header

header

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Did a Red Bear just poop in the Oval Office? By Russ Vaughn

When someone asks a question for which the answer is glaringly obvious, there's a traditional sarcastic response: does a wild bear s--- in the woods?  My every consideration of the recent dealings between our inept president and the president of the Russian Federation leaves me with a mental image of a steaming heap of Russian "contempt" piled right in the center of that desk Barack Obama is so fond of using as a foot rest.
Let's not go into all the lead-ups to the most recent events that have shown the world quite obviously what happens when you match up a community organizer against a KGB colonel.  It is no match, as the world has long suspected and now knows without question: that Democrat jackass in our White House has just had his haunches chewed to a pinkish political pulp by a nimble Russian Bear.  Despots the world over are chuckling into their sleeves that this arrogant product of political correctness and its ugly stepchild, affirmative action, is now, in the very last weeks of his ruinous reign, finally getting his comeuppance in a totally satisfying public manner.
Although I must credit Vladimir Putin for outmaneuvering our inept Barry, make no mistake: I trust Vlad no farther than I could toss an angry Ursus Rubeus, so please save yourselves the heated comments labeling me a traitor or whatever.  The truth is, I simply can't help but feel a sense of satisfaction seeing this phony in our White House finally expose himself for the inept pretender he is.  That he has managed to do it so openly is even more satisfying.  My suspicion that Obama's actions are more focused on creating difficulties for the incoming American chief of state than actually punishing Russia for any cyber-transgressions inclines me even more to take delight in the way he has been outmaneuvered on the world stage and shown to be the ineffectual fool he has always been.  And I do believe that the Russian bear has taken a healthy dump in our Oval Office.
I can hear Barry now: "Will somebody get in here and get this pile of Putin's bear poop off my desk?  Well, damn all if I didn't get it on my shoes!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/did_a_red_bear_just_poop_in_the_oval_office.html

‘History will record Obama and Kerry as relentless ENEMIES of Israel’ – Ted Cruz

The TedNado took aim at John Kerry after his speech scolding Israel today, and there ain’t no James Taylor that could have soothed away his fury:
Here’s the full statement from the TedNado:
“Like bitter clingers, President Obama and Secretary Kerry are spending every last minute of this administration wreaking havoc domestically and abroad. With their last breath in office, they have struck at Israel, through the United Nations and through today’s disgraceful speech.
“These acts are shameful. They are designed to secure a legacy, and indeed they have: history will record and the world will fully understand Obama and Kerry as relentless enemies of Israel. Their actions were designed to weaken and marginalize Israel, and to embolden its enemies.
“Today’s speech — like Kerry’s 2014 remarks likening Israel to an apartheid state — will enflame rising anti-Semitism in Europe. It will encourage the mullahs who hate Israel and hate America. And it will facilitate ‘law-fare,’ growing legal assaults on Israel through transnational legal fora.
“Kerry’s speech drew a stunning moral equivalence between our great ally Israel and the Palestinian Authority, currently formed in a ‘unity’ government with the vicious terrorists of Hamas. Secretary Kerry declared the Hamas regime in Gaza ‘radical,’ in the same way he declared the duly-elected government of Israel ‘extreme.’ He declared vicious terrorism sponsored by Hamas equal to Israeli settlements in West Bank. And he equated Israel’s celebration of its birth with the Palestinian description of this event as the ‘disaster.’ His speech attempted to lay out an historic and seismic shift towards the delegitimization of our ally, Israel, and the further empowerment of the Palestinian Authority.
“Kerry’s central conclusion, that ‘Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both’ is an inanity that passes as profound only in Ivory Tower faculty lounges. There are roughly 50 majority-Muslim countries in the world. There is one — only one — Jewish state. And yet, for Kerry and Obama, that is too much. The Israeli Knesset has 17 elected Arab members. It has Muslim members and Christian members. In contrast, one searches in vain for Muslim countries that have elected Jewish representatives.
“It is a sign of their radicalism and refusal to defend American interests, that Obama and Kerry choose to attack the only inclusive democracy in the Middle East — a strong, steadfast ally of America — while turning a blind eye to the Islamic terrorism that grows daily.
“America is an unshakable friend of Israel, and we are horrified at what has transpired this week.
“I believe Obama’s and Kerry’s shameful conduct will backfire. That it will be short-lived, and will inspire a bipartisan repudiation of their radical anti-Israel agenda.
“All Americans who understand the value of the U.S.-Israel alliance must immediately and unequivocally reject their false and dangerous narrative, and reassert our fundamental commitment to Israel’s security. Thankfully, Congress and the incoming administration can and I hope will take decisive action to intercept the administration’s final and desperate Hail Mary, and that should begin with eliminating U.S. funding to the U.N., unless and until this disgraceful resolution is reversed.
“I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as well as the incoming administration to chart a new path forward based on America’s national security interests and clear-eyed reality, not on the Obama administration’s globalist agenda and wishful thinking.”
Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever read such an acidic statement from Cruz – clearly the lecture from John Kerry to Israel really got the Texan’s ire up. He really gets to the heart of the matter too – the “moral equivalence” that Palestine-defenders like Kerry use to bludgeon Israel while ignoring the evil pressed against them on all sides. Great job, Senator.

