Why Did Obama Import a Somali Muslim Congressional District for Ilhan Omar to Represent?

https://stream.org/why-did-obama-import-a-somali-congressional-district-for-ilhan-omar-to-represent/

Seven Days in May

Seven Days in May (1964) was classic anti-war propaganda, at the height of the Cold War. The film had a fine cast. The timing may have been aimed at the Goldwater campaign. 

That was fiction. But what we're witnessing toddy is a real life Seven Days in May scenario. A coordinated conspiracy to either block a candidate (Trump) from getting elected or, failing that, to stage a palace coup, by the DOJ and FBI engaging in utterly lawless tactics. It's naked treason.

Who watches the watchman?

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370717-as-walls-close-in-on-fbi-the-bureau-lashes-out-at-its-antagonists#

Feeling nostalgic for Obama?

https://stream.org/obama-let-hezbollah-smuggle-drugs-into-us/

Eye of Sauron

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343785-newly-declassified-memos-detail-extent-of-improper-obama-era-nsa

Clean sweep

I'm a bit puzzled by reaction to Trump firing Comey. I'm not puzzled by the hypocritical reaction on the Left. That's predictable. Rather, I'm puzzled by why some conservative critics are attacking Trump's action.

i) I don't know what Trump's motive was and I really don't care. You can do the right thing for the wrong reason. 

Last year Comey held a press conference in which he systematically explained how Hillary broke the law. He dismantled her lies.

But he then held her to a lower standard than ordinary citizens are held to. He invented a condition (intent) which the statute doesn't require, and used that as an excuse not to recommend prosecution.

Mind you, even if we grant the intent criterion, Hillary's intention was undoubtedly to skirt the law. That was the whole point of the private server evasion. 

Comey's behavior was an example of how those in power protect others in power from the law. 

Moreover, the law in question isn't just some technicality. There are very good reasons for that law:

i) Hillary jeopardized the national security of the USA as well as our allies.

ii) Hillary obstructed the Freedom of Information Act, which is important to ensure a measure of transparency and accountability in gov't.

iii) Arguably, Hillary did this to cover her tracks so that she could solicit bribes as Secretary of State, for the Clinton Foundation.

Comey discredited himself and the FBI. Just another Executive agency politicized and weaponized by the Obama administration. For that reason alone, he richly deserved to be booted out.

I realize he was in a bind. He wanted to keep his job. His superiors were opposed to prosecuting Hillary. But that just goes to show that he's an apparatchik and timeserver. 

In addition, the FBI, during the election, obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Once again, the FBI, under Comey, was hopelessly compromised by the politicization and weaponization of Executive agencies during Obama's tenure.

If you wish the FBI to be truly independent, you need to sweep out Obama's cronies and make a fresh start. 

Now, it remains to be seen who will replace Comey. And it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct himself. But on this issue, thus far, I don't object to Trump's action. 

Here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-latest-victim-of-the-clintons/article/2622746

Importing jihad

In wake of the jihadist attack in Orlando, Obama said:

But here’s what we do know -- is organizations like ISIL or organizations like al Qaeda, or those who have perverted Islam and created these radical, nihilistic, vicious organizations, one of the groups that they target are gays and lesbians because they believe that they do not abide by their attitudes towards sexuality.

That's not a "perversion" of Islam. Rather, that's traditional Islamic ethics and jurisprudence. Mainstream Islam. 

It is one that is particularly painful for the people of Orlando, but I think we all recognize that this could have happened anywhere in this country.

It can (and will) happen anywhere you have jihadis. 

As far as we can tell right now, this is certainly an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been so concerned about for a very long time.

Obama's immigration policies are importing jihad into the US. His policies are creating and aggravating this situation.  He's importing Muslim terrorist into the US. It's almost as though he want's to foment a civil war as a pretext to confiscate guns. 

Medved on Obama's Hiroshima speech

http://www.michaelmedved.com/highlight/michaels-reaction-to-president-obamas-speech-at-hiroshima-part-1/

http://www.michaelmedved.com/highlight/michaels-reaction-to-president-obamas-speech-at-hiroshima-part-2/

Elite tyranny

Without an act of Congress, without a ruling from the Supreme Court, and without even going through the motions of the regulatory rule-making process, the administration issued a letter drafting every single public educational institution in the country to implement the extreme edge of the sexual revolution. The Department of Justice and the Department of Education have declared that they now “interpret” federal law to not only support the fantastical notion that boys can become girls but also to impose new legal requirements that impact every aspect of school life. The administration’s letter sweeps far beyond bathrooms — imposing a new speech code on school employees and even students, opening girls’ showers to boys, requiring schools to allow boys to sleep in girls’ rooms on overnight field trips, requiring boys to room with girls even in single-sex dorms, and putting boys on girls’ sports teams.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435379/transgender-school-edict-public-schools-need-conservative-reform

From Agender to Ze

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/from-agender-to-ze-a-glossary-for-the-gender-identity-revolution

The Republicans Have Done A Lot Of Good

I've documented many examples in the past. As I've said before, you can go to pro-life sites, tax policy sites, etc. and find example after example of good legislation Republicans have enacted, good rulings by Republican-appointed judges, etc. on a wide range of issues at the local, state, and federal levels. Yet, the Trump movement and many Republicans who aren't Trump supporters keep suggesting that the Republicans have done little or nothing of value. Or they'll even claim that the Republicans have given Obama everything he wants, or they'll make some other absurd claim along those lines.

David Harsanyi just wrote a good article on the subject. Here's part of it:

Tearful president

A few observations about Obama's tearful news conference on gun confiscation:

i) We swim in a shark-infested world. Some of the current sharks include Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, and ISIS. What message does Obama's tearful news conference send to them? Rather than projecting strength, it's a sign of weakness.

ii) To judge by his teary-eye performance, Obama's position on private ownership of guns isn't merely political cynicism and opportunism; no, he really is that fanatical and deluded. He sincerely believes the problem with attacks like Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, Denver, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino is  access to guns rather than ideology. He really thinks the solution is to disarm the general public. 

The gov't won't protect you, and it won't let you protect yourself. 

The coming dystopia

It isn't just the stuff of dystopian science fiction plots anymore. Thanks to a gov't that thinks the real threat comes from Tea Partiers, we're teetering on the verge of catastrophic cyberattacks from foreign enemies:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c8d531ec05e0403a90e9d3ec0b8f83c2/ap-investigation-us-power-grid-vulnerable-foreign-hacks

Apologist for Islam

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/53640-president-barack-obama-apologist-for-islam

Bruce Jenner is a woman but jihadis aren't Muslims

Ben Shapiro:

"According to President Obama, this is a woman, but these are not Muslims."

Vetting terrorists

This article by the Cato Institute is becoming the go-to response to people who oppose Obama's policy on hosting "Syrian refugees." 

A few observations:

http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serious-security-threat

i) He quotes a State Dept. spokesman. But, of course, Foggy Bottom is just a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. That's not a credible, independent source.

ii) His sleight of hand by framing the issue in terms of all refugees (Of the 859,629 refugees admitted from 2001 onwards…), but of course, the question at issue isn't refugees in general, but Muslim refugees in particular. And these are clearly creating problems in the US. Increasing problems as their numbers and political clout increase. 

iii) Then there's the narrowly and cagily worded statement that "only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United States."

Needless to say, the immediate concern is not planning terrorist attacks on targets outside the US, but inside the US!

iv) Likewise, the limitation to those "planning" attacks stands in tacit contrast to those who carry them out. In the nature of the case, it's hard to catch those who plan attacks, whereas those who carry them out are typically killed in action. They may be suicide bombers, or they may be shot and killed by police at the scene of the crime.

Naturally they can't stand trial because they are…dead!

v) In addition, the gov't doesn't necessarily or even usually inform the public about attacks that were prevented. In some cases that's because that would disclose methods and sources. And it might create "panic" if the public was aware of how many plots and plotters our intel agencies must thwart every year.

vi) I've read different status on the age and percentage of males. 

vii) He draws a hairsplitting semantic distinction to avoid including the Boston Marathon bombers (Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev) in his analysis. Sure, they may not illustrate a flaw in the vetting system. But that misses the point: it's not coincidental that they were Muslim. And, of course, that's been the common denominator for a string of domestic jihadist attacks on Obama's watch–some successful, some thwarted. 

viii) In addition, the more we invite in, the more we create a surveillance state to monitor them–and everyone else in the process. So this is highly ironic from a libertarian think-tank. Domestic terrorism and domestic surveillance go hand-in-hand. Importing high-risk groups into the country guarantees dragnet surveillance. 

On a related note:

Bauman, who heads the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, also said that the vetting process through the State Department and FBI takes anywhere from 18 months to two years for refugees to be granted asylum in the United States. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/presidential-candidates-syrian-refugee-factcheck-world-relief-149973/#lqrV5iFGmwsmzZ6S.99

i) Does that mean the "refugees" whom the Obama administration is currently imposing on the states have been vetted for 18-24 months? I thought this was supposed to be in response to a "crisis" that started last Spring? 

Likewise, isn't there a distinction between entering the country and being formally granted asylum? In general, just about anyone with a passport can enter the US. Whether they can stay here depends on how the subsequent review process goes. 

ii) Here's another obvious problem with the vetting process: if we really had a rigorous process for vetting "Syrian refugees," then we couldn't specify in advance how many applicants would qualify. Yet the Obama administration has a yearly quota. Indeed, an expanding annual quota. So there's a foreordained number of "Syrian refugees" to be resettled in the US every year. But that makes a mockery of the allegedly rigorous screening process.

iii) Finally:

—Administration officials have acknowledged that checking the accuracy or authenticity of documents provided by refugee applicants against foreign government records can be especially difficult involving countries that don't cooperate with the U.S. government, such as Syria. It can also complicate U.S. efforts to check foreign government records for local arrests or lesser bureaucratic interactions, such as bank records, business licenses or civil filings. "We do the best we can with the information we have," one U.S. official said. 

—FBI Director James Comey told Congress weeks ago that the FBI sees a risk with Syrian refugees and "we will work hard to mitigate it." He said the biggest challenge is that a background check is as only as good as the information available. "That's the challenge we are all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home but ... there will be nothing show up because we have no record on that person," Comey said. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/11/19/things-to-know-about-syrian-refugees-and-the-vetting-process

Muslim refugees good–Christian refugees bad

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/16/obama-un-american-not-take-muslim-refugees/

Leading from behind

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2015/11/thoughts-on-another-islamic-mass-murder.html

Loony left alert

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/feds-rule-force-high-school-girls-undress-next-naked-boys-think-theyre-girls/

Transgender illegals

It's revealing to see the priorities of ICE:

https://stream.org/the-dangers-of-a-homosexuality-of-the-heart/