Is winning everything? Is Rubio the key to victory?

By Scott Winchell, Editor-in-Chief; SUA

Is winning everything? It certainly appears to be, especially in politics. Winning is everything in DC! In fact, in order to win, we have no budget, scandals galore…

Is the Republican party now committing what a very large number of people in America think the Democrats committed in 2008? Nominating people for office that likely broke the rules, the “Natural-Born Rule”? SUA has very high regard for Marco Rubio, but now the questions are being asked…the vetting has begun.

The American Eagle - Is winning everything?

Vetting our candidates was not an issue to most back in 2008, but it certainly is now.

‘Win at all cost’, or ‘get-mine’ has been a common theme dating back throughout all of our politics.

There is still a great question about how Minnesota’s Al Franken got elected, and the many historical Washington DC political scandals throughout our history including ‘Watergate’ the Tea-Pot Dome scandal and much more.

Then there was Florida in 2000 and 2004, the chads and the soldier-vote.

Americans are perhaps the most competitive people on earth – demonstrated across the board since our inception. It would be nice to say that we always play by the rules, but no one believes that is the case, especially now where so much money is concerned.

In baseball, we have witnessed the “physical enhancement’ era that is still making news over Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. In football, we just witnessed the crazy New Orleans Saints “bounty” scandal, and people like Ron “Meta World Peace” Artest regularly use “cheap shots” in basketball.

That is just America in pro sports, what about Americans in finance, think Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine‘s scandals, then there is the “birther” question. Did people hide all of Obama’s records and commit fraud to ‘win’, or to keep winning?

In this era of the 24 hour news cycle, the rise of the ‘citizen journalist’, the demise of the reputation of the main stream media, and the extreme situation we are now in, are making people look, at last.

Bret Baier sure stepped into, and now Cindy Williams at the American Thinker has written a great article about this aspect of ‘playing by the rules’.

Maybe now, for once, a true vetting process will be undertaken, by all of our media. Referring to eligibility questions he himself raised, Baier now says: “…this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it…” Its about time.

NBC never will, nor will CNN, but just maybe if Fox does it, they will also have to put their cards on the table, before ballots are cast…not just after.

Baier mentions there is much “confusion” – of course there is, because so many people and institutions actively tried to mislead the people, many swept it under the rug, some committed alleged fraud, many just looked the other way, but very few actually did the homework. To the true “Constitutional Scholar”, there is no confusion.

When did it become admirable to be ignorant and arrogant about it, where knowledge is demagogued – the ‘new’ paradigm of virtues… to win at all cost!

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

By Cindy Simpson – American Thinker

Those conservatives who argue against “birthright citizenship” have just been thrown under the same bus as the “birthers” — whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help.  And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the “birthers,” we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates — by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

“Birthers” have been insisting that not only is Obama not eligible as a “natural born” citizen, but neither is Rubio.  Now the media is paying attention.  And of course, the media says the “birthers” are wrong.  According to Fox News‘s Bret Baier:

Bret Baier - Is Rubio eligible, how about Obama?

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there[.] … They’re all natural born U.S. citizens[.] … Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.

Apparently Baier received a lot of feedback as soon as his column was published, because later the same day, he amended it:

Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it… and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides [sic].

A needed admission, although still with no real authoritative sources listed.

What about all of the experts, conservative organizations, and Republicans who have argued for decades that more than birth on U.S. soil is required for citizenship?

The need to reform the birthright citizenship practice, considered by many an illegal immigration “magnet,” was addressed in a 2010 American Thinker column quoting George Will, who in turn had cited Professor Lino Graglia — all in support of the idea that the 14th amendment did not mandate an automatic grant of citizenship to every baby born here — at the very least not those born to illegal aliens.  The same year, American Thinker’s J.R. Dunn noted the valid arguments against the anchor baby policy and observed the resulting negative media spin, “designed to make a topic so radioactive as to render it untouchable.”

Up to that point, the media taboo seemed to be working.  (It certainly did for the “birthers.”)  Even the GOP candidates steered clear of immigration reform as much as possible and avoided discussion of birthright citizenship, likely for fear of being called “racist.”

