Sunday, March 15, 2015




Who died before they collected Social Security?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and
Me that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.
Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).
After 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!
If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!
Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some 
Kind of charity or handout!!
Remember Congressional benefits?
         free healthcare,
         outrageous retirement packages,
         67 paid holidays,
         three weeks paid vacation,
         unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for 
It all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.
Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

Thursday, March 12, 2015







Of Course Hillary Is Above The Law

Weekly Update from Dinesh D'Souza

Dear Friends,
The Hillary #ClintonEmails are the big story this week—even with some of the mainstream media! If Hillary were a Republican, she'd be finished over her foreign fundraising and her private email server, but Hillary knows she is above the law. She brushed off the allegations at her staged press conference this week because Obama and Hillary both seem to think that as the "first black" and the "first woman," they are immune from normal accountability.
Hasn't Hillary compromised national security more than Petraeus in keeping a private email system, and, if so, why isn't SHE being indicted as he is? And what about Obama? Although Obama says he "just found out" about Hillary's private email account, the White House disclosed that he regularly emailed Hillary on her private email account.
Hillary continues to make excuses, but Carey Wedler isn't sold. Check out the libertarian firebrand in her "new voices" video produced for D'Souza Media:

In news that the White House would probably prefer to keep under wraps, the Justice Department has cleared Officer Wilson of civil rights violations in the Ferguson incident. Now we can clearly see that the whole Ferguson hoopla was built on an edifice of lies. Even Anderson Cooper and Van Jones (kind of) agree that the "hands up" protest was based on falsehoods!
Here's what I want to know: why is no one naming the 35-year-old black woman who deliberately lied about Officer Wilson and provoked the riots and mayhem? When police returned to interview her‬, she refused to open her door and barricaded it with a couch! Where is the outrage about her actions that mirrors the outrage about Officer Wilson's actions?
I'm excited to have completed over half of my time in confinement, and I hope to see many of you at one of my first speaking engagements after my term is up! I'll be talking at FreedomFest 2015 in Las Vegas this July, along with a full lineup of other liberty-lovers. Check out the details and register now.
In the meantime, if you haven't seen my latest film yet, order a copy of America today and you'll better understand what motivates not only Obama and Hillary, but the entire anti-American left.
Dinesh D'Souza
P.S. Leftists banned the American flag at UC Irvine and—guess what?—their decision was reversed this week by patriotic immigrants!

Tuesday, March 10, 2015



                 PROBLEM WITH PUBLIC HOUSING             
The problem with public housing is that the people who       live in the       house did not earn the money to build the       house nor did they buy it;       they are not the owners… they       were       merely loaned the       property by the actual owners and       just reside       there at the expense of the taxpayers.          
Because of this, the residents do not have the "pride of ownership"… they do not respect the property and do       not care for it as they would if it were their own.  That     comes with the hard work necessary to become owners. 
In fact, quite the opposite happens. The residents resent       their benefactors, because the very house is a constant reminder that they themselves have not earned the       right to live in the house.  They neither appreciate the       value of the property nor understand the need to maintain       or respect it in any way. 
The result is the same, whether one is talking about either a studio apartment in the projects or a magnificent mansion full of priceless antiques and antiquities. Note       the common theme of the following photographs.
The desk in the White House that Obama sees fit to put his feet on was built from timbers of the HMS Resolute and was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes and is considered a national treasure and icon of the presidency.
The White House belongs to the people of America. Its treasures should NOT be used by ANYONE for a foot rest!
These photos are proof that this man has no class whatsoever and show an innate disrespect for our White House.
Mr. Obama, you're not in a hut in Kenya or Indonesia       or in Chicago public housing. You're in the White House.       Property of the citizens of the United States.

