Thursday, February 4, 2016

Obama: Criticism of Muslim Americans ‘Has No Place In Our Country’


MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

by BEN SHAPIRO3 Feb 20161,747

On Wednesday, President Obama, who has become the executive branch equivalent of a professional Salon.com commenter troll, took his traveling roadshow of perverse failure to the Islamic Society of Baltimore.

There, he lectured Americans – as always – on our own intolerance, the glories of Islam, and how if we just gaze longingly into his eyes, our souls will be set free of the baser matter surrounding them.

First, a note: the Islamic Society of Baltimore has significant ties to terror supporters. Its former imam, Mohamed Adam el-Sheikh, presided over the mosque for 18 years and justified Palestinian suicide bombings in the pages of The Washington Post, as well as founding the radical Muslim Brotherhood-associated Muslim American Society.

Now, on to President Obama’s speech.

Obama began by stating that the ISB is as American as apple pie (minus the whole former imam who supported suicide bombing thing). He then said, “So the first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough — and that is, thank you. Thank you for serving your community. Thank you for lifting up the lives of your neighbors, and for helping keep us strong and united as one American family. We are grateful for that.”

So, no bitter clinger talk for those who worship Allah. Got it.

Then he moved on to his real message: Americans who aren’t nice like President Obama are super duper mean to Muslims. Never mind the fact that, according to FBI statistics, 60.3 percent of all hate crimes based on religion target Jews, as opposed to 13.7 percent targeting Muslims. Muslims who must fear intolerant Americans, and must rely on President Obama’s great goodness to protect them from the slobbering, yabbering masses who would emerge en masse on the streets of the United States, armed with pitchforks and torches, to roust them from their homes and do them harm. Here’s Obama:

I know that in Muslim communities across our country, this is a time of concern and, frankly, a time of some fear. Like all Americans, you’re worried about the threat of terrorism. But on top of that, as Muslim Americans, you also have another concern — and that is your entire community so often is targeted or blamed for the violent acts of the very few.


Oh. Well, statistically, virtually all suicide bombings across the planet are conducted by Muslims. Hundreds of millions of Muslims hold extreme beliefs. In the United States, as Mark Krikorian wrote at National Review in December, “Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.”

But statistics are Islamophobic, so Obama merely ignored them. Instead, he focused on the “inexcusable political rhetoric against Muslim Americans that has no place in our country,” lamenting “the threats and harassment of Muslim Americans have surged.” No statistics, just anecdotal evidence, followed. And then more scaremongering:

[Y]ou also could not help but be heartbroken to hear their worries and their anxieties. Some of them are parents, and they talked about how their children were asking, are we going to be forced out of the country, or, are we going to be rounded up? Why do people treat us like that? Conversations that you shouldn’t have to have with children — not in this country. Not at this moment. And that’s an anxiety echoed in letters I get from Muslim Americans around the country. I’ve had people write to me and say, I feel like I’m a second-class citizen… These are children just like mine.


So Obama’s adding to his fictional family of victims once again. First, there was Trayvon. Then there was his fictional son who got hurt playing football. Now he’s got fictional Muslim children. That family’s growing by leaps and bounds!

That wasn’t Obama’s only fiction here. Who, exactly, is talking about “rounding up” Muslims? Who is talking about forcing Muslims out of the country? What brand of verbal cow-vomit is this?

It was just Obama setting up the strawman for its ceremonial Islamic sacrificial burning, apparently. Obama called for Americans to “tackle this head on,” to be “honest and clear about it,” to “speak out.” He then began gibbering platitudes until someone had to tap him on the shoulder and remind him where he was:

Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity….The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are as diverse as humanity itself…. Here’s another fact: Islam has always been part of America… Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran.


He did not quote what Jefferson and Adams once said about their dealings with Islamic pirates:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.


Probably best for Obama to ignore that.

Ignore it he did, and instead called for changes to American media and culture to be nicer to Islam. He suggested that “our television shows should have some Muslim characters that are unrelated to national security.” Sounds great! Let’s start an #OscarsSoIslamophobic campaign, which will work fantastically well until Muslims around the world riot when somebody does an improper depiction of Mohammed.

After attempting unsuccessfully to carve off the Islamic State from Islam, Obama then set forth four points.

First: “We are all God’s children. We’re all born equal, with inherent dignity.” Obama could say that to the wide swaths of Muslims sanguine about the stabbing of Jewish children in Jerusalem and the shooting of Christian ones in Syria; instead, he chose to direct that at the inhabitants of the most tolerant nation in the history of humanity.

