I am confused. . .

Archive for November, 2013

Obama Closing Vatican Embassy

Carol Platt Liebau | Nov 26, 2013

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama administration is hostile to religion in general, and to Catholicism in particular.

There was his slam on Catholic education. His embrace of pro-abortion extremism. His willingness to have priests arrested if they performed mass on military bases (even voluntarily) during the sequester. And, of course, the hideous ObamaCare HHS mandate falls with particular violence on the First Amendment rights of Catholics.

So now it’s dismaying — but hardly surprising — that the Obama administration is moving to close America’s Vatican embassy. A bipartisan coalition of former ambassadors to the Holy See are expressing their opposition to the plan, which the administration is trying to justify on that post-9/11 catchall: Security.

But let’s see it for what it really is: A slap in the face to America’s Catholics.

Obama Sinks Israel

Ben Shapiro | Nov 27, 2013

This week, President Barack Obama doomed Israel to a choice between unpalatable options: either striking at Iran’s nuclear facilities in its own defense and thereby internationally isolating itself, or watching as its most ardent enemy goes nuclear. The deal, put into place with Iran by the Obama administration, allows Iran to continue developing nuclear-enrichment processes, encompasses virtually no real monitoring standards and grants cash to a regime busily preparing for a second Holocaust.

Obama made the conscious decision to shove Israel into this corner for two reasons. First, because he is an egotist determined to divert attention from his domestic political woes. Second, because he is a hard-core, anti-Israel fanatic who believes that Israeli power represents the chief threat to peace in the Middle East.

The first rationale explains Obama’s timing. After years of flirting with Iran — a flirtation dating all the way back to his presidential campaign of 2008, during which he said he would engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic theocracy without preconditions – Obama culminated the burgeoning relationship with a rammed-through deal leaving Iran in control of its own nuclear destiny. Why the sudden rush? With his poll numbers dropping precipitously and his signature program, Obamacare, dragging down his presidency, Obama needed a big win.

The media duly delivered this to Obama by proclaiming his diplomatic blunder an enormous victory. Ignoring the fact that Obama tacitly gave Iran the right to nuclear development in contravention of all United Nations’ resolutions and the best interests of the United States, The New York Times proclaimed, “No one can seriously argue that it doesn’t make the world safer.” The newspaper also called Israel’s dismay at the deal “extremist” and “theater,” and even admitted that the Iran deal acted as a “welcome change of subject” for Obama.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, rapidly erected a series of straw men designed to make the president look like a tower of strength rather than the appeaser he is. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately stated that those who opposed the deal thought war should be the “first option” — an odd proclamation, given Israel’s repeated desire to delay action. Obama himself said that the time for “tough talk and bluster” was over — as though harsh sanctions backed by the threat of force were a bluff. (Which, apparently, they were.)

Though none of this explains why Obama wanted to make a deal in the first place. Yes, it was a convenient distraction — but the president of the United States can always find a way to shift the political narrative.

The truth is that the president despises Israel and always has. He has spent his entire adult life surrounded by Israel-haters, from Professor Derrick Bell to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, from former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi to Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. His current ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has suggested that the United States ought to place troops on Israeli ground to protect Palestinians from those brutal Jews.

Obama’s administration has repeatedly leaked Israeli national security information in order to stop Israel from striking Iran, and Obama himself forced Netanyahu to apologize to the government of Turkey for stopping its flotilla, directed toward helping the terrorist group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip. The Obama administration sees Israel building homes in its capital city of Jerusalem as more of a threat to peace than Iran building nukes.

Obama’s political philosophy dictates that Israel is a colonialist outpost offending the locals — an unfortunate hangover from the Holocaust instead of a historic Jewish dream and possession. Obama’s belief system suggests that Middle Eastern conflict springs not from religious and cultural differences but from Jewish intransigence. So Israel must be stopped. And if that means arming Iran, Obama is happy to do it. If he can while simultaneously winning himself a second Nobel Peace Prize and distracting people from his failed domestic tenure, so much the better.

Pope Francis Stands Up For Christians’ Rights in the Middle East

Leah Barkoukis | Nov 22, 2013

Western leaders may be silent about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, but Pope Francis isn’t. Speaking Thursday to a gathering of Eastern rite church leaders that have ties to the Roman Catholic Church, Francis said he would “not rest as long as there are men and women, of any religion, affected in their dignity, deprived of life’s basic necessities, robbed of a future, forced to the status of refugees and asylum-seekers.”

