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.

O’Reilly/Fox Hypocrisy: Ignore Murdoch, Ratchet Up Attacks on Gore: Andrew Bostom

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/01/15/oreillyfox-hypocrisy-ignore-murdoch-ratchet-up-attacks-on-gore/ Last night (1/14/13) Bill O’Reilly [1] devoted his “Factor Impact Segment of the day,” (embedded below) to the limited coverage afforded Al Gore’s sale of Current TV to Al-Jazeera. Joined by Bernard Goldberg, both men were in high dudgeon against Gore’s obvious hypocrisy given the fossil fuel-funded outrages (i.e., myriad examples of jihadism/Sharia supremacism, […]



In June 2012, the “National Security 5” — five members of Congress led by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — called attention to U.S. government infiltration by Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives. Based on disturbing information from court evidence and documents, correspondence, media reports, congressional briefings, and public statements, they found that individuals with questionable loyalty to the United States held high-level security clearances and worked in key national security positions. Tragically for the security of the United States and the safety of its citizens, these five earnest members of Congress, armed with ample evidence, were roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, and their request for investigations were ignored.

The five — Bachmann, Trent Franks (R-Arizona), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Tom Rooney (R-Florida), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia) — had sent letters to the inspectors general of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, and to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They identified specific individuals, organizational affiliations, and activities of concern conducted by Muslim Brotherhood operatives employed in various capacities in the U.S. government. They cited links to the much-publicized Muslim Brotherhood mission statement that has called its work in America “a kind of grand Jihad to eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within.”

All was ignored, despite the release five years earlier by the U.S. government itself of a list of several Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and their members across the United States, 300 in all, named as “unindicted co-conspirators” uncovered during the terrorism financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest such trial in U.S. history. The inside influence operation in America is extensive and goes far beyond the federal government to include Islamists posing as patriots and becoming part of the Tea Party movement, Islamists infiltrating the 9/11 Truther Movement, and Islamists becoming part of the fight for “civil liberties” through organizations like the ACLU, to name just a few.

Muslim Brotherhood in America

Established in 1928, four years after Kemal Ataturk dismantled the Ottoman Caliphate, the Muslim Brotherhood today has grown into the world’s oldest and largest Islamist movement. Its goal: to establish a global Islamic caliphate or government under sharia, or Islamic doctrine. It seeks to dismantle all non-Islamic governments on earth and supports terrorism against the West and Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and various worldwide terrorist groups. In the 1950s, it established a beachhead in the United States and today has over 5,000 front organizations from coast to coast, according to a former FBI agent and designated “Subject Matter Expert” on the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic doctrine.

“The Project,” written in 1982 and discovered during a raid of the home of one of the organization’s international leaders by Swiss authorities following 9/11, is a multi-phased, long-term master plan for the cultural invasion of the West. The discovery of two documents in 2001 and 2004 provided, respectively, evidence of an actual MB plot for the cultural invasion and Islamic domination of the West and a general strategy for the takeover of America.


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2442/extremists_target_uk_students New data has revealed almost 150 events with extremists on university campuses in 2012 New analysis by campus watchdog group Student Rights has revealed that Islamic extremists appeared almost 150 times on British university campuses in 2012. The infographic (below) shows that of 214 events logged by the group, 69 percent of them took […]