenda item
specifically dedicated to my country when the tragedies of Syria, Yemen,
Iraq, Libya, to name but a few, are unfolding and producing a tsunami of
refugees about to engulf Europe? And you expect us to take you seriously?
- Politicized debates, biased resolutions, preposterous reports,
discriminatory conduct and unfounded accusations characterize the attitude
of this Council and of the OHCHR towards Israel. In its latest press
release, following a terror attack in which 4 Israelis were murdered and
dozens wounded, the OHCHR expressed deep concern on the cancelation of
83,000 permits granted to West Bank and Gaza residents to travel to Israel
during Ramadan. It characterized the move as quote “amounting to prohibited
collective punishment” unquote.
Mr. President, the right to regulate entry of non-citizens into a country is
an integral part of sovereignty which all states enjoy. Furthermore, the
terms of existing bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements specifically
affirm Israel's right to prevent or limit entry of persons into Israel from
the West Bank and Gaza for security and safety considerations. Just one of
many examples of double standards regarding Israel.
Mr. President,
This Council has never cared for the human rights of Israelis;
This Council has lost its bearings;
This Council needs a moral compass;
This Council has an Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder regarding Israel;
This Council has not, does not and will not contribute to peace in our
region.
Think about it, and call me if you change your minds.
Thank you, Mr. President.
^^^
Not much has changed. Last year in another speech before the committee conjured up war crimes charges vs Israel, alluding to the atrocities committed by some of Israel's neighbors and regional terrorist groups, he said:
“Israel does not behead people. We use our heads to create innovation.
The UNHRC has a growing obsessions with Israel.
Since the UNHRC’s inception in 2006 it has dispatched six fact-finding missions into Israeli human rights violations and issued at least 60 country resolutions against it.
This kind of behavior shows that the council exhibits double morals and is ethically flawed.
Israel does not cut off [the] hands of people. We use our hands to vote in ballot boxes. Israel does not stone women. We empower women."
Not much has changed. Last year in another speech before the committee conjured up war crimes charges vs Israel, alluding to the atrocities committed by some of Israel's neighbors and regional terrorist groups, he said:
“Israel does not behead people. We use our heads to create innovation.
The UNHRC has a growing obsessions with Israel.
Since the UNHRC’s inception in 2006 it has dispatched six fact-finding missions into Israeli human rights violations and issued at least 60 country resolutions against it.
This kind of behavior shows that the council exhibits double morals and is ethically flawed.
Israel does not cut off [the] hands of people. We use our hands to vote in ballot boxes. Israel does not stone women. We empower women."
Written by a Canadian Muslim........
Whitewashing Islamist Terror: West Bowing To Radical Islam
by Tarek Fatah
The Toronto Sun
June 20, 2016
Almost 10 years ago, Maclean's magazine published an essay by Mark Steyn, titled "The future belongs to Islam." In it, he suggested, "the West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it."
It was an extract from Steyn's then best-selling book America Alone, where he concluded, "It's the end of the world as we've known it." Steyn wrote:
Today, I recognize, Steyn was right and I was wrong.
If there were any doubts the West is abdicating its responsibility to stand up for Western values, the amateur attempts by the FBI to cover up the Islamist nature of the Orlando attack removed them.
...
President Barack Obama and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton deflected attention from the obvious Islamic nature of the terrorism to a debate about gun control. An FBI spokesman did the same when he downplayed the role of Islamism in the attack, editorializing that the killer, "does not represent the religion of Islam, but a perverted view, which based on what we know today, was inspired by extremist killers."
In Toronto, Premier Kathleen Wynne, Canada's first openly gay premier, also refused to address the Islamist nature of the attack, saying, "one cannot fight homophobia with Islamphobia," at a vigil for the Orlando victims.
This is nonsense. Orlando was an act of Islamic terror and of Islamofascism, a doctrine of hatred towards the West and what it stands for, including LGBTQ rights.
It holds secular liberal democracy in contempt, hates non-Muslims, degrades women, and is racist towards non-Arabs, especially black Africans. It is a supremacist death cult that has the end times as its ultimate goal.
Chia Barsen, a 32-year old Canadian Marxist, was 10 when his family fled Islamic Iran, political refugees escaping the murderous rule of its barbaric ayatollahs.