http://therightscoop.com/history-will-record-obama-kerry-relentless-enemies-israel-ted-cruz/

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/obama-is-israels-greatest-friend-what-peace-pipe-has-kerry-been-smoking

OBAMA'S WAR AGAINST AMERICA

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post
In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.
In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

As Rosett noted, in stark contrast to Power’s self-serving lie, neither Reagan nor George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush would have ever countenanced a resolution like 2334.

Obama’s predecessors’ opposition to the war against Israel at the UN was not merely an expression of their support for Israel. They acted also out of a fealty to US power, which is directly targeted by that war.

It is critical that we understand how this is the case, and why the implications of Resolution 2334 are disastrous to the US itself.

Resolution 2334 is being presented as an “anti-settlement” resolution. But it is not an anti-settlement resolution.

Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and neighborhoods in Jerusalem are being used – as they always have been used – as a means of delegitimizing the Jewish state as a whole, and legitimizing Palestinian terrorists and Islamic terrorists more generally. Resolution 2334 serves to criminalize Israel and its people and to undermine Israel’s right to exist, while embracing Palestinian terrorists and empowering them in their war to annihilate Israel.

America’s historic refusal to countenance such actions at the UN Security was never a purely altruistic position. It was also a stand for American power and the inherent justice of American superpower status and global leadership.

Throughout most of its history, the UN has served as a proxy battlefield first of the Cold War, and since the destruction of the Soviet Union, for the war against the US-led free world. Beginning in the early 1960s, the Soviets viewed the political war against Israel at the UN as a means to undermine the moral basis for the US-led West. If Israel, the only human rights defending state in the Middle East, and the US’s only stable ally in the region could be delegitimized, then the very coherence of the US-led Western claim to moral superiority against the totalitarian Soviet empire would be undone.

Hence, the first Soviet attempt at the UN to castigate Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as a form of racism was made in 1965, two years before Israel took control of Judea and Samaria and united Jerusalem in the Six Day War.

That attempt failed. But nine years later the wording first raised in 1965 was adopted by the UN General Assembly which passed resolution 3379 slandering libeled Zionism as “a form of racism.”

With their automatic majority in the General Assembly and all other UN organs, the Soviets used the Palestinian war against Israel as a proxy for their war against America. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic bloc, backed by members of the former Soviet bloc, the non-aligned bloc and the Europeans continued their campaign. The only thing that kept them from winning was the US and its Security Council veto.

When Obama chose to lead the anti-Israel lynch mob at the Security Council last week, he did more than deliver the PLO terrorist organization its greatest victory to date against Israel. He delivered a strategic victory to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status. That is, he carried out a strategic strike on American power.

By leading the gang rape of Israel on Friday, Obama undermined the rationale for American power. Why should the US assert a sovereign right to stand against the radical forces that control the UN? If US agrees that Israel is committing a crime by respecting the civil and human rights of its citizens to live in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, then how can America claim that it has the right to defend its own rights and interests, when those clash with the views of the vast majority of state members of the UN? Following Obama’s assault on Israel Friday, Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz called for the US to end its financial support for the UN at least until the Security Council abrogates Resolution 2334. They are correct.

But it isn’t anger at how Obama has and is expected to continue to use the Security Council to imperil Israel that should inform the incoming Trump administration’s actions. Rather a determination to maintain US power and secure its national security requires that the UN be permanently defunded and defanged.