Research into the subject reveals that the birthright issue concerns not only the legality of the parents’ status, for even “birth tourists” are in the U.S. on legal passports.  The root of the problem is the status of the parents’ domicile (legal or illegal, permanent or temporary) and allegiance.  The birthright practice also results in dual citizens who can remain so for life, unlike naturalized citizens, who are required to renounce past citizenships.  Proposed legislation to require at least one citizen parent curtails the anchor baby problem but does not eliminate the dual citizenship issue.

“Birthers” argue that the dual citizenship of Obama disqualifies him from “natural born” eligibility.  Another American Thinker column documented the lack of academia’s serious attention to the interesting question.

Since 2008, the mainstream asserted that Obama was eligible for two reasons: he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was a citizen.  Some argued that only U.S. birth was required, but hardly anyone (other than “birthers”) noted the related fact that many conservatives had been lobbying for years to correct what they considered an incorrect application of the 14th — that more than birth on U.S. soil is needed, not for natural born citizenship necessarily, but citizenship, period.  And if arguments against birthright citizenship are legitimate — why not the contention that questionable birthright citizenship, because of allegiance concerns, does not equal natural born citizenship?  But a reasonable debate was never permitted, and the “birthers” were ridiculed as kooks.

Fast-forward to today, and the GOP’s realization (thanks to those darned “birthers”!) that neither of VP favorite pick Rubio’s parents were citizens when he was born.

So now the mainstream and GOP establishment argument is that born in the USA (regardless of circumstances) equals “born a citizen” equals “natural born” citizen.

Marco Rubio - Is he eligible?

Baier didn’t mention the many conservatives who have long fought against the birthright practice, subtly helping the establishment kick them and their inconvenient assertions under the bus.  Yet it was only eight years ago that Fox News noted the valid arguments in this article addressing the “presumed” (Justice Scalia’s description) citizenship of Hamdi in the famous case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Here’s a partial list of prominent individuals who have argued against birthright citizenship: Judge Richard PosnerEdwin Meese, Professors Lino Graglia and Peter Schuck, Dr. Edward Erler, Dr. John Eastman, the Heritage Foundation, Representatives Ron Paul, Nathan Deal, Mark Foley, Gary Miller, and Tom Tancredo, and conservatives Ann CoulterGeorge Will, and Phyllis Schlafly.  Rep. Lamar Smith, the current House Judiciary chairman, was a major participant in the 2005 congressional hearing on citizenship and also the signed the Center for American Unity Hamdi amicus brief in 2004 along with Tancredo.  Even Harry Reid noted that more than birth in the U.S. is required for citizenship in his proposed 1993 legislation.

A recent Human Events article by Michael Zak asserts the same position as Baier’s.  No citizen parents are needed, and they can be here illegally.  Even al-Awlaki could have run for president.

The Georgia Obama ballot challenge ruling and its likely consequences on citizenship arguments was discussed here, which we now see in action.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal - Eligible?

Baier’s assertion places both Obama with his one citizen parent and Rubio with none on the same “natural born” bus — and that bus ran over not just “birthers” (who actually have been lying under there for quite a while), but also all of the Republicans who have been working for curtailment of the “jackpot” birthright practice as part of effective immigration reform.  Because now it can no longer be denied (which “birthers” have been arguing all along) that birthright citizenship and presidential natural born eligibility are inextricably related.

To be fair — nothing much has been written about the status of Rubio’s parents at his birth.  WND published Rubio’s father’s naturalization papers (when Rubio was 4), but has it been determined whether Rubio’s parents were here, prior to that, legally, and whether they traveled to and from Cuba?  Why so many years to naturalize?  Interesting questions all, and answers may alleviate some of the immigration reformist’s concerns.  But can they be discussed without fear of “birther” or “racist” labels?

The GOP wants to win on the “issues,” but apparently minus the birthright citizenship issue.  A Rubio ticket may appeal to Latino voters, but it may sap more of the enthusiasm of the conservative Tea Party base than the establishment realizes.

In the weeks ahead, we may see either the birthright citizenship opponents aligned with the “birthers” or all of them swept under the rug of verboten conversation — because neither of their arguments fits the current establishment narrative.

