Israeli President Rivlin Refuses To Meet With Notorious Anti-Semite Jimmy Carter

Rivlin Refuses Meeting In Israel With Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter – Jerusalem Post

.

.
President Reuven Rivlin has refused to meet with former U.S. president Jimmy Carter during his upcoming visit to the region, due to his stances over recent years seen as “anti-Israel.”

In recent years, Carter has become one of the most prominent critics of Israel, notably when during last summer’s war with Hamas he denounced the IDF’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza as illegitimate.

An Israeli diplomatic official told The Jerusalem Post’s Hebrew sister publication Ma’ariv that the Foreign Ministry recommended Rivlin not meet with Carter, in order to transmit the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the president.

Carter is reportedly expected to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories in the coming weeks.

Carter has criticized successive U.S. administrations for failing to clinch an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. He has advocated controversial positions, chief among them that the West should engage Hamas in diplomatic negotiations.

.

.

Who Is Dennis Michael Lynch?


.
Dennis Michael Lynch (born August 28, 1969) is an American entrepreneur, documentary filmmaker, and conservative commentator. He is the founder and CEO of TV360Media, a company specializing in the production and distribution of digital film, and often appears as a guest on Fox News and TheBlaze. He is currently running for President of the United States as a conservative Republican.

Official Campaign Website
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Documentary: They Come To America

.
VETERANS TEAR DOWN OBAMA BARRICADES AT WWII MEMORIAL

.
SEAN HANNITY TELEVISION SPECIAL: THE COST OF AMNESTY

.
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF

.
DML FOR AMERICA PAC

.
SPEECH AT NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP SUMMIT

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

All You Need To Know About Hillary’s Qualifications For President (Videos)

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071 – Cornell University Law School
CONCEALMENT, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

.

.
Statement Regarding Subpoena Compliance And Server Determination By Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton – House Select Committee On Benghazi

March 27, 2015 – Press Release

Washington, DC – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today issued the following statement regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response to the committee’s subpoena. She failed to produce a single new document and refused to relinquish her server to a neutral, detached third party for an independent review of potential public records:

“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.

“Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest.”

“In light of the Secretary’s unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete all emails and because the equities at stake involve not only those of the Select Committee and Congress more broadly, but also those of the American people and their right to the full record of her tenure as secretary of State, we will work with the leadership of the House of Representatives as the Committee considers next steps. But it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails.”

.
BILL WHITTLE: THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON

.
BEN SHAPIRO: HILLARY LIES… A LOT

.
‘JUDICIAL WATCH’ LEGAL PANEL ON THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

Rand Paul Just Jumped Into The Race For President – And I’m Here To Bust His Balls (Video)


.
The following quotes were taken from the above-embedded speech by Senator Rand Paul in which he declared his candidacy for President of the United States. After each one, I have posted a response in the hopes that every Paulbot in America will take a few moments out of his or her busy day to write me some hate-mail.

Let’s begin.

RP: “We’ve come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank.”

What political interests aren’t “special”? Which ones should we get rid of, and how? If I’m not mistaken, people have a constitutional right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Should we now amend the ‘Bill of Rights’ with respect to this issue?

RP: “If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat-light, what’s the point?”

There’s no more point in doing that than there is in nominating a Libertarian who calls himself a Republican in order to get GOP backing for an election.

RP: “Washington is horribly broken. I fear it can’t be fixed from within.”

If that’s true, then why are you running for president? After all, if change can only be made from without, why attempt to become the biggest insider there is?

RP: “Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.”

How are you going to convince Congressmen to do something that they could have done at any time in the past, but have consistently refused to do? Are you calling for a ‘Convention of the States’ for such a purpose? And if you could get Congress and/or the states to adopt a balanced budget amendment, would there be exceptions to it, such as during times of war?

RP: “We limit the president to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress.”

How do you propose we convince members of Congress to pass a law that makes them leave office and actually work for a living? Again, are you suggesting we implement a ‘Convention of the States’? If so, I’d support that. If not, then this proposition is as shallow as a mud puddle.

RP: “I want to reform Washington. I want common-sense rules that will break the logjam in Congress. That’s why I’ve introduced a ‘Read The Bills’ act.”

Is there currently something preventing Congressmen from reading the bills they vote on? Even if you could force them to read their bills, where is the guarantee that they’d understand them, or that doing so would cause them to vote differently than they otherwise would?

RP: “Work is not punishment, work is the reward.”

