AFSP | Dating Profile – The Left Hates This Video


The Incredible Lightness of Being Barack Obama


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

85Barack Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly was so insubstantial, so full of airy platitudes, and so adulterated with the gaseous clichés of bankrupt internationalism and progressive bromides that I thought at any minute he might just float away.

First was the obligatory call “to renew the purpose of the U.N.’s founding,” which apparently is “to observe and enforce international norms,” the most important being “to ensure that no nation can subjugate its neighbors and claim their territory” and to promote “the path of diplomacy and peace and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold.” Such phrases are so common and uncritically received that we forget “international norms” do not exist. Different peoples have different “norms” about, for example, the use of violence to achieve their aims. Nations will sign treaties that seemingly express our norms, but that doesn’t mean they believe in them. More often, such treaties are mere mechanisms for one nation to get what it wants from another. The sorry history of U.S. arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union and then Russia, treaties the Russians violated for decades to improve their nuclear arsenal at our expense, is just one example.


As for seizing territory by force, the U.N. did nothing to prevent Turkey from seizing northern Cyprus, or China from seizing Tibet, and more recently Russia from seizing Crimea. The Serbs’ attempts in the ’90s to “claim territory” were stopped not by the U.N., but by American bombs. So too was Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait. Nor should we be surprised at the serial failure of the U.N. to enforce its lofty founding principles. Nations belong to the U.N. because they think they can use it to advance their interests, not “to enforce international norms,” especially when their own “norms” see nothing wrong with using duplicity and force to achieve their aims. Indeed, the continuing violence justified by other “norms” since the U.N.’s founding has claimed some 41 million lives. The U.N. serves the conflicting, zero-sum interests of the member states, not the “path of diplomacy and peace.”

From that preposterous beginning, the speech went downhill. “Islam teaches peace,” the President intoned. No, Islam teaches submission. There is no peace for those who refuse to submit, even for Muslims considered heretics by other Muslims, but especially for “polytheists” or “infidels.” In their case, Islam teaches jihad against them if they refuse to accept the “call” to convert. Far from being extremists “who have perverted one of the world’s great religions,” as Obama scolded, the proliferating jihadist outfits that are kidnapping, torturing, raping, beheading, and enslaving people around the globe are acting on the doctrines and past practices of Islam’s founding fathers.

So Obama might think that their “nightmarish vision . . . would divide the world into adherents and infidels,” but it is traditional, orthodox Islam that divides the world into the dar al harb, the “house of war” against which the faithful must wage jihad, and the dar al islam, the “house of Islam,” the ummah of faithful Muslims. Obama may really believe that “No God condones such terror” like the beheadings perpetrated by Islamic State, but it is the Koran, the literal words of Allah, that says at 8.12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Such “willful blindness,” as Andrew McCarthy has called it, to the traditional motivations of today’s jihadists depends on clichéd lies like those Obama trades in. Perhaps that blindness explains his astonishing praise in his U.N. speech for Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, whose group has endorsed Hamas, who supported a 2004 fatwa calling on the faithful to murder U.S. soldiers in Iraq and another forbidding any “normalization” of Israel, and was associated with an organization whose founder called for “the death of Jews and Americans.”

Then there is the last refuge of the morally addled, moral equivalency. In his remarks on the Arab war against Israel, Obama can’t resist this cowardly cop out. Speaking of the endless and fruitless “peace process,” Obama intones, “We cannot afford to turn away from this effort––not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza.” Of course, it is not Israelis “taking” these children, it is the Hamas jihadists who use them as human shields, sacrificing their own children in order to gin up international condemnations in order to isolate Israel. Worse yet, such a sentence completely ignores the most important dimension of this violence: the decades of wars and terrorist attacks instigated by Arabs whose doctrinal hatred of Jews has compelled them since 1947 — when they violated a U.N. resolution with impunity–– to serially refuse a state for the Palestinian Arabs or agree to “two states living side by side, in peace and security,” yet another stale cliché useful for pretending to say something when one has nothing important to say. In reality, the Palestinian Arabs have made it clear that what they want is to destroy Israel.

