<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Hillary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/hillary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Hillary at Georgetown: Tolerance, Empathy and Submission</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-rotberg/hillary-at-georgetown-tolerance-empathy-and-submission/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-at-georgetown-tolerance-empathy-and-submission</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-rotberg/hillary-at-georgetown-tolerance-empathy-and-submission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 05:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Howard Rotberg]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[empathy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgetown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tolerance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What it really means to "empathize" with one's enemies. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aunnamed.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247691" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aunnamed.jpg" alt="aunnamed" width="332" height="212" /></a>In my book, <i>Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed (second revised edition, Mantua Books), </i>I quote the great philosopher of the post-World War 2 era, Karl Popper, who formulated the following dilemma about tolerance (which has become known as “the Popper Paradox”):</p>
<blockquote><p>If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.</p></blockquote>
<p>And so, I write that excessive tolerance of the intolerant illiberals has become a full-blown ideology which I call Tolerism.   Tolerism, in my view, elevates the virtue of tolerance over the fundamental Biblical value of Justice.</p>
<p>Tolerism also includes a type of cultural Stockholm Syndrome, where, as in the case of some hostages or abused women, some begin to identify with their captors or abusers.</p>
<p>It consists often of psychological denial, and it accepts United Nations Human Rights Councils led by Iran, Syria and other leading human rights abusers. Tolerism reflects a moral equivalency between terrorists and victims, and even a seeming masochism where we seek out painful retribution as a kind of catharsis for our supposed misdeeds.  Tolerist “compassion,” especially in the work of Karen Armstrong, assumes that there is equivalency in compassion between the “frequently unkind West” and Islam &#8212; which unfortunately in its present state is not at all compassionate to Coptic Christians, Yzedis, Jews, gays, women who seek freedoms, or even minority Muslim groups like the Ahmadis.</p>
<p>I believe that the ideology I call tolerism is expanding ever more rapidly beyond mere tolerance and unilateral compassion.   It is now becoming an excessive <i>empathy</i> where the quest to share some other group’s feelings is beginning to cause our liberals to accept the false facts and illiberal values of our enemies and in fact sometimes to convert or submit to Islam.  We are seeing some young people convert to Islam and go so far as to join the forces of ISIS.  We are even seeing young Western women convert to Islam and marry men whose attitudes toward women are almost barbaric. Submission indeed.</p>
<p>Ms. Clinton, of course, served as Secretary of State during the Obama administration’s new Middle Eastern doctrine of giving more “respect” to the Muslim world in word and deed.  As President Obama stated in Cairo during his first major overseas appearance:</p>
<blockquote><p>I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hillary herself has a close relationship with Huma Abedin, who is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, as are her parents.  Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and allowing its operatives into the Obama administration would be seen as treasonous if the country was not so immersed in Tolerism.</p>
<p>Clinton is not apologetic in the least over her relationship with Abedin. Now that Clinton feels that she should be President at a time when Islamist threats all over the world have only increased during the Obama years, she feels that her “feminine” skills give her the special qualification to right the ship she helped to tip over during her tenure as Secretary of State.</p>
<p>So, in her recent speech at Georgetown University, she contended that when women participate in peace processes, “often overlooked issues such as human rights, individual justice, national reconciliation, economic renewal are often brought to the forefront.”</p>
<p>Clinton’s talk (for which she apparently was paid $300,000) was at the launch of the Action Plan Academy, an organization which aims to explore how countries can craft strategies to help women rise into leadership roles on security issues and provide training and workshops.</p>
<p>“Today marks a very important next step,” Clinton told an audience of diplomats and other officials from all over the world, “shifting from saying the right things to doing the right things, putting into action the steps that are necessary not only to protect women and children but to find ways of utilizing women as makers and keepers of peace.”</p>
<p>Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said, fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.</p>
<p>“Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between a few years?” Clinton asked, implying, without any evidence at all, that women produce better peace agreements than men.   If I was paying part of the $300,000 I would really have expected a better discussion of past female leaders like Ms. Bhutto in Pakistan (who transferred nuclear technology to North Korea), Golda Meir in Israel,  and Margaret Thatcher in Britain,  and current leaders Angela Merkel in Germany and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. America itself has seen women leaders in security matters – former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice (and Hillary Clinton), National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and first female Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick.</p>
<p>Instead of discussing any of them, she raised the idea that two women were involved at a high level in brokering peace in the 40-year struggle between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and other Islamic groups in the southern island of Bangsamoro (meaning Muslim land), which has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced more than a million..</p>
<p>Unfortunately, whether these two women were in fact instrumental or not, the issue of the Philippines submitting to Muslim rule over areas of its impoverished, yet potentially oil-rich, south, after 40 years of conflict and the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of over a million people, is factually quite complex.  Some argue that it was external pressure that helped this second peace initiative on the same territory for which the first peace treaty failed; and most recognize that this second one is very much up in the air as to its sustainability.</p>
<p>Under the proposal, Islamic Sharia law would apply to Muslims in the region, but the country&#8217;s justice system would (hopefully) continue to apply to non-Muslims. The Moro group has renounced the terrorist acts of extremist groups, but at least three smaller Muslim rebel groups oppose the autonomy deal and have vowed to continue fighting for a completely separate Muslim homeland.</p>
<p>And one wonders, once the Muslim groups are granted jurisdiction over limited areas of government, whether this is viewed by them as a first step to future demands for full Sharia law.   But Hillary is not interested in waiting to see how it turns out before attributing it to the presence of some women working on the negotiations.</p>
<p>This is a complex problem that Hillary obviously simplifies for partisan political purposes, i.e. the female vote in America.  Some commentators feel that the potential natural resource riches available to foreign business concerns is what eventually pushed the Philippine Government into the deal, rather than any great feminine talents as Hillary contends.  Moreover, some believe that the United States and other Western governments have backed the autonomy deal partly to prevent the insurgency from breeding extremists who could threaten their own countries.</p>
<p>But the topic of feminine talents for security and diplomacy and her preference to cite Muslims as examples rather than American female icons is not the main concern caused by Ms. Clinton’s remarks.   The really scandalous part of the speech is when she cited feminine skills as a component of something she called “Smart Power” as follows (emphasis added):</p>
<p>“This is what we call Smart Power, using every possible tool…leaving no one on the sidelines, <b>showing respect even for one’s enemies</b>, trying to understand, and insofar as is psychologically possible, <b>empathize with their perspective and point of view</b>, helping to define the problems [and] determine a solution, that is what we believe in the 21st century will change the prospect for peace,” she said.</p>
<p>What does it mean for a possible future President to seek to show “respect” for one’s enemies?</p>
<p>Respect, according to the Oxford Dictionary is defined as “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.”</p>
<p>And here is where we begin to climb down into a terrible ethical hole.   Islamists, with their history of beheadings, other murders, torture, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and gays, and their forced genital mutilation of young girls, their abuse of women and their general disregard for individual human rights, do not deserve our “deep admiration” and do not show any great “qualities” or “achievements” &#8211; unless your idea of an achievement is grabbing vast areas of Iraq and Syria from under Obama’s nose, without his bothering to object until it was too late.</p>
<p>Let’s dig a little deeper also into the whole concept of “empathy” for one’s enemy.   The idea of empathizing with the enemy was first popularized by the film, <i>Fog of War, </i>about former Defense Secretary in the Johnson administration, Robert McNamara, who made it one of the eleven lessons he learned. The concept of empathy is also something that has received the study of humanist psychologists, who are well-meaning in their attempts to aid interpersonal relationships and help people understand and therefore overcome misunderstandings in difficult relationships.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Carl Rogers, an important American academic psychologist of the twentieth century promoted the concept of empathy, or being empathetic as a process leading one to perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without ever losing the &#8220;as if&#8221; condition. Thus it means to sense the hurt or the pleasure of another as he senses it and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is “as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth.  If this &#8220;as if&#8221; quality is lost, then the state is one of identification.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Rogers reasoned that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="color: #232323;"><i>An empathic way of being with another person means entering the private perceptual world of the other and becoming thoroughly at home in it. It involves being sensitive, moment by moment, to the changing felt meanings which flow in this other person, to the fear or rage or tenderness or confusion or whatever that he or she is experiencing. It means temporarily living in the other&#8217;s life, moving about in it delicately without making judgements;  &#8230;It means frequently checking with the person as to the accuracy of your sensings, and being guided by the responses you receive. You are a confident companion to the person in his or her inner world.</i></p>
<p style="color: #232323;"><i>To be with another in this way means that for the time being, you lay aside your own views and values in order to enter another&#8217;s world without prejudice. In some sense it means that you lay aside your self; this can only be done by persons who are secure enough in themselves that they know they will not get lost in what may turn out to be the strange or bizarre world of the other, and that they can comfortably return to their own world when they wish.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #232323;">One can only conclude that real “political” empathy is for only the strongest, most intelligent intellectuals and politicians of our time, who are most secure in their liberal values and their constitutional limits and duties.  If the person is not so strong, this journey into what can be “a strange or bizarre world” may result in the person feeling more comfortable in <b>that</b> world or identifying with that world.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Feeling more comfortable in that world may result in something way more than tolerant empathy, and may result in conversion or submission.   This is not a job for postmodernists, but only for those with the clearest and most certain confidence in American values.  Without clear values, and a fixed sense of right and wrong, and good versus evil, postmodernist empathy will make it harder and harder for the empathizer to return to their own world, especially if his President has said that America is no more tolerant than Islam, that American standards of justice are no better than Islam’s and that countries that have banished all Jews and most Christians share the same view of dignity of all persons.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">And so, when the President stated that America and the Muslim world share mutual respect (i.e. admiration); and that they share the same principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings; then one wonders if empathy will more likely lead to submission.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">If Hillary Clinton calls for more respect and empathy for the enemy, she is a poor choice to lead a country as important as America is to the notion of individual freedoms and human rights based on Judeo-Christian values.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Since the election of Obama, we have a very large problem on our hands.   The moral and cultural relativism and postmodernism of our university campuses are now in the White House.  Can the historical America survive another four or eight years of tolerism and empathy before it, too, like some European countries, begins to submit to Islamist values, with acceptance of Sharia law as an alternative to its Constitution, Muslim religious teachings in public schools, and tolerance for “no-go” areas?    America failed its young by failing to properly vet Obama’s background and associations before electing him;   this time, before Americans place Hillary Clinton in the White House they had better study carefully the notions of tolerance, empathy and submission if America is to remain a great country.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-rotberg/hillary-at-georgetown-tolerance-empathy-and-submission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Wants to be President, She Just Doesn’t Want to Run</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-wants-to-be-president-she-just-doesnt-want-to-run/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-wants-to-be-president-she-just-doesnt-want-to-run</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-wants-to-be-president-she-just-doesnt-want-to-run/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book tour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nomination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ready for Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[running]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even Hillary isn’t ready for Hillary.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hillary.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247423" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hillary-450x300.jpg" alt="Hillary Clinton Awarded The 2013 Lantos Human Rights Prize" width="242" height="161" /></a>Ready for Hillary, the campaign before the campaign which has churned out <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ready-for-hillarys-3-creepiest-items-will-give-you-nightmares/">some creepy t-shirts</a> and a terrible country song, is $11 million in debt, and Hillary still isn’t ready.</p>
<p>While Hillary was delivering six figure speeches at heavily indebted universities, Ready for Hillary was burning through a giant pile of money trying to stir up Obama level enthusiasm for their uncharismatic candidate by selling fifty dollar champagne glasses emblazoned with a giant H, a Hillary Clinton cat collar and a Hillary Clinton Christmas tree ornament.</p>
<p>Ready for Hillary wasn’t ready to deliver the overpriced crap it was hawking with customers complaining that their items weren’t delivered and that no one was answering their emails. Usually politicians wait until after they get elected to start ripping people off, but Hillary is too broke to wait that long.</p>
<p>Despite advertising a “Hillary for the Holidays” set of Hillary champagne glasses and ornaments, her organization is already $11 million in debt. Apparently not that many people want to scare small children by hanging a Hillary Clinton ornament from their Christmas tree.</p>
<p>Like Ready for Hillary, Hillary isn’t ready. Instead she postponed her campaign until the spring of 2015 after having promised to decide on the first of the year. Back then Hillary was claiming that she would “have to be convinced that I have a very clear vision with an agenda of what I think needs to be done.”</p>
<p>Serious candidates don’t ask someone else to flatter them into believing that they have a clear vision. That’s the opposite of what a clear vision is.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton spent two decades clearing her way to the White House. If you take her at her word, then she already spent a fortune running for president without ever having a “clear vision” or an agenda of what needs to be done.</p>
<p>Even Hillary isn’t Ready for Hillary.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton doesn’t like running for things. Instead she likes having them reserved for her. In the White House she got to make policy without running for office. Giuliani’s illness spared her the bother of having to run a real Senate campaign. Hillary got the Secretary of State gig in exchange for backing Obama in ’08 and got frontrunner status for ’16 thanks to her husband’s efforts for him in ’12.</p>
<p>The one time that she faced a tough campaign, she lost.</p>
<p>Now she wants a clear path to the nomination. And then she wants an easy election. Hillary doesn’t want to campaign. She wants to get the job by just showing up the way that she gets a <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-again/">constant stream of awards</a> on everything from Hispanic leadership to AIDS to the oceans by just showing up.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is great at receiving awards for doing absolutely nothing. What she isn’t any good at is making a case for why she deserves anything except an indictment.</p>
<p>Her book tour turned into a public relations nightmare despite a friendly press when she made one gaffe after another, claiming to have been flat broke and then trying to paste that over, culminating in poor book sales and a multi-million dollar loss for her publisher. During the midterm election, her campaign appearances helped sink Democratic candidates after she claimed that businesses don’t create jobs.</p>
<p>So instead Hillary Clinton has gone on padding her bank account with highly profitable and heavily controlled appearances at private events. At these appearances Team Hillary scrutinizes and controls every aspect of her appearance from the color of her armchairs to demanding that those who paid extra to be photographed with her be ready and posed so that she can just walk in and out of the photo.</p>
<p>It also dictates that as little as possible of her appearance will be made public. At <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/if-you-want-hillary-clinton-youre-going-to-need-crudite-humus-and-300000/">a UCLA speech</a>, Team Hillary only allowed a two-minute highlight clip to be made public while stipulating that it would have to be taken down before the election. That’s a privilege afforded to her by a university system run by party pal Janet Napolitano. It won’t work that way when Hillary is appearing at a county fair in Iowa.</p>
<p>There will be no censorship, no prestaged photos and no plates of Crudités and hummus. Hillary will have every word out there, she’ll have to smile when the camera is on her and chew corn dogs. For a wealthy and privileged politician who has gotten used to a life of luxury suites and cocktail parties, the campaign trail is a long tall slice of hell. And Hillary Clinton wants to delay it for as long as possible.</p>
<p>The Hillary non-campaign dissuades Democrats from running by convincing them that the nomination is already locked up in her closet along with the awards from Elton John and the Queen of Spain without tempting them into running by showing just how poorly she campaigns. Despite being ridiculously famous, Hillary Clinton is hoping to stay an enigma so no one realizes how clueless she really is.</p>
