Is Immigration Making The United States A Better Place To Live? Are Mass Murders By Immigrants Improving The Nation?

Except for her suggestion that mental illness causes violence Coulter accurately describes media and politicians misguided priorities.

[From article]
With the media frantically hiding the content of Donald Trump’s terrorism speech from last week, he should respond to every question with the central point of that speech: How does this kind of immigration make our country better? How does it make the country safer?
Trump: Show me how our immigration policies are good for the people who already live here.
Media: Tell us why you fired Corey Lewandowski!
Trump: Tell me how our immigration policies are making the country safer for the people who already live here.
Media: How are you going to match Hillary’s corporate fundraising?
Trump: How are our immigration policies helping the people who already live here?
Sooner or later people will say, “That’s a good question — why is this necessary?”
When the Third World immigrants admitted under Sen. Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act — as well as their children — commit mass murder, the government and media tell us it’s a gun problem. Or it’s “our” culture. Or it’s “homophobia.” Or we have to keep admitting millions of Muslims because otherwise the ones already here will REALLY hate us.
How did we get in the position where we’re screwed if we’re not in the good graces of the Muslim community? Maybe we should stop doing that.



As any competent health professional will tell you, prevention is always better than a cure. No one says, Go ahead and have sex with that syphilitic whore — we’ve got a cure! You don’t need to worry about a leaky roof — we’ve got mops!
They know that’s not a good argument, which is why the media refuse to tell you what Trump actually said in his terrorism speech.
Like defendants with a losing case being forced to cough up bits of discovery, it took the FBI a week to release a redacted transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Even then, the first version came from George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth: “I pledge allegiance to (omitted), may God protect him (in Arabic), on behalf of (omitted).”
[. . .]
Could we look at mass murders from the last decade?
Those include:
2016: Orlando, Florida, second-generation Afghan immigrant Omar Mateen — 49 dead;
2015: San Bernardino, California, first- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook — 14 dead;
2015: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Kuwaiti immigrant Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez — 5 dead;
2014: Isla Vista, California, half-Malaysian immigrant from England, Elliot Rodger — 6 dead;
2013: The Boston Marathon, Chechen immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — 4 dead;
2009: Fort Hood, Texas, Palestinian second-generation immigrant Nidal Hasan — 13 dead;
2009: Binghamton, New York, Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong — 13 dead;
2007: Virginia Tech, South Korean immigrant Seung-Hui Cho — 32 dead.
In the same time period, about a half-dozen mass murders were committed by American white men in their own country, where — despite Teddy Kennedy’s best efforts — they far outnumber Vietnamese, Pakistanis and Afghans.



All the American shooters were visible nut cases who never should have been let out of a straitjacket. Their psychotic episodes wouldn’t even count as mass shootings if committed by immigrants. Pakistani Naveed Haq’s 2006 mass shooting at the Seattle Jewish Federation, for example, isn’t generally included on lists of terrorist attacks because, according to his parents, he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was on lithium.
[. . .]
Teddy Kennedy swore up and down that his 1965 Immigration Act would preserve America’s traditional “ethnic mix” and would not “inundate” our country with people from “deprived nations.”
In fact, his law brought in the poorest of the poor, from the most dysfunctional cultures in the world, and effected the most dramatic demographic transformation of any nation in all of human history.

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/23/how-does-immigration-reduce-mass-shootings/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

How Does Immigration Reduce Mass Shootings?

Ann Coulter

Thursday Jun 23, 2016 10:30 AM

Cambridge and Somerville Elder Services Unlawfully Discriminates Against Elders With Disabilities, Misleads Public

Mr. Lamb the PR flack for CSESPS may be misleading the public. State law provides jurisdiction to his employer only for abuse by caregivers, relatives, spouses, intimate partners,  and housemates. Stranger abuse will not be stopped or investigated. The attorney, now director of CSESPS has a misguided notion of what constitutes unlawful discrimination based on disability. His employees refuse to provide services to elder persons unless they can prove they are not mentally ill. That suggests this taxpayer funded agency unlawfully denies service to persons with disabilities. It is not the only taxpayer funded agency with negligently trained employees who deny services unlawfully. This essay indicates the image varies greatly from the reality. Funds for a PR flack would be better spent training employees to include elders with disabilities as clients.