Second: “[W]e have to stay true to our core values, and that includes freedom of religion for all faiths… if we’re serious about freedom of religion – and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country – we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all religions.” Well, not necessarily. An attack on the teachings of Satanism is not an attack on Christianity. An attack on the nature of Islam is not an attack on Judaism. Not all religions are the same, contrary to Obama’s presumably-treasured COEXIST bumper sticker. And it’s rather insulting directing his ire toward American Christians rather than the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the planet responsible for the vast majority of religious warfare, bloodshed, and targeted violence.

But Obama continued, “We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone. And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America.” “Hateful rhetoric” is not violence, although Obama would lump the two together. Doing that is a dangerous violation of free speech. But Obama doesn’t care about that – after all, the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, remember?

Third: “[T]he suggestion is somehow that if I would simply say, these are all Islamic terrorists, then we would actually have solved the problem by now, apparently…. I refuse to give [ISIL] legitimacy. We must never give them that legitimacy. They’re not defending Islam.” It would, in fact, help for Obama to acknowledge our enemies and their ideology. Wishing their philosophy into the corn field won’t work; no serious Muslim takes Obama’s interpretation of Islam seriously, anymore than serious Jews take Obama’s interpretation of Judaism seriously. But Obama is too busy wishing, and lecturing Americans that the best way to thwart radical Islam is to “celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans,” as though ISIS cares whether we have White House Ramadan dinners other than to think us weaklings and fools. That’s not a case against White House Ramadan dinners – it is a case that such dinners make no difference in the fight against radical Islam.

Fourth: “Muslims around the world have a responsibility to reject extremist ideologies that are trying to penetrate within Muslim communities.” Nice of Obama to get around to this one. But he promptly said that Muslims were doing enough, and put the responsibility on Americans to “amplify them more.” So actually, the Muslims are doing just fine, it’s the Islamophobic Westerners who are, as always, the problem.

Hilariously, Obama added this note:

[I]n the discussion I had before I came out, some people said, why is there always a burden on us? When a young man in Charleston shoots African Americans in a church, there’s not an expectation that every white person in America suddenly is explaining that they’re not racist.


LOL. Let me expand: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. President Obama and the entire media blamed the Confederate damn flag for Charleston, and then lectured us on the continuing racism of white Americans.

But back to Obama’s demagoguery:

We will — I will — do everything I can to lift up the multiplicity of Muslim voices that promote pluralism and peace….We can’t give in to profiling entire groups of people. There’s no one single profile of terrorists…. We are one American family. We will rise and fall together. It won’t always be easy. There will be times where our worst impulses are given voice. But I believe that ultimately, our best voices will win out. And that gives me confidence and faith in the future.


Obviously, Obama believes that the greatest threat to America is the cruel voices of those like Donald Trump, not the stealthy recruitment of Muslim radicals. He believes that Americans need his lectures, and Muslims just need reassurance that we care about them. He believes a lot of things that simply aren’t true.

And so more Americans will die.

Which means he will give us more speeches about Islamic peace and American intolerance.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama:The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

La Opinión: Marco Rubio Is a ‘Republican Obama’

by JULIA HAHN3 Feb 20161,629
Wednesday’s cover ofLa Opinión, the nation’s largest daily Spanish-language newspaper, prominently portrays donor-class favoriteSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) with the infamous “hope and change” imagery that defined Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.


