Category Archives: politics

Mammosham: Obama’s Regurgitation of the Planned Parenthood Error

President Obama’s political allegence to Planned Parenthood was evident during the second debate. Not only did mentioned it five times, he emphatically oppose defunding the abortion factory. By promoting Planned Parenthood women were supposed to be convinced that he supported all American women. Yet, he used Planned Parenthood as an attempted to mislead American women. His attempt to mislead began with his statement about the reliance of American women on the essential services of Planned Parenthood, services like mammograms. This was the same sales pitched first falsely advertised by Planned Parenthood’s CEO Cecile Richards.

As you will witness, the following investigative video by Live Action reveals that mammograms are not perfromed at any of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tn2-8IDx2E&w=560&h=315]

During the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney did favor defunding Planned Parenthood. Maybe, he has also seen the growing evidence of Planned Parenthood’s illegal activities much of it uncovered by Live Action investigations. Of course, he might opposed it for economic reasons.

Romney’s Ten Commandments on National Security

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”

Governor Romney’s Ten Commandments on national security are based on his recent pronouncements, including his October 8, 2012 speech at the Virginia Military Institute.

1. American exceptionalism. Thou shall adhere to the classic US worldview, highlighting American moral and strategic exceptionalism – US global competitive edge. American moral exceptionalism is a derivative of America’s Judeo-Christian values, formulated by the early Pilgrims and the US founding fathers. Romney believes in America’s moral, economic, scientific, technological, educational, medical and military exceptionalism. He is aware that America’s best interests and the minimization of global disorder – militarily and economically – require US pro-active leadership.

2. US global leadership. Thou shall embrace US global leadership, underscoring US freedom of unilateral action, rather than subordinating US policy to multilateral considerations. The US – not the UN or any international order – is the dominant quarterback of international relations. US global leadership is critical for its economic, homeland security and military concerns. It bolsters posture of deterrence, providing a tailwind for allies, thus constraining clear and present threats posed by rogue/terrorist Islamic regimes. On the other hand, US withdrawal is interpreted as weakness, emboldening adversaries, weakening allies, fueling clear and present dangers and facilitating the recurrence of 9/11.

3. Realism. Thou shall abide by realism and experience and not by wishful-thinking and delusion. Thus, the Arab Street intensifies anti-US terrorism and not democracy. Confronting – rather than engaging – rogue regimes upgrades deterrence and reduces the threat of war. Preempting – rather than retaliating against – undeterred rogue regimes spares humanity calamitous wars. Moreover, Putin’s Russia is a rival – not an ally – of the USA. Steadfastness, not flexibility, would restrain Moscow’s imperialistic ambition, reassuring US’ East European allies. Realism requires confidence, marathon-like resolve, and clarity and not apology, hasty-wavering and ambiguity.

4. Moral Clarity. Thou shall follow moral clarity – a prerequisite for operational clarity. Do not subordinate moral clarity to political convenience. For example, Islamic terrorism is the most distinct threat to Western democracies. It must be clearly identified and not be blurred by linguistic acrobatics, such as “workplace violence,” “man-caused disasters,” or “isolated extremism.” The threat of Islamic terrorism must be lucidly presented and not be deleted from the training literature of the defense and counter-terrorism establishment. Islamic terrorism has afflicted the USA –systematically and not randomly – since the 18th century. Core American values of liberty and justice are a lethal threat to rogue and tyrannical Islamic regimes. The US is the chief strategic obstacle to megalomaniac transnational aspirations.

5. Peace through strength. Thou shall advance strength – and not pliability – in order to promote peace. Strength deters, and perceived weakness fuels, terrorism. Enhancing military capabilities – of the US and its European allies – is compulsory in order to face rising threats and deter aggression.

6. Strategic cooperation. Thou shall enhance strategic cooperation with capable, reliable, stable, predictable, democratic and unconditional allies – such as Israel – which contribute to the US in the areas of defense and commercial high-tech, intelligence, battle tactics, training and operations. Israel is the only ally resembling a US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American on board, cannot be sunk, already deployed in an area critical to primary US interests, snatching hot US chestnuts out of the fire, saving the US taxpayer some $20BN annually.

7. Moral equivalence. Thou shall not indulge in the morally-wrong and strategically-flawed moral equivalence between the role model of counter-terrorism (e.g., Israel) and the role model of terrorism (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO); between the role model of unconditional alliance with the US (e.g., Israel) and the role model of systematic alliance with America’s enemies, such as Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden (e.g., the Palestinian leadership).

8. Iran. Thou shall prevent Iran’s nuclearization for the sake of the US – and not Israeli – interests. A nuclear Iran would traumatize the supply and price of oil; would devastate pro-US Gulf regimes; would coalesce Iran’s takeover of Iraq; would accelerate nuclear proliferation; would upgrade the military capabilities of anti-US Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador; would embolden anti-US Islamic terrorism, including sleeper cells in the US; and would devastate the US posture of deterrence.

9. Palestinian issue. Thou shall be cognizant of the secondary role played by the Palestinian issue in the Middle East. It is not the root cause of regional turbulence and anti-US Islamic terrorism, not the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and not the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As stated by Romney, the Palestinians are concerned about the existence – not the size – of Israel. He is aware of the indispensability of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria for Israel’s existence. He is also aware of the adverse impact by the proposed Palestinian state upon cardinal US interests. Hence, the unacceptability of the “two state delusion.”

10. Political correctness. Thou shall not subordinate the Ten Commandments to political correctness, expediency and global/domestic pressure.

Will Governor Romney be faithful to the Ten Commandments on national security if elected on November 6, 2012?

Ambassor Yoram Ettinger’s article reflects an Israeli-American perspective. His artlice was first published in “Israel Hayom”, October 12, 2012, http://bit.ly/RCSZQ0.

Achieving Revenue Neutrality with Romney’s Tax Plan

by Richard Morrison
The Tax Foundation

Mitt Romney’s proposal to cap itemized deductions on federal income tax returns would significantly reduce the tax cut that high earning households would otherwise receive under his tax plan and would eliminate the presumption that taxes would increase on middle-income filers, according to a new analysis by the Tax Foundation.

“Governor Romney’s suggestion of a $17,000 cap for deductions should finally relieve concerns, largely unfounded to begin with, that the plan would turn out to be insufficiently progressive or end up raising taxes on middle income families,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge.

Model scenarios found that the reduction in revenue from cutting individual tax rates would be substantially offset by dynamic effects of his other policy proposals. The proposed reduction in the corporate income tax rate, and lower taxes on capital gains, dividends, and estates would contribute to job growth and federal revenues, reducing the cost of the total package.

“The combination of the additional revenue from economic growth and the limitation on itemized deductions comes very close to making the plan revenue neutral,” said Tax Foundation Senior Fellow Stephen Entin. “For example, the cap on deductions reduces the plan’s static revenue losses from $338 billion to around $206 billion. The economic growth generated by the plan further reduces the revenue losses to under $14 billion. By Washington standards, this is well within the margin of error.”

While the Tax Foundation’s analysis illustrates that the tax package can indeed be made to work without raising taxes on middle income families, the limitation on deductions is a blunt tool for tax reform which does not address the merits or demerits of the different types of deductions. It is also not clear whether Congress will go along with major reductions in some types of the deductions involved. A series of spending reductions in the least valuable or most wasteful federal spending programs might be a better way to proceed.

See also http://taxfoundation.org/article/impact-romneys-proposed-17000-deduction-cap.
See also http://taxfoundation.org/article/simulating-economic-effects-romneys-tax-plan.

Obama and the Benghazi Debacle

by Daniel Downs

The Obama administration’s poor judgment concerning both the nature of the Benghazi attack and security of our Consulates in Liyba is old news. From President Obama to Susan Rice, Americans were misled into believing the Benghazi attack was a mob action. It was determined earlier in the investigations that security personnel wanted more security personnel to address the increasing threat of Al-Qaida’s presence.

In his second debate, President Obama said he did call the attack on the Benghazi embassy an act of terror. Some commmentators claim he did say it was a terrorist attack, while others claim he did not. Those who deny the Obama’s claim do so because they did read the transcript of his Rose Garden speech on September 12, 2012. The President mentioned terrorist in the context of the attack of September 11, 2001, the sacrifice of American soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that proceeded in response to 9/11, and finally those who died in Benghazi.

In other words, his statement was vague concerning the nature of the Benghazi attack.

If President Obama actually knew or wanted Americans to know the attack was another act of terrorism against America, he would have continued to state that fact while being interviewed by David Letterman on September 18, 2012. However, he blamed the attack on extremists angered by anti-Mohammad video made by an American of questionable character. Obama did use the term terrorist but only in the context of all other attacks against American Consulates around the world that were a result of the film.

