OBAMA: 'There's Little Difference Between Communism and Capitalism'...

"Just choose from what works"

. . . "For a more accurate breakdown of how capitalism beats socialism every time, watch the video below." . . .

Infowars  "President Obama has stoked controversy after he suggested to an audience of Argentinian youth that there was no great difference between communism and capitalism and that they should just “choose from what works”."

“ 'So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said.

“ 'Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,” he added.

"Obama went on to praise Cuba’s socialist system under dictator Raúl Castro, touting the country’s free access to basic education and health care, although he acknowledged that Havana itself “looks like it did in the 1950s” because the economy is “not working”.

"Obama concluded his comments by arguing that a market-based system “has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis”.

"Reaction to the remarks wasn’t pretty." . . .
Tell me again, why is this man at the top of the presidential popularity list?

Why do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton believe they know more about Islam than Muslim clerics?

"When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up."

Andrew C. McCarthy  "One of the first things I learned concerned the leader of the terror cell, Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh. Our government was portraying him as a wanton killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. Far from a lunatic, however, he turned out to be a globally renowned scholar—a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.

"I immediately began to wonder why American officials from President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on down, officials who had no background in Muslim doctrine and culture, believed they knew more about Islam than the Blind Sheikh. Then something else dawned on me: the Blind Sheikh was not only blind; he was beset by several other medical handicaps. That seemed relevant. After all, terrorism is hard work. Here was a man incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization—he couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. Yet he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell. Was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was conceding?". . .  

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. A graduate of Columbia College, he received his J.D. at New York Law School. For 18 years, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and from 1993-95 he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s command post near Ground Zero. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at Fordham University’s School of Law and New York Law School. He writes widely for newspapers and journals including National Review, PJ Media, and The New Criterion, and is the author of several books, including Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotages America.

The Theology of Donald Trump

Michael Horton

"Four words that reveal what his followers really believe."

"I am not a politician, but a minister who teaches theology. As a citizen of this great republic, I have convictions about domestic and foreign policy, but none of that qualifies me to join the fray of political experts and pundits. I am qualified, however, to engage the topic of significant support among self-identified “evangelical voters” for Donald Trump and what this means, not for the country but what it suggests about significant segments of the US church.

"While a theological analysis of other candidates would suggest many equally troubling assumptions of their evangelical followers, no candidate is more identified with the word evangelical as is Trump. The loyalty of his self-identified evangelical followers is especially startling to many.

A more recent exponent of a feel-good gospel, Joel Osteen, has called Donald Trump “a friend of our ministry” and “a good man.” Trump has previously tweeted, “Being associated with Joel is my great honor—he’s a fantastic man!”So when in recent months, it has appeared that Trump appeals to a sizable group of evangelicals, it may be less surprising than all the hoopla suggests. Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. hailed him as “one of the greatest visionaries of our time” and a wonderful Christian brother “who reminds me of my dad.” The redoubtable Pat Robertson gushed in an interview with the empire-builder, “You inspire us all.” Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, who has introduced Trump at rallies, says, “We need a strong leader and a problem-solver, hence many Christians are open to a more secular candidate.” . . .

Well, Trump does like both Old and New Testaments equally, and he can find Two Corinthians in the Bible. Somewhere. 

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Hold the Whole Country in Their Hands

Roger L. Simon  "The leading contender for the Democratic Party nomination is under investigation by the FBI on two basic tracks.

"The first is for national security violations regarding her grossly negligent use of a private email server and unsecured BlackBerry (when traveling abroad!) for all her official business as secretary of state, including housing 22 emails on the server deemed so "top secret" that the State Department has refused to make them public.. . . 

"The second, perhaps even more serious, malfeasance is various crimes related to what is popularly known as influence-peddling performed by then-Secretary of State Clinton with foreign nationals and officials in connection with her multi-million, possibly billion, dollar family foundation.  . . .

"This is far and away the most important issue of election 2016. All others pale compared to it. How our government -- FBI and DOJ -- resolves this investigation will affect the very backbone of our country: the rule of law. " . . .

Yet there are those even in the GOP who would possibility vote for Hillary

Wait For The Meaningless Platitudes In The Aftermath Of The Latest Terrorist Attack

"But don’t get too unsettled there is still cause for optimism and hope (not!) – at least the Eiffel Tower is going to get decked out in the Belgian Flag! Of course such a token gesture will be about as effective as the “Je Suis Charlie” nonsense that followed the Paris attacks."

Noisy Room

"Above: Solutions to terror? Eiffel Tower to be lit up in colours of Belgian Flag. What a relief!