Yet nothing matches the surreal moral idiocy of Obama’s next indulgence of moral equivalency:

I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri––where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.

Here is one of the staple dogmas of the Progressive mind: the sins and crimes of America that require apologies and reparations, even as the millions of dead, tortured, and imprisoned in other nations are shrugged off. Obama began his presidency with the “apology tour” in which he donned the hair shirt of American guilt for its imperialist depredations, its racist sins, and its global exploitation of others. Then as now, Obama ignores important distinctions. To equate the atrocities of Islamic State or Hamas, or the shooting down of a passenger jet in Ukraine that cost nearly 300 lives, with what probably will turn out to be the justified shooting of a lawbreaker assaulting a police officer, bespeaks either delusion or the sophistic pandering to an audience comprising the representatives of nations most of which are some of the planet’s most brutal and murderous regimes.


This speech proves once again that Obama is not a serious man. His badly trained mind is a warehouse of the sort of leftist and progressive received wisdom and dull clichés that pollute our universities, media, and popular culture. He represents the moral idiocy and fashionable self-loathing that signals to our enemies and rivals that the United States can be had.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.


Obama blames America for non-existent global warming


Barack Obama speaks at U.N. climate summit. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

While speaking at the United Nations on Tuesday, President Obama blamed the United States for global warming, even though there has been no global warming for nearly 18 years.

While the administration insists global warming is a real threat, one professor issued a paper saying there has been no global warming for 19 years. “But there should be no question that the United States of America is stepping up to the plate,” Obama said. “We recognize our role in creating this problem; we embrace our responsibility to combat it. We will do our part, and we will help developing nations do theirs.

But we can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every nation –- developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass.” Obama hyped action the United States has taken, touting moves taken against power companies in what has been described as a “war on coal.” According to the president, the United States has reduced its total “carbon pollution” by more than any other nation.

Nevertheless, he said the United States is one of the two largest emitters in the world and pledged to work with Communist China — the largest emitter of pollution on the planet — to do more. He told attendees that prior to making his speech, “I met with Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli, and reiterated my belief” the two countries “have a special responsibility to lead,” eliciting applause. While liberals fear non-existent global warming more than Islamic terrorism, and believe it will destroy all life on earth, as the president of Venezuela claimed, actual data tells a different story. According to Christopher Monckton, the “fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762,” before the industrial revolution. It also took place before the United States came into existence. As Monckton noted, “it was not our fault.” The solution touted by many global warming alarmists says more about their real agenda than anything else. According to a number of those who marched in the streets Sunday, capitalism is the real cause.

The solution, to them, is socialist revolution, echoing comments made by U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who once said Communism is the best model for dealing with the issue since democracy allows for debate and a difference of opinion.


Here are 6 messy facts Obama failed to mention in his UN speech

, Rare Contributor

Here are six messy facts Obama failed to mention:

1. “This speaks to a central question of our global age: whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interests and mutual respect, or whether we descend into destructive rivalries of the past.”

This statement, which sounds a lot like presidential candidate Obama in 2008, has to be one of the most egregious in his UN speech. Remember how he was going to bring the country together in a post-partisan America? And yet no one has done more to push the country “into the destructive rivalries of the past.” It’s so bad that the media regularly use the adjective “toxic” when speaking of Barack Obama’s Washington. He often can’t get even one Republican to sign on to many of his proposals, and yet he suggests the community of nations can “solve our problems together.”

Well, maybe they can—as long as they don’t let him lead the effort.

2. “Because we address our differences in the open space of democracy—with respect for the rule of law;”

President “I have a pen and a phone” wants to lecture other countries about the rule of law? How about he tries it out here first.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out last June: “The Supreme Court handed President Obama his 13th unanimous loss in two years on Thursday, and this one may be the most consequential. All nine Justices voted to overturn Mr. Obama’s non-recess recess appointments as an unconstitutional abuse of power.”

