Protesters with Former Obama Advisor Van Jones: “String Up Clarence Thomas” – “Revolution Now Like in Egypt”

The elite media likes to tell you that the Tea Party are hateful racists, in spite of the fact that there is no good evidence to demonstrate that. However getting people to say these types of things at almost any left of center protest is easy (especially on most any college campus where there are plenty of unhinged Marxist professors and indoctrinated students in one place). I have seen it first hand as a former counter protester myself. What are the odds of seeing this on NBC News?

This group is called “Common Cause” and do I really have to state the obvious?… Yes they get money from George Soros.

Thanks to Andrew Brietbart for the footage.

The Kicker:

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.

The IRS considers them a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity because they are “non-partisan” (non partisan my ear…), so yes indeed being tax exempt means that YOU help subsidize them.

//

Awesome: Hungarian who fought the Soviets with Allen West on illegal immigration

West gives the man Obama’s answer from the SOTU and then West gives his answer. President Obama hopes that he never finds himself on the same stage as Cong. Allen West.

OK, I’m an American, why care about Egypt?

 

Bob Schneider served on Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council. He is a recognized expert on Middle Eastern policy and a respected consultant on international business and foreign affairs. Schneider is also a humorist whose writings are popular among the politically savvy.

 

 

By Bob Schneider:

There it is on our TV sets, hour after hour, day after day, a constant barrage of information about Egypt.  Egypt: the land of the Pharos, and Pyramids, and Mummies.  So what?  Why should I care?  I have the mortgage to pay, food to put on the table, kids who are demanding on my time, Egypt, so what?  It is thousands and thousands of miles away, and means very little to me.  I’m sorry they’re having unrest, but it doesn’t affect my American life, not one iota. 

Oh Really?

To the contrary, there are some compelling reasons why we, as Americans, should be concerned about Egypt.

Our Economy  Let’s put the big one on the table first, our American pocketbooks.  How on earth is that an issue?  It boils down to two words: Suez Canal.  But wait, why is the Suez Canal important to our economy?  The price of oil at the gas pump is why.  Ships bringing crude from the Middle East, pass through the Suez Canal, on their way through Gibraltar, then to ports in the East Coast, and Gulf of Mexico.  Without the Canal open to traffic, oil will have to go all the way around Africa, then all the way up Africa to those ports, adding weeks, and weeks to the trip.  Time is money, and the crude will cost a lot more.  In fact, the U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil closed at $92.19 a barrel Monday, up $2.85 or 3.2% — the highest price since October 2008.  With the Canal still open, oil prices have jumped nearly 8% over all.  This has a ripple effect throughout our economy, and the Global Economy.  Higher oil prices means higher prices from everything from  food, to textiles, to housing will also rise.  It’s all interconnected: the rise in prices for consumer goods, will spell inflation.  The only way to combat inflation, is to raise interest rates.  What will higher interest rates do to an already morose economy?  It will kill any chance of recovery, keep unemployment high, and further weaken the dollar, which will make that oil, an import, even more expensive.  So our lifestyle and recovering from a horrible recession are at stake.

World Peace   This is starting to sound like a really bad George Clooney film you say?  Maybe so, but it is true.  The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest, and one of the most extreme, radical Islamist organizations, believe in building a society which complies with Sharia, from the ground up.  They are like the Taliban, only more severe.  Think of them as Iran, only without a sense of humor.  Egypt has been our strategic ally: Mubarak has cooperated with the USA in a multitude of programs, many of which are very unpopular at home: joint military exercises, he put together the coalition in 1990 which ejected Saadam Hussein from Kuwait, and deployed thousands and thousands of combat troops against his Arab Brother.  Egypt has also been an honest broker for Peace in the Mideast, and has enjoyed friendly relations with Israel.  Of course, they have been compensated, but they were influenced by the West, and tried to live in both worlds: the Muslim emerging world, and as a Western Partner.  While many cite their cooperating with the West as Mubarak’s weak spot, leading to the current instability, that is a straw-man: corruption has led to this situation.  With World Peace affected, refer back to the Economy section above: same rules apply.  Do you think an Islamic Radical new state will keep the Canal open to Western ships?  Do you think if they try to close it, we won’t have a military response?  Wrong on both, if you think regime change will put things back the way they were.  It will not. 

So the people in the streets of Cairo, isn’t just a curiosity on TV.  They are events which affect us from Sea to Shining Sea, and all points in between.  Watch and monitor this one closely.  It does affect you and I, and our everyday lives. 

Marxist Left allies with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Middle East.

