Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Obama Administration Modifies U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Accommodate Muslims

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.
Now the USCIS says, “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan -- the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer -- comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life -- American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” -- to quote the original Oath of Allegiance -- against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons. 

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty -- even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it -- with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims -- “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).













MR. OBAMA AND HIS KLIMATE KONTROL KOMMISARS By Ben Stein

Mr. Obama and His Klimate Kontrol Kommisars | The American Spectator
Tuesday, Beverly Hills

Now for a few words about current events....


American Airlines needs some work. They consistently mistreat us passengers on the flight from DCA to LAX. Why? I guess we are just considered dog food. But Saturday’s flight was a disaster. Almost three hours late leaving DCA. No apology. AC barely working. Dinner was literal dog food. When we got to LAX, very late at night, the terminal was a scene from hell. Mobs of immigrants and citizens, none speaking English, jostling each other, pushing, shoving, shouting, riding on skateboards through crowds of old people. It was the street scenes from Blade Runner. Neither more nor less. Yes, get Blade Runner and watch it. That’s LAX right now.

Why do we have the worst airport in the world? Why doesn’t anyone there speak English? In Spokane, everyone speaks English. What happened?

Anyway, Mr. Obama’s “clean energy” plan:

1. It has not been proved that the climate is changing by anything more than the most minute amounts, such as one degree in one century. There has been zero global warming since 1991. Even if there were climate change, no one has been able to explain why man’s activities caused it except as one hypothetical among many other hypotheticals.

2. There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in man-made climate change, and many more who don’t believe in climate change at all. They are never in the New York Times. Why? Because “science” is as political as the election for Prom King and Homecoming Queen. There is no climate science that is not political.

3. The USA produces roughly 15 percent of the carbon emissions on this earth. Obama wants to lower that by roughly 25 percent. That would mean a change by 2030 (I will be long dead…) of roughly 3.7 percent in global carbon emissions if the rest of the world stopped adding to coal fired energy creation. But China and India add roughly one new coal-fired energy plant per week. China has not promised any cuts in carbon emissions ever. They promised to stop adding to carbon output in about ten years but never to cut anything.

4. So we in the USA will suffer all of the dislocation, the poor coal miners (mostly white, of course, so who cares about them?) will lose their jobs, and the world’s carbon emissions won’t budge. All in the name of an unproved theory.

Of course the real goal is just to push people around and show how holy and sanctimonious Mr. Obama is. Who cares if the coal miner in Kentucky loses his home if Mr. Obama is worshiped by the Beautiful People who live near me?

Mr. Obama is not too smart, but he’s smart enough to do a lot towards destroying the economy and the rule of law and the livelihoods of hard-working people. I would just like you to know I saw it coming and so did you.

Mr. Obama is a very angry man. As Bob Dylan said, “Some people have knives and forks and they don’t have anything on their plate, so they have to cut something.”

Finally, Donald Trump. For the first time this week I saw why people like him. The New York Times ran a front pager on Saturday about how Mr. Trump was an old hand at racist campaigns. They then did not mention one single word or example or even gossip about his alleged racism or any racist campaigns. Not one word. It was pure unmixed smear. I am not a fan of Mr. Trump for some good reasons. But when the Pretty People just make up lies about a man, even a Donald Trump, I start to have some sympathy for the man.

That story was just pure libel. I hope Trump sues them. He likes to sue and this would be a good case. To libel a public figure you have to act with actual malice or such severe negligence that it’s the same as actual malice.

This, in the eyes of an old man who taught Libel Law for some years, is clear cut.
Well. It’s late. I have to go watch COPS: Reloaded and see my heroes, the cops.

Oh, wait. One final word: Mr. Obama’s Klimate Kontrol Komissars are meant to save the earth and save lives. But that's all totally hypothetical and conjectural. If we could stop abortion, we would save roughly 800,000 actual lives, in real life, every year. But Mr. Obama will go to the mat for keeping the ghastly artifact of abortion up and running like Eichmann’s trains. Why? What makes him hate Israel so much? Hate babies so much? What’s going on inside that head?


