Displaying posts published in

January 2013


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/a-world-without-america/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that “a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable.” While that sentiment won’t be embraced in President Obama’s inaugural address next week, all other things being equal, it seems likely to be the practical effect of his second term. Of course, Iran’s regime seeks […]



To read and order Frank Gaffney’s pamphlet, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, click here.

Last June, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four Republican colleagues sent letters to the Inspectors General at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking them to investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood—the ideological wellspring from which such terrorist outfits as al Qaeda and Hamas first emerged—might be gaining undue influence over high-level U.S. government officials. One letter, for instance, noted that Hillary Clinton‘s closest aide, her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, “has three family members … connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.”

A few days ago, when Bachmann was reassigned to the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the left-wing activist group, People For the American Way (PFAW)—which had originally launched an unsuccessful petition drive to have the congresswoman removed from that Committee last year—decided to revive that effort. By PFAW’s telling, some 178,000 people have signed the petition thus far.

According to PFAW president Michael Keegan, Rep. Bachmann’s warnings amount to nothing more than a “smear campaign” of “baseless conspiracy theories” designed to ruin “the reputations of honorable public servants.” PFAW spokesman Drew Courtney accuses Bachmann of engaging in “reckless extremism” aimed chiefly at “making headlines and pandering to the Tea Party.” And PFAW’s online strategy manager, Ben Betz, derides Bachmann’s “Islamaphobic fear mongering” and her “disregard for honesty.” These accusations are entirely consistent with PFAW’s previous claims that “right-wing anti-Muslim activists,” filled with “anti-Muslim paranoia,” routinely “demoniz[e]” and “vilif[y]” members of the Islamic faith in an effort to stoke Americans’ “irrational fears.” Such conservative activists, says PFAW, “sanction and encourage [the] persecution” of Muslims while aiming to “prevent” them from “freely worshiping and practicing their religion.”

MATTHEW VADUM: Oliver Stone’s Distortion of the Eisenhower Era


Editor’s note: The following is the fifth installment of a series of articles Frontpage is running in response to Oliver Stone’s revisionist documentary series, “The Untold History of the United States.” Frontpage will be reviewing each episode of the Stone series, exposing the leftist hateful lies about America and setting the record straight. Below is a review of Part 5 of the series.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower is responsible for transforming America into the imperialist global bully it supposedly is today, according to radical Hollywood fabulist Oliver Stone.

In the fifth episode of his multi-part revisionist assault on modern American history, Untold History of the United States, Stone argues that Eisenhower was a willing tool of greedy U.S. corporations and a warmonger who refused to make deals with a Soviet Union that was suing for peace.

Stone blames Eisenhower, the popular former five-star general who led the U.S. and its allies to victory in World War Two, for creating “a permanent war economy.” Essentially, Ike turned America into a high-tech modern-day Sparta, Stone claims, by permanently ramping up military expenditures. Of course to the extent that Eisenhower promoted high levels of defense spending he was only carrying on the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. The Communist-loving director, known for palling around with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, could never forgive Eisenhower for deploying nuclear weapons that were aimed at Stone’s beloved USSR.

“Nuclear bombs were now the foundation of America’s empire and provided the new emperor, its president, with a mystical power that required more and more suffocating secrecy even if those powers went far beyond the original limits of executive power defined in the Constitution,” Stone says.

Of course the United States has never been an empire, but Stone’s Marxist worldview clouds his perception. Apart perhaps from its pursuit of “manifest destiny” and a few military adventures in the 1800s, when the U.S. has projected its power beyond its home territory it has eventually pulled back.

The U.S., unlike so many world powers, does not conquer other countries: it liberates them and then goes home. This has, understandably, given the U.S. a special moral standing in the community of nations and it certainly does not make the American president an emperor.