"Some people will say this latest attack is unbelievable, and will be asking questions such as why us? The usual platitudes and meaningless twaddle will be doing the rounds. Once the dust has settled the usual media talking heads will be wheeled out, disseminating disinformation and blaming the West.

"The reality is that this latest attack is not unbelievable. This despicable act of terror is believable, inevitable and predictable. Western leaders just don’t get it! The way things are going there will end up being a Europe-wide intifada and the foolish and inept political leaders will still be scratching their stupid heads.

"In his latest platitude, France’s fool in charge Francois Hollande has declared: ‘The fight against terror will be long’. Platitude aside, he’s got that completely wrong. Even if we accept that we are at war with terror, a tactic, the war we’re in will not be long. Thanks to the policies of people like Hollande and his ilk, and his EU, the war will be short and it unfortunately will bring down the Western World just as its perpetrators and enablers intend!" . . .

Remember: this election is mainly about Supreme Court justices!

"If we are going to put Washington on trial this election . . . then the Supreme Court should be at the top of the list, although with the federal bench generally and the hordes of lawyers who feast at our expense on this rotted system."

Make the Supreme Court an Election Issue   . . . "Most nauseating is the spectacle of pundits asking politicians running for federal offices if they will follow "the law of the land" – meaning the decision of the Supreme Court – although all legislative power is granted to Congress, and all power not granted to Congress is reserved to the states.  It is bad enough when regulatory agencies and presidents make law by order.  

"When federal courts do it, then Congress is simply an empty vessel, lacking real power, although it represents the interests of the governed as expressed through elections.

"Why not use the debate over Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court to assert that federal judges do not have the power to interpret the Constitution, void federal laws, or intrude into the rights of state governments?  Why not argue in this election that voters and their elected representatives say what the Constitution means and that the opinions of judges cannot overrule the people and their representatives?  If we are going to put Washington on trial this election – and we should – then the Supreme Court should be at the top of the list, although with the federal bench generally and the hordes of lawyers who feast at our expense on this rotted system." . . .

Camille Paglia: This is why Trump’s winning, and why I won’t vote for Hillary

"GOP needs to wake up and realize Trump is its fault. But the Trump/Clinton death match is a national nightmare."

Ms. Paglia's choice, as you may imagine, is Bernie Sanders.

Salon

. . . "Candidates of both parties were instantly measured against voter expectations of how a president could and should behave in a similar crisis. Meanwhile, it was jarring to see a beaming President Obama relaxing at a Cuban baseball game, while grisly photos of the wrecked terminal and dazed, bloodied victims in Belgium were on steady media feed all over the world.

. . . Hillary Clinton’s Brussels response was basically boilerplate, calling for solidarity with Europe and playing chess with Trump to paint him as a greenhorn and hothead. Bernie Sanders (whom I support and contribute to) had little to say, beyond conveying condolences to the Belgian people, because foreign affairs have unfortunately remained a sideline for him. Neither Sanders nor Martin O’Malley ever went after Hillary’s disastrous record as Secretary of State with the tenacity that they should have—a failure of strategy that has proved costly in the long run.

. . . 

"But a Trump-Hillary death match will be a national nightmare, a race to the bottom for both parties, as Democratic and Republican operatives compete to dig up the most lurid and salacious dirt on both flawed candidates. We’ll be sadistically trapped in an endless film noir, with Trump as Citizen Kane, Don Corleone and Scarface and Hillary as Norma Desmond, Mommie Dearest and the Wicked Witch of the West." . . . 

After her attacks on nearly every other candidate in the race, Ms. Paglia pronounces the Democrat solution is to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Trump's electability problem could drive delegates to nominate a Kasich-Rubio ticket

Silvio Canto, Jr.  
"Before I get a million messages from Trump's supporters saying that I'm part of the establishment or trying to steal his nomination, let me say this:  Trump will be the nominee if he gets 1,237 delegates on the first or any other ballot.   

"Beyond that, let me assure his very passionate supporters that I will support him in November.

"Also, I am not part of any conspiracy nor did Governor Romney suggest that I write this.

"My mission is simple.   I am just a voter who wants to defeat Hillary Clinton and keep a GOP Senate.  I want to support a candidate who will do both.

"As of today, Mr. Trump is not that candidate:" . . .

If You're Pro-Family, You Don't Vote for Trump:

Christians Declare Victory as ABC Cancels Sexed-Up Biblical Drama After Only Two Episodes

Big Government  "In their pre-series hype, ABC spokespersons gushed with enthusiasm over the project. “We’re going to go as far as we can,” said showrunner Chris Brancato, who said that the Old Testament is “violent” and “sex-drenched.”