[VIDEO] 16 states ask Obama admin to put power plant rules on hold

The campaign to stop President Barack Obama's sweeping emissions limits on power plants began taking shape Wednesday, as 16 states asked the government to put the rules on hold while a Senate panel moved to block them.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading the charge against the rules, banded together with 15 other state attorneys general in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy requesting that the agency temporarily suspend the rules while they challenge their legality in court. The letter called for the EPA to respond by Friday.
The EPA and the White House both said they believe the limits are legal and have no plans to put them on hold. But by submitting the formal request anyway, the attorneys general are laying the groundwork to ask the courts to suspend the emissions limits instead.
"These regulations, if allowed to proceed, will do serious harm to West Virginia and the U.S. economy," Morrisey said. "That is why we are taking quick action to bring this process to a halt."
The 16 states and a handful of others are preparing to sue the Obama administration to block the rules permanently by arguing they exceed Obama's authority. Bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling against the administration's mercury limits, opponents argued that states shouldn't have to start preparing to comply with a rule that may eventually get thrown out by the courts.
The speedy opposition from the states came two days after Obama unveiled the final version of the rules, which mark the first time the U.S. has ever limited carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Obama's revised plan mandates a 32 percent cut in emissions nationwide by 2030, compared to 2005 levels — a steeper cut than in his earlier proposal.
Most of the attorneys general signing the letter Wednesday are Republicans. Yet they were joined by Jack Conway of the coal-producing state of Kentucky. Conway and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear are both Democrats, but have joined the state's Republican leaders in denouncing Obama's power plant limits, which form the centerpiece of his plan to fight climate change.
Although the most serious threat to Obama's power plant rules is in the courts, lawmakers in Congress are also pursuing legislative means to stop them. The first vote came Wednesday in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where a bill blocking the rules passed the GOP-controlled panel by a voice vote — but not without a bit of drama.
Over the protests of boycotting Democrats, the Senate GOP-controlled panel approved legislation designed to block the Obama administration from implementing the tough new standards.
Democrats walked out of the committee meeting in protest of a separate bill about pesticides, arguing it should have been the subject of a fact-finding hearing. Lacking the necessary quorum for a vote, Republican Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma reconvened the meeting in a lunchroom just off the Senate floor, where the aroma of a just-completed GOP lunch was still wafting in the air.
The voice vote approving the bill sends it to the full Senate, where a filibuster battle awaits. Obama has vowed to veto any such legislation, and Republicans have yet to prove they can muster the votes to override his veto.

Report: Food Stamp Use Up 300 Percent Since ’00, As Eligibility Requirements Dropped

British Celebrity Chef Jamie Oliver/Minister for Health David Davis announce a partnership to attack state-wide obesity on March 6, 2012 in Melbourne, Australia. The Government and the Good Foundation will pledge together over AUD5 million to bring Oliver

Food stamp use has increased nearly 300 percent nationwide since 2014, despite a drop in the poverty rate, according to a report released Wednesday by The Foundation for Government Accountability.
“Even though poverty rates are declining, the number of people receiving food stamps continues to climb,” the report detailed. “Food stamp spending is growing ten times as fast as federal revenues.”
According to their report — “Restoring Work Requirements Will Help Solve the Food Stamp Crisis” — the problem results from less restrictive eligibility requirements.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the main agency in charge of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to its own findings, SNAP has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014. Concurrently, work requirements were waived in many states.
“Federal law generally limits food stamp eligibility for non-disabled childless adults to just three months out of any three-year period unless they meet specified work requirements,” the report also noted. “These work requirements have become irrelevant in recent years, however, as states have been given waivers to exempt able-bodied adults from federal work requirements.”
The Obama administration had granted working requirement waivers to 40 states and partial waivers to another six states. As a result more states are providing food stamp benefits to more adults who don’t work despite not having physical disabilities preventing them from doing so.
“By 2013, a record-high 4.9 million able-bodied, childless adults were receiving food stamps,” the report continued. “Federal spending on food stamps for able-bodied adults skyrocketed to more than $10 billion in 2013, up from just $462 million in 2000.”
The size of the program alone has prompted concern among among many lawmakers. Some on the state and federal level have tried reforming the program by getting work requirements back or adding additional eligibility requirements. In July, the administration for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sued the USDA after the agency informed the state itcould not drug-test those on food stamps. Walker is currently running for the Republican nomination for president.
“The way forward for states could not be more simple or clear,” the report concluded. “Governors should decline to renew the federal waivers that have eliminated work requirements for able-bodied childless adults on food stamps.”

