Three Times As Many Anti Jewish Incidents Than Anti Muslim; White House Only Sees Anti Muslim

Question that re-appears often, "Is an enemy spy running the White House?"

[From article]
The Anti-Defamation League just announced that anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose dramatically in 2015. Colleges and universities were responsible for some 10 percent of the events, which included harassment, threats, and vandalism. The ADL, which pays close attention to such matters, said it was “not clear what may have led to the spike.” Any first-year political science major could furnish a working hypothesis.



Not a single statement has issued from the Oval Office about attacks on Jews in the United States or on foreign turf. Indeed, early last year, when Islamic terrorists went on a killing spree in the French capital, President Obama condemned “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The zealots were violent and vicious alright, but their shots weren’t random. They aimed to murder patrons in a kosher supermarket. In other words, they sought to kill a bunch of Jewish folks. Somehow, the president couldn’t bring himself to utter that word.
Nor has Obama referred to the uptick in anti-Semitic episodes in academia. Currently, the Left has a palpable presence on campuses, disinviting speakers who dare to articulate conservative views, shouting down defenders of the Second Amendment before they can make their arguments, demanding “trigger warnings” before students read books like Huckleberry Finn and The Great Gatsby, because literature that has been on the shelves for decades, and sometimes centuries, might disturb the frail sensibilities of today’s sophomores. Today, too, the low anti-Semitism of the Third Reich continues in the groves of higher education, often cloaked in pro-Palestinian rhetoric. The vocabulary of the academic Left brims with agitprop about “Zionist malevolence,” though many countries within rocket distance of the most liberal nation in the Middle East are notorious for the stoning of apostates, rape victims, and homosexuals.



Only the naïve, and the willfully ignorant, could fail to see another reason why anti-Semitism has increased overseas and in America. The ADL recently did a survey of religious and ethnic bias in 101 countries. Anti-Jewish sentiment was most prevalent in North Africa and the Middle East, where 74 percent of respondents expressed anti-Semitic views. In those countries, millions are taught that Jews are subhuman, or a dangerous and controlling force in geopolitics—or both. Now, many of those millions are pouring into Europe and America—legally or illegally—welcomed by governments that pay scant attention to their background. In the recent past, 56 percent of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. were against Jews. Some 18 percent targeted Muslims. Guess which received censorious comment from on high, and which were met with silence?



George Orwell’s old counsel resounds with fresh truth: “To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.” That struggle has yet to be made by the Obama administration, and sadder still, by the Anti-Defamation League itself.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/blind-obvious-14600.html

Blind to the Obvious
Anti-Semitism is up, but even the ADL won’t say why.
Stefan Kanfer
July 1, 2016

Taxpayers Fund Studies To Learn Who Are Terrorists

Psychiatrists make predictions in courts when  they are in session. Why not employ them to tell who will commit a terrorist act? If they know the future and judges say they are experts? Well?

[From article]
How’d you like to be running a presidential campaign dependent on Muslims not acting up again between now and Nov. 8? It’s getting awfully hard for the media to keep being indignant about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, as long as Muslims keep blowing things up and shooting people.
I’m assuming here that The Washington Post has not already ruled the Muslims who blew up the Istanbul Airport to be self-hating gays infected by America’s culture of homophobia.
It turns out, Omar Mateen, the Orlando nightclub shooter, also wasn’t a self-hating gay, despite media excitement over that rumor. The FBI has now run down every alleged gay partner of Omar’s, searched his phone and computers, and the alleged gay lovers either had the wrong guy or were lying, and there’s no evidence he was on any gay websites or apps.
As a Muslim immigrant explained in a curbside interview videotaped by Tony Vera at the Los Angeles International Airport recently — before she was arrested — “that’s what we do, we bomb people.”
With impeccable timing, three days before the Istanbul bombing, the liberal Guardian (UK) ran an article sneering at Brexit supporters for wanting out of the European Union before Turkey became a member and the door was thrown open to unlimited migration from this Muslim country that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran.
The article by Liz Cookman was titled, “Turkey, the Brexit bogeyman, is not so different from the UK.”



Liz had a lot of fun with the Brexit-supporting ninnies, so relieved that “the Turks are no longer coming.” She referred to Turkey as “the country whose people Britons are apparently petrified of,” despite the fact that “it turns out Britain and Turkey are not so different after all.”
[. . .]
As with the British media, the American media keep telling us that all these Muslim terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Muslims, and Donald Trump’s suggestion that we impose a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration is madness, bigoted, racist.
Thank God Hitler didn’t claim “Mein Kampf” was a holy book and the Fuhrerbunker a mosque.
Western governments have devoted incalculable resources to developing some diagnostic test other than “Muslim” to predict terrorism. As the New York Times reported earlier this year:
[. . .]
Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist.”
I have a possible indicator! M-U-S-L- …
After the July 7, 2005, London subway bombing by Muslim terrorists that killed 52 people, the British MI5 undertook its own highly sophisticated study, examining hundreds of cases. But the UK’s security agency discovered that terrorists are a wildly diverse lot. They worshipped at a variety of different mosques, for example.
Some terrorists were very religious Muslims and some barely practicing. Most were men, but some were women. There were young and old terrorists, highly educated as well as uneducated, some loners and some married with children.
So, according to MI5, the predictive power of every factor is very low — other than: Is a Muslim.
[. . .]



Republicans who are furious with Trump for proposing that we hit the pause button on this one category of Third World mass immigration have nothing at all to say about the census report this week showing Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act has so transformed the country that a majority of babies born in the United States today are not white.
The only thing Republicans can do is denounce Obama for not using the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” (As long as they brought up Words Politicians Refuse to Use, when will the eunuchs work up the nerve to say “illegal alien,” “anchor baby” and “amnesty”?)
Obama is a hapless fool, but what is so special about the words “radical Islam”? Maybe it’s not radical Islam. Maybe it’s just “Islam.”
The reason Republicans obsess over Obama’s language is that they can’t go on TV and say nothing, and no one but Trump will say anything useful. To wit: Let’s stop dumping a million Muslim immigrants on the country every year, some percentage of whom we know will commit mass murder.

