This video, shot inside a Syrian mosque this month, shows the type of “democratic reform” movement being backed by Obama. You’ve got to watch it to believe it. The excitement starts about one minute into the video.
RINO NYC Mayor Bloomberg talks with Piers Morgan about why law enforcement should stop protecting citizens until legislatures enact stricter gun control measures. Watch the video below to hear this outrageous perspective as well as Bloomberg’s ridiculous comment about bullet proof vests.
Photo Credit: Center for American Progress
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Campaign for Human Development” paid a young Barack Obama’s airfaire to a training program on community organizing given by the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization founded by leftist radical Saul Alinsky, according a book to be released tomorrow on the subject.
No Higher Power, by conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and journalist George Neumayr, reports that “In the 1980s, the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago contributed to the training of Obama in the very Alinskyite radicalism that would culminate in such anti-religious measures as the HHS mandate,” according to an article on the book published by the Blaze.
“In fact, in the course of writing this book, we met a source who once had access to copies of documents from the archives of the Chicago archdiocese. This source supplied us with never-before-published copies of invoices, checks, and letters that confirm the Church’s support for the man who would one day seek to destroy its religious freedom,” they add.
The documents, which have been published on the Blaze’s website and are displayed below, purportedly show correspondence between Obama, writing as a member of the Calumet Community Religious Conference, and the US bishops’ Campaign for Human Development, which is today known as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)
The letter purported to be from Obama is for the purpose of submitting proof of his “requisition order for the ticket purchased for my trip to the IAF Training in Los Angeles, ” and is dated May 20, 1986. A copy of what appears to be the ticket or the requisition order for the ticket is included.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: BoingBoing
A detailed timeline being released this week by a leading anti-illegal immigration group documents what the organization describes as a pattern by the Obama administration of looking the other way on immigration enforcement.
While the charges are not necessarily new, the detailed list of grievances regarding the administration’s immigration policy could provide fodder for those trying to paint President Obama as weak on enforcement in advance of the November election.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which provided an advance copy of the election-year study to FoxNews.com, catalogued dozens of statements and policy decisions since 2009. The group claims the “unilateral actions” all bend toward the same goal — “to render enforcement of U.S. immigration laws ineffective.”
The study follows on the heels of the administration’s decision in June to, through the Department of Homeland Security, allow thousands of illegal immigrants who came here as children to stay and seek work permits.
FAIR describes that announcement as the culmination of a string of other decisions designed to weaken enforcement, including: filing suit against states, like Arizona, that passed their own anti-illegal immigration laws; announcing changes via memo in the way the government decides whom to deport, and most recently moving to close down nine Border Patrol stations.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: surrelmar
If you haven’t heard, there are a number of miraculous stories emerging from the slaughter in Aurora, Colorado. One involves a beautiful young lady named Petra Anderson who was shot four times. Three shots hit her in the arm and a a single bullet hit her in the head. She didn’t die due to small birth defect that no one knew about. Here is the fascinating story, as told by her pastor:
It seems as if the bullet traveled through Petra’s brain without hitting any significant brain areas. The doctor explains that Petra’s brain has had from birth a small “defect” in it. It is a tiny channel of fluid running through her skull, like a tiny vein through marble, or a small hole in an oak board, winding from front to rear. Only a CAT scan would catch it, and Petra would have never noticed it.
But in Petra’s case, the shotgun buck shot, maybe even the size used for deer hunting, enters her brain from the exact point of this defect. Like a marble through a small tube, the defect channels the bullet from Petra’s nose through her brain. It turns slightly several times, and comes to rest at the rear of her brain. And in the process, the bullet misses all the vital areas of the brain. In many ways, it almost misses the brain itself. Like a giant BB though a straw created in Petra’s brain before she was born, it follows the route of the defect. It is channeled in the least harmful way. A millimeter in any direction and the channel is missed. The brain is destroyed. Evil wins a round.
As he shares, the doctor seems taken aback. It is an odd thing to have a surgeon show a bit of wonder. Professionally, these guys own the universe, it seems, and take everything in stride. He is obviously gifted as a surgeon, and is kind in his manner. “It couldn’t have gone better. If it were my daughter,” he says quietly, glancing around to see if any of his colleagues might be watching him, “I’d be ecstatic. I’d be dancing a jig.” He smiles. I can’t keep my smile back, or the tears of joy. In Christianity we call it prevenient grace: God working ahead of time for a particular event in the future. It’s just like the God I follow to plan the route of a bullet through a brain long before Batman ever rises. Twenty-two years before.
While we’re talking, Petra awakes. She opens her eyes, and sits up, “Mom.” Movie-star doctor spins to grab her, to protect her from falling. The nurse assures him she’s been doing this for a while. He talks to her, and she talks back. He asks questions, and Petra has the right answers. “Where do you hurt, Petra?” “All over.” Amazed, but professional, he smiles and leaves the set shaking his head. I am so thankful for this man.
Petra is groggy and beat up, but she is herself. Honestly, I look worse before my morning coffee. “I’m thirsty,” she proclaims.