<p>Ready for Hillary is a third rate version of Obama’s campaign, trying to wrap her in the same aura of history and iconography without having the first clue about such basics as language, design and history. Hillary Clinton’s pre-campaign strategy is to echo what other people are saying. Whenever an issue comes up, Hillary waits until some kind of consensus forms before she offers up her clear vision.</p>
<p>If the consensus changes, so does her vision.</p>
<p>When she does say something controversial, she’s only echoing someone more controversial, as was the case when she ripped off Elizabeth Warren’s “You didn’t build that” rant to declare that businesses don’t create jobs. And then she quickly walked her statement back. That’s Hillary’s idea of a clear vision.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton’s endless pre-campaign gives her the best of both worlds. Hillary can cash in with little accountability. She can engage the public and the press entirely on her terms. And her political rivals treat her as inevitable because she hasn’t actually gotten into the thick of a campaign. If she had her way, she would announce her candidacy on the day before the election.</p>
<p>And while she can’t do that, she can delay her campaign for as long as possible.</p>
<p>Hillary will be ready to run at the last minute or when another candidate emerges as a serious threat. If any Democrats still think that Hillary will be a change from the golf-and-teleprompter administration, they had better think again. Hillary Clinton may not spend her time on the golf course, but she won’t be spending it doing anything like work either. Her time as Secretary of State showed us that much.</p>
<p>Secretary of State Hillary Clinton liked the glamorous aspects of her job, like flying around the world to meet with famous people, but had no use for the boring stuff like dealing with desperate requests for security from her own people in Benghazi. As President, Hillary will follow the Obama itinerary of photo ops with world leaders and celebrities while blowing off the rest of her job and blaming Congress.</p>
<p>Unlike Obama, Hillary is even blowing off her campaign. That’s a level of entitlement too far even for her privileged party.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton has only two political assets. One is her name. The other is the desperate need by many working class Democrats to believe that the horrors of the Obama years could have been averted if Bill Clinton had won through her and restored the prosperity of the nineties. It’s a sad delusion when applied to a woman who spent the Obama depression partying with the rich while ignoring the poor.</p>
<p>Even now she is delaying her campaign as long as possible to avoid having to mingle with the victims of her party’s economic policies.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-wants-to-be-president-she-just-doesnt-want-to-run/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illegal Voters Tipping Election Scales?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/illegal-voters-tipping-election-scales/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=illegal-voters-tipping-election-scales</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/illegal-voters-tipping-election-scales/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cooperative Congressional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243947</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They likely gave us ObamaCare -- could they give us President Hillary Clinton? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/lkj1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243959" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/lkj1-450x230.jpg" alt="lkj" width="297" height="152" /></a>Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens is so prevalent throughout the nation that it gave us Obamacare, according to a disturbing new study.</p>
<p>And if illegal voting by non-citizens, who tend to support Democratic Party candidates and who heavily supported President Obama, could tip the scales in the 2008 congressional elections, it can do so again in congressional elections next week and in the presidential contest in 2016. In 2008 one report estimated that as many as 2.7 million non-citizens were registered to vote nationwide.</p>
<p>The academic report, to be published in the December issue of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973"><i>Electoral Studies</i></a>, continues the ongoing demolition of the Left&#8217;s narrative that voter fraud is a figment of paranoid Republicans&#8217; imagination. Democrats cling religiously to their mantra that voter fraud doesn&#8217;t exist or is of little consequence because they have difficulty competing electorally without vote fraud. Fraud helps Democrats eke out victories in close races, which helps to explain their vehement opposition to commonsense electoral integrity measures like purging dead people from voter rolls or requiring photo ID for voting.</p>
<p>The findings of Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., confirm that voter fraud is commonplace and widespread, something that honest, as opposed to <i>engaged</i> or <i>left-wing</i>, scholars have known for years.</p>
<p>&#8220;In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections,&#8221; the authors write.</p>
<p>The academics got their data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) which contains what they term a &#8220;large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) [that] provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010.&#8221; Using CCES data from 2008, they tried &#8220;to match respondents to voter files so &#8230; [they] could verify whether they actually voted.&#8221;</p>
<p>Although non-citizen participation &#8220;is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration,&#8221; they write. This new study &#8220;examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants,&#8221; a first in voting studies, they claim.</p>
<p>The authors found that non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates and that non-citizen voting probably changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the partisan makeup of Congress.</p>
<p>&#8220;We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections,&#8221; according to Richman and Earnest.</p>
<p>&#8220;Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress,&#8221; the authors write.</p>
<p>In other words, non-citizen voters likely started America down the path to ruin by providing critical votes in Congress to promote President Obama&#8217;s catastrophic policy agenda.</p>
<p>Although &#8220;[m]ost non-citizens do not register, let alone vote &#8230; enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races,&#8221; Richman and Earnest wrote in a recent oped in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/"><i>Washington Post</i></a>.</p>
<p>North of 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples reported being registered to vote. &#8220;Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,&#8221; they write.</p>
<p>Non-citizens favored Democrats in 2008 and Obama won upward of 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample. The authors write:</p>
<p>&#8220;[W]e find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections &#8230; Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.&#8221;</p>
<p>The authors&#8217; paper is consistent with other credible reports of non-citizen voting. For example, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R) unveiled a study in 2011 showing that almost 5,000 illegal aliens cast votes in the U.S. Senate election in that state in 2010.</p>
<p>Non-citizen voting, for better or worse, has been part of the American experience for a long time.</p>
<p>In the late 1700s and first half of the 1800s various states allowed non-citizens to vote. In some states individuals who intended to become U.S. citizens were allowed to vote but historically the alien suffrage movement has failed to get much of a foothold. By the mid and late 1800s states had largely outlawed voting by non-citizens. It has long been a crime for non-citizens to vote in national elections.</p>
<p>Non-citizens are allowed to vote in some elections in a handful of jurisdictions across the country. For example, Takoma Park, Md., a Washington, D.C. suburb burdened with an aging hippy population, has allowed non-citizens &#8211;including illegal aliens&#8211; to vote in local elections since 1992. But similar enclaves of Sixties radicals permitting non-citizen voting tend to have small populations and are few and far between.</p>
<p>Some left-wingers say that election fraud is justifiable because in a sense it compensates the poor for having little political power. Radical activists laid the foundation for illegal voting by non-citizens at the beginning of Bill Clinton&#8217;s presidency.</p>
<p>Marxist academics and activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were the architects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 which opened the door to an explosion of voter fraud across America. The NVRA, also called the Motor-Voter law, forces states to register to vote anyone applying to renew a driver&#8217;s license or obtain welfare or unemployment compensation benefits. State employees are now forbidden by law from asking would-be registrants for proof of U.S. citizenship.</p>
<p>The NVRA also compelled states to allow mail-in voter registration, which made it easy for left-wing activists to enter false names on the voter rolls without any kind of contact with a government official. States were also under orders not to purge important Democratic constituencies such as the dead and criminals from voter rolls for a minimum of eight years.</p>
<p>It is unclear how much fraud takes place as a result of mail-in voting. Such fraud, which takes place during the registration stage and the voting stage, has barely been examined by scholars.</p>
<p>But the Motor-Voter law, notes journalist John Fund, has &#8220;fueled an explosion of phantom voters.&#8221;</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s exactly what it was intended to do.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/illegal-voters-tipping-election-scales/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/hillary-joins-the-ferguson-lynch-mob/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-joins-the-ferguson-lynch-mob</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/hillary-joins-the-ferguson-lynch-mob/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ferguson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stoking anger, hatred and fear to get into the White House.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/clinton1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239842" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/clinton1-450x300.jpg" alt="Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participates in &quot;A Conversation with Hillary Rodham Clinton&quot; in Manhattan, New York" width="282" height="188" /></a>Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America&#8217;s corrupt criminal justice system.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.</p>
<p>Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America&#8217;s &#8220;first black president,&#8221; has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams/insulting-blacks.html">she gave</a> her infamous &#8220;I don&#8217;t feel no ways tired&#8221; speech.</p>
<p>The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president&#8217;s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/michael-brown-funeral-prelude-to-a-cop-lynching-1/">comes days after</a> 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.</p>
<p>The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6&#8217;4&#8243; 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop&#8217;s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man&#8217;s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown&#8217;s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.</p>
<p>The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won&#8217;t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won&#8217;t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.</p>
<p>Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent&#8217;s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.</p>
<p>But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Although black violence is a persistent problem in America, Clinton, as always, has nothing to say about anything that might actually help black communities. They are always victims in the leftist narrative. She and her comrades have done everything in their power for the last half century since the War on Poverty was launched to weaken black families, yet they are always calling for more government programs and social engineering to cure the problems that they themselves have created.</p>
<p>Clinton spoke of the violence in Ferguson as if it had materialized in response to some kind of injustice, ignoring the role of what police called &#8220;outside agitators&#8221; played in driving the nightly street battles with police. She continued:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;We saw our country&#8217;s true character in the community leaders that came out to protest peacefully and worked to restrain violence. The young people who insisted on having their voices heard and in the many decent and respectful law enforcement officers who showed what quality law enforcement looks like. Men and women who serve and protect their communities with courage and professionalism, who inspire trust, rather than fear. We need more of that, because we can do better.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Apart from her perfunctory praise of law enforcement officials and denunciation of violence, Clinton&#8217;s wording implies that Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self-defense, is not one of the &#8220;many decent and respectful law enforcement officers.&#8221; According to Clinton&#8217;s reasoning, Wilson must be a racist villain who is part of the problem.</p>
<p>Then Clinton began to sound like Barack Obama and other believers in the kooky legal philosophy known as Critical Race Theory, pretending that violent crimes in this country are not disproportionately committed by blacks. She ignores the fact that in some communities blacks receive heightened scrutiny from police because they seem to fit the profile of wanted suspects. If black crime were not prevalent in a specific area, chances are blacks would not receive much attention from police. But logic is not something left-wingers are often blessed with. They prefer to explain social ills by blaming white people.</p>
<p>Clinton continued:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;We can&#8217;t ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system that undermine our most deeply held values of fairness and equality. Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers. Instead of the other way around; if white offenders received prison sentences 10 percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes; if a third of all white men, just look at this room and take one-third, went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans and so many of the communities in which they live.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Whether the specific statistics Clinton cites are valid is an arguable point, but what is not arguable is that violent black crime in America is far more prevalent that violent crime committed by whites. The statistics for young black males are particularly horrifying.</p>
<p>As liberal Democrat academic John McWhorter, a black American, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/race-riot-romance-1/">wrote</a> last year:</p>
<blockquote><p>“[Y]oung black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. &#8230; Hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy’ (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch ‘for Trayvon’ (Mobile, Ala.) &#8230; [I]t’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>But Hillary Clinton would never beat up a key political constituency. She&#8217;s too busy inflaming black voters, making them feel good about their dysfunctional communities, and reinforcing the worst pathologies of inner cities.</p>
<p>Of course Clinton is completely supportive of Eric Holder&#8217;s witch hunt in Ferguson, where Justice Department and FBI officials have been busy gathering evidence to use in what promises to be a high-profile trumped-up civil rights prosecution against Officer Wilson. Clinton said:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I applaud President Obama for sending the attorney general to Ferguson and demanding a thorough and speedy investigation, to find out what happened, to see that justice is done, to help this community begin healing itself. We should all add our voices to those that have come together in recent days to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in Ferguson, and beyond, to stand against violence and for the values that we cherish. We can do better.</p>
<p>We can work to rebuild the bonds of trust from the ground up. It starts within families and communities. It was 51 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called us to live out true meaning of our creed, to make the dream real for all Americans. That mission is as fiercely urgent today as when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the hot August sun all those years ago.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Except that Clinton, a Saul Alinsky adherent just like Barack Obama, has no interest in rebuilding bonds of trust. Like Obama, she wants to tear down America in order to rebuild it and replace it with a socialist state. Talk of &#8220;equality&#8221; and &#8220;healing&#8221; are merely arrows in her rhetorical quiver.</p>
<p>Clinton&#8217;s attempt to stoke the flames of racial resentment came as up-and-coming independent investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson announced he <a href="http://gotnews.com/media-covers-reacts-got-news-lawsuit-michaelbrown-juvie-records/">has filed</a> a lawsuit after two law enforcement sources told him Michael Brown&#8217;s juvenile criminal record is under seal in a St. Louis court. Johnson also wonders why the so-called gentle giant <a href="http://gotnews.com/michaelbrown-choose-attend-st-louiss-violent-school-ferguson/">opted to attend</a> the most violent high school in the St. Louis area when he could have easily gone elsewhere.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, black leftists <a href="http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/08/28/we-need-to-get-ungovernable-dc-townhall-on-ferguson-gets-heated-n1884394">are plotting</a> further unrest to ensure the survival and flourishing of their narrative of cop-hatred.</p>
<p>At a Washington, D.C. branch of Busboys and Poets, owned by celebrated radical leftist Andy Shallal, an NAACP official and other neo-communist radicals like Hugo Chavez-loving actor Danny Glover vowed to escalate their activities.</p>
<p>The town hall-style meeting was titled, &#8220;Ferguson and Beyond – The Way Forward: A Town Hall Meeting on Police Killings of Black Men.&#8221;</p>
<p>Dr. Ron Daniels, former executive director of the Marxist public interest law firm, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been essential in the Left&#8217;s long-running drive to dismantle the Global War on Terror, seemed to sum up the feelings of participants.</p>
<p>&#8220;We need to get ungovernable,&#8221; Daniels said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve been too tame.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton, who is determined to carry on Barack Obama&#8217;s agenda of racial antagonism, wholeheartedly agrees.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/hillary-joins-the-ferguson-lynch-mob/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>106</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Stalin-Hitler Pact Turns 75</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-stalin-hitler-pact-turns-75/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-stalin-hitler-pact-turns-75</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-stalin-hitler-pact-turns-75/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 04:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lloyd Billingsley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[75]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anniversary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nazism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stalin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why a memorial would be useful for Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/genocide_template_clip_image002.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239136" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/genocide_template_clip_image002.jpg" alt="genocide_template_clip_image002" width="306" height="267" /></a>In June, Western democratic leaders invited Vladimir Putin to the 70th anniversary of D-Day memorial in France, but there’s no good reason he should have been there. Putin is an autocrat, not a democrat. He laments the demise of the Soviet Union, a dictatorship that played no role in the D-Day operation. And since Putin is now conducting an incremental invasion of Ukraine, a different memorial would be more suitable. As it happens, this one is long overdue and remains shrouded in ignorance.</p>
