Memo to Hillary Clinton: What a Difference, at This Point, a Year Makes

By Daren Jonescu
September 18, 2013
American Thinker

*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *

They will continue to mouth the words of progressive manipulation, as will their bootlickers in the media.  But those words can no longer sustain the aura of doublethink and self-justification.  American progressives are people who, like Clinton and Obama, were forced to make a choice this year, a choice between admitting they have lost the narrative and simply carrying on with acknowledged lies.  A choice between admitting to themselves that their actions have become unmoored from any semblance of human decency and doubling down on a life lived according to sociopathic principles.  A choice between defending their petty self-interest at all costs and confessing their undeniable culpability.  They chose evil. 

 

America's progressives have lost the tether of well-controlled lies and public perceptions that anchored their decisions in cool calculation.  The underlying truth has not changed, but its uncontrolled release is irradiating the progressive psyche.  There is a very big difference between believing that your corrupt deeds are concealed and knowing they are fully visible to anyone who bothers to look.  Suddenly, keeping up appearances is no longer enough; distracting people from looking at what is no longer hidden becomes the overwhelming goal. 

 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       * 

 



 

READ THIS AMAZINGLY PRESCIENT ARTICLE

After Re-election, 'More Flaccidity'

By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
September 17, 2013
American Thinker

President Obama's whispers to Russia's then-President Dmitri Medvedev were picked up on a hot mic. "This is my last election," the president confided to the Russian under his breath, "after my election, I'll have more flexibility." ABC's Jake Tapper reported that exchange in March, 2012, at a G-20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea.

 

It remains one of the most shocking incidents in the history of U.S.-Russian relations. Medvedev quickly chimed in to say: "I understand." And he promised to carry the president's words to Russia's real strong man, Vladimir Putin.

 

What President Obama calls "flexibility" soon translated into flaccidity. The Russians have always been sensitive to weakness in their opponents. Nikita Khrushchev bullied the young, inexperienced Jack Kennedy at Geneva, in 1961. Kennedy would later tell associates, candidly, that Khrushchev "beat the hell out of me." Seizing the initiative, Khrushchev soon erected the Berlin Wall and took the alarming step of placing Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Cuba. Kennedy had to bring America and the world to the brink of nuclear war to re-establish American leadership.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE. . . .

RELATED ARICLE

In Defense of Diana West

By M. Stanton Evans
September 14, 2013
CNS NEWS.COM

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character

Excerpt:

Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an "occupied" city  -- an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.

By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens.  What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy.  Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds.  These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report  to Director J. Edgar Hoover:

"It has become increasingly clear... that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect..."



READ MORE . . .

How Satan Entices People Into Sin

 

10:34AM EDT 9/13/2013
Os Hillman
Charisma Magazine

Have you ever thought about how Satan entices human beings into sin?

When we are tempted by a particular thing, it seems natural to engage. We believe that by engaging with that temptation, it will give us something. It might make us feel good, meet a perceived need or be pleasurable. Eve thought God was holding out on her when she wanted to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She didn't believe God's warning when He set a boundary and placed the garden as off-limits.

The word Satan means "deceiver." Other attributes given to Satan is that he kills, steals and destroys human beings. He wants you to impugn the nature of God. He wants to cause war in heaven and bring all humans to revolt against God the Father.

 I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

 

 

We Are All Sinners.

 

The Bible tells us there is only one human who did not sin. That was Jesus.

 

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-26).

 

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying,
Is this the man that made the earth tremble, that did shake kingdoms?

But we believe there will be no consequences.

One of Satan’s ploys is to convince us that there is no consequence to our sin. However, clearly there are lasting consequences that include the following:

1. Separation from God
2. Shame
3. Guilt
4. Compromise leads to deceit in our lives
5. Lost confidence in the spiritual dimension of our lives

READ MORE . . .

Christian Liberties, the Stepchild of Today's 1st Amendment

David Limbaugh | Sep 13, 2013
Townhall.com

You may say that there is no discrimination against Christians in America or casually dismiss it because Christians need no protection here because this is allegedly a Christian nation.

But there is plenty of such discrimination, as I documented in my book "Persecution" a few years back.

During the publicity tour for the book, I had a mini-debate with Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz on CNN, as I recall. Dershowitz, who was very respectful and who is unquestionably quite intelligent, advanced a curious argument that night.

If memory serves, he suggested that it is absurd for me to argue that Christians face any real discrimination, because the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian. I found this bizarre, as the majority of Americans are also women, and the last time I looked, no one ever challenges the women's rights movement on the basis that majorities are inherently insulated from discrimination.

 

Our laws don't say that everyone except for members of majority groups is entitled to equal protection of the laws. They don't forbid discrimination against only members of minority groups.

THE REST OF THE ARTICLE . . .

RELATED STORY

The Legacy of Iraq: America's Credibility Was Lost Years Ago

By Lauri B. Regan
September 13, 2013
American Thinker

How many times will Americans be told that "the legacy of Iraq" has taken its toll on a war-weary country and stymied our ability to project strength and determination in the Mideast generally and military intervention in Syria specifically?  Since I have yet to hear someone articulate what that legacy is, it is difficult to give credence to the concept that Bush's "wrong war" has intimidated the Obama administration into utter incompetence and complete fecklessness.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on the twelfth anniversary of 9/11, William Galston posited:

Through [the] fog of confusion [pertaining to the decision to attack Syria], we can discern some large truths. The legacy of Iraq is powerful, in political parties and in the citizenry. Most people would welcome a resolution of the Syrian crisis achieved without American military power.