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/29/this-hidden-fact-predicts-terrorism/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

This Hidden Fact Predicts Terrorism

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Jun 29, 2016 3:24 PM

Updated: Secret Service Officer Publishes Book About Clinton White House

Posted June 6, 2016 8:51 PM ET; Last updated June 27, 2016 9:05 PM ET



[Updated June 27, 2016 9:05 PM ET]
[From article]
In a book set to be released on Tuesday, former Secret Service officer Gary J. Byrne details his time in the White House serving former president Bill Clinton and former first lady Hillary Clinton.
Byrne claims within the pages of the book that Bill Clinton had a 'jogging list' and would have Secret Service 'take the names of attractive women he saw while out exercising'.
In Byrne's new book, 'Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate', the former White House security makes no apologies for his criticisms of the Clintons.
In the 'jogging list', a detail exposed by Byrne, the former president Clinton would allegedly see women who were dressed in nightclub attire or exercise gear, who showed up at the southeast gate.
'The agents... would get the women's names, and run them to see who they were.
'If the women wouldn't cooperate, they would be ushered out of the jogging group.
'Agents... insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women,' Byrne writes.
Byrne also accuses Bill Clinton of having as many as three mistresses at one time, which included former Vice President Walter Mondale's daughter, Eleanor.
Byrne claims in the book he once discovered the pair 'making out on the Map Room table'.
He writes the Clinton administration was fraught with immoral ethical standards.
'There were some drug issues. Some people would come in to work in the morning, and they were barely walking, they would drop stuff off at the office, and go to the restroom where they would come out minutes later happy as a clown,' he writes, alluding to the use of cocaine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660782/New-book-written-former-Secret-Service-agent-
claims-Bill-Clinton-picked-women-jogging-staffers-snorted-cocaine-claims-cheery.html

Bill Clinton picked up women while jogging as staffers snorted cocaine at work, former Secret Service officer claims in new tell-all book
A new book has revealed secrets of the former Clinton administration
Gary J. Byrne has written about Bill Clinton's alleged infidelity and an alleged 'jogging list' of beautiful women the former president kept
He also wrote that staffers snorted cocaine in the bathrooms to stay happy
Byrne was a uniformed Secret Service officer who was posted in the West Wing of the White House for several years of Bill Clinton's presidency
Critics have said that Byrne would not have had the kind of access to the Clintons as he claims and his accounts differ from his testimony years ago
By DAILYMAIL.COM REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 08:36 EST, 26 June 2016 | UPDATED: 08:49 EST, 27 June 2016

* * *

[Posted June 6, 2016 8:51 PM ET]


The New York Post’s cover on June 6, 2016

[From review]
Hillary Clinton has a “Jekyll and Hyde” personality that left White House staffers scared stiff of her explosive — and even physical — outbursts, an ex-Secret Service officer claims in a scathing new tell-all.
Gary Byrne, who was posted outside the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president, portrays Hillary as too “erratic, uncontrollable and occasionally violent” to become leader of the free world, according to advance promotional materials exclusively obtained by Page Six.
The allegations from Byrne, a 29-year veteran of the military and federal law enforcement, threaten to derail her campaign days before she is expected to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination.
He describes Hillary Clinton as acting friendly one moment, then raging the next.

Gary Byrne with Hillary and Bill Clinton

Photo: Provided by Gary Byrne

“What I saw in the 1990s sickened me,” he writes in the intro of the book, “Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses his Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate.”
The book claims she repeatedly screamed obscenities at her husband, Secret Service personnel and White House staffers — all of whom lived in terror of her next tirade.
Secret Service agents had discussions about the possibility that they would have to protect Bill from his wife’s physical attacks, Byrne writes, and the couple had one “violent encounter” the morning of a key presidential address to the nation.
Meanwhile, a paranoid Hillary Clinton tried to have the Secret Service banned from the White House and once tried to ditch her security detail, Byrne says.
“Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office,” he writes.
“From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. And with Hillary’s latest rise, I realize that her own leadership style — volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else — hasn’t changed a bit.”
The book isn’t set for release until June 28, but pre-orders have sent it to No. 1 on Amazon’s best-seller list.
[. . .]
Byrne — who was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury that investigated Bill Clinton’s affair with intern Monica Lewinsky — claims in the book that he interrupted the president’s sexual shenanigans in the White House.
Byrne says he walked into a room where the president was “involved inappropriately with a woman” who was neither his wife nor Lewinsky.
And he says he once threw out a White House towel stained with a woman’s lipstick — and the president’s “bodily fluids.”
Byrne describes arriving for work one day in 1995 following a loud fight between the Clintons the night before.
The dust-up, he says, left a light blue vase “smashed to bits” and Bill sporting a “real, live, put-a-steak-on-it black eye.”
Byrne’s book amplifies earlier allegations of mistreatment of Secret Service personnel by Hillary Clinton — including in 2014’s “First Family Detail” by former Washington Post reporter Ronald Kessler and last year’s “The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House,” which also detailed a fight between Bill and Hillary over the Lewinsky affair.
[. . .]
[Trump] spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson [said,]
“I don’t recall Mr. Trump ever screaming at the Secret Service, calling them pigs, throwing vases across the room and clawing the face of his spouse, which Hillary Clinton has been reported to do,”

http://pagesix.com/2016/06/05/tell-all-book-reveals-hillarys-erratic-uncontrollable-ways-in-the-white-house/

Bombshell book reveals how Hillary terrified White House staff
By Emily Smith
New York Post
June 5, 2016 | 9:54pm

United Kingdom Votes To Leave European Union. White House, Hillary Clinton On Wrong Side of History

73 percent of eligible voters voted. Ireland and Scotland voted to remain. England and Wales voted to leave. 