[From article]
it’s a problem that far too often goes unreported
[. . .]
10 percent of older adults experience some form of abuse each year — with less than 5 percent of those incidents reported to authorities.
[. . .]
Studies indicate that most abusers are family members or trusted care providers,
[. . .]
public often isn’t aware of how common elder abuse is.
[. . .]
Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services (SCES)
[. . .]
For us, the imperative is that people know what constitutes elder abuse, and that Protective Services is here to help, when it’s reported.
[. . .]
Nathan Lamb is director of outreach and community relations

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20160612/guest-column-preventing-elder-abuse/?Start=1

Guest column: Preventing elder abuse
By By Nathan Lamb
Posted Jun. 12, 2016 at 8:14 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Economist Stephen Moore: Climate Change is World's Greatest Propaganda Campaign In History

Economist and author Stephen Moore. 
(Heritage Foundation)

There is a difference of opinion. Some believe that psychiatry is the greatest propaganda campaign in history. 

[From article]
Commenting on the Obama administration’s high-pressure offensive to address global warming, leading economist and author Stephen Moore said it is “amazing” because this “dingbat idea of global climate change” is “one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history” executed by the political left.
During a June 3 radio interview on the nationally syndicated Janet Mefferd Today show, Moore, the founder of the Club for Growth and a former Wall Street Journal editorial board member, said, “It’s really amazing, I have to say. I have to tip my hat to the left: This has been one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history that the left has pulled off.”
“I mean, they’ve taken this dingbat idea of global climate change and they’ve put it in the schools, they’ve put it in the movies, they’ve put it in the media and the churches — you know, I’m Catholic, even the Pope talks about climate change,” said Moore, co-author of Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.
“So, it’s very alarming how this propaganda campaign, that they made this stuff out of, almost completely out of thin air and they’ve convinced millions and millions of thought leaders that this stuff is real,” said Moore, who is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Project for Economic Growth.
[. . .]
Moore said, “Yes, it’s interesting, it’s very Stalinistic. Right? … It’s like, ‘You’re going to toe the line or were going to put you in jail.’ You mentioned the fact that now, if you question them, they’d put me in jail, if they could. Steve Moore is an environmental skeptic, let’s put him in jail.”
“It’s like the Spanish Inquisition,” he said. “Truly, it’s frightening actually. These people don’t want dissent. They don’t believe in freedom of speech. They don’t think you have the right to question their religion of global warming.”
“They’re becoming more militaristic,” he said. “They are young Stalinists. I can’t go on college campuses today to even question their religion of global warming – and it is a religion, by the way. “

http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/stephen-moore-climate-change-one-greatest-propaganda-campaigns-world-history

Stephen Moore: Climate Change 'One of Greatest Propaganda Campaigns in World History’--'Very Stalinistic'
By Michael W. Chapman

June 9, 2016 | 1:39 PM EDT

All White People Are Racists; Black People, Hispanics, Homosexuals Are Never Biased, Only Objective and Morally Correct, Always

This essay is hilarious. Coulter describes the same pattern employed by black students at Harvard Law School demanding an end to white racism. Students, university and law school administrators appear to agree that all white people are wealthy and powerful; but all black people are poor and weak. Except for the privileged upper class students at Harvard Law School? Is this all psychoses celebrated by liberal politicians and journalists?

[From article]
Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.



The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.
Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.
Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.
The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.
Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.
The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.
Two weeks ago–that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”
In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.
Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”



On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.
So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.
Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”
I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”
Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.
I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)
The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements.
[. . .]



In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.
At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.
Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”
You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”
The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation.
[. . .]
They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!
The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased.
[. . .]
What do Republicans they think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Stunning New Development!!! Media Calls Trump Racist

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Jun 8, 2016 2:57 PM

Cambridge, MA High School Students Recognize Difference Between Perception and Reality

“In Cambridge, there’s a difference between perception and reality,” [student Gregorio Leon] said. “There’s this perception of being an ultra-liberal utopia, which can often lead to a lack of questioning about who we really are. That complacency is very dangerous, and good to challenge.” is an accurate observation not limited to CRLS. 



Tell that to $37 billion endowed Harvard University, local, state and US governments which abuse taxpayers and voters. 



One Cambridge gentleman was described as a retired drug dealer for 35 years by the FBI as part of covering up serious criminal government abuses, while others described the same gentleman as homeless and crazy. Police and politicians joined in bullying a vulnerable person. This works in many areas.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20160602/NEWS/160609476/?Start=1

'Our Truths' student production highlights issues facing Cambridge teens
By Natalie Handy
nhandy (at) wickedlocal.com
Posted Jun. 2, 2016 at 10:42 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Updated: Smartest Man in The White House, Boasts Of Fooling Voters, Taxpayers About Iran Nuclear Deal

Posted May 18, 2016 10:48 PM ET; Last updated May 25, 2016 5:11 PM ET


Updated May 25, 2016 5:11 PM ET

http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal
By John Podhoretz
New York Post
May 5, 2016 | 8:39pm
* * *

http://nypost.com/2016/05/09/obamas-storyteller-backs-off-boasts-about-selling-iran-deal/