Commenting on the liberal left's reaction to the Orlando massacre, Barsen wrote on his blog:
Whitewashing Islamist Terror: West Bowing To Radical Islam
by Tarek Fatah
The Toronto Sun
June 20, 2016
It was an extract from Steyn's then best-selling book America Alone, where he concluded, "It's the end of the world as we've known it." Steyn wrote:
We are witnessing the end of the late 20th-century progressive welfare democracy. The children and grandchildren of those fascists and republicans who waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain now shrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital. Too sedated even to sue for terms, they capitulate instantly.
There was an outcry among Canada's Islamists, who took Steyn and Maclean's to the Ontario and British Columbia Human Rights Commissions. My fellow Sun columnist, Farzana Hassan, and I wrote a rejoinder in Maclean's titled, "Mark Steyn has a right to be wrong."
Today, I recognize, Steyn was right and I was wrong.
If there were any doubts the West is abdicating its responsibility to stand up for Western values, the amateur attempts by the FBI to cover up the Islamist nature of the Orlando attack removed them.
...
| Obama has tried to deflect attention from the Islamist nature of the attack to the issue of gun control. |
President Barack Obama and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton deflected attention from the obvious Islamic nature of the terrorism to a debate about gun control. An FBI spokesman did the same when he downplayed the role of Islamism in the attack, editorializing that the killer, "does not represent the religion of Islam, but a perverted view, which based on what we know today, was inspired by extremist killers."
In Toronto, Premier Kathleen Wynne, Canada's first openly gay premier, also refused to address the Islamist nature of the attack, saying, "one cannot fight homophobia with Islamphobia," at a vigil for the Orlando victims.
This is nonsense. Orlando was an act of Islamic terror and of Islamofascism, a doctrine of hatred towards the West and what it stands for, including LGBTQ rights.
It holds secular liberal democracy in contempt, hates non-Muslims, degrades women, and is racist towards non-Arabs, especially black Africans. It is a supremacist death cult that has the end times as its ultimate goal.
Chia Barsen, a 32-year old Canadian Marxist, was 10 when his family fled Islamic Iran, political refugees escaping the murderous rule of its barbaric ayatollahs.
Commenting on the liberal left's reaction to the Orlando massacre, Barsen wrote on his blog:
Blaming guns for the Islamist murder of 49 people in the Orlando gay club is like saying that Zyklon B gas was the cause of the Holocaust and not the Nazis. Gun control is a clear and present issue in the U.S. and there are countless episodes of shootings in the U.S. to justify the removal of all guns (not just automatic weapons), from the streets. However, piggybacking on the gun control debate and not making any mention of the threat of Political Islam and Islamism, is the furthering of a political agenda and not simple ignorance or apathy.
Exactly.
Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Once again Obama sides with the terrorists and pressures our ally into a corner, literally!
Reality Check
Obama's money and Israel's sovereignty
By Caroline B. Glick
Published June 24, 2015
This week, Israeli parliment member (MK) Michael Oren stood up to his boss in the Kulanu party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to the political Left, including hundreds of retired security brass, and to the IDF General Staff. The former ambassador to Washington urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to sign the multi-year security assistance deal that US President Barack Obama demands Israel accept.
The problem isn’t the money. By all accounts, Obama’s multi-year military assistance package is generous.
The problem is that in exchange for the expanded military aid, Obama is demanding that Israel surrender its diplomatic and military independence to the White House.
For more than 40 years, every US administration – including the Obama administration – that has sought to harm Israel in any way has hit up against an unmovable obstacle. Whether the White House wanted to enable the UN Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution, place an embargo on military exports or bureaucratically slow them down to force Israel to stand down during wartime; whether the White House wanted block expanded trade deals, crowd out Israel’s military industries, or sell game changing weapons systems to Israel’s enemies, the US Congress has always stopped it in its tracks.
Israel-haters in the US speak endlessly about the all powerful and malign “Israel lobby,” which supposedly controls US foreign affairs. But the simple truth is that it wouldn’t matter all that much if AIPAC were to shut down tomorrow. Even without AIPAC, Israel would enjoy the support of Congress.
It would continue to enjoy that support because the vast majority of Americans support Israel and expect their representatives in Congress to support Israel.
In other words, the “Israel lobby” is none other than the American people.
As Oren warned, Obama’s military assistance package would disenfranchise the American public when it comes to US policy toward Israel. The agreement bars Israel from asking that Congress augment the assistance that Obama has offered and bars Congress from acting. So if a future administration chooses to breach the agreement, or to suspend it, or if conditions change and Israel requires other assistance, Congress would be barred from stepping into the breach.
