How Long is Alec Baldwin Going to be Given a Pass For His Homophobic Rants?

Photo Credit: Irish Central

Photo Credit: Irish Central

Has Alec Baldwin finally skewered the wrong herd of sacred cows?

Alec Baldwin had another one of his legendary foul mouthed meltdowns the other day, complete with his usual “four letter word” demeaning of individuals, including threats of physical violence.

Although this emotional outburst wasn’t directed at a child this time, it was directed at another familiar target, a working class “little person” trying to make a living.

The “Tourette Syndrome like” actor’s venom was directed at a gay journalist who had the temerity to report Baldwins wife used twitter while attending James (Tony Soprano) Gandolfini’s funeral in New York. That report has since been found to be incorrect due to different interpretation of time zones.

See obscenity/homophobic laced Baldwin tantrum here on E News.

Although Baldwin has repeatedly insulted America with his language throughout his career….He seems to have a “get out of jail free” card that lets him slip away unscathed.

The reason for the gentle treatment of Baldwin is that he is a member of the Hollywood left wing elite, “Limousine Liberal Division,” who never have to answer for their conspicuous consumption or outrageous behavior.

But perhaps this time Baldwin went a bridge too far revealing in a Rorschach test like manner, what his true inner feelings were with his gay slurs and crude homophobic remarks.

In this day of intolerance under cover of being tolerant, will the left finally have to admit the Alec Baldwin elephant in their “tolerant” living room is a bigot and must be dealt with severely?

If past performance is any predictor of the future, Alec Baldwin will skate because he is a lefty

But in a flagrant show of the brutal double standard that is the lefts guiding star, another celebrity is now being publicly crucified for one word she said over 30 years ago.

Paula Deen, a celebrity cook and television personality while under oath during legal questioning, was asked by an attorney if she ever used the racial slur “N” word in her life?

Deen replied yes she did, she uttered it almost almost 30 years ago. See Paula Deen story here.

Since Paula Deen is not politically correct and not a member of the Hollywood “Limousine Liberal” class, a firestorm of outrage erupted in all corners of the media.

A firestorm over one word she uttered 30 years ago has cost her major financial sponsors and her very popular television show….It looks as if her 20 million dollar food empire is threatening to collapse, due to an orchestrated outrage directed at her by a left tilting media machine.

Does anybody grasp the utter hypocrisy of all of this? Or is it just me and 100 million or so other aware Americans?

_____________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

The Wrong Fix for the Wrong Problem: The Amnesty Bill Will Only Make Things Worse For the Middle Class—and the GOP.

Photo Credit: FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM / MCT / LANDOV

Photo Credit: FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM / MCT / LANDOV

By Jay Cost. In the wake of the 2012 election, Republicans have been treated to seemingly endless prophecies of doom. Many have come from liberal Democrats, who would happily see the demise of the GOP. But more than a few Republicans have also made the case that the party must either change or disappear, and they focus especially on immigration. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham argued recently that unless the GOP does something on immigration, it will face a “demographic death spiral” as the growing Hispanic population turns on Republicans.

Fortunately, claims like this are overblown. As Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics has noted, the Republican party’s defeat in 2012 had more to do with shifts in turnout, especially among whites and blacks, than it did with the party’s weak appeal among Hispanics. These shifts pose problems the GOP must address, but immigration reform won’t do it. A recent Pew poll found that whites and blacks tend to be the groups most suspicious of the immigration reforms put forward in recent weeks. As for the long-term future of the party, the losses the GOP has suffered to date among Hispanics have been more than offset by its gains among white voters, who have been trending the party’s way since 1968.

This doesn’t mean the Republican party should ignore Hispanic voters. It shouldn’t ignore any voters, and besides, Hispanics determine the outcome in several Mountain West states and are very important in Florida. But Graham wants Republicans specifically to adopt the Gang of Eight immigration bill that he, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, and others put forward and which just passed the Senate. They think it’s a cure for what ails Republicans.