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Gov't watchdogs urge Congress to reverse Obama administration IG crackdown

grassley_dojpaper_split.jpg
Nearly six-dozen watchdog agencies are asking Congress to step in after the Obama administration clamped down on access to government records they say are vital for their investigations into waste, fraud and abuse. 
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency sent an Aug. 3 letter to congressional leaders ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday where they will ask lawmakers to pass legislation reversing a controversial decision made July 20 by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC is now requiring investigators to get permission to review sensitive documents from the very agencies they are monitoring.
This decision, the letter said, "represents a serious threat to the independent authority" of all inspectors general. 
IGs are assigned to audit and conduct internal reviews of federal agencies, and recently have been responsible for investigating the IRS targeting scandal, TSA security gaps, personal email use at the State Department and other issues. 
The council represents about 70 IG offices across the government, including for the Federal Communications Commission, the National Security Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While the July 20 ruling applies to the DOJ, some are worried it will prompt other departments to set similar restrictions.
DOJ spokeswoman Emily Pierce countered the claims, saying the ruling still allows investigators to get sensitive information.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Obama Administration Refuses To Identify Troubled Healthcare Co-Ops

A man looks over the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) signup page on the HealthCare.gov website in New York in this October 2, 2013 photo illustration. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Federal officials refuse to identify the troubled Obamacare health co-ops that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has placed in a special risk category requiring “enhanced oversight” due to low profitability or low enrollment.
Last week the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that 22 of the 23 non-profit co-ops suffered net operating losses last year and that six were so distressed CMS said they were the subject to extra “enhanced oversight.”
CMS spokesman Aaron Albright, however, refused to divulge the names of the struggling taxpayer-supported co-ops.
He suggested The Daily Caller News Foundation file a Freedom of Information Act request. It’s not uncommon for responses to FOIA requests to take months or even years to be processed by federal departments and agencies.
The secrecy surrounding the identity of the six ailing co-ops is not sitting well with government watchdog groups.
“Taxpayers deserve to know when any sort of taxpayer-funded entity is failing,” said David Williams, president of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. “Taxpayers need to know the success or failure of those co-ops. We have to name names.”
“Certainly, the government should be identifying co-ops that are at risk,” noted Scott Amey, the general counsel for the non-partisan Project on Government Oversight. “The government seems to be just trying to bury its head in the sand.”
Department of Health and Human Services IG Daniel Levinson was the first to report that six co-ops were in a special risk category within CMS.
“CMS recently placed four CO-OPs on enhanced oversight or corrective action plans and two CO-OPs on low-enrollment warning notifications,” he revealed in his July 30 report.
Levinson further criticized CMS officials, noting that the Obamacare program was now in its third year of existence, yet, “CMS had not established guidelines or criteria to assess whether a CO-OP was viable or sustainable.”
Levinson painted a dismal national picture of the Obamacare health co-ops, noting they were suffering from cash shortages and that their enrollment numbers were “considerably lower than the CO-OPs’ initial annual projections.”
Sparse enrollments could imperil most of the non-profit co-ops that were originally designed to compete with traditional health insurance companies.
“The low enrollments and net losses might limit the ability of some CO-OPs to repay startup and solvency loans and to remain viable and sustainable,” Levinson said.
About $2 billion have been issued in start-up and solvency loans under Obamacare.
Rating agency Standard and Poor’s last February identified 10 co-ops that failed to enroll 6,000 or fewer customers through the third quarter of last year.
Those low enrollment co-ops are operating in Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Arizona, Tennessee, Michigan, Maryland and two in Oregon.
In that report, S&P optimistically claimed that one co-op, operating in Iowa and Nebraska, called Co-Opportunity Health, had enrolled 91,000 customers.
But Co-Opportunity abruptly closed its doors last December and by February the state had liquidated it.
At the time, the Iowa co-op suffered $163 million in operating losses, according to the Iowa insurance commissioner. CMS originally awarded $145 million under Obamacare.
Likewise, S&P also reported that the Louisiana Health CO-OP had successfully enrolled 11,771 customers.
But last month the co-op announced it was shuttering its doors by the end of the year. CMS had loaned that co-op $66 million.
Similar to the experiences reported in Iowa and Louisiana, most of the non-profit health co-ops have been burning through their federal loans at an alarming rate, according to financial reporting agencies.
Insurance ratings firm A.M. Best warned in January that as of Sept. 30, 2014, “the ratio of surplus notes outstanding to capital and surplus exceeded 100% for all of the co-ops.”
Standard & Poor’s Report on the co-ops reported that the worst performing co-ops that were burning through their existing capital were in Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Maryland.
Thomas Miller of the American Enterprise Institute and Grace-Marie Turner, the president of the free market Galen Institute reported that net losses for all the co-ops amounted to $614 million in 2014.
Last year CMS announced that it was replenishing some co-op cash with emergency “solvency loans.”
Five Obamacare health insurance co-ops in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New York and Wisconsin received solvency loans in 2014 amounting to $322 million.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Obama set to announce steeper emissions cuts from US power plants