Then there is the assistance agreement’s assault on Israel’s military independence.
Israel’s military industries are the primary guarantor of its independent capacity to fight and win wars.
Successive administrations have sought to restrict the activities of Israel’s military industries and have used the military assistance to achieve their goal.
Israeli critics of US assistance note that Israel’s military industries are the primary casualties of the aid.
Currently, the US allows Israel to use a mere 25 percent of its assistance at home. As a consequence, the main beneficiary of US military assistance to Israel are US defense contractors.
Critics of the US aid argue that if Israel stops receiving military assistance, far from harming the economy, the move would strengthen Israeli industry and expand economic growth. The thousands of jobs at US defense contractors that are created through US military assistance to Israel, will move to Israel, and go to Israelis.
Moreover, whereas Israel gives the US its technology for free as part of the security assistance package, if it stops accepting the assistance, it will be free to sell its technology to other partners such as India, which will eagerly partner with Israel in weapons development and production projects.
Strategically, canceling the US military aid package would massively expand Israel’s military independence of action.
On the other hand, the deal that Obama is now trying to coerce Netanyahu to sign will require Jerusalem to give up the 25 percent of the military assistance it is now allowed to spend at home. Oren noted that such a concession will cost thousands of Israelis their jobs.
But even worse, an Israeli agreement to spend all future US military assistance in the US would be tantamount to an Israeli agreement to concede its military independence to the White House for a fistful of dollars. Without the independent capacity to develop and produce defense systems, spare parts and munitions, Israel will be unable to take military action without White House approval.
Obama’s own record makes clear what Israel would be risking.
Two years ago during Operation Protective Edge, Obama initiated an unofficial embargo on missile transfers to Israel. In an act of economic warfare, Obama also temporarily banned US commercial flights from traveling to Ben-Gurion Airport and so threatened the economy. Obama undertook these steps as a means to coerce Israel into accepting Hamas’s cease-fire terms.
Aside from Obama’s terms themselves, the most distressing aspect of the current fight over Obama’s defense deal is that the IDF senior brass – in active duty and reserves – supports Obama.
This support goes hand in hand with a series of actions taken by current and former senior security officials in recent months and weeks. Taken together, they strengthen the unpleasant and distressing conclusion that the Obama administration has unreasonably close ties to Israel’s security establishment and is using them to undermine the elected government.
Since last month, retired IDF general officers have produced two major position papers dealing with various aspects of a future Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Their most notable common feature is that they both reflect the Obama administration’s policies on the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The first paper, “Security First,” was produced by a group called Commanders for Israel’s Security. With the signatures of more than 200 retired generals, and recently endorsed by former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak, the CIS paper calls for Israel to announce that it is ending its claims to sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria. It also calls for Israel to take a number of unilateral steps in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in order to show the Palestinians that it is serious about surrendering the areas in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.
Among other things, the generals call for Israel to administratively divide Jerusalem. The Arab neighborhoods should be administered by an Arabs-only municipal authority that will operate within Jerusalem’s city hall but be autonomous in its decisions.
The generals also call for a complete cessation of all building activities in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria outside the separation barrier. Residents of these communities, they recommend, should be pressured to abandon their homes in exchange for government money.
The second paper was prepared by the Washington- based Center for a New American Security. CNAS is led by former senior Obama administration officials.
“A Security System for the Two-State Solution” was authored by leading members of US Gen. John Allen’s team of advisers. In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry hired Allen to prepare a security plan that would convince the Israeli government and public to surrender the Jordan Valley in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians. The public, and the government rejected his recommendations.
Among the paper’s co-authors are Maj.-Gen. (res.) Gadi Shamni, the former IDF attaché to Washington, and Nimord Novik, Shimon Peres’s former chief of staff. Novik also played a central role in writing the “Security First” paper.
In 2013-2014, Shamni raised a lot of Israeli eyebrows when it was reported Allen had hired him to serve on his team. Shamni’s closest point man in his work for Allen was Kerry’s lead negotiator Martin Indyk. Indyk viewed Shamni’s presence on the team as a means to subvert public opinion. Indyk sought to recruit other retired IDF generals to work with Shamni to lobby Israelis to support Allen’s plan, which required Israel to surrender its control over the border with Jordan
The CNAS report essentially parrots Allen’s plan.