Bloggers who speak both Arabic and English are saying that in English the Muslim Brotherhood is talking peace, love, democracy, can’t we all just get along; in Arabic they are saying prepare for violence and to unite against Israel, Arab Christians, and the West.

The left appears to have been fooled again, as this is exactly what happened in the run up to the Mullah’s taking power in Iran. The Mullah’s completely hoodwinked the Carter Administration. We know now from recent unsealing of documents from the National Archives that the Carter Administration actually helped the Mullah’s come to power. The result has been incredible levels of death and suffering.

Democrat Strategist Kirsten Powers gives her perspective at The Daily Beast (Daily Beast normally is not very reliable but once in a while they have something solid and this was). Powers has family in Egypt so her perspective has street cred and she makes it clear that the left has been fooled [again]:

I spent much of yesterday interviewing American experts on the region—including two Brookings [Brookings is a left-wing think tank - Editor] Institution scholars who are experts on the Muslim Brotherhood—and was reassured over and over that the organization has reformed and does not seek to establish a fundamentalist state. One claimed that Brotherhood officials have said they view Copts as equal citizens.

My relative laughed at this. He says when Brotherhood members have been asked about how they would treat Christians they are vague. When asked about whether they would nationalize the banks, they are vague. Even one of the Brookings scholars told me that the Brotherhood would probably segregate the sexes. This is far from a secular group.

They are vague because they are using Iran as a model. They are vague because they are using a Taqiyyah strategy. They are vague because if they had been more forward up front the United States, Israel and Mubarak’s police would have eliminated much of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership in advance. It seems clear now that the killings of Christians and the burning of churches in Egypt was a precursor to see if they could get away with violence without fear of retaliation guided by government sponsored intelligence.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the overseer and grand daddy of all terror organizations.

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist whose family as been among the leadership of the Muslim brotherhood spoke out:

RIA Novosti (Russia) Reports that the Muslim Brotherhood has stated that it will end the Israeli Peace Treaty if it takes power. apparently they are getting confident enough to start putting off the false pretenses:

Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood movement has unveiled its plans to scrap a peace treaty with Israel if it comes to power, a deputy leader said in an interview with NHK TV.

Rashad al-Bayoumi said the peace treaty with Israel will be abolished after a provisional government is formed by the movement and other Egypt’s opposition parties.

“After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel,” al-Bayoumi said.

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement with the Israeli government in 1979. It is also a major mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So much for peace, love and can’t we all just get along…

It seems to be official. Obama is siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. The continued parallels between Obama and Carter still manage to amaze me even though it shouldn’t.

Mini-Update - Left-wing Brookings Institute: “Don’t fear Muslim Brotherhood“. Wow, either these people are the worlds biggest dupes, or the growing antisemitism of the academic left is so pronounced that it has gone just this far.

Arutz Sheva (2):

For the first time, a U.S. government supports granting a government role to an extremist Islamic organization: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Egypt’s new government will have to include a “whole host of important non-secular actors.” Most prominent among these is clearly the Muslim Brotherhood – which has made Islamic world domination one of its ultimate goals. It also opposes Egypt’s 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel.

Gibbs said the Muslim Brotherhood must reject violence and recognize democratic goals for the U.S. to be comfortable with it assuming a role in the new government. This caveat does not significantly alter the new American approach, which is very different than that of the previous Administration, in which George W. Bush pushed Mubarak for democratic reforms but never publicly accepted a role for Islamists.

Today, new White House chief of staff William Daley moderated the position very slightly, saying the U.S. hopes for a “strong, stable and secular Egyptian government.” Noting that the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood is “some people’s expectation [and] some people’s fear,” Daley acknowledged that the situation in Egypt is largely out of American control.

Obama’s new position, while not totally surprising, is worrisome to many. “The White House appears to be leaving Hosni Mubarak, an ally for three decades and lynchpin of Mideast stability, twisting slowly in the wind,” writes David Horowitz of the Freedom Center. “And worse, it appears to be open to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to play a key role in a ‘reformed’ Egyptian government, as long as the organization renounces violence and supports democracy. If the Obama White House really believes this is possible, it is even more hopelessly incompetent than we imagined!”

 

American Thinker has a good summation of what is going on. We are witnessing the collapse of the Middle East:

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as are Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel. Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or two, they will combine forces to attack Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and he probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different story.

And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest comment to Egypt’s leader is that “an orderly transition … must begin now.”

Must begin. Now.

Simply stunning.

Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: “Reform or be overthrown.” Egypt: “an orderly transition … must begin now.” Iran: “It is not productive … to be seen as meddling.” Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’allah have “legitimate claims,” and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching out to “moderate” Hezb’allah members last spring. Hezb’allah moderates?