Monday, March 2, 2015



Latest News Events Suggest U.S. Constitution a Dead Letter

February 2015 did not just feature bitter cold in the eastern half of the U.S., but was a news-laden month that provided a window on a large number of our contemporary social, political, and cultural troubles.
Heading the list was the continuing saga of big and increasingly threatening government in the Age of Obama. Early in the month, President Obama proposed a budget that would increase spending on social programs and—surprise, surprise—increase taxes on the wealthy. This is in spite of the fact that ever-spiraling federal domestic spending over a half-century has had limited success, caused government dependency to deepen and even expand to the unneedy, and created a more bloated bureaucracy than ever (the major beneficiaries seem to be the legions of federal employees).
Even though Democrats have long cultivated this image of “socking it” too the wealthy, how tight they actually are with them was seen in a news story about how large corporations donated millions to the Clinton family foundation while they were lobbying the State Department during Hilary’s tenure there.
The Democrats are also usually the first ones to tout integrity in government. Another story about the Clinton foundation last month challenged that, too: the foundation has been accepting big donations from foreign interests and governments who would certainly be dealing with a future Clinton administration.
Overweening government was a repeated theme of February news stories. Obama’s unilateral action to regularize millions of illegal aliens continued to stir controversy, with a federal judge temporarily halting it and Congressional Republicans taking half-hearted, uncertain steps to try to defund it. Articles I and II of the Constitution hang in the balance, since control over immigration policy comes right from Congress’s enumerated powers and this is hardly something that justifies a Lockean-type of executive prerogative. It was also revealed that as a result of Obama’s amnesty, illegal immigrants would be eligible to receive the earned income tax credit (even retroactively). The problem is that under Article I Congress makes the tax laws.
Other reports said that the Treasury Department was paying subsidies to health insurers under Obamacare because of steps they have taken to limit out-of-pocket costs by policyholders—even though Congress has never authorized them. Never mind that Article I also says that federal spending requires Congressional appropriation. There was another news report about surveillance overkill. The National Security Agency (NSA) collaborated with Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency to purloin codes so they could spy on mobile phone conversations worldwide, including Americans’. It was another example of how such pesky concerns as privacy and the Fourth Amendment simply wither when there’s an appeal, no mater how tenuous, to national security. Perhaps our current government operatives should remember Federalist 51: while government has to control the governed, we must also “oblige it to control itself.” We’re told that government needs to spread the spy net widely—have universal surveillance—or otherwise we could not protect ourselves from terrorists. Like the U.S. child protective system (CPS) with its universal monitoring of parents, they don’t get it that when everyone is under suspicion the resources are spread thin and the real bad guys slip through the cracks.
It’s interesting that, at the very time that the Democrats and their media allies were saying it would be a national calamity if Congress holds up Department of Homeland Security funding over the immigration amnesty, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that his agency couldn’t do a good job in any event. He said it’s simply unable to track every American—which is not even a large number—who goes to join ISIS. Did he at all consider that such things as the universal surveillance regimen and other kinds of bureaucratic bungling (without which the Boston Marathon bombers, the would-be Christmas Day shoe bomber, and 9/11 might have been avoided) could be responsible for this?
The specter of overreaching government was seen also in the FCC’s vote, at Obama’s behest, to regulate Internet providers—“net neutrality”—supposedly in the name of consumer protection. Besides lacking statutory authorization for such a move—a whole new arena for regulation has to be initiated by Congress—critics have vociferously alleged a threat to free speech. Then, there was the proposal by Obama’s BATF to ban a certain type of bullet used mostly for sport and target-shooting. Again, this would circumvent Congressional prerogatives. The end seems to justify the means. (One wonders what actually is the end of banning sport bullets: satisfying the leftist ideological agenda?) And don’t forget the issuance of the report of the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which called for dessert taxes, worksite “obesity interventionists,” and electronic monitoring of how long people sit in front of the TV. The “food police” are almost a reality and the government will constantly be observing you in your house—despite the Fourth Amendment. In 1984, the party members were the only ones under “big brother’s” constant monitoring; now it will be millions of people.