President Barack Obama will impose steeper cuts on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants across the country than previously expected, senior administration officials said Sunday, in what the president called the most significant step the U.S. has ever taken to fight global warming.
The Obama administration is expected to finalize the rule at a White House event on Monday, a year after proposing unprecedented carbon dioxide limits. Obama, in a video posted on Facebook, said the limits were backed up by decades of data and facts showing that without tough action, the world will face more extreme weather and escalating health problems like asthma.
"Climate change is not a problem for another generation," Obama said. "Not anymore."
Initially, Obama had mandated a 30 percent nationwide cut in carbon dioxide emission by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. The final version, which follows extensive consultations with environmental groups and the energy industry, will require a 32 percent cut instead, according to White House officials.
Opponents said they would sue the government immediately. The also planned to ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out.
The steeper version also gives states an additional two years to comply, officials said, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. The new deadline is set for 2022. States will also have until 2018 instead of 2017 to submit their plans for how they intend to meet their targets.
The focus on renewables marks a significant shift from the earlier proposal that sought to accelerate the ongoing shift from coal-fired power to natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix the same as it is now.
The stricter limits included the final plan were certain to incense energy industry advocates who had already balked at the more lenient limits in the proposed plan. However, the Obama administration said its tweaks would cut energy costs and address concerns about power grid reliability.
The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limits will cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.
In the works for years, the power plant rule forms the cornerstone of Obama's plan to curb U.S. emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing, and its success is pivotal to the legacy Obama hopes to leave on climate change. Never before has the U.S. sought to restrict carbon dioxide from existing power plants.
By clamping down on power plant emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he's seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005. Other major polluting nations have also stepped up including China, which pledged to halt its growth in emissions by 2030 despite an economy that's still growing.
Power plants account for at least one-third of all emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming in the U.S. Obama’s rule assigns customized targets for each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet their targets.
More than a dozen states have already made plans to fight the rule, even before it was revealed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has urged some Republican governors to refuse to comply, setting up a confrontation with the EPA, which by law can force its own plan on states that fail to submit implementation plans.
Yet in those states, power companies and local utilities have started preparing to meet those targets. New, more efficient plants are replacing older ones have already pushed emissions down nearly 13 percent since 2005.
In Congress, lawmakers have sought to use legislation to stop Obama's regulation, and McConnell has tried previously to use an obscure, rarely successful maneuver under the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to vote it down.
The more serious threat to Obama's rule will likely come in the courts. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents energy companies, said 20 to 30 states were poised to join with industry in suing over the rule.
The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court ruled against 15 states and a coal company that tried to block the power plant rule before it was finalized. The Supreme Court has also affirmed Obama's authority to regulate pollution crossing state lines and to use the decades-old Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases — the legal underpinning for the power plant rule.
But the high court in June ruled against his mercury emissions limits, arguing the EPA failed to properly account for costs. Federal courts have also forced Obama to redo other clean air standards that industry groups complained were too onerous.
With the end of Obama's presidency drawing nearer, his climate efforts have become increasingly entangled in the next presidential election. The power plant rule won't go into effect until long after Obama leaves office, putting its implementation in the hands of his successor. Among other Republican critics, 2016 candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has said he would drastically scale down the EPA if elected and shift most of its duties to state regulators.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Obama Will Investigate Death of Cecil the Lion, Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies

The killing of Cecil the lion has been at the forefront of international outrage regarding big game hunting and now the Obama administration says they will join in helping investigate his death. The Hill reports that the administration is “ready to take action” and offer support to the Zimbabwean government. Earlier this month, American dentist Walter Palmer killed Cecil outside a Zimbabwean park.
Laury Parramore, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service said, “The Service is deeply concerned about the recent killing of Cecil the lion. We are currently gathering facts about the issue and will assist Zimbabwe officials in whatever manner requested. It is up to all of us — not just the people of Africa — to ensure that healthy, wild populations of animals continue to roam the savanna for generations to come.”
Although it is wonderful that the Obama administration has strong convictions about the killing of animals, it is unbelievable that this concern outweighs the trafficking of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood.
As LifeNews previously reported, President Obama has been virtually silent on the abortion giant’s videos showing their top executives negotiating the sale of aborted babies and sharing how they alter their procedures to obtain salable organs.
However, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said today that the President does not believe there is evidence of Planned Parenthood acting unethically and wouldn’t support legislation to defund them. He said, “On balance, the president would not be supportive of such congressional action. This is a tactic we have seen used before. The president obviously does not support that ongoing effort.”
Unfortunately, this is not surprising since President Obama and Planned Parenthood are best friends.
In 2013, Marjorie Dannenfeiser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said the following about Obama’s support for Planned Parenthood: “There is no industry that President Obama is more willing to protect than the abortion industry and particularly Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion provider, which in a single year performed more than 333,000 abortions. The president has defended federal funding for Planned Parenthood to the point of being willing to shut down the government over the continuing resolution battle, and in return they spent a record amount to reelect him in November.”
In 2013, President Obama praised the abortion giant and said he wanted God to bless them. He said, “As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”
Most recently, President Obama has showed his extreme abortion views by threatening to veto the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would protect babies after 20-weeks from abortion based on the concept that they can feel pain. In January, the Obama administration said in a press release: “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 36, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.”
barackobama25

Saturday, August 1, 2015

HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF: WE WON’T CALL CHATTANOOGA ‘ISLAMIC TERRORISM’ OUT OF RESPECT FOR MUSLIMS

THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR US, WHY SHOULD WE HAVE ANY FORM THEM??
Why won’t the Obama administration call Fort Hood Islamic Terrorism? Why aren’t they calling Chattanooga Islamic Terrorism? Because it’s disrespect to Muslims and Islam is about peace:
ARUTZ SHEVA – Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson announced the policy this past Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum in Washington, D.C. He explained that though it was a Muslim terrorist who shot to death four unarmed Marines in Tennessee two weeks ago, the government will call the attack, and other similar ones, “violent extremism” and not “Islamic terrorism” – out of respect for the Muslim community.
Johnson said it is “critical” to refrain from the “Islamic” label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.
The Tennessee murderer, Mohammad Abdulazeez, is officially a “homegrown violent extremist,” according to the government – even though he blogged about his Islamic religious motivations for the attack. He and his family also attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.
Johnson explained that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere” in gaining the “cooperation” of the Muslim community.
The moderator of the panel tried to protest: “Isn’t [the] government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?”
“I could not disagree more,” Johnson responded, and explained that Islam “is about peace.”
So if we say we want Muslims to stand up against Islamic extremism but we won’t call it Islamic extremism, how will they know it’s Islamic extremism if we won’t even tell the truth about it?
Heck, it’s not even extremism, really. It is simply Muslims taking their religion very, very seriously and trying to walk in the footsteps of Muhammad. Now there is an extreme component to it, as some believe the time is now to wage Jihad and others believe that time will come when their Mahdi returns. But that’s just a matter of ‘when’, not ‘what’.
But hey, let’s not offend Muslims here by telling the truth about Islam. Let’s just pretend Jihadis are just a bunch of angry poor people who can’t get jobs in their countries. And let’s send them money to see if that fixes the problem.
Good plan.