Leave 51.9%
VOTES 17,410,742 VOTES

RemainVote share
48.1%
VOTES16,141,241 VOTES


http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

Brexit Upends Global Markets as Stocks, Pound Plunge; Yen Soars
James Regan
Sofia Horta E Costa
June 24, 2016

* * *

[From article]
British voters chose to “leave” the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.
Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.
Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.
[. . .]

Trump, who happens to be in Scotland to open a golf resort, promised in May that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/23/brexit-britain-votes-trump-hillary-obama/

Brexit: Britain Votes with Trump, against Hillary, Obama

by JOEL B. POLLAK

23 Jun 2016

Supreme Court Of the United States Rules Against Lawless White House Plan To Ban Deporting Illegal Aliens

Lawyers, clients and court watchers stream down the front steps after arguments at the US Supreme Court.
Photo: Reuters

[From article]
A tie vote by the Supreme Court is blocking President Barack Obama’s immigration plan that sought to shield millions living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.
The justices’ one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama’s presidency.
A tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.
Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states’ lawsuit.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/supreme-court-kills-obamas-immigration-plan/

Supreme Court kills Obama’s immigration plan
By Associated Press
New York Post
June 23, 2016 | 10:53am

White House Restricts Health Care Services For Elder Citizens, Destroying Medicare

[From article]
Before Medicare, older folks languished in nursing homes or wheelchairs with crippling illnesses. Now, seniors dodge that fate, thanks to hip and knee replacements, cataract operations and heart procedures — all paid for by Medicare.
The American Journal of Public Health reports that a man turning 65 can expect to live almost five years longer than he would have in 1970 — and almost all of it in good health. What a priceless gift.
A gift Obama is snatching away.
The president’s Medicare reforms make it harder for seniors to get joint replacements. His new payment rules shortchange doctors, discouraging them from accepting Medicare in the first place. New ER rules clobber seniors with bills for “observation care.” Under ObamaCare, hospitals get bonuses for spending less per senior, despite having higher death rates and infection rates.[. . .]
Before Medicare, older folks languished in nursing homes or wheelchairs with crippling illnesses. Now, seniors dodge that fate, thanks to hip and knee replacements, cataract operations and heart procedures — all paid for by Medicare.
The American Journal of Public Health reports that a man turning 65 can expect to live almost five years longer than he would have in 1970 — and almost all of it in good health. What a priceless gift.
A gift Obama is snatching away.
The president’s Medicare reforms make it harder for seniors to get joint replacements. His new payment rules shortchange doctors, discouraging them from accepting Medicare in the first place. New ER rules clobber seniors with bills for “observation care.” Under ObamaCare, hospitals get bonuses for spending less per senior, despite having higher death rates and infection rates.
[. . .]



The new rules also make seeing Medicare patients a money loser. Annual fee increases for doctors are capped at a fraction of 1 percent — even though rents and other costs go up every year.
No wonder nine out of 10 solo practitioners admit they’ll avoid Medicare patients — right when 10,000 new baby boomers are joining each day.
Obama’s rules spell trouble for seniors with cancer. Doctors administering chemotherapy are getting a pay cut and being prodded to choose the cheapest drug, regardless of which medication is best for their patient. Dr. Debra Patt warned Congress this’ll hinder access to drugs like the immunotherapy that subdued former President Jimmy Carter’s cancer.
Another Obama rule penalizes hospitals for doing hip and knee replacements on patients likely to need rehab after surgery, causing hospitals to shun older patients with complex conditions. Grandma will have to settle for the painkiller as candidate Obama notoriously suggested.
[. . .]
During Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, the president accused Republicans of plotting to “end Medicare as we know it.” A pro-Obama ad depicted a Republican pushing Granny’s wheelchair off a cliff.
Who’s really pushing Granny off the cliff? Obama himself, with Hillary’s helping hand.
Clinton proposes opening Medicare to people in their 50s. That would force seniors to compete with younger patients for resources — like in Britain and Canada, where seniors are labeled “bed blockers,” and certain treatments are reserved for younger patients with more life ahead.
Seniors beware.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/21/obama-is-gutting-medicare/

Obama is gutting Medicare
By Betsy McCaughey
New York Post
June 21, 2016 | 8:43pm

Comparing Presidents

Excited President Stutters His Way Through Attack on Trump During Campaign. Is He Running Again?

[From article]

Poor Barack. He wanted to sound more powerful. He really did!
The lame duck president went to Indiana today to hold a rally and trash-talk Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, it didn’t go as planned.
He turned into a stuttering mess.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/wow-obama-tries-trash-donald-trump-turns-stuttering-mess/

MUST SEE VIDEO=> Wow! Obama Tries to Trash Donald Trump and Turns into a Stuttering Mess
Jim Hoft

Jun 1st, 2016 4:50 pm

https://youtu.be/mSxo9-Z5Ki0

House, Senate Bill Seeks White House Confirmation of Payment To Iran To Free US Navy Vessel

This frame grab from a Jan. 12, 2016, video by the Iranian state-run IRIB News Agency, shows detention of American Navy sailors by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, Iran. 