Obama’s storyteller backs off boasts about selling Iran deal
By David K. Li
May 9, 2016 | 1:40pm
New York Post

* * *

http://townhall.com/news/around-the-web/2016/05/10/state-dept-faces-questions-over-missing-tape-amid-scramble-over-wh-aides-iran-boast-n2160987

State Dept. faces questions over missing tape, amid scramble over WH aide's Iran boast
Townhall.com Staff
Posted: May 10, 2016 12:20 PM

* * *

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/10/state-dept-faces-questions-over-missing-tape-amid-scramble-over-wh-aides-iran-boast.html

State Dept. faces questions over missing tape, amid scramble over WH aide's Iran boast
Published May 10, 2016

FoxNews.com

* * *

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-obama-staff-laugh-at-you-can-keep-your-plan-pledge/article/2590943

Former Obama speechwriters laugh at 'you can keep your plan' promise
By T. BECKET ADAMS (@BECKETADAMS) 

5/10/16 4:45 PM

* * *

Posted May 18, 2016 10:48 PM ET
[From article]
What a surprise! It was revealed from the highest level that the Obama White House has been downright deceptive and had lied to the American public and media about the nuclear deal with Iran, as well as carrying on secret bilateral negotiations with Iran.
In spite of arguments by the Obama administration to the contrary, it has been clear from the beginning that the nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed on July 14, 2015, will not stop the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.
[. . .]
In spite of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 of July 20, 2015 that calls on Iran not to launch tests of ballistic missiles, this was the third test by Iran. One of the two missiles fired in March 2016 carried the slogan "Israel must be wiped out."
By chance, the ballistic missile testing coincided with the publication of the extraordinary revealing article by David Samuels in the New York Times on May 8, 2016 on Ben Rhodes, the Boy Wonder of the Obama White House, the single most influential voice next to the president shaping American foreign policy.



Rhodes is officially the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications in the Obama administration, but he is really the spin-doctor narrating or fabricating fantasies or half-truths to the mainstream media that he arrogantly seems to despise. The willingness of the media to consume and disseminate the inaccurate information given them has long been known, but the full extent to which the media was spun has now been revealed.
The main revelation was that Rhodes presented the story of negotiations on the nuclear deal with Iran as having started in 2013 due to the fact the moderates in Iran, led by Hassan Rouhani, had won the election and became president. The moderates therefore were influential and were willing to make a deal with the United States. The media believed this, though it was disputed by well-informed individuals such as Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense, who denied any such division between hard and soft Iranians. Rhodes, with evident contempt, regards previous decision makers on Iran and Iraq – the Washington foreign policy establishment, or The Blob, as he calls it, which includes Hillary Clinton – as "morons."


Ben Rhodes, Novelist, White House National Security Deputy

Rhodes's spin was false. The negotiations with Iran had in fact started earlier in 2012, before Rouhani was elected. The White House deliberately spun the view that Iran moderates wanted peace with the U.S. and with Middle East neighbors. What is important is his contempt for the media as well as for the Washington establishment. Rhodes observed that news bureaus today do not have foreign bureaus, as they used to have, and they therefore call the White House to find out what is happening.
The result is that most of the news outlets are reporting on world affairs from Washington. Rhodes said the average reporter he talks to is 27 years old and literally knows nothing. The White House therefore shapes the news and has particular journalists it can use for spreading it and validating what the White House gives them to say. As Samuels writes, "[t]he way in which most Americans have heard the story of the nuclear deal … was largely manufactured for the purpose of selling the deal."
The consensus in the U.S. today is that the Iran deal was a major political blunder. Of the two main adversaries during the discussion, most informed commentators would agree that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed the deal, was right, and President Obama was wrong.
[. . .]