No, work is just another word for effort, and effort is not a reward, it is the means by which one reaps a reward. For instance, the satisfaction derived from accomplishing a goal is a reward for effort, as is the money exchanged for it in a free market. Rewards are the results of work, not the work itself.

RP: “My plan involves economic freedom zones to allow impoverished areas like Detroit, west Louisville, eastern Kentucky to prosper by leaving more money in the pockets of the people who live there.”

How? Are you proposing that we create special tax rates for people in failing cities by modifying our already monstrously complex tax code? If not, then what do you suggest? And who gets to determine which areas of the country are worthy of such distinct consideration, and which aren’t?

RP: “Conservatives understand that government is the problem, not the solution. Conservatives should not succumb, though, to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow succeed in building nations abroad.”

What if we have no choice but to go to war with a country filled with radical Islamists? Do we just leave it in ruins afterward, creating a power vacuum for any lunatic to fill? Contrary to popular belief, America has never lost a war. However, in modern times it has often lost the ensuant peace. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq)

RP: “We brought Iran to the table through sanctions that I voted for. Now we must stay strong. That’s why I’ve co-sponsored legislation that ensures that any deal between the U.S. and Iran must be approved by Congress. Not only is that good policy, it’s the law.”

If it’s already the law, why are you co-sponsoring a bill of identical effect? Wouldn’t your time in Congress be better spent supporting legislation that isn’t redundant?

RP: “Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home.”

That may be an effective bumper-sticker line for a presidential campaign, but if my memory hasn’t completely failed me, back in 2009, Congress passed an $831B “stimulus” bill called the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ for just such domestic purposes. And yet, our infrastructure is in worse shape now than it’s ever been. So tell me, how is not spending a few million dollars in Iraq or Afghanistan going to help us build bridges in America, when the billions we’ve supposedly allocated for that purpose aren’t actually being used to build bridges?

RP: “It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting ‘death to America’ in countries that receive millions of dollars in our foreign aid. I say, it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America.”

What if the penny you mentioned is one of many being used to stop Muslim extremists from overrunning U.S.-friendly governments – like the one headed by the Shah of Iran in the 1970s? Should we provide “aid” money to a bad government that’s at least willing to play ball with us on the international stage, or would you rather let it be replaced by a worse one that will cost us far more in treasure and blood down the road?

RP: “I say that your phone records are yours.”

Not if the records in question belong to your service provider. Which records are you referring to, exactly?

RP: “The president created this vast dragnet by executive order, and as president, on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance.”

To which executive order do you refer? For that matter, which president? And how are you going to end said surveillance… by executive order? Tell me, is the NSA’s collection of metadata identical to the general warrants of search and seizure rejected by our founding fathers? I don’t believe so.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2013: Thirty-five years ago in United States v. Choate, the courts ruled that the Postal Service may record “mail cover,” i.e., what’s written on the outside of an envelope – the addresses of sender and receiver. The National Security Agency’s recording of U.S. phone data does basically that with the telephone. It records who is calling whom – the outside of the envelope, as it were. The content of the conversation, however, is like the letter inside the envelope. It may not be opened without a court order. The constitutional basis for this is simple: The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for what’s written on an envelope. It’s dropped in a public mailbox, read by workers at the collection center and read once again by the letter carrier. It’s already openly been shared, much as your phone records are shared with, recorded by, and (e-)mailed back to you by a third party, namely the phone company. Indeed, in 1979 the Supreme Court (Smith v. Maryland) made the point directly regarding the telephone: The expectation of privacy applies to the content of a call, not its record. There is therefore nothing constitutionally offensive about the newly revealed NSA data-mining program that seeks to identify terrorist networks through telephone-log pattern recognition.

RP: “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally, and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”

The enforcement of most violent-crime laws leads to a disproportionate incarceration rate among “people of color”. Should we suddenly decriminalize armed robbery and murder because a higher percentage – per capita – of non-whites are convicted of those crimes than whites?

————————————————————————————————————————–

Dear Rand Paul supporters,

I get why you like the good doctor. He seems like a man of integrity who keeps to his word and champions the cause of liberty in a way that few of his contemporaries do.

Good for him.

The downside to many of his policy viewpoints, however, is that he really hasn’t thought them through. They won’t work – despite his noble intentions – because ideology must be tempered with pragmatism, or else it is counterproductive.

Sincerely,

Edward L. Daley

.

President Asshat Enjoys Women’s College Basketball Game As U.S. Troops Flee Yemen

Obama Enjoys Ivy League Women’s College Basketball As U.S. Troops Flee Yemen – Daily Caller

.