Many Republican senators have apparently bought this notion. The bill passed with the support of about a third of the Senate GOP caucus. Nevertheless, the proposition is just not true. The Gang of Eight bill would be a step backward in the party’s quest for political rehabilitation.

To see this, it is necessary to ask: What, after all, is the voters’ problem with the GOP? Their demographic characteristics like religion, skin color, and ethnic background don’t reveal the underlying attitudes that drive their discomfort with the party. Beneath these factors, we find a skepticism of the Republican party that unites many different types of voters, including many who supported the GOP as recently as 2004. Read more from this story HERE.

___________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Congressman: Senate immigration bill unconstitutional

By Stephen Dinan. Rep. Steve Stockman, a Texas Republican, said Friday that the Senate immigration bill is a revenue measure, which makes it unconstitutional because all revenue bills must start in the House.

“Not only is the Senate amnesty bill an abuse of taxpayers and immigrants, it’s utterly unconstitutional,” Mr. Stockman said. “The Senate cannot invent its own amnesty taxes.”

He called on House Speaker John A. Boehner to officially reject the Senate bill as unconstitutional using what’s known in Congress as the “blue slip” process, which is when the House informs the Senate that one of its bills contains taxes or spending and therefore must come from the House. Read more from this story HERE.

___________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Border Patrol agents have ‘serious concerns’ about Senate immigration bill

By Stephen Dinan. The National Border Patrol Council, the union for the agents charged with guarding the U.S.-Mexico border, says it has “serious concerns” about the way the new Senate bill handles security in the southwest — adding a major new critical voice to the immigration debate.

NBPC had held its fire in recent weeks as it worked behind the scenes to try to get the bill amended, but the agents are now speaking out and saying they aren’t sure the Border Patrol can even handle the surge of 20,000 additional agents that was the crux of the deal that helped win over wavering Republicans.

“We chose to work behind the scenes, and it doesn’t seem that the problems were corrected,” Shawn Moran, an at-large vice president for the NBPC, told The Washington Times on Thursday, after the Senate vote. “It seems that political goals took precedence over actual reforms. Unless we’re going to form a human chain from Brownsville to Imperial Beach, I’m not sure this is going to be the cure that everybody thinks it will be at the border.”

With the NBPC expressing concerns, it means that all three unions for the employees at the immigration services — Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — have said the Senate bill doesn’t measure up.

Senators passed their bill Thursday afternoon on a 68-32 vote, with 14 Republicans joining all of the chamber’s Democrats in support. Read more from this story HERE.

Yes, You Will Be Made to Care

Photo Credit: au.ibtimes

Photo Credit: au.ibtimes

You will be made to care about gay marriage. You may think it does not affect you or will not affect you or you can support it and leave well enough alone, but you cannot. The secular left and aggressive gay rights activists will not allow you to.

You must either fully embrace it or be shunned. You may think it does not affect your marriage, your life, or anything else, but you will be made to care — you will not be allowed to accept that others can disagree on the issue due to their orthodox faith. The slow march toward the destruction of the marital institution now picks up pace with Anthony Kennedy’s decision in Windsor. What is, at its heart, a tax case, became a vehicle for Kennedy to declare malicious intent on the preservation of marriage.

That’s clear from the decision. In the 90′s, the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted to preserve and recognize the traditional marital structure that the United States had had since its founding. But Anthony Kennedy declared that the purpose was ill will toward gays — ignoring that activists were seeking to upend the order of things as they had been.

This decision will be used to advance on the states. A muddled equal protection message will be used to force accommodations some are not willing to make and some cannot make because of their religion.

Luckily, we have been given time to erect firewalls. The Court’s decision leaves in place the portion of DOMA that allows states to refuse recognition to gay marriages performed in other states. That will fall in the next few years. Once that happens, there will be an even messier culture war designed to treat traditionalism as a noxious notion of a bygone era — the equivalent of Jim Crow.

Read more from this story HERE.