<p>Seventy-five years ago, on August 23, 1939, the USSR and Nazi Germany became allies through the Stalin-Hitler Pact. Joachim von Ribbentrop signed for Hitler and Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov signed on behalf of Stalin. Molotov said that Hitlerism was “a matter of taste,” and that it was “not only senseless, but criminal” to wage war on Hitler “camouflaged as a fight for democracy.” Though often described as a “non-aggression pact,” the reverse was true.</p>
<p>The month after the Pact, Stalin and Hitler both invaded Poland, starting World War II. The Pact also gave Stalin control of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which he retained after the war, along with other conquests such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and what became the German Democrat Republic, the regime that made emigration an exciting experience.</p>
<p>While the pact was in effect, Soviet and Nazi intelligence agencies worked together and American Communists did everything in their power to keep the United States from coming to Britain’s aid. During the Pact, the Soviets murdered 22,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest. That came at the direct order of Stalin, as Russia now acknowledges. Less well known is the reality that Stalin also handed over German Jewish Communists to Hitler’s Gestapo. At the Nuremberg trials after the war, Joachim von Ribbentrop was convicted for signing the Pact while Molotov, who signed for Stalin, sat in the accuser’s chair. So Stalin and his gang got away with it.</p>
<p>A Nazi-Soviet Pact memorial would be a great opportunity for Putin to express his admiration for Stalin. Maybe he could provide some enlightenment on what happened to the Jews Stalin handed over to Hitler. And as a former KGB man, maybe he could bring out more details of Soviet-Nazi intelligence cooperation during the Pact. This could be a shining moment for Putin, but the memorial would also do others some good.</p>
<p>American educators, for example, could familiarize themselves with these events and gauge the depths of their ignorance and denial. Some might even decide to make the Stalin-Hitler Pact into a college course. That would tell students something they don’t know. American politicians would also benefit.</p>
<p>It’s a good bet that most of them, regardless of party, know little if anything about the Stalin-Hitler Pact. A 75th anniversary memorial would help educate them, and would be particularly relevant for Barack Obama, President of the United States. He could use the memorial to expand on one of his mentors.</p>
<p>That would be Frank Marshall Davis, an orthodox Stalinist of exceptional ferocity, with an absolutely sulfuric hatred of the United States. Davis joined the Communist Party USA after the Pact was signed, at the same time others were leaving the ranks, never to return. The Pact memorial would be an opportunity for Obama to provide a full profile of the man his handlers disguised simply as “Frank” in &#8220;Dreams From My Father.&#8221; If Frank Marshall Davis ever believed, said, or did anything with which Obama disagreed, a Stalin-Hitler Pact memorial would be the ideal time to set the record straight. After all, the Obama administration is the most transparent in history, with not a smidgeon of corruption. And of course, it would be another photo op he could use to raise funds. He could even bring along his travelling studio audience.</p>
<p>Former First Lady and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could also benefit. One of her mentors is Robert Treuhaft, a Stalinist lawyer who joined the Communist Party USA after the Stalin-Hitler Pact and served faithfully in the USSR’s alibi armory. Hillary Clinton, who interned for Treuhaft, could use a Pact memorial to clarify Treuhaft’s career, and explain why he left the Communist Party in 1958, as he claimed. And she could go on record if she ever disagreed with anything her Stalinist mentor believed, said or did.</p>
<p>That could prove enlightening, but as with Benghazi she might just say “what does it matter?” Actually, it matters quite a bit, especially for someone who wants to be president, and the one who already is.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-stalin-hitler-pact-turns-75/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>135</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary’s Greed is Destroying Her Presidential Campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Clintons can’t leave money on the table.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hillary.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-236583" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hillary-450x253.jpg" alt="hillary" width="338" height="190" /></a>Hillary Clinton’s book tour was supposed to be her first step on the road to the White House. Instead her publisher is looking at a $10 million loss on her royalties alone as shelves at every big box book store groan under unsold copies of <em>Hard Choices</em> and instead of answering softball questions about empowering women, she was forced to discuss her defense of a twelve year old girl’s rapist.</p>
<p>And then there was the money question.</p>
<p>Like the rest of their political movement, the Clintons want to be poor in spirit and rich in mansions. They want to play the class warfare game from a private jet. Usually the media lets them get away with it. No one asks Elizabeth Warren how she combines class warfare and a small fortune. But the media hacks holding out for a Warren candidacy began hammering Hillary over her enormous wealth.</p>
<p>And Hillary Clinton responded with off-the-cuff lies. Her “dead broke” gaffe reminded everyone why her husband wasn’t even the embarrassing one in the bunch. At least he could lie convincingly.</p>
<p>Hillary’s problem is that she is the inevitable candidate that no one actually wants. Everyone agrees that she has a lock on the Democratic Party’s nomination and yet no one likes her.</p>
<p>The right hated her all along and the left has never forgiven her for fighting Obama. If radical Hillary supporters were a problem for Obama, radical Obama supporters are becoming a problem for Hillary. Her enemies in the White House, beginning with Valerie Jarrett, are just waiting for a chance to steal the nomination from her a second time.</p>
<p>Hillary couldn’t afford to show weakness at such an early stage, but her greed did her in.</p>
<p>The Clintons could never stop shoveling every cent into their pockets. They were physically incapable of leaving money on the table. A lot of Democrats haven’t forgotten Pardongate and the disgraceful way that the Clintons left the White House. They just pretended to forget during Hillary’s Senate race.</p>
<p>Many are nauseated by the scale of Clintonworld, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have poured into the Clinton Foundation, an organization whose fundraising is disproportionate to the scale of its accomplishments, and directly into the pockets of Bill, Hillary and even Chelsea.</p>
<p>Liberals like to pretend that they aren’t in it for themselves. The vulgarity of the Clinton greed shows them a reflection of their movement that they don’t want to see.</p>
<p>As Maureen Dowd in the <em>New York Times</em> put it, “The Clintons keep acting as though all they care about is selfless public service. So why does it keep coming back to gross money grabs?” The public service angle is as phony for Hillary as it is for Warren or Edwards, but liberals need to believe the lie to believe in themselves. The infamous Clinton greed kills the illusion and reminds them it’s all about the cash.</p>
<p>Hillary’s book tour featured badly timed six-figure speeches at colleges. Two colleges were run by members of her husband’s cabinet. The whole corrupt spectacle could have been avoided, but she couldn’t help herself and the debate over those speeches became part of the book tour narrative.</p>
<p>But Hillary Clinton’s greed had sabotaged her whole tour from the start.</p>
<p>Her first biography, <em>Living History</em>, had scored a record advance and record book sales. It was sheer hubris for her to extract an advance that was almost twice as big for a second biography that covered nothing that anyone was interested in.</p>
<p>And yet that’s what she did.</p>
<p><em>Living History’s</em> sales were spurred by one woman and it wasn’t Hillary. Her name was Monica<em>.</em> <em>Hard Choices</em> was a futile effort at interesting people in her political career which consisted of a brief stint in the Senate, a failed presidential campaign and an even briefer and more disastrous stint as Secretary of State.</p>
<p>Hillary’s supporters have never been able to name a single one of her accomplishments. Neither could her ghostwriters.</p>
<p>But <em>Hard Choices</em> didn’t have to be a disaster. It sold reasonably well for a second biography. It wouldn’t have been seen as a disastrous failure if Hillary hadn’t extracted a $14 million advance from CBS. Making that advance back would have required her to sell 2 million copies of <em>Hard Choices</em>.</p>
<p>Almost twice as many copies as Living History.</p>
<p>Instead she managed to sell around 200,000 copies. If Hillary had accepted a modest advance with a sizable royalty, she could have still made out well if the book had done really well, without risking embarrassment if it didn’t.</p>
<p>The Clintons were rich enough not to need the advance. But they can’t leave any money on the table.</p>
<p>They couldn’t do it with Marc Rich. They couldn’t do it with Bill’s foreign speaking fees. They couldn’t do it with Chelsea’s NBC gig or Hillary’s college gigs.</p>
<p>And they couldn’t make the hard choice to forego the big <em>Hard Choices</em> payday.</p>
<p>Now <em>Hard Choices</em> is a bomb and its poor sales raise serious questions about Hillary Clinton’s popularity. CBS may have lost $10 million on Hillary, but the Clintons have lost even more because of their insatiable greed.</p>
<p>If Hillary’s shaky performance leads Elizabeth Warren to run, the Clintons will have to raise a lot of money to stop her. Hillary <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00000019">spent over $200 million</a> to lose to Obama. $11 million of it came out of her own pocket. Hillary’s greed for a big book advance is money that she may end up spending to fight off a left-wing primary challenger emboldened by her implosion.</p>
<p>The Democrats want to run on empathy for the common man suffering under a bad economy, but their candidate is a living reminder of why he’s suffering. The Clintons are part of an elite that profits from direct political access to the upper tier of the political and financial infrastructure of the country. Their enormous wealth makes a mockery of public service and non-profits. Their power and privilege reminds everyone that liberalism is a much bigger welfare state for those on top than those on the bottom.</p>
<p>That’s the dirty secret that strikes at the heart of the liberal power structure. And the Clintons are parading it all over town.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with <em>Hard Choices</em> was always the title. The Clintons don’t make hard choices because they have no impulse control.</p>
<p>That’s what led Bill Clinton to harass every woman within a hundred mile radius and it’s also why Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be recorded laughing about the time she helped a rapist who beat a 12-year-old girl into a coma beat the rap. It’s why the greedy couple stole White House furniture, traded pardons for cash and grabbed every bit of loose change that they could get their sweaty hands on.</p>
<p>The Clintons have always been oblivious to their own vulgarity. They have never understood how they embarrassed their own political allies. Hillary’s gaffes about money, like Bill Clinton’s gaffes about sex, are symptoms of their obliviousness to their lack of self-control.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control destroyed his presidential legacy. Hillary Clinton’s lack of self-control may keep her out of the White House.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Daniel Greenfield on The Invasion on Our Southern Border – on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/daniel-greenfield-on-the-invasion-on-our-southern-border-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=daniel-greenfield-on-the-invasion-on-our-southern-border-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/daniel-greenfield-on-the-invasion-on-our-southern-border-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[border]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shillman Journalism Fellow unveils the horror of Obama’s border disaster.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/in.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-236118" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/in-450x227.png" alt="in" width="323" height="163" /></a>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.]</strong></a></p>
<p>This week&#8217;s special guest on <em>The Glazov Gang</em> was <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong>, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/the-point/">The Point</a>, at Frontpagemag.com.</p>
<p>Daniel discussed <em>The Invasion on Our Southern Border, </em>unveiling the horror of Obama’s border disaster. <span class="userContent">He also discussed Israel vs. Hamas, Obama&#8217;s Iraq Throwaway, Hillary&#8217;s Rape Defense Lies, and much, much more. </span></p>
<p><span class="userContent">Don&#8217;t miss it:</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cG2X2FM14Q" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Don&#8217;t miss this week&#8217;s second episode with <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/obamas-brother-muslim-brotherhood-leader/">Raymond Ibrahim</a>, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Middle East and Islam specialist, and the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621570258/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=1621570258&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=uhurnetw-20"><em>Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians </em></a>(2013) and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Qaeda-Reader-Essential-Terrorist-Organization/dp/076792262X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1381779501&amp;sr=1-2"><em>The Al Qaeda Reader </em></a>(2007).</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">He joined the Gang to discuss <em><span id="eow-title" class="watch-title long-title " dir="ltr" title="The Glazov Gang-Raymond Ibrahim on ISIS's Islamic Inspirations.">ISIS&#8217;s Islamic Inspirations, </span></em><span id="eow-title" class="watch-title long-title " dir="ltr" title="The Glazov Gang-Raymond Ibrahim on ISIS's Islamic Inspirations.">explaining how the jiha</span><span id="eow-title" class="watch-title long-title " dir="ltr" title="The Glazov Gang-Raymond Ibrahim on ISIS's Islamic Inspirations.">dist terror we see in Iraq today, and throughout the world, is founded on Islamic theology. Raymond also discussed </span><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/video-jamie-glazov-discusses-his-battle-on-hannity-against-the-unholy-alliance/">Jamie’s Battle on Hannity against the Unholy Allianc</a>e, Jihad Denial, Obama’s Enabling of Jihad, Jihadi Foreign Travelers, and much, much more:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bFkGgNsqQ_4" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/daniel-greenfield-on-the-invasion-on-our-southern-border-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poor Little Rich Liberals</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/poor-little-rich-liberals-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=poor-little-rich-liberals-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/poor-little-rich-liberals-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[100 million]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235052</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s hard out there for a $100 million Hillary.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hb.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235055" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hb-450x253.jpg" alt="hb" width="288" height="162" /></a>No group has been hit harder by the Obama economy than America&#8217;s liberals. From Marin County, where bundlers have had to struggle to scrape together a few ten grand bills to attend Obama fundraisers, to Washington D.C., whose bedroom communities now have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/seven-of-nations-10-most-affluent-counties-are-in-washington-region/2012/09/19/f580bf30-028b-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.html?hpid=z1">seven of the ten highest household</a> incomes in the country, poverty is hitting poor rich little liberals hard.</p>
<p>In 2006, Alaska had the highest household income. But voters chose Obama over Palin and these days it’s Maryland because six-figure government consultants on sustainable development and diversity need McMansions to go home to after a long day of team building exercises.</p>
<p>Despite numbers like these, liberals are barely making ends meet. Some like Hillary Clinton are &#8220;dead broke&#8221;. Forget about a dollar not buying what it used to. Not even a hundred million dollars does. And there&#8217;s poor Joe Biden who claimed not to have a savings account or any stocks and bonds. And he doesn&#8217;t. He has five savings accounts and eleven investment funds.</p>
<p>But wealth is relative. Despite earning $100 million, Hillary Clinton claims that she isn&#8217;t &#8220;truly well off&#8221;. And if a woman with a colonial mansion for every occasion is, in the words of her adviser, still just &#8220;trying to earn a living&#8221;, the economy must really be bad.</p>
<p>With income inequality such a hot topic, the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential frontrunners are working hard at pretending to be poor.</p>
<p>If Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can&#8217;t convince Democrats that they&#8217;re just one step away from begging for spare change on street corners, Elizabeth Warren is waiting in the wings. After all who better than a Harvard professor who made $429,981 in her last full year of teaching to understand how hard it is to barely get by under income inequality.</p>
<p>Elizabeth Warren has a net worth of around $15 million, making her more working class than Hillary, but less working class than Joe Biden. Like Biden, Elizabeth Warren <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1">also isn&#8217;t big on investing</a>.</p>
<p>&#8220;I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios,&#8221; Warren told an MSNBC host.</p>
<p>Like &#8220;Dead Broke&#8221; or &#8220;Truly Well Off&#8221;, “Wealthy Individuals” and &#8220;A Lot of Stock Portfolios&#8221; are relative terms. Warren only had $8 million in investments. It&#8217;s not a lot if you&#8217;re a millionaire who, like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, spends a lot of time around billionaires.</p>
<p>When you have twenty bucks in your wallet, a million seems like a lot. But when you have a million and hang around those who have fifty million, it doesn&#8217;t seem like so much anymore. And when you earn a hundred million and go to cocktail parties with billionaires, you no longer feel that you are “truly well off”. It&#8217;s hard to convince the working class that you “feel their pain” when what you really feel is your pain at having to borrow private jets from <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/mayoral-candidate-says-he-has-lent-his-private-jet-to-the-clintons/">your billionaire grocery mogul friend to fly to Africa</a>, instead of being able to buy your own fleet of jets.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s nothing wrong with making money, unless you&#8217;re a liberal or unless your money comes from dubious sources, such as charging the Boys and Girls Club of Los Angeles $150,000 for a speech (the Clintons), ripping off asbestos victims (Elizabeth Warren) or getting your brother some juicy contracts (Joe Biden).</p>
<p>After rich liberals unleashed class warfare against Mitt Romney, they have been reduced to competing against each other in a game of &#8220;Who Is the Poorest Democrat?&#8221;</p>
<p>Bill Clinton tried to bail out his wife by rephrasing the question as being which candidate can connect to the plight of ordinary people.</p>
<p>The answer is none of them.</p>
<p>Biden has been in politics for over four decades. Hillary Clinton hasn&#8217;t held a non-government job in two decades and most of her work before that was really an extension of her husband&#8217;s politics. Elizabeth Warren spent decades in academia.</p>
<p>When Hillary Clinton talks about &#8220;working hard&#8221; for her money, she means putting her name on books that someone else wrote and reading speeches that someone else wrote to groups that would pay her even if all she did was bark for five hours straight. Bill Clinton may be a compelling and interesting speaker, but no one has ever accused Hillary of either of these things.</p>
<p>Hillary isn&#8217;t being paid six figures to appear in front of some trade group to talk about how much she cares about the children of the world because she is a powerful and inspirational speaker. The money is being paid out to buy influence with the likely future president. Hillary&#8217;s speaking fees, like her law work, are essentially legal bribes from special interests.</p>
