Obama Eradicates Islamic Terrorism – From NSA Documents Only

From the Middle East Forum:The Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all words that allude to Islam from important national security documents. Put differently, the Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all knowledge and context necessary to confront and defeat radical Islam (news much welcomed by Islamist organizations like CAIR). While this move may reflect a naively therapeutic administration — an Obama advisor once suggested that Winnie the Pooh should inform U.S foreign policy — that Obama, the one U.S. president who best knows that politically correct niceties will have no effect on the Muslim world is enforcing this ban, is further troubling.

An Associated Press report has the disturbing details:

President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

First off, how, exactly, does the use of terms such as “Islamic radicalism” indicate that the U.S. views “Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called “Muslim street” can be antagonized by accurate words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use “Islamic radicalism” to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims “through the lens of terrorism”? Just as surely as we can use words like “Nazism” to define white supremacists, without viewing all white nations through the lens of racism?

The AP report continues:

Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

The analogy is flawed. For starters, in Reagan’s era, the Soviet Union, not China, was America’s prime antagonist — just as today, Islamic radicals, not Muslims, are America’s prime enemy. Moreover, unlike Obama, who would have the U.S. bend over backwards to appease Muslim nations— or, in his case, just bend over — Reagan regularly lambasted the Soviet Union, dubbing it the “evil empire.” Finally, the Chinese never attacked America, unlike Islamic radicals, who not only have attacked it, but daily promise it death and destruction — all in the name of Islam.

The ultimate problem in the White House’s new “words-policy,” however, is reflected in this excerpt from the report:

The change [i.e., linguistic obfuscation] would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

Read the whole article.

Israel Support Stronger By Republicans Than Democrats

Jeff Jacoby, in an article in the Boston Globe, analyzes the result of a Gallop poll:

But look at the disparity that emerges when those results are sorted by party affiliation. While support for Israel vs. the Palestinians has climbed to a stratospheric 85 percent among Republicans, the comparable figure for Democrats is an anemic 48 percent. (It was 60 percent for independents.) And behind Israel’s “Top 5” favorability rating lies a gaping partisan rift: 80 percent of Republicans — but just 53 percent Democrats — have positive feelings about the world’s only Jewish country.

Similarly, it is true that 333 US House members, a hefty bipartisan majority, endorsed the robustly pro-Israel Hoyer-Cantor letter to Hillary Clinton. But there were only seven Republicans who declined to sign the letter, compared with 91 Democrats — more than a third of the entire Democratic caucus. (Six Massachusetts Democrats were among the non-signers: John Olver, Richard Neal, John Tierney, Ed Markey, Michael Capuano, and Bill Delahunt.)

From Zogby International comes still more proof of the widening gulf between the major parties on the subject of Israel. In a poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute last month, respondents were asked whether Obama should “steer a middle course” in the Middle East — code for not clearly supporting Israel. “There is a strong divide on this question,” Zogby reported, “with 73% of Democrats agreeing that the President should steer a middle course while only 24% of Republicans hold the same opinion.”

Taken as a whole, America’s identification with Israel is as stout as ever — the “special relationship” between the two nations still runs deep. But the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East’s only flourishing democracy is breaking down. Republican friendship for Israel has never been more rock-solid. Democratic friendship — especially now, in the age of Obama — is growing steadily less so.

I am not sure why Republicans are more supportive of Israel than Democrats, but the results of the surveys are interesting. Perhaps someone will come up with an explanation.

Read the whole article.


Most of you are unaware of the inner workings of the politics of The Republican Party of Los Angeles County (RPLAC). Some of you have signed up to show your support for the so-called “Freedom Slate” of the 42nd Assembly District on Facebook or on their website, I thought you should be informed as to who they really are and what their real expressed intent is.

Leading the “Freedom Slate” is Rick Williams. Rick Williams is the attorney representing Robert Vaughn. Robert Vaughn is the person erroneously holding himself out as the “Chairman” of RPLAC, and is currently running a shadow group calling itself RPLAC. Robert Vaughn is also the person suing RPLAC and its Executive Board members personally through Rick Williams. The lawsuit seeks a gag order against the elected RPLAC board and also seeks to prohibit them from calling meetings of Republicans in Los Angeles.