For eight years, through his embrace and empowerment of US enemies, betrayal and weakening of US allies, emaciation of the US armed forces and repeated apologies for America’s past assertions of global leadership, Obama has waged a determined war against US superpower status. The last vestige of the strategic and moral rationale for US power was the protection America afforded Israel at the Security Council.

Now with that gone, it has become a strategic imperative for the US to render the UN irrelevant. This can only be undertaken by permanently defunding this corrupt institution and using the US’s Security Council veto to end the UN’s role as the arbiter of international peace and security, by among other things, ending the deployment of UN forces to battle zones.

Only by stripping the UN of its financial wherewithal to assault US allies and American interests and by denying it the institutional and operational capacity to serve as an arbiter of disputes morally and legally superior to the US can America protect its sovereignty and advance its interests.

Only by denying those associated with the UN the prestige that confers to an institution legitimized by democrat and autocrat alike can the incoming Trump administration rebuild America’s reputation and power.

It is not surprising that Obama is carrying out the final act of his presidency at the UN. Obama has made no attempt to hide his desire to eliminate America’s independence of action. By elevating the post of UN ambassador to a cabinet level position at the outset of his presidency, Obama signaled his conviction that this corrupt institution is the equal of the US government.

This early signal was transformed into an open policy when Obama used the Security Council as a means to bypass the US Senate in implementing his nuclear deal with Iran.

Now, by ignoring the near consensus position of both parties that the US should block anti-Israel resolutions from being adopted at the Security Council and plotting further action against Israel at the Security Council in his final weeks in office, Obama has made clear his position and his aim.

Obama is not leading the war against Israel at the Security Council simply to advance the PLO’s war for the annihilation of Israel. He is acting in this manner to undermine the legitimacy of American power.

Obama’s strategic campaign against his country can only be defeated by a counter campaign by his successor.

Luckily, by eschewing multilateral entanglements in favor of bilateral partnerships during his presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump has demonstrated that he understands the threat and will adopt the only possible means of countering it. To reassert and rebuild the rationale for American power, the Trump administration must permanently defund the UN and reject its legitimacy as an institution of global governance.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265278/obamas-war-against-america-caroline-glick

http://therightscoop.com/democrat-party-decimated-levels-obamas-leadership-huffpos-stein/

A Few More Shared Facebook Post

                    Image may contain: 1 person, suit

Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling, meme and text


Image may contain: text

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Image may contain: 1 person, beard and text

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, meme and text

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

Image may contain: 1 person, text

No automatic alt text available.
Image may contain: 2 people, meme and text

Friday, December 30, 2016

What if Obama dropped Hillary's email bombs?

The phoniest and most irresponsible lie in current politics is Obama's accusation that "the Russians did it!"  Dropped Hillary's email bombs, that is.  This was originally just attributed to the CIA and FBI at secondhand, and later those agencies reluctantly agreed.  But we all know how badly Obama has corrupted those agencies, and their kowtowing to the Big Boss means nothing.  This is sad but true.
If you think about this as a mystery story, you can ask, "Who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity" to leak Hillary's most embarrassing secrets, thereby blowing the election?  The list of suspects is huge, but Obama is never mentioned.  Still, think about it for a second.
Motive: Obama is a major narcissist who always wants to expand his personal power.  Being president has not satisfied his power-hungry ego; nothing ever will.  For months he has been talking about running for a third term, and he's back at it today.
Washington speculation has long focused on Obama's ambition to become SecGen of the U.N., an office he could try to expand into a genuine power center to achieve the utopian fantasy of the left, a world order in which everything is "properly" controlled from a dictatorial center.  This is consistent with the worst kind of Marxism, but it is also the dream of jihad: world conquest.
Obama has shown time and time again that he is a sort of Marxo-jihadophile.  Our good friend Recep Erdo─čan, the autocrat of Turkey, has just accused the administration of supporting ISIS, showing that this kind of speculation is going on all around the world.  In fact, Erdo─čan himself is reliably accused of selling Iraqi oil stolen by ISIS on the world market.
 