But Stone’s unpatriotic rant continues. America’s nuclear arsenal and the pricey infrastructure supporting it allowed the imperialistic U.S. to dominate the world for decades, he insists. “And although the bombs themselves were not expensive, the huge infrastructure was, requiring bases in the U.S. and abroad and enormous delivery systems by bomber, missile, aircraft carrier, and submarine.”


http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/disarming-americans-arming-terrorists/print/ While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks […]


http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/337798 ‘He was much more liberal than his presidential campaign let on,” Charles Kesler writes of Barack Obama in 2008. You can say that again. “Liberals like crises, and one shouldn’t spoil them by handing them another on a silver salver. The kind of crisis that is approaching . . . is probably not their […]



In the good old days, consumers got what they wanted. Supply and demand governed product design and manufacturing, not causes or ideology. That’s why we have great American icons like the 1969 Chevy Camaro, the charcoal burning Weber grill, and DDT.

But things have changed. The Green Movement’s worship of scarcity has changed the consumer landscape for the worse. Instead of big, powerful, and most importantly, effective products, in 2012 consumers must suffer with pansy products. Sure, they are designed to save energy and make you feel good. But they just don’t work as well as the old, and usually cheaper, versions.

Below are seven crappy products we must endure, courtesy of the Green Movement.
1. Low Water Toilets

Any article with the headline above must start with low water toilets. Many of you will remember an age before the government decided water was scarce, when toilets could be counted on. In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, and President George Bush signed it. It mandated a maximum flush capacity for toilets. Naturally, the 1992 version of the Green Movement was behind the law, and behind the Republican sponsor – Representative Philip Sharp of Indiana. Since Bush signed Sharp’s legislation, plunger sales have sky-rocketed. Sharp’s bad idea has caused some of the most embarrassing moments of people’s lives, especially when they are visiting someone else’s home.

Beware, the freaks next want to eliminate water in your toilet, as well as toilet paper.
2. Mercury-Filled Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs

We have learned a number of things in the last few years. First, the new environmentally friendly light bulbs, aren’t. When one breaks, mercury spills into your home environment. And even if they don’t shatter, they still spew out cancer-causing chemicals when you turn them on. They are expensive. The Green Movement tells us they last longer. Poppycock. I started writing down the installation date on the bulbs to see how long they really last. And the longevity is comparable to the old style bulbs, the ones that cost a third as much.
3. The Boeing 787

I love air travel. I flew over 110,000 real miles last year. I couldn’t wait to get on a new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Not anymore. A series of mishaps has exposed a frightening problem with the plane – electrical components are catching fire. This is no ordinary glitch that Boeing can easily sort out. Boeing has introduced an entirely new design paradigm which causes the problems on the 787, a paradigm that makes the Green Movement happy. Instead of using mechanical energy to power aircraft systems, the 787 uses stored electricity. Electricity is stored in high-capacity lithium ion batteries, freeing the engines from burning fossil fuel. Boeing jettisoned efficient copper wires, replacing them with lighter aluminum wiring. At the FAA’s urging, it reduced the punch of the batteries because they were known to explode and burn – bringing down at least one 747 that carried them in cargo. The new Boeing design paradigm is a light, electrical, fuel-efficient jet that uses less energy. Sound familiar? Boeing boldly trumpets this new paradigm.

The Boeing engineers are some of the smartest people in the world. So odds are they will sort out the problem, hopefully quickly enough. Until then, I’ll ride on fuel inefficient MD-80s or 737s.
4. Front-Loading Clothes Washers

Here is the dirty secret about energy-efficient front loading clothes washers: they suck. Before I owned one, a friend warned me, “they really don’t get clothes clean.” I didn’t believe her, but she was right. Front loaders utilize a technology still used to clean clothes on the banks of the Ganges in Bangladesh – small amounts of water and soap are used to beat damp clothes on rocks. Instead of rocks, American front loaders use a rough drum. The clothes gently swirl, then rest and thump in a puddle of soapy water. Sure they use less energy, but who cares when clothes stay dirty? And the mandatory “HE” detergent you must buy also costs more. The Green Movement hated the top loaders that cleaned clothes efficiently. In those good old days, clothes sat submerged in several gallons of water filled with detergent. Lots of electricity agitated the clothes to pure, clean beauty. So don’t be fooled by the neighbor or salesman who tells you front loaders are the way to go. Get yourself a big, wasteful, but effective top-loader before the government bans them.