The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far-left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this president’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers’s, Bernardine Dohrn’s, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin’s and Evans’s trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made multiple visits to the White House.

Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin, and Evans. Sure.

A few years back, I cited a quote by Lynn Stewart, the National Lawyers Guild attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror from his New York jail cell. One might think that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights, murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck, Stewart said:

They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. … My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries … to liberate.

” … movements within their own countries … to liberate.” Given recent developments, Stewart’s statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,” they are really talking about communism.

It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.

Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezb’allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba’athist Syria.

David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies and, by extension, our own country.

Unfortunately, his view is shared by some Republicans who are so in love with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t matter to them that the “democrats” in this case include fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can be seen only as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies. People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and “undemocratic,” that automatically means that someone else would do better. Newsflash: they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”

If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target, and with Obama’s radically anti-Israel orientation, the Israelis will stand alone. We will be next. One wonders if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.

Hidden Camera: Planned Parenthood advises ‘Pimp’ on how to conceal underage prostitution ring…

Planned Parenthood makes it clear that they are willing to break the law to help cover the pimp’s crimes and help conceal his underage prostitution ring. This is only the sixth time they have been caught doing this.

Herman Cain Announces his Candidacy for President

Herman Cain is one of the editor’s personal favorites. Cain has fixed many companies as a CEO and has a reputation as a company rescuer. Cain was also CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. Cain was a board member of the Federal Reserve, is currently a radio talk show host and is a Tea Party favorite.

Cain has the knowledge and skill of an insider who has always maintained the outsider’s attitude.

Does U.S. Foreign Aid Make a Difference? Should It Be Stopped?

[Editor's Note - While I think that the foreign aid program should be re-evaluated just as every program should, Greg makes some points here that are hard to dispute. The aid, when done wisely, aids the diplomatic credibility of the United States. That diplomatic credibility has saved lives that none of us will ever know about, including American lives.

Let us just focus on Israel for a moment. Our aid to Israel, some of which is obviously military, sends a message to the world that there will never again be another genocide against the Jewish people if we have anything to do about it. While Israel has had hard times, think of how much harder the years would have been without the fear and credibility of the United States as her ally? We saw the reaction of Arafat after 9/11. He was scared white as a ghost in fear that somehow 9/11 could have been tied to the PLO.

The jihadists see Israel as the "little satan" and the USA as the "big satan". This means that Israel's security is our security.

We cannot have a one size fits all - "all or nothing" foreign policy and that is what a ban on all foreign aid is. While I am glad to see Senator Paul take spending cuts and waste very seriously, I believe this particular policy position stems from ignorance, I will be sending a letter to the good Senator from Kentucky. It is my hope that after a few intelligence briefings he will moderate his view on this issue.]

By Gregory Hilton:

The Senate Tea Party Caucus was officially launched yesterday with a two hour meeting open to the public. The Caucus includes Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Lee (R-UT). Tea Party candidates such as Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) have decided not to join the group. Senator Paul participated in numerous media interviews to mark the debut of the Caucus.

Rand Paul confirmed his opposition to the entire foreign aid program (which is 0.19% of the budget), and said America should eliminate all the assistance it provides to Israel. Foreign aid has never been popular, and this is especially true when the nation has a $1.5 trillion deficit this year as well as a $14 trillion national debt. Senator Paul wants to abolish all aid because “nothing has changed in the poorest parts of the world.”

Senator Paul wants to abolish all aid because “nothing has changed in the poorest parts of the world.” He believes the money is being wasted, and that certainly did happen in the past.

Problems and Opportunities

Many Americans are not interested in the Third World or failed states which have been impoverished for years. Besides, the United States has plenty to worry about on its own.

African nations are far away and have so many problems. They are still beset with civil wars and strife. In the 1990s, Africa had more wars than the rest of the world combined.

During the Cold War, the United States was in competition with the Soviet Union, and foreign aid then went to dictators such as Mobutu in the Congo, Bokassa in the Central African Republic, Duvalier in Haiti and Stroessner in Paraguay. Mobutu alone stole at least $5 billion, and other problems include:

■Corruption remains a problem and in recent years the presidents of Zambia and Malawi have both been charged with embezzling millions in aid funds.

■The governments of Sudan and Zimbabwe are today letting their people starve.

■There have also been mistakes. Over $2 billion was spent to construct roads in Tanzania, but transportation did not improve because there were no funds to maintain them.

■From 1970 to 2002, over 70% of total government spending came from foreign aid in Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Mauritania and Sierra Leone. Progress has not been made in those nations, and they are unable to maintain their schools and clinic without aid.