So Obama's motive for (possibly) dropping Hillary's email bombs?
His quest for power.
If Hillary were president for the next eight years, as the Democrats confidently expected, Obama might be dwarfed by the second Clinton administration.
Hillary and Obama are not friends; it was Obama who accused the Clintons of racism to destroy them at the Democratic Convention eight years ago, which reportedly outraged Bill and Hillary.  Obama won that fight, but he left a lot of anger and resentment. 
So Obama's motive for undermining Hillary would be their hot competition for power.  Obama is the biggest backstabber in U.S. politics, a true genius at the art of gaining trust and then betraying it.  He back-stabbed Israel and the United States…what more evidence do you need?
Today, nobody doubts anymore that Obama shafted Israel with the Iranian nuclear deal, and now at the United Nations.  This is SOP for Obama.  This is how he won all his election runs in Illinois.
The evidence is all over the place that under his administration, the United States has supported jihadist groups in Syria and elsewhere – exactly the same war theology that committed the 9/11 massacre in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. 
There's much more to be said about Obama's motives for sabotaging the Clintons' last chance at power.  His most emotional motivation would be simple envy for Hillary if she won the election. 
That's a little bit about Obama's possible motive. 
How about means?  Does Obama have access to Hillary's ridiculously vulnerable email system? 
Do bears do it in the woods?  Is the pope Catholic?  Does Obama run the CIA and the FBI with an iron hand?  Does he run the DOJ? 
So much for motive and means.
There isn't much to say for the Putin Hypothesis.  For one thing, the Democrats are so deeply steeped in lies today that anything they say is likely to be a fairy tale.  The media will back any fairy tale they make up, which is why so many Americans voted for the truth-teller in this election.
If Putin really wanted a weak U.S. president, he could wish for no one weaker than Hillary, with Bill playing second fiddle.  Hillary is just not a first-rate political talent, as even she admitted during the campaign. 
Obama had the motive and the means.
What about the opportunity to leak Hillary's fantastically irresponsible and plausibly criminal emails to the public?  Obama always works through cutouts, external agents who give him plausible deniability.  He is never directly responsible for any failure, at least according to this White House.
All we know is that WikiLeaks took responsibility for the email dumps. 
But who is WikiLeaks?  Nobody really knows.  It is an anonymous network of hackers who claim to be upset about shady dealings in the government, a perfectly plausible motive.  Julian Assange is the public face of WikiLeaks, and he certainly looks and talks like an honest man.  He has gained a lot of credibility in the world for leaking the real thing to the media. 
But this one is child's play for the truly Machiavellian politicians like Obama.  All he has to do is tell his personal loyalists at the CIA to leak Hillary's email trove, using a neutral cutout, who magically happens to gain access to that awful amateurish server that Hillary, Huma, and a few other privileged inner-circle ladies cooked up and used to trade State Department favors with moneyed power around the world.  Hillary's pathetic email system certainly looks like a set-up by more skilled and devious I.T. operatives, which the CIA has in abundance. 
Nothing is easier than to set up or suborn a WikiLeaks member to "discover" Hillary's grossly incompetent email setup and give that treasure trove to Julian Assange.
WikiLeaks does not seem to be a professional intelligence outfit, though we never really know that, of course.  WikiLeaks could be a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, for all we know.  Or for the Russians.  Or for a dozen competent intelligence agencies around the world.  Or for Obama's CIA.
Black ops and double plays are routine for those outfits.  Every major regime in the world runs them. 
At the beginning of the election campaign, the betting was on Jeb Bush or another establishment Republican versus Hillary.  Obama just told us he could have beaten the whole field of candidates had he been allowed to run, and he has a point there.
First-class demagogues are not all that common in U.S. politics, though Bill and Obama certainly qualify.  And the Democrats are always sure of a big campaign war chest, with backing from establishment corporations, plus the Saudis, the Chinese, and the Muslim Brotherhood – not to mention the fakestream media. 
Had Hillary won the election and made a mess of her administration, Obama could have run against her, as Teddy Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter.  In the worst case, Obama could have run again after Hillary's two terms.
A lot of Democrats have never fallen out of love with the Bamster, because that's the kind of people they are.  Or Obama could have demanded a nomination for U.N. Secretary General from Hillary and turned that job into president of the world. 
Don't think he hasn't dreamed of that all his life.  He has.
And why do you think that in his last days as president, Obama has publicly back-stabbed Israel?
Nothing appeals more to the irredentist primitives in the Muslim world than delegitimizing Israel.  Saner Muslim regimes have tried making peace with Israel (if you follow their actions carefully), and no one has done so more openly than the Egyptians.  President El-Sisi of Egypt has kept the peace with Israel, in spite of his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.
It was the M.B.s who assassinated Anwar Sadat, a true hero of peace with Israel.  That assassination still keeps Arabs from openly signing peace treaties with Israel.
(But the Saudis recently met with Israel to plan a common defense against Iranian aggression.  Arab contacts with Israel occur every day, as simply as picking up the phone, but Obama has made it much more dangerous, because in reality Obama keeps sabotaging the peace process.  Watch his actions, and never believe his words.  Israeli contacts with Arab leaders are an everyday affair.  The leaders of Hamas routinely use Israeli medical facilities, and Israel is happy to help them because they believe in giving bhakshish to their enemies, a routine kind of double-dealing in Muslim politics.)
Mr. Obama has made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he will never fade from the political scene as long as he lives.  Retiring is just not in his DNA.  Major narcissists are in it for life.  They do not change.  And messianic narcissists like Obama simply don't have the psychological wherewithal to change.  It is unfortunate but true.  There is no cure for such people.
So: Motive, means, and opportunities galore.
I'll bet on the Obama hypothesis against the Putin foolishness any day.  The biggest case against the Putin charge is that all good Democrats now believe it, because the fakestream media are pushing it.  Lying liars lie, as we have learned over the years of watching the fakestream, the Clintons, and Obama.  These people delight in deception.  They are utterly and completely dishonest, as Trump keeps saying, and so far they are running true to form.
I'll bet on Obama as Hillary's real nemesis. 

