Tuesday, January 27, 2015

US halted Israeli arms transfer to Nigeria to fight Boko Haram
Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Helicopter#BringBackOurGirls, just don’t try very hard. #BringBackOurGirls, just don’t insult Islam. Obama ‘s allegiances are abundantly clear in this, as if they weren’t already.
Where is the media on this?

“US halted Israeli arms transfer to Nigeria,”
Jerusalem Post, January 26, 2015:
WASHINGTON — The United States paused the resale of US-made military helicopters by Israel to the Nigerian government for its fight against Boko Haram last summer, according to Abuja.
The transfer of such aircraft requires a review, Obama administration officials told The Jerusalem Post, in order to determine its “consistency with US policy interests.”
Reviews of this kind take place in the case of...

    

Facebook Enforces Sharia, Bans “Anti-Islamic” Pages Rather Than Face Turkish Ban

Pamela Geller / Bare Naked Islam

Earlier today, I reported that a Turkish court ordered Facebook to block pages that insulted Islam. In response, It is somehow ironic that the younger generation raised on leftist propaganda in academia and in the culture are so eager to utterly relinquish our freedoms without so much as fight. The hippies and bippies and free love gave us totalitarianism and subjugation.

Free love. It made whores of women,  broke our homes and turned our men into women. Case in point: Mark Zuckerberg. All his speechifying about freedom of speech and freedom of expression and without so much as an internal struggle, he betrayed the freedom loving people of Turkey. Take a stand, man.

What a cowardly punk ….. with enormous power.
...
     

Monday, January 26, 2015

THE MORNING after President Obama's State of the Union address, Politico had a story on how Republicans had responded to one contentious issue. The headline: "Priebus struggles to explain GOP immigration messages."

That would be Reince Priebus, the Republican Party chairman. His "struggle" was to clarify why Iowa's new senator, Joni Ernst, said nothing at all about immigration in her 10-minute reply to the president, whereas Florida Representative Carlos Curbelo, in a Spanish-language version of the GOP response, urged Obama to work with Republicans "to create permanent solutions for our immigration system, to secure our borders, [and] modernize legal immigration." Good thing Priebus wasn't asked about the formal Tea Party response to the president's speech, delivered by another Florida Republican, Rep. Curt Clawson, or he'd have had still more reason to squirm. Speaking in English and Spanish, Clawson called pointedly for "embracing … legal immigrants, and the millions waiting in line legally to begin their own American Dream."

Then there was Iowa Representative Steve King's rude Twitter slam against Obama for inviting "a deportable" to sit in the House gallery as a guest of the First Lady. That was a reference to 20-year-old Ana Zamora, a Texas student who was brought illegally to the United States as an infant, and who benefited from Obama's 2012 executive order indefinitely extending legal status to thousands of similarly situated immigrants.

Though King's tweet wasn't an official GOP statement, it created some instant awkwardness for the Republican presidential hopefuls heading to Iowa for a Saturday "freedom summit" hosted by … King. When one of those hopefuls, Senator Marco Rubio, was asked about King's nasty tone, his answer was careful: "We have to always remind ourselves that we're talking about human beings with hopes and dreams and families."

Plainly, the clearest element of the GOP message on immigration is that the GOP has no clear message on immigration. The subject was barely mentioned in the president's address, but that didn't stop the loyal opposition from once again getting into an intramural tangle over it.

But is that a bad thing?