It takes some flagrant disregard for the rule of law to rack up 13 unanimous Supreme Court overturns, but our “constitutional scholar” in the White House is up to the task.

3. “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century.”

Would that “rule-book written for a different century” be the U.S. Constitution? Obama’s repeated disregard for the Constitution gave rise to the tea party movement. No president has done more to get Americans re-reading their Constitution—only that new-found interest is a result of trying to get the president to ”support and defend” it.

4. “But we can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every major power.”

Um, except that many of the major powers were too busy to join the president at the UN climate change conference on Tuesday. China, India and Russia—the first, third and fourth largest emitters of greenhouse gases—couldn’t find time to attend the conference, because they have no intention of playing his game.

Obama knows there is virtually no chance that these countries will sign on to anything that will hinder their economic development. But it’s not just these countries, he can’t even get the Democratically controlled U.S. Senate to approve a climate change treaty, which is why he recently announced he will try to negotiate an international agreement and then put all the participants on the honor system to comply.

5. “America is committed to a development agenda that eradicates extreme poverty by 2030.”

What utter nonsense. America is only “committed” to do what Obama wants for two more years, at which point a new president will make new commitments and, hopefully, cancel a lot of the old ones.

6. “We have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces—taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely upon.”

George W. Bush couldn’t have said it better himself. A fact that Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown picked up on when she wrote of the president’s UN speech: “Obama didn’t just run against Bush’s foreign policy. He used to ridicule it. His rejection of the Bush worldview was so emphatic that it seemed to prompt the Nobel Peace Prize committee to give him the award just for getting elected. So much for all that.”

Now, people may agree or disagree with Obama’s military actions in Iraq and Syria, the point is that he has done yet another of his countless flip-flops with no mention that he was against an issue before he was for it.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, a research-based, public policy think tank in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews



Feds mum on prosecution of illegal border crossers


TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — The federal government refuses to say whether prosecutors in Yuma, Arizona, have scaled back a years-old program that guarantees jail time for most immigrants caught crossing the border illegally and which law enforcement officials say is crucial to public safety.

Reports that federal prosecutors have stopped some prosecutions under Operation Streamline surfaced nearly two weeks ago when Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking information on the status of the zero-tolerance program that circumvents the civil immigration system and lumps together months’ worth of criminal proceedings into one day for immigrants caught crossing the border illegally.

Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said in a letter to the senators that he had been informed that federal prosecutors in Yuma are no longer going after first offenders.

But the government has been completely silent on the issue. Public affairs officials from the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection have all refused to answer questions about whether the program has been scaled back.

Brett Worsencroft, president of the Border Patrol union for Yuma Sector border agents, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office has in fact ended prosecutions of first-time offenders.

“Operation Streamline is like one of the last strongholds we have as a deterrent. Our manpower is dwindling on a daily basis,” Worsencroft said. “The fence can only do so much.”

Worsencroft said the program was a large factor in the steep decline in border-crossers in Yuma because it sent a message that even first-time offenders would serve jail time and because it allowed agents to focus their attention on drug smugglers and other dangerous criminals.

Getting rid of prosecutions for first-time offenders is a “free ticket into the U.S.” for those who cross the border without legal status, he said.

Operation Streamline is used as a deterrent. Federal judges sentence large groups of immigrants within days of their arrival into the U.S. in fast court proceedings that include an arraignment, plea and sentencing in the span of one day. Most immigrants who participate in the program plead guilty to entering the country illegally and receive sentences of 30 to 120 days. Many get credit for time served.

In Yuma, all immigrants who are caught crossing the border illegally went through the program. That differs from the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, where the much higher volume of border crossers means that mostly immigrants with prior deportations are prosecuted under Operation Streamline. Prosecutors in Del Rio, Texas, also use the program, but those in California do not do so.

The Yuma Sector made 6,106 apprehensions in fiscal year 2013. The Tucson Sector, which includes most of southern Arizona, made more than 120,000 in that timeframe.