Caudillos – They called Bush one, Obama the true version

Editor’s Note– In recent years it is common to hear some refer to the decline of the USA as a slide into ‘third world’ status. Yes, we still have the strongest military on earth, but it too is in decline; in size, and in stature. Our reputation abroad is far worse now than what the Left accused George Bush of accomplishing during his two terms. We have heard Obama called many things, but not ‘caudillo’ until today.

The Left called Bush a Caudillo, and this image made the rounds on the internet when he was President. However hard they made this case, they are blind to the fact that Obama has far eclipsed what they accused Bush of doing.

Unfortunately for America, Obama has ‘fundamentally transformed’ our nation, as he promised, as a “caudillo” would, and here, Mark Hendrickson does a great job attributing our decline to Obama’s policies and actions. Further, he does an even better job of drawing stark comparisons between Obama and enemies of our way of life and our nation as a whole.

Barack Obama, Caudillo

By Mark W. Hendrickson

American Thinker

The Spanish term “caudillo” (pronounced cow-THEE-yo) refers to a strongman or autocratic leader.  Latin America has had a number of caudillos.  Some have been right-wing (i.e., anticommunist, pro-American, such as Somoza in Nicaragua), others left-wing (socialistic and anti-American, like Perón and Chávez), but since Jimmy Carter used his one-term presidency to achieve the extinction of the pro-American species, today’s caudillos are all leftists.

Caudillos typically bulldoze political opposition, become the dominant force in the economic life of the country, and establish a personality cult around themselves.  They love power as much as they love themselves, and they aren’t bashful about using their power in defiance of precedents, constitutions, and democratic principles.  Until a couple of years ago, I never dreamed that a caudillo could arise in our Anglo-American legal system, upwardly mobile culture, and enlightened constitutional order, but today it seems to be a distinct possibility.  Consider the similarities between Barack Obama and the prototypical Latin caudillo.

A caudillo:

1) Demonizes the rich.  In Latin America, there have often been legitimate reasons for resenting the rich.  The Spanish conquistadors often established a system rigged to keep the poor from making economic, social, and political progress.  No similar oppression exists here in the United States, where talent and drive can propel virtually anyone to great success.  The nearest thing we have to a built-in systemic barrier to individual advancement might be the lousy inner-city schools in which many Americans are trapped, but the blame there lies more with Obama and Democrats than with “the rich” against whom the lefties rant.

2) Employs populist rhetoric about being the champion of workers, and then forges alliances with powerful labor union bosses while adopting policies that throw many workers under the proverbial bus.  Think the UAW, the NLRB, etc. on the one hand and sluggish employment on the other in the Age of Obama.

3) Depletes the national treasury and impoverishes the country through heavy taxes and depreciation of the currency — the results of spending extravagantly on programs that buy the loyalty of his political supporters.  Bailouts, green boondoggles, the (non-)stimulus plan, ObamaCare, etc., show Obama to be a master of this tactic.

4) Knows that money is power, and so grabs de facto control of capital and banks, thereby establishing a chokehold on the economy’s windpipe.  That is why Obama is so anxious to get the zealous Richard Cordray up and running at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with its unspecified, and therefore arbitrary, mandate.

5) Asserts heavy controls over private businesses, dictating what they must produce (e.g., solar energy, electric cars) or where they may locate (Boeing).

6) Bypasses the legislature and rules by decree — e.g., czars and rogue agencies like the EPA.

7) Chafes at constitutional limits on his power.  Thus, Obama complains to NBC’s Matt Lauer, “What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008,” and then he makes unconstitutional pseudo-recess appointments.

8) Rides roughshod over long established legal principles — e.g., imperiously overturning two centuries of settled bankruptcy law by stiffing the secured bondholders of Chrysler and GM.

9) Betrays his populist supporters by forging lucrative alliances with select members of the Big Business establishment — as Obama has done with health care providers, auto-makers, and others, as documented in Tim Carney’s book Obamanomics.

10) Aggressively uses his power to harass, weaken, and punish those who don’t support his political agenda:

Exhibit A: Obama grants waivers and exemptions from the onerous financial burden of ObamaCare to his allies while leaving them in place to crush his opponents.