In an Foreign Policy article published on October 16, 2012, Christopher Stephen raise questions about the veracity of both a military style terroristattack and spontaneous mob violence. Locals consistenly claim seeing a group of 12 armed men. The gates to the embasssy were not breached, but there were 2 bullet holes in the front gate and 22 in the back gate. There were only two bullet holes anywhere in the compound. The only mortar penetrated the main building above the door. According to Stephens, the 3 embassy personnel who died were shot while escaping the compound and Ambassor Steven’s appears to have died of smoke inhilation as a result of the mortar.

As also noted during the Congressional Committee for Government Oversight and Reform hearings, Stephen’s article confirms the lack of any adequate security that could have prevented an attack.

It must be concluded that the Commander-in-Chief didn’t know the real nature of the attack, he prefers to view Muslim jihadic violence as merely extremism, or he was merely covering up a very embarrasing failure to provide even modest security.

Egypt’s Christians: Distraught and Displaced

by Raymond Ibrahim
Investigative Project on Terrorism
October 5, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3356/egypt-christians-displaced

Last week Reuters reported that “Most Christians living near Egypt’s border with Israel [in the town of Rafah in Sinai] are fleeing their homes after Islamist militants made death threats and gunmen attacked a Coptic-owned shop.” Photos of desecrated churches and Christian property show Arabic graffiti saying things like “don’t come back” and “Islam is the truth.”

All media reports describe the same sequence of events: 1) Christians were threatened with leaflets warning them to evacuate or die; 2) an armed attack with automatic rifles was made on a Christian-owned shop; 3) Christians abandoned everything and fled their homes.

Anyone following events in Egypt knows that these three points—threatening leaflets, attacks on Christian property, followed by the displacement of Christians—are becoming commonplace in all of Egypt, and not just peripheral Sinai, even if the latter is the only area to make it to the Western mainstream media. Consider:

Genocidal Leaflets

On August 14, El Fegr reported that leaflets were distributed in areas with large Christian populations, including Upper Egypt, offering monetary rewards to Muslims who “kill or physically attack the enemies of the religion of Allah—the Christians in all of Egypt’s provinces, the slaves of the Cross, Allah’s curse upon them…”

As a testimony to just how safe the jihadis feel under Egypt’s new Islamist president, Muhammad Morsi—who just freed a militant jihadi responsible for the burning of a church that left several Christians dead—the leaflets named contact points and even a mosque where Muslims interested in learning more about killing Christians should rally “after Friday prayers where new members to the organization will be welcomed.”

On the same day these leaflets were distributed, a separate report titled “The serial killing of Copts has begun in Asyut” noted that a Christian store-owner was randomly targeted and killed by Salafis.

Muslim Attacks on Christian Properties and Persons

For months, Arabic-Christian media have been reporting ongoing stories of Muslim “gangs” and “thugs” attacking Christian homes, abducting the residents, including women and children, and demanding ransom monies—not unlike what is happening to Christians in Iraq and Syria. In one particular case, the Muslim gang attacked the home of a Coptic man, “releasing several gunshots in the air, and threatening him either to pay or die.” The gang “picked this specific village because Copts form 80% of its inhabitants.” Such reports often conclude with an all too familiar postscript: Christians calling police for help and filing complaints, all in vain.

A Coptic Solidarity report from August 20 titled “Copts in Upper Egypt Attacked, Beat, Plundered,” tells of just that—how Christians are being beat, their businesses set on fire, and their properties plundered (see also here and here for similar reports). Likewise, according to Al Moheet, a new human rights report indicates that, in Nag Hammadi alone, there are dozens of cases of Muslim gangs abducting Christian Copts and holding them for ransom. Concerning these, the Coptic Church is daily asking for justice from the Egyptian government and receiving none.

Christian Displacements

As for the exodus of Copts from their homes, this, too, has become an ongoing crisis, so much so that a recent statement by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt lamented the “repeated incidents of displacement of Copts from their homes, whether by force or threat.” The statement also made clear that what happened in Sinai is no aberration: “Displacements began in Ameriya, then they stretched to Dahshur, and today terror and threats have reached the hearts and souls of our Coptic children in Rafah [Sinai].”

Indeed, back in February, a mob of over 3000 Muslims attacked and displaced Christians in the region of Ameriya, due to unsubstantiated rumors that a Christian man was involved with a Muslim woman. Christian homes and shops were looted and then torched; “terrorized” women and children who lost their homes stood in the streets with no place to go. As usual, it took the army an hour to drive 2 kilometers to the village, and none of the perpetrators were arrested. Later, a Muslim Council permanently evicted eight Christian families and confiscated their property, even as “Muslims insisted that the whole Coptic population of 62 families must be deported.”