“You want an ice cube, honey?” Kim replies.
“Please.” Wow. She lays down, back to sleep, a living miracle who doesn’t even know it yet. Good flowering out of the refuse pile of a truly dark night. “Thank you, Jesus,” I whisper.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: Brad Strait
Last week, LifeNews reported on a Democratic Party ad that essentially made fun of a patient with multiple sclerosis, the wife of presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The Democratic National Committee unveiled a video featuring footage of Ann Romney’s dancing show horse as a way of mocking Mitt Romney for “dancing” around the issue of his taxes and whether he would make public additional tax returns that the IRS has certified are legitimate. The video was meant to be the first in a series of videos on the topic and the first featured the horse, owned jointly by Ann and Mitt Romney.
However, Ann Romney owns the horse in part because she relies on the animal, and other show horses she trains, to help her with therapy for her multiple sclerosis, a debilitating disease. Ann Romney, in an interview with Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America,” took offense to the ad.
That eventually led DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told ABC News to issue an apology of sorts.
“Our use of the Romneys’ dressage horse was not meant to offend Mrs. Romney in any way, and we regret it if it did,” he said. “We have no plans to invoke the horse any further to avoid misinterpretation.”
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: andreavallejos
A federal appeals court has upheld a provision of a South Dakota law requiring the states lone abortion business, operated by Planned Parenthood, that it has to inform women of the validity of the link between abortion and suicide. With women facing a host of mental health issues following an abortion, Planned Parenthood can no longer keep women in the dark about them.
An en banc panel of the court declared that South Dakota’s statute that requires abortion doctors to disclose to pregnant mothers that an abortion places the mother at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide constitutional because the disclosure is truthful, non-misleading, and relevant to the pregnant mother’s decision of whether or not to consent to an abortion.
Harold J. Cassidy, a pro-life attorney who represented Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center of Sioux Falls, and Stacy Wollman, president of Care Net of Rapid City — two pregnancy centers that provide abortion alternatives — sent LifeNews details about the decision.
He called the decision “a fabulous victory for the women of the State of South Dakota.”
“The Court ruled that the women will now be given additional important information before they consent to an abortion: that the abortion places a woman at increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide,” he said. “This victory represents the fourth separate decision of the Eighth Circuit reversing the District Court in this one case, two decisions issued by en banc Courts four years apart – a rare occurrence that underscores the importance of the issues presented by the case.”
Read more from this story HERE, detailing the requirements of the upheld South Dakota law including informing mothers:
(1) that “an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;”
(2) that the mother’s “relationship with that second human being enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States and the Laws of South Dakota;”
(3) that relationship and all rights attached to it will be terminated; and
(4) the abortion places the mother “at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide.”
Photo credit: BrianSwant
In the first Harry Potter adventure, a pithy statement is attributed to the villain, Lord Voldemort. He described his own worldview thusly: “There is no good and evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it.”
Now, that serves as a fairly reasonable motto for the political Left in our day. It is the functional ethic of all liberalism. Oh, to be sure, they’ll prattle on like tonsured prelates about what everyone else should do to live in a manner that is good and right. Also, they’ll preach for days in breathless indignation over the evils they see in their opponents.
But behind the curtain, good and evil are nothing more than useful labels to them. They can’t be more than that, and the reason is that liberalism is the politicized denial of God and His laws. Deny that God’s commandments are, in fact, binding on people, and you’ve effectively done away with the concepts of good and evil.
By asserting that point, I am only repeating what the foremost atheistic philosophers have always acknowledged and taught. In atheism, there is no reason for maintaining categories like good and evil, since there is no transcendent law-giver or judge.
I bring all this up because it is this quote from Voldemort that has bounced around in my head since ABC news famously jumped the gun last weekend in announcing that the Aurora/Batman shooter may have had Tea Party ties.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo credit: kevin dooley
There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.
The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.
What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”
It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!
Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m exaggerating:
Read more from this story HERE.
“Which Side Are You On?/They say in Harlan County/There are no neutrals there./You’ll either be a union man/Or a thug for J. H. Blair.” –Florence Reece, “Which Side are You On?” 1931
The interesting news was not that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pelted with stuff while visiting Cair, the important issue was who was doing the pelting. Once upon a time, anti-American radicals threw things at U.S. leaders. But now….
Reportedly, the hurlers of objects were people from the Free Egyptians Party and other Egyptian liberals. At the same time, leading Christians, including Naguib Sawiris who is the man behind that party and perhaps the most outspoken anti-Islamist figure in Egypt today, refused to meet with Hillary. (For Sawiris’ critique of Obama, see here.)
Why? Because these people see the Obama Administration as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. That might sound far-fetched to the mainstream media (though not to you, dear readers) but it is taken for granted in much of the Middle East. Oh and they also remember that the Obama Administration cut the financial support to liberal groups granted by its predecessor.
In the articles of liberal Arabs; the statements of Persian Gulf Arab establishment figures; the conversations of Syrian, Turkish, Iranian, and Lebanese oppositionists, the idea that the U.S. government is now helping the Islamists is taken for granted.