Exhibit B: Team Obama won’t modify Sarbanes-Oxley, uses Dodd-Frank (the aforementioned CFPB) as a hovering threat, makes life difficult for venture capitalists — all policies that have the effect of squelching the development of small entrepreneurial companies, a key Republican constituency (unlike AC/DC Big Business, which gives lavishly to both parties).

Exhibit C: The Obama administration dragged its heels to avoid expediting federal aid to disaster-stricken states with Republican governors — specifically Texas, Virginia, and New Jersey.

11) Has delusions of grandeur, and so makes grandiloquent boasts about such fantasies as stopping the rise of the oceans and healing the planet.

"Caudillo"? Sure looks, speaks, and acts the part as well!

12) Has an outsized ego and manifests narcissistic behavior that causes him to take great offense at those who dare to disagree with him — like Obama’s dismissive treatment of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer at their recent airport meeting.

13) Is notorious for vote-tampering and fraudulent elections, which calls to mind Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s jihad against states that pass laws designed to reduce voter fraud through proper identification.

14) Eventually precipitates a confrontation with Christians and particularly the Catholic Church, since the ego of the caudillo can’t abide people regarding anyone else, even the Creator of the universe, as the supreme authority, nor can he tolerate anyone placing obedience to religious convictions and God’s rules above his own grand social engineering plans, as we see in Obama’s attempt to impose health insurance requirements that are objectionable to many Christian Americans.

Will Barack Obama go down in history as the United States’ first caudillo?  Probably not, if he loses the election this November.  But if he secures a second term — well, we’ll just have to see.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

New Nationwide FEMA Camps Should Raise Eyebrows

By Alan P. Halbert

American Thinker

Of all the rumors flying around on the internet, one just refuses to die, and it concerns America’s FEMA camps.

In a nutshell, there seems to be a solicitation of bids occurring for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours of implementation by an order from either Homeland Security or the president. This situation begs to be investigated, with special consideration paid to the motives of the present administration.

I went to the source, the, and searched for the solicitation number HSFEHQ-10-R-0027, titled National Responder Support Camp.

A search of the history of the amendments to this Solicitation for Contract showed that it had been modified several times, with the last modification — number 0008, with an original date of letting out to bid with a synopsis of May 13, 2011 — occurring on December 16, 2011. This last modification rescinded the solicitation, with said modification’s purpose noted as follows:

  1. Cancel Solicitation HSFEHQ-10-R-0027.
  2. A new draft solicitation will be issued on January 2012 for industry comment.
  3. A Pre-Solicitation Conference will be held approximately two week post draft solicitation.

Okay…score one for the internet and the vigilant citizens who perform an invaluable service to our nation by monitoring the actions of our government and its various agencies.

I began the laborious task of reading the Invitation to Bid — this tome is 116, pages with many canned and boilerplate requirements for doing business with Uncle Sam duly enshrined amongst the pages. The Task Order Request (TOPR) under Scenario I & II under Section J of the Appendix made for another 42 pages. The required size of the camps was fluid, though they had the required capacity of 301 to two thousand, including security and camp cadre.

The staffing requirements or cadre for FEMA personnel for these camps — which are identified as being located in five (5) distinct regions throughout and within the borders of the USA, with camps located in each and every state — was three to fifteen each. The size of these camps will vary around 5 acres per 1,000 inhabitants, though they will never be less than 3 acres for populations of 500 or fewer inhabitants within the camps’ boundaries.

This requirement also had a minimum square footage for each inhabitant: either the camp’s cadre and first responders of 63 square feet, or approximately 8 feet on each side. This is slightly less than current Federal Court(s) requirements for housing prisoners, which is approximately 72 square feet. Perimeter fencing or barricades is required to be six feet high, enclosing the camp, with all traffic in or out to be recorded on a daily log and with security restricting all traffic and access. The contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are “off limits” to occupants. ID Badges are required and are either blue or red, depending on the carrier is temporary or considered an occupant of the camp.

The first of several anomalies in the solicitation for bid was in the contractor staffing requirements, which puzzlingly required staff to be fully operational within 72 hours. Furthermore, “[w]henever practical, displaced citizens will be given the first opportunities for employment within the camp, assuming skills and capabilities are pertinent for the open positions.”