■The policy of donor nations has been to give these failed countries the basics. Food and medicine have been distributed and governments have not been asked to do anything. That has created a dependence on more aid. It is far better to have programs based on the power of markets, but that requires a long commitment.

Critics point to the failed states to demonstrate that foreign aid is useless, and poverty will never go away. Millions of people are still dying from disease, and Senator Paul and his allies now want Americans to give up.

What they will not acknowledge is that millions of people have been saved. The aid failures in the past decade have been relatively small, and the victories have been huge. African poverty and inequality is falling fast, and the continent is on track to halve poverty by 2020.

Foreign Aid Often Helps The American Economy

Foreign aid is from the American people, but it is also for the American people. It is far more than charity, and it has proven to be a smart investment. There is substantial evidence demonstrating that foreign aid helps to create new American markets.

Long time aid recipients such as India, Indonesia, South Korea and Poland, are now major markets for American goods and services. The competitiveness of the United States is based on trade. One example of our changing economy is that Buick sales this year will be six times greater in China than in America. This is excellent news because the American taxpayers now own GM.

One out of five U.S. jobs now depends on international trade. Half of U.S. exports (almost $600 billion) are now going to developing counties. Almost 90% of those sales are from small to medium sized companies, and for every 10% increase in exports there is a 7% decrease in America’s unemployment rate.

Foreign Aid Helps Our National Security

Many people view foreign aid as a moral obligation to help the poor and feed the hungry, but the national security community supports the program because it helps to keep Americans safe and secure. That is why foreign aid is part of America’s official national security strategy. In addition, George W. Bush placed development aid alongside defense and diplomacy as a third critical pillar of national security.

America’s foreign assistance team works hand and glove with its military missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, and Central America. For example, by improving agriculture in Afghanistan we are helping to defeat the Taliban.

The home base of the Taliban in Kandahar is now exporting food for the first time in 40 years. The schools the U.S. has refurbished have replaced the Taliban’s extremist madrassas. Foreign aid has also moved farmers away from coca cultivation in nations such as Afghanistan and Colombia. In the regions of Colombia where the U.S. is involved, coca cultivation has dropped 85%. This is an essential part of the war on drugs.

The linkage between national security and foreign aid dates back to the Marshall Plan which helped in the post WW II recovery, but it also stopped the spread of communism to western Europe. JFK’s Alliance for Progress helped to stop the export of communist revolutions in Latin America.

As we have recently seen, impoverished states have been spawning grounds for terrorism, trafficking, environmental devastation, and disease. Foreign aid is an important part of the mix because the military can’t secure a society alone. We learned this again in Iraq where we had to shift to a counterinsurgency strategy in 2006, and we had to do the same thing in Afghanistan in 2009.

Full Support From The Joint Chiefs of Staff

The most effective lobbyists for foreign aid have been the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) who have also emphasized how it bolster’s America’s national security. The JCS Chairman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he considers the education of women and girls important to our military goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and consequently to our security here at home.

Many studies support their observations. They have noted that a key to alleviating global poverty and its attendant ills such as fundamentalism and extremism is by empowering women and girls. The countries we are having the most trouble with are the ones who marginalize their females.

George W. Bush Completely Changed Foreign Aid

Senator Paul’s real target is President George W. Bush who quadrupled foreign aid. Bush increased the program from $2 billion to $8 billion where it remains today.

At the same time, Bush was successful in encouraging America’s allies to increase their aid, and they now provide $22 billion on an annual basis. This does not include assistance from non-profit and international organizations. The U.S. has the largest foreign aid budget, but as a percentage of our GDP, nations such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are far ahead of us. Almost 60% of U.S. aid goes to Israel, Egypt and Colombia.

Bush completely changed foreign aid by numerous reforms and creating the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) in March 2002. The program was designed to give millions of people the tools they need to build a better future.

The nations which receive MCA aid are those who have made a new commitment to fighting poverty by working in partnership with America to educate their people, encourage economic productivity and fight corruption. The only countries which receive aid are those who govern justly and meet a well defined set of requirements.

The 40 nations which have met the MCA or poverty reduction strategy requirements have an average growth rate of 5.9%. The Bush approach has been effective and amazing progress has happened.

It is also demonstrated in the declining number of child deaths, the advances made against HIV/AIDS, and the number of children going to school. A 2009 World Health Organization report credited the Bush administration with saving over 10 millions lives.

Foreign Aid is Making a Huge Difference

Significant problems still remain in the foreign aid program, and prior to the Bush administration billions of dollars were lost due to corruption. Nevertheless, significant progress was made by previous administrations.

The post World War II Marshall Plan gave $13 billion to Europe, which would be the equivalent of $100 billion today. It is still regarded as a tremendous success. Foreign aid also helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in South Korea, Taiwan, Botswana, Indonesia and Tanzania.

In the past 50 years, infant and child death rates in the developing world have been reduced by 50 percent, and life expectancy increased by about 33 percent. At the same time, smallpox has been eradicated worldwide, and polio will soon join that list. There has been enormous progress in fighting river blindness, guinea worm, diarrheal diseases, and others.

Without the top three U.S. aid recipients, America has about $4 billion to distribute on an annual basis. The world will not be saved with that modest investment, but progress is being made and foreign aid should continue. Some of the milestones are:

■In the past 20 years, the number of the worlds chronically undernourished has been reduced by 50 percent.

■More than 3 million lives are saved every year through America’s childhood immunization programs.

■Five and a quarter million people worldwide have a new lease of life since 2002 because of AIDS treatment.

■Literacy rates are up 33 percent worldwide in the past two decades, and primary school enrollment has tripled.

■In sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion of primary school age children enrolled in school increased from 56% in 1999 to 73% in 2009, the fastest increase of any region. Fifteen African countries have achieved gender parity in primary education, meaning they have an equal number of boys and girls enrolling.

■The United States has brought safe drinking water to 1.3 billion people.

■U.S. agricultural technology and practices have led to the most dramatic increases in crop production in the history of mankind, helping to feed a billion people.

■98 million less people were going hungry in 2010 compared to in 2009. Hunger is down in Ghana by over 75%. The decades of military rule are over in Ghana, and a pro-free market government has been making steady progress.

■23 African economies are now growing individually at 5% or more a year. In total 18 non-oil producing African countries have averaged growth of 5.5% during the past decade. Mozambique has had an amazing fifteen-year record of nearly 8 percent growth. Elsewhere, Egypt and Pakistan have tripled their incomes.

■TB deaths are down from 1.8 million in 2007 to 1.3 million in 2010.

■Measles deaths have fallen by 89% over the past decade after a massive vaccination program carried out by the United States in partnership with African governments, UNICEF and the American Red Cross.

■The U.S. government and America’s non-profit organizations have distributed 122 million bed nets to protect families from malaria. Malaria incidences in west Africa have decreased by 49% since 2003, and the disease is no longer a major concern in Vietnam or Thailand.

■During the past two decades, under-five mortality rates have declined by an average of 52% in Eritrea, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger and Ethiopia.

■Forty-five years ago, Botswana was one of the poorest nations in the world. Then a free market was established and for three decades Botswana had the highest average economic growth rate on the planet.

■Five years ago Liberia appear to be a failed state basket case because of civil war, corruption and poverty. Some people thought an aid program was not worth the effort. Liberia is still a poor nation, but it has made significant progress in all areas.

■Foreign aid is not a never ending dole, and seven more nations have made enough progress to be removed from the assistance roles over the next three years. The first to go will be Montenegro in 2012. Countries which have been past recipients of aid such as India and Brazil are now donors.

Can America Afford Foreign Aid?

Over the past half century many people have claimed a foreign aid program was too expensive. Prior to George W. Bush, the aid program was cut repeatedly, and America does have a big deficit today.

Nevertheless, the critics are wrong in claiming the United States is carrying the world development load. Excluding the top three recipients, aid is only 0.09% of the budget. This is less than $4 billion and a considerable amount of that is helping security programs and the war on drugs.

The United States has received an excellent return on its foreign aid investment. In addition, we have never claimed aid is the only answer. The U.S. strategy includes trade, improved governance and business practices which foster private investment. Everyone also realizes it is essential to stop corruption.

All of these aspects are important, but aid is critical. U.S. assistance goes well beyond delivering food and medicine. It is a partnership with governments such as Ghana. We encouraged their transition to a free market economy and the result so far has been a 75% reduction in hunger.

Many people don’t care if millions of foreigners die, but what they don’t realize is that we are not saving any money by cutting back on foreign aid. If we stopped our aid programs, our allies would also stop or cut back.

The first victim would then be the growth of U.S. exports and the many transitions which are now taking place to a free market economy. Tens of thousands of American jobs would be sacrificed.

U.S. foreign aid goes well beyond food for peace. American aid programs have changed the world during the past decade by encouraging the establishment of fair business codes, viable commercial banks and reasonable tax and tariff standards. These reforms have allowed numerous American companies to enter the export market.

This isolationist strategy is what critics urged after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan. We listened to their advice, and ignored Afghanistan in the 1990′s. We did next to nothing and the Taliban took hold. The subsequent military spending was a thousand fold of what any foreign aid program would have been. Once again, foreign aid is from the American people, but it is also for the American people.