(IRIB News Agency via AP) ** FILE **

[From article]
A bill aims to force the Obama administration to confirm within 60 days whether or not it gave a $1.7 billion “ransom payment” to Iran in January in exchange for 10 U.S. sailors captured in its waters.
The No Impunity for Iranian Aggression at Sea Act was filed jointly this week by two Republicans, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, as a way of determining why $1.7 billion was released to Iran on Jan. 14. The payment was made one day after members of two U.S. Navy patrol boats were freed from captivity.
[. . .]
The legislation seeks to determine whether it was diplomacy or $1.7 billion in taxpayers’ cash that resolved the conflict. The White House maintains that payments to Iran were not linked to the sailors’ release.
“After the Iranians captured 10 U.S. Navy sailors, President Obama mentioned these brave men and women only in passing in his last State of the Union address,” Mr. Pompeo told the Free Beacon on Wednesday. “Since then, instead of investigating whether the Iranians violated the Geneva Convention and the right of innocent passage, the Obama administration has only offered apologies and then fired an American Naval officer. There has been no criticism of the Iranians, no public explanation of why these Americans were forced on their knees, hands on their heads, or why they were forced to confess — nothing from President Obama that would send a signal that this is an unacceptable way to treat American sailors.”
[. . .]
“I think that’s going to be huge cause for concern for most Americans. That’s why I’ve encouraged members of Congress to get that [classified military] briefing so they do know exactly what did take place.”
In addition to holding U.S. sailors captive, Iranian authorities forced the crew to apologize on state-run television. The service members strayed into Iranian waters when their navigational systems failed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/mike-pompeo-john-cornyn-bill-to-force-obama-to-adm/

Bill would force Obama to admit to $1.7 billion ‘ransom payment’ to Iran
White House denies charge despite funds released 1 day after U.S. sailors freed by regime
By Douglas Ernst 

The Washington Times

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Muslim Brotherhood In The White House

[From article]
For nearly eight years, President Obama has appointed a range of Muslimofficials with terror-links to influential positions within the administration. The latest in a long line is Zaki Barzinji, whom Obama just tapped as the new associate director of public engagement for the White House.
The Clarion Project notes that Barzinji worked for the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA), an organization targeted by the U.S. Justice Department as a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a major Hamas-funding trial.
Oh, and Barzinji's grandfather was also a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect.
Oh, and according to Clarion Project, Barzinji previously served as the deputy director of intergovernmental affairs for Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who is currently under investigation for "possible political corruption."
​Of the Obama appointee's grandfather, Clarion notes that Jamal Barzinji, deceased as of last year, "was a founder and/or senior official in virtually every group identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front in America."
Mysteriously, the Obama Justice Department dropped a planned indictment of the elder Barzinji and in 2013, Zaki accepted an award on his grandfather’s behalf at "the Hamas/Brotherhood-linked Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia, which the late Barzinji helped found."
The mosque is infamous for the fact that al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki was its head imam in 2001.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-taps-yet-another-muslim-brotherhood-linked-official-prominent-wh-role

Truth Revolt
Obama Taps Yet Another Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Official to Prominent WH Role
His grandfather "was a founder and/or senior official in virtually every group identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front in America."
6.1.2016
Tiffany Gabbay

White House Plays Santa Claus For 7 Years

[From article]
It was the year 2009, and it was official. The Obama administration shelved the anti-missile shield from Poland and Czech Republic and let it marinate in an attic jar. The move was done with an unparalleled subtlety, on the same day that Poland was commemorating the 70th anniversary of its World War II invasion by the USSR. After months of ballet pirouettes in public statements where the Eastern Europeans were “reassured” that their concerns on the issue were totally groundless, the inevitable (and predictable) happened. The Obama administration, citing budgetary reasons, upended the agreements with two NATO allies by cancelling the Bush-era project that angered Russia.
[. . .]



In July, president Obama was addressed in an open letter signed by 22 prominent Eastern European leaders, who voiced their concern that the region had ceased to be a priority on the U.S. foreign policy agenda. The letter warned against “the misguided notion” that the region was largely stable and on a secure path to full trans-Atlantic integration. In reality, this traditional pro-American region was increasingly critical to the United States’ cave in to Russia’s “revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics.”
Had the administration wanted to show contempt for faithful allies in Eastern Europe, there was no better way than scrapping the planned anti-missile shield. It was obvious that, at that moment and even later, the United States did not consider Central and Eastern Europe as a priority any more.
[. . .]
In fact, this was Obama’s free gift to the Russians, offered with a red bow on a golden plate way before the September 2012 president’s tete-a-tete with Medvedev at the Seoul nuclear safety summit and during his “open mike” genuine moment of sincerity.
While it was obvious that U.S. world policy had turned 180 degrees since Obama assumed office, Russian policy continued to look disturbingly unchanged.
In terms of firsthand knowledge of communism, America should have given more credit to Eastern Europe. After all, the Eastern Europeans’ deeper understanding of the multiple facets -- theoretical, clinical, and practical -- of a totalitarian ideology and society exceeds by far Obama’s occasional exotic incursions in the Marxism-pigmented readings during his university years. And this goes for Obama’s international and domestic policies. His obstinacy in promoting collectivist ideas of a “fair share” type has managed to produce confusion in America and hilarity in Eastern Europe. In this context, Jimmy Carter’s 1977 remarks about being “free of that inordinate fear of communism” appear as an equally sinister and pathetic joke.
[. . .]
When he alienated the allies by allying himself with the aliens, he ended up looking more like Terry Crews, as the goofy president Camacho in Idiocracy. In the end, even Camacho came back to his senses. Let us all hope that we, as a nation, do not end up living those “idiocratic” apocalyptic times.