“I’m very worried about living conditions faced by Christians who are suffering from conflicts and tensions in many areas of the Middle East,” Francis said.

The persecution of Christians in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Syria, has worsened considerably since the ousting of the Mubarak regime and during Syria’s civil war. More than 40 churches in Egypt have been burned, Christian laity in Cairo were gunned down and Orthodox bishops in Syria have been kidnapped by rebel forces.

“We won’t resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who for two thousand years confess the name of Jesus, as full citizens in social, cultural and religious life of the nations to which they belong,” Francis said.

Persecution watchdog group Open Doors USA has launched a global petition urging the UN and other world leaders to “act to safeguard all Syrians, including vulnerable Christian communities,” CNS News reports. The group plans to deliver the petition to the UN Security Council on December 10, which is Human Rights day at the international body.

How Low can MSNBC Go?

Jeff Crouere | Nov 23, 2013

MSNBC, the network of far left lunatics has taken their extreme hatred to a new level. Last week, host Martin Bashir called former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “world class idiot” and a “resident dunce.” For good measure, he claimed she possessed a “long deceased mind.”

What provoked Bashir? In a recent speech, Palin said that “Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children, and borrowing from China. When that note comes due and this isn’t racist, so try it. Try it anyway. This isn’t racist. But it’s going to be like slavery when that note is due.”

While this view may be controversial and even misguided, it did not merit such a malicious response from Bashir. Sadly, the host did not stop with nasty insults; he then related to his viewers the story of a long deceased slave master who committed horrible acts of brutality, including defecating on those he kept in bondage.

At that point, Bashir incredibly wished Palin would suffer such barbaric treatment. He read aloud a curse word for excrement and said that Palin “qualified” for a “dose” of such “discipline.” In effect, he wished that Palin would be kept in bondage and that an inhuman slave master would defecate on her.

Immediately after calling for the torture and mistreatment of Sarah Palin, this broadcaster should have been fired by his network bosses. Unfortunately, nothing happened to Bashir because he works for MSNBC, the same network that gives a prominent daily platform to Reverend Al Sharpton, who perpetrated the Tawana Brawley hoax.

Clearly there is a problem with MSNBC’s programming. This is the same network that was shamed into suspending the host of a weekly program, actor Alec Baldwin, for uttering anti-gay slurs. This is the same network that had to suspend Keith Olbermann for donating to Democrat candidates and suspended Ed Schultz for calling talk show host Laura Ingraham “a right-wing slut.”

Since MSNBC allows Bashir to remain on the air, it reflects poorly on the entire network. The decision reveals the type of liberal hate that permeates their management and on-air staff. If a similar comment had been made on CNN or Fox, the anchor would have been immediately fired. Evidently, MSNBC has much lower standards than its competition and must have to scrape the bottom of the broadcast barrel to find enough liberal blowhards to fill their schedule.

This episode also exposes the double standard about treatment toward conservatives, especially Sarah Palin. No one would dare make a similar comment about Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any prominent female leftist. In contrast, renowned members of the media savage Palin on a regular basis. If she is so extreme and such a disgrace, why does she engender so much hate? Undoubtedly, liberals are scared by her conservative message and her ability to effectively communicate. As a result, they demonize her and through their hate speech figuratively “defecate” on her. It is time for this obscene mistreatment to end.

NBC News operates MSNBC and must condone the hard left programming, but it is surprising that it allows hate speech to permeate their airwaves. Until MSNBC changes direction, let’s hope viewers and advertisers continue to abandon the network.

It is time to elevate the political discourse in our nation. We should encourage networks to allow a variety of views on their airwaves including a spirited debate on the important issues that impact our country. However, in the process, Americans should demand that all broadcasters show basic human decency toward each other and those in political leadership, even conservatives like Sarah Palin. As of today, on these important criteria, MSNBC is failing miserably.

Who Killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan’s Answer

Paul Kengor | Nov 23, 2013

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at American Spectator.

This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of the shooting of John F. Kennedy but also the 45th anniversary of the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy, which occurred in June 1968. Was there a common source motivating the assassins of both Kennedys—that is, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan?

That renowned political philosopher Mick Jagger speculated on a source. “I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’” asks the lyrics in the 1968 song by The Rolling Stones. “When, after all, it was you and me.” The song was titled, “Sympathy for the Devil.” It was, The Rolling Stones suggested, the Devil who had killed the Kennedys, along with his accomplices.