For any large political party, a boisterous battle over policy and principle is a sign of fitness, not feebleness. While "diversity" is a sacred cow on the left, it is on the right where real diversity — diversity of ideas and viewpoints — has most often been showcased. In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan famously debated William F. Buckley Jr. on whether the United States should relinquish the Panama Canal. In the 1980s, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich fiercely clashed over supply-side tax cuts. More recently, Republicans have gone at each other over war in Iraq, education reform, and "enhanced interrogation."
According to a new Pew Research Center survey, Americans have little trust in the government as a whole, but have high favorability ratings for several individual agencies. Seventy percent surveyed approve of the Centers for Disease Control, and 68 percent approve of the job done by NASA. The IRS and the NSA had the lowest favorability ratings, with 45 and 51 percent, respectively, having a favorable view of those agencies.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 7-11 among 1,504 adults, finds that 70% have a favorable view of the CDC, which came under criticism last fall for its handling of the outbreak of the Ebola virus. Nearly as many (68%) have a favorable view of NASA, and 65% hold a favorable view of the Department of Defense.
While overall favorable ratings for most of the agencies tested have changed little over time, there has been a sharp decline in positive views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Currently, 52% have a favorable view of the VA, down 16 points since October 2013. The agency has been widely faulted for delays in health care for veterans; the scandal led to the ouster last year of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.
Among Republicans, the agency viewed most favorably was the Department of Defense, followed by the CIA and NASA. The CIA was the only federal agency that Republicans favored more than Democrats.

While the CDC got a bad rap late last year when the Ebola virus was discovered in Dallas, there has been no major outbreak of the disease and the agency did its job well containing diagnosed cases, and I'll give them credit for that. NASA has had its budget slashed, yet they've still accomplished some pretty amazing feats and made important discoveries.

Lindsey Graham: Obama's Foreign, Domestic Policies Disappointing 

NEWSMAX

President Barack Obama's foreign and domestic policies are failures despite his positive words in Tuesday's State of the Union address, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday on "The Cats Roundtable" on AM 970 in New York.

"The war he described on the foreign policy front doesn't exist," Graham said, noting that al-Qaida has not been decimated and, "We did not roll back ISIL (the Islamic State) in Syria."

Story continues below.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lindsey-graham-obama-foreign-policies/2015/01/25/id/620573/?ns_mail_uid=32379927&ns_mail_job=1605086_01262015&s=al&dkt_nbr=siaqgzac

Graham just met with members of the Free Syrian Army a week ago, and was told that the Islamic State is "stronger than ever, selling oil and wheat to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, Graham said.Graham said Obama's failure to call the war on terror a religious war is "a huge mistake," he said.

"The [American] friends in the region told me to my face it’s better to be an American enemy than it is to be her friend, because you [America] respect your enemies," he said.

Both Arabs and Israelis told him that if the United States makes the nuclear deal with Iran that the White House is working on, there will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Israel already has a nuclear weapon, but none of its Arab neighbors felt threatened or sought their own weapon, Graham told host John Catsimatidis. A nuclear Iran does make them feel they'll need their own nuclear weapons, he said.

The current low oil prices are aimed at hurting Iran, Graham said, to force them to negotiate a deal the Saudis like better, he said.

"The Saudi Arabians told us in no uncertain terms that they will not sit on the sidelines and watch Iran get a nuclear capability without matching it — and that they are very disappointed in American leadership," he said. The Saudis have volunteered their army to go into Syria to fight the Islamic State and Assad, but they want the United States to go with them, he added.

Turning to House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on the Iran deal, Graham said he "couldn’t think of a better person" to explain the situation.

The invitation reportedly angered the White House because Boehner did not advise President Barack Obama ahead of time.

Graham said Obama's State of the Union was "a liberal’s dream and an average American’s nightmare," because of his big plans to fund community college education and offer tax cuts while raising taxes on upper incomes, including the inheritance tax.

Graham called Obama's domestic plans "unsustainable" and proves he didn't pay attention to the midterm elections, which gave both chambers of Congress Republican majorities.

Obama says he wants to work with Republicans, but threatened multiple vetoes on GOP initiatives, he said. Graham told Catsimatidis that it is himself who has shown the ability to reach across party lines to get things done.

He noted that he faced six Republicans in the 2014 primary because he worked with Democrats on immigration. He also said he voted for Obama's liberal Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan "because I thought they were qualified Supreme Court nominees."