Passage of the Amnesty Bill Will Spell the End of Our Republic

amnestyOn Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a cloture motion (which ends debate) on the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the Gang of Eight’s horrifying illegal alien amnesty bill – mislabeled “immigration reform.”

The true purpose of this amnesty proposal is to capture future votes for the Democratic Party. Those who do not acknowledge that blatantly obvious fact either suffer from some debilitating mental illness or are working for the other side.

On rare occasions, even the Left admit the objective. Eliseo Medina, the honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and International Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in 2008:

…If we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have …even two out of three, if we get 8 million new voters… we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

The “governing coalition for the long term” refers of course to the “permanent progressive majority” Democrats have fantasized about for decades.

The number of illegals in this country is repeatedly cited as 11 million. This is almost certainly an underestimate. In reality the number is 20 to 30 million or more, according to a 2007 study in Social Contract. Bear Stearns estimated about 20 million in 2005. When amnesty passed in 1986, official estimates were 1.2 million illegals. There were actually 2.7 million – more than double. Within ten years, INS estimated the illegal population had grown to 10 million. It is delusional to believe the number has only increased by another 1 million in the 17 years since. Furthermore, when amnesty passes, the newly-legal aliens will invite their relatives to come, further inflating that number through chain migration.

Herein lies the real reason Democrats are slavering for this amnesty bill to pass and are tickling themselves pink that there are Republicans stupid and gullible, (or corrupt) enough to help them realize their dream. And make no mistake, an increase of 30 million in the Democrat Party voter base will guarantee Democrat majorities in the U.S. House, Senate and Presidency for the foreseeable future.

Despite the impossibly bizarre belief by some Republicans that amnesty will make illegals “like us,” a high level Congressional source recently acknowledged to me that passage of this bill will spell the end of our Republic and that we literally have only weeks to stop it. Despite House Speaker John Boehner’s somewhat ambiguous assurances, this bill is likely to get a vote in the House.
The original Gang-of-Eight bill was really bad, as became readily apparent quite quickly. The overtly fraudulent Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment was offered as a fig leaf to reassure fools that the original bill — which already promised in-and-of-itself to enhance border security – would actually enhance border security. But in reality it makes things worse. The amendment:

Legitimizes illegal immigration: Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness… They cannot do that legally under current law!

Has no requirement to deploy technologies: The Corker amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security full discretion as to how technology would be deployed, or whether it would be deployed at all.

Copperhead Movie a Unique Take on the Civil War

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Wednesday, June 25, 2013 – Orthodox mythology of the Civil War holds that the Northern states rallied in unity behind the messianic President Lincoln on a noble mission to liberate the slaves and preserve the Union. Its terrible cost in American lives – unmatched by any other conflict before or since – is taken as a measure of that nobility, and anyone who challenges that view can only be an idiot, or worse, a closet racist. The truth, as usual, is a little more complicated.

Copperhead, a movie set to open this coming Friday, June 28, grapples with one of these complicated truths: Northern opposition to the war. This is a truly unique Civil War movie. There are no battle scenes; no exploration of different campaigns and the military logic that informed them. Rather, this movie explores the politically uncomfortable realities – the divergence of interests and opinions, of rhetoric versus reality, and the social upheavals – that accompany major conflict. It may not change your view on the Civil War, but certainly challenges orthodox thinking, and deepens our understanding of an aspect that is rarely mentioned.

Copperheads were the derogatory name given by Republicans to “Peace Democrats,” a wing of the Democratic Party that opposed the Civil War. While Republicans were referring to the poisonous snake of that name, Copperheads responded by defiantly wearing lady liberty lapel buttons cut from copperhead pennies. They wielded a fair amount of influence, especially in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, but their protest was felt throughout the North. Most Copperheads believed the war was unconstitutional and destructive, and that Lincoln was abusing his power. Some low-income laborers, for example in the coal fields of Pennsylvania, also saw liberation of the slaves as a threat to their jobs. Prominent leaders included Ohio Representative Clement Vallandigham.

The Copperheads’ polar opposites were the “Radical Republicans,” represented by such figures as Ohio Senator Benjamin Wade, Horace Greeley, Frederick Douglass, Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, who believed that Lincoln was not working hard or fast enough to emancipate the slaves. Their sentiments at the time were perhaps best captured by General Order Number 38, written by Union General Ambrose Burnside, making it illegal to criticize the war effort. The Order was used as pretext to arrest Clement Vallandigham for treason. Embarrassed by this excess, Lincoln commuted the sentence, but banished Vallandigham to the Confederacy.

The movie centers on two upstate New York families and the town’s reactions to their unyielding positions as the war’s effects hit home. The Copperheads are represented by patriarch Abner Beech (Billy Campbell), his wife M’rye (Genevieve Steele) son, Jeff (Casey Brown), and the orphan they have taken in, Jimmy (Josh Cruddash). The Beech’s run a dairy farm.

The Radical Republicans are represented by the family of Jee Hagadorn (Angus Macfayden of Braveheart fame), his daughter Esther (Lucy Boynton), and son Ni (Augustus Prew). Jee runs a saw mill and manufactures wooden barrels. Avery, an elderly Republican who attempts to keep peace among the various town factions, is played ably by Peter Fonda. One criticism of the film is that it is slow in developing the characters, thus it takes a while to figure out how each one fits into the story.

The period covered in the film, 1862, saw Democrat Horatio Seymour elected governor of New York State, along with a number of other Democrats. A Democrat was elected governor of New Jersey and Copperheads also won majorities in the Illinois and Indiana legislatures that year. Abner Beech provokes the town following the election by holding a celebratory bonfire, which the town’s Republicans see as an open act of defiance.

The antagonists opposing sentiments are well captured when Abner comments aloud to his family on a local newspaper story following the election: “Benjamin Wade, a Republican of Ohio, says anyone who quotes the Constitution in the current crisis is a traitor. A traitor! Can you imagine? But listen how a Democrat paper in Ohio gave it right back to him: ‘Such an abolitionist should be hung until the flesh rots off his bones and the winds of Heaven whistle Yankee Doodle through his loathsome skeleton.’”

Echoing Romeo and Juliet, Jeff Beech becomes enamored of Esther Hagadorn. Esther only courts him, however, after he agrees to use his middle name, “Tom.” She finds “Jeff” unacceptable, because it reminds her of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, even though he explains that he was named after Thomas Jefferson. He agrees anyway and becomes “Tom” to her family and his friends. Abner’s response to the influence Esther and her father is having on his son’s political views is classic Dad: “The way to a woman’s heart, boy, ain’t by rejecting one’s own kin and parroting the asinine opinions of her father.” Nonetheless, Jeff defies his father, joins the Union Army and goes off to war.

Jee Hagadorn, meanwhile, seeks to dissuade Esther from her interest in Tom with a torrid quote from Mark: “Brother will betray brother unto death, and the father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death…” He adds “I am a blind pilgrim on this earth, but even I can see when a boy sparks a girl.” To which Esther responds “Dear father, sparks don’t always lead to a fire.” He then flatly states, “If you marry him, well, he will kill me.”

Jee Hagadorn’s son, Ni – short for “Benaiah” one of David’s Old Testament generals – tolerates his father’s rigid dogmatism with sarcasm and defiance. Ni relates to Jimmy how every day his father lambasts him for not living up to his name. “I should’ve named you Pete, or Steve, or William Henry!” Jee wails. “I get this every day,” Ni tells Jimmy, but adds, “I said ‘Now listen here, patriarchs in glass houses mustn’t heave stones. You’re named after Jehoaddan, that’s in the Bible. He made a covenant with God. I ain’t never seen you make no covenant. All you do is make barrels.’” Jimmy asks “What did he say?” Ni smiles, “I left before he could say anything.”

The movie’s plot thickens as news of town casualties come back from the front, and the Radical Republicans, led by Jee Hagadorn, become increasingly hostile to Beech and the other Copperheads. Beech finds almost no buyers for his dairy products, and is scorned by the local preacher at the Sunday service. It is easy to imagine such drama playing out in a small town, where residents interact on a daily basis. I won’t spoil the dramatic ending for you.