Like Allen’s plan, the CNAS plan claims to provide security arrangements that will provide for Israel’s defense even after it withdraws from the Jordan Valley, and the rest of Judea and Samaria.
To this end, the report purports to “Build a multilayered system that addresses Israel’s security concerns and in which Israel retains the right of self-defense as well as the capacity to defend itself by itself, but ensures that this is only necessary in extremis.”
And who determines whether Israel has reached such an extreme situation? The Americans will. The basic premise of the CNAS paper is that the US military will replace the IDF as the guarantor of Israel’s survival.
US forces will patrol the Jordan Valley along with Palestinian forces, which they will train.
More important, the Americans will stand at the helm of a security committee composed of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. The Americans will dictate the tempo of Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, including from the international border with Jordan. If Israel believes that the Palestinians are not able or willing to maintain security in the areas that Israel is to vacate, and the Americans disagree, Israel will be forced to withdraw despite its objections.
If it fails to do so, or if it acts militarily against US objections, it will lose US diplomatic backing.
Shamni’s paper, like Obama’s defense assistance deal, is based on one strategic assumption: That Israel can trust the administration – any administration that ever will be – so much that its best bet is to give up its diplomatic and strategic independence in exchange for American weapons and Obama’s promises. Moreover, it can commit its survival to the proposition that the US is strategically infallible.
On that point, it is worth noting that this week, terrorists whose affiliation was not reported detonated a car bomb along Jordan’s border with Iraq and Syria.
Six people were killed.
The affected area has been the site of several recent attacks by Iranian-allied forces. As J.E. Dyer has noted, Iran seeks to use its control over the Iraqi army’s campaign against ISIS in Falluja as a stepping stone in its westward expansion into Jordan.
In response to the attack, the Jordanian military declared the northern and eastern border areas closed military zones.
In the CNAS report, the threat posed to Israel from the east through Jordan is casually dismissed. While the authors allow that such a threat exists in theory, they insist that an attack from the east is “much less likely since the fall of Saddam Hussein.”
Revealing the unity of purpose between the CIS and CNAS, both were presented in New York earlier this month at an event sponsored by the far-left Israel Policy Forum. The forum is considered a major player today due to its intimate ties to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Shamni and his colleagues admitted, “Persuading Israelis to entrust part of their security to the United States will be one of the most challenging hurdles to an agreement.”
Let us hope that it remains an insurmountable obstacle.
Reality Check
Obama's money and Israel's sovereignty
By Caroline B. Glick
Published June 24, 2015
This week, Israeli parliment member (MK) Michael Oren stood up to his boss in the Kulanu party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to the political Left, including hundreds of retired security brass, and to the IDF General Staff. The former ambassador to Washington urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to sign the multi-year security assistance deal that US President Barack Obama demands Israel accept.
The problem isn’t the money. By all accounts, Obama’s multi-year military assistance package is generous.
The problem is that in exchange for the expanded military aid, Obama is demanding that Israel surrender its diplomatic and military independence to the White House.
For more than 40 years, every US administration – including the Obama administration – that has sought to harm Israel in any way has hit up against an unmovable obstacle. Whether the White House wanted to enable the UN Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution, place an embargo on military exports or bureaucratically slow them down to force Israel to stand down during wartime; whether the White House wanted block expanded trade deals, crowd out Israel’s military industries, or sell game changing weapons systems to Israel’s enemies, the US Congress has always stopped it in its tracks.
Israel-haters in the US speak endlessly about the all powerful and malign “Israel lobby,” which supposedly controls US foreign affairs. But the simple truth is that it wouldn’t matter all that much if AIPAC were to shut down tomorrow. Even without AIPAC, Israel would enjoy the support of Congress.
It would continue to enjoy that support because the vast majority of Americans support Israel and expect their representatives in Congress to support Israel.
In other words, the “Israel lobby” is none other than the American people.
As Oren warned, Obama’s military assistance package would disenfranchise the American public when it comes to US policy toward Israel. The agreement bars Israel from asking that Congress augment the assistance that Obama has offered and bars Congress from acting. So if a future administration chooses to breach the agreement, or to suspend it, or if conditions change and Israel requires other assistance, Congress would be barred from stepping into the breach.
Then there is the assistance agreement’s assault on Israel’s military independence.
Israel’s military industries are the primary guarantor of its independent capacity to fight and win wars.