The cover of the Spanish-language paper writes: “The Republican Obama? The surge of the Latino Senator in the presidential campaign has made him a target of criticism on the subject of immigration.”
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama share many of the same policy goals, such as Obamatrade and military intervention in Libya, but their most striking similarities are on the subject of immigration. Both men support citizenship for illegal aliens, expanded refugee resettlement, more green cards, more H-1B visas, and large permanent expansions to the rate of immigration and foreign worker importation.
Marco Rubio was the co-author of the 2013 Obama-backed immigration bill. Rubio’s immigration bill was endorsed by La Raza, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Mark Zuckerberg, and George Soros. Rubio has not renounced his support for a single policy item outlined in the Gang of Eight bill—including his desire to triple green card issuances, double foreign worker visas, and grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Rubio has even borrowed much of the language of the Obama’s campaign—prompting Joe Scarborough to mock the young Senator. Following the Iowa caucus, “Morning Joe” replayed Obama’s 2008 acceptance speech celebrating his victory at the Iowa caucus and juxtaposed that with Rubio’s strikingly similar Iowa speech celebrating his campaign’s ability to inch up to third place.
“You know, I have said for a year that he is the Republican Obama,” Scarborough said. “He is the Republican Obama and he just stole the speech… In my opinion having somebody with little experience before they become president has not actually been great.”
However, there is one important distinction between Rubio and Obama. Obama represented the core views of his most ardent base, and presented a vehicle for turning his base’s dreams into reality. By contrast, the Republican base is overwhelmingly opposed to large-scale immigration, amnesty and refugee resettlement—the pillars of Rubio’s campaign. It is the GOP’s donor base, not its voter base, that supports these policies.
In that sense, Rubio is the “Obama” for Republican donors, but not the Republican Party’s actual voters. Indeed, whereas Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lacked the Obama-esque tools to pass mass immigration for the donors in 2007, Rubio was able to bypass conservatism opposition and pass a bill with far more foreign workers through the Senate in 2013—using the affection of conservatives to neutralize opposition to a top donor class priority.
That may explain Rush Limbaugh’s prediction that, with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)as Speaker and Marco Rubio as president, in the “first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda [will be] implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want.” Ironically, underscoring just how potent a tool Rubio can be for the donors, Rush—usually a voice of donor opposition—seemingly forgot his own warning and warmly embraced Rubio on his show. Rush’s earlier embrace of Rubio in 2013 may have helped give the Gang of Eight the boost of momentum it needed to pass the Senate.
Read More Stories About:

Trump to Arkansas: Hillary, Bill Clinton 'left you'

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Donald Trump kept hitting two of his favorite targets, Bill and Hillary Clinton, during a campaign event in Little Rock, Ark. on Wednesday night, arguing that they fled the state.

After riffing against Ted Cruz over his Iowa caucus win on Monday, Trump bashed the Clintons, telling 11,500 attendees that they bailed on the state after the former president took over the White House in 1993.

"By the way, I have to tell you this," Trump told the crowd, "Hillary and Bill left Arkansas — they left you folks. They left you. Whether you like it or not, they left you.

"I guarantee you, if she or he was here tonight, they wouldn't be having 12,000 people filling up this arena," Trump said as boos rained down from the crowd.

Arkansans will take to the polls on Super Tuesday as part of the so-called SEC primary. Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee also will vote on the same day.

Donald Trump says they did. inPolitics on LockerDome

COMMENTS

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts


www.politico.com
The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.
In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archive



s argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.
"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."
The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton's ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.
"She's one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what's in that indictment? It's absurd and it's shameful that the administration is proposing this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally."
The Archives and Justice Department were dismissive about the impact of Clinton's presidential bid on public access to the records.
"While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest alone under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to," Murphy wrote.
"Her interest in avoiding disclosure of the drafts is not diminished by the fact that she is a former public official who is running for President," Justice Department lawyers added in their brief.
Law enforcement records about living people who did not face charges in criminal investigations normally are not released under FOIA, or the names are sanitized from the records before they're published. However, sometimes judges have ordered the release of such records in cases involving public officials.
Despite the usual practice, though, the Archives has released fairly detailed information about the independent counsel's focus on Hillary Clinton. Just last week, Judicial Watch announced it had received 246 pages of records describing the crimes some prosecutors believed were committed in connection with the Whitewater land deal and related matters. Some of the memos are from the "HRC Team" in the counsel's office—apparently a team focused on Clinton. One discusses the jury appeal or lack thereof of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. One prosecutor put the chance of a conviction for Clinton at 10 percent.
It's not clear from the government's court filings why the draft indictments would be more sensitive than that kind of analysis, but the new submissions do argue that the drafts are covered by grand jury secrecy. In its initial response to Judicial Watch, the Archives relied solely on Clinton's privacy (and that of others) and did not mention the grand jury secrecy issue. But the brief filed Tuesday contends the drafts would provide insight into the grand jury's activities by revealing the identities of witnesses and that they quote from grand jury testimony.
Fitton said that "if Mrs. Clinton was being truly transparent," she would provide a privacy waiver that could ease release of the records.
Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the legal filings.
Josh Gerstein is a senior reporter for POLITICO.
COMMENTS

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Report: Donald Trump Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, ‘Peace Through Strength Ideology’

AFP, AP

by ALEX SWOYER2 Feb 2016Washington, DC148

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is reportedly in the running for the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Donald Trump, Greek islanders helping desperate migrants, Angela Merkel and the pope — some may seem more likely than others but all are understood to be in the running for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize,” Yahoo News reports.

The Director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo and Nobel Watcher Kristian Berg Harpviken says the GOP frontrunner has been nominated for the award.