The film has an unmistakable air of authenticity. It was shot entirely on location at Nova Scotia’s King’s Landing, a “living museum” reconstructed to mimic a 19th century North American town. The book on which the film was based, Copperheads, was written in 1893 by Harold Frederic, an author who lived through the period in question. His novel therefore captured the mannerisms and speech of the day.

Copperhead was directed by Ron Maxwell, who also directed two other well-known Civil War classics, Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. The screenplay was written by Bill Kaufman, a novelist whose contrarian political leanings appear well-fitted for this contrarian plot. Kauffman has been described as a pacifist, an anarchist, an anti-war conservative, even paleoconservative; he is most decidedly anti-war and this is a prevailing theme in Copperhead.

This is perhaps best captured in an exchange between Jimmy and Abner. Jimmy asks, “Mr. Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal. Those slaves are men, aren’t they?”

Abner responds, “They are, they surely are. But their cure is worse than the disease. War ain’t a cure for this. Slavery ain’t right… but killing people, destroying whole cities and towns and turning the government in Washington into God’s almighty army isn’t right either. Why make things worse… only make for a lot of dead boys.”

One is tempted to draw a comparison between Copperheadism and the anti-war sentiments of sixties radicals. The Copperheads were boisterous activists and a few did have sympathies for the Southern cause. However similarities cease there. Copperheads really were opposed to the war, both because they saw the death and destruction as unnecessary, and because they believed it to be unconstitutional. Most also remained loyal to the Union.

Leftist leaders of the anti-war movement, on the other hand, aren’t really anti-war, but anti-US. This is best exemplified by Obama’s friend Bill Ayers, who wrote in his manifesto Prairie Fire, “We are communist women and men… Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside… Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory.” Peace Democrats, for sure.

Conservatives will appreciate the other major theme of the movie, the U.S. Constitution. Many Copperheads firmly believed the war was unconstitutional and that Lincoln was abusing his power. What is left completely out of the movie, however, is the fact that some were also racist, and opposed the war on that basis. So while one can appreciate their devotion to the Constitution, and enjoy the movie because of it, their image remains tarnished by that reality.

Kauffman deliberately remained faithful to the book’s rich dialog. As Maxwell explained, “That line where an ear of burnt corn is described as ‘tougher than Pharaoh’s heart’ is so good you’d be crazy to cut it. The book was filled with them, illuminating a time and a place and a mind-set that’s been positively informed by the memorizing of scripture.”

This loyalty to the day’s dialog is refreshing in its honesty and wholesomeness. There is only one curse word to be found, and that uttered by the town bad boy, from which such might be expected – but even that seems out of place. I kept contrasting this in my mind with the idiotic Hansel and Gretel, Witch Hunters, which I had to sit through recently. The film pretended to be set in some fantasy medieval period, but was so rife with “F” and “S” bombs you couldn’t even enjoy the sophomoric humor, much less believe the setting. As Hollywood would doubtless be surprised to learn, Copperheads is enriched by both its authenticity and the absence of such base gimmicks. This historical honesty also evidences the nation’s then devout Christianity, another welcome departure from typical Hollywood fare.

As Paul Buhle & Dave Wagner write in a Swan’s Commentary review: “This is a movie with a script that is for a change equal to the complicated politics of the dangerous moment it explores, when the outcome of the Civil War was far from certain.”

This is a movie well worth seeing; both for its accurate depiction of the times, its rich narrative, and the unique, rarely discussed subject matter, which was in fact a major component of the days’ controversies. It is also completely family friendly – a rarity in Hollywood these days.

HERE is a theater listing.

HERE is the trailer.

_______________________________________________________________________

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and former economist and budget examiner for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Simpson’s work is published at AIM.org, American Thinker, Breitbart, Capital Research Center, Washington Times, WorldNet Daily and elsewhere. He is also featured in Curtis Bowers’ award winning documentary Agenda: Grinding America Down.