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

May 30, 2016
The American 'Idiocracy' and Eastern Europe
By Tiberiu Dianu

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

White House Provides Taxpayer Funds For Jobs For Migrant Youth

[From article]
The Obama administration wants to make sure Utica, New York’s young refugees aren’t without a job, so he’s spending millions to make sure it doesn’t happen.
“Access to a job in the summer and beyond can make all the difference to a young person – especially those who don’t have access to many resources and opportunities,” President Obama said of his new Summer Opportunity Project.
The project spends a total of $21 million on a variety of programs in 11 communities nationwide with the focus of helping young people find summer work, and permanent part-time jobs, the White House and U.S. Department of Labor announced Monday.
At least $2 million of the total will be set aside to help 400 refugee students in Utica, New York get to work through the New Americans Career Pathways Project, the Utica Observer-Dispatch reports.
“The New Americans Career Pathways project will provide in-school youth with summer jobs and academic support for 400 students in the refugee populations of Utica, NY,” according to a White House Fact Sheet. “The students will receive summer job work experience and academic tutoring in English and Math, and support in finding part-time jobs.”
[. . .]
Nearly everyone who discussed the Utica program in the Syracuse.com comments was appalled that the president seems to be prioritizing illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens for summer jobs in their region.
“Most divisive president ever adds to the legacy,” Dawn Of A New Day posted.
“This is absurd!” greats wrote. “Yes people, vote for Hillary. She wants this too. To heck with American youth. Let’s employ refugees who can’t even speak English! Go Trump! Stand up for America!”
“So legal Americans are not worthy of summer jobs?” RockwellSprings questioned. “Can’t wait for November.”
“What about OUR kids?” bastracker wrote. “I am thoroughly disgusted.”

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/obama-summer-jobs-program-devotes-least-2-million-refugee-youth/

Obama spending millions to find summer jobs — for refugees
May 17, 2016
By Victor Skinner

White House Promotes Globalism, One World Conformist Government Over United States Nationalism, Individual Rights

[From article]
It used to be only tinfoil hat types who raved about a conspiracy to establish a new world order. Such nutcases generally did not include the secretary of state of America, a country once known for common sense and pragmatism.
But the days of Harry Truman's Missourian levelheadedness and his visionary but realistic secretaries of state Dean Acheson and George Marshall appear to be long gone. That tinfoil-hat globalists are currently in charge of U.S. policy, such as it is, is now evident in Secretary of State John Kerry's proclamation to graduates of Northeastern University that they should get used to a world without walls and without borders – indeed, without nations (italics mine):
[. . .]



In a couple of paragraphs, Kerry basically advocated the elimination of nation-states while advising the young that he is not particularly concerned about the safety of the land in which they live. It is, he basically announced, impossible to protect you. Get used to terrorism.
Kerry appears to be channeling Germany's Angela Merkel and Brussels's leadership, whose experiments with a borderless Germany and a nationless Europe dominated by the European Union apparently are not working out perfectly.
[. . .]



But the dream of world government by supranational entities such as the EU and the U.N. is persistent and strong. Kerry has, along with president Obama, apparently embraced that dream, and both are fostering it in a number of ways, the most important of which is urging the United States to provide an example for national hara-kiri by permitting open borders, especially to the south of the United States. Another step in the process is to ensure that the individual states are rendered powerless. The federal government essentially is turning the states into satrapies that do the bidding of the U.S. government and which are to follow the ideological insanities of our current elite in the White House and beyond to the letter. Elimination of state identities means that only one entity is in charge.



This brings us to the other important component essential to the success of the one-worlders – namely, the elimination of distinct identities among humans. Ultimately, their goal is to see that men and women (pardon the politically incorrect terminology) are without a country and without identity, including any differentiation between the sexes.
The above is ultimately what the push for a genderless society is all about. There is a reason for the fight for transgender "rights" that goes far, far beyond the stated goal of civil "rights." The goal is to destroy the ancient historical, religious, and scientific reality of the human being as male or female – and with that destruction, collapse all the institutions of civilization that have existed since the dawn of history and have provided identity for human beings – namely, the family, the tribe, the town, the city, the country, and the Church.
The idea is to keep humans in a state of constant indeterminacy, as indeterminacy concerning identity renders people malleable. Indeterminacy allows almighty global institutions to determine what a human being is, what humans are to be loyal to, where humans are to live, and what value humans have. Indeterminacy allows the idea of a "citizen of the world" to take root and grow. No one is male or female, Hungarian or Chinese, English or French, Catholic or Protestant or anything in between. The human being is merely an undifferentiated unit subject to global entities who can decree, "This is who you are."



In sum, the entire globe is to become a tabula rasa on which elite powers can write the outlines of a new world order.
Huxley's dystopian fantasy of a "Brave New World" is coming to fruition. He saw in 1933 where matters were heading. In chapter 3 of Huxley's work, Mustapha Mond, the leader of the World State, gives a long speech about its history. He blames the formerly sacred institutions of family, love, motherhood, and marriage for the chaos found in the old world order. These personal institutions were causes of instability, and individuals were always capable of divided allegiances that led to conflict. Therefore, the World State destroyed all allegiances except to the world government. Peace would reign when uniformity of life and thought was achieved. Everyone is happy because everyone thinks alike, just as they do at Harvard and Princeton. The struggle for Truth is eliminated, and all is calm.



Huxley presciently foresaw the day when globalist President Obama would issue a Mothers' Day Proclamation that essentially eliminated the concept of motherhood, and thus the differentiation of the sexes. The president stated, "Regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, mothers have always moved our Nation forward and remained steadfast in their pursuit of a better and brighter future for their children."
So there we have stage two of Brave New World as articulated by our president, with stage one having been articulated by our secretary of state.



The only thing that stands between the new chimerical global order and its accompanying ideological insanity is the blessed resistance of sane realists. Thank God there are people who see the tinfoil hats. Thank God there are people who still realize that the human race is divided into male and female and that nations have a right to insist on their autonomy as validated and valued because of history, tradition, and faith.
Thank God they will give up neither their identities as men or women nor the identities of the countries they love.