But the low numbers haven’t always been the case for Yuma, which in 2004 and 2005 saw upward of 140,000 immigrant apprehended. Many attribute that drop to the implementation of Operation Streamline.

“This new guidance is of great concern because it undermines the mission of local law enforcement agencies throughout Yuma County for 100 percent prosecution of those entering the United States illegally in order to curb reentries,” Wilmot wrote.

McCain and Flake in a letter also said that the program contributed to decreased immigration in that area.

“Achieving these gains in border security is no doubt a result of a combination of factors including increased manpower, technology implementation, and appropriate consequences,” the senators wrote. “The Yuma County Sheriff’s Office cites 100 percent prosecution as a shared goal of a partnership including federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and cites Operation Streamline as an element in the recent success in reducing illegal crossings.”

Holder has not responded to the senators, a spokeswoman for Flake said.

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.


Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians

key_issue_img_2066The Christian values upon which this Nation was founded are under attack. The ACLU and like-minded organizations are using sympathetic courts to destroy the religious and moral foundations of our great nation. Using the metaphor, “a wall of separation between church and state,” which is found nowhere in our Constitution, they attack crosses, Ten Commandment monuments, Nativity displays, Christmas celebrations in public schools, the Pledge of Allegiance, our national motto, “In God We Trust” and prayers at public meetings. The main battleground in this culture war is the courtroom and that is where the Thomas More Law Center is defending the religious freedom of Christians.

Related Content


Ex-official claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents in secret session

Published September 15, 2014

A former State Department official has told lawmakers that Hillary Clinton allies privately removed politically damaging documents before turning over files to the supposedly independent board investigating the Benghazi terror attack.

The account from Raymond Maxwell, former head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), was first published in The Daily Signal. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, confirmed to on Monday that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year about the attacks and their aftermath.

Chaffetz said that Maxwell claimed Clinton’s chief of staff and deputy chief of staff were overseeing the document operation, which allegedly took place on a weekend in a basement office of the State Department.

“What they were looking for is anything that made them look bad. That’s the way it was described to us,” Chaffetz said.

According to Chaffetz’ account of his interview with Maxwell, as well as the Daily Signal report by Sharyl Attkisson, Maxwell said those scrubbing the documents were looking for information that would cast Clinton and senior leaders in a “bad light.”

Chaffetz said such documents were said to be removed, so that Congress and the Accountability Review Board — the board probing security lapses as well as the attack’s aftermath — would not see them.

Chaffetz described Maxwell’s account as “consistent” all this time. The congressman said he is speaking publicly about Maxwell’s allegations because Maxwell himself has gone public with them.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach denied the allegations in a statement to

“That allegation is totally without merit. It doesn’t remotely reflect the way the ARB actually obtained information,” he said in an email. He explained that an “all-points bulletin”-type request went out department-wide instructing “full and prompt cooperation” for anyone contacted by the ARB, and urging anyone with “relevant information” to contact the board.

“So individuals with information were reaching out proactively to the Board. And, the ARB was also directly engaged with individuals and the Department’s bureaus and offices to request information and pull on whichever threads it chose to. The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information,” Gerlach said. He further noted that the leaders of the ARB have claimed they had unfettered access to information and people.

Maxwell was one of four State Department officials disciplined in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, in which four Americans were killed. He was put on administrative leave, and has spoken out before about how he felt he was scapegoated.

Maxwell was eventually cleared, but retired last year.

According to The Daily Signal report, Maxwell walked in on the weekend session on a Sunday afternoon after hearing about it. He reportedly claims he saw stacks of documents when he arrived as well as an office director who worked for him — but who hadn’t told him about the assignment.

Maxwell reportedly claimed she told him they were instructed to go through the stacks and pull out items that could put anybody in the NEA “front office” or seventh floor — where the secretary’s office is — in a “bad light.”

Maxwell said he “didn’t feel good about it” and left a short time later.

Chaffetz said that he was told then-Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan were there and overseeing the operation.