From Benghazi to Nuclear Terrorism

iran_nukeFormer Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey just published an article in the Wall Street Journal documenting how the U.S. has become so vulnerable to international terrorism that even the ridiculous government of North Korea could now detonate a small nuclear weapon above the American homeland.

“North Korea needs only one ICBM capable of delivering a single nuclear warhead in order to pose an existential threat to the U.S.,” wrote Woolsey, along with co-author Peter Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. “The Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission and several other U.S. government studies have established that detonating a nuclear weapon high above any part of the U.S. mainland would generate a catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.”

This one explosion – something North Korea is actually capable of causing – would constitute an EMP attack that would, in the words of our former CIA chief, “collapse the electric grid and other infrastructure that depends on it – communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water – necessary to sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans.”

Another well-informed analysis, just published in the Weekly Standard, confirms that by mid-2014, the fanatically anti-American terrorist government of Iran will likely be able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade plutonium too rapidly for the U.S. to stop it militarily. When an insane and metastatic regime – one obsessed with destruction of (first) the “Little Satan,” Israel, and (later) the “Great Satan,” America – has a nuclear arsenal, we will be living in a very different and dark world indeed.

Read more from this story HERE.

Palin: Holes in the Border as Big as the Holes in Their Amnesty Bill

Photo Credit: Breitbart

Photo Credit: Breitbart

Just like they did with Obamacare, some in Congress intend to “Pelosi” the amnesty bill. They’ll pass it in order to find out what’s in it. And just like the unpopular, unaffordable Obamacare disaster, this pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interests-ridden, 24-lb disaster of a bill is not supported by informed Americans.

I am an ardent supporter of legal immigration. I’m proud that our country is so desirable that it has been a melting pot making a diverse people united as the most exceptional nation on earth for over two centuries. But I join every American with an ounce of common sense insisting that any discussion about immigration must center on a secure border. The amnesty bill before the Senate is completely toothless on border security.

It’s beyond disingenuous for anyone to claim that a vote for this bill is a vote for security. Look no further than the fact that Senator Rubio and amnesty supporters nixed Senator Thune’s amendment that required the feds to finally build part of a needed security fence before moving forward on the status of illegal immigrants who’ve already broken the law to be here. And if shooting down the border fence wasn’t proof enough, they blew another chance by killing Senator Paul’s “Trust But Verify” amendment which required the completion of a fence in five years and required Congress to vote on whether the border is actually secure before furthering any immigration measures. And then they blew it yet again, nixing Senator Cornyn’s “Results” amendment, which also required border enforcement standards. Now the Senate’s pro-amnesty crowd is offering a fig leaf to security via the Corker-Hoeven Amendment, but this is really nothing more than empty promises. It’s amnesty right now and border security… eh, well, someday.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Obama Age of Proliferation: While the President Dreams, Nuclear Weapons Spread

Photo Credit: AFP

Photo Credit: AFP

‘We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation,” President Obama declared on Wednesday, “but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.” He’s right about the last point, because even as the President offers new dreams of U.S. nuclear disarmament, the world is entering a new proliferation age.

Mr. Obama returned this week to Berlin to give his long-promised speech laying out his plans to rid the world of nuclear weapons. His idea is to remove those weapons initially and primarily from American hands. North Korea and Iran each got a single line in his speech, which is at least more than he gave to China, which is investing heavily in the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. Nukes in the hands of terrorists? Mr. Obama said he’ll hold a summit on that one in 2016.

Give Mr. Obama points for consistency. Since his college days at Columbia in the 1980s, he has argued for American disarmament and arms-control treaties. When he last issued a call for a nuclear-free world on European soil four years ago in Prague, the Norwegian Nobel Committee rewarded him with a peace prize.

This week he announced that the U.S. could “maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent” with a third fewer strategic nuclear weapons, or about 1,000 in all. He also called for “bold” cuts in tactical nukes in Europe without offering specifics, which suggests that was mostly for show.

