Do millions of New Yorkers have to move out of state now or later? Millions of New Yorkers no longer belong there and the governor is ready to throw them out. He got elected, er, I mean, appointed by Obama, and half of New Yorkers are no longer citizens with rights. In fact the political opposition according to this governor, has no rights.
This is the "new normal" America.
The second amendment has no place in New York.
The US constitution has no place in New York.
We have no place in New York.
This is the new normal America.
The National Rifle Association has a higher mean approval rating among likely voters than Barack Obama.
This and other fascinating facts emerged from the Democracy Corps/Third Way national security survey released this week. According to its liberal authors, the "sobering" results of the survey provide "a wake-up call for President Obama, his party and progressives on national security." Published Thursday, March 11, 2010 when Obama's ratings were 24 points higher than they are today.
The most talked-about finding was that 44 percent of likely voters say they think the United States is less safe from foreign threats than two years ago, and 51 percent think America is less respected since Mr. Obama took office.
Bloomberg Leaves Office Today, Protected by Firearms
December 31st, 2013
Chris W. Cox
Editorial in The Daily Caller
When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves office today he will enter civilian life protected by firearms.
The same man who has spent much of his career and personal fortune trying to render good, law-abiding men and women defenseless, will now surround himself with a team of armed bodyguards.
Bloomberg's security detail will be comprised of former police officers that he purchased away from the NYPD with the promise of early retirement, six-figure salaries, and other perks that go along with protecting America's most notorious anti-gun zealot.Although Bloomberg is leaving office today, his assault on our Second Amendment freedom is certainly not over.
He has vowed to spend whatever amount it takes from his $31 billion fortune to buy Congress in this year's mid-term elections, so he can hand Barack Obama a gun ban majority in the U.S. House and Senate. If that happens, Obama can spend his final years in office dismantling the Second Amendment.
THEIR BLACKOUT ON MAJOR NEWS IS ALL ABOUT CRUSHING THE REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER WHO IS MORE POPULAR THAN THE DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER WHOM THE MEDIA SELECTED AS YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT.
THAT SPELLS TROUBLE FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
The Times had portrayed the Benghazi attacks as the handiwork of only one of the Ansar al-Sharia groups and claimed it had no Al-Qaeda linkages. The Times even went so far as to falsely state that Al-Qaeda didn't even successfully infiltrate Libya to begin with.The report concludes that the perpetrators included "individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM [Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb], Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP [Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] and the Mohammad Jamal Network." The determination follows the State Department's designating of both Libyan Ansar al-Sharia groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations for their involvement in the attacks.
The consensus of the intelligence community was that Al-Qaeda was in Libya preparing attacks.
A CIA report dated July 6, 2012 is titled, "Libya: Al-Qa'ida Establishing Sanctuary." It warned that AQIM, AQAP and the Al-Qaeda-linked Mohammad Jamal network had an infrastructure in eastern Libya that was used for communications, training and logistics for terrorist operations across North Africa.
DIA report dated June 12, 2012 is titled, "Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests." It cited attacks on the facility in Benghazi that was later the scene of the September 11-12 assault. It mentioned a growing Al-Qaeda presence in the area and frankly stated, "we expect more" attacks.
REGARDLESS HIS MINOR SHORTCOMINGS THE CHALLENGER WAS FAR BETTER SUITED TO LEAD THE NATION
WHICH BRINGS US TO A QUIZ THAT YOU WILL TAKE NOW!
Six trivia questions to see how much history you know.
Be honest, it's kinda fun and revealing. If you don't know the answer make your best guess.
Answer all the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We) .....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own... in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Scroll down for the answers
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" - Samuel Adams
Israelis love America. And for that reason, it is compelled to do what anyone strapped into the back seat of a car driven by a drunk would do: try to convince him to stop driving.
As a grateful ally of the United States, Israel should publicly tell the Obama administration that what Ya'alon said in private is the truth.
By Caroline B. Glick
The only parties whose lot is improved by the Obama administration's Middle East policies are Iran, the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood.
EXCERPTS - THE LINK FOR THE WHOLE IS BELOW.
To hear it from the White House, and from Israel's leftist media, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is a major liability. As half the planet now knows, Ya'alon is harshly critical of US Secretary of State John Kerry's persistent efforts to force Israel to surrender its land and ability to defend itself to the PLO.
In a private conversation that Ya'alon did not expect to be made public, he criticized Kerry's so-called security plan that offers Israel advanced technology in exchange for PLO control over its eastern border. Ya'alon also rejected the notion that the PLO is interested in making peace. And he stated the inconvenient fact that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas is only in power because Israel has security control over Judea and Samaria.
Ya'alon also said, again in a private conversation, that Kerry's razor-sharp focus on Israel and the PLO owes to an "incomprehensible obsession," and that by neurotically pushing for a deal that has no chance of being concluded or achieving peace, Kerry is exhibiting "messianic" character traits.
Ya'alon's private statements about Kerry were no harsher than public statements that the Saudis have made regarding the Obama administration's regional policies. Last November, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal. According to Goldberg, the Saudi royal attacked US President Barack Obama "with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush."
Among other things, Alaweed said, "There's no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran. We're really concerned – Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle Eastern countries about this."
Alaweed questioned Obama's motives in negotiating with Iran, saying the president is "wounded," and appeasing Iran in order to win back the support of Democratic lawmakers who oppose Obamacare. In his words, "Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obamacare. That's scary for him."
It is hard to think of harsher criticism than Alaweed's. And yet, the administration had nothing to say about it. Neither he, nor his fellow Saudi prince Bandar Bin Sultan al-Saud, the Saudi intelligence chief who said last month that he is scaling back intelligence cooperation with the US, was personally attacked by the administration.
No umbrage was taken at their statements.
And again, their public statements were no less harsh than what Ya'alon said in a private conversation about Kerry.
Neither the Israeli people, nor the US's traditional Sunni Arab allies support Obama's policies in the region. They believe Obama's policies are dangerous for them, and antithetical to US interests.
Indeed, Ya'alon's assessments of the administration are not only in line with regional opinion, the vast majority of Israelis share his views.
According to a poll published last week by Makor Rishon, 80 percent of Israelis think that Kerry's peace plan has no chance of bringing peace. Seventy-three percent oppose his security plan for the Jordan Valley. And 53% object to the entire premise of his talks – that Israel should surrender almost all of Judea and Samaria to the PLO.
As for the rest of the region, from Tunisia to Bahrain, from Egypt and Libya to Iraq, and Yemen, Kerry and the Obama administration as a whole are content to watch on the sidelines as al-Qaida reemerges as a significant force, and as Iran undermines stability in country after country.
Then of course, there is Iran itself, and its nuclear weapons program.
After the six-party nuclear deal with Iran was concluded on Monday, Iran's leaders declared victory over the US. They boasted that the most dangerous components of their nuclear weapons program are unaffected by the deal they just concluded with the Americans. They laid a wreath on the grave of Hezbollah arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, who masterminded the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 243 US servicemen. And they forced Lebanon's Sunnis to accept a Hezbollah-dominated government.
For its part, the Obama administration continues to insist that the greatest threat to peace is the US Congress, because its members wish to pass an additional sanctions bill against Iran that would only come into force in a year if the Iranians do not abide by the agreement.
The only parties whose lot is improved by the Obama administration's Middle East policies are Iran, the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood. But none of them will praise those policies, because they all hold the US in contempt.
This is why the Palestinian leadership continues to incite against Israel and reject the Jewish state even as the US is acting as their surrogate in talks with Israel.
This is why the Iranians mock the US, even though the White House just cleared the way for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and develop its economy and has allowed it to take over Iraq and Lebanon, and defend its puppet regime in Syria.
This is why the Muslim Brotherhood condemns the US even as the Obama administration upended the US alliance with Egypt in order to support the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Obama administration has responded to these demonstrations of contempt and bad faith with extreme reticence. Either it issues written, general condemnations, or it claims, as in the case of Palestinian incitement, that it doesn't believe it is productive to publicly criticize the Palestinians.
Given this behavior, the Obama administration's response to Yediot Aharonot's publication of Ya'alon's private statements can be fairly describe as apoplectic. It was also mean-spirited.
Shortly after Yediot published his private remarks, the administration launched a full-bore public attack on Ya'alon, and by implication, the government. As White House spokesman Jay Carney put it, "The remarks of the Israeli defense minister, if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate, especially in light of everything that the United States is doing to support Israel's security needs."
In other words, the Obama administration just accused Israel of ingratitude.
But there is nothing ungrateful about Israel's treatment of the US.
Americans are getting the same message from allies throughout the Middle East. Under Obama, America's regional policies are so counterproductive that the US has come to be seen as the foreign policy equivalent of a drunk driver.
For his part, Kerry said he will only speak to Israeli leaders who agree with him. In his words, "I will work with the willing participants who are committed to peace and to this process."
In other words, the Obama administration is using Ya'alon's private remarks, leaked by an unidentified source to a newspaper with an anti-Netanyahu editorial agenda, as a means to neutralize the most powerful voice opposing Kerry's obsessive, messianic behavior in the Israeli government. They want to use American umbrage at the tone of Ya'alon's private statements to upend Israeli policy and force Israel to embrace the substance of the Obama administration's delusional and destructive actions. And to advance this goal, they are using anti-Semitic signals to castigate Israel and deny it the right to speak on its own behalf.
Israelis love America. And for that reason, it is compelled to do what anyone strapped into the back seat of a car driven by a drunk would do: try to convince him to stop driving. As a grateful ally of the United States, Israel should publicly tell the Obama administration that what Ya'alon said in private is the truth.
And yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton
Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owners. NOTICE: Any email sent to my email address is granted rights of reproduction and/or distribution by the sender and/or authors.