Successive administrations have sought to restrict the activities of Israel’s military industries and have used the military assistance to achieve their goal.
Israeli critics of US assistance note that Israel’s military industries are the primary casualties of the aid.
Currently, the US allows Israel to use a mere 25 percent of its assistance at home. As a consequence, the main beneficiary of US military assistance to Israel are US defense contractors.
Critics of the US aid argue that if Israel stops receiving military assistance, far from harming the economy, the move would strengthen Israeli industry and expand economic growth. The thousands of jobs at US defense contractors that are created through US military assistance to Israel, will move to Israel, and go to Israelis.
Moreover, whereas Israel gives the US its technology for free as part of the security assistance package, if it stops accepting the assistance, it will be free to sell its technology to other partners such as India, which will eagerly partner with Israel in weapons development and production projects.
Strategically, canceling the US military aid package would massively expand Israel’s military independence of action.
On the other hand, the deal that Obama is now trying to coerce Netanyahu to sign will require Jerusalem to give up the 25 percent of the military assistance it is now allowed to spend at home. Oren noted that such a concession will cost thousands of Israelis their jobs.
But even worse, an Israeli agreement to spend all future US military assistance in the US would be tantamount to an Israeli agreement to concede its military independence to the White House for a fistful of dollars. Without the independent capacity to develop and produce defense systems, spare parts and munitions, Israel will be unable to take military action without White House approval.
Obama’s own record makes clear what Israel would be risking.
Two years ago during Operation Protective Edge, Obama initiated an unofficial embargo on missile transfers to Israel. In an act of economic warfare, Obama also temporarily banned US commercial flights from traveling to Ben-Gurion Airport and so threatened the economy. Obama undertook these steps as a means to coerce Israel into accepting Hamas’s cease-fire terms.
Aside from Obama’s terms themselves, the most distressing aspect of the current fight over Obama’s defense deal is that the IDF senior brass – in active duty and reserves – supports Obama.
This support goes hand in hand with a series of actions taken by current and former senior security officials in recent months and weeks. Taken together, they strengthen the unpleasant and distressing conclusion that the Obama administration has unreasonably close ties to Israel’s security establishment and is using them to undermine the elected government.
Since last month, retired IDF general officers have produced two major position papers dealing with various aspects of a future Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Their most notable common feature is that they both reflect the Obama administration’s policies on the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The first paper, “Security First,” was produced by a group called Commanders for Israel’s Security. With the signatures of more than 200 retired generals, and recently endorsed by former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak, the CIS paper calls for Israel to announce that it is ending its claims to sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria. It also calls for Israel to take a number of unilateral steps in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in order to show the Palestinians that it is serious about surrendering the areas in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.
Among other things, the generals call for Israel to administratively divide Jerusalem. The Arab neighborhoods should be administered by an Arabs-only municipal authority that will operate within Jerusalem’s city hall but be autonomous in its decisions.
The generals also call for a complete cessation of all building activities in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria outside the separation barrier. Residents of these communities, they recommend, should be pressured to abandon their homes in exchange for government money.
The second paper was prepared by the Washington- based Center for a New American Security. CNAS is led by former senior Obama administration officials.
“A Security System for the Two-State Solution” was authored by leading members of US Gen. John Allen’s team of advisers. In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry hired Allen to prepare a security plan that would convince the Israeli government and public to surrender the Jordan Valley in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians. The public, and the government rejected his recommendations.
Among the paper’s co-authors are Maj.-Gen. (res.) Gadi Shamni, the former IDF attaché to Washington, and Nimord Novik, Shimon Peres’s former chief of staff. Novik also played a central role in writing the “Security First” paper.
In 2013-2014, Shamni raised a lot of Israeli eyebrows when it was reported Allen had hired him to serve on his team. Shamni’s closest point man in his work for Allen was Kerry’s lead negotiator Martin Indyk. Indyk viewed Shamni’s presence on the team as a means to subvert public opinion. Indyk sought to recruit other retired IDF generals to work with Shamni to lobby Israelis to support Allen’s plan, which required Israel to surrender its control over the border with Jordan
The CNAS report essentially parrots Allen’s plan.
Like Allen’s plan, the CNAS plan claims to provide security arrangements that will provide for Israel’s defense even after it withdraws from the Jordan Valley, and the rest of Judea and Samaria.