Can we afford to do it? I think we can’t afford not to do it. Foreign aid today is a hand up, not a hand out. America is now encouraging economic growth policies. That did not happen in the past, but it is now an integral part of our development strategy. The Bush administration understood that good business is good development.

Hilton previously served as Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Fund; Director of Public Affairs for the National Republican Congressional Committee; and as the Republican National Committee’s liaison to the White House Political Affairs Office during the Reagan Administration. Hilton also wrote a full page political column for the conservative weekly Human Events. Hilton served as Executive Director of the American Security Council for 23 years and has helped to raise $100 million for non-profit organizations.

GOP Governors take aim at teacher tenure

Let us face the facts, in many states trying to get rid of a bad teachers is as difficult as the appeals process for giving someone the death penalty. Many people on death row die of natural causes before their sentence is carried out.

In states like New York, the school districts have rubber rooms for teachers who are deemed unsafe to be with the kids. These teachers get paid up to 83,000 a year plus benefits to sit in a room and do nothing. Why? Because it is cheaper to just pay them than fire them.

But tenure is not the only problem. The unwillingness to deal with kids who are there to disrupt and not learn and the school boards which are often controlled by the teachers unions because they have so much money.

This results in inferior, politically correct text books and curriculums. As parent who has had children in private schools, home schooled, and eventually sent a child to public school, the difference in the text books are night and day. In eighth grade social studies home schoolers and many private schoolers are learning the Greek philosophers who played such a large roll in founding Western Civilization. These children do not learn just a few useless names and dates. They learned what those philosophers believed, read what they wrote and are taught why they believed that way. Ask any public high school graduate who Xenophanes was and you will get a blank stare. Ask any home schooled eight grader and you are likely to get a lecture.

NYT:

Seizing on a national anxiety over poor student performance, many governors are taking aim at a bedrock tradition of public schools: teacher tenure.

The momentum began over a year ago with President Obama’s call to measure and reward effective teaching, a challenge he repeated in last week’s State of the Union address.

Now several Republican governors have concluded that removing ineffective teachers requires undoing the century-old protections of tenure.

Governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada and New Jersey have called for the elimination or dismantling of tenure. As state legislatures convene this winter, anti-tenure bills are being written in those states and others. Their chances of passing have risen because of crushing state budget deficits that have put teachers’ unions on the defensive.

“It’s practically impossible to remove an underperforming teacher under the system we have now,” said Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, lamenting that his state has the lowest high school graduation rate in the nation.

Eliminating tenure, Mr. Sandoval said, would allow school districts to dismiss teachers based on competence, not seniority, in the event of layoffs.

Politics also play a role.

“These new Republican governors are all trying to outreform one another,” said Michael Petrilli, an education official under President George W. Bush.

In New York City, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has campaigned aggressively for the state to end “last in, first out” protections for teachers. Warning that thousands of young educators face layoffs, Mr. Bloomberg is demanding that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo scrap the seniority law if the budget he will unveil Tuesday includes state cuts to education.

Teachers’ unions have responded to the assault on the status quo by arguing that all the ire directed at bad teachers distorts the issue.

“Why aren’t governors standing up and saying, ‘In our state, we’ll devise a system where nobody will ever get into a classroom who isn’t competent’?” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Instead they are saying, ‘Let’s make it easy to fire teachers.’ That’s the wrong goal.”

Tenure laws were originally passed — New Jersey was first in 1909 — to protect teachers from being fired because of race, sex, political views or cronyism.

Public-school teachers typically earn tenure after two or three years on probation. Once they receive it, they have a right to due-process hearings before dismissal, which in many districts makes it expensive and time-consuming to fire teachers considered ineffective. Tenure also brings seniority protections in many districts.

In recent years, research on the importance of teacher quality has sparked a movement to evaluate teachers on how well students are learning — with implications that undermine tenure.

The movement gained momentum with the Obama administration’s Race to the Top grant contest last year. Eleven states enacted laws to link student achievement to teacher evaluations and, in some cases, to pay and job security, according to the American Enterprise Institute.

Now some politicians and policy makers have concluded that if teachers owe their jobs to professional performance, then tenure protections are obsolete.

The former school chancellor of Washington, D.C., Michelle Rhee, who campaigned against tenure as early as 2007, has made abolishing it a cornerstone of a new advocacy group, Students First, which has advised the governors of Florida, Nevada and New Jersey.

All are Republicans, but Ms. Rhee, a Democrat, insisted that the movement was bipartisan.

“There’s a willingness to confront these issues that has never before been in play,” she said, noting that some influential Democratic mayors, including Cory A. Booker in Newark and Antonio R. Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, have also called for making it easier to dismiss ineffective teachers.

In a speech in December, Mr. Villaraigosa — who once worked as a teachers union organizer — said, “Tenure and seniority must be reformed or we will be left with only one option: eliminating it entirely.”

How Goldman Sachs manipulates the government and the Fed to rip you off.

They are making a killing on foreclosures and getting paid twice.

Chick-Fil-A flap at IUSB. Once again admins, if you followed your own rules this would not have happened.

We have been through this before. People with an agenda abandon the rules and try to impose their values on others by some sort of coercion. This is not just a problem at IUSB, it is epidemic in academia as a whole.

[Editor's Note - As some of you may know I was the page two columnist for The Preface (IUSB's official student paper) for two years. After that I was Chief Justice of IUSB Student Government for two years. I would like the IUSB GLBT community to know that I used my influence as Chief Justice to stop an administrator from taking down advertisements for your club meetings in a certain building. I also led the effort to stop the administration from enacting a policy to censor student club bulletin boards from "messages that were potentially offensive". In that effort SGA President Marcus Vigil and myself made it clear to the administration that such a policy would likely result in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the university filed by President Vigil and myself on behalf of the students. ]

Once again the actions of IUSB administrators and faculty have made national news and brought shame to my alma-mater. I am none too pleased about this and it would seem by the community reaction neither is much of the state. Unfortunately this will not be the only scandal that will make news this year at IUSB.

This is how it all started, via The Preface:

The decision comes as a result of recent news that a Chick-Fil-A franchise restaurant in Pennsylvania will be donating food to the Pennsylvania Family Institute and Family Life for The Art of Marriage: Getting to the Heart of God’s Design event.  This event is a day and a half long event that promotes family and marriage.  The PFI and Family Life organizations are both “against the homosexual lifestyle,” according to their websites.

Linda Young, Director of Student Teaching and Clinical Practice in the School of Education at IUSB, brought the issue to the attention of fellow Campus Ally Network member Dr. Bruce Spitzer.

The Campus Ally Network is an organization on campus that involves students, faculty, and staff.  Its mission is to promote acceptance and support to the LGBTQ community at IUSB.

“Because I believe in the Campus Ally Network purpose statement and the IU South Bend campus mission statement, I forwarded information to Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management, Dr. Jeff Jones,” said Spitzer.  “My email included a request that the university initiate steps to stop this company from having a presence on our campus.”

Jones forwarded the email to Bill O’Donnell, Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Fiscal Affairs, who also oversees campus dining services.

After working with Steve Rose, Director of Dining Services, O’Donnell brought the issue to the attention of the Academic Senate, who then made the decision to remove Chick-Fil-A from IUSB. [The Preface corrected the record and stated that the Academic Senate did not make the final decision, it was the Administration - Editor]

This means that Chick-Fil-A will no longer be sold on campus or passed out for free during events such as Welcome Week during the fall semester.

So, Linda Young, Bruce Spitzer, Steve Rose, Bill O’Donnell, Jeff Jones and the entire Academic Senate… Do any of you bother to read the IU Code of Conduct and the IU Academic Handbook? The IU Code of Conduct is clear that it should be interpreted in line with federal and state law. There are First Amendment case-law scholars on campus who can advise you when you have a question, but a little commonsense was all that was needed.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute is largely a coalition of church groups. Traditionalists and religious people tend to be against homosexuality, that does not mean that they are against homosexuals. There is a huge difference. No where does PFA advocate denying economic, educational, or political rights to homosexuals. And before someone brings marriage up in ignorance let me settle that argument early; no one has a right to get married, not heterosexuals, not polygamists, and not homosexuals.

So, Linda Young, Bruce Spitzer, Steve Rose, Bill O’Donnell, Jeff Jones and the entire Academic Senate I hate to give you a lecture because I have always been on friendly terms with several of you, but someone needs to say this in a way that stings a little bit, so I will. IUSB is school for big boys and girls. Grown ups understand that just because you may want something it doesn’t make it a right. And just because you do not get something that you want, it does not mean that you have been illegally discriminated against. For example: I had a 3.8 GPA, was dirt poor and I could not get scholarships largely because of the color of my skin (white), but you didn’t see me crying “racism and discrimination” because I am mature enough to understand that I do not have a right to other people’s money.

Punishing a vendor economically because that vendor’s leadership holds the mainstream cultural view and/or the mainstream religious view that traditional marriage is best is likely a violation of the nondiscrimination policy and is certainly a violation of the spirit of it. The act sent a clear message that the administration and faculty hold a hostile view of traditional American culture and the religious heritage/Divine Providence which made the United States possible.