I must say I can’t disagree with that one—a rare area of agreement between me and Mick Jagger.

There is, however, a more earthly answer. And it was provided, surprisingly, by a rising political star in the immediate hours after the shooting of Bobby Kennedy. That star was the new governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

RFK was shot in Governor Reagan’s state. Reagan was no stranger to Bobby Kennedy. He had debated him a year earlier on national television, which didn’t go well for RFK, with Reagan clearly outshining him. Kennedy told his handlers to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-b—-.”

That debate occurred five years after Bobby Kennedy had intervened to get Reagan fired from his long stint as host of the top-rated GE Theatre on CBS—a fact unknown until it was revealed by Michael Reagan in his excellent book, The New Reagan Revolution. Typical of Reagan, he harbored no bitterness toward RFK. That was quite unlike Bobby Kennedy, a man who personally knew how to hold a grudge.

On June 5, 1968, Reagan was full of nothing but sympathy for RFK. He appeared on the popular television show of Joey Bishop, one of the extended members of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack. Bishop and Reagan were old Hollywood friends, and Bishop extended the governor a platform to address the shooting. A transcript of Reagan’s appearance on that show was grabbed by his young chief of staff, Bill Clark, who died just a few months ago. Clark shoved it in a box that ended up in the tack barn at his ranch in central California. It lay there until I, as Clark’s biographer, dug it out three decades later.

That rare surviving transcript reveals a Reagan who spoke movingly about RFK and the entire Kennedy family. Condemning the “savage act,” Reagan pleaded: “I am sure that all of us are praying not only for him but for his family and for those others who were so senselessly struck down also in the fusillade of bullets…. I believe we should go on praying, to the best of our ability.”

But particularly interesting was how Reagan unflinchingly pointed a finger of blame in the direction of Moscow. Reagan noted that Kennedy’s killer, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab and also a communist, had shot Kennedy because of his support of Israel during the Six Day War that had occurred exactly one year earlier. On that, we now know beyond dispute what Reagan knew then: That war had been shamelessly provoked by the Kremlin.

Looking to exploit divisions in the Middle East and further exacerbate America’s foreign-policy problems at the time (we were mired in Vietnam), Soviet officials cooked up false intelligence reports claiming that Israeli troops had been moved into the Golan Heights and were readying to invade Syria. They peddled the malicious, phony information to Egypt and other Arab states for the explicit purpose of creating a military confrontation with Israel. The Israeli leader, Levi Eshkol, immediately denounced the accusation, telling the Soviet ambassador to his face that there were no Israeli troops there whatsoever, and offering to personally drive him to the Golan at once. Acting on orders, the ambassador flatly refused, shouting “Nyet!” at Eshkol and storming out of the prime minister’s residence. The Egyptians, too, checked their intelligence sources and found no evidence of Israeli troops in the Golan. Nonetheless, the pieces were in motion, and one thing dangerously led to another until everything spiraled out of control. Within mere weeks, the Six Day War was on—precipitated by the Kremlin. The egregious depths of Soviet disinformation spawned a major Middle East war.

RFK supported Israel in that war. Sirhan Sirhan never forgave him for that. He killed him for that.

Again, Ronald Reagan knew about the Soviet role in instigating the conflict, which he apparently pieced together via various reports at the time. As a result, he linked Bobby Kennedy’s assassination to the USSR’s mischief in the Middle East. “The enemy sits in Moscow,” Reagan told Joey Bishop. “I call him an enemy because I believe he has proven this, by deed, in the Middle East. The actions of the enemy led to and precipitated the tragedy of last night.”

Moscow had precipitated the Six Day War in June 1967, which, in turn, had prompted RFK’s assassin in June 1968.

But Reagan wasn’t finished positioning blame where it deserved to be placed. Eight days later, on July 13, 1968, Reagan delivered a forgotten speech in Indianapolis. Both the Indianapolis News and Indianapolis Star reported on Reagan’s remarks, but the only full transcript I’ve seen was likewise located in Bill Clark’s private papers. In that speech, Reagan leveled this charge at international communism, with an earlier Kennedy assassination in mind: “Five years ago, a president was murdered by one who renounced his American citizenship to embrace the godless philosophy of communism, and it was communist violence he brought to our land. The shattering sound of his shots were still ringing in our ears when a policy decision was made to play down his communist attachment lest we provoke the Soviet Union.”

