‘I hate Republicans’: Professor’s column sparks debate | Fox News Video

‘I hate Republicans’: Professor’s column sparks debate | Fox News Video.

IMMIGRATION REBUKE: Federal judge rules Obama’s actions unconstitutional

IMMIGRATION REBUKE: Federal judge rules Obama’s actions unconstitutional

READ: The court opinion

via Fox News – Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos.READ: The court opinion

Senate Democrats Purge the Record | National Review Online

“Its report on enhanced-interrogation techniques amounts to intelligence birtherism.”

By Tom Rogan via Senate Democrats Purge the Record | National Review Online.

“Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have released their summary report into the Bush-era CIA detention/interrogation program. While senior Democrats have little credibility on this issue — consider Nancy Pelosi, who has consistently misrepresented her CIA briefings — today they proudly claimed the mantle of honest objectivity.

The summary makes four key claims:

The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.

The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.

The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.

The CIA program was far more brutal than it represented to policymakers and the American public.

The product of selective half-truths and deliberate deception, these claims are ludicrous, because the CIA’s enhanced-interrogation techniques (EITs) were manifestly successful.

Breaking key figures in al-Qaeda’s international network, the EITs afforded America a unique window into al-Qaeda’s network structure, operational methodology, and strategic intent, as any honest examination of the record will show.

While the report claims that the CIA acted far more aggressively than represented by its officials, the simple fact is that the EITs were not designed to be pleasant. Moreover, as former CIA deputy director Jose Rodriguez outlined last Friday, Democrats knew about and supported the EITs.

They were right to do so, for the program was designed to defeat al-Qaeda training manuals. Those manuals inculcated AQ officers with the belief that U.S. interrogators would attempt to trick and manipulate them but would not apply measured physical or psychological force. And by applying the EITs, CIA interrogators were able to wrest control over their subjects and gain crucial intelligence.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report also argues that CIA management failed to supervise the program and brief government officials. But this requires the suspension of reality. First, just last week, former president George W. Bush again insisted that he was kept fully informed by the CIA.

The committee’s claim is also weakened by its assumption that the CIA’s inherently bureaucratic nature was impossibly suspended. After all, were the report to reflect reality, it would mean that successive CIA leaders, mid-level management officials, and operations officers engaged in a collective multi-year conspiracy of lies, for absolutely no reason. Aware that Beltway politics are radioactive, CIA officials are obsessed with limiting their institution’s vulnerability to political blowback. And so, when it came to the EITs, officials would have known that the program’s inherently controversial nature induced major political liabilities. But that they nevertheless decided to continue the program even with those risks speaks to a basic, undeniable truth.

A large number of officials were convinced that the program was necessary and was generating irreplaceable results. And it was. Responding to the committee report, the CIA notes that EITs led to critical intelligence. Cross-referenced with other sources, the following CIA assertions, I am confident, are true. Read more via Senate Democrats Purge the Record | National Review Online.

Continue reading

The Peace that Passes Understanding

“As Jesus drew near Jerusalem, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If this day you only knew what makes for peace– but now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

“If this day you only knew what makes for peace. ” Is this not our problem today? So many tortured ways of seeking “peace”, and so many variant images of “peace”.

When “Mir”, “Peace”, is proclaimed by the Communists, it lacks a God Who can bring it. It means the imposition of might over the many who have been forced into submission and now can only dream of “peace”.

When the Buddha chants for peace, its coming dissolves the entities of its devotees into a universal soup of nothingness, doing nothing, loving nothing distinct or individual.

When the progress secular relativist of our day speaks of “peace”, it is an end brought about by the silencing of conscience and even science to impose the law of those that lack a way of recognizing integrity, morality, and Truth.

Maranatha! Come Lord, Jesus!

Militant Islam – A Reality!

“Ladies and Gentlemen, The fight against militant Islam is indivisible. When militant Islam succeeds anywhere, it’s emboldened everywhere. When it suffers a blow in one place, it’s set back in every place. That’s why Israel’s fight against Hamas is not just our fight. It’s your fight. Israel is fighting a fanaticism today that your countries may be forced to fight tomorrow.”    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech at the United Nations General Assembly September 29, 2014

Killing Innocents

All we hear in the news is quandary and befuddlement, when Islam,Jihad, Muhammad,and the Qur’an make headlines. Nice people tend to think most others are nice, too. Well, wake up world; open your eyes America; all religions aren’t equal or benign.

For a crash course in reality, the following piece by Dick Roberts, is a concise synopsis of the jihad threat/reality. It makes sense fast and is to the point:


Killing Innocents

By Dick Roberts:

I often have times suggested that folks read the Qur’an in order to learn firsthand what Islam is and what motivates Muslims to kill innocents, those that do not abide in an “authentic” Muslim’s Qur’an based belief system. As I listened to Barack Obama claim that “ISIL is not Islamic – No religion condones the killing of innocents! ” I thought; the guy needs to read the Qur’an and understand the sequence of its numbered sura (verses) and what that means. I said something much less controlled as those who know me well might imagine, and I decided I must do this. I don’t want to do this, but I just can’t stand it anymore. I have a few similar things in the past, and as the fates would have it, I cannot find even one of them. I must save this…….

With this note I will save you the trouble of reading the Qur’an ( few will anyway), let alone the Hadith, or perhaps in a few cases inspire you to dig deeper. Let’s get started. Forgive me as I assume you are part of the Great Unwashed on this subject — such an upbeat subject it is.

First, allow me to recount briefly what we have heard time and again over the past decade or so from political types, church leaders and self- appointed expert ‘talking heads’ on TV. Almost without exception these “talkers” state without reservation that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic extremism is only a contemporary anomaly or deviation from “true” Islam. In some instances, they will even assert that “Islam,” the word itself, means peace. Paleeze!

George Bush said such things when he was president, Brit PM Tony Blair said it, current Brit PM Cameron said it a few days ago, — and even the current Pope has made statements about “authentic” Islam. The Pope’s case/statement, of course, raises the question: what is, “authentic ” Islam? Hold on — I will address it below.

At the same time, I can help but point out that Islamists, such as their rabid mouthpiece Anjem Choudary, typically reject these interpretations. (He’s on TV quite a bit) Choudry has repeatedly said “You can’t say that Islam is a religion of peace, because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means ‘submission,’ so, a Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam.”

Let’s go a bit deeper. Continue reading