When this issue was brought before the Academic Senate, did even a single one of you stand up and say something against that foolish move? I would like to see the minutes.

IUSB ideally should take the same view that IUSB Student Government took while I was a student. It was clear under President Renfrow, President Vigil, President Blount and with this Chief Justice that just because some in student government do not support changing the definition of marriage and while some may believe that the homosexual lifestyle is not the ideal and may even be saddening; the rights of every student would be protected and measured equally, the rules would be enforced equitably and there was no room for selective enforcement/recognition of due process for partisan or any illegal reason. Every student who followed the rules would be made to feel welcome to participate and we did just that.

If student government could set such a fine example how is it that so many of you administrators who earn six figures have so much trouble? When I was appointed and confirmed to serve as Chief Justice I took that seriously enough to make certain that I understood the rules. It did not take long to realize that I understood them better than anyone on the faculty and the administration. I see that after my many battles with the administration, of which I won all of them, I would have thought that administrators would have taken the time to learn them better, but this incident seems to indicate otherwise.  This flap has garnered IUSB attention in the Statehouse. If you who are paid generously to follow the rules and exercise superior stewardship cannot do so without outside pressure perhaps Indianapolis might find some who will.

Besides it’s good chicken.

South Dakota to challenge ObamaCare individual mandate by requiring all citizens to buy a gun.

UPDATE: Ann Coulter –

If the government can mandate that a citizen by a product to promote a public purpose why not require that they have a gun for the defense of themselves, their fellow citizens and the state?

Notice how they admit that the courts will nuke it, but that is the point.

Argus Leader:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

Critiquing Islam Becoming a Crime in Europe

But blood libeling Jews and other antisemitism is called “free speech” by the governments.

Media Research Center: How the Elite Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Reagan’s Legacy

 

Via the Media Research Center:

Special Report. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy”

Below is the Executive Summary for a special report posted today on the MRC’s Web site, “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy,” posted with 103 quotes enhanced by 22 videos clips with accompanying audio.

This week the celebrations begin for the “Reagan Centennial.” This report, compiled by Rich Noyes with video rendering help from Kyle Drennen and fresh quotes text and quotes added by Tim Graham, is a reminder about the disdain, disgust and disrespect the news media displayed toward Ronald Reagan in office and in the years since.

For the Executive Summary online: http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/ExecSumm.aspx

The text below includes links to the seven specific sections:
“Reagan the Man,” “The Reaganomics Recovery,” “Reagan and National Defense,” “Reagan and Race,” “The Reagan Legacy” and “Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities.”

For the PDF sans video clips, but in a great format for printing and with a colorful cover created by the MRC’s Melanie Selmer:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/Reagan2011.pdf

Now the Executive Summary for the January 31 report:

Rewriting Ronald Reagan
How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy

As the nation prepares to pay tribute to former President Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth, it is amazing to consider that his success at turning the U.S. away from 1960s-style liberalism was accomplished in the face of a daily wave of news media hostility. The media’s first draft of history was more myth than reality: that Reagan only brought the nation poverty, ignorance, bankruptcy, and a dangerously imbalanced foreign and defense policy.

The Media Research Center has assembled a report documenting the “objective” national media’s most biased takes on President Reagan, his record and his times, including 22 video clips and matching MP3 audio:

I. Reagan the Man: Reporters often agonized over why the American public liked Reagan, that they couldn’t see through the White House spell and see Reagan in the contemptuous light that the media did. Go to: http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Man.aspx

II. The Reaganomics Recovery: Reagan’s policies caused a dramatic economic turn-around from high inflation and unemployment to steady growth, but the good news was obscured by bad news of trade deficits, greedy excesses of the rich, and supposedly booming homelessness. See:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Reaganomics.aspx

III. Reagan and National Defense: Ronald Reagan may have won the Cold War, but to the media, the Reagan defense buildup seemed like a plot designed to deny government aid to the poor and hungry, and was somehow the only spending responsible for “bankrupting” the country. Check:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Defense.aspx

IV. Reagan and Race: Using their definition of “civil rights” — anything which adds government-mandated advantages for racial minorities is “civil rights” progress — liberal journalists suggested that somehow Ronald Reagan was against liberty for minorities. Go to:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Race.aspx

V. The Reagan Legacy: The media painted the Reagan era as a horrific time of low ethics, class warfare on the poor, and crushing government debt. Examples:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/ReaganLegacy.aspx

EXTRA: Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities. Ronald Reagan’s long Hollywood career earned him no credit among celebrities, who ridiculed him and even inserted anti-Reagan jokes into everyday entertainment programming. Check:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Celebrities.aspx