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

May 12, 2016
Welcoming the Brave New World Order
By Fay Voshell

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 

Updated: White House Sticking It To Whitey

Posted April 17, 2016 8:13 PM ET; Lat updated May 8, 2016 9:55 PM ET



Updated May 8, 20-16 9:55 PM ET
[From article]

Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.
The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as Westchester County, while assigning them government real-estate agents called “mobility counselors” to secure housing in the exurbs.
Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods.
It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
Anticipating NIMBY resistance, Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records. And last year, he implemented a powerful new regulation — “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” — that pressures all suburban counties taking federal grant money to change local zoning laws to build more low-income housing (landlords of such properties are required to accept Section 8 vouchers).
[. . .]

In expensive ZIP codes, Castro’s plan — which requires no congressional approval — would more than double the standard subsidy, while also covering utilities. At the same time, he intends to reduce subsidies for those who choose to stay in housing in poor urban areas, such as Brooklyn. So Section 8 tenants won’t just be pulled to the suburbs, they’ll be pushed there.
“We want to use our housing-choice vouchers to ensure that we don’t have a concentration of poverty and the aggregation of racial minorities in one part of town, the poor part of town,” the HUD chief said recently, adding that he’s trying to undo the “result of discriminatory policies and practices in the past, and sometimes even now.”
[. . .]
President Bill Clinton started a similar program in 1994 called “Moving to Opportunity Initiative,” which moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods in several counties across the country.
The 15-year experiment bombed.
A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.
Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.
“Males…were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.
Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing.
Of course, even when reality mugs leftists, they never scrap their social theories. They just double down.
The problem, they rationalized, was that the relocation wasn’t aggressive enough. They concluded they could get the desired results if they placed urban poor in even more affluent areas.
HUD recently tested this new theory in Dallas with disastrous results.
[. . .]


United States Department of Housing and Urban Development used Dallas as a test — and the city is now experiencing much more violence.

Photo: Getty Images
Now Dallas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and recently had to call in state troopers to help police control it. For the first time, violent crime has shifted to the tony bedroom communities north of the city. Three suburbs that have seen the most Section 8 transfers — Frisco, Plano and McKinney — have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions.
Although HUD’s “demonstration project” may have improved the lives of some who moved, it’s ended up harming the lives of many of their new neighbors. And now Castro wants to roll it out nationwide. Soon he will give Section 8 recipients money to afford rent wherever they choose — and if they don’t want to move, he’ll make them an offer they can’t refuse.
Ironically, Hillary’s own hometown of Chappaqua is fighting Section 8 housing because of links to drugs and crime and other problems.
This is a big policy shift that will have broad implications, affecting everything from crime to property values; and it could even impact the presidential election, especially if Castro joins Hillary on the Democratic ticket.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/

Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy
By Paul Sperry
New York Post
May 8, 2016 | 7:30am

* * *

Posted April 17, 2016 8:134 PM ET
[From article]
Is the Obama administration, or at least some officials in it, hostile toward whites? This is certainly an awkward, publicly unspeakable question -- and answering it is exceptionally difficult. Not easy to discern the motives of countless Washington bureaucrats.
Nevertheless, recent events outside of Baltimore, MD suggest that enmity toward whites does afflict some Obama administrators and our proof, though short of the smoking gun standard, is probably as good as it gets.
In a nutshell, thanks to Washington’s money and political pressure, thousands of poor blacks will now be re-located from Baltimore’s slums to upgraded housing in the surrounding, nearly all-white suburbs.
Baltimore County will spend $30 million over the next decade to help private developers build 1000 homes for low-income African American families in affluent suburbs.

[. . .]

To ensure that these new residences are family friendly, 500 units must contain three or more bedrooms. Housing access will be encouraged by requiring landlords to consider all sources of income -- including public welfare -- in assessing tenant creditworthiness. Participants will also receive help with moving expenses and security deposits. And to facilitate integration into new (white) neighborhoods, extensive counseling (called “Mobility Counseling Programs”) will teach newcomers about housekeeping and property maintenance, good neighbor skills, financial management and budgeting.
Government sponsored re-location of poor black city residents into affluent white suburbs is hardly new and rests on a theory positing the malleability of human behavior: pathological behaviors are environmentally determined and so just improve environments and “bad” behavior will vanish. Specifically, moving underclass African Americans to pleasant white, affluent towns will see a notable reduction of crime, illegitimacy, drug and alcohol addiction, welfare dependency, domestic violence and other tribulations currently plaguing black inner-city neighborhoods. In addition, the transformation will succeed absent any prior psychological changes of new arrivals. In effect, an industrious law-abiding African American who autonomously flees to the suburbs to live a better life is identical to his Baltimore neighbor motivated solely by the promise of a more spacious, cheap apartment.


Baltimore, MD

It is also assumed that pathologies will be mitigated by inter-racial, inter-class contact. For example, lower class black youngsters will improve academically if they encounter more studious white classmates. And osmosis will flow only one way -- white youngster will not gravitate toward crime when socializing with black inner city refugees.
It is hard to think of a more incorrect theory of human behavior. Tellingly, when such enterprises are discussed in official reports, the stress overwhelmingly is on the benefits to the recipients and advice on how to overcome (white) public resistance. The unspeakable harsh truth is that these newly relocated inner-city residents will bring their pathologies with them and after a few years the areas surrounding the freshly built homes and Section 8 apartments will resemble dilapidated crime-ridden Baltimore.
If the transformative power of a better physical setting were correct, how do you explain massive white resistance to such enterprises? Are the millions of whites who over countless decades fled the influx of underclass blacks hallucinating or being fooled by racial demagogues? If such population movement worked as advertised, why must Washington impose it by court decrees, fines for non-compliance and other cram-down measures? How can advocates of this alleged panacea explain why busing thousands of academically troubled poor black students to top-flight “white” schools has failed? Is leafy small town America the magic cure for drug addiction and illegitimacy? Recall Ferguson, MO: put troubled black residents of St. Louis into a nice white suburb, and you create a new St. Louis slum.
Now for the near-smoking gun proofs that this enterprise smells of contempt for whites. First, all this draconian coercion is outside federal law regulating discrimination in housing. Legal penalties for housing discrimination have nothing to do with coerced integration and to obscure the non-legal gun-to-the-head power, the consent of whites is officially deemed “voluntary.” 