<p>The concentration of wealth around Washington D.C. is not the work of the Tea Party. It certainly isn&#8217;t something that the Koch Brothers did. It&#8217;s what happens around an imperial capital. It&#8217;s not that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer; it&#8217;s that the politically connected get richer while the politically disconnected get poorer.</p>
<p>The significant division is not along lines of class, but of corruption. The working poor may be suffering, but the politically connected welfare poor have plenty of opportunities to game the system. Most of all it&#8217;s the politically disconnected private sector middle class that invests its time in working instead of voting that is sliding down the hole and taking the economy with it.</p>
<p>The radical technocrats of the Democratic Party champion big government policies that concentrate wealth in a smaller number of hands while campaigning against income inequality. They denounce the rich at fundraisers for the rich. They buy mansions so that they can run for higher office and then claim to be dead broke. They create the income inequality they condemn.</p>
<p>Faking poverty isn&#8217;t just an election strategy; it&#8217;s also protective camouflage as the politicians robbing the country cry poverty.</p>
<p>The Clintons want to enjoy the privileges of their ill-gotten wealth without accepting any of the responsibility. They want to have their mansions and their class warfare. They want to pile up vast fortunes and then talk about the problems of income inequality. They want to have the radical privileges of poverty and the prosperous luxuries of wealth.</p>
<p>The poor little rich liberals have made themselves wealthier and the country poorer. Now they are exploiting the miserable economy that they are responsible for with more class warfare.</p>
<p>They are poor, but not in money. They suffer from severe poverties of honesty, decency and shame. They hardly have a single truth to their name and their poverty is as fake as their concern for the poor.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/poor-little-rich-liberals-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>76</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary&#8217;s Fantasy about Hamas’ &#8220;Technocrats&#8221; &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/hillarys-fantasy-about-hamas-technocrats-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillarys-fantasy-about-hamas-technocrats-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/hillarys-fantasy-about-hamas-technocrats-on-the-glazov-gang/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technocrats]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=234871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Giving genocidal murderers a new name for the sake of "peace."  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hamas2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-234882" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hamas2-450x300.jpg" alt="Military Ceremony in Gaza" width="255" height="170" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p>This week&#8217;s <em>Glazov Gang</em> was g<span class="userContent">uest-hosted by <strong>Josh Brewster</strong> and </span>joined by <strong>Michael Hausam</strong>, a writer at<a href="http://www.ijreview.com/"> IJReview.com</a>, <strong>Nonie Darwish</strong>, the author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Devil-Dont-Know-Revolutions/dp/1118133390">The Devil We Don’t Know</a></em>, and <strong>Ernie White</strong>, a civil rights activist.</p>
<p><span class="userContent">The Gang gathered to discuss, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/hamas-genocidal-technocrats/"><em><strong>Hillary&#8217;s Fantasy about Hamas’</strong></em><strong> &#8220;Technocrats</strong>.</a></span><span class="userContent"> <strong>[starting at 22:40 mark]</strong> The guests also tackled <em><span class="userContent">The Nightmare on America’s Borders, </span><span class="userContent">Surrendering to ISIS in Iraq?</span></em>, <em>Benghazi ‘Suspect’ Captured</em>, <em>The IRS&#8217;s &#8220;Lost&#8221; E-mails</em>, and much, much more.</span></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss it!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ktTrILlKsRc" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/hillarys-fantasy-about-hamas-technocrats-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“The Smartest Woman in the World” Flunks Her Foreign Policy Exam</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/humberto-fontova/the-smartest-woman-in-the-world-flunks-her-foreign-policy-exam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-smartest-woman-in-the-world-flunks-her-foreign-policy-exam</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/humberto-fontova/the-smartest-woman-in-the-world-flunks-her-foreign-policy-exam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Humberto Fontova]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Castro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[embargo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=234597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hillary and her Castro romance. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hill.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-234601" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hill-450x243.jpg" alt="hill" width="283" height="153" /></a>Worse still, the flunkie in this article title recently served as U.S. Secretary of State. Back in the &#8217;90s when she served as First Lady (co-president, some say) Hillary Clinton was widely known as “The Smartest Woman in the World.” Her husband Bill supposedly coined the term, but Rush Limbaugh ran with it, snarking and laughing. Soon it was household.</p>
<p>In her new book, Hillary Clinton reveals that she prodded President Obama to “lift or ease” (what’s left of the so-called) Cuba embargo. “The embargo is Castro’s best friend,” Clinton explained to a delighted audience at the anti-embargo Council on Foreign Relations last week while promoting her book <em>Hard Choices. </em></p>
<p>But doesn’t the “Smartest Woman in the World” and former U.S. Secretary of State know that what’s left of the sanctions against Castro’s Stalinist regime are codified into law and can only be lifted by Congress, obviously after a vote? In fact, this codification took place with passage of the Helms-Burton act in 1996, when she was first lady (co-president.)</p>
<p>The current U.S. president, having already delighted Castro by loopholing the Cuba sanctions almost to death, can’t go much further. Has Ms. Clinton forgotten? Or is this constitutional “expert” advocating (even more) U.S. government by executive fiat?</p>
<p>And what about the $2 billion (worth $7 billion today) stolen at Soviet gunpoint by Castro’s gunmen in 1960 from U.S. businessmen and stockholders, after the torture and murder <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Longest-Romance-Mainstream-Media-Castro/dp/1594036675/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376276049&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+longest+romance+humberto+fontova">of a few Americans who resisted?</a> That very Helms-Burton law also calls for a settling of that account before allowing any more loopholing of the embargo.</p>
<p>Perhaps instead of attending Yale Law School and marrying “her way to the top,” Hillary Rodham Clinton should have “stayed home and baked cookies,” (to succumb to her own famous insult against America’s stay-at home moms), then sold them at a lemonade stand. If so, she’d know a little about business. To wit: When somebody stiffs you big–time (as Castro did to the U.S. like nobody in history) before extending them more credit you demand they settle up the amount in arrears. <em>Comprende</em>, “Smartest Woman in the World”?</p>
<p>More basic still, Webster&#8217;s defines &#8220;embargo&#8221; as &#8220;a government order imposing a trade barrier.&#8221; As a verb it&#8217;s defined as &#8220;to prevent commerce.&#8221; But according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. (thanks to her husband’s loopholes in 1999) has transacted almost $4 billion in trade with Cuba over the past 14 years. Up until five years ago, the U.S. served as Stalinist Cuba’s <em>biggest food supplier</em> and fifth biggest import partner. For over a decade the so-called U.S. embargo, so disparaged by Hillary Clinton, has mostly stipulated that Castro’s Stalinist regime pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. agricultural products; no Export-Import Bank (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales.</p>
<p>Enacted by the Bush team in 2001, (attempting to patch some of her husband’s loopholes) this cash-up-front policy has been monumentally beneficial to U.S. taxpayers, making them among the few in the world not stiffed by the Castro regime, which per capita-wise qualifies as the world’s biggest dead-beat. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Longest-Romance-Mainstream-Media-Castro/dp/1594036675/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376276049&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+longest+romance+humberto+fontova">Standard &amp; Poors refuses to even rate Cuba.</a></p>
<p>Again, shouldn’t a former U.S. Sec. of State be familiar with this?</p>
<p>Now back to her parroting of the KGB-mentored meme: “The embargo is Castro’s best friend it provides Castro with a foil for his failures.” This meme ranks as the favorite talking point of Castro’s agents, on the payroll and off. Sadly, it’s widely believed by the superficially-informed on Cuban matters.</p>
<p>First off, if Castro “<em>secretly</em> favors the embargo,” then why did every one of his <em>secret</em> agents campaign <em>secretly</em> and obsessively <em>against</em> the embargo while working as <em>secret</em> agents?   Castro managed the deepest and most damaging penetration of the U.S. Department of Defense in recent U.S. history. The spy’s name is Ana Montes, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/04/18/ana-montes-did-much-harm-spying-for-cuba-chances-are-you-havent-heard-of-her/">known as &#8220;Castro’s Queen Jewel&#8221; in the intelligence community. </a> In 2002 she was convicted of the same crimes as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and today she serves a 25-year sentence in Federal prison. Only a plea bargain spared her from sizzling in the electric chair like the Rosenbergs.</p>
<p>Prior to her visit from the FBI and handcuffing, Montes worked tirelessly to influence U.S. foreign policy against the embargo. The same holds for more recently arrested, convicted and incarcerated Cuban spies Carlos and Elsa Alvarez and Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers. All worked tirelessly to influence U.S. policy against the &#8220;embargo&#8221; while working as secret agents.</p>
<p>It’s one thing for some talking heads with their typically overworked and harried research staff to remain ignorant of these vital matters. But shouldn’t a former U.S. Secretary of State be familiar with matters so vital to U.S. security?</p>
<p>Also, Ms. Clinton, if you claim to speak on behalf of the “hurt by the embargo” Cuban people, why not look at what these Cuban people <em>themselves</em> think of U.S. sanctions against the regime that oppresses them? Or is it better to take them for idiots, as you apparently do the American people?</p>
<p>In fact, in a way you have a point. The Cuban <em>do </em>want a change in U.S. sanctions—the Cuban people <a href="http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2014/06/over-830-cuban-democracy-activists-sign.html">want them <em>tightened </em>! </a> They’re outraged by the windfall of cash showering their oppressors from the U.S. nowadays. In executive order after executive order, President Obama abolished President Bush’s travel and remittance restrictions to Castro’s terror-sponsoring fiefdom and opened the pipeline to a point where the cash-flow from the U.S. to Cuba today is estimated at $4 billion a year.</p>
<p>Almost half a million people visited Cuba from the U.S. last year. Yet while a proud Soviet satrapy Cuba received $3-5 billion annually from the Soviets. In brief, almost every year since Obama took office more cash has been flowing from the U.S. to Cuba than used to flow there from the Soviets at the height of their Cuba-sponsorship. And more people from the U.S. have been visiting Cuba than visited during year featured in &#8220;The Godfather II.&#8221; Result?</p>
<p>The Cuban people are suffering a <a href="http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/the-longest-romance-the-mainstream-media-and-fidel-castro/">ten-year record of repression</a> at the hands of the fat and happy KGB-trained security forces. The current wave of repression slightly tops the 2013 <em>record</em> wave of repression that coincided with the<em> record</em> tourism revenues that year.)</p>
<p>In brief: record tourism=record repression. In brief: Every shred of observable evidence proves that travel to Cuba and business with its Stalinist mafia enriches and entrenches these KGB-trained and heavily-armed owners of Cuba’s tourism industry. Thus they remain the most highly motivated guardians of Cuba’s Stalinist and Terror-Sponsoring status-quo.</p>
<p>Please note: there is no “doing business with Cuba.” There is only doing business with the KGB- and GRU-trained Stalinist fat-cats who occupy Cuba. Castro’s Stalinist fiefdom allows no genuine private sector, as exists in China, however despicable that regime. The Cuban “constitution” outlaws all private property.</p>
<p>So kindly stifle the reflexive and asinine: “But we do business with China! Why not Cuba?!” The comparison isn’t even an apples to oranges. It’s grapes to pumpkins.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Castro’s Stalinist regime mandates 15 years in their KGB-designed dungeons for any Cuban saying a nice thing about the U.S. embargo. (And yet “The Smartest Woman in the World,” Hillary Clinton, claims the embargo is “Castro’s best friend!”)</p>
<p>“Since it has run out of doors to knock on, (the Castro regime) is now focused on the United States,” writes Cuban dissident and 3-time Amnesty-International prisoner of conscience Rene Gomez Manzanoin in a recent samizdat smuggled from his Communist-occupied homeland:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Lifting the embargo would be a mistake without Cuba first respecting its people&#8217;s fundamental human rights…If the U.S. allows financing towards Cuba, it will be U.S. taxpayers who would be sustaining the Castro regime.”</p></blockquote>
<p>So here’s a foreign “Hispanic,” who instead of scheming to avail himself of booty courtesy of U.S. taxpayers is actually<em> warning</em> the U.S. taxpayer against the predatory machinations against his wallet by <em>his own</em> millionaire politicians, their cronies at the Council on Foreign Relations all in cahoots <a href="http://babalublog.com/2013/03/06/mr-chavez-you-were-no-fidel-castro/david-rockefeller-and-fidel-castro-shaking-hands/">with their friend in Cuba.</a></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/humberto-fontova/the-smartest-woman-in-the-world-flunks-her-foreign-policy-exam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Whittle: Why Benghazi Matters</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-why-benghazi-matters/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bill-whittle-why-benghazi-matters</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-why-benghazi-matters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 04:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firewall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Truth Revolt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whittle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=233823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="field-body">
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bn.gif"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-233828" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bn.gif" alt="bn" width="300" height="163" /></a>In his latest, hard-hitting FIREWALL, Bill provides a moment-by-moment breakdown of the events leading up to the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, a detailed analysis of who was doing and saying  what as the attack was underway, and chronicles the following ten days of deceptions and lies on the part of the White House and the State Department, throwing a clear, cold and unflattering light on the competence and character of the President and Secretary of State.</p>
<p>See the video and transcript below:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dKsiDV1LuJA" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>TRANSCRIPT:</strong></p>
<p>Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.</p>
<p>Before we get into what Benghazi is, let’s address what it isn’t. It isn’t irrelevant, isn’t trivial, and it isn’t a “witch hunt” as many prominent Democrats and their supporters desperately want you to believe.</p>
<p>For example, this graphic has been going viral: It shows the date and location of ten embassy or consular attacks during the Bush presidency, with a total of 60 people dead and the number of outraged Republicans set at zero; therefore these attacks happen frequently, therefore Benghazi is a hypocritical, witch hunt staged simply to get Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for the millions of people who have seen this graphic and passed it on, one of them – at least one – knows how to read, think and research.</p>
<p>Kyle Becker, at the Independent Journal Review, took a look at each of these ten attacks. In eight of them, the total number of Americans killed was – zero. It is not the responsibility of the US State Department and the President of the United States to protect the lives of foreign nationals, no matter how tragic or common these attacks may be. Their job is to protect American citizens and especially Consular personnel living abroad.</p>
<p>In 2003, a truck bomb killed 36 people, including nine American defense contractors. President Bush immediately called it a terrorist attack, the Saudis investigated and killed two of the attackers in the raids that followed.</p>
<p>On March 2, 2006, in Karachi, Pakistan, a suicide bomber killed 4, including an American diplomat named David Foy. It was instantly denounced as a terror attack; there were no advance calls for additional security; Mr. Foy was killed instantly with no possibility of rescue; and there was no cover-up or attempt to spin it other than what it was.</p>
<p>Every day in America there are over 6,000 burglaries. But one break-in may be more important than the others, because one of those burglaries – Watergate &#8212; may go directly to the lawfulness, integrity and candor of the President of the United States of America.</p>
<p>Benghazi matters, because it goes directly to the two most important qualities in our elected officials: Competence, and Character.</p>
<p>Let’s go to competence first:</p>
<p>In late March, 2012, former US Ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, calls for additional security assets from Secretary of State Clinton. These were ignored.</p>
<p>On April 4th, terrorists threw an IED over the consulate wall; on June 6th, terrorist blow a large hole in the consulate gate.</p>
<p>On June 15 Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security, tells the staff in Libya that the existing security team contract would not be renewed.</p>
<p>On the 9th of July, Newly appointed Ambassador Christopher Stevens requests an additional 13 security personnel, citing the increasingly dangerous situation on the ground. On August 2nd he sends an urgent cable to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, requesting a ‘protective detail bodyguard;’ three days later the State Department orders the removal of Ambassador Stevens existing SST – his security team – and by the 8th of August his SST has left Libya.</p>
<p>On August 16th, the Regional Security Officer sends an email to Secretary of State Clinton, warning of a dire security situation in Libya.</p>
<p>On September 10th, top Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri calls for Libyans to avenge the death of his secretary, and on the next day, September 11th, 2012, Ambassador Stevens sends a final warning about lax security.</p>
<p>Later that day, he would be captured, tortured, raped and killed, his body then dragged through the streets. His last, unsigned journal entry was another complaint about his security situation.</p>
<p>Now, once the attack started, we switch focus from the competence of the Secretary of State to that of the Commander in Chief. All teams are local times in Washington DC, September 11th, 2012:</p>
<p>3:59 pm: The Defense Department orders an unmanned surveillance drone vectored to the consulate in response to first word of the attack.</p>
<p>4:05 pm: A State Department email officially notifies the Pentagon and the White House of the attack.</p>
<p>By 5:00 pm Eastern time, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are in the White House, and ten minutes later, the surveillance drone arrives overhead, providing real-time imagery of the events in Benghazi.</p>
<p>At 5:40 pm the request for FEST – the Foreign Emergency Support Team, a counter-terrorist unit specifically trained to rapidly respond to exactly these kinds of situations &#8212; was officially refused by the State Department. CBS reporter Sheryl Attkisson, who left CBS when they would not cover the story, reported on May 17th of 2014 that a FEST counter-terrorism response was ruled out by the White House from the start, to the “puzzlement” – if not the outright despair – of State and Defense Department officials.</p>