The states were not to be outdone by the feds last month when it came to oppressive government. Washington State tried to force a family-owned pharmacy to sell abortifacients despite their religious objections. Even though the family prevailed in the trial court on First Amendment grounds in February, the state is stubbornly appealing. A judge in the same state ruled against the elderly florist who refused to provide a flower arrangement for a same-sex “wedding,” saying anti-discrimination laws trump religious liberty. (Or is it that sexual rights override even the First Amendment?) The state attorney general wants to seize all her personal assets. I wonder if he goes after real criminals so relentlessly, or just those who “offend” favored homosexual groups.
No need to worry about whether all this is compatible with the Constitution, however, since the people on the left tell us that constitutional principles are an evolving phenomenon. Since they long ago stopped talking about natural rights, they probably mean the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as well. Indeed, that seems to be the upshot of CNN correspondent Chris Cuomo’s comments in his February interview with Alabama Chief Justice Ray Moore. Cuomo said squarely that our laws come from man, not from God. I wonder how he squares that with the Declaration’s appeal to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Also, if man is the sole source of law he’s the sole source of rights, and if he gives rights can’t he, or really those who become powerful enough, take them away—or take them away from groups of men they don’t like? Does Cuomo see the tyrannical, even totalitarian, implications of that (since it all happens through government)? Or maybe he was too busy when in college reading Rousseau to think about such a thing.
Speaking of favored and disfavored groups, Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in February seemed more concerned about abuses of Christian armies during the Crusades a thousand years ago—buying into the current skewed politically correct version of the Crusades—than about today’s ISIS and other Islamist outrages. In fact, he assiduously avoids even the use of the terms “Islamist” or “Islamic radical” when talking about terrorists (even though most of the current international terrorism comes from that quarter). He decried religious intolerance, but of course never mentioned that it’s especially prevalent in Islamic-majority countries. Obama also went out of his way at the month’s White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism to avoid associating radical Islam with terrorism. This highlighted the question many were already asking: Has Islam become the favored religion of a largely unbelieving left, so much so that even the flood of atrocities committed in its name are just to be ignored?
On the family front, the February news featured further discussion about the rights of parents to allow their young children—even when they are as old as ten—to walk places alone (now called “free-range parenting”) or—recall the measles stories—to refuse to have them vaccinated. Then, there was the flap that followed from Pope Francis’ saying that spanking of children was acceptable so long as their dignity was preserved. The stories underscored the sorry condition of parental rights and prerogatives today, especially in the Western world: just about everyone other than parents, whether the ubiquitous “experts,” the omnipresent official child “protectors,” or even the anonymous busybody down the street who is quick to call the CPS, is viewed as more qualified to make decisions about children than their parents are.
On the media front, there were the Brian Williams fabrication revelations. For a long time, surveys have shown a lack of public trust in the media. One wonders why it still seems to play such a big role in shaping public attitudes—or, put differently, why the public is not more critical or discerning about what it says.
Finally, there were the cultural issues. There was a report of alleged “racism” in a planned community in liberal, sophisticated Austin, Texas because according to reports “people are afraid of black males,” particularly strangers. Is this truly prejudice, or do they possibly react that way because of the high crime rate among that specific demographic group? Remember Jesse’s Jackson’s comment about walking at night and feeling relief when he sees that it’s a Caucasian behind him? Recreational marijuana became legal in Alaska and the District of Columbia—joining Colorado and Washington—because of another federal law that Obama won’t enforce. Notice how this is happening with little political debate or consideration of such basic questions as: morality (a person’s allowing his reasoning faculty to be dulled), the teaching role that legal change plays, or the effects on the culture.
Oklahoma may withhold state funds for AP U.S. history courses in public schools because of insufficient attention to Founding principles, excessive focus on putative gender and racial oppression, and an anti-American tone. The left naturally attacked this as opening the door to intellectual obscurantism. After all, it’s a challenge to its near-monopoly of political indoctrination in public education. Then, a Nature article discussed fossil evidence—which are hardly airtight scientific conclusions—of prehistoric migration from Africa to Europe. In reality, the finding had much less to do with science than with promoting one aspect of socio-political ideology that now permeates the academic scientific community: Afro-centrism.
So, there it is: February 2015’s news gave us a good snapshot of our current confusion and many of our discontents.

Stephen M. Krason


Stephen M. Krason's "Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic" column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis Magazine. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and associate director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also co-founder and president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He is the author, most recently, of The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic (Transaction Publishers, 2012), and editor of two volumes: Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Child Protective System (Scarecrow Press, 2013) and The Crisis of Religious Liberty (Rowman and Littlefield, 2014).

Sunday, February 22, 2015



A bust of George Washington by Jean-Antoine Houdon.
A bust of George Washington by Jean-Antoine Houdon. Photo: The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty

The Making of the (First) President

How a conservative planter became the ‘indispensable man’ in revolution and war.

George Washington, for many Americans, remains locked in Gilbert Stuart’s austere portrait, an image to be venerated, but at a remove. The past decade alone has seen a cottage industry of Washingtonia attempting to transform a man of marble into a creature of flesh. “Washington’s Revolution,” by Robert Middlekauff, is part of this enterprise—a project to which he brings considerable credentials as a Bancroft Prize-winner who has written acclaimed works on colonial intellectual history and the American Revolution. And his contribution is a worthy one.
The conceit of Mr. Middlekauff’s book is to recount the American Revolution as it was experienced by Washington himself. This necessarily leaves out a good deal of the picture. For a panoramic view of the war, we must go elsewhere. A good place to start would be Mr. Middlekauff’s outstanding “The Glorious Cause” (1982). Nor is this biography a complete life, like Ron Chernow ’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Washington: A Life” (2010). Rather, it ends with Washington’s retirement from military service after the British withdrawal. Mr. Middlekauff has something different in mind.

Washington’s Revolution

By Robert Middlekauff
Knopf, 358 pages, $30


George Washington, for many Americans, remains locked in Gilbert Stuart’s austere portrait, an image to be venerated, but at a remove. The past decade alone has seen a cottage industry of Washingtonia attempting to transform a man of marble into a creature of flesh. “Washington’s Revolution,” by Robert Middlekauff, is part of this enterprise—a project to which he brings considerable credentials as a Bancroft Prize-winner who has written acclaimed works on colonial intellectual history and the American Revolution. And his contribution is a worthy one.
The conceit of Mr. Middlekauff’s book is to recount the American Revolution as it was experienced by Washington himself. This necessarily leaves out a good deal of the picture. For a panoramic view of the war, we must go elsewhere. A good place to start would be Mr. Middlekauff’s outstanding “The Glorious Cause” (1982). Nor is this biography a complete life, like Ron Chernow ’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Washington: A Life” (2010). Rather, it ends with Washington’s retirement from military service after the British withdrawal. Mr. Middlekauff has something different in mind.