[. . .]
Second, prudence would suggest a modicum of cost/benefit analysis of this enterprise, and this scrutiny is totally absent [. . .] Only the supposed benefits for blacks inform calculations, [. . .] Nor is there any mention of how the new arrivals will find employment in suburban areas with limited public transportation.
Total silence surrounds the inevitable costs for whites: loss of home equity, increased school violence, more crime, and the shredded social cohesion associated with imposed racial diversity and, in the long run, the costs of moving elsewhere. Indeed, HUD is already anticipating white flight and is trying to impose rules that would forbid real estate agents from openly discussing the negative consequences forthcoming racial shift.
Of the utmost importance for this near smoking gun evidence, these benefits provided to blacks need not come at the expense of whites. The same millions could have been spent in the city of Baltimore building nice homes for blacks adjacent to their old residences and if suburban whites were guilty of racial discrimination, just fine them versus (non-legally) imposing unwanted integration. Moreover, inner-city construction could have utilized nearby unemployed African American Baltimore residents who would, as an extra dividend, gain some job training (the model is Habitat for Humanity). Everything would be win/win politics. But, this sensible win-win solution fails to harm whites and so it is politically off limits.

Beyond these immediate problems inflicted on whites will be, in all likelihood, the political costs of changing these once relatively racially homogeneous suburbs. Ferguson, MO is the future: more communal racial strife, yet more whites will flee, civil rights groups demanding more “inclusionary” policies, and, eventually, Department of Justice intervention to remedy alleged race-related injustices [. . .]
One can only wonder why officials cannot foresee this racial-train-wreck-in-the-making. This is punitive policy-making that can only reflect the presence of deeply rooted racial animosities. Helping poor African Americans find decent housing is just the polite cover story. At least some government officials in the Obama administration want to punish suburban whites and given that Uncle Sam will foot the bills, inflicting this damage is irresistible.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/obama_administration_sticking_it_to_whitey_.html

April 8, 2016
Obama Administration Sticking it to Whitey
By Robert Weissberg

Three Leading Democratic Party Deceivers

Three Musketeesr of Mendacity
Photo: Zuma Wire (left); David McGlynn (center); Getty Images
[From article]

The unholy trinity comprises the leaders of the Democratic Liars Club. Whether born or convicted, the president of the United States, his would-be successor and the mayor of New York are, to borrow a phrase, “people of the lie.”
This is not to accuse them of being merely imperfect humans. It is to say they are chronically dishonest and concoct such significant lies that they deserve zero public trust.
The latest clincher is the admission of a top White House aide that much about the Iranian nuclear deal was a fabrication sold to a lazy, gullible press corps. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes boasts that most reporters were too dumb to know or care they were being misled.
“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Rhodes told The New York Times. “They literally know nothing.”
He said that much of what passed for independent analysis of Iran in the media was a regurgitation of White House talking points. “We created an echo chamber,” he gloated. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Rhodes thus joins the infamous Jonathan Gruber, the administration insider caught conceding that ObamaCare was designed to exploit the “stupidity of the American voter.” If people understood the plain meaning, Gruber said, the law would not have survived.
The twin admissions mean Obama’s self-described legacy accomplishments — the Iran deal and the Affordable Care Act — are fraudulent to the core. Even worse, Obama himself led the charge for both scams, insisting that anyone who opposed the Iran deal wanted war, and that under ObamaCare, “you can keep your doctor.”
The implications are enormous and resolve any doubts that Obama is a con man in a league of his own. Instead of getting the Nobel Peace Prize, he is worthy of the Joseph Goebbels Award for proving Goebbels’ claim that “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Unfortunately, both the Iran deal and ObamaCare will outlast Obama’s term and do lasting damage to America, and in the case of Iran, the whole world. They make Watergate look like amateur hour.
[. . .]
It is a reflection of Washington’s hollowed-out morals, and Obama’s personal corruption, that Clinton has not been charged in the e-mail scandal. Her failure to protect national-security secrets make her unfit for any office, yet millions of Americans are ready to entrust her with their well-being and safety.
[. . .]
The latest report has the feds investigating his 2013 campaign, which comes on top of probes focused on possible financial shenanigans in 2014, 2015 and this year. In short, much of his career is suspected of being one long crime wave.
Like his pals in the Democratic Liars Club, de Blasio fights truth with imaginary victimization. “How convenient that when we’re doing a lot of work to help everyday people, there’s all sorts of efforts being made to obscure that work,” he said of the probes.
That disinformation echoes Obama’s nasty tendency to accuse dissenters of ignorance and corruption or, when that fails, racism. Clinton, of course, retreats behind charges of sexism and, when that fails, claims to spot a vast right-wing conspiracy.
[. . .]
I am not making a case that Trump is the second coming of Reagan, yet they share the distinction of stoking the enthusiasm of the party’s rank-and-file despite powerful internal resistance. Reagan was regarded by top Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater as a dangerous simpleton.
[. . .]
Worse things are said about Trump, and defectors include the 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, and some GOP senators. House Speaker Paul Ryan says he’s not ready to endorse Trump, and both former Presidents Bush may not support him.
The resistance seems genuine and can be respected on one condition: that the dissenters acknowledge they are playing with fire.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/07/meet-the-democratic-liars-club/