Yahoo News reports:

According to a copy of the nomination letter Harpviken said he had received, brash tycoon Trump — who has attracted international condemnation by calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States — deserves the prize for “his vigorous peace through strength ideology, used as a threat weapon of deterrence against radical Islam, ISIS, nuclear Iran and Communist China.”.\


Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpNoble Peace Prize

The Nuclear Option: Ted Cruz Wins Iowa, But He Won’t Be the GOP Nominee for President

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio


by CHARLES HURT2 Feb 2016594
DES MOINES — Well, that’s settled. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will not be the 2016 Republican nominee for president.
At least not if recent history is any guide. It has been 16 years since Republican caucus-goers here have accurately picked the eventual GOP nominee for president. In other words, not once in this entire century has Iowa picked the winner for Republicans.
Ted Cruz joins former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the caucuses in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
Neither Mr. Huckabee nor Mr. Santorum were able to convert those Iowa victories into any kind of groundswell of support outside the frozen cornfields of Iowa.
Mr. Cruz carefully followed the same playbook deployed in the caucuses won by his predecessors.
First, he built a massive and highly organized grassroots ground game. It was impressive. Also, Mr. Cruz spend significant money and a huge amount of time and energy courting Iowa voters.
Mr. Cruz was handsomely rewarded with the highest number of caucus votes of any Republican in history. Which means he is really popular — in Iowa.
Similarly, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Santorum bet their entire presidential campaigns on Iowa, and it paid off for them as well. At least, in terms of winning Iowa. In the end, of course, those victories turned out to be meaningless.
Mr. Cruz also followed in the footsteps of previous Iowa winners in that he shamelessly and overtly deployed his religious faith as a guiding — perhaps overriding — reason for electing him. The man was literally quoting scripture during his campaign events. This preaching culminated in the creepy footage of Mr. Cruz directing his supporters to “awaken the body of Christ.” Ick.
Obviously, it is a strategy that works in Iowa. But I am also pretty sure that God is not so hot about somebody awakening the body of Christ for personal political purposes. Sounds, well, a little self-centered and diabolical.
And, unfortunately for Mr. Cruz, it doesn’t usually work so well going forward. Even in a place like South Carolina where they love their Christian politicians, Mr. Trump is beating Mr. Cruz by 15 points, according to the polls.
The problem for Mr. Cruz is that it is undeniable that Mr. Trump has at least broken through to Christian voters. Many of them trust him and believe that he is serious about fighting for them and protecting religious liberty.
Mr. Cruz’s impressive win Monday night, of course, sparked a wildfire of giddy gloating among the Great Punditocracy who find Donald Trump so vulgar and repellent. It is like the only thing that matters to them is winning.
But Donald Trump had the last laugh when he walked out on the stage to deliver his concession speech.
For weeks and months we have been told that Mr. Trump cannot handle losing. His entire campaign is built around winning every time. And if he loses Iowa, we were told again and again and again, Mr. Trump would fall apart. The first chink in his armor would utterly crumple him to the ground.
Only, instead, Mr. Trump came out with his family and delivered a wonderfully gracious and funny and hopeful concession speech and told his supporters how honored he was to come in second place in Iowa.
Alas, the Great Punditocracy keeps alive their perfect streak of being wrong about everything when it comes to Donald J. Trump.
Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.
Read More Stories About:

Trump calls for 'new election' after accusing Cruz of fraud in Iowa


February 03, 2016 - 09:09 AM EST


GETTY IMAGES

BY NEETZAN ZIMMERMAN6423 SharesTWEET SHARE MORE

Donald Trump is accusing Republican presidential rival Ted Cruz of committing fraud ahead of Monday night's Iowa caucuses, and he is calling for a "new election."

"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, the real estate mogul tweeted, then quickly deleted, a claim that Cruz didn’t earn a fair victory in Iowa, saying he “illegally stole it.”

"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!" the GOP front-runner tweeted.

The post went up Wednesday morning before being removed less than a minute later.

It was subsequently replaced with a new tweet that omitted the word “illegally.”

Cruz came under fire in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses for distributing a misleading mailer that attempted to shame recipients into turning out to vote for the Texas senator.

Following his decisive win over the GOP field, Cruz was accused by fellow presidential candidate Ben Carson of spreading a false rumor that Carson was dropping out of the race in order to sabotage the retired neurosurgeon's campaign.

Cruz later apologized.

At his first post-Iowa rally in Milford, N.H., Trump called Cruz “dirty,” adding “what he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace."