Good grief, the readership of the NYT are outright frightening. Looking through the comments on its coverage of Romney’s speech in Jerusalem is an eye opener. A sample:
- It is more than deplorable to see AIPAC’s control of Congress and the WH. In countries that do not have an AIPAC-equivalent , the legislatures are free to use critical thinking to reflect on history. The rest of the world needs only common sense to see & understand who are the foreigners, colonizers, land stealers , ethnic cleansers and brutal occupiers versus who are the indigenous people who have been forced from THEIR land (750,000 from 425 villages &12 urban centers in 1948 alone, all against the tenets of the UN Res #181) or to live gasping under the oppressive Zionist boot….
– Romney is an empty vessel, currently being filled with sludge by the same group of neo-cons who got us into Iraq: same fears, same rhetoric, same tactics …and, potentially, the same result.
– Sheldon Adelson’s money is working, at the detriment of American interests. Next will be Americans dying for Israel. If Romney is elected Iran bombing is guaranteed.
– The US should not ever lift a finger to help Israel for reasons well known to all.
– The speech must have been written by Bibi and edited by Sheldon Adelson. This rhetoric will only serve to further Israel’s isolation at a time when it should be reaching out to its neighbors.
– Our support for Israel is the reason Al Qaeda and other Extremists have targeted America and Americans , so what do Politicians do vow even more support for Israel .
– Just what we need, a pip-squeak, unstable middle east nation running our foreign policy. Israel has managed to alienate all its neighbors and half its own population. There are much better nations to follow if we feel we cannot lead. On foreign policy Romney is nothing less than a menace.
– I can’t believe I’m writing this but I’m beginning to sympathize with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. Willard: next time you decide to go abroad please remember to take your ventriloquist with you.
– Iran will eventually build or acquire a nuclear weapon (if they haven’t already) and oh my god here’s what will happen: NOTHING.
This is what liberalism has wrought. Fools who think themselves informed. Useful idiots, indeed. It’s impossible to read too many comments as they are just so terrifying.
The Obama administration declined to try to deport more than 36,000 illegal immigrants that were arrested on other charges between 2008 and 2011, including some who went on to commit 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said Tuesday.
All told, the administration was alerted to nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were arrested during the three-year period. They went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.
About three quarters of those weren’t eligible for deportation because they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn’t rise to the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been deported, CRS said.
Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the Judiciary Committee said.
“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws,” committee Chairman Lamar Smith said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives.”
Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.
The department didn’t immediately return a request for comment Tuesday morning.
Secure Communities has come under fire from both sides of the aisle.
Read more here.
In refusing to rule out a future law that would criminalize criticism of religion as racist hate speech, the Department of Justice has left the door open to the prospect of Shariah-style law in the United States that would forbid criticism of Islam.
During a House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz) questioned Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez on whether the Justice Department would ever consider banning free speech critical of religion.
“Will you tell us here today simply that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” asked Franks.
Perez replied by asking for context before Franks repeated the question, adding, “That’s not a hard question.”
Perez then tried to add the context of “when you make threats against someone,” but Franks stuck to his original question and repeated it for a third time.
Read more here.
Over at Atlas Shrugs I discuss the increasingly common phenomenon of sex slavery sanctioned by the Qur’an:
Bikya Masr reported last week that “a new report from George Washington University professor Michele Clark and Coptic rights activist Nada Ghaly has argued that thousands of young Coptic Christian girls in Egypt are the victim of kidnapping and forced servitude by Muslims in the North African country.” Meanwhile, every day seems to bring fresh reports of Muslim gangs in Britain forcing young non-Muslim girls into prostitution and sex slavery. Muslims from the Twin Cities area ran an interstate sex trafficking ring until they were caught and indicted in late 2010. The dirty secret behind such reports is that this behavior is sanctioned in Islam.
The Qur’an forbids Muslim men to have sexual relations with “wedded women, save what your right hands own.” (4:4) “Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (23:1-6)
Those whom their “right hands own” are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Qur’an stipulates that a man many take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).
Read more here.
Since March, actor Kirk Cameron has faced a slew of controversy surrounding his views on same-sex marriage. While the entertainer and documentary director didn’t initially seek to advertise his opinions on the matter, it was an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan during which he was asked to share his views on the subject that set the stage for the continued protest against him.
On Friday, the drama continued, as Cameron spoke at a marriage event in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. After learning about his appearance, which did not at all focus upon same-sex issues, gay and lesbian activists showed up to protest outside of the venue.
Read more here.
By resisting almost any change aimed at improving our public schools, teachers unions have become a ripe target for reformers across the ideological spectrum. Even Hollywood, famously sympathetic to organized labor, has turned on unions with the documentary “Waiting for ‘Superman'” (2010) and a feature film, “Won’t Back Down,” to be released later this year. But perhaps most damaging to the unions’ credibility is their position on sexual misconduct involving teachers and students in New York schools, which is even causing union members to begin to lose faith.
In the last five years in New York City, 97 tenured teachers or school employees have been charged by the Department of Education with sexual misconduct. Among the charges substantiated by the city’s special commissioner of investigation—that is, found to have sufficient merit that an arbitrator’s full examination was justified—in the 2011-12 school year:
• An assistant principal at a Brooklyn high school made explicit sexual remarks to three different girls, including asking one of them if she would perform oral sex on him.
• A teacher in Queens had a sexual relationship with a 13-year old girl and sent her inappropriate messages through email and Facebook.
If this kind of behavior were happening in any adult workplace in America, there would be zero tolerance. Yet our public school children are defenseless.