Friday, July 31, 2015

[OPINION] Congress should reject Iran pact

 — It came two days after the announcement of the nuclear agreement with Iran, yet little mention was made on July 16 of the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear explosion, near Alamogordo, N.M. The anniversary underscored that the agreement attempts to thwart proliferation of technology seven decades old.
Nuclear-weapons technology has become markedly more sophisticated since 1945. But not so sophisticated that nations with sufficient money and determination cannot master or acquire it. Iran’s determination is probably related to America’s demonstration, in Iraq and Libya, of the perils of not having nuclear weapons.
Critics who think more severe sanctions are achievable and would break Iran’s determination must answer this: When have sanctions caused a large nation to surrender what it considers a vital national security interest? Critics have, however, amply demonstrated two things:
First, the agreement comprehensively abandons President Obama’s original goal of dismantling the infrastructure of its nuclear weapons program. Second, as the administration became more yielding with Iran, it became more dishonest with Americans. For example, John Kerry says we never sought “anywhere, anytime” inspections. But on April 6, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said the agreement would include “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Kerry’s co-negotiator, Wendy Sherman, breezily dismissed “anywhere, anytime” as “something that became popular rhetoric.” It “became”? This is disgraceful.
Verification depends on U.S. intelligence capabilities, which failed in 2003 (Iraq’s supposed possession of WMD), in 1968 (North Vietnam’s Tet offensive) and in 1941 (Pearl Harbor). As Reuel Marc Gerecht says in “How Will We Know? The coming Iran intelligence failure” (The Weekly Standard, July 27), “The CIA has a nearly flawless record of failing to predict foreign countries’ going nuclear (Great Britain and France don’t count).”
During the 1960 campaign, John Kennedy cited “indications” that by 1964 there would be “10, 15 or 20” nuclear powers. As president, he said that by 1975 there might be 15 or 20. Nonproliferation efforts have succeeded but cannot completely succeed forever.
It is a law of arms control: Agreements are impossible until they are unimportant. The U.S.-Soviet strategic arms control “process” was an arena of maneuvering for military advantage, until the Soviet Union died of anemia. Might the agreement with Iran buy sufficient time for Iran to undergo regime modification? Although Kerry speaks of the agreement “guaranteeing” that Iran will not become a nuclear power, it will. But what will Iran be like 15 years hence?
Since 1972, U.S. policy toward China has been a worthy but disappointing two-part wager. One part is that involving China in world trade will temper its unruly international ambitions. The second is that economic growth, generated by the moral and institutional infrastructure of markets, will weaken the sinews of authoritarianism.
The Obama administration’s comparable wager is that the Iranian regime will be subverted by domestic restiveness. The median age in Iran is 29.5 (in the United States, 37.7; in the European Union, 42.2). More than 60 percent of Iran’s university students, and approximately 70 percent of medical students, are women. Ferment is real. 
In 1951, Hannah Arendt, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, argued bleakly (in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”) that tyrannies wielding modern instruments of social control (bureaucracies, mass communications) could achieve permanence by conscripting the citizenry’s consciousness, thereby suffocating social change. The 1956 Hungarian Revolution changed her mind: No government can control human nature or “all channels of communication.”  
Today’s technologies make nations, including Iran, porous to outside influences; intellectual autarky is impossible. The best that can be said for the Iran agreement is that by somewhat protracting Iran’s path to a weapon it buys time for constructive churning in Iran. Although this is a thin reed on which to lean hopes, the reed is as real as Iran’s nuclear ambitions are apparently nonnegotiable. 
The best reason for rejecting the agreement is to rebuke Obama’s long record of aggressive disdain for Congress — recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, rewriting and circumventing statutes, etc. Obama’s intellectual pedigree runs to Woodrow Wilson, the first presidential disparager of the separation of powers. Like Wilson, Obama ignores the constitutional etiquette of respecting even rivalrous institutions.
The Iran agreement should be a treaty; it should not have been submitted first to the U.N. as a studied insult to Congress. Wilson said that rejecting the Versailles Treaty would “break the heart of the world.” The Senate, no member of which had been invited to accompany Wilson to the Paris Peace Conference, proceeded to break his heart. Obama deserves a lesson in the cost of Wilsonian arrogance. Knowing little history, Obama makes bad history.
— George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Popular Posts