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/what_if_obama_dropped_hillarys_email_bombs.html

Putin declines to retaliate on Obama’s sanctions

In a brilliant piece of propaganda that makes President Obama look small and irrelevant, Vladimir Putin plays chess, while Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett play checkers (and Barack Obama vacations in Hawaii again).
 Neil MacFarquhar the New York Times reports:
In a head-spinning turn of events on Friday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia announced that he would not retaliate against the United States’ decision to expel Russian diplomats and impose new sanctions — hours after his foreign minister recommended doing just that.
Mr. Putin, betting on improved relations with the next American president, said he would not eject 35 diplomats or close any diplomatic facilities, rejecting a tit-for-tat response to actions taken by the Obama administration on Thursday.
The switch was remarkable, given that the foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, had just made the recommendation in remarks broadcast live on national television, and given the long history of tit-for-tat expulsions between the two countries. Russian officials have traditionally been sticklers for diplomatic protocol.
 “While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we’re not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy,” Mr. Putin said, using a common Russian idiom for quarrelsome and unseemly acts. “In our future steps on the way toward the restoration of Russia-United States relations, we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of D. Trump.”
First and foremost, this move disempowers President Obama before he even leaves office. Our chief geopolitical rival – a notion Barack Obama sneered at in a presidential debate with Mitt Romney – has just in effect said to Obama, “Who cares what you do? You’re outta here in 3 weeks, buddy.” Dismissing Obama as not worthy of retaliation projects a loss of face onto the world stage, making a capon out of the outgoing president.
This move (or lack thereof) carries some danger for Donald Trump. He must point out the man instances when the Obama administration sucked up to Russia. That bizarre reset button episode with Hillary grinning like a Bride of Chucky doll is just waiting for attachment to a tweet noting that Democrats only attack Russia out of desperation to blame it for Hillary's loss.
I have little doubt that both he and Putin understand the need for some form of pubic confrontation between the two – and there are plenty of issues available, starting with Aleppo and extending to oil prices that divide the two nations. But the underlying tenor of the relationship has to be one of cooperation against common foes, mixed with confrontation.
Don’t worry: I realize that Putin is a thug from the KGB. The sad fact is that ruthless people occupy a disproportionate number of head-of-government roles in the world. I doubt very much that President-elect Trump has any illusions.
In the meantime, Obama looks smaller and smaller.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/putin_declines_to_retaliate_on_obamas_sanctions.html

A Few More Facebook Post

Image may contain: 3 people, meme and text

Image may contain: text

          Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, sitting and text

Image may contain: 2 people, text

    Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text









               

Image may contain: 1 person, sunglasses, suit and text

Image may contain: 2 people, meme and text





Thursday, December 29, 2016

On Vacation, Donald Trump Announces 8,000 New Jobs for the United States

So we see Trump improving things we see the Childish Immature Obama being destructive right now.