To this end, the report purports to “Build a multilayered system that addresses Israel’s security concerns and in which Israel retains the right of self-defense as well as the capacity to defend itself by itself, but ensures that this is only necessary in extremis.”
And who determines whether Israel has reached such an extreme situation? The Americans will. The basic premise of the CNAS paper is that the US military will replace the IDF as the guarantor of Israel’s survival.
US forces will patrol the Jordan Valley along with Palestinian forces, which they will train.
More important, the Americans will stand at the helm of a security committee composed of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. The Americans will dictate the tempo of Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, including from the international border with Jordan. If Israel believes that the Palestinians are not able or willing to maintain security in the areas that Israel is to vacate, and the Americans disagree, Israel will be forced to withdraw despite its objections.
If it fails to do so, or if it acts militarily against US objections, it will lose US diplomatic backing.
Shamni’s paper, like Obama’s defense assistance deal, is based on one strategic assumption: That Israel can trust the administration – any administration that ever will be – so much that its best bet is to give up its diplomatic and strategic independence in exchange for American weapons and Obama’s promises. Moreover, it can commit its survival to the proposition that the US is strategically infallible.
On that point, it is worth noting that this week, terrorists whose affiliation was not reported detonated a car bomb along Jordan’s border with Iraq and Syria.
Six people were killed.
The affected area has been the site of several recent attacks by Iranian-allied forces. As J.E. Dyer has noted, Iran seeks to use its control over the Iraqi army’s campaign against ISIS in Falluja as a stepping stone in its westward expansion into Jordan.
In response to the attack, the Jordanian military declared the northern and eastern border areas closed military zones.
In the CNAS report, the threat posed to Israel from the east through Jordan is casually dismissed. While the authors allow that such a threat exists in theory, they insist that an attack from the east is “much less likely since the fall of Saddam Hussein.”
Revealing the unity of purpose between the CIS and CNAS, both were presented in New York earlier this month at an event sponsored by the far-left Israel Policy Forum. The forum is considered a major player today due to its intimate ties to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Shamni and his colleagues admitted, “Persuading Israelis to entrust part of their security to the United States will be one of the most challenging hurdles to an agreement.”
Let us hope that it remains an insurmountable obstacle.
Obama, Master of The Dark Arts (ShitStain in the White House)
Charles Hurt - Obama's lowest, most crass and degrading cynicism
BOCA GRANDE, Fla . - Truly, there is no reserve of cynicism vast enough for decent, freedom-loving Americans to fully comprehend the diabolical motivations of President Obama and the henchmen he has running his administration.
It defies even the most dishonest and criminal imagination. It really is enough to make good people seriously question where the president's loyalties actually lie.
Of course, it is all part of Mr. Obama's plan to exacerbate those very questions about where he was born and whether he is a closet Muslim - because that automatically turns even decent people into frothing lunatics for dabbling in such conspiracies and innuendo.
His is the lowest, most crass and degrading cynicism and it permeates every action and every statement made by this White House.
The first Clinton administration is already recorded in the history books for its debased, raunchy and utterly disgusting self-adulation and false promotion. The Obama White House is that - only on Viagra.
Hillary Clinton is carefully studying and learning from the greatest master of dark arts deception. If the Clintons make it back into the White House, they will turn it into a political Caligula the likes of which no one has ever imagined.
The latest instance of Mr. Obama's suffocating cynicism was to boastfully doctor the transcripts of the 911 calls terrorist Omar Mateen made the night he slaughtered 49 partiers at a night club in Orlando.
The Department of "Justice" scrubbed the name "Allah" from Mateen's prayers and professions of allegiance to said "Allah," along with the Islamic State and al Qaeda and all the rest of the savages out to kill gays, lesbians, Jews, Christians and basically anyone who is part of civilized society.
In a rare full-throated media campaign this week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said references to "Allah" would be removed so as not to "further this man's propaganda."
By which she means, apparently, make this attack look like the work of a radical Islamic terrorist as opposed to, say, some gun-toting lunatic who hates gay people.
By making this atrocity some kind of localized crime instead of a horrific breach of national security, Mr. Obama is trying to sidestep responsibility. Also, by framing it in these terms, Mr. Obama can get back on his old, worn out saw about blaming guns.
But, mostly, it is yet another bizarre example of the president trying to protect and promote the religion of Islam, which - by the way - is having a bit of a public relations problem on its own these last few years.
Throwing gays off rooftops, burning men alive in cages and drowning them will do right much to sully even the best reputations.
