Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Pentagon Says ‘Global Warming’ Presents ‘Immediate’ Threat

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs


Part of Obama’s continuing dismantling and emasculation of the military.
“Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change,” By Coral Davenport, NY Times, October 13, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.
The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans...


UK Parliament votes 274-12 in favor of recognizing “the state of Palestine”

/ Jihad Watch
As long as the hopelessly compromised and abjectly surrendering Brits are recognizing terror states that do not exist, why don’t they recognize Nazi Germany and Democratic Kampuchea along with “Palestine”? A “Palestinian” state would not make for a peaceful resolution of the jihad against Israel. It would simply become a new jihad base for newly virulent attacks against a weakened Israel. Do the British MPs know this? Probably not. Would they care if they did? Probably not.

How many times does this have to be done before the political elites get a clue? Or are they so thoroughly bought and paid for that that will never happen? The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was supposed to bring peace. Instead, I and just a few others warned that Gaza would just become a new jihad terror base. And we were right. So also, a “Palestinian” state would become yet another jihad terror base for attacks against a reduced, truncated Israel. The various “Palestinian” factions have never recognized Israel or retreated even one step from their repeated vows to destroy it utterly. Do these clowns even know what “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means?

As long as they’re voting for jihad, how long will it be before the UK Parliament goes whole hog, as it were, and votes 274-12 to adopt Sharia as the sole law of the land? It would “promote community cohesion,” eh wot?

“British Parliament votes in favor of Palestinian statehood recognition,” by Jerry Lewis, Reuters, October 13, 2014:
Britain’s House of Commons voted in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state late Monday in a move that will not alter the government’s stance on the issue, but that carries symbolic value for Palestinians in their pursuit of statehood.
Lawmakers in Britain’s lower house of parliament voted by 274 to 12 to pass a non-binding motion stating: “That this House believes that the Government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.”
Britain does not classify “Palestine” as a state, but says it could do so at any time if it believed it would help peace efforts between the Palestinians and Israel. Government ministers were told to abstain and the non-binding vote will not force Britain to recognise a Palestinian state.
Nearly 50 MPs were in the chamber to hear pro-Palestinian Labor Backbencher Grahame Morris open the four hour debate which he said was a chance for the UK to atone for its historic mistakes – a clear reference to the Balfour Declaration.
He and party colleagues knew in advance that with the unprecedented backing of the Labor party – as traditionally the political parties do not tell MPs which way to vote in what is supposed to be backbench business – his motion calling for the British Government to recognise a Palestinian State would be passed, probably by a substantial majority.
Several senior pro-Israel Labor party MPs including a number of members of the shadow cabinet – angered by the decision of party leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander to order Labor backbenchers to back the Morris motion by issuing a ‘three line whip’ – were understood to be ready to defy the instruction and abstain on the vote which was due at 10 p.m. UK time, midnight in Israel.
Former Labor Foreign Secretary Jack Straw successfully moved a manuscript amendment which stated that recognition of a state should be agreed as a ‘contribution’ towards a two state solution. He said if Israel had its way and recognition should be delayed until an agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians, that – in effect – would amount to giving Israel a veto over Palestinian statehood.
The Palestinians, he reminded the Commons had no say or veto over the establishment of the State of Israel.
A counter argument was put forward by another former Foreign Secretary the Conservative Party’s Malcolm Rifkind who told MPs that it was not possible to recognize a state which has no boundaries, no army, nor a government. The Palestinians he said, currently have two administrations and simply did not qualify for ‘recognition’.
Also he noted wryly, Britain did not recognize the State of Israel until 1950 when its borders and government and been well established….

Dick Morris: Democrats Using 'False Flag' Plan to Steal Senate

By Dick Morris / NEWSMAX
Failing to persuade voters to support their discredited agenda, Democrats are now determined to use a false flag strategy to advance their plan to steal a Senate majority this November.

Masquerading as independents in four key Senate races, Democratic candidates are embracing a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing tactic to fool voters into believing that they are not the party hack/Obama rubber stamps they truly are.

By pretending that they are Independents, they can take power and help Obama implement his plan to create a single ruling party government in the U.S.

I have been warning about Obama's plan in my new bestseller "Power Grab: Obama's Dangerous Plan for a One Party Nation."

As the Democratic campaigns unfold, my main thesis is backed up by the facts on the ground.

Were these "independent" Democrats true Independents, their presence in our national politics would be welcome. But they are not.

If elected, they would each meekly cast their ballots for Harry Reid to be Majority Leader and form a tame part of his bloc that controls the Senate.

In South Dakota, former Republican senator turned liberal Democrat Larry Pressler is running as an "independent" against former Governor Mike Rounds, the Republican candidate. The latest polling puts him only two points behind Rounds. Having served three terms as a GOP senator, Pressler backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 and supports Obamacare. His strategy is either to win or to take enough votes away from Rounds to elect Rick Weiland, the overt Democratic candidate. The South Dakota seat had been written off as a certain Republican pickup until Pressler implemented the false flag strategy.

In Kansas, Republican Pat Roberts was coasting to a fourth Senate term when Greg Orman jumped into the race as an independent. Orman, who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, backs Obamacare, embraces the Democratic platform in toto, and actually tried to run before as a Democrat. But now he’s an "Independent." The fact that George Soros' son is reportedly hosting a fundraiser for Orman should make clear he's no independent.

In North Carolina, Republican Thom Tillis is locked in a close battle against Democratic Senator Kay Hagan. The only reason the race is close in this state Mitt Romney carried in 2012 is the presence of Sean Haugh, a pizza delivery man running as the Libertarian Party candidate. Haugh draws between 4 and 8 percent of the vote, in various polls, but all of it comes from Tillis, the Republican candidate. Where is Haugh getting his support? His money? Ask the Democrats.