Two factors are involved in the White House attempt to prevent Netanyahu from speaking. The first expressed by the media was on the wisdom of the invitation, because Netanyahu was going to criticize the Obama policy. Though most of Congress expressed opposition to the negotiations, there was a genuine difference of opinion on them. President Obama believed and still appears to believe that a deal in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions was the way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu disagreed on the whole idea and believed that Iran was not negotiating in good faith. Iran has a record of secret uranium enrichment facilities, and Israel was in danger. Netanyahu argued that the sanctions on Iran, the removal of which was the real reason for Iran's willingness to negotiate, should not be removed – in fact, should be increased.
The second factor was the White House spin, which the media highlighted, that the invitation was unconstitutional. Either Rhodes or someone else in the White House invented something called the "presidential protocol." The White House spokesperson on January 20, 2015, slightly off the point, informed the media that the typical protocol would suggest that "the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he is traveling there." The media, though few of whom if any were constitutional lawyers, claimed that such an invitation had no precedent in American history.
One may disagree on whether the invitation was unwise or inopportune, but it was not unconstitutional. There was no breach of any constitutional provision.
[. . .]
The New York Times incorrectly reported that Netanyahu had accepted the invitation to speak before the White House had been informed. This was not true, and the NYT had to issue a correction. Netanyahu did not formally accept the invitation until after the White House had been informed. It was not true, as Earnest had said, that the White House did not know about the invitation until Boehner announced it publicly. The spin converted the difference of opinion on an important issue into a diplomatic row with constitutional implications. In reality, Boehner had earlier in 2011 invited Netanyahu to speak and had informed the White House, which never responded.
Many in the media bought the White House spin and deception that to oppose the nuclear deal was to support Israel against the Obama administration. That made the State of Israel a partisan issue, while in the past support for Israel has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. The White House and the mainstream media owe Netanyahu an apology for their fallacious and dishonorable presentation of a controversial issue.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/when_obama_lies_to_the_media_and_laughs_doing_it.html

May 11, 2016
When the White House Lies to the Media, and Laughs Doing It
By Michael Curtis

* * *



[From article]
Ben Rhodes is perhaps the weirdest foreign policy adviser in the history of the White House. His path to his current position as deputy national security adviser for strategic communications was, as this New York Times profile informs us, "perhaps not strictly believable, even as fiction."
Forget his title. Ben Rhodes is "the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself," according to the Times. What makes that so bizarre is that Rhodes has no background in foreign policy at all. He was a failed short story writer who wandered into the orbit of Obama aides almost by accident and served as a speechwriter during the campaign.
But he helped the administration identify friendly reporters and nonprofits who could be counted on to carry a completely false and misleading "narrative" about the Iran deal.
And it worked.
[. . .]



What the Samuels piece shows is that the Obama administration chose to attempt to get its way not by winning an argument but by bringing an almost fathomless cynicism to bear in manipulating its own clueless liberal fan club.
It's amazing how Rhodes sees himself and his role. He refers to the foreign policy establishment as "the blob," and at bottom, he believes he and Obama are the only smart ones in the room.
Samuels's profile is an amazing piece of writing about the Holden Caulfield of American foreign policy. He's a sentimental adolescent with literary talent (Rhodes published one short story before his mother's connections won him a job in the world of foreign policy), and high self regard, who thinks that everyone else is a phony. Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg's picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president's willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes's boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies—what Rhodes and others call a "narrative"—that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.
[. . .]
All you have to do to discover the extent of their flim-flamming is to look at the talking points about the agreement after the preliminary deal was agreed to in April and compare it with the final agreement in July. The dishonesty in selling this deal to Congress was so profound that we still don't know yet how Iran is interpreting parts of it.
Samuels's profile is very long and, at times, strains credulity that such a creature could become a top adviser to the president. But it also unintentionally reveals how easily the Washington press corps can be manipulated into doing the president's bidding. There was very little objective analysis of the Iran deal, nor any attempt to reconcile what was in the deal with what the administration was claiming in public.
If there had been, it's doubtful that the deal would have gone through Congress.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/ben_rhodes_admits_administration_lied_to_sell_iran_deal.html

May 6, 2016
Ben Rhodes admits administration lied to sell Iran deal
By Rick Moran

CBS Boston Liberal Journalist Worried More About Facebook Deceptions, Than White House National Security Fraud

Jon Keller, CBS News Boston, MA

Jon Keller is an opinion reporter on WBZ-TV (CBS News) in Boston, MA. He also is a regular on the local PBS television show Beat The Press hosted by Emily Rooney, daughter of CBS News famous journalist Andy Rooney.


Keller is at far left of this image

He appears to be indignant about deception. But only by individual civilians. Not a problem when the White House fools the people and journalists. Below is an email I sent to him on May 17, 2016. No reply as usual. He has never responded to my previous comments to his misguided criticism of his colleagues.


Ben Rhodes, White House National Security Adviser 

Saw your report on WBZ-TV news at about 5:20 PM on Tuesday May 17, 2016, regarding false Facebook posts which fool the public. I am curious why that gets priority over the reports that high ranking national security mogul Ben Rhodes, boasted of fooling American voters and taxpayers about the Iran nuclear deal. How he boasted of how stupid Americans are and how smart he and his colleagues are. Isn't that an abomination deserving of your access to air time? Or do you share the elitist attitude of the White House staff? Then there was similar boasting by Jonathan Gruber, about how stupid Americans are that the health care law was passed by his propaganda too.