So, in yet another effort to rehab the name of Islam, Mr. Obama erased references to "Allah" from 911 tapes because he did not want to "further this man's propaganda."
Okay, so after a truly lone, loser psycho went on a shooting rampage in a Charleston, South Carolina, church, Mr. Obama's first instinct was to - lustily promote the man's racist propaganda?
"The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history," Mr. Obama said the following day.
"This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked. And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals."
Amazing the guy would seek to promote this guy's propaganda against black people, while straining to whitewash the radical Islamic terrorist's propaganda.
It really is enough to make you wonder what the guy is up to and where his loyalties really lie.
Charles Hurt - Obama's lowest, most crass and degrading cynicism
BOCA GRANDE, Fla . - Truly, there is no reserve of cynicism vast enough for decent, freedom-loving Americans to fully comprehend the diabolical motivations of President Obama and the henchmen he has running his administration.
It defies even the most dishonest and criminal imagination. It really is enough to make good people seriously question where the president's loyalties actually lie.
Of course, it is all part of Mr. Obama's plan to exacerbate those very questions about where he was born and whether he is a closet Muslim - because that automatically turns even decent people into frothing lunatics for dabbling in such conspiracies and innuendo.
His is the lowest, most crass and degrading cynicism and it permeates every action and every statement made by this White House.
The first Clinton administration is already recorded in the history books for its debased, raunchy and utterly disgusting self-adulation and false promotion. The Obama White House is that - only on Viagra.
Hillary Clinton is carefully studying and learning from the greatest master of dark arts deception. If the Clintons make it back into the White House, they will turn it into a political Caligula the likes of which no one has ever imagined.
The latest instance of Mr. Obama's suffocating cynicism was to boastfully doctor the transcripts of the 911 calls terrorist Omar Mateen made the night he slaughtered 49 partiers at a night club in Orlando.
The Department of "Justice" scrubbed the name "Allah" from Mateen's prayers and professions of allegiance to said "Allah," along with the Islamic State and al Qaeda and all the rest of the savages out to kill gays, lesbians, Jews, Christians and basically anyone who is part of civilized society.
In a rare full-throated media campaign this week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said references to "Allah" would be removed so as not to "further this man's propaganda."
By which she means, apparently, make this attack look like the work of a radical Islamic terrorist as opposed to, say, some gun-toting lunatic who hates gay people.
By making this atrocity some kind of localized crime instead of a horrific breach of national security, Mr. Obama is trying to sidestep responsibility. Also, by framing it in these terms, Mr. Obama can get back on his old, worn out saw about blaming guns.
But, mostly, it is yet another bizarre example of the president trying to protect and promote the religion of Islam, which - by the way - is having a bit of a public relations problem on its own these last few years.
Throwing gays off rooftops, burning men alive in cages and drowning them will do right much to sully even the best reputations.
So, in yet another effort to rehab the name of Islam, Mr. Obama erased references to "Allah" from 911 tapes because he did not want to "further this man's propaganda."
Okay, so after a truly lone, loser psycho went on a shooting rampage in a Charleston, South Carolina, church, Mr. Obama's first instinct was to - lustily promote the man's racist propaganda?
"The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history," Mr. Obama said the following day.
"This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked. And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals."
Amazing the guy would seek to promote this guy's propaganda against black people, while straining to whitewash the radical Islamic terrorist's propaganda.
It really is enough to make you wonder what the guy is up to and where his loyalties really lie.
June 25, 2016
Bibi goes viral
By Ruthie Blum, ALGEMEINER
The reason that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the Orlando massacre was met with an unprecedented response on social media for a statement made by a politician was his “tone of voice,” wrote a prominent columnist in the Financial Times on Monday.
Sam Leith, author of You Talkin’ to Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama, said this in answer to the question he himself posed: “How do you, as a politician, a public speaker or the spokesperson for an organization, respond to tragedy?”
What one is reaching for, he wrote in “The Art of Persuasion,” is “[d]ignity, restraint, a suspension of hostilities… but what a tiger to ride: to be dignified and restrained in a climate of grief; to be bipartisan and gracious in a climate of rage. Naturally, orators seek to channel strong crowd emotions. Here, they are seeking in some sense to calm them down.”
Leith contrasted Netanyahu’s message to that of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who, he said, showed how not to react to events like that in Orlando.