<p>At 6:06 pm a State Department email said that the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack – within three hours of the first shots being fired.</p>
<p>By 8:00pm Eastern, Deputy Chief of the Libya Mission, Gregory Hicks, phones Hilary Clinton and tells her unequivocally that the Consulate in Benghazi was hit by a terrorist attack.</p>
<p>Two hours later, at around 10 pm. Clinton and Obama discuss the situation by phone, at about the same time as former SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed on the roof of the annex by enemy fire, six hours after the first shots were fired. They had been fighting, alone, under the eyes of the surveillance drone, for two and a half hours.</p>
<p>At 10:30 that evening, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton publically blames “inflammatory material on the internet” for the attacks.</p>
<p>Three days later, on September 15th, CNN’s Arwa Damon finds Ambassador Stevens diary, quote, &#8220;on the floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where [Stevens] was fatally wounded.&#8221; It, like the rest of the sensitive, classified documents, had not yet been secured three full days after the attack.</p>
<p>Alright. So much for competence. Now to character.</p>
<p>On September 12th, the State Department’s Elizabeth Jones prepared a summary of talks with the Libyan ambassador which concluded that Benghazi had been a terrorist attack.</p>
<p>On September 13th, White House spokesman Jay Carney blamed the attack on an obscure internet video, posted months before, on YouTube.</p>
<p>On the 14th, the first draft of an internal State Department memo blamed terrorists. 24 hours and twelve drafts later, it would be changed to place the blame of the attack on the internet video. Also on the 14th, standing with Hilary Clinton and the returning coffins, President Obama again blamed the internet video, while Secretary Clinton told Charles Woods, father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, quote, “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”</p>
<p>On the 15th, President Obama once again blamed the video for the violence.</p>
<p>On the 16th, then UN Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the attack on the video, backed up the next day by a State Department official.</p>
<p>On the 18th, Carney again blamed the video for the violence. On the 19th he repeated the claim that there was no evidence the attack had been pre-planned. On the 20th, both Carney and President Obama blamed the video, and the White House on that same day spends $70,000 airing apology ads for the video.</p>
<p>Finally, on September 21st – a full ten days after the attack – Secretary of State Clinton finally publically admits what she had been told three hours after the shooting started: it was a terrorist attack. But that didn’t stop the President from announcing to the UN, three days later on the 25th, that the internet video was to blame, adding, &#8216;The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam.”</p>
<p>On September 27th – the man who made the video that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton blamed for the attack, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was placed under arrest for parole violations, and served almost a year in prison.</p>
<p>The President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces and the man ultimately responsible for the safety of Americans at home and abroad, is given a daily intelligence briefing. It is short and to the point, outlining the major developing threats of the day.</p>
<p>On September 6th, 2012, &#8212; five days before the attack &#8212; President Obama missed that briefing, but he did give a speech to the Democratic National Convention calling Mitt Romney inexperienced in foreign affairs. On September 7th, he did not attending the briefing, as he was campaigning. On the 8th, the President elected not to attend his daily intelligence briefing. On September 9th, President Obama decided not to attend his daily intelligence briefing. Nor did he attend it on the 10th. On September 11th, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the President declined to attend his daily intelligence briefing. For six consecutive days prior to the Benghazi attacks, the President of the United States placed his campaign schedule ahead of his duty as Commander in Chief to remain informed of the critical intelligence issues of the day.</p>
<p>On August 9th, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States to avoid impeachment, for his role in the cover-up of a petty burglary at the Watergate complex in which no one was killed or wounded. He was threatened with impeachment because he lied to the American people.</p>
<p>President Obama lied to the American people, and the World, for ten days after an event that cost four American lives, including that of the sitting Ambassador who repeatedly called for help, and those of the two men who ran toward, not away from, the sound of gunfire to protect their country and their people.</p>
<p>This President lied to the American people, and so did his presumptive heir, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who also lied to Congress. This matters. Benghazi matters. It shines a direct light and unflattering light on the competence and character of the President and the Secretary of State, and we, the American people have not only a right but an obligation to hold them accountable for their actions.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-why-benghazi-matters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama, Hillary and Kim Kardashian</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-hillary-and-kim-kardashian/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-hillary-and-kim-kardashian</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-hillary-and-kim-kardashian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 04:31:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accomplishments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kim Kardashian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hillary's accomplishment is being Hillary.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hillary87.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-226138" alt="hillary87" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hillary87.jpg" width="309" height="206" /></a>Occasionally someone pranks an unwitting MSNBC panelist or a bunch of teenagers by asking them to name a single Hillary accomplishment. Even though Hillary has piled up more awards than Charles de Gaulle, nothing comes to mind. An editorial in the <i>Chicago Tribune</i> has the writer asking a group of Chicago leaders the same question about Obama&#8217;s foreign policy.</p>
<p>Silence follows.</p>
<p>Obama and Hillary don&#8217;t just suffer from a shortage of accomplishments. They&#8217;re also burdened with a surplus of failures. Benghazi worries so many Hillary supporters because there is nothing to balance it against. There is no, &#8220;But look at all the good she did.&#8221; Hillary didn&#8217;t do any good. She didn&#8217;t do much of anything except tour countries and pose for photos.</p>
<p>As a Secretary of State she made a perfectly adequate First Lady.</p>
<p>Obama talks the teleprompter talk, but when you look at the results they&#8217;re universally awful. Whether it&#8217;s the things that he only pretends to care about, like the VA, or the things he does care about, like Obamacare, after the splashy ribbon cutting ceremony comes the disastrous mess.</p>
<p>Like every other summer blockbuster, it’s great marketing for a terrible product. And just like the summer blockbuster, Obama&#8217;s policies are treated as disposables to be forgotten about. Scandal management consists of Obama making a serious face and promising to take this serious problem very seriously before heading out for a round of serious golfing.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t cry for Hillary and don&#8217;t write off Obama. Achievement of the old kind is overrated. It&#8217;s not about how high your GPA is but how many politically correct extracurriculars you have. In politics, just like in college, diversity and style increasingly count for more than achievement.</p>
<p>Post-American politics are also post-achievement politics. The morality of progressivism is more important than the substance of progress.</p>
<p>From the Sociology major who keeps thinking that she should volunteer at a soup kitchen to the most powerful man in the country who keeps saying that he wishes he could do something about all these problems, the left thinks that wanting to do something is what makes you a good person. It doesn&#8217;t matter if what you&#8217;re doing does any good. It doesn&#8217;t matter if you succeed.</p>
<p>The politics of the left are narcissistic. Its members are less concerned with changing the world than with being good people by wanting to change the world. That&#8217;s what Obama received his premature Nobel Peace Prize for, not for what he did, but for what he talked about doing.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not the things that Obama has done that the left loves him for. It&#8217;s his empty talk, his worthless words and his teleprompter visions.</p>
<p>There are two Obamas. One is the real politician. The other is the imaginary Obama of 2007; a figment of David Axelrod&#8217;s imagination layered over with bizarre art and visions that transformed him into a superhuman being of light before he ever set foot in the Oval Office.</p>
<p>This Obama can never fail because he doesn&#8217;t really exist. It&#8217;s this Obama who makes the public appearances on the front pages while the other Obama&#8217;s policies are discussed somewhere in the meatier parts of the paper. The imaginary Obama shows up on American Idol while the other Obama sends vets to cemeteries. And to millions of Americans, the imaginary Obama is more real than his destructive real life counterpart. The idea of Obama is more real than his policies.</p>
<p>The imaginary Obama has his counterpart in a reimagined Hillary.</p>
<p>Hillary&#8217;s lack of achievement as Secretary of State gives her a purity that she lacked when she went from the Senate to the campaign trail. It&#8217;s easier for the left to project its visions onto a blank space that spent a few years touring the world than on Senator Clinton who had actual political positions. Like Obama, she is free to be anything. She too can lower the oceans or raise them, fix all the things that her predecessor broke and usher in a new age of world peace.</p>
<p>If Hillary Clinton had successfully brought peace to the Middle East or negotiated an important territorial accord in Asia, those things would actually disqualify her. They would be real world achievements that could be critiqued and taken apart. They would highlight her flaws as a real diplomat and a real human being. But having done nothing, even while four Americans were dying, she is flawless. A perfect void of nothingness that the left can project everything on.</p>
<p>That purity of blankness is why Obama approaches every scandal as if he had just heard about it on the evening news. It&#8217;s as if every day in office is his first day. It&#8217;s important that he have no specific track record, just the vague one of fighting for the right things like gay rights, illegal aliens and 3D printer hubs. Not to mention gay illegal aliens running 3D printer hubs.</p>
<p>Forget the last three scandals. Obama is still Miss America. He wants to feed all the hungry children and bring world peace. It&#8217;s all intentions and no results. If he&#8217;s in a red state, he might mention killing Bin Laden, but mostly it&#8217;s all visionary talk about investment, opportunity and reaching out. He&#8217;s still running for office with no track record on a platform of hope and change.</p>
<p>Obama and Hillary run on a personal history made out of lies while refusing to run on their track records. They want everyone to know their fictionalized life story while refusing to discuss the things they actually did while in office. They become icons who represent all minorities or all women, but who cannot be held accountable for anything that they did as individuals.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t ask Obama or Hillary about Benghazi. Dude, don&#8217;t you know that was two years ago? Ask them what they think about Kim Kardashian or Donald Sterling or racial injustice in America. Ask them what their favorite movie or song is. Treat them like celebrities, not politicians. Don&#8217;t ever ask them what they achieved. It&#8217;s like asking Kim Kardashian what she achieved.</p>
<p>She&#8217;s famous and they&#8217;re famous. And they&#8217;re all famous for being famous. Hillary Clinton will run for the White House on a platform of being famously famous. As the Kim Kardashian of national politics, she&#8217;s the inevitable nominee. Her accomplishments are self-referential. Hillary&#8217;s accomplishment is being Hillary. She deserves to be the nominee because she is Hillary.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-hillary-and-kim-kardashian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>90</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democratic Party&#8217;s Brain Damage</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-brain-damage/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democratic-partys-brain-damage</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-brain-damage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 04:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mccain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsweek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No one will ask Hillary if she can tie her shoes.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Hillary.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-225626" alt="Hillary" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Hillary.jpg" width="292" height="319" /></a>In 2008, Democrats insisted that Senator John McCain was too old to be president. At a rally introducing Hillary Clinton, Congressman <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/clinton-backer-says-mccain-is-too-old-for-oval-office/">John Murtha criticized him</a> for even running. &#8220;It&#8217;s no old man&#8217;s job,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Obama and Kerry <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/15/mccain.age/index.html?iref=newssearch">used language suggesting </a>that McCain was senile. Left-wing activists claimed that he<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/13/Have-Progressives-Forgotten-How-They-Treated-John-McCain-Health-Issues"> could die of skin cancer</a> at any moment. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09bosman.html">Late night comedians turned McCain&#8217;s</a> age into a target.</p>
<p><i>McClatchy</i> headlined a story, &#8220;Some wonder if McCain&#8217;s too old and wrinkly to be president.&#8221;</p>
<p>There are no stories in which reporters ask passerby if Hillary is too old and wrinkly to take 3 AM phone calls.</p>
<p>In <i>Newsweek</i>, Anna Quindlen, a fanatical Hillary supporter, wrote that, &#8220;The senator&#8217;s pursuit of the presidency reminds me a bit of those women who decide to have a baby in their late 50s.&#8221; If she has any objection to Hillary&#8217;s pursuit of the presidency while pushing 70, she hasn&#8217;t written about it.</p>
<p>By October, spurred by repeated media attacks on his age, 34 percent of Americans said that McCain was too old to be president. The sharp spike in the poll numbers over one month showed how effective the Democratic age smear was.</p>
<p>Had McCain been elected, he would have taken office at 72. If Hillary Clinton wins, she&#8217;ll be 69. And age is suddenly no longer an issue. Neither is health.</p>
<p>Quindlen emphasized that McCain couldn&#8217;t lift his arms over his head. No one is going to ask how flexible Hillary Clinton is in body (the political flexibility of the woman who opposed and supported nearly everything at one time or another is already renowned).</p>
<p>The problem as it turned out was not that McCain was old. It was that he was a Republican.</p>
<p><i>Slate </i>ran an article claiming that McCain&#8217;s brain would go bad over the next eight years, but discussing the state of Hillary&#8217;s brain is out of bounds. Late night comedians won&#8217;t be making jokes about how old Hillary is or how confused she gets in the morning.</p>
<p>Those jokes could only be made about a man who was three years older than she is now.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s outrageous to question the medical consequences of Hillary&#8217;s &#8220;traumatic brain injury&#8221; which took her six months to recover from after passing out and falling down while boarding a plane. But ridiculing Bob Dole&#8217;s dead arm, an injury he suffered while dragging one of his men into a foxhole out of enemy fire during WW2, or McCain&#8217;s inability to lift his arms or perform certain tasks after they were broken by his torturers, was part of the political game.</p>
<p>We can question the health of war veterans, but not of a career politician.</p>
<p>There will be no stories about how wrinkled Hillary&#8217;s skin is. No one will ask her if she can tie her shoes or use Twitter without an assistant. Or whether she forgets things sometimes.</p>
<p>But if a Republican in his late sixties or early seventies becomes a candidate, then the switch will flip and suddenly asking those questions will become fair game.</p>
<p>Again.</p>
<p>The issue isn&#8217;t Hillary&#8217;s brain. It&#8217;s that Democrats don&#8217;t consider themselves accountable in the same way that they expect Republicans to be. It&#8217;s that they consider attacks on Republicans fair game that they are too thin-skinned to accept.</p>
<p>If McCain was too old and his brain too infirm to serve in the White House, the same people making that argument should have to explain why those same questions can&#8217;t even be asked about Hillary. Does three years make a world of difference? Has medical science been so dramatically revolutionized over the last eight years that they no longer matter?</p>
<p>If Hillary isn&#8217;t too old and if her health is off limits, then Democrats should admit that they engaged in cynical ageist attacks to win the White House. But that too would be accountability.</p>
<p>And we have a crisis of accountability.</p>
<p>The Democrat in the White House and his associates refuse to accept responsibility for anything. Any call for accountability results in an explosion of outrage as if the very act of holding the ruling party accountable is a crime.</p>
<p>The huffing and puffing over the suggestion that a woman who took six months to recover from a serious health episode may have health problems that will affect her performance is typical of the way that the Democratic Party behaves.</p>
<p>And of the way that its media auxiliaries echo its agenda.</p>
<p>When Murtha accused McCain of being too old, the media took the attack seriously. When Karl Rove mentioned Hillary&#8217;s health problem, the majority of the stories focused on it as a cynical attack. This partisan coverage gap is not an anomaly. It&#8217;s the new normal.</p>
<p>The problem isn&#8217;t Hillary&#8217;s brain damage. It&#8217;s the Democratic Party&#8217;s brain damage.</p>
<p>The Democratic Party, which has been around since the early 19th century, is just too old. The parts of its brain that relate to accountability and integrity have been burned out. The political party suffered a traumatic brain episode in the sixties and hasn&#8217;t recovered from it since. The left side of its political brain is dominant while the right side has completely withered away.</p>
<p>The Democrats keep insisting that they&#8217;re moving forward, when they&#8217;re actually wandering off to the left. They insist that they&#8217;re centrist when they&#8217;ve completely drifted off the road.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter how young or old its candidates are as long as they base their worldview around discredited 19th century ideas about economics and equally discredited 20th century ideas about the virtues of central planning. A youthful body with a decayed brain rotting with ideas that were old when Nixon and LBJ were toddlers isn&#8217;t progressive.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hopelessly reactionary.</p>
<p>Obama may have been in his late forties when elected, but his ideas were around one hundred and forty years old. No matter what age Hillary is, her ideas are equally old. It&#8217;s not the state of her brain that&#8217;s the problem; it&#8217;s the things that she&#8217;s been putting in there since a young age.</p>