Reagan was spot on. As many conservative writers are currently noting, liberals in the immediate moments after the JFK assassination sought to blame everything but Oswald’s love of communism, love of the Soviet Union, and love of Castro’s Cuba as motivations for what he did. Some blamed the climate of alleged “hate” and “bigotry” and “violence” in Dallas for the shooting. They ached to blame the right, fulfilling James Burnham’s timeless maxim: “For the left, the preferred enemy is always to the right.” Amazingly, they attempted to label Oswald a “right-winger,” which was utterly upside down. He was a left-winger, as far left as one could get. Oswald was a completely committed communist. He was head over heels for Castro’s Cuba in particular. He adored Fidel. After defecting to and then leaving the Soviet Union after a long stay there, he went back to Texas (with a Soviet wife) and then tried everything to get to Havana and serve the revolution there. JFK and Fidel despised one another; each wanted the other dead. Guess who Oswald sided with on that one?

The Warren Commission later agonized over the possible motivations of Oswald. In the end, it determined that it “could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives.” To its credit, the commission “endeavored to isolate the factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.” It listed five factors, which appear on page 23 of the huge commission report. Among the five, the fifth underscored Oswald’s “avowed commitment to Marxism and communism,” and noted specifically his ardor for Moscow and Havana. The commission concluded that this did indeed contribute to Oswald’s “capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.”

Nonetheless, Oswald’s passion for international communism, from Russia to the Western Hemisphere, has been downplayed by the American left and many Americans generally from the literal moment we learned that John F. Kennedy had been shot.

One American who was never blind to that motivation was Ronald Reagan. More than that, Reagan wasn’t naïve to the role of international communism in the shooting of RFK either.

For the record, this is not to say that Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan acted as conscious, deliberate agents trained and ordered by the Soviets or the Cubans, though some—such as Ion Mihai Pacepa—have examined that possibility in depth. Their actions, however, cannot or should not be separated from the malevolent force of international communism, which unquestionably played a role in their ultimate deadly actions.

Who killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan told us the answer 45 years ago.

MSM / MSNBC

Breaking: Not breaking. As Twitchy reported Thursday morning, Huffington Post editorial director and MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman was among the slobbering lapdogs summoned to the White House for an off-the-record audience with Obama.

On Friday, Fineman took to Twitter to boast about his Special Snowflake status … and to tell you plebs he’s not willing to share any details on his Obamacare marching orders.

The Top 20 Signs That You Get All Your News From MSNBC

John Hawkins | Nov 19, 2013

1) The total extent of your knowledge about the world before 1970 is that Hitler was a lot like George W. Bush.

2) You once lectured the plumber clearing a clog in your toilet because you thought he didn’t appreciate all the benefits he had received from “white privilege.”

3) Not only do you have Sandra Fluke’s autograph, you paid for it and it’s hanging in your house.

4) You once took a sign to a protest that said, “Who Needs Oil? I Ride The Bus.”

5) You are “pro-choice” on abortion, but believe religious groups should be forced to pay for your birth control.

6) You think a Republican founded the KKK.

7) You cried yourself to sleep one night last week because you’re so upset at how mean people are to poor Alec Baldwin.

8) You’ve used the words, “That’s Bush’s fault,” in the last month.

9) You’ve laughed at a rape joke about Sarah Palin within an hour of claiming Republicans are waging a “war on women.”

10) You once actually said, “If Chris Matthews says it, you can take it to the bank!”

11) You don’t believe Barack Obama has ever lied to anyone, but if he did, you’re sure he did it for our own good!

12) You don’t understand why Obama still hasn’t prosecuted Bush for being behind 9/11 yet.

13) You’d be in favor of emptying the terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay so you could send Christians and Tea Partiers there instead.

14) You believe Ed Schultz is a moderate voice of reasoned debate.

15) You once called a conservative black man a racist for saying everyone should be treated equally.

16) You refuse to call Washington’s pro-football team “the Redskins,” but refer to Tea Partiers as “Teabaggers.”

17) You supported Obamacare all the way, but were shocked to find out that your insurance wasn’t free when it went into effect.

18) You blame Republicans for all the problems with Obamacare even though it was passed entirely with Democrat votes.

19) You hate the slanted news you get from places like Fox, which is why you prefer to get your news from unbiased commentators like Rachel Maddow and Piers Morgan.

20) You get so angry about those darn hunters! How can they kill animals for food when they could just buy it at the grocery store like everyone else?

Tag Cloud