Meet the Democratic Liars Club
By Michael Goodwin
New York City
May 7, 2016 | 9:43pm

White House Economics Is Killing Americans

[From article]
The inability of people aged 40 and above to find a decent job to support their families has led to an epidemic of suicides.
But as Betsy McCaughey points out in this New York Post column, you'd never know it to hear President Obama and Hillary Clinton talk. President Obama insists that the "“American economy is pretty darn good right now.”
[. . .]
When the recession hit, suicide deaths suddenly started outnumbering deaths from auto accidents. But eight years later, job losses are still driving the suicide rate higher and higher.
Clinton seems unmoved. She’s pledging to close down the coal industry and block natural-gas fracking. More pain for coal country or for portions of upstate New York that are sitting on natural-gas treasure.
Self-inflicted deaths in the Syracuse area are up about 40 percent in the past five years, and rates in depressed western New York are double New York City’s rate. Upstate New Yorkers are literally dying for jobs.
[. . .]



Economic distress is so widespread that for the first time ever, life expectancy for white women in the United States actually dropped. Despite progress against cancer and heart disease, lives are being cut short by hopelessness.
It’s a national health emergency. Suicide kills more middle-agers than flu, pneumonia and diabetes combined — often after dashed expectations, abandonment by a spouse and loss of self-worth. Then a bullet to the head or a noose (for men), or a deliberate drug overdose (for women) ends the pain.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/the_obama_economy_is_killing_people.html

April 27, 2016
The Obama economy is killing people
By Rick Moran

White House Lawless Abuse Of Power

[From article]
Apparently, President Obama believes it is time to move beyond the constitutional constraint called separation of powers, an idea he considers outdated, obsolete and certainly not progressive.
A pillar of America’s political foundation is the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are coequal but different in authority. Separation was how the U.S. Founding Fathers prevented a return to governmental tyranny. Separation was supposed to prevent the concentration of power in one person or group.
Mr. Obama has a habit of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Though he said, “I am not a king,” as well as “I am not a dictator,” he acts as though he is both rolled into one. He sees no limit to his power and behaves as though Constitutional limits on the executive branch do not apply to him.
[. . .]



Religious Freedom (First Amendment)
The case of Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell (Secretary of Health and Human Services) is currently before the Supreme Court. The issue is simple. The Sisters want to follow their religious convictions. Obamacare forces the Sisters to go against these beliefs in the matter of contraceptives and abortifacients.
[. . .]
Gun control (Second Amendment)
Everyone knows the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Constitution does not specify certain people: it clearly meant all people. The president wants to deny guns to “a dangerous few,” and he knows which people are dangerous. So, he wants to infringe their right to bear arms.
[. . .]
For the first three and a half years in office, Mr. Obama enforced our immigration laws, deporting 1.4 million illegals, more than anyone during a similar timeframe. In order to woo the Latino vote, five months before the 2012 election, he issued an Executive Order halting the deportations. Note that Congress had made no change in immigration law.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/obama_uber_alles.html

April 28, 2016
Obama Uber Alles
By Deane Waldman

White House Continues Lawless Conduct Stalling Prosecution of Criminal Abuses

[From article]
Another attempt by the Obama administration to run out the clock on a scandal.
For more than three years, the Treasury Department has been looking into fraud committed by solar companies who received taxpayer loans from the Obama administration. But they have yet to release their findings, and Congress wants to know what the hell is going on.
Daily Caller:
Republicans senators sent a letter Monday to Treasury Inspectors General Eric Thorson and J. Russell George, asking the officials for updates regarding the agency’s investigation into solar companies that inflated the market value of their products to get more taxpayer cash.
“As you are aware, the Department recently indicated that applicants included ineligible costs or otherwise overstated the value of their solar energy investments by claiming approximately $1.3 billion in unwarranted cash grants,” Republican senators, led by Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, wrote in a letter to Treasury officials obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Treasury Department said it would publish its findings by June 2015, but that never happened. Republicans are once again hammering the agency for not releasing the results of a probe into whether taxpayers were fleeced for billions of dollars.
Republicans noted the amount of potential solar energy fraud was “more than two-and-a-half times the amount of the Solyndra default.”
Republicans wrote to the department in November asking for the status of their investigation into solar companies, and lawmakers are again asking for Treasury officials to handover the “final results of your investigations.”
[. . .]



The Obama administration has handed out $25 billion in grants made by the Treasury to solar companies since 2009 as part of the president’s effort to grow green energy markets and fight global warming.
These grants, called Section 1603 grants, were created as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package and paid for 30 percent of solar energy investments. The program expired in 2011 — the same year Solyndra declared bankruptcy after getting $535 million from taxpayers.
In November, Republicans specifically called out SolarCity, a company chaired by billionaire Elon Musk, for being investigated by Treasury and Justice Department officials over allegedly abusing solar subsidies. SolarCity is being investigated for “possible misrepresentations concerned the fair market value of the solar energy systems,” according to an October Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
That solar program appears to be little better than a slush fund for Democratic Party contributors. When there's $25 billion in basically free money floating around, the charlatans and crooks will have a field day. That appears to be what transpired here.
It's no mystery why Treasury is dragging its heel on the investigation. Solar power is part of the president's ever burgeoning "legacy," and to have a multi-billion-dollar scandal taint it just won't do. When government picks winners and losers, you will inevitably see those who have figured out how to game the system to cheat taxpayers while lining their pockets illegally.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/treasury_dept_sitting_on_solar_scandal_far_worse_than_solyndra.html

April 13, 2016
Treasury Dept. sitting on solar scandal far worse than Solyndra
By Rick Moran