Low information voters is nothing new. H.L. Mencken regularly ridiculed Americans for that 50-80 years ago. He was not a White House official. Does how one reacts to knowing that, measure the integrity of the individual?

See also Congressional hearing on May 17, 2016 before Government Oversight Committee on the deception of Rhodes. The Democrats on the committee argued that because some working for George Bush deceived Colin Powell about weapons of mass destruction, that makes it OK. Republicans and Democrats wonder why Trump is so popular.

[Entire hearing is about 2 hours and 45 minutes]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?409709-1/house-oversight-committee-examines-iran-nuclear-deal-messaging 

Propaganda Promoted By Major Media and Prominent Journalists

[From article]
First they came for the baker, and I said nothing, because I was not a baker.
Then they came for the photographer, and I did nothing, because I was not a photographer.
Then they came for the institution of marriage, but I was not married.
Then they came for the girls' bathrooms, but I was not a girl.
Then they came for the tolerant in the name of tolerance, but I didn't understand.
Calling themselves progressives, they seek to destroy progress.
They rewrite history to control the future.
They have deformed the Constitution into a suicidal playbook.
Their appointed justices say the Constitution is a living document.
But if the Constitution is living, then it is dead.
They have replaced Jeffersonian individualism and free enterprise with the Leviathan State.
[. . .]



They steal from the worker through taxing his wages and give it to those who vote for a living.
Voter fraud is justified as a means to end. Nothing is beneath them.
They disarm the law-abiding to make victims defenseless against the emboldened criminal.
Before, they came for the Jew, but now they also come for the Christian and Western civilization itself.



Yet they protect the illegal alien and Muslim immigrant hordes.
They shame our cultures and our borders, but theirs are sacrosanct.
They tell us it is our fault that we are blown up and beheaded.
They prey on the humane and decent and use their humanity and decency against them.
They brandish pseudo-phobias as both spear and shield.
Shouting for racial justice, they incite racial hatred.
Failing incitement, they fabricate hoax incidents of hate against themselves for attention and sympathy.
[. . .]



They crusade on campus to enslave free minds and enforce conformity to an ideological assimilation of attitude.
They attack Judeo-Christianity with religious fervor yet worship at the altar of secular atheism while embracing sharia.
They strive to enslave the people of the planet in the name of saving the planet.
They foment panic of plant food while ignoring data of epochs past.
They use the siren song of entertainment media to demoralize, desensitize, and dumb down.
Now I see the truth as the scales of my public education and trust in media fall from my eyes.
Yet now the twin tides of the nihilist and the zealot ooze forth to pillage and rape.
Pillage of my culture and rape of women because they are daughters of the infidel, or maybe just because their skin is white.
They feel entitled through self-esteem, though they are retarded from generations of ideological inbreeding.
They demand charity for merely existing and reparations for something that never happened to them.
Left, thy name is hate. Yet with gnashed teeth, they call us the haters, because we hate what they are doing to all that we love.
They wage guilt and gall.
They worship mayhem and madness.
They bond in a cult of duplicity and death.
Oppose not this sacrilege at your own peril.
Pacifism in the face of evil is the greater evil.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/march_of_the_orwellians.html

May 11, 2016
March of the Orwellians
By W.R. Wansley

Who's Unemployed? Who's On First?

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hilary.

Government Demands Apple Unlock Terror Phone. Ignores Service Provider's Data Bank

Beginning To Suspect This is One More Media/Government Campaign to Divert People's Attention

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

02.18.16 12:05 AM ET
Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before
A 2015 court case shows that the tech giant has been willing to play ball with the government before—and is only stopping now because it might ‘tarnish the Apple brand.’
Shane Harris

* * *

[From article]
This is no different, in principle, from the phone company telling the FBI how to tap into an old-fashioned hardwire phone system. In either case, in order to tap into one phone the government needs a search warrant. And one can compare these situations even further, and note that the government never used the power to wiretap to tap into everyone’s phone, only those suspected of crime.
The Fourth Amendment clearly states that government may seize documents and what is today called "data" only if a warrant is issued, a warrant that clearly specifies the place, type of information, and reason for the search.
That does not change in this case. If it is possible for Apple to obtain that one phone the FBI is concerned about, and decode only that phone’s data, then this is still consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and protect all others’ phones. Even if everyone else’s phones can then be decoded, the government must still have a search warrant to obtain the information.
The FBI did not say it wants to decode all phones, just the one owned by the terrorist. This was clearly intended to assist the FBI in only one investigation. If Tim Cook is concerned that then all persons’ phones can be decoded, then one can only point to the situation today where almost anybody -- including the government -- can have their personal records hacked, seized without permission, and used in crime. This is impossible to stop, and eventually may be impossible to stop even with iPhones.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/apples_issue_with_iphone_encryption.html

February 18, 2016
Apple’s Issue with iPhone Encryption
By Michael Bargo, Jr.