<p>If Hillary and her Democratic Party really want to demonstrate their mental fitness, they can start by naming one single new economic idea that they&#8217;ve brought to the table in the last seventy years. And if they can&#8217;t, Americans will ask themselves whether they can afford another eight years of 19th century economics from a party whose last new idea is even older than Hillary.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-brain-damage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>254</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Valerie Jarrett, the CEO of Obama Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valerie Jarrett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The woman behind the curtain.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jarrett_ny_092210.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-221349 alignleft" alt="jarrett_ny_092210" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jarrett_ny_092210-450x350.jpg" width="315" height="245" /></a>For eight years, the media envisioned Dick Cheney as the ‘evil genius’ behind the Bush White House, but few in the media have wanted to take a long look at the ‘evil genius’ behind the Obama White House.</p>
<p>The populist grass roots myth died shortly after Obama was elected and while plenty of books have been written about the internal workings of the Obama campaign and administration, unlike the books written about Bush, they rarely inform mainstream media news coverage. When these books and articles come from within the media, the authors are not attacked and their work isn’t discredited, it simply gets compartmentalized into the wonksphere and away from daily news coverage.</p>
<p>This compartmentalization is the reason why media coverage of Obama remains largely unchanged and very little attention is paid to the non-cabinet level personalities who actually make policy. Colin Powell’s dissatisfaction with his lack of influence under Bush was widely covered, while <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/clinton-insider-reveals-obamas-foreign-policy-blunders/">Hillary Clinton’s was not</a>. The Powell implosion led the media to exaggerate the role of Dick Cheney, but no one asks who really had the final say on foreign policy under Obama if Hillary Clinton didn’t.</p>
<p>The Obama White House is a radical departure from previous administrations. It’s a permanent campaign, not just for the obvious reason that it is constantly using the tactics of the campaign, fundraising, attacking and performing, but also because it operates like a campaign reducing the traditional forms of an administration to formalities.</p>
<p>Cabinet members <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/locked-in-the-cabinet-99374.html#.Uydo9_lr7J8">have little influence</a>. Decisions are made by White House staffers, many from the Center for American Progress, who are the ones running the unaccountable permanent campaign.</p>
<p>There is no Obama administration. There is an Obama campaign. And that campaign is part of an organization built around a single figure; Obama Inc.</p>
<p>Obama Inc. has more in common with the type of organization built around a celebrity like Beyonce than a conventional political organization. It can handle everything from fundraising, branding to viral marketing, but like the inner circles of top celebrities, the most influential person in the organization is the one who can soothe, pamper and cater to the celebrity’s mercurial personality.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett’s role as CEO of Obama Inc. confuses those who expect a more conventional arrangement. Jarrett is less Dick Cheney and more Colonel Parker or Helen Kushnick; a powerful enigmatic figure ruthlessly dedicated to her star whose power comes from his dependency.</p>
<p>Obama is the star of Obama Inc., the grinning figure who goes out on stage and cracks jokes while selling overpriced health insurance to the country. Valerie Jarrett is his manager, confidante and gatekeeper. Officially Jarrett is a senior adviser with a defined title and function, but Obama Inc. does few things officially and unofficially, Jarrett has the last word on everything.</p>
<p>Jarrett merges the personal and the political. Obama may chat with numerous advisers, but it’s Valerie who goes back to eat with Michelle and the family. A cabinet member is lucky to catch Obama’s attention once. Valerie Jarrett has it full time, day or night, leading to her nickname of “Night Stalker.”</p>
<p>If Obama skips security briefings, it’s because they, like so much of the formal infrastructure of government, are there just for show. The real briefing will come from or through Jarrett and it will be massaged into the talking points that communicate only what she wants them to.</p>
<p>The aggressive approach that Obama Inc. has come to be known for is all Valerie. Bill Clinton’s sharp edge was Hillary. It was Hillary who kept the grudges of Clintonworld burning while Bill tried to work with his rivals and enemies. In Obama Inc, Valerie Jarrett occupies Hillary’s role, urging greater ideological fealty to the left and uncompromising attacks on the right, while dominating Obama in a way that Hillary never dominated Bill.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett got away with too much during her time in Chicago politics to have learned caution. Where more conventional Democrats would slow down, Valerie Jarrett speeds up; a successful career of corruption and leftist politics has given her a sense of political and moral invulnerability. But that doesn’t mean that Jarrett lacks skill; like her boss, what she lacks is a sense of responsibility.</p>
<p>Obama is a political dilettante whose skills are entirely people skills. Valerie Jarrett’s people skills are negligible and concentrated on only one person, but unlike her boss, protégé and adopted son, she has the endurance and drive to pursue an issue indefinitely.</p>
<p>Barack Obama isn’t driven. Throughout his entire adult life there have been people there to open doors for him. It seemed natural for him to let Valerie Jarrett drive his political career and his administration to do the things that he lacks the attention span or the focus to do.</p>
<p>In exchange, his administration represents Jarrett’s ideological vision of a hard left turn for the country.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett doesn’t always get her way. She managed to talk Obama out of going after Osama three times, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_strange_dependence_on_valerie_jarrett.html">but eventually lost the argument</a>. But Jarrett has made her mark on the country and the world by winning more arguments than she loses by leveraging her unprecedented level of access to chip away at him with her personal knowledge of his weaknesses; what Michelle Obama described as his “soft spots”.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett’s strength is framing political arguments in personal terms. Through her that has also become Obama’s strength. For Obama, Jarrett and the rest of the left, the political is personal. And their bond is also political and personal.</p>
<p>Jarrett and Obama are both Third Culture activists with a background in the Muslim world and left-wing politics, who came up the ladder through their involvement with corrupt political non-profits and equally corrupt Chicago politics. Both have dipped their toes in the narrow interests of the urban black community while having political agendas that transcended theirs on a global scale. And both have deep wells of resentment.</p>
<p>Obama may be married to Michelle, but he is closer to Valerie. Jarrett protects him from his job by controlling access to him. As his gatekeeper, Jarrett controls everything from dinner invites to the czars who have more power than many cabinet members. And when each meeting ends, it’s Valerie Jarrett who privately provides the final summary and makes the concluding argument to Barack Obama.</p>
<p>By becoming the gatekeeper to the Oval Office, Valerie Jarrett has more control over domestic and foreign policy than anyone else making her the closest thing to the president. Obama may be the public face of Obama Inc., but when the cameras dim and the teleprompters are turned off, it’s Valerie Jarrett who calls the shots.</p>
<p>Obama may be reading a teleprompter on stage, but Valerie Jarrett is the woman behind the curtain.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><b>Make sure to </b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>154</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>All the President’s Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/nonie-darwish/all-the-presidents-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=all-the-presidents-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/nonie-darwish/all-the-presidents-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nonie Darwish]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=217548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why almost all the Obama scandals have female faces behind them. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hillary.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-217553" alt="hillary" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hillary.jpg" width="307" height="173" /></a>It is not a coincidence that most of the Obama administration scandals happened under the leadership of women. The Obama administration chooses to surround itself with &#8220;yes men&#8221; and &#8220;yes women,&#8221; but liberal &#8220;yes women&#8221; have an advantage: it is hard to criticize and grill them when a scandal happens without being accused of sexism and being a bigoted woman-hater.</p>
<p>In our current political environment, liberal politicians in general, men and women, get away with a lot more than conservative politicians because of media liberal bias. But liberal female politicians can get away with a lot more than their male counterparts, and that explains why almost all the Obama scandals have female faces behind them. Under ordinary conditions, men or women should end up becoming fall guys or gals, but many of the women behind the Obama scandals end up rewarded, sometimes even with a better position.</p>
<p>The Benghazi scandal supposedly hurt several women: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice and Charlene Lamb, among others. It is clear that the White House, for an unknown reason, manipulated the State Department’s decision-making process regarding Benghazi and Clinton went along. Hillary, who wants to be president, has recently stated that she regrets Benghazi, but her &#8220;regret&#8221; would be more accurately described as her &#8220;failure&#8221; to be her own boss in the State Department.</p>
<p>When the Benghazi scandal exploded, the administration had to quickly find a &#8220;yes&#8221; liberal woman to take Hillary’s place on TV. Susan Rice thus came to the rescue when Hillary refused to face the music in public. The White House and the media did everything they could to shield Hillary from the scandal &#8212; even from her own investigators, the State Department Accountability Review Board. The Review Board issued their report without interviewing the boss, Hillary, but they accused yet another woman, Ms. Lamb, for failure in leadership when her office denied providing extra security to the US Ambassador in Libya. But low and behold, Ms. Lamb, who was accused of dropping the ball, was never fired and instead was rewarded by the same State Department that gave her another key position.</p>
<p>Few men can, with a straight face, expect to get away with yelling back to questions in Congress, “What difference does it make?” Only a liberal woman with an entitlement mentality can get away with something like that without becoming the laughing stock of Saturday Night Live. Nothing works better to manipulate public opinion more than an offended woman questioned by a nasty, bigoted Republican male.</p>
<p>The Affordable Care Act scandal also had many women behind it and could never have passed Congress without Nancy Pelosi who, like Hillary, feels entitled to immunity from criticism. Pelosi bragged she would stop at nothing to pass the bill when she said:</p>
<blockquote><p>We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we&#8217;re going to get health care reform passed for the America people.</p></blockquote>
<p>No man could have gotten away without scrutiny for a statement like: &#8220;We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what&#8217;s in it.” Only in the current liberal environment can the media make a self-made woman like Sarah Palin the subject of ridicule material, while taking someone like Pelosi seriously.</p>
<p>After Pelosi passed the healthcare bill, another woman took over its implementation: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. While only a few have read or comprehended Obamacare, Sebelius happily took over the job and consistently expressed confidence that everything was under control. She never prepared America for a possible disaster until the opening day of October 1st when the disaster exploded.</p>
<p>Women, who don’t like to be questioned, were also the face of the IRS Scandal. Before taking the 5<sup>th</sup>, Louis Lerner gave herself the right to state she had done nothing wrong. Lerner’s boss at the IRS, Sarah Ingram, was director of the office that oversaw tax-exempt organizations during the targeting of conservative groups. But again, instead of a demotion, she was promoted to lead the Obamacare office.</p>
<p>While Democrats accuse Republicans of a &#8220;War on Women,&#8221; they have no problem in using liberal a woman as a shield from scandal. These women act untouchable and entitled and are guarded by a liberal media who will viciously attack Republicans whose job is supposed to be the loyal opposition. But how can you be an effective opposition if your opponent claims gender discrimination every time you question all these liberal women leaders?</p>
<p>Even if these women are exposed to scandal, they act like they have been wronged, deserve to be rewarded, insist on staying the course, claim the 5<sup>th</sup> and even get promoted. When Hillary Clinton put up with and defended her husband’s accusations of sexual harassment on the job, she managed to appear as the victim who deserved to be elected Senator, Secretary of State and perhaps the Democratic nominee for President. You see, we owe her.</p>
<p>The mainstream media and academia have produced generations of American women with a constant chip on their shoulder, with unrealistic expectations who perceive life’s challenges as a personal attack because they are women. Ironically, these are the same women who ignore Islamic scandals of honor killing, female genital mutilation and killing of apostates. Some of them even go as far as accusing critics of Islam of being &#8220;Islamophobes.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some liberal women’s feelings of entitlement end up driving them to exaggerate and lie about their background to get special treatment. Two examples are Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and State Senator Wendy Davis of Texas. One can only imagine what kind of work environment these women will create around them.</p>
<p>The current leftist political culture surrounding women is setting them up either to fail or to turn them into female dictators in an authoritarian mommy state that will threaten the fabric of our free society. Under the guise of &#8220;we are pro-women&#8221; the Left is using women as tools to silence criticism and inquiry of scandals. While the mainstream media places liberal women on a pedestal, it hammers, ridicules and uses vile insults on air to describe conservative women.</p>
<p>And we let them get away with it.</p>
<p><strong>Nonie Darwish is author of <i>“The Devil We Don’t Know.”</i></strong></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/nonie-darwish/all-the-presidents-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>120</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fight the Next War, Not the Last One</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/fight-the-next-war-not-the-last-one/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fight-the-next-war-not-the-last-one</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/fight-the-next-war-not-the-last-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[address]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state of the union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=217287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why dwell on Obama when the Hillary campaign is mounting its assault? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pict.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-217292" alt="pict" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pict-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>Tuesday night President Obama will deliver another campaign speech, this one marketed as the State of the Union address. As such, we can expect to hear, through the usual white noise of “I,” “me,” and “my,” vacuous bromides like “moving America forward,” and empty promises “to grow the economy, strengthen the middle class, and empower all who hope to join it,” as White House flack Dan Pfeiffer said. So after token references to economic growth, we can expect to be served heaping helpings of “income inequality” and “economic mobility,” the redistributionist chum for his hungry progressive base.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Is anybody surprised at once again experiencing the mendacity of hope? Is there anything we don’t know about the incompetence, arrogance, and political thuggery of this administration? Obama and the Democrats represent the toxic stew of old-style Progressive government by technocratic elites, Sixties grievance politics, stealth pacifism, guilt over America’s sins, class warfare, redistribution of wealth to buy votes, crony socialism for the progressive 1% to secure campaign-contribution kickbacks, and pork for public employee unions to garner votes as well as bucks. The wages of this faux populist elitism are a sluggish recovery, anemic economic growth, a real </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" title="" href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm" target="_blank">unemployment rate</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> of 13%, a 3% decline over the last decade in the workforce </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" title="" href="http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000" target="_blank">participation rate</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, the monstrosity of Obamacare, the failure to exploit this country’s petroleum and natural gas riches, the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and the explosion of debt and deficits to finance the whole disaster. In other words, precisely the policies guaranteed to stop economic growth and to weaken the middle class.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">As for foreign policy, it would be surprising to hear a whole lot about that on Tuesday night. Five years of Obama have seen American prestige and influence damaged across the globe. Enemies and rivals have been appeased and strengthened, friends and allies scorned and compromised. Russia and China are rushing to fill the vacuum left by American retreat. The Middle East in particular is one spark away from explosion. American lives and dollars have been squandered by Obama’s abandonment of Iraq and Afghanistan. Reliable if thuggish allies in countries like Libya and Egypt have been surrendered to jihadists or civil war. Our stalwart friend Israel has been bullied and endangered. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rampaging across the region. And Iran––our enemy for 35 years, the most vicious and lethal state sponsor of terrorism, the murderer of thousands of Americans––currently is being not just appeased into becoming a nuclear power, but bribed with sanctions relief to do so. Given the brazen shamelessness of Obama, I fully expect him to ignore all those disasters on his watch, and in full Neville “peace in our time” Chamberlain mode, tout as a “breakthrough” his agreement with Iran that does nothing to stop the mullahs from acquiring the bomb.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Equally predictable will be the reaction to the speech. The Congressional Democrat shills and touts will pop up on the carefully crafted applause lines, while Joe Biden grins maniacally. The courtiers in the media will declare Obama’s reading of the words of others to be the greatest oratory since Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and carefully parse the banalities, clichés, tired jargon, preposterous claims, and outright lies for more signs of their messiah’s rhetorical, political, and intellectual brilliance. The far-left of the base, who differ from other Democrats only in their honesty about their statist intentions, will whine that Obama didn’t promise to raise taxes on the “1%” even more, dismantle the NSA, shut down Guantanamo, shutter every coal-fired electricity plant, go on a Keynesian spending binge, destroy our drones, and slash defense spending to the bone, as they cast longing gazes on Cherokee princess Elizabeth Warren.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But we know all that. For five years we conservatives have been like Cassandra, wandering desperately around Troy accurately predicting its destruction and being dismissed as insane. Or in our case, as racist, heartless, greedy, and downright evil. No amount of empirical evidence debunking the claims of income inequality and the lack of mobility, or explaining the adverse effects of raising the minimum wage, or detailing the ongoing collapse of Obamacare, or adding up the fiscal failures of stimulus spending, or exposing the sweetheart deals to “green energy” hustlers, or documenting Obama’s serial lies, has made much of a difference. His celebrity besotted, vulgar-rich 1% lifestyle on the taxpayer’s dime, his abuse of executive power to make or unmake laws for political advantage, his demonization of his political enemies and rivals even as he simpers piously about “civility,” his attempt to kill the Fox News messenger, his siccing of government agencies like the IRS and Department of Justice on conservatives, all have been amply publicized. And despite all that, his job </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" title="" href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html" target="_blank">approval numbers</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> average 43%, up over 3 points since December 2, when they should be at least 10 points lower, and heading south.</span></p>