Graham has said he is considering a run for president in 2016, and will make that decision soon.

Related Stories:

84% of “Palestinians” believe Israel was behind Paris jihad massacres

charlie-hebdo-officesIslamic supremacists never, ever take responsibility for the evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and in accord with Islamic texts and teachings. It is always the non-Muslim’s fault.

“Israel was behind terror attacks in France,” by Nan Jacques Zilberdik, Palestinian Media Watch, January 25, 2015:
Following the terror attacks against the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish store in which Muslim terrorists killed 17 people in France earlier this month, columnists writing for the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida have claimed that Israel was behind the attacks.
This view is shared by the vast majority of Palestinians, according to a poll conducted by Ma’an (an independent Palestinian news agency). The poll  found that 84.4% support the claim that “the operation (i.e., terror attack) was suspicious, and that Israel may be behind it,” while “only 8.7% believed that the murder of the French [citizens] in Paris was a natural result of the spread of Islamic extremism in Europe.” [Ma’an, Jan. 19, 2015]
The writers of the official PA daily have argued that Mossad, the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, planned the attacks because Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders want to encourage Jewish immigration and take “revenge on European governments… because of their… support for… an independent Palestinian state.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 15, 2015] (Longer excerpts of all quoted articles appear below)
One regular columnist, Muwaffaq Matar, argued that because Netanyahu “wishes to realize the myth of the ‘Jewishness of Israel'” and encourage immigration, the attacks against Jews in France and elsewhere in Europe were “no coincidence, but a carefully executed and fully controlled plan.” He further argued that these claims were true because “‘Netanyahu’s Jewish State’ was the only one to benefit” from these attacks. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 15, 2015]
Netanyahu “trades with the blood of the 17 victims of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper and of the supermarket,” wrote another regular columnist, Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul. He pointed out that Netanyahu wanted to “exploit the terrorism that struck some French Jews” to encourage them “to immigrate to Israel.” The writer claimed that “Turkish sources, including intelligence and the mayor of Ankara” determined that the attacks were “planned by the Israeli Mossad.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 14, 2015]
Similarly, a journalist, Akram Atallah, interviewed on official PA TV claimed that “in the past, the Israeli Mossad carried out operations (i.e., terror attacks): It bombed synagogues in order to force the Jews to emigrate,” and that “the operation (i.e., the terror attack on Charlie Hebdo) served Israel’s demographic [interests], for the Israeli media and government bodies predicted yesterday that 10,000 French Jews would immigrate to Israel.” [Official PA TV, Jan. 12, 2015]
Another writer, Yahya Rabah, claimed that Israel is behind “all the terrorist groups in the region,” trains them and provides them with weapons, and hinted that Israel, therefore, was behind the attacks in France:
“We have seen how Israeli terrorism in all its forms… is what grants patronage to all the terrorist groups in the region. Eventually, we have seen that terror[ists] have begun to receive training, weapons and perhaps [even] intelligence from Israel. Therefore, many believe that there was more to the last wave of terrorism in France than [just] two young Muslims. This was an [attempt to] target the role of France… [which voted] in favor of the Palestinian-Arab proposal at the [UN] Security Council last month!” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 11, 2015]…

American Muslim group attacks "American Sniper," demands Eastwood and Cooper denounce fictional "islamophobia"

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

One of the foundational principles of the Bush Doctrine was/is the oft-repeated dictum, "You are either with us or against us." Little did President Bush know that the American Muslim community was .... against us. George Bush believed that the moderates in the Muslim world would denounce/destroy the devout ("radical"), a war within Islam that never took place. Imagine Bush's dismay when he discovered that no one was behind him, like John Belushi in Animal House when he goes running out the front door shouting, "Who's with me?!?," only to discover that he is utterly alone. 

The faked hate narrative that Muslim groups and leaders use is now the default talking point any time that jihad or patriotism, for that matter, is being discussed. If...