That lawsuit is costing the LA County Republican Party tens of thousands of dollars, just to oppose the lawsuit by filing a motion to strike it as a “SLAPP” – strategic lawsuit against public participation. We understand they are now about to file a motion to enjoin the elected RPLAC Board from calling itself RPLAC, and possibly taking other action on behalf of the party. How many more tens of thousands of dollars of county party money will that cost?

That is money that should be going to support our Republican candidates to get elected in Los Angeles County, and instead is being used to pay lawyers to defend us in a frivolous lawsuit handled by Rick Williams. We haven’t even gotten to court yet, so the total cost will be much higher. How critical would those funds be today if we could spend them on candidate support, purchasing slate cards, helping with lawn signs and other candidate support, instead of spending those funds on defending lawsuits or getting frivolous suits thrown out?

You might be wondering how Robert Vaughn and Rick Williams got to know each other. Robert Vaughn was the Los Angeles Chairman of the Ron Paul for President campaign in 2008. Rick Williams also worked on the Ron Paul campaign.  Rick Williams’ law partner is the former State Chairman of the California Democratic Party.

Many of you joined the Freedom Slate Facebook group or website because it is being promoted by David Hernandez. I like David, as I am sure you do. However, in this instance I believe David is seriously misguided, and has been unfortunately convinced to take up a cause which is not worthy of his long and commendable service to conservative causes in Los Angeles County.

It is my belief, along with many others, that the Freedom Slate is an attempt to gain control of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County through the back door. If they can get enough of the Robert Vaughn group on the 42nd AD central committee, it will give them a foothold to take over the Party. This is not just conjecture. It is a stated objective on their web site.

Further, the so-called Freedom Slate is coming from a place of intolerance. Rick Williams has been heard to comment at RWF meetings he has spoken at, that it is time to remove the gays from the 42nd AD central committee. Rick may be unaware that West Hollywood – home to many gays, Republican and Democrat – makes up a substantial part of the 42nd Assembly District. Is he saying that West Hollywood should not have representation on the Central Committee? The following is a comment from an article Rick Williams wrote which appears on their website:

“Four of the incumbent candidates are special interest advocates– interested in only the single issue of advancing the cause of gay marriage. Well . . . with all due respect to our four incumbent friends, the issue of gay marriage ranks pretty close to the bottom of the political priority list in a time where the state of California and the city of Los Angeles are bankrupt, and good hearted people are losing their jobs and their homes in an avalanche of economic collapse.”

 This type of rhetoric is an attempt to disguise an intolerance for gay Republicans. I sit on the 42nd AD central committee and work with its members. While there are a handful of gay members on the current central committee, I can tell you that the furthest thing from their mind is gay marriage. They are not single interest advocates. I have not heard the words gay marriage once during any central committee meeting in the past year and one half that this central committee has been active. These men are more interested in loss of liberty, economic concerns, employment concerns, getting Republicans elected, and preventing the enormous expansion of government.   Hurtful rhetoric from “freedom slate” candidates reveals their true agenda.

Another misstatement from the “Freedom” slate concerns the motivations of other candidates:

“The other candidates running against the Freedomslate seem primarily interested in . . . running against the Freedomslate. These other candidates are the “status quo” offering favored by the existing old guard Party leadership. The old guard message goes something like this: Heaven forbid that the Freedomslate people might actually change something!”

Well, I am one of the other candidates running for the 42nd Assembly District Central Committee on the “Take Back Los Angeles County” slate. I am not running against the Freedom Slate, nor are any of my fellow slate candidates. We are running for the office.

Now, do any of you who know me honestly believe that I am primarily interested in “…running against the Freedomslate?” Do any of you who support the Freedom Slate believe that I am not contributing an extraordinary part of my daily life to supporting conservative causes in Los Angeles County, or that I am not doing everything I can to get new young conservative candidates elected to office in Los Angeles County? So are many of the people running with me for the 42nd AD central committee on the Take Back Los Angeles County slate.