The third sentence is simply a truism.  We would be hard-pressed to find a significant number of Americans who relish the thought of military intervention when alternative and viable non-violent solutions are available.  When civilized people go to war, they do so because attempts at diplomacy and other means to reach a peaceful resolution have failed.  American military power is the last resort, not the Plan A.  It never has been, including when America went into Iraq under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Galston instead falsely puts forth the notion that his second sentence is a truism (and, in his view, a large one).  But he fails to articulate what the legacy of Iraq is.  It cannot be that people would prefer a resolution to conflict that does not involve military power, since we have already established that that is a trait of civilized nations.  So on what do he and others base this narrative that if it were not for our intervention in Iraq, we would invade Syria with the shock and awe required to bring down Assad?

When the U.S. began the military campaign against Saddam Hussein, America was united.  I recall an impassioned debate with a French friend who is a career U.N. peace-keeper.  He questioned the American government's commitment to see the war through and worried that we would simply dethrone Saddam and exit the battlefield, leaving the country in ruins.  I argued that President Bush would ensure not only that we would win the war, but also (rightly or wrongly) take on the task of nation-building prior to pulling our troops out.  Perhaps Bush was idealistic, but the hopes of bringing democracy to the region proved possible -- until he left office.

READ MORE . . .

Echoing Miley, President Obama Twerks America

September 11, 2013
By James Simpson
American Thinker

He lies, denies, smears and defies America. He sticks his tongue out at our laws, our institutions, our traditions and our noble heritage. His one-man wrecking crew policies have spiked gas prices and government debt to unprecedented levels, and promise to destroy healthcare. Unemployment remains high, and has only declined due to discouraged workers leaving the labor force entirely. He undermines national defense with agreements that benefits our enemies at our expense, demands confiscatory taxes and illegally legislates through regulation and executive orders. He bans White House visits, then jets off on end-to-end exorbitant vacations.

He glorifies perversion while punishing morality. His foreign policies have caused the murder of American citizens overseas, which his own spokesman calls old news. His defense policies have caused the needless deaths of American servicemen - including the horrifying, inexcusable killing of the Extortion 17 SEAL team - while insuring that the conflicts for which they paid the ultimate sacrifice will be lost. His arrogant, revolting display of contemptuous, conceit is more obscene than a year's worth of Anthony Weiner tweets. He is presiding over the premeditated destruction of American society.

Yet now Obama wants -- nay insists -- that we follow him into Syria. Is he insane? Or maybe we should ask, has our entire DC establishment gone insane?

Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle treat his infantile proposals as though they were the Ten Commandments being delivered by Moses himself. John McCain and Lindsay Graham demand our participation, while John Kerry with his characteristically affected elitist airs issued one gaffe after another. Even the Washington Post, normally a reliable PR outlet for Democrats, couldn't resist cataloging Kerry's endless display of stupidity:

• Less than 24 hours after Kerry made an authoritative case for military action against Syria, President Obama reversed course and decided to take the case to Congress - a move fraught with political peril.
• In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry refused to rule out putting "boots on the ground" in Syria before backtracking not once but twice to try to shut that door.
• Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey (D), the man who took Kerry's seat, voted "present" on the Syria resolution. (If you recall, this is how Senator Obama voted almost all the time).
• At a news conference in London, Kerry called the military action the Obama administration is advocating "unbelievably small." That led Arizona Sen. John McCain, a proponent of a Syria strike, to tweet that Kerry's comment was "unbelievably unhelpful."

READ MORE . . .

The Ruling Elite Settles In

By J.R. Dunn
September 6, 2013
American Thinker

Excerpt: 

. . . In fact, the major impetus to the current progressive program isn't political at all—it's a combination of economics and pseudoscience. The ruling class believes that we are on the verge of an environmental collapse, triggered by "climate change." They intend to keep their toys and privileges no matter what. The rest of us will have to do without—no heat, bad food, no transport, all of life's luxuries (and freedoms)—vanished with the snows. They will retain all this and more in well-protected enclaves, keeping a careful eye on the proles with their drones and PRISM-derived surveillance systems. The American ruling class will by this means join the transnational elites living the same way—as in many areas, among them Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, they do already.

Anyone who doubts this can take a look at the works of John Holdren, Obama's science czar, or the actions of former EPA chief Lisa Jackson, or the HUD programs going under the name "Regionalism," which intends to turn Americans out of their wasteful private homes and automobiles into vertical slums patterned after 1960s high-rises, where they will be allowed to work only at jobs within walking distance.

We are to become crowded, hungry, cold, stupid, and poor, our transportation limited to bicycles (registered with the block authorities, needless to say, on the North Korean model), our access to information controlled by the same filtering systems that Google developed for the Chinese. Education will be limited to such an extent as to make the goofball stoonts of today seem like the protégés of Socrates.

If you want to see the American future from the point of view of the ruling class, look at Detroit -- a once mighty city that now features packs of wild dogs roaming through overgrown lots in abandoned neighborhoods. There are photos of Detroit that hauntingly resemble third-world slum metropolises—vast stretches of neglected, collapsing housing with the skyscrapers of the rulers looming in the misty distance. This is what the Obama future looks like. This is what the elite is willing to accept on our behalf.

READ MORE . . .

Obama's Increasingly Tyrannical Proclivities

By Richard Winchester
August 26, 2013
American Thinker

. . . The Constitution does not permit a president single-handedly to alter laws, but we have witnessed more than one instance in which the Obama Administration has unilaterally changed provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.  Last year Obama unilaterally altered provisions of America's immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to the deportation of youthful illegal immigrants.

Obama hasn't gotten around to imposing his own version of "cap and trade," but he has announced that if Congress does not act on such a bill, he will do so himself. . . .

READ MORE . . .