Prior to joining PJ Media, Congressman Allen West served 22 years in the U.S. Army before being elected to the House of Representatives by the constituents of Florida’s 22nd district. Throughout his time in Congress, West consistently stood for policies that would make the United States prosperous, strong and free, even when speaking up was not easy. In January 2013, he joined PJ Media as the Director of Next Generation Programming where he is leading the effort to develop new Internet TV shows and other media that can be viewed onNextGeneration.TV starting in February 2013. Congressman West received his Bachelor’s degree while at the University of Tennessee and later went on to earn a Master’s degree from Kansas State University, both in political science. He also holds a Master of Military Arts and Sciences from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College in political theory and military operations.

Today I’m excited to announce that I have joined PJ Media, LLC, as director of its Next Generation programming. I am truly honored to be a member of the PJ Media and PJTV team and to continue to be a voice advocating for principled, pragmatic solutions to the issues affecting our constitutional republic.
I enjoyed my time serving as a member of the 112th Congress. However, those who think losing a congressional race defines me and ends my service to my country fail to realize what drives my patriotism and passion for America. True leaders do not need a title, just a conviction, a cause, and the character enabling them to make a stand.

My parents taught me a simple maxim, “A man must stand for something or else he shall fall for anything.” And that is why I took this course for the next phase in my life — to be the leading voice for the Next Generation program, and to stand up for our nation’s future. I know there were so many trying to predict the direction I would take, and one thing everyone needs to recognize is that I do not often do the predictable. PJ Media will give me the freedom to explore a multitude of topics and relate them to our next generation in a non-conventional manner.



Schumer Defects from Pro-Israel Cause, Backs Hagel for Defense; Confirmation Likely: Joel Pollak
Partisan loyalty trumped pro-Israel policy as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced, over the objection of many of his constituents, that he would support the nomination of former Sen Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as Secretary of Defense today. Pro-Israel Democrats in the Senate majority who might have voted against Hagel, are now likely to support him in the wake of Schumer’s decision, making Hagel’s confirmation all but certain.

Even as pro-Israel advocates mobilized against Hagel’s appointment, the White House has worked hard behind the scenes to shore up his support. Yesterday, Hagel delivered a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in which he expressed regret for his controversial comments about a “Jewish lobby” (though, as with an anti-gay remark in 1998, Hagel made the apologetic gesture to a third party, not to the target of his offensive comment).

Schumer’s announcement coincides with a long essay by Arianna Huffington in today’s Huffington Post in which she describes Hagel as a “neoconservative nightmare” and attempts to debunk criticisms of his candidacy. As with other defenses of Hagel, the Huffington post article does not make the case for Hagel–whose focus was foreign affairs, not defense, in his Senate days–but rather argues against Hagel’s opponents.

For example, Huffington attempts to dismiss concerns about Hagel’s temperament, calling them a “modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women.” Yet President Barack Obama himself made John McCain’s “temperament” an issue in the 2008 campaign–even mentioning it in his nomination acceptance speech–and Democrats rejected UN Ambassador John Bolton based on “temperament” concerns.

Huffington makes clear that the primary reason that President Obama nominated Hagel, and that Democrats are willing to overlook his anti-abortion, anti-climate change views, is that Hagel emerged as a potent critic of the Iraq War. Like many on the left, Hagel also has expressed the view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the “core” of Middle East turmoil, and now supports defense cuts that he once warned strongly against.

Hagel’s supporters have been at great pains (even to the point of concocting outright lies) to defend him against charges of antisemitism–charges prompted by his poor record on Israel and his statement that members of Congress were “intimidated” by the so-called “Jewish lobby.” More than a poor choice of words, his critics argue, Hagel’s statement reflects a particular animus towards Israel and its political supporters.

The 2006 speech on the Senate floor in which Hagel called for a more even-handed approach to Israel and the Arab world is a case in point. Hagel’s words came at a time when Israeli civilians were under attack by Iranian-backed Hebollah, and Israel was isolated at the United Nations. Hagel’s premature call for an immediate cease-fire would have prevented Israel from responding to the threat–and sent a message of opposition.