Homeland Security Rewriting History, Destroying Records

[From article]
The most shocking evidence comes from Philip Haney writing for the Hill. Haney, a longtime Department of Homeland Security employee charged that he and others working there were ordered in November 2009 to destroy raw material intelligence needed to keep us safe.
Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.
A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future -- especially before an attack occurs.
As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015).
[. . .]



according to Investor’s Business Daily, the mosque was led for 15 years by a radical cleric -- Imam Mohamad Adam el-Sheikh -- who once represented a federally designated al-Qaida front group. El-Sheikh also has argued for the legitimacy of suicide bombings. And ISB board member and vice president Muhammad Jameel has blamed American foreign policy -- namely, U.S. support for Israel -- for terrorism and the rise of Osama bin Laden.
[. . .]
But by failing properly to vet the venue, and indeed reportedly letting the Council on American-Islamic Relations choose the site even though the FBI has banned this outfit from outreach because of known ties to the Hamas terrorist group, it’s questionable that Obama did the cause of interfaith understanding any good.
[. . .]
When Barack Obama visited the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, he said: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.”
While Obama has been President, Muslims have murdered non-Muslims, avowedly in the cause of Islam, at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and attempted to do so in many, many other places. Imagine if armed Baptists screaming “Jesus is Lord” had committed murder, and explained that they were doing so in order to advance Christianity, in four American cities, and had attempted to do so in many others. Imagine that those killers were supporters of a global Christian movement that had repeatedly called for attacks on U.S. civilians and declared its determination to destroy the United States.
Imagine how incongruous it would be in that case for the President of the United States to visit a church and say: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Christian Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.” And imagine how unlikely it would be that Barack Obama would ever have done that.
But his visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore was the apotheosis of the Muslim victimhood myth, as he signaled yet again to the world (and worldwide jihadis) that in the U.S., Muslims are victims, victims of unwarranted concern over jihad terror, and thus that concern is likely to lessen even more, as Obama dismantles still more of our counter-terror apparatus.
[. . .]



Once again Obama felt free to scold and admonish Christians, but said nothing about Muslims in the U.S. needing to clean house and work for real reform that would mitigate jihad terror. And his premise was false: there is no attempt to restrict Muslims’ freedom of religion.
[. . .]
“Islam,” Obama declared, “has always been part of America.” Really? There were Muslims at Jamestown? In the Massachusetts Bay Colony? At Roanoke? Obama’s statement is so wildly ridiculous that it doesn’t just invite parody; it pleads for it.
[. . .]
The US Customs authority’s announcement last week that it will begin enforcing a 20-year old decision to require goods imported from Judea and Samaria to be labeled “Made in the West Bank,” rather than “Made in Israel,” signals Obama’s intentions.
[. . .]
Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel.
Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points.
[. . .]
Those emails of Hillary’s which have been made public reveal a virtual torrent of anti-Israel advice from those so close to her that they communicated on her personal account and often -- including Sidney Blumenthal, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, “docs in socks” Sandy Berger. Then there’s her exceedingly close tie to her aide Huma Abedin, another person closely tied to the loathsome and dangerous Moslem Brotherhood.
[. . .]
[S]ince Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways.
[. . .]
Pat Condell has well described the racist attitudes of the political left which permits them to hold Palestinians and Arabs to a lower standard of conduct than they hold Israel or the West and the fear of truth tellers that they’ll be labeled racist for not playing along with this odious tactic to suppress free speech.
[. . .]
And this Moslem woman, relying on survey evidence establishes that Islam does have a substantial problem -- a cancer of extremism which will not be eradicated by pretending it does not exist, as Obama, Hillary, and Sanders do.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/you_cannot_support_israels_existence_and_ours_and_vote_democratic_this_election.html

February 7, 2016
You Cannot Support Israel’s Existence (and Ours) and Vote Democratic This Election
By Clarice Feldman

How To Replace Failed Health Care Law

[From article]
Republicans should ask four basic questions about each health care reform idea: Is it constitutional? Is it necessary? Is it affordable? Will it work? That is, will it reduce health care costs and thus the number of uninsured Americans? Only proposals with a "yes" next to all four questions should make the cut.
[. . .]
1. Don't pass a 2,000-page bill no one has read.
Instead, follow regular order. Move multiple bills. Permit lots of time to read them. Allow plenty of amendments. Legislate.
2. Don't focus on covering the uninsured.
Focus instead on reducing health care costs.
[. . .]