“For Hillary Clinton’s personal chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to be making a concerted effort to hide documents, make sure that the Accountability Review Board and Congress did not see those documents is unbelievable and absolutely wrong,” Chaffetz said.

Requests for comment to representatives for Clinton, Sullivan and Mills have not yet been returned.

The new allegations have surfaced as the House select committee on Benghazi prepares to hold its first open hearing on Wednesday.

Scheduled to testify are Greg Starr, the department’s assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security, and Mark Sullivan and Todd Keil, members of the Independent Panel on Best Practices, created to review the accountability board’s efforts.

The board was led by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen, who have already testified before Congress and are expected to be called before the select committee.

Maxwell told Attkisson that the ARB probe was “at best, a shoddily executed attempt at damage control.”’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.


Radical Muslim Jihadists Training Camps



They have been here for years………..



There are over 22 confirmed terrorist Jihad camps in the United States belonging to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakastan Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda related branch. Now a combined media effort, we find police officers working to double as the compound militia. To top it off, the FBI states that their hands are tied in monitoring their activities despite a training video that is years old, possible murders, and proof of illegal activities.

The fact is these training camps are not a new item that have popped up on the Homeland Security radar. These training camps are being operated by an extremely militant group of international terrorists, an organization called Jamaat ul-Fuqra. In order to live in these camps, you must pledge to support a Pakastani Cleric on the International Wanted list. As early as 2012, the media confirmed 19 Jihad camps on United States soil.



Imam Educates the President on Islam: The Koran Promotes Terrorism and the Killing of “Innocents”

Imam Educates the President on Islam. The Koran and Shariah Law Promote Terrorism and the Killing of Civilians from Thomas More Law Center on Vimeo.

September 16, 2014


In the beginning of his speech last week on the threat of ISIS (or ISIL), President Obama told Americans:

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents…”

He is wrong on both counts.  And he knows it.  He is doing a disservice to the American public and our “war” effort.  If our Commander-in-Chief refuses to honestly identify the enemy, we are not going to win this war in the long run.  That’s because even if we destroy ISIS there will be other Islamic organizations to take its place.

The reason: Islam is a religion of violence.

I can only conjecture that the President’s comments were meant to pander to American Muslims and anesthetize the American people to the true internal threat posed by Muslims within our gates.

But British Imam Anjem Choudary set the President and the American public straight in this short video clip.

In the clip from a recent interview on RT’s (formerly Russia Today) Worlds Apart, Choudary, told the world the truth about Islam that so called “moderate” Muslims in America have been trying to hide.

When asked if the beheading of American journalist James Foley was justified under Sharia law, Choudary said:

“Every action for a Muslim must be based on the Koran, the word of Allah and the teachings of the messenger Mohammad … But those who are already Muslim must know that Allah mentions in the Koran, in fact if you look at Chapter 8 Verse 60, he said prepare as much as you can the steeds of war to terrorize the enemy. So, terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam. I mean, this is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned.”

Regarding “innocents” there are none.

The Imam explains:

“The thing that people need to appreciate is that in war the Muslims are not distinguishing in general between civilians and military because those very civilians are those who put the people in charge and those people in charge like Obama and others are sending the troops to Muslim countries so they don’t making (sic) that distinction; let alone between people who are journalists, who are considered to the right hand in fact and the propaganda machine of the Obama Administration.”

The Koran commands Muslims to engage in a holy war (Jihad) in order to impose Islam and Shariah Law on the entire world.

 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Koran 9:5)

Interestingly, the President’s counter terrorism advisor, John Brennan (now Director of the CIA), during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argued that the terms “jihadist” or “jihad” should not be used to describe America’s enemies.  His reason: jihad is a holy struggle and a legitimate tenet of Islam.  It sure is. And jihadists are America’s enemy.


Sharyl Attkisson / @SharylAttkisson / September 15, 2014


@SharylAttkisson Sharyl Attkisson Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She is the author of the forthcoming book, “Stonewalled.” Learn more at j


» recent comments

» archives