“His first response via Twitter to the deaths of 49 countrymen was to boast: ‘Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism.’ That made it about him, and it projected not a sense of purpose but the complacency of self-congratulation.”
And though, according to Leith, Netanyahu’s statement was similar in content – he placed blame on radical Islam – it “went down differently.”
“It is not what you say, it is how you say it,” concluded Leith.
Netanyahu’s viral clip – which has garnered 22 million views so far – is part of a new campaign to address the public directly. Recently, as was reported by The Algemeiner, Netanyahu conducted a live chat with Twitter followers on Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day on May 12, answering real-time questions, even the hostile ones, with a mixture of gravitas and humor.
The Israeli PM’s emerging strategy is likely a product of his newly appointed foreign media spokesman, David Keyes. Keyes, former executive director of the organization Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org, gained a reputation for producing hard-hitting yet witty videos, particularly when confronting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
For example, in one exchange he had with Zarif during the nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Keyes approached the Iranian FM, who also served as Tehran’s chief negotiator, and asked him if he thought it was ironic that he frequently uploaded posts to Facebook while his regime banned the use of the social media outlet for the general public.
“That’s life,” Zarif replied, laughing.
Keys didn’t stop there, challenging Zarif on when imprisoned civil rights activist Majid Tavakoli would be released. “I don’t know him,” Zarif answered, sparking subsequent expressions of outrage against Zarif on his Facebook page. Shortly thereafter, Tavakoli was freed.
Iran was also the focus of Keyes’ first Twitter offensive in his official position as Prime Minister’s Office spokesman, as The Algemeiner reported. The assault on the regime in Tehran was a series of ridicules. One choice comment he posted was: “Huge thanks to Iranian regime for trying to stop ISIS. Also a big thank you to cancer for reducing the risk of heart attacks.”
Bibi goes viral
By Ruthie Blum, ALGEMEINER
The reason that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the Orlando massacre was met with an unprecedented response on social media for a statement made by a politician was his “tone of voice,” wrote a prominent columnist in the Financial Times on Monday.
Sam Leith, author of You Talkin’ to Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama, said this in answer to the question he himself posed: “How do you, as a politician, a public speaker or the spokesperson for an organization, respond to tragedy?”
What one is reaching for, he wrote in “The Art of Persuasion,” is “[d]ignity, restraint, a suspension of hostilities… but what a tiger to ride: to be dignified and restrained in a climate of grief; to be bipartisan and gracious in a climate of rage. Naturally, orators seek to channel strong crowd emotions. Here, they are seeking in some sense to calm them down.”
Leith contrasted Netanyahu’s message to that of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who, he said, showed how not to react to events like that in Orlando.
“His first response via Twitter to the deaths of 49 countrymen was to boast: ‘Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism.’ That made it about him, and it projected not a sense of purpose but the complacency of self-congratulation.”
And though, according to Leith, Netanyahu’s statement was similar in content – he placed blame on radical Islam – it “went down differently.”
“It is not what you say, it is how you say it,” concluded Leith.
Netanyahu’s viral clip – which has garnered 22 million views so far – is part of a new campaign to address the public directly. Recently, as was reported by The Algemeiner, Netanyahu conducted a live chat with Twitter followers on Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day on May 12, answering real-time questions, even the hostile ones, with a mixture of gravitas and humor.
The Israeli PM’s emerging strategy is likely a product of his newly appointed foreign media spokesman, David Keyes. Keyes, former executive director of the organization Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org, gained a reputation for producing hard-hitting yet witty videos, particularly when confronting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
For example, in one exchange he had with Zarif during the nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Keyes approached the Iranian FM, who also served as Tehran’s chief negotiator, and asked him if he thought it was ironic that he frequently uploaded posts to Facebook while his regime banned the use of the social media outlet for the general public.
“That’s life,” Zarif replied, laughing.
Keys didn’t stop there, challenging Zarif on when imprisoned civil rights activist Majid Tavakoli would be released. “I don’t know him,” Zarif answered, sparking subsequent expressions of outrage against Zarif on his Facebook page. Shortly thereafter, Tavakoli was freed.
Iran was also the focus of Keyes’ first Twitter offensive in his official position as Prime Minister’s Office spokesman, as The Algemeiner reported. The assault on the regime in Tehran was a series of ridicules. One choice comment he posted was: “Huge thanks to Iranian regime for trying to stop ISIS. Also a big thank you to cancer for reducing the risk of heart attacks.”