What interests him is how Washington’s formative years molded the later man, how this conservative planter became a revolutionary leader, and how the war itself brought out innate qualities of character, resilience and fortitude in a provincial landowner that made him, in the historian James Thomas Flexner’s words, “the indispensable man” in the struggle for American independence.
While we may have read some of this material previously, it is in the nuances, the telling details and the subtle shadings where Mr. Middlekauff excels. As he relates, in a straightforward chronological account composing the first section of the book, Washington came from a cadet branch of the Virginia patrician class. The death of his father in 1743, when he was 11, put Washington on the margins of this society. It left him an outsider with just enough access to gain admission.
There is something touching about a callow Washington turning to a book of deportment, “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,” to learn lessons in manners that would stand him in good stead with his betters. Young Washington mastered the social graces expected of a patrician: dancing, fencing, riding. More important, he had a helpful patron, his older half-brother, Lawrence, who married into the powerful Fairfax clan.
Like many ambitious young men, Washington had an eye for the main chance. He became a surveyor for the Fairfaxes, conducting expeditions that made him familiar with wide stretches of the Blue Ridge Mountains and led him to begin acquiring his own stake in western lands. Eventually he came to manage and then acquire his brother’s estate of Mount Vernon. Washington was a military prodigy. He became adjutant of the Virginia militia with the rank of major at the age of 20. Shortly after, he confronted the French in the Ohio Valley in support of Virginia’s claims to that territory. By the outbreak of the French and Indian War in 1754, Washington was a lieutenant colonel of militia. He was all of 22. This conflict served as Washington’s training for the proving ground of the Revolution.
Three seminal events occurred at this time that were to anticipate his tenure as commander of the Continental Army. He was defeated by the French in an ill-considered clash at Fort Necessity in Pennsylvania, but he was resolute in defeat and learned from his mistakes. A year later, he fought bravely under Gen. Edward Braddock in the British debacle against a force of French and Indians near Fort Duquesne but saw that British regulars could be beaten. He had won Braddock’s respect, but, given the innate British disdain for colonials, Washington could not gain a commission in the Royal Army, a rebuff that instilled a lifelong resentment against the British. Their failure to make Washington an officer in their military would cost England an empire.
Mr. Middlekauff paints anew the familiar scenes of Washington’s war: Washington’s driving the British from Boston in 1775, his humiliating defeat in New York, his retreat across the Hudson and through New Jersey while being pursued by the British, his turning the tables on the enemy at Trenton and Princeton, and the inconclusive warfare of the next several years, with Washington losing more battles than he won but keeping the army intact until a reversal of fortune and the final victory over Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781.
As Mr. Middlekauff reminds us, the odds against Washington were overwhelming. He led a recombinant army that flourished in the spring and faded in the winter. Its ranks were riddled with Thomas Paine’s sunshine soldiers and summer patriots, who could not altogether be blamed for their defections because they were ill-paid, ill-clad, ill-fed and poorly armed.
In attempting to forge a Continental Army, Washington had to compete with state militias that offered better terms to their recruits. His appeals for more support from the feckless Continental Congress fell on deaf ears. The travails of Valley Forge were only a dramatic symbol of the suffering and disarray that affected his ragged troops throughout the war.
And yet he prevailed. It is here that Mr. Middlekauff comes to the fore, demonstrating Washington’s qualities of toughness, adaptability and endurance. Also audacity, stunning the British and Hessians at Trenton and Princeton with his back to the wall. As Mr. Middlekauff writes: “Washington’s strike at Trenton and Princeton revealed a side of his character not often seen: a willingness to take chances. He had allowed a part of his fierce energy to come out, and the consequences were especially pleasing to him, not simply because his daring paid off, but also because he had thrust himself into the heart of the fighting.” His crossing of the Delaware in December 1776 was as much a political stroke as a military one, since it heartened a dispirited patriot cause and marred British hopes for a quick victory.
His men adored him; they also respected him and feared his wrath. He lost battles but fought a war of maneuver that ultimately unnerved and wore down the enemy. He was willing to cede ground to keep his forces in the field. He was a skillful manager, holding the army together to enable it to fight another day. He showed amazing forbearance in overlooking the slights of rival generals and second-guessing politicians. And when France entered the war on the American side, he demonstrated diplomatic skill in mobilizing a joint force to trap Cornwallis.
The American Revolution took more than eight years and was a near-run thing till almost the end. Washington was there for the duration. It was only by sheer will that he outlasted the formidable power of the British Empire. To be sure, he was fortunate in his foes: dilatory British generals who won battles but failed to forcefully pursue and crush a wounded enemy. And he was lucky in battle, appearing almost invincible to the bullets whizzing around him.
Imposing in stature, Washington faced down mutinies of sergeants in Pennsylvania and officers in Newburgh, N.Y., both over the lack of pay and pensions. It was at Newburgh in March 1783, as the war wound down, where his mastery of the grand gesture was manifested to dramatic effect. Mr. Middlekauff’s rendition is compelling: Washington “feared that if the army moved against the Congress, the Revolution and the new nation might be lost.” In assuring his officers that they would receive just compensation, Washington presented a letter from a congressman. But he had difficulty reading the text, causing him to stumble over the words. “He then stopped and pulled his spectacles from his pocket, saying as he did so, ‘Gentleman, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.’ ” He left his men in tears. The mutiny was over.
The trajectory from an ambitious young Washington’s studying “The Rules of Civility” to the weary warrior at Newburgh urging his officers to listen to their better angels provides the substance of Mr. Middlekauff’s book. In between we are treated to Washington’s travails, sometimes too often. The space might have been better used to inform the reader of what was going on in the rest of the war, outside Washington’s orbit.
This being said, Mr. Middlekauff has provided a valuable one-volume account of Washington’s ascendancy. His triumph over the British was a feat that probably no one else could have achieved. Without his inspired leadership, the Declaration of Independence might have been little more than a piece of paper. Mr. Middlekauff concludes by reminding us that the greatest thing Washington accomplished was what he didn’t do. At war’s end in 1783, he handed his commission back to Congress and went home. Washington chose the role of Cincinnatus over Caesar. His insistence on civil supremacy over the military during the war carried through to the peace, providing the cornerstone for the future democratic republic, the glorious cause for which he had fought.
—Mr. Schwartz formerly supervised the book pages of Newsday and was an editor in the culture section of the New York Times.