Con Coughlin and David Blair:Can Mali be Saved From the Islamists? Can France Do It Alone?….see note please

Something is amiss here…the French want to stop a Moslem terror state in Mali but they actively promote one on “The West Bank”…..rsk
France’s President François Hollande is sending in troops in to prevent the creation of a terrorist super-state, but can they do it alone?
As hundreds of French troops are deployed to Mali to do battle with al-Qaeda-backed terrorists and another chapter in the long-running war against militant Islam develops, it is hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu.

It is now more than a decade since the UN Security Council unanimously approved the American-led campaign to destroy the terrorist infrastructure al-Qaeda had assembled in southern Afghanistan. There is nothing the world’s most notorious terrorist organisation likes more than to move into the ungoverned space of failed Islamic states, and southern Afghanistan proved the perfect hide-out from which Osama bin Laden and his cohorts could plot their diabolical attacks against the West.

Thanks to the success of Nato’s military intervention in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its allies no longer enjoy that freedom: its terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed and the few survivors of bin Laden’s original organisation have sought refuge in mountain retreats.

But arguably the most depressing aspect of what used to be known as the war on terror is that no sooner has one group of Islamist terrorists been dealt with than another pops up. Since the elimination of al-Qaeda from southern Afghanistan in late 2001 we have seen variations of the movement take root in failing Islamic states such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and large tracts of North Africa.

Indeed, the ease with which groups of al-Qaeda operatives were able to set up new terrorist operations prompted General David Petraeus, the former CIA director, to liken the agency’s counter-terrorism campaign to a “whack-a-mole” policy, saying that “you need to hit all the moles at once”.



“The West is trying to impose its moral norms on the Muslim world with bribes and interventions, while the Muslim world imposes its norms on the West by settling and blowing up Western cities. Within that chaos, the passenger planes depositing their cargoes of Pakistanis, Jordanians and Somalis at Heathrow, JFK and Charles de Gaulle Airport (the latter two names being quite fitting considering JFK’s impact on immigration policy and de Gaulle’s impact on North Africa) and the fighter jets and drones flying over North Africa and the Middle East, are a hundred small wars.”

The French are in Mali now, being shot at by Islamists armed with the very same weapons that France airdropped into Libya. Either those or the weapons that France sold to Gaddafi in the preceding period when European countries were competing to be his arms dealers. The joke is equally bleak, either way.
It used to be that decades would have to pass before a bad policy unraveled, but these days it only takes a few years to go from arming a tyrant to arming the rebels to shooting at the rebels.

In less time than it takes a pop star to go from fresh faced to train wrecked, Saif Gaddafi went from the toast of European academics to a mass murderer, Gaddafi’s opposition went from Al Qaeda terrorists to brave rebels, then the brave rebels, many of whom were actually Iraqis, Tunisians and Jordanians, shot up an American diplomatic mission, hooked up with some of Gaddafi’s Tuaregs to take over Northern Mali, shot them up and began carving out their own Islamist Emirate.

In barely two years, Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, went from screaming that Egyptian children “must feed on hatred” to the toast of foreign diplomatic circles as the same geniuses behind the invasion of Libya try to make the best of handing over the most powerful country in the region into the hands of a terrorist organization.

In that same period, Syria’s Assad went from the pages of Vogue and meetings with John Kerry to being the most reviled man in the world. But two years from now, if he survives the worst that the Syrian rebels, most of whom are Al Qaeda or wish they were, you might well find him meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry while his family gets another four pages in Vogue Magazine.

In two years, the evil ruthless dictators who kill and torture their own people have been replaced by ruthless democratically elected dictators who kill and torture their own people. In Egypt and Tunisia things are worse now than they were under the “dictators” and unsurprisingly the one thing that they can all agree on is that it’s America’s fault.

The press can’t be expected to pay much attention to these events. The media will provide the obligatory coverage of Muslim Brotherhood torture chambers in Egypt and the labor riots in Tunisia. But it would really like to spend its time lamenting Israel’s fall to the far right by covering the rise of a political party which holds the shocking and outrageous position that the twenty year old peace process has failed and should be wrapped up and put away.

It seemed like only a few weeks ago that the cognoscenti were enthusiastically predicting a new Middle East, sending reporters in droves to be kidnapped and molested at the celebrations of freedom and democracy. And now the new Middle East looks a lot like the old Middle East.