A few weeks ago in Dahshur, after a Christian laundry worker accidently burned the shirt of a Muslim man, the latter came with a Muslim mob to attack the Copt at his home. As the Christian defended his household, a Muslim was killed. Accordingly, thousands of Muslims terrorized the area, causing 120 Christian families to flee. One elderly Coptic woman returned home from the bakery to find the area deserted of Christians. Rioting Muslims looted Christian businesses and homes. Family members of the deceased Muslim insist that the Christians must still pay with their lives.

Most recently, at the same time the media was reporting about the displacement of Christians from Rafah, over in Asyut, after a quarrel between two school girls—a Christian and a Muslim—several “heavily-armed” Muslims stormed the home of the Christian girl, causing her family and three other Coptic families to flee the village. When the father returned, he found that all his saved money and possessions had been robbed and plundered; and when he asked police for help, the officer replied, “I can’t do anything for you, reconcile with them and end the problem.”

Indeed, this has been the same attitude of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood led government: in all of the above cases, the government looked the other way, or, when called on it, denied reality. Thus the Coptic Holy Synod made it a point to assert in its statement that “nearly one month ago the media had published the violations against the Copts but the Egyptian authorities have not taken the necessary measures to protect the Egyptian families, who have the right to live safely in their homes.” As for the Rafah incident—the only incident to reach the mainstream media—Prime Minister Hisham Qandil denied that Christians were forced to flee, saying “One or two [Christian] families chose to move to another place and they are totally free to do so like all Egyptian citizens.”

Such governmental indifference is consistent with the fact that, despite promising greater representation for Egypt’s Christians, President Morsi just broke his word by allowing only one Copt—a female—to represent the nation’s 10-12 million Christians in the newly formed cabinet.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Rutherford Institute Defends Military Intelligence Whistleblower Against Government’s Retaliatory Efforts to Revoke Bronze Star Medal

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a retired U.S. Army whistleblower who is being stripped of his Bronze Star Medal, allegedly in retaliation for his disclosure of intelligence and military failures that may have contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and prolonged the war in Afghanistan. Retired Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Anthony Shaffer was awarded a Bronze Star Medal in 2004 for his “meritorious service” as a high-level Army intelligence operative in combat zones within Afghanistan. In addition to initiating a procedure to strip Shaffer of his Bronze Star, the Army has also charged the decorated veteran with misconduct and stripped him of his military clearance, also allegedly in response to concerns he made public about systemic U.S. intelligence failures. In coming to Shaffer’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys are calling on the Army to cease its retaliatory actions, which not only threaten Shaffer’s First Amendment rights but, given the lack of specifics relating to misconduct provided by the Army, infringe on his right to due process.

“This is the latest attempt by the government to suppress free speech,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. “If we really want transparency in government, then this is our chance to stand by our convictions. Punishing Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer for raising legitimate concerns about systemic problems within our government that are endangering our safety as a nation is reprehensible.”

A high-level Army intelligence operative who was deployed in Afghanistan during the early years of the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, LTC Shaffer planned and participated in some of the most daring, dangerous and important operations of the war. In April 2004, Shaffer was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for “leadership, selfless service, and commitment to mission accomplishment under the most extreme circumstances [that] greatly contributed to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom.” Soon after being awarded the medal, however, Shaffer was charged with misconduct and stripped of his security clearance, allegedly because he had attempted to reveal U.S. intelligence failures that ignored or suppressed information, including the identities of four of the 9/11 airliner hijackers, uncovered by a project code named “Able Danger.” After separating from the military, Shaffer began working on a book about his service with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which criticized policies followed in the Afghanistan war that failed to recognize the connection between the Taliban and the Pakistani intelligence agency and failed to target the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan. Although Shaffer’s book, Dark Heart, was reviewed by the Army and initially granted clearance for publication, the DIA threatened action to stop publication just a month before it was to be released and censored substantial portions of the book. In the latest government action against Shaffer, in which the Army has alleged misconduct and announced its intent to revoke Shaffer’s Bronze Star, no specifics detailing the alleged misconduct were provided. In demanding that the Army cease its retaliatory proceedings, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that the lack of notice violates Shaffer’s fundamental due process rights and assert that “the proposed revocation is a continuation of attempts to punish, defame, and otherwise harm LTC Shaffer for his exercise of his right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Another Successful Islamic Terrorist Attack, Why? (Corrected)

