Displaying posts published in

November 2015

Big Obama Donors Stay on Sidelines in 2016 Race Almost four out of five of his 2012 donors haven’t given any money to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders By Daniel Nasaw

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s biggest campaign donors are mostly sitting on the sidelines of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary so far, not opening their wallets in support of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Almost four-fifths of the people who gave the 2012 maximum $5,000 to the president’s re-election committee hadn’t donated to a presidential candidate by Oct. 1, a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal campaign finance records found.

In interviews ahead of this Saturday’s Democratic debate in Iowa, donors said Mrs. Clinton, the party’s front-runner, hadn’t motivated them to give the way Mr. Obama and previous Democratic candidates had. Still others said they are put off by the larger role of super PACs and that their donations to candidates, which are limited in this election cycle to $5,400 for the eventual nominee, just don’t matter much anymore.
“I’m just not ready for Hillary yet,” said Robert Finnell, a Rome, Ga., lawyer who gave the maximum allowed contribution to Mr. Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns and gave significant sums to 2008 hopeful John Edwards and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. “It’s not that I don’t think she’s competent—she is competent, she’s just hard to like.”

The donors’ reluctance could be a troubling trend for Mrs. Clinton. They are some of the easiest prospective contributors to identify, given that their names are on Mr. Obama’s campaign disclosure reports, and that they’ve already made a habit of cutting checks to politicians.

Abandoned by Obama administration, African Christians beg for help politics By Martin Barillas

The Muslim terrorist sect known as Boko Haram continues to direct its deadly attacks in Nigeria, especially against Christians, as part of its aim to create an entirely Muslim government in the oil-rich African nation. Among the acts Boko Haram’s terror was a suicide bombing by two women in October of this year that killed eleven. Boko Haram has also abducted scores of Nigerian girls and women, subjecting them to rape and forced conversion to Islam. It has conducted attacks on schools, churches, universities, while also engaging Nigerian security forces in a withering campaign of destruction, especially in the northern segment of the country.

So far, Boko Haram is responsible for displacing 2.1 million people, some of whom have fled to neighboring countries, as has been the case with refugees from the violence unleashed by the Islamic State (ISIS) – allies of Boko Haram – in the Middle East. In six year, Boko Haram has murdered more than 150,000 people, most of whom were Christians.

The Catholic Bishop of Maiduguri Oliver Dash Doeme, whose diocese is located in northern Nigeria, has welcomed the intervention of Nigerian security forces. In his diocese, 60,000 of the original 125,000 Christians have fled. In addition, at least 50 churches and chapels have been destroyed by the terrorists.

Sweden Descends into Anarchy by Ingrid Carlqvist

“You have to understand that Swedes are really scared when an asylum house opens in their village. They can see what has happened in other places.” — Salesman for alarm systems.

Since Parliament decided in 1975 that Sweden should be multicultural and not Swedish, crime has exploded. Violent crime has increased by over 300% and rapes have increased by an unbelievable 1,472%.

Many Swedes see the mass immigration as a forced marriage: Sweden is forced to marry a man she did not choose, yet she is expected to love and honor him, even though he beats her and treats her badly. Her parents (the government) tell her to be warm and show solidarity with him.

“Are the State and I now in agreement that our mutual contract is being renegotiated?” — Alexandra von Schwerin, whose farm who was robbed three times. Police refused to help.

Once upon a time, there was a safe welfare state called Sweden, where people rarely locked their doors.

Selective Outrage on Campus by Alan M. Dershowitz

Following the forced resignations of the President and Provost of the University of Missouri, demonstrations against campus administrators has spread across the country. Students — many of whom are Black, gay, transgender and Muslim — claim that they feel “unsafe” as the result of what they call “white privilege” or sometimes simply privilege. “Check your privilege” has become the put-down du jour. Students insist on being protected by campus administrators from “micro-aggressions,” meaning unintended statements inside and outside the classroom that demonstrate subtle insensitivities towards minority students. They insist on being safe from hostile or politically incorrect ideas. They demand “trigger warnings” before sensitive issues are discussed or assigned. They want to own the narrative and keep other points of view from upsetting them or making them feel unsafe.

US adopts EU explanation that labeling Israeli products is merely a consumer ‘clarification.’ It isn’t, it is ethnic targeting.By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Someone has to ask the question: is it ignorance or is it malevolence?