Friday, February 20, 2015



Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.

by Pamela Geller
Here is just a small sampling of Islamic State jihadists making the jihad gesture:
American Muslim Jakeem Nolen, who beheaded co-worker Colleen Hufford in Oklahoma, making the Islamic State finger gesture:
“Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign,” By F. W. Burleigh, American Thinker, February 18, 2015
Is President Obama a Muslim? A lot has been written about this, but if photographs speak louder than words, then a photo taken at last August’s U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C. might shed considerable light.
It shows Barack Hussein Obama flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates.
The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain’s Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Thus when believers stick their index finger in the air, they demonstrate they are partisans of Muhammad’s God concept. And they also affirm their belief in Muhammad’s claim he was the interface between God and man. They also demonstrate they are part of the umma, the exclusive transtribal supertribe of believers that Muhammad started 1,400 years ago.
With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe
ISIS fighter displays the gang sign. To Muslims, the extended forefinger is symbolic of the fundamental belief of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
The Daily Mail editors did not understand what they were looking at. They captioned it “finger wagging” by Obama. But the African dignitaries understood, and a range of reactions can be detected among the ones who observed the gesture: amusement, surprise, curiosity, disapproval, contempt. Note the reactions of Abdelilah Berkirane, the prime minister of Morroco pictured just behind Obama’s left shoulder, and Ibrahim Boubacas Keita, the president of Mali in white garb and hat. They are Muslims through and through, and they are all smiles. They knew what Obama’s upright forefinger meant.
The reaction of Togo president Faure Gnassingbe, at the top row second to the left, is less approving. Through his face you can read the mind of this Sorbonne- and George Washington University educated leader. His mind is screaming, “You gotta be kidding!”
Gnassingbe’s country is squeezed between Benin and the Ivory Coast and is not far from Nigeria and its Boko Haram plague — perhaps a two-hour flight in a slow Cessna from Togo’s capital to the Nigerian capital, less than an hour in something faster. At the time of the Washington conference, Boko Haram’s leader Abubakar Shekau had just declared Borno State in northeastern Nigeria as the seat of his caliphate. Massacres of entire villages were taking place; only a few months earlier nearly three hundred girls were abducted from a Borno secondary school.
Togo has seven million people, 50 percent animists, 30 percent Christian. The remainder are Muslims, part of the umma. Gnassingbe and all other non-Muslims of Togo have reason to worry about radicalization of some of these members of the transtribal supertribe of Muhammad who reside among them. And so his look of disdain. “You gotta be kidding.”
Maybe it was Obama’s idea of a joke, but that is unlikely. The finger in the air was a position statement brazenly stated. His entire administration has been a promotion of Islam at home and abroad, and just cataloging the evidence would fill a book. He has made this country cozy for Islam, from ordering NASA to make Muslims feel good about themselves to calling ISIS beheading victim Peter Kassig by the Muslim name that he had adopted in the vain hope of saving his life.
If only Obama’s coziness were limited to such gestures, but from the very beginning of his administration, he labored to topple the strongman governments that had kept a lid on Islamic extremism: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen. Overthrowing the Syrian government was also part the program, not yet achieved but still possible. The methodology of each was a tactic from old-school radicalism: stir up domestic trouble that triggers a crackdown, then use the reaction to discredit the government and as a pretext for stirring up greater cycles of trouble until the targeted regime is replaced.
Obama is comfortable with Islam’s extreme. He arms such people throughout the Middle East. He has let them into our government. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi as the replacement for Hosni Mubarak, a staunch US ally and enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, and threatened and bullied Egypt when a massive revolt replaced Morsi with a religious moderate.
The thread of all of these efforts was the reestablishment of the Islamic caliphate, the line of successors of Muhammad that ended nearly a century ago with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This has always been a Muslim Brotherhood objective. In their grandiose plans, the reestablished caliphate would stretch across the Middle East with Jerusalem as its capital. The glory of Islam resurrected! These people aspire to world domination, and the caliphate would serve as the base for an ever-expanding war on the world until domination is achieved. That was always the goal of their role model. Muhammad ordered his followers to make Islam the only religion — to create a universal umma. As with Obama, they are just following orders.
The caliphate was resurrected last year, only it is not in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood — not yet anyway. However it came about, the caliphate was Obama’s creation, and he has only half-heartedly pushed back against it. Now he has asked the U.S. Congress for authorization for use of military force against what he created. What is Obama up to with this? In everything he does, mischief is the purpose. What mischief does he intend now?
There is nothing in Obama’s head that is American. He is an antithetical American, a polar opposite of its values that he is routinely undermining. He is an unabashed member of the transtribal supertribe that Muhammad created 1,400 years ago; he is of the umma, not of America. His finger in the air at the African Leaders’ Conference is unambiguous evidence.
And it is evidence that you have been had, America. Have you ever been had.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

Posted in MUSLIMS | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment | Edit