He said he’ll work on reducing U.S. stockpiles through “negotiated cuts” with Russia. Whenever this Administration negotiates with Russia, beware. But there’s another danger. President Obama left the door open to unilateral U.S. reductions, possibly without Congressional approval.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Anti-Colonialist? Not Hardly. Amnesty Bill is All About Colonizing America

Photo Credit: NDTV

Photo Credit: NDTV

When author Dinesh D’Souza diagnosed Barack Obama with anti-colonialism, he did so on the basis of Mr. Obama’s seemingly inexplicable chip-on-the-shoulder attitude toward the country he himself leads, and his eager attempts to move America down the economic and political ladder toward international mediocrity. Where others were accusing Obama of being clueless or socialist, D’Souza concluded — based on Obama’s infatuation with his Kenyan roots — that he was fundamentally an anti-colonialist…

Colonialism involves the settling of new people in a targeted territory, unlike imperialism, which is purely the military domination of a territory…

But colonialism is not just a physical thing, a movement of peoples into a territory, but also an attempt to change the thinking and beliefs of an indigenous people to that of the colonizing power. There is a colonization of the mind as well as the land, and the colonizing power generally sees this as “civilizing” a brutish people…

That is precisely what is occurring along our southern border: hordes of colonists are pouring in to settle, and not just in the border states, but throughout the nation. The political class has at best no will to stop them, and, in fact, many are actively encouraging this invasion, refusing to take any action to stem the tide and enforce existing laws. This absolute refusal (and it is bipartisan) is baffling to average Americans, and now the “Gang of Eight” is promoting an amnesty of 11 million illegal aliens (which may actually be 22 million and, through chain migration, could wind up at 45 million) in return for what? Promises of future border security. We give legal status and a pathway to citizenship in return for promises, much like the “land for peace” deal between Israel and her enemies. It didn’t work for the Israelis.

It’s not intended to work; it’s intended to change the American People…

Nations can and do die from immigration; Lebanon is a great example. It still exists, but it is no longer the prosperous and peaceful heterogeneous land it once was. Palestinian refugees have turned it into another Islamic hell-hole. Looking back in history, we see countless nations that have been replaced by others. The Bible mentions a number of Canaanite peoples who are now extinct. Surely we can ask what happened to many of the native tribes in North America. While a nation called the United States will continue to appear on a map (if it is not partitioned first or subsumed into a North American Union), it will bear little resemblance to the nation we knew. That is the fate of colonial territories.

Read more from this story HERE.

Grand Old Propaganda

Photo Credit: alexmh17

Photo Credit: alexmh17

The “shoot-themselves-in-the-foot” party is stalking the irresistible “youth voter,” or what purportedly has been learned about this elusive prototype. The College Republican National Committee commissioned surveys of young adults, 18 to 29, and issued a report which advises the party to radically alter not just its media tactics and grassroots outreach to youth, but the Party’s current message on some issues.

Take a guess what those issues are.

Let’s start with Planned Parenthood. Leave this poor beleaguered organization alone, say the youngsters in GOP research. Defunding efforts are too “negative.” This contrasts, of course,with the DNC’s positive, pro-fetus advocacy including taxpayer-funded, late-term, sex-selection abortions…

So what’s the solution? The Republicans need to change their message, even though it wasn’t their message. Essentially, the party must change its principles. They must not speak out and try to limit Planned Parenthood’s evil actions any longer…

Which brings us to homosexuality. Predictably, the researchers found that younger voters are more inclined to see nothing wrong with this behavior, dutifully regurgitating the relentless, inaccurate messaging of “gay” advocates and the liberal media. Opposing same sex marriage is a “deal breaker” for one out of four younger voters, who said they’d never pull the lever for such candidates. So what do the “experts” advise?

On the issue of same sex so-called marriage, the report recommends, “…the party ought to promote the diversity of thought within its ranks and make clear that we welcome healthy debate on the policy topic at hand. We should also strongly oppose the use of anti-gay rhetoric.”

Read more from this story HERE.