“ 'It’s one of the world’s first soap operas,” he said.

“ 'From my experience, faith-based people like sex as much as anybody else,” Brancato said. 

“ 'I don’t know that that will necessarily be an impediment.” . . .

"Winter called the series an “epic failure” in terms of both production and marketing, and attributes the show’s demise in part to his council’s “direct private conversations” with some of the biggest backers.

“ 'Some of them had actually sponsored the first show, and we showed them the clips and they backed away from the second episode,” Winter said. “So when those ad dollars leave, the TV network is faced with a very difficult choice. It was an embarrassing decision for them, I believe.' ”. . . 

Denying radical Islam: Deadly for Brussels

"Radical Islam, then, is at war with all forms of non-radical Islam (including differing forms of radical Islam), which is why Muslims kill more Muslims than any other group of people, with Shiites murdering Sunnis and vice versa, among other factional wars. And radical Islam is at war with all non-Muslims. . . "

World Net Daily   "To a Muslim terrorist, unbelievers are unbelievers, be they children, women, or men, and killing them is doing Allah’s work.

"That’s why Muslim terrorists could carry out their horrific acts in Brussels this week, indiscriminately murdering and maiming people who, in all likelihood, never lifted a finger against a Muslim in their entire lives.

"It didn’t matter. To the radical Muslim, they are guilty and deserve to die.

"But before I explain this murderous mentality, it’s important that we say a word about terminology.

"I am constantly criticized for the use of the term “radical Islam,” some claiming that radical Islam is not Islam at all and others claiming that all Islam is radical.

"In my judgment, both criticisms are wrong.

"On the one hand, radical Islam represents a genuine stream of Islam. It can be traced back to Muhammad himself and to centuries of Islamic history and mountains of Islamic texts, and so it is completely justifiable to use the term “radical Islam,” and it is false to make the blanket statement that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

"As for Islam being a “religion of peace,” was it a religion of peace during Muhammad’s warring years, which marked the culmination of his career? Was it a religion of peace during its expansionist conquests of Jerusalem, Egypt, Damascus, Cyprus, Armenia, Andalusia, Granada (Spain), all within a century of Muhammad’s death?" . . .

Hashtag: We are Neville Chamberlain!

Ann Coulter   "Immigration is the new "No Nukes/Save the Whales" movement, only with more body bags. 

"After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration. 

"Explaining the idea on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: "Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. ... We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant." 

"Trump's reference to London's no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was "unhinged," Sen. John McCain called him "foolish," and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump's remarks went "against everything we stand for and believe in." (Based on Trump's crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what "we" believe in.) 

"To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London's police said, "Mr. Trump could not be more wrong," and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump's comments "utter nonsense." 

"Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines: " . . .

'Trump's not wrong – we can't wear uniform in our OWN cars': Five police officers claim Donald Trump is RIGHT about parts of London being so 'radicalised' they are no-go areas   . . . "But one serving officer in west London said: 'Islamification has and is occurring', adding: 'You have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working'.

. . . 

"A Lancashire Police officer, who wished to remain anonymous, told MailOnline: 'There are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission'. 

. . . 

"He added: 'In this instance he (Trump) isn't wrong. Our political leaders are best either ill-informed or simply being disingenuous.

" 'He's pointed out something that is plainly obvious, something which I think we aren't as a nation willing to own up to - do you think a US Police Department would ban officers from wearing their uniforms under jackets etc due to FEAR of their cops being killed by extremists?

. . . 

"One female officer in the Met said if a police officer was attacked it would be written off.

"She said: 'Even if one of us did get killed or dragged off in a van. It would just be reported as a 'one-off incident' and no reason to change the 'British style of policing.'"

Liberalism kills.  

Obama's feckless defense of human rights in Cuba

Hat tip to Greg Hogan; Denver, CO

WND    . . . "Castro was asked about Cuba’s political prisoners by CNN’s Jim Acosta during a joint news conference with President Obama. Castro’s response raised belligerent sarcasm to an art form:

“ 'What political prisoners? Give me a name or names, or when, after this meeting is over, you can give me a list of political prisoners and if we have those political prisoners, they will be released before tonight ends.”

"Obama stood mute. It would have sent a powerful message to Castro if the president had ticked off a list of Cuba’s remaining political prisoners by name – such as Carlos Manuel Figueroa Alvarez – and demanded that they be released. But sending powerful messages to dictators is not one of Obama’s talents." . . .

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/obamas-feckless-defense-of-human-rights-in-cuba/#DA8dMxCcMeLKIpj5.99