.
President Barack Obama enjoyed NCAA women’s college basketball tournament action on Saturday as approximately U.S. 100 troops evacuated a rapidly deteriorating and chaotic situation near the southern Yemen city of al-Houta.

The soldiers – many of them elite special forces commandos – had been stationed at al-Anad air base in the war-torn Arab country, reports BBC News.

The proximate cause of the hasty Saturday exit was a Friday attack on the city of al-Houta by al-Qaida fighters. A quick counter-attack by the Yemeni army has since reportedly minimized al-Qaida gains.

Friday also saw a suicide bomb attack in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. At least 137 people died in the bombing, for which Islamic State-associated combatants have claimed credit.

Obama sat in a prime seat at the first-round NCAA tournament game at XFINITY Center in College Park, Md. He was surrounded by a group of fans festooned in orange and black — the colors of fancypants Princeton University.

Obama’s niece, Leslie Robinson, plays on the Princeton women’s team, which is currently undefeated for the season.

Princeton, a #8 seed, beat the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, a #9 seed, by a score of 80-70 on Saturday afternoon.

Fans at the game chanted “four more years,” notes Yahoo! News.

In the fall of 2014, Obama touted Yemen as a War on Terror success story.

Yemen is currently undergoing what amounts to a civil war involving several armed and vigorous elements including al-Qaida and ISIS.

A number of weeks ago, U.S. Marines allegedly destroyed their weapons or simply left them to Yemeni factions before leaving in the midst of an Iran-backed coup.

.

.

President Asshat Humiliated As Allies Rush To Join China’s New Bank

Diplomatic Disaster: Obama Humiliated By Allies’ Rush To Join China’s New Bank – Washington Times

.

.
The battle of wills between Beijing and Washington over a China-sponsored development bank for Asia is turning into a rout, and the Obama administration has found itself isolated and embarrassed as its top allies lined up this week to join the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

In what one analyst dubbed a “diplomatic disaster” for the U.S., Britain became the first major European ally to sign on as a founding member of the Shanghai-based investment bank, joined quickly by France, Germany and Italy, which dismissed public and private warnings from the U.S. about the bank’s potential impact on global lending standards and the competition it could provide to existing institutions such as the U.S.-dominated World Bank.

Luxembourg, a major global financial center, revealed this week that it would sign up. China also is also wooing Australia and South Korea, two of America’s closest Asian allies, to join before the March 31 deadline. A South Korean wire service reported Wednesday that Seoul was “seriously considering” the offer.

The reason for the stampede is clear: China’s market and its huge hoard of cash to invest override any concerns voiced by the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department over Beijing’s half-ownership stake in the bank.

“Simply put, if you partake, you have a stake,” Thomas Koenig, a policy analyst with the European Union Chamber of Commerce, told the German broadcast service Deutsche Welle.

With 32 countries on board and more expected in the coming days, Chinese state media have begun to gloat about the failure of the Obama administration to rally even its closest allies and trading partners to shun the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They noted that U.S. officials have long lectured China, now the world’s second-largest economy, to take a more active “stakeholder” role in global economic affairs, but then tried to undermine the investment bank almost from the time Chinese President Xi Jinping floated the idea of an Asian development fund during a trip to Indonesia in October 2013.

“Welcome Germany! Welcome France! Welcome Italy!” the official Chinese Xinhua News Agency wrote in a commentary published Wednesday.

“Despite a petulant and cynical Washington,” more and more major countries are joining, the commentary noted. “Holding sour grapes over the AIIB makes America look isolated and hypocritical.”

Chinese officials noted Wednesday that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be on the agenda for the summit of top Chinese, Japanese and South Korean diplomats Saturday in Seoul. Chinese Deputy Finance Minister Shi Yaobin told reporters in Beijing that the U.S. would still be welcomed as a founding partner.

Saying Asia’s booming infrastructure financing needs – estimated at a staggering $700 billion annually – aren’t being met by institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, China is putting up half of the planned initial $50 billion financing to launch the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. India, another U.S. ally, is the second-biggest investor, and a group of developing countries from Asia and the Middle East quickly signed on.

The Obama administration has been skeptical of the idea from the start, arguing that the proposed bank could prove redundant and could undercut lending standards on such issues as worker protections and the environment. China’s large stake also raised red flags, U.S. officials said, about whether the bank would favor Beijing’s economic and strategic priorities.

Clash over clout

Underlying the public debate was a clear clash between Washington and Beijing over clout in the globe’s leading financial infrastructure, set up largely by the United States in the wake of World War II and still largely dominated in the senior ranks by U.S., European and Japanese officials.