Half the U.S. population gets its health benefits through the workplace, thanks to generous federal tax subsidies created in the 1940s.
[. . .]
the Tenth Amendment leaves health insurance regulation to the states,
[. . .]
In America, health insurance should be voluntary.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obamacare_replacement_made_easy.html

January 20, 2016
Obamacare Replacement Made Easy
By Dean Clancy

White House Bait and Switch Health Care Lies

[From article]
States choosing to expand Medicaid take on additional costs due to more people on their Medicaid rolls. The federal government picks up the additional costs for the first few years, meaning it won’t cost states anything extra. Initially at least.
That’s the bait
Over time, however, the feds pay less of the expansion costs. By 2020, they will only cover 90 percent of the expansion cost, leaving the rest to the states. Assuming they keep their word on the 90 percent promise.
That’s the switch.



[. . .]
Medicaid pays physicians about two-thirds of what Medicare pays. The solution under ObamaCare was to raise the amount doctors get paid under Medicaid to the same level as Medicare.
That’s the bait.
Unfortunately, this was a temporary fix, lasting only two years. Beginning in 2015, doctors saw a 43 percent cut in Medicaid reimbursement.
That’s the switch.
[. . .]
“Medicare reimbursement rates are far too low to cover the costs of high-quality medical services, and Medicaid reimbursement is even worse,” according to Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Mayo Clinic wisely did not fall for the ObamaCare Medicaid bait and switch.
[. . .]



Is any of this a surprise? This was all part of ObamaCare from the beginning. Yet at that time, there was no debate and analysis. Few if any Members of Congress read the bill. Democrats rushed the bill into law cheered on by a giddy media.
Now we are left with a mess, confirming Abraham Lincoln’s admonition, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” The ObamaCare Medicaid bait and switch sure fooled and continues to fool many.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/medicaid_expansion__bait_and_switch.html

January 20, 2016
Medicaid Expansion -- Bait and Switch
By Brian C. Joondeph

If The Math Don't Work, Repeal It, So We Can Find Out What Is Happening

[From article]
No sooner had the president charged that those who claimed the economy is in trouble were “peddling fiction” than U.S. stocks posted their worst ten-day start to a year in history. Walmart announced it was closing 154 stores in the U.S. putting 10,000 U.S. jobs on the block. [. . .] Macy’s announced it was closing 36 stores and 27 Kmart and Sears stores were also to be shuttered. [. . .] Consumers simply are running out of money to buy things.
To be sure, the global economy is shaky right now.[. . .] the global recession looks to be more severe than the last one.
1.[. . .] a lot of municipalities and states are already a lot more stressed than they were in 08 and U.S. gov[ernment] debt is much higher.
[. . .]
4. Policy makers and central bankers seem even more clueless than ever after having embarked on an even larger worldwide binge to cure the hangover, [. . .] from their last binge.
[. . .]



Amid all the factors behind the tailspin of our and the world’s economies it is obvious that the grand progressive schemes based -- as they certainly are -- on ignoring reality play a critical part. [. . .] Walmart, [. . .] responding to demands to raise the minimum wage, [. . .] raised wages above the minimum. Critics of raising the minimum wage argued that that would raise prices, negatively affect sales and reduce employment rolls. It seems that it did.
In economic terms, we are in the worst possible situation: politicians and bureaucrats with no respect for reality support programs which depend on an ever increasing supply of other peoples’ money at a time when there isn’t such money to be had [. . .]
Reason sets out the dilemma succinctly:
Sanders has built his popularity almost exclusively on promises to spend more money [. . .] Sanders hasn't been specific about where the money would come from, [. . .] his plans require massive tax hikes not just on the rich but on the middle class, meaning his efforts at offering everyone an education could not only increase inequality [. . .] but also actually redistribute wealth upward.
[. . .]



Puerto Rico is this week’s U.S. basket case with $70 billion in debt for which they have no means of repaying. Other states with unfunded enormous pension liabilities look to be lining up behind Puerto Rico [. . .] On a national scale, People (sic) who could add warned that ObamaCare would collapse with expenditures quickly exceeding revenue, and there’s no doubt that the death spiral is well underway.
This week Humana joined the list of insurers reporting big problems with Obamacare. PJ Media’s Stephen Green Commented:
As for the ObamaCare!!! cheaters -- well, it's not like the Democrats who authored this law weren't given plenty of warnings about the perverse incentives.
The net result is that more and more insurers can't afford to sell insurance to ObamaCare!!! customers -- the very people the law was ostensibly designed to help:
[. . .]
"'We expect Humana will exit Health Insurance Exchange marketplaces in 2017 in light of this data.'"
This thing is coming off the rails, and a LOT of people are going to get crushed when it does.
Mere glitches to the innumerate progressives. I don’t know what they are up to where you live, but in Washington D.C. they are proposing a massive new paid 16-week family leave program which it is estimated could cost over $700 million a year. [. . .] In any event, it is most likely that if this passes, employers will hire fewer people and pay them less to compensate for the cost. Once again the bottom of the economic pyramid would bear the burden of the virtue signaling of those at the top.
[. . .]
Walmart officials were more frank about the reasons the company was downsizing. He said the company cited the District’s rising minimum wage, now at $11.50 an hour and possibly going to $15 an hour if a proposed ballot measure is successful in November.
[. . .]