 Do any of you who know me believe that I am not interested in bringing in new leadership? I have been working my butt off (a political technical term) to bring in new leadership in the county party. I am supporting all kinds of new fresh faces who are running for office, or are running for central committee. I, along with the other candidates running on the Take Back Los Angeles County slate, support new leadership. What we don’t support is deception and strategy designed to do a back-door takeover.

 You might be wondering who is on the Take Back Los Angeles County slate for the 42nd Assembly District? Here they are:

Commercial Real Estate Broker
Current Positions:
First Vice Chairman, The Republican Party of Los Angeles County
President, San Fernando Valley Republican Club
Member, Executive Committee, California Republican Party
Member, 42nd Assembly District Republican Central Committee
President, Chatsworth-Northridge Republican Assembly
Board of Directors, California Republican Assembly
Author/blogger at Bear to the Right
Prior Positions:
Co-Organizer of the February 27, 2009 and the April 15, 2009 Tea Party Rallys
West Los Angeles/San Fernando Valley Chair – McCain for President 2007-2008
Los Angeles County Chair – Rudy Guiliani for President – 2007
Los Angeles County Co-Chair, Schwarzenegger for Governor – 2006
Former Treasurer of the Republican Party of LA County 2006-2009
San Fernando Valley Chair, Bush-Cheney campaign 2004
San Fernando Valley Co-Chair, Grey Davis Recall – 2003
San Fernando Valley Co-Chair, Schwarzenegger for Governor 2003
 (I won’t bother to list the rest)

Attorney and Small Business Owner
Member, California Republican Party Central Committee
Appointed Member, 42nd Assembly District Central Committee
Vice President – Log Cabin Republicans, Los Angeles
Member, West Hollywood Historic Preservation Commission
Member, Congregation Kol Ami
Former General Counsel, California Department of Parks and Recreation

Chairman, 42nd AD Central Committee – 2005 to present
West Los Angeles/San Fernando Valley Precinct Chair – McCain Campaign 2008
Member, Precinct Committee, Republican Party of Los Angeles County
Paul has worked on every political campaign in Los Angeles County, and prior to that in Ohio.
He was the Registration Chair for the 12 Northeastern Counties of Ohio for the Republican Party prior to moving to California

Nate G. Kraut has been an elected member of the County Central Committee for the 42nd Assembly District since January 2007, serving as its Treasurer since January 2009.
Vice Chair of Los Angeles Lawyers for McCain – 2008.
Long standing member of the San Fernando Valley chapter of the California Republican League, serving on its Board of Directors since 1994.

Nate has been an attorney since 1983.  Nate served as a Senior Judicial Attorney for the California Court of Appeal from 1983 through 1995, after which he opened his own law office, practicing exclusively in the area of civil appeals and writs.  He is certified as an Appellate Specialist by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization.

From 2004 through 2009, Nate served as a member of the Alumni Board of Governors for the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.  In addition to his private practice, Nate has donated his time serving as a Settlement Conference Officer for the California Court of Appeal and a Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Through the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Appellate Courts Committee (of which Nate has been a member since 1988), he is part of a group of attorneys who handle appeals for free for indigent individuals.

(New to County political activity)
Candidate for Mayor of Beverly Hills

Secretary, 42nd Assembly District Central Committee
Member, Executive Committee, Republican Party of Los Angeles County

Political Consultant
Current Positions:
Outreach Coordinator – Steve Cooley for Attorney General 2010 Campaign
28th Congressional District Ex-Officio Member of the Executive Committee

Of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County and the California Republican Party.

Executive Director – Young Republican Federation of California
Youth Committee Chair – Republican Party of Los Angeles County
Youth Committee Chair – San Fernando Valley Republican Club
V.P. Precinct/Campaign Operations – Encino Oaks Republican Women Federated
Prior Positions:
Field Representative – Rudy Giuliani Campaign – 2007-2008
Deputy Campaign Manager – Tony Strickland for CA Senate 2008 campaign.
Executive Director – Republican Party of Los Angeles County – 2009

These are the people who Rick Williams calls the “old guard” who are responsible for what is wrong with the Republican Party of Los Angeles County. The Take Back Los Angeles County slate has the goal of defeating Democrats and taking back Los Angeles County for the Republican Party.