Let me repeat that: It is taken for granted.
So it is the liberals, the democrats, the moderates who now view America as their enemy. Yet supposedly the U.S. policy is promoting moderation and democracy, right?
These critics have a strong case. Obama’s Cairo speech was precisely about encouraging Middle Easterners to redefine their identity from a national one—principally Arab—to an Islamic one. Obama invited the Brotherhood to sit in the front row. And when the upsurge in Egypt began and the State Department wanted to support continuity along with reform, the Obama Administration demanded the end of the regime.
Next, without anyone asking him, Obama said the United States wouldn’t mind if the Brotherhood became the government of Egypt. And more recently, of course, he has supported the Brotherhood against the army, demanding that the military turn over power right away, or else.
And in Syria, the Obama Administration backed a Brotherhood-dominated leadership in the Syrian National Council. Islamist Turkey was the ideal country from the White House standpoint, with Obama lavishing praise and almost never criticizing it for becoming pro-Hizballah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, pro-Islamist in Syria, and fanatically anti-Israel. And in Bahrain, the Obama Administration was ready to back a revolution putting (Shia) Islamists in power until the State Department stopped it.
“I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt,” says Clinton, “of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which, of course, we cannot.”
Wrong! While of course Islamists won elections in Egypt and Tunisia (but maybe lost in Libya), the Obama Administration has been working to pick the winners and losers. The winners: revolutionary, antisemitic Islamists; the losers: old regimes and liberal oppositionists.
Is it really the West’s duty to help push a radical Islamist government into power in Egypt as fast as possible? True, the Brotherhood won the parliamentary election but the election was invalidated. By who? Ah, one might expect a leading American newspaper to know that fact. Here’s the Los Angeles Times editorial on the subject:
“To some extent, the military’s power — along with economic realities — may have inclined [Egyptian President Muhammad al-] Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to a more pluralist and moderate course. But if the generals overplay their hand, they will lose popular support and antagonize Egypt’s allies, including the United States, which provides the military with $1.3 billion a year in assistance. Both Congress and the Obama administration have put the generals on notice that those funds are in jeopardy if the transition to democracy is thwarted. An attempt to shut down a reconvened parliament would be interpreted inside and outside Egypt as just such an obstruction.”
Let’s list the points made here:
–The Muslim Brotherhood has become more pluralist and moderate. Why? Because of the military’s power and economic realities. How is this logical? You mean that the military’s pressure on the Brotherhood has made it more moderate? So by that argument if the military ceased its pressure and turned over government to the Brotherhood then the Brotherhood would be more radical. Yet that is precisely what the Los Angeles Times and much of the media and the Obama Administration is advocating!
How has the economic situation made the Brotherhood more moderate? Presumably because it needs to be so in order to keep Western aid and investment flowing. But both of these factors will be insufficient to help Egypt avoid a crack-up. Then comes the time for demagoguery. Moreover, the bottom line here is to claim that the Brotherhood can be bought off. Like Iran’s regime, Syria’s regime, Saddam Hussein, and others were bought off?
–If the generals try to limit or keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power they will become less popular. Well, maybe that is so. But popularity isn’t the most important thing in the region. That’s an American obsession, not one from Arab politics.
–The United States doesn’t like the military’s policy and will punish the army (cutting off aid?) if it doesn’t surrender. That’s a terrible policy. Talk about empowering your enemies and bashing your friends! Why should the United States be the new patron of the most dangerously anti-American group in the world? I know. Because the Obama Administration believes that will make the Brotherhood more moderate. Yet even the Obama Administration has seen that this tactic didn’t work with Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hizballah. Why should it work this time?
Then there are two extremely important points the editorial doesn’t tell you, and you won’t see in many places:
First, let’s remember that the parliamentary election was not invalidated by the army but by the Egyptian courts. Judges have been among the most courageous dissidents in Egypt. Many of them spoke out against the Mubarak regime and they are not the clients of the army but an independent force in their own right. So if you want to exalt the rule of law, you should support the military in trying to enforce a legally binding decision by two Egyptian courts.
Second, the left and liberal forces are largely boycotting the attempt to revive the parliament illegally because they fear the Muslim Brotherhood’s monopoly on power. Have you noticed that moderate support for anti-army demonstrations has dwindled away now? It is the Brotherhood that is going up against the armed forces, though leaving the door open for a deal.
PS: The head of Israel’s military intelligence has said that Israel’s army has stopped a dozen attempted cross-border attacks in Sinai. This is of extraordinary significance since it shows a full-scale offensive is underway and not just the two attacks previously implemented.
PPS: So ridiculous is the coverage in the mainstream media that we are now told by the New York Times and by the Atlantic that Arab liberals jeered Clinton because American conservatives told them to do so! Apparently, the Egyptian reformers are too stupid to figure out for themselves that Obama is their good buddy.
*************************************
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Here are the links to the website of the GLORIA Center and to his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Photo credit, less legend: Richard Loyal French