In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes -- running against Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- refuses to say if she voted for Obama in 2008 or 2012. Obviously, she did. And just as obviously, she is running away from it now. She says she will oppose Obama’s war on coal, but, if elected, it is clear she will toe the party line as Reid demands.

The Democrats first used false flag strategy in Maine in 2012 when Governor Angus King, running as an Independent, took the Republican seat formerly occupied by Olympia Snowe.

Once in the Senate, all traces of independence vanished and he fell in line with the Democratic Caucus.

Indeed, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders told his Vermont voters that he, too,  was not a Democrat.  But at least Bernie had the guts to call himself what he really is -- a Socialist.

The new Democrat "Independents" have no such courage.

Local or National Elections?

Thomas Sowell / Townhall Columnist
Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics is local." 
That may have been true in Tip O'Neill's day, but some elections are decisively on national issues -- and the Congressional elections this year are overwhelmingly national, just as the elections of 1860 were dominated by one national issue, namely slavery.
In 1860, some abolitionists split the anti-slavery vote by running their own candidate -- who had no chance of winning -- instead of supporting Abraham Lincoln, who was not pure enough for some abolitionists. Lincoln got just 40 percent of the vote, though that turned out to be enough to win in a crowded field.

But what a gamble with the fate of millions of human beings held as slaves! And for what? Symbolic political purity?

This year as well, there are third-party candidates complicating elections that can decide the fate of this nation for years to come. No candidate that irresponsible deserves any vote. With all the cross-currents of political controversies raging today, what is the overriding national issue that makes this year's Congressional elections so crucial?

That issue is whether, despite all the lawless edicts of President Obama, threatening one-man rule, we can still salvage enough of the Constitution to remain a free, democratic nation.

Barack Obama will be on his way out in two years but, if he can appoint enough federal judges who share his contempt for the Constitution's limits on federal government power in general, and presidential powers in particular, then the United States of America can continue on the path to becoming another banana republic, even after Obama has left the White House.

President Obama understands how high the stakes are, which is why he is out fundraising all across the country -- seemingly all the time -- even though he has no more elections to face himself. Obama came to power saying that he was going to fundamentally change the United States of America -- and he intends to do it, even after he is gone, by giving lifetime appointments as federal judges to people who share his view that this country's institutions and values are fundamentally wrong, and need to be scrapped and replaced by his far left vision.

If only Obama's critics and opponents understood this momentous issue as clearly as he does!

The issue is whether "we the people," as designated by the Constitution, continue free to live our own lives as we see fit, and to determine what laws and policies we want to live under.

President Obama's vision is very different. In his vision, our betters in Washington shall simply order us to live as they want us to live -- telling us what medical insurance we can have, what doctors we can go to, what political groups shall be favored by the Internal Revenue Service, with more of the same coming in the years ahead, long after Obama has left the White House.

Critics who deplore President Obama's foreign policies in general, and his weak response to the ISIS threat in particular, as showing incompetence -- and who see his incessant fundraising as just a weird distraction -- fail to understand how different his priorities are from theirs.

Barack Obama understands clearly that his ability to fundamentally remake what he has long seen as a deeply defective and corrupt America in the image of his far left vision depends crucially on having control of the Senate that has the power to confirm his appointments of federal judges with lifetime tenure. His fundraising is key to maintaining the Democrats' Senate majority.

Foreign policy is subordinated to Obama's overriding ideological vision. The president will not risk losing this year's Congressional elections by taking military actions that will alienate his political base. Token military actions can minimize the political losses from other voters.

That people will die while he stalls on military action is a price he is willing to pay. His ordering thousands of American troops into Ebola-infested Liberia shows the same ideologically driven callousness.

The big question is whether those who wish to preserve a free America see the issue and the stakes equally as clearly as Barack Obama does -- and see that this is the overriding national issue of our time, with our votes for Senators not to be confused by local issues.

Only a madman would gamble with our lives…our children’s lives…and the entire American economy. Why would President Obama play “Russian Roulette” with the future of our country? It’s a gamble no sane leader would take.

The life and death issue is Ebola. The President is more concerned with political correctness (and golf) than taking common sense precautions to prevent a deadly pandemic. Why does this President not see his responsibility is to keep the odds as low as possible?

There are three simple, common sense actions any President who cared about American citizens would take:

#1) Ban all flights from the Ebola Zone and quarantine all travelers coming from any Ebola Zone. This is an absolute ‘no brainer’. Time is wasting. It should have been done months ago and may already be too late. Who knows how many people in America right now (or flying here tonight or tomorrow) are already infected.

#2) Secure and seal the border- NOW. Any day, any minute, illegal immigrants sick with Ebola could be walking across our border.

Worse, how easy is it for our radical Muslim enemies to send Ebola infected terrorists across the border? How simple to infect and send hundreds of “Ebola suicide terrorists” into our hospitals and children’s schools.

All our radical Jihadist enemies have to do is inject tainted Ebola blood into volunteer suicide bombers or worse, innocent children, and send them across the border. Undetectable, they walk across our Southern border showing no symptoms and surrender to U.S. border agents. Obama disperses them across the country where they sneeze or cough on their lawyers, caretakers, and classmates. It’s that easy…it’s that simple, to start a deadly Ebola Pandemic across America.

Equally disturbing, what if Ebola spreads to Mexico, Central or South America. Suddenly panic ensues and hundreds of thousands of their citizens (or even millions) run for the U.S. border looking for America’s medical system to save them, spreading Ebola like wildfire… into your home and mine.

Our border is wide open to bring death and disaster, ending America as we know it. Yet President Obama is unwilling to do a thing to secure it. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

The question is why?