Math is so hard for progressives. I expect any day now some Democrat in Congress will introduce a bill repealing it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/peddling_fiction_or_repealing_math.html

January 17, 2016
'Peddling Fiction' Or Repealing Math?
By Clarice Feldman

Government, Journalists Deception, Distortion Keeping People In a Coma

[From article]
As easily as he slid into office with no qualifications for the post, Obama is falling from grace with fate and the voters. His dishonesty and incompetence are too patent. This week, no sooner had his relatively sparsely viewed presser ended and his clearly manufactured tears about gun violence dried, than his central argument -- that gun control, not fighting Islamic terrorism, should be our priority -- was exposed as nonsense. A thug, who had stolen a gun from a cop, used it in Philadelphia to try to assassinate a law enforcement officer. Echoing Obama Philadelphia’s Democratic Mayor declared Jim Kenney wasted no time in declaring “There are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that.”
[. . .]



Philadelphia’s Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney [. . .] dug himself in even deeper in Obama vaporous swill, contending that the crime had nothing to do with Moslems or Islam, “In no way, shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you have seen on that screen.” Then he turned the presser over to Police Commissioner Richard Ross who directly contradicted the mayor’s fantastical account: He said the shooter confessed that he committed the act in the name of Islam and had pledged allegiance to ISIS.
[. . .]
The New Year’s Eve savagery brought home for all to see the absurdity of allowing in hordes of young men from a culture which is antithetical to modern Western civilization.
[. . .]
It should be glaringly obvious that Third World Muslim men do not know how to treat women. Men from the Middle East and North Africa see women as occupying a social position just slightly above that of livestock -- and, they see Western females as prostitutes.
[. . .]
Sweden is now known as the rape capital of Europe where nearly 100% of rapes there are committed by Muslims. Yet, the media there has gone out of its way to cover up these crimes.
[. . .]
The British press will even use the code word “Asian” when describing crimes committed by Muslims, a word they can’t bring themselves to use because, as everyone knows, Islam has nothing to do with it.
[. . .]



Culture is destiny. And the bone-deep culture of Third World Islam that these immigrants import into the heart of Europe will manifest itself in ways that go far beyond the sexual assault, rape and murder of western women. They will bring their 15-year-old brides from Pakistan and Syria. As their numbers grow they will insist on polygamy, the veil, child marriage, genital mutilation, honor killings and a government-provided Islamic education system.
[. . .]
The influx of Third World migrants carrying the virus of Islam is an invasion not fundamentally different from that of Mohamed in the 8th century or the Ottomans in the Middle Ages. Will Europe wake up? Let’s hope that the attention to what happened in Cologne on New Year's Eve will prod a sleeping Europe to action before it’s too late.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_president_who_fell_from_grace_.html

January 10, 2016
The President Who Fell From Grace
By Clarice Feldman

White House Misleads Voters and Taxpayers, Helps Enemies Destroy the Nation

[From article]
Obama sees Islam as a culture superior to our Judeo-Christian one – that is to say to the one that he is leading and is sworn to defend. He cannot bring himself to see jihadi Islam – ISIS – as an enemy, even though there has perhaps never been one so stark.
[. . .]
Since liberalism regards all other cultures as superior to its own, if one of those cultures is a ruthless, relentless warrior culture that cares only for victory and dominance, liberalism has no vocabulary, no thought process, no sense of self-preservation with which to arm itself against it. It cannot defend itself against barbarism because it believes that the barbarians are right.
[. . .]



We are the Eloi (look it up), so refined in our sensibilities that the only historic role we have left is to commit suicide. It is that attitude that also pervades the administrations of our universities, who are surrendering to barbarism on their campuses. Liberalism is oblivion.
Except…Donald Trump has picked up the trampled flag and raised it to the top of the flagpole. Those dust clouds you see out there? They are the American public, from every corner of the country, from every race, from every part of society, riding to the colors.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/liberalism_meets_its_waterloo.html

November 28, 2015
Liberalism meets its Waterloo
By Greg Richards