President-elect Donald Trump personally announced this evening that he had just heard from Sprint and OneWeb that they had plans to bring more jobs back to the United States.

“Hello everybody, we just had some very good news, because of what is happening and the spirit and the hope, I was just called by the head people at Sprint and they are going to be bringing 5,000 jobs back to the United States,” he told reporters at Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday evening. “They have taken them from other countries. They are bringing them back to the United States.”
Trump also confirmed that OneWeb would be hiring more workers as well. He reached the deal after working with SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, a billionaire investor in technology who currently owns 80 percent of Sprint and has invested $1 billion in OneWeb.
“OneWeb, a new company is going to be hiring 3,000 people so that is very exciting,” Trump told reporters.

Eleven Great Thomas Sowell Quotes

Legendary economist, author, and social theorist Dr. Thomas Sowell submitted his final column Tuesday after 25 years in syndication.

“Even the best things come to an end. After enjoying a quarter of a century of writing this column for Creators Syndicate, I have decided to stop. Age 86 is well past the usual retirement age, so the question is not why I am quitting, but why I kept at it so long,” Dr. Sowell wrote.
For more than fifty years, Dr. Sowell has published books and journals on race, economics, cultures around the world, and government policy. He has inspired generations of conservative activists with his humor and ability to condense complex matters into relatable lessons learns.
A self-proclaimed Marxist in his twenties, Sowell served in the United States Marine Corps. (during the Korean War). He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard University, his masters from Columbia University, and his Ph.D from the University of Chicago. It was at the University of Chicago, under the tutelage of Milton Friedman, and after his short stint as an economic analyst at the U.S. Department of Labor, where Dr. Sowell lost faith in government institutions’ ability to effectuate positive outcomes in society.
Dr. Sowell has taught economics at Cornell University and UCLA and has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University since 1980.
Dr. Sowell’s books, columns, and photography can be found at his website tsowell.com. Below are a handful of the most influential quotes from America’s great living philosopher.
The blacks in the West Indies had al sorts of experiences growing their own food, selling the surplus in the market, and, in fact, being responsible for budgeting what they had. Black [slaves] in the United States were deliberately kept from having that. Dependence was seen as the key to holding the slaves down. It’s ironic that that same principle comes up in the welfare state 100 years later.
The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.
Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.
The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law enforcement policies. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals.
If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about.
3. The Failure of Government Bureaucracy: A Personal Odyssey:
In the summer of 1959, as in the summer of 1957, I worked as a clerk-typist in the headquarters of the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington. The people I worked for were very nice and I grew to like them.
One day, a man had a heart attack at around 5 PM, on the sidewalk outside the Public Health Service. He was taken inside to the nurse’s room, where he was asked if he was a government employee. If he were, he would have been eligible to be taken to a medical facility there. Unfortunately, he was not, so a phone call was made to a local hospital to send an ambulance. By the time this ambulance made its way through miles of Washington rush-hour traffic, the man was dead.
He died waiting for a doctor, in a building full of doctors.
Nothing so dramatized for me the nature of a bureaucracy and its emphasis on procedures, rather than results.
Liberal believe that the real problem with the world is that the institutions are wrong. If the institutions were right; there’s nothing in human nature that would cause us to be unhappy, it’s the fact that we have the wrong institutions.”
Conservatives believe man is flawed from day one. There are no solutions; there are only tradeoffs. Whatever you do to deal with one of man’s flaws, it creates another problem. But that you try to get the best tradeoff you can get. And that’s all you can hope for.
There a three questions that I think would destroy most of the arguments on the left. The first is, “Compared to what?” The second is, “At what cost?” And the third is, “What hard evidence do you have?”
This is the age of the complaining classes, whether they are lawyers, community activists, radical feminists, race hustlers or other squeaking wheels looking for oil. … No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce.
7. Diversity:
The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.
8. Taxes:
Our tax system penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are only consuming it.
9. Fake News:
The current hysteria over “fake news” — including hysteria by people who have done more than their own fair share of faking news — shows the continuing efforts of the political left to stifle free speech in the country at large, as they already have on academic campuses.
Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them. One of the big problems that those who are pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” want solved is how to help people who came here illegally and are now “living in the shadows” as a result.
What about embezzlers or burglars who are “living in the shadows” in fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not “reform” the laws against embezzlement or burglary so that such people can also come out of the shadows?
11. Multiculturalism:

What “multiculturalism” boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/28/11-great-thomas-sowell-quotes/

Dershowitz: Obama Took Out ‘Anger and Pique’ at Israel, UN Res Had to Have ‘Support and Encouragement’ of US

I love it. This guy is a big Lib and he don't agree with Obama and Kerry




On Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Kelly File,” attorney and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz argued the UN Israeli settlement resolution “could not have happened without the complete support and encouragement of the United States,” predicted there will be “Congressional hearings” on what role the US played, and stated Secretary of State John Kerry “has now discouraged the Palestinians from coming forward and negotiating, because what basically he said to them is, it’s not your fault, it’s the Israelis’ fault.”
When asked if the US colluded with other countries to pass the UN Israeli settlement resolution, Dershowitz responded, “Well, I think it’s obvious. First of all, if the United States did not have any role in helping this go through, it would show that we’ve abdicated responsibility. Of course we had some role.
Dershowitz added, that there will be “Congressional hearings” on what role members of the administration played, “This could not have happened without the complete support and encouragement of the United States, and this sets back the peace process enormously. Secretary Kerry, who I know well, and who means well, has now discouraged the Palestinians from coming forward and negotiating, because what basically he said to them is, it’s not your fault, it’s the Israelis’ fault.”
He also stated, “President Obama deliberately and undemocratically tied the hands of his successor by having a resolution of the security council that cannot now be undone, because of the veto power. And it is so undemocratic for a lame-duck president, when Congress is not in session, to take out his anger and pique at another country, by tying the hands of the incoming president.”
Dershowitz also characterized Kerry’s speech earlier in the day as “fictional” and a “re-writing of history.” As well as “dangerous.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/dershowitz-obama-took-out-anger-and-pique-at-israel-un-res-had-to-have-support-and-encouragement-of-us/

Obama, Through Kerry, Proposes Dividing Jerusalem

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a speech blasting the Israeli government and defending the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from, and hence allow, an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council last week.

In his remarks, Kerry presented six principles for a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that he believed represented “a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the core needs of both sides.”
One of those principles was making Jerusalem a capital of both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. A final agreement would, he said: “[p]rovide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.”
This, he said, was something different than dividing Jerusalem: ” Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 1967, and we believe that,” Kerry said.
Yet, he added, “At the same time, there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.”
Hence some sort of division. Perhaps not “like it was in 1967” — with a heavily-fortified frontier running down Hebron Road, and the Old City totally cut off from Israel — but Kerry left the door open to everything short of that.
Kerry’s proposal is a total betrayal of President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” he said on that occasion.
Obama began to walk that promise back almost immediately after he made it: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” he said afterwards. But nevertheless, he had promised that Israel would be Israel’s undivided capital — somehow.
Moreover, Palestinians had already ruled out some kind of shared capital when it was offered by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the Camp David talks in 2000. Israel had offered “a division in practice…that didn’t look like a division,” including a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem and sovereignty over the Temple Mount, with some residual Jewish presence to be acknowledged there.
Then-Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat rejected the idea, refusing even to acknowledge Jewish historical and religious claims to the city and ties to the Temple Mount. For the Palestinians, Jerusalem was to be theirs — alone.
So Kerry’s “broad consensus” turns out to be anything but. Sharing Jerusalem is an idea that Palestinians have already rejected and that Israelis are not likely to offer again, given the bloody intifada that Palestinians launched last time it was made.
It is also an idea that the United States has now rejected, through the Obama administration’s acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 last Friday, which regards the Israel presence in East Jerusalem as “settlements” that are in “flagrant violation of international law.”
Effectively, the Obama administration has allowed the Palestinians to claim East Jerusalem as their own, with the option of negotiating that claim away. The starting point of negotiations is now a division of Jerusalem “like it was in 1967.”

That is not a solution the Israelis can accept. It is a point of departure, not a “broad consensus.” It is a violation of President Barack Obama’s own policies. And it is a recipe for disaster.
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/29/obama-kerry-proposes-dividing-jerusalem/

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/28/israeli-minister-obama-is-history-we-have-trump/

http://lidblog.com/kerrys-last-stand-berating-israel/