Here’s why. Under current New York law, an accusation is first vetted by an independent investigator. (In New York City, that’s the special commissioner of investigation; elsewhere in the state, it can be an independent law firm or the local school superintendent.) Then the case goes before an employment arbitrator. The local teachers union and school district together choose the arbitrators, who in turn are paid up to $1,400 per day. And therein lies the problem.
For many arbitrators, their livelihood depends on pleasing the unions (whether the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, or other local unions). And the unions—believing that they are helping the cause of teachers by being weak on sexual predators—prefer suspensions and fines, and not dismissal, for teachers charged with inappropriate sexual conduct. The effects of this policy are mounting.
Read more here.
Why Speaking Out Is Necessary
My experiences of working undercover with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force have been well-documented by the media, as has my conversion from a prominent left-of-center activist to a tea party activist who advocates for law enforcement and for our nation.
I was an operational human source, commonly referred to by the public as a type of informant, for the FBI. The FBI has had special agents testify under oath that I was trustworthy and reliable and that my information was always accurate and never deceptive. They also testified under oath that my motivations were deemed to be moral and ideological, not financial. These factors categorized me as a “trusted source,” meaning my words were capable of initiating the FBI to assign resources to request warrants be issued. I have refrained from speaking on issues surrounding my experiences with the FBI, except in matters they have chosen to make public or otherwise ensured me would not have an effect on an ongoing investigation. I have also refrained from discussing any involvement with the FBI since the much-publicized 2009 trial of far Left would-be bombers in which I was the star witness for the FBI and the United States Attorneys’ Office.
It’s no secret that I have retained relationships within the FBI and that I have utilized these relationships for the purposes of helping citizens report crimes or terroristic activity. I have not discussed the fact that I was reactivated as an operational human source for the purpose of aiding the FBI’s efforts to stop human trafficking. In other words, I went back undercover. I am now speaking out without the approval or consent of the FBI due to the gross lack of concern or action from the Justice Department overall to stop known cases of children being trafficked by criminals for the purposes of sex and profits. Another former FBI human source, Dottie Laster, joins me in an effort to hold the DOJ accountable for neglecting the children we know to be sex slaves. Defending the men and women who serve in the FBI and other agencies under the United States Department of Justice has been a central effort in my life since my identity was revealed in connection with the aforementioned trial. I have, however, refrained from defending the politically appointed leadership and their executive managers within the organizations. It is unfortunate that my conscience now mandates I speak out about the leadership’s decisions and priorities. It is unfortunate that I must break from keeping with the culture of silence so prevalent in federal law enforcement agencies under the DOJ.
Untangling the Knots
Laster, a longtime advocate for the victims of human trafficking, contacted me seeking understanding as to why the Justice Department seemingly had little interest in pursuing investigations where slavery was involved. She initially asked me why I would defend such entities when they were refusing to help the victims she worked with. I explained to her that there was surely something we could do as citizens, and I began to research the matter. I discussed the issue with various federal agents and others employed by or otherwise under the umbrella of the DOJ. I learned that the majority of law enforcement agencies did not take on human trafficking investigations due to complications arising from interacting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Agencies that received federal funding were required by federal law to inform ICE of any such investigations and cooperate with them. Unfortunately, ICE would frequently act unilaterally and raid the facility that was being investigated. This made any substantial long-term investigation impossible. ICE has a very thin charter, and removing possible illegal aliens took priority over prosecutable cases. If ICE engaged in a raid too soon, the local agency investigating the possible human trafficking was left with little evidence for prosecutions and therefore wasted much needed dollars and work hours. The end result of this dynamic was human traffickers walking away with little consequence, free to continue their enterprise, and law enforcement agencies that shied away from launching such investigations.
Read more here.
The entire history of the Democratic Party is one of crime and corruption, according to former Time magazine associate editor Michael Walsh.
In a radio interview with WND’s Greg Corombos, Walsh provides a detailed analysis of the party’s dark past – from Aaron Burr’s building of Tammany Hall and how Democrats tried to defeat Abraham Lincoln’s re-election bid to Franklin Roosevelt’s rise to the presidency and the Chicago machine connected to the Obama administration.
“What distinguishes them is a real desire to win,” he explained. “They’re the oldest party in the country obviously. …
“They’ve stayed because they know how to win, and they’re willing to change at the drop of a hat. They’re willing to change their policies. They’ve gone from being the party of slavery and segregation to now claiming to be the party of civil rights laws passed in ’64 and ’65, when, in fact, those were passed with greater Republican support than Democrat support. But they’re always mutating and trying to grab the moral high ground. And it seems to me they don’t have any moral high ground.”
Walsh detailed what he believes is a history of corruption in the Democratic Party, going all the way back to Aaron Burr.
“He founded Tammany Hall, which turned into, over the course of its 150-year existence, the prototypical big-city political machine: corrupt, in league with the most violent gangsters in New York during its heyday and the source of patronage and power on which the Democratic Party rests,” Walsh explained.
“I think what’s interesting about the Roosevelt era – if you go back to the ’20s and ’30s when you have basically Hoover and Roosevelt – it’s also the time of the great gangster empires in America,” he said. “It’s when organized crime was really founded. That occurred in 1929 in Atlantic City, when every great gangster from all the ethnic groups came to Atlantic City and they split up the country into zones of influence. But they were very political as well, and the gangsters tended to be Democrats. Except for the Republican mayor of Atlantic City, ‘Nucky’ Johnson, it’s hard to think of a gangster who was not a Democrat. They were very influential in getting Roosevelt nominated.
Read more here.