<p>Forget the speech. Forget yet once again cataloguing Obama’s crimes and misdemeanors. When we’re not preaching to the choir, we come off like the Ancient Mariner, a gray-beard loon grabbing voters’ sleeves to make them hear yet again the tale of the political albatross hanging around the country’s neck. We need to seize the opportunity created by the dissatisfaction with Obamacare, which has penetrated the fog of self-interest, ignorance, and indifference that helped reelect Obama. The strong likelihood that Obamacare will continue to hit more and more people in the wallet means that there will be a larger, more receptive audience come November’s midterm elections.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But Republicans have to be ready for that opportunity, with savvy, competent candidates and spokesmen who can explain the issues and link voter angst to the specific policies that created them, and who have workable alternatives to offer. They have to break the usual Republican circular firing squad, whether in Congress or the primaries, and concentrate their fire on the political enemy. They have to cleverly mock those who would whine about the metaphor in the previous sentence, and abandon the “preemptive cringe,” as Margaret Thatcher called it, they sometimes indulge when the other side squeals about “racism,” “war on women,” “polarization,” “incivility,” and “extremists.” Instead, they should model their responses on Ronald Reagan’s brilliant </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" title="" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w" target="_blank">riposte</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 debate, “There you go again,” using the same tone of mild amusement at a sulky child’s tantrum.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">And Republicans have to start dismantling the carefully crafted persona of Hillary Clinton––or “Planet Hillary,” as The New York Times Magazine absurdly put it in a worshipful profile––who currently is riding out Obama’s political storm in the safe haven of accolades, awards, Time magazine puff pieces, and $200,000 speeches from companies investing in the future. Republicans can’t let voters forget every gaffe, corrupt deal, and scandal from 1992 until today, or stop reminding them that she has no achievements other than buying her mediocre political career with the coin of humiliation at the hands of her philandering husband. Voters have to be reminded of her politicized opposition to the 2007 successful surge of troops in Iraq, and her public accusation that General Petraeus was lying about the evidence of that success. Most important, all Americans must never let anyone forget that on her watch 4 Americans died in Benghazi, while all she had to say was “What difference does it make!” after lying to a grieving father that an obscure moviemaker was to blame.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Whatever damage Obama can do in the next 3 years, 8 years of Hilary Clinton will make it worse. Every dysfunction inflicted on the country by 100 years of the progressive assault on limited government, self-reliance, and self-government will continue to worsen, while the debt clock ticks ever closer to the midnight of bankruptcy. Conservatives need to fight the next war, not refight the last one.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/fight-the-next-war-not-the-last-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Obama Freed a Terror Lawyer &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/robert-gates-revelations-confirm-horowitzs-party-of-defeat-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=robert-gates-revelations-confirm-horowitzs-party-of-defeat-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/robert-gates-revelations-confirm-horowitzs-party-of-defeat-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 05:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisan reasons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party of defeat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political reasons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vindication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=215108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield sheds disturbing light on the liberation of Lynne Stewart.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lynne-free.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-216578" alt="lynne-free" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lynne-free.jpg" width="342" height="256" /></a>On this special episode of <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, <strong>Ann-Marie Murrell</strong>, the National Director and Editor-in-Chief of <a href="http://politichicks.tv/">PolitiChicks.tv</a>, filled in for Jamie and interviewed Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong>, who runs the blog <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/the-point/"><em>The Point</em></a> at <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/"><em>Frontpagemag.com</em>.</a></p>
<p>Ann-Marie and Daniel gathered to discuss <em>Why Obama Freed a Terror Lawyer</em>. The discussion occurred in <strong>Part II</strong> and focused on the Justice Department&#8217;s <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-frees-a-terror-lawyer/">recent liberation of Lynne Stewart</a>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Part I</strong>, Ann-Marie and Daniel discussed <em>How American Soldiers Died For a War Obama Didn&#8217;t Believe In,</em> focusing on the shameful deception behind the president&#8217;s &#8220;good war&#8221; in Afghanistan. The dialogue occurred within the larger context of <em>Robert Gates’ Revelations Confirm Horowitz&#8217;s “Party of Defeat.”</em> Indeed, the Freedom Center&#8217;s president has been vindicated by the former defense secretary’s memoir.</p>
<p>David Horowitz and Ben Johnson&#8217;s book, <em><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productattribute.html?productId=5099" target="_blank">Party of Defeat</a></em> chronicled the Democratic Party’s duplicitous efforts regarding its initial support for the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, followed by their attempts to undermine it — for nothing more than crass political considerations. Gates&#8217; new memoir now <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/robert-gates-confirms-party-of-defeat-narrative/">delivers a devastating confirmation</a> of Horowitz’s and Johnson’s arguments. It also reveals that Obama never believed in the Afghanistan mission, even though he pushed for it as the &#8220;good war&#8221; for political gain. The segment also sheds light on <em>Abandoning Iraq</em><em></em>, <em>The NY Times&#8217; Benghazi Lies</em>, and much, much more. Watch both parts of the two-part-series below:</p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xwp_CUfwAss" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TywIVHDnwxc" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe> <b></b></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <i>Glazov Gang</i> episodes, <a href="http://jamieglazov.com/">Click here</a>. </strong></p>
<p><strong>To sign up for <em>The Glazov Gang,</em> <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/robert-gates-revelations-confirm-horowitzs-party-of-defeat-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Robert Gates Confirms &#8216;Party of Defeat&#8217; Narrative</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/robert-gates-confirms-party-of-defeat-narrative/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=robert-gates-confirms-party-of-defeat-narrative</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/robert-gates-confirms-party-of-defeat-narrative/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz vindicated by a series of revelations in the former defense secretary's memoir.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/defeat_lg.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-214902" alt="defeat_lg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/defeat_lg-243x350.jpg" width="243" height="350" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz and Ben Johnson&#8217;s <em>Party of Defeat</em>, <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productattribute.html?productId=5099" target="_blank">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>In 2008, authors David Horowitz and Ben Johnson released their book, <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productattribute.html?productId=5099" target="_blank">&#8220;Party of Defeat.&#8221;</a> It chronicled the Democratic Party&#8217;s duplicitous efforts regarding its initial support for the Bush administration&#8217;s prosecution of the war in Iraq, followed by their attempts to undermine it &#8212; for nothing more than crass political considerations. In a his new book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535513/Former-defense-secretary-says-Hillary-Obama-admitted-staking-Iraq-policy-2008-presidential-campaign-based-election-politics.html" target="_blank">delivers</a> a devastating confirmation of Horowitz&#8217;s and Johnson&#8217;s arguments.</p>
<p>In one of the book&#8217;s most trenchant passages,  Gates notes a &#8220;remarkable&#8221; exchange he witnessed between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in which both the current president and former secretary of state admitted their opposition to Iraq was all about gaining an edge in the 2008 presidential campaign. &#8220;Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary,&#8221; writes Gates. As for Obama, he also &#8220;conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying,&#8221; he adds.</p>
<p>Dismaying perhaps, but hardly surprising. As <em><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productattribute.html?productId=5099" target="_blank">Party of Defeat </a></em>chronicles, in October 2002, a <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_party_of_defeat.html" target="_blank">majority</a> of Senate Democrats and 40 percent of House Democrats supported Bush&#8217;s congressional resolution on Iraq in the fall of 2002. Many of them <a href="http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-the-bush-administration-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-people-version-3-0/" target="_blank">spoke passionately</a> about the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power, including former Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Biden (D-DE). &#8220;It is clear, however that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons,&#8221; Clinton asserted. &#8220;Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him,&#8221; <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2008/06/10/joe-biden-wrong-squared/" target="_blank">said</a> Biden.</p>
<p>Sen. John Kerry who ran against Bush in 2004, was equally supportive at the time. “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force&#8211;if necessary&#8211;to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.&#8221;</p>
<p>At that time, the public was also squarely behind the administration’s intentions. Contingent upon United Nations approval, obtained by the Bush administration when the U.N. Security Council unanimously authorized Resolution 1441 ordering Hussein to comply with the Gulf War truce or face &#8220;serious consequences,&#8221; a full <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm" target="_blank">two-thirds</a> of the American public favored troops invading Iran to remove Hussein from power.</p>
<p>Yet only four months after the invasion began, Democrats did a complete about-face. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=88&amp;type=issue" target="_blank">began</a> a media campaign, with <a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016723.php" target="_blank">funding</a> help from billionaire George Soros and other assorted leftists, claiming Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. The campaign was orchestrated by high-level Democrats in a effort to turn the public against the administration. It led to the endlessly repeated slogan, &#8220;Bush lied, people died.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yet the campaign itself was based on a subsequently discredited series of lies <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/07/it-must-suck-being-joe-wilson-today/" target="_blank">perpetrated</a> by Amb. Joe Wilson, who falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had not been seeking to purchase uranium from Niger. Those lies were debunked by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee on July 9, 2004, but by then the dynamics under which Democrats were operating had changed completely. The change was precipitated in large part by the emergence of radical anti-war leftist Howard Dean as the frontrunner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, based on a <a href="http://MoveOn.org" target="_blank">MoveOn.org</a> online primary vote in which Dean garnered 44 percent of the total.</p>
<p>Dean&#8217;s victory was not lost on eventual frontrunners John Kerry and John Edwards, who quickly abandoned their former support for the Iraq invasion. Other former war supporting Democrats fell into line as well, including Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who declared the war a &#8220;fraud,&#8221; and former Vice President Al Gore who screamed from a <a href="http://MoveOn.org" target="_blank">MoveOn.org</a> platform that Bush &#8220;betrayed us! He betrayed America!&#8221;</p>
<p>Thus, even as the war was proceeding and American men and women remained in harm&#8217;s way, Democrats hoping that their newfound stance would gain them the White House in 2004, cravenly elevated their political ambitions above keeping the nation united in time of war.</p>
<p>In 2008, Clinton and Obama <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html" target="_blank">squared off</a> against each other in their own efforts to burnish their anti-war credentials. Hillary accused Obama of being &#8220;inconsistent&#8221; on Iraq, while husband Bill called Obama&#8217;s characterization of his own Iraq record &#8220;the biggest fairytale I&#8217;ve ever seen.&#8221;</p>
<p>Prior to his election to the Senate in 2004, Obama demonstrated far more consistency in his opposition to the invasion than Hillary Clinton did. But by 2004, his position had become more nuanced. He talked about sending more troops into the country to stabilize it and facilitate withdrawal. In 2006, both he and Clinton voted <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&amp;session=2&amp;vote=00181" target="_blank">against</a> a resolution introduced by Kerry, requiring the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, as a means of forcing a political solution on the new government. Clinton had already embraced her own refutation of the war a year earlier, telling her supporters she had been duped by Bush and wouldn&#8217;t have authorized the use of force &#8220;based on what we now know.&#8221; By Dec. 2007, in the midst of presidential campaigning, both senators sponsored a resolution demanding a troop withdrawal and a cutoff of funding. They remained on the campaign trail when it was defeated by 71-24 margin.</p>
<p>That vote came almost a year after Bush initiated the hugely successful “surge,” deploying an additional 20,000 troops to crush the terrorist insurgency. The despicable Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) continued to poison the well of public opinion, <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18227928/ns/politics/t/reid-iraq-war-lost-us-cant-win/#.Us2K-_YjH1w" target="_blank">declaring</a> the war &#8220;lost&#8221; four months later, while the then-Democratically-controlled House voted 215-199 for a scheduled troop withdrawal from Iraq the following year.</p>
<p>Again, that was the same surge <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-strategy/194673-hillary-opposed-iraq-surge-for-political-reasons-gates-says" target="_blank">opposed</a> by both Clinton and Obama for self-admitted political reasons.</p>
<p>Once Obama was elected, it was only a matter of time before withdrawal would become a reality. According to the <i>New York Times</i>, Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/world/asia/obama-lost-faith-in-his-afghan-strategy-memoir-asserts.html?hp&amp;_r=1" target="_blank">decided</a> to retain Gates to give his national security team &#8220;a respected professional and veteran of decades at the center of American foreign policy,&#8221; as well as a &#8220;bipartisan aura.&#8221; Yet that inner circle quickly became disenchanted with Gates, who describes his ongoing battles with the president&#8217;s security advisors, including Joe Biden. Gates <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/07/top-10-revelations-from-robert-gatess-memoir/" target="_blank">describes</a> the Vice President as a &#8220;man of integrity,&#8221; but that he &#8220;has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” He also opposed Biden&#8217;s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. “Whac-A-Mole hits on Taliban leaders weren’t a long term strategy,” he explains.</p>
<p>Gates was highly suspicious of the president&#8217;s effort to maintain tight control on national security operations, to the point where he considered resigning during a meeting in 2011. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations,” Gates insists. “His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost” in the 1970s. He  also illuminated Obama&#8217;s determination to &#8220;take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work,&#8221; which &#8220;offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me,” he reveals.</p>
<p>With regard to Iraq, Gates writes that he was hopeful he could “stabilize the country so that when U.S. forces departed, the war wouldn’t be viewed as a strategic defeat for the U.S. or a failure with global consequences… Fortunately, I believe my minimalist goals were achieved in Iraq.”</p>
<p>It was a temporary achievement that has been completely undone by President Obama. His <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577003931424188806" target="_blank">disdain</a> for re-negotiating a reasonable Status of Forces Agreement, including his August 2011 decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a post-war Iraq&#8211;in spite of being advised that 10,000-20,000 troops were necessary&#8211;killed the deal, and paved the way for the current chaos in that nation. Al Qaeda has <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-qaeda-backed-sunni-militants-storm-into-iraq-cities/" target="_blank">re-emerged</a> in several Iraqi cities, including Fallujah, where 1,300 Americans payed the ultimate price to drive the terrorists out. Moreover 8,000 Iraqis were killed in 2013, marking the bloodiest era since the worst years of the war.</p>
<p>Gates offers an indirect <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304617404579306851526222552" target="_blank">explanation</a> regarding the roots of that debacle. Noting that Obama was a &#8220;president determined to change course—and equally determined from day one to win re-election,&#8221; he reveals that domestic political considerations &#8220;would therefore be a factor, though I believe never a decisive one, in virtually every major national security problem we tackled,&#8221; he explains. &#8220;The White House staff&#8211;including Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then Bill Daley as well as such core political advisers as Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs&#8211;would have a role in national security decision making that I had not previously experienced (but which, I&#8217;m sure, had precedents).&#8221;</p>
<p>Bob Woodward, who reviewed the memoir, <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/08/obamas-former-defense-secretary-gives-him-hell-over-afghanistan/" target="_blank">notes</a> that Gates further reveals the president as someone who &#8220;doesn’t want to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq, but he won’t pay the political price for pulling out, so he leaves American troops stuck in a quagmire with straitjacket rules of engagement and no victorious objectives to work for.&#8221;</p>
<p>Gates&#8217; most scathing description of Obama focuses on his questionable leadership ability, and his lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. That would be the same war in Afghanistan Obama and his fellow Democrats <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/michael-barone/dems-sour-on-obama-s-quot-good-war-quot-in-afghanistan.html" target="_blank">characterized</a> as the &#8220;good war&#8221; for nearly a decade, if only to make the comparison between it and the &#8220;bad war&#8221; in Iraq. According to the former Defense Secretary, Obama no longer embraces his own contentions. “For him, it’s all about getting out,” writes Gates. He further reveals that by 2010, he reached the conclusion that Obama “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” even going so far as to say that the president was “outright convinced it would fail.”</p>