 People don’t have resumes like that by sitting on their hands. Everyone on this slate has paid his dues through hard work in the Republican Party.

 I, for one, am very proud to be associated with these fine conservatives who are, every day, devoting their time to support the Republican Party and its message of freedom. Why don’t you ask the members of the “Freedom Slate” what their contribution has been to the Republican Party over the past five years?

 I am not interested in giving Robert Vaughn and his cohorts (including his attorney) another way to attempt to get control of the county party since they can’t get it by legitimate election. Robert Vaughn and his group are not recognized by the California Republican Party as having any legitimacy.

 Do you really want to work to support people who are costing the Republican Party of Los Angeles County tens of thousands of dollars that should properly be going to support Republican candidates in this critical year? Do you really want to support a “Ron Paul-libertarian” takeover of the county party? Do you really want to support homophobic, intolerant candidates? Do you really want to support a slate of people who have had no political experience, with the exception of Hernandez? Do you really want to support people who are just interested in gaining power, and not in working for Republican causes? Do you really want to contribute money that may well be used against the Republican Party of Los Angeles County?

 I urge you to reconsider your support of the so-called “Freedom Slate.” I hope you will support the “Take Back Los Angeles County” Slate, consisting of dedicated Republicans who have devoted themselves to the task of taking back Los Angeles County from Democrats.

Breitbart: Obama’s Alinsky Plans to Demonize The Tea Party Movement

Andrew Breitbart explains the Alinsky tactics both the Administration and the Democratic Party are using to discredit the tea party movement. Attempting to provoke a racist incident on the Capitol steps, lying about being called racial epithets, falsely depicting some fringe elements of the movement as representative of the whole, characterizing the movement as “angry” and “hate-filled” when it is no such thing, are all attempts to use Alinsky-type tactics to isolate, marginalize, and demonize those who would stand up against Democrat Party tyranny.

The race baiting of the Tea Party crowd on the Capitol front was caught by calling the Democrats out — and they didn’t deliver the goods. The attempt to incite a reaction from the Nevada Tea Party was even worse. They were the violent ones, who traveled out of their way to provoke an incident — and when they didn’t get it, they blamed the victim.

IT’S ON TAPE. And the person lying on camera to the police is the field director of the Nevada Democratic Party.

Over at Media Matters, Podesta’s den of deceit, the phantom egg has turned into Breitbart mockery over easter eggs. Change the subject, misdirection, their side caught with their pants around their ankles, don’t look there media, there’s nothing to see here.


The Democrats need to kill the Tea Party movement. They need to marginalize and demonize those who would stand up to their hardball, toxic and anti-democratic tactics. Their strategy is to bait and incite the Tea Party and to use whatever they can get to silence the awakening giant. They have failed, epically, and the American people now see these tactics for what they are. At long last, new people every day are beginning to understand the kinds of people we are dealing with here.

Will the media keep falling into the trap? Their business model continues to fail each and every time they are suckered – unless, of course, they are doing it on purpose. The Republican Party failed in its attempt to make good with the Tea Party when its leaders apologized for it. When will the GOP stop playing Charlie Brown to the media’s Lucy? The Democratic party has been exposed as trying to create a Kristallnacht to save the Obama presidency along the fault line of race and the essence of the First Amendment. If the GOP does not have the intestinal fortitude to fight back, a growing number of disenchanted and disenfrachised Tea Party participants will have to do it themselves.

Who is calling the shots here? Is it the White House, by way of Chicago? Or is it Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? The press refused to tell you the truth about this president. It refused to tell you of his proud adherence to the teachings of the original Chicago “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. We have now entered the first full-fledged Alinsky presidency. The only way to beat Alinsky is with Alinsky. The Democrats and President Obama will not give up this tack. Do you think the GOP will win the day in November and in 2012 if its strategy is to apologize for every manufactured “right wing fringe” outrage?

With President Obama over the last week calling attention to the Tea Parties and their “heated” rhetoric, he has officially connected himself to the civil war his minions have flailingly attempted to inflame. The only good thing to come of this is that we can now officially put to rest the laughable notion that Obama was going to be the first post-racial president.

Go here to read the whole article.