“We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power,” an unidentified U.S. official told the Financial Times newspaper after news broke that Britain would join the bank.

Rising powers such as China, Brazil and India also have expressed mounting frustration that a proposed overhaul of the International Monetary Fund to reset voting rights to reflect the new global pecking order has been blocked because the Obama administration and the Republican-dominated Congress have been unable to pass it.

Analysts say Chinese officials have skillfully tried to meet concerns that Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank members will be drawn into a power clash. During a visit to Australia last month, Zhou Qiangwu, a point man for Beijing’s selling efforts, noted that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be run by a multinational secretariat and use the same management structure as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

The proposed bank would “follow the international practice and give highest attention to environmental impact and resettlement” issues, he said, with strong safeguards against corruption.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew tried to moderate the U.S. line against the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in testimony on Capitol Hill this week, insisting that the administration’s primary goal was to ensure that the bank did not undermine lending standards.

“I hope before the final commitments are made anyone who lends their name to this organization will make sure that the governance is appropriate,” Mr. Lew said.

But the White House and the State Department said this week that it was the “sovereign decision” of each country on whether to participate in the bank.

Mr. Lew did acknowledge that the longtime U.S. and Western primacy in the global financial sphere was being challenged by China and other rising powers, which may not share Washington’s priorities.

“New players are challenging U.S. leadership in the multilateral system,” Mr. Lew said, pleading for passage of the IMF reform package. “Our international credibility and influence are being threatened.”

But private analysts say that credibility and influence have taken major hits from the rush to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

C. Fred Bergsten, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote this week that the Obama administration made a huge mistake by trying to undermine the bank, not only failing to persuade allies to stay out but also strengthening the voices in Beijing who argue that the U.S. is trying to keep China down.

“The U.S. hostility reinforces the Chinese view that U.S. strategy is to contain and suppress it,” he wrote, “so increasing rather than decreasing the prospect of uncooperative Chinese behavior.”

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman said this week that the saga “is turning into a diplomatic debacle for the U.S.”

“By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China,” he said, “Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century.”

.

.

President Asshat Makes Japanese Internment Camp A National Monument In Attempt To Vilify America

Obama Hates America: Domestic Enemy President Makes Japanese Internment Camp A National Monument In Attempt To Vilify America – Pat Dollard

.

.

.
This action sums up Obama’s views of America perfectly, and lays out his agenda, his sick joy in hurting it: “America is a bad place that has done bad things, and I am going to humiliate and shame it as much as possible. I am also going to curse it for doing what it needed to survive in order to weaken it from ever doing things that protects itself but hurts its enemies ever again.”

Excerpted from Gateway Pundit: After Rudy Giuliani made his comments this week that Barack Obama does not love America the White House tweeted this out:

=============================================

The White House
@WhiteHouse

Obama: “I’m using my powers as President to announce America’s 3 newest National Monuments.” #ObamaLovesAmerica

3:11 PM – 19 Feb 2015
=============================================

“Obama loves America” because he announced three new National Monuments.

The only problem is that one of Obama’s national monuments is the Japanese internment camp in Hawaii.

.

.
Honouliuli Internment Camp was long forgotten until it was dug up in 2007.

The Honouliuli National Monument is on Oahu. The camp was the largest and longest-operating internment camp, opened in 1943 and closed in 1946, in Hawaii. In August 1943, there were 160 Japanese Americans and 69 Japanese interned there. Keep reading

Excerpted from Monsanto.com: Monsanto recently donated land to the National Park Service from the Honouliuli Internment Camp Site for a National Park Service National Monument. The designation of the monument was announced by President Obama on Feb. 19.

“We are very excited about reaching this significant milestone in the community’s efforts to preserve the Honouliuli Internment Camp into perpetuity as part of the U.S. National Park System,” said Alan Takemoto, Community Affairs Manager of Monsanto Hawaii. “Transferring ownership of this land to the Federal Government is the result of years of hard work by numerous individuals and organizations who have been diligently and patiently working, step by step, to make this community vision a reality. We at Monsanto Hawaii are very proud to be a part of this tremendous collaboration.”

In 2007, Monsanto acquired farmland in Kunia which includes the site of the former Honouliuli Internment Camp. At that time, the company pledged to work with the community to preserve the Camp site for its historic value. Since then, Monsanto has been collaborating closely with local organizations, including the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai‘i and University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu, to work with the National Park Service in the hopes of establishing Honouliuli Internment Camp as a National Historic Site. Keep reading

.

.