The U.S. State Department justifies hiding behind a claim that a new European effort at ethnic labeling for Israel is something other than an effort to force the Jewish State to capitulate to the world’s demand it welcome yet another neighbor Arab state committed to her end. And to claim that this latest European effort is merely a new consumer information initiative? Really?

You decide.

In the lead up to the announcement by the European Union that it would require ethnic labeling of Israeli goods made or produced beyond the so-called “Green Line,” reporters repeatedly peppered spokespeople for the U.S. government regarding the position it would take on this EU effort.

As of Tuesday, at the daily press briefing, spokesperson Mark C. Toner was completely unprepared to respond to questions about the government’s position. Instead, Toner repeatedly responded that yes, the U.S. is completely opposed to the “settlements” – Jewish communities situated in Judea and Samaria, the historic heartland of the Jewish people – but also, yes, the U.S. is opposed to boycotts.

Taking Careful Aim The ironies of Obama’s drone warfare. Gabriel Schoenfeld

In Objective Troy the New York Times national security correspondent Scott Shane tells two intertwined stories. One recounts the life path of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born imam killed in a CIA drone strike in Yemen in 2011. The second recounts Barack Obama’s troubled love affair with the drone as an instrument of war, which is part of a larger story about the president’s tortured attitude toward the use of American power in the world.

Anwar al-Awlaki has to be counted as the greatest English-speaking pied piper in the history of radical Islam. His sermons and disquisitions, distributed first on C Ds and later far more widely on social media, influenced—and continue, posthumously, to influence—scores of aspiring terrorists. The Boston Marathon bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, and the Charlie Hebdo gunmen in Paris all pointed to Awlaki’s summons to violence as inspiration for their deeds. As Shane also makes plain, Awlaki’s reach extended well beyond the ranks of such active jihadists.

For every young Western Muslim who crossed the line and began plotting violence or traveled to Yemen or Pakistan to join al Qaeda, there were hundreds or thousands more .  .  . intrigued by the battle with the supposed enemies of Islam but too fearful or ambivalent to act. By sweeping huge numbers into that recruiting pool, Awlaki added new recruits to the small minority who would take the next step and join the battle.

Shane adduces case after case, like that of Roshonara Choudhry, a 21-year-old honor student who in 2010 stabbed a member of British Parliament, Stephen Timms, with a six-inch kitchen knife in retribution for his vote in support of the Iraq war. She had been listening, obsessively, to Awlaki’s recordings for more than a hundred hours.

Drawing on exhaustive research and a wealth of interviews, Shane traces Awlaki’s movements and intellectual evolution through various stations on his lethal path. Early childhood in the United States was followed by a spell, from age 7 to 18, in his parents’ native Yemen. He then returned to the United States for a college degree in civil engineering, pursued with no distinction but punctuated by a visit with anti-Soviet mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and followed by a burgeoning career as an imam in various American locales.

Shane argues persuasively, and against what some U.S. government investigators continue strongly to suspect, that Awlaki was not in on the 9/11 plot, despite the fact that he had been in close touch with two of the hijackers who had worshipped at his San Diego mosque. In the late 1990s, Awlaki was already flirting with extremist ideas, but by September 11, 2001, was not yet fully under their spell, calling the attacks “horrible” in a private communication to his brother, a sentiment repeated in some public utterances.

Irwin Stelzer: No Yellow Stars Here—Just a ‘Label’

The Germans are angry with the Greeks for retiring at age 50 and counting on Germans to keep working until they are 65 so as to have enough cash to lend to Greece. The French are angry with the Germans for demanding such harsh and humiliating terms from the Greeks in return for a few billion more euros. The Greeks are angry with the Germans for once again in effect telling them how to levy taxes and to organize their economy. Italy is angry with every other EU country for refusing to relieve it of the flood of refugees fleeing Africa. Britain is angry with the entire EU for denying it the right to control its borders and snatching from it large portions of its sovereignty. There’s more, lots more. But on one thing they all, or almost all, agree: products made in “occupied Palestinian land” must be labeled as such, rather than as “made in Israel.” Nothing to do with any anti-Israel attitude, of course. And horrors at the thought that the rule might have anything to do with anti-Semitism. Merely a clarification of existing rules, which are along the lines of those already issued by Denmark, Belgium and Britain—yes, Britain, home of the Balfour Declaration, but that was long before the Muslim population soared and academics began their drumbeat of criticism of Israel.