<p>Gates attempts to mitigate some of the criticism he levels at both Obama and Clinton, calling the president “a man of personal integrity” and insisting that &#8220;Obama was right in each of these decisions” regarding his primary Afghan policies. He describes Clinton as &#8220;smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world.” (One suspects that families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi, even as Clinton <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/memo_to_hillary_clinton_what_a_difference_at_this_point_a_year_makes.html" target="_blank">wondered</a> what difference would it make to learn the details of why that atrocity occurred, might disagree).</p>
<p>Gates levels some well-deserved criticism at Congress as well, describing most of the legislative branch as &#8221; uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.” He was equally incised by the &#8220;bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon&#8221; that made getting anything &#8220;consequential&#8221; done &#8220;damnably difficult—even in the midst of two wars.&#8221;</p>
<p>Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/07/krauthammer-on-revelations-about-obama-how-can-commander-in-chief-do-that/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn" target="_blank">called</a> Gates&#8217; revelation about Obama&#8217;s lack of faith in prosecuting the Afghan war and his own troop surge into that theater &#8220;shocking.&#8221; “Obama doesn’t believe in the surge or in the war, or in his own actions,” he noted. “He doesn’t believe in [General] Petraeus, he hates [Afghan President] Karzai, he thinks the war isn’t his. How can a commander-in-chief do that?” he wondered. Krauthammer further contended that Gates&#8217; confirmation of Obama&#8217;s outlook is “an indictment of the president that rises above everything else he’s done in his presidency.”</p>
<p>It is far more than that. It is the culmination, painstakingly assembled by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, of the American left&#8217;s effort to divide the nation for political gain, even if it puts America&#8217;s national security interests at risk in the process. Moreover, they received ample help from the same media that assiduously detailed every mistake, horror and draped coffin during the Bush administration, even as coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan virtually evaporated when Obama was elected. In the process, both entities have thoroughly alienated the American public against war. Thus, it remains very possible our nation will allow Islamofascism, as well as other national security threats, to proceed virtually unchecked, because a majority of Americans now believe no foreign entanglements <i>whatsoever</i> are worth pursuing.</p>
<p>&#8220;The war with Islamofascism cannot be won if its religious roots are denied or its global reach is ignored,&#8221; concluded Horowitz and Johnson six years ago:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;It cannot be won if Americans deny themselves the means necessary to fight the war&#8211;whether these involve strategies to strike first, or to spy on our enemies before they attack us, or to deny terrorist the rights of American citizens&#8211;thereby turning the Constitution into a suicide pact. It cannot be won if we allow a disloyal and hostile Left to dictate the parameters of our political debate. It can only be won if Americans put their differences aside to come together as a people, and unite as a nation, and mobilize the powers of our extraordinary civilization to confront the enemy who has attacked us.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The current state of Iraq, and the willingness of a majority of Americans who once understood the need to forcefully confront Islamofascism&#8211;but are now seemingly resigned to allowing defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory&#8211;epitomizes a nation divided by leftist fecklessness. It is understandable that Americans are quite weary of the war against Islamic terror. Unfortunately, they are far from weary of pursuing war against us. That is the bottom line, all the leftist political machinations in the world notwithstanding.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/robert-gates-confirms-party-of-defeat-narrative/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes, Al-Qaeda &#8216;Infiltrated&#8217; Libya</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/yes-al-qaeda-infiltrated-libya/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yes-al-qaeda-infiltrated-libya</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/yes-al-qaeda-infiltrated-libya/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 05:35:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan Mauro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The game of semantics meant to mislead us.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ben4.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-214266" alt="ben4" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ben4.jpg" width="315" height="210" /></a>The <i>New York Times</i>’ conclusion that Al-Qaeda was not involved in last year’s attack on Ambassador Stevens in Libya—or even “infiltrated” Libya to begin with—is an example of a misleading game of semantics. The definition of “enemy” and even “Al-Qaeda” is becoming narrower and narrower, moving us closer to a more comforting (but incomplete) picture of the danger the West faces from Islamism.</p>
<p>The <i>Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0">writes</a> that an Islamist militia leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala is the almost certain culprit behind the Benghazi attacks, even if he denies it. This fact is used to deny Al-Qaeda’s role, along with the premise that there are two distinctly separate groups named Ansar al-Sharia and the one linked to Al-Qaeda cannot be implicated.</p>
<p>Khattala denies that he and his Obeida Ibn Al-Jarra militia are tied to Al-Qaeda. To the <i>Times</i>, the lack of an operational link is equivalent to no link at all, but the two are connected ideologically. Khattala is openly anti-American and approved of the Benghazi attacks. Both agree in violent retribution for mockery of their faith because of their common Sharia doctrine.</p>
<p>According to the <i>Times&#8217;</i> own previous reporting, an Islamist group named Ansar al-Sharia is suspected of involvement. The <i>Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=4">confirms</a>, “Witnesses at the scene of the attack identified many participants associated with Ansar al-Shariah.</p>
<p>Its leader, Mohammed Ali al-Zahawi, said he disagrees that Western diplomats in Libya are legitimate targets and, “If it had been our attack on the U.S. Consulate, we would have flattened it.”</p>
<p>There are two groups named Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, one in Benghazi that may share responsibility, and one in Derna, led by Sufian bin Qumu.</p>
<p>Qumu was once a driver for a company owned by Osama Bin Laden. He was captured in Pakistan and spent six years in Guantanamo Bay before returning to Derna. His Al-Qaeda links are solid, but the <i>Times</i> reports that his Ansar al-Sharia was uninvolved in the Benghazi attacks.</p>
<p>Thomas Joscelyn persuasively <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/politico-jumps-benghazi-debate_772398.html">argues</a> that this is not the case. The two have a common name, branding and propaganda publisher. The <i>Times</i> also fails to answer an important question: If the two groups are truly separate, why wouldn’t one avoid the confusion by changing its name?</p>
<p>Even the use of the name “Ansar al-Sharia” is rooted in Al-Qaeda. The name first appeared in Yemen as a front for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We know from Osama Bin Laden’s records that were captured in Pakistan that he planned to change Al-Qaeda’s name and wanted affiliates to portray themselves as wholly independent.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aq-libya-loc.pdf">study</a> by the American Federation of Scientists in August 2012, one month before the Benghazi attacks, confirmed that Al-Qaeda had a “core network” in Libya “but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the Al-Qaeda name.” It predicts that Al-Qaeda will continue to “mask its presence under the umbrella of the Libyan Salafist movement.”</p>
<p>One strange <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html">omission</a> from the <i>Times&#8217;</i> reporting is Muhammad Jamal al-Kashef and his Egyptian network. It is considered a terrorist entity by the U.S. government because of its very close links to Al-Qaeda. Al-Kashef is close to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief of Al-Qaeda. The newspaper <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/middleeast/no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?_r=2&amp;">reported</a> in October 2012 that members of Al-Kashef’s network were believed to have taken part in the Benghazi attacks.</p>
<p>Another centerpiece of the <i>New York Times</i> series is that Al-Qaeda was not involved in the Benghazi attacks because it simply wasn’t there. Yet, NATO’s commander <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/29/libya.opposition.analysis/">said</a> in March 2011 that there were “flickers” of Al-Qaeda among the Libyan rebels, more than a year before the Benghazi attacks. A Libyan militia chief even <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html">said</a> he had Al-Qaeda-linked fighters among his men.</p>
<p>By November 2011, the Al-Qaeda flag was being <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055630/Flying-proudly-birthplace-Libyas-revolution-flag-Al-Qaeda.html">raised</a> in Benghazi. At around the same time, Zawahiri was <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/world/meast/libya-jihadists/">dispatching</a> experienced operatives to Libya. One was previously arrested in the United Kingdom and entered Libya in May of 2011. He reportedly oversaw about 200 fighters.</p>
<p>The <i>Times</i> points to a letter sent by a leader of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb shortly after the Benghazi attacks as proof that the group did not establish a significant presence in Libya.</p>
<p>The letter explained that it had sent four teams to the country, but only two arrived and only began to “lay the first practical bricks.” It also listed attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and no attacks in Libya were mentioned.</p>
<p>Again, Al-Qaeda is misunderstood. Multiple affiliates, some more closely connected to the central leadership than others, simultaneously exploit opportunities. Where one fails, another may succeed.</p>
<p>At the very least, Al-Qaeda had supporters in Libya who would be willing to engage in terrorism. They may not have Al-Qaeda membership cards or communicate with the central leadership, but they are still Al-Qaeda ideologically.</p>
<p>This same kind of thinking was seen in President Obama’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/obama-drone-speech-transcript_n_3327332.html">May 2013 speech</a> at the National Defense University where he said, “Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al-Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States.”</p>
<p>The argument about what constitutes “Al-Qaeda” is, to a degree, a distraction. The bottom line is that Khattala, Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia and every other Islamist is devoted to implementing Sharia. They are all jihadists. They are all motivated by the same doctrine and they all have the same goals.</p>
<p>The <i>New York Times</i> series gives the impression that some in the West have an exaggerated view of Al-Qaeda and conflate it with other groups that do not pose serious threats. The real misconception is that one jihadist can be considered separate from another jihadist.</p>
<p><em> The <a href="http://www.theird.org">Institute on Religion and Democracy</a> contributed to this article.</em></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/yes-al-qaeda-infiltrated-libya/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Hillary Will Lose Again</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-again/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-again</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2013 05:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[candidate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=212347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The inevitable candidate isn’t inevitable.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hillary.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-212446" alt="hillary" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hillary.jpg" width="416" height="273" /></a>Hardly a week goes by without Hillary Clinton receiving another award.</p>
<p>Last month she was named a &#8220;Global Champion&#8221; by the International Medical Corps, received the <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2013/11/15/patriot-award-for-hillary/">American Patriot Award</a> at the National Defense University Foundation and the Hermandad Award from the Mexican American Leadership Initiative.</p>
<p>Considering that Hillary Clinton is as much of an American patriot as is she is a Mexican-American leader&#8230; both awards seem equally deserved.</p>
<p>Hillary was honored by Malaria No More for being against malaria and by the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice for supporting internet freedom. Because nothing says internet freedom like sending a man to jail for a YouTube video.</p>
<p>The President of Georgia honored her with the Order of the Golden Fleece. That&#8217;s considered a high honor in Georgia, but in the United States just reminds everyone of Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://spanishinstitute.org/about/gala/">Queen of Spain gave Hillary Clinton</a> a gold medal and <a href="http://oceana.org/en/blog/2013/11/ceo-note-oceana-honors-former-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-hbo-ceo-richard-plepler">Oceana honored her </a>for saving the oceans. And that was a slow month.</p>
<p>The American Bar Association had already given Hillary its highest honor for &#8220;her immense accomplishments as a lawyer&#8221;. The National Constitution Center awarded her the Liberty Medal (an honor she shares with such Constitutional scholars as Bono, Hamid Karzai and her husband) and Elton John gave her an award for fighting AIDS declaring himself &#8220;honoured to honour her&#8221;.</p>
<p>At this rate, if a bunch of elderly left-wing Swedes toss her the Nobel Peace Prize early on, the way they did to Obama, it will barely rate mention among all the other glittering trophies that have been bestowed on a woman whose only actual accomplishment was being married to a crooked governor with good political instincts.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton&#8217;s accomplishments as a lawyer, like her accomplishments as a senator and a secretary of state, don&#8217;t exist. Like the fake doctor with 200 equally fake diplomas on the wall; the award blitz is a case of overcompensation.</p>
<p>The giant pile of awards creates the illusion of qualification for someone who never even won political office on her own merits—let alone did anything worthwhile or interesting while there.</p>
<p>Hillary traipses around the country picking up awards and delivering speeches for six figures a pop; but the only words that come out of her mouth are boring clichés.</p>
<p>Receiving an AIDS award from Elton John&#8217;s foundation, she announced insightfully, &#8220;We still have a long way to go.&#8221; This is what people who have never had AIDS or treated AIDS have been saying while receiving AIDS awards since the disease first became a celebrity cause.</p>
<p>At Oceana, Hillary declared, &#8220;More and more people appreciate what oceans mean to them.&#8221; At the University of Buffalo, she expressed the hope that we could &#8220;move away from the slash and burn politics, the name calling, the excessive partisanship&#8221; and at the Women of the World summit declared that the United States had &#8220;come so far, but there is still work to be done.&#8221;</p>
<p>The more you listen to Hillary, the more you realize that she doesn&#8217;t have ideas, she has clichés. What does Hillary stand for? After eight years in the senate, the only memorable thing about her tenure was her vote on Iraq. If Hillary had not accidentally taken a controversial position, while trying to cast a safe vote, all that anyone would remember is that she was inducted into the National Women&#8217;s Hall of Fame for &#8220;opening new pathways for women in leadership&#8221;.</p>
<p>That was quite an accomplishment considering that she was the 32nd female senator.</p>
<p>But Hillary is always being honored as a revolutionary leader for just showing up. If she has something positive to say about the oceans, teaching little girls or fighting AIDS; there’s an award in it for her. If Hillary daringly says that reading is good today; tomorrow she wins a Pulitzer.</p>
<p>As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled a lot. The <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/hillary-clinton-to-receive-liberty-medal-for-spreading-islamist-tyranny/">National Constitution Center honored her </a>because, in their words, &#8220;she traveled to more countries than any other Secretary of State”. It certainly sounds better than honoring her for abusing the State Department to prep for a presidential run with a non-stop world tour while neglecting desperate pleas for help from the Benghazi mission which had been under siege for months.</p>
<p>Despite the awards, there is very little enthusiasm even among Democrats for President Hillary. Jeffrey Katzenberg, Hollywood&#8217;s leading liberal, came out for her saying, &#8220;I think she’s the best candidate currently available for either party.&#8221; Considering that Hillary is really the only Democrat semi-officially running now, not counting Joe Biden, that&#8217;s damning with faint praise.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a reason that liberals are fantasizing about an Elizabeth Warren run. Warren is even less charismatic, more off-putting and more cliche-prone than Hillary; but you do know what she stands for. &#8220;Socialism today, Socialism tomorrow, Socialism forever.&#8221; Hillary Clinton stands for the same thing; but she has spent decades trying to be discreet about it.</p>
<p>Hillary&#8217;s calculated vacuousness smacks of paranoia. Beneath the bland rhetoric is a paranoid control freak obsessed with shaping every aspect of her image. Her partner<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/"> in this endeavor is Media Matters&#8217; David Brock</a>; a man whose legendary paranoia rivals her own and who allegedly used a security team to protect him from &#8220;right-wing assassin snipers&#8221;.</p>
<p>Together Brock and Clinton have already shut down a number of friendly film and television projects about Hillary while Brock peddles &#8220;The Benghazi Hoax&#8221;; a book that smacks of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s old obsession with a vast right-wing conspiracy. A Hillary biopic would do her image a lot more good than Brock&#8217;s paranoid rantings. But it would appear that Brock&#8217;s paranoid mindset mirrors her own.</p>
<p>Hillary lost in 2008 because she was too busy building an inevitable candidacy to give people a reason to vote for her. And now she&#8217;s making the same mistake all over again.</p>
<p>There will come a time when the awards will stop, when the empty quotes about how she is running because she cares about girls will run out and when she will actually have to give real answers to difficult questions. And that isn&#8217;t Hillary&#8217;s strong suit.</p>
<p>As a debater, Hillary is rigidly unimaginative. As a politician, she&#8217;s vacant. And her charisma doesn&#8217;t exist. The only way that she can get through her own party&#8217;s primaries and a national election is by scaring away every potential rival by being the inevitable candidate.</p>
<p>That is what the endless Hillary award season is really about. At galas and dinners, she dons an armor made out of awards, prizes and trophies to make it seem like her victory is inevitable.</p>
<p>But Hillary doesn&#8217;t really believe that. Hillary is obsessed with winning and certain that she will lose. Everything she has done was calculated to make defeat as unlikely as possible&#8230; including taking the position of Secretary of State while doing as little as possible in that role.</p>
<p>Hillary has done little except abuse public office to map out her future presidential run. By the time the election actually takes place, she will have spent nearly two decades or a third of her adult life focused on running for president.</p>
<p>At the Benghazi hearings, Hillary famously demanded to know what difference it made. The same can be said of her life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>133</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1412/1440 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 04:54:03 by W3 Total Cache -->