News about the facts being discovered by the investigations of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya continues to unfold. What the recent Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearings made apparent is that the Obama administration was lying to the American public. Obama blamed the incident on an anti-Islamic film probably because such a film actually did incite a violent riot in Egypt. Nevertheless, the terrorist attack was was planned military style attack. It was most likely motivated both by revenge against our government’s military intervention in toppling the Gaddafi as noted by Congressman Kucinich and in-sync with the memory of the successful attack by Islamic terrorists against America on 9/11 as Congresswoman Adams made evident. At the same time, the successful terrorist attack in Benghazi was made possible by a minimization of the real threat posed by Islamic terrorists by the Obama administration in general and the real escalating violence and threats in Benghazi as emphasized by Congressman Rohrbacher. This was an issue repeatedly explored by various members of the Oversight Committee and confirmed by witnesses who were directly involved in security of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, Lt. Colonel Woods and Mr. Nordstrom, who was head of security in Libya prior to the attack, both affirmed that they had requested more armed military units to meet previous levels security personnel but their requests were ignored or denied by the Department of State.

As you will hear in the following video, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinish discusses the illegality of the Obama’s intervention in Libya and how it has created animus of Libyans against America. He makes it evident that neither the current Libyan government or Obama’s administration know which terrorist groups possesses the thousand of weapons and missles missing from Liyba’s arsenal. Thus, demonstrating the severity of the threat in Benghazi.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TnoYMMVrJ0&w=500&h=375]

As previously mentioned, an underlying problem contributing the successful terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi is Obama administration’s mindset. It is a mindset that minimizes the threat of Islamic radicalism. This mindset towards Islam makes America appear weak and thus has made our embassies more vulnerable. This is brought out clearly by Congressman Rohrbacher in the next video.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGV1e8ab3nI&w=500&h=375]

Congresswoman Adams has experience in law enforcement, Her questioning not not focused on those concerns common to law enforcement concerning terrorism, but it further demonstrated the disregard for those same issues by the State Department’s head of embassy security, which is detailed in the next video.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-qC1Ay2aME&w=500&h=375]

Congressman Jim Cooper read a list of American military and embassy personnel who were killed by terrorist attacks. The provide important perspective no both the real threat to our Ambassadors, their staffs, and our military. By implication, it affirms Congressman Kucinich’s position that much of U.S. military interventionism produces anti-American violence.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYzc4O2CAWQ&hl=en_US&w=500&h=277]

The only real difference between Central American terrorists and Islamic terrorists is ideological justification and concomitant financial support. Nicaraguans and other Central Americans have experience the violent and degrading interventionism of the American government as have the Libyans and others. Central Americans have no religion or other pervasive worldview that has historically justified killing others, but Muslim do. Because Central Americans do not, they have no financial backers make it possible for armed attacks or war against the American government i.e., ambassadors, embassy employees, military personnel, etc. Muslim, however, do have such backing as Al-Qaeda and all other Islamic Jihadists do.

Romney’s October 10, 2012 Sidney Speech

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80F1WalPkS8&w=500&h=282]

The Lesser of Two Evils: Voting Principles (Video)

The following video is an award winning speech presented by Josh Craddock. In it he explains ehy we should not vote for a candidate who is regarded as the “lesser of two evils”. Craddocks presents a third option to enable us to vote for an actual representative candidate.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkLFZkJVBKE?rel=0&w=420&h=315]

The obamanation about the jobs

by Daniel Downs

Last week, the media prophets of the left attempted to make the Obamanable economy look better than it actually is. They used the opening paragraph of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s monthly jobs situation report out of context. Like all proof-texting, they lifted the “good news” out-of-context in order to proclaim Obama’s stimulating policies were at last working.

Here is the opening statement of the BLS jobs report:

“The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000.”

The unemployment rate in August was 8.1 percent resulting in a 0.3% decrease, and number of unemployed persons decreased 456,000 to 12.1 million. The number job losers and persons unemployed more than 5 months also decreased.

All good news for the economy, right?

Well, let’s look at the above total nonfarm employment increase figure of 114,000. The BLS jobs report showed job creation declined 41% from July to August. New jobs were added at a modest rated of 7% between August and September. The opposite was the case for government jobs. From July to August, the growth of government jobs increased 250 percent, but the rated decreased to 78% from August to September.

The Obamaites might have reason to celebrate the growth jobs, especially government jobs.

However, their rejoicing will not last long.

The problem is with part-time jobs. Part-time employment increased by 7 percent, the same rate as new private sector jobs.

Although employment is growing some, job growth under the Obamaite administration is still not all that great.