This led me to question the stated purpose of these camps, considering that the successful contractor would need to have personnel ready to go on such short notice, with notification from FEMA, Homeland Security, or the president within 72 hours. So the question arises: how could the camp utilize “displaced citizens” in the initial staffing unless the contractor knew where and when a disaster, man-made or otherwise would occur beforehand?

Another anomaly was the requirement that the “off limits” area was to be enclosed before anything else:

The contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are “off limits” to occupants. Fencing and barricades are required within 36 hours for “phased” setup timeframes, and 72 hours for the rest of the initial setup timeframe.

Next question: just what is this “off limits” area to be used for, since the bid proposal specified only two (2) classes of occupants of the camp — temporary or occupant as first responder? Furthermore, it indicates that there may be a camp within the camp, or an area that is to be utilized by another group that is not revealed in the bid solicitation…your guess is as good as mine. Most Americans would not like the ambiguity of this area’s function!

Another question arose on the Term of the Contract (F.3), which reads as follows:

The contract shall be effective as of the execution date of the base contract, and shall continue up to five years if all four one-year options are exercised, except that delivery orders placed prior to the expiration date shall remain in full force and effect until deliveries have been completed and payments, therefore, have been made. The final delivery order shall not exceed two years.

The nature of the duration seems to belie a long-term use for these camps, which is also not fitting the transitory nature of natural disasters, with most communities being habitable again after a relatively short period of time. We’re talking months, not years.

Under the Principal Place of Performance (F.4), this solicitation implies that all of the areas outlined below must be staffed:

The effort required under this contract shall be performed in the United States. Task Orders will designate the exact locations where services will be provided. The five (5) areas of coverage are broken down as follows:

  • Area 1: Includes the states of CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA, VT, NY, WV, VA, RI
  • Area 2: Includes the states of KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, FL
  • Area 3: Includes the states of CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, OH, SD, UT, WI, WY
  • Area 4: Includes the states of AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
  • Area 5: Includes the states of AZ, CA, ID, NV, OR, WA

The language is specific in that all requirements are performed in the United States. However, the language does not specify that it would be a phased approach or even a localized area that experiences a natural disaster — simply the entire nation.

In the Task Order Proposal Request, there is a specific requirement for large vehicle parking:

Special Requirements:

  • Outsized Vehicle Parking within Security Area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate required space and add to acreage requirement.
  • Outsized vehicle parking outside security area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate required space and add to acreage requirement.
  • Mission Support Work Area(s): Minimum square footage, Accessibility

These requirements suggest that the type of vehicle(s) will be either solely high-occupancy (i.e., buses) or large trucks or heavy equipment combined with buses. The interesting point about this section is that the authors allude to a “Security Area” and an “Unsecured Area” with no specific requirements coming forth.

To sum up: the solicitation to bid for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours is a curious proposition, since it appears to predict a calamity that will affect the entire nation simultaneously –completely unlike a location-specific natural disaster.

This may be nothing more than a preparedness exercise by Homeland Security to see if anyone besides the military would be able to meet these stringent requirements for rapid deployment. However, what I found most striking was the “off limits” areas within each camp and staffing with “displaced persons” and the “Mission Support Work Area(s),” all undefined. As citizens, we need to know the exact purpose of these camps, given President Obama’s propensity to bend our constitutional republic to his own purposes!

Environmentalist/Socialist Nazi Roots

Editor’s Note – Like many things brought before us today, they are recycled ideas that failed miserably each and every time they were presented. The name Nazi, comes from the German party name; National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and part of their rise to power stemmed from several things we see foisted upon us today.

Obama Care is a major item from the National Socialist Medicine idea employed in Germany between 1918 and 1945. Additionally, the environmentalist movements are discussed below where the roots stem from the evils of controlling the masses. Almost a new form of eugenics, the idea of creating the super race that began in America before Hitler took over..

Green is the New Brown

By Timothy Birdnow

American Thinker

Opponents of the radical environmentalist movement and it’s steadfast promotion of the fundamental restructuring of human civilization have long argued that the reek of National Socialism clings to the modern Green movement. Mark Musser made that very case here at American Thinker.

As Mark points out;

“From his memoirs, Albert Speer recalled that many of his German compatriots sought what he described “a close contact with nature.” He went on to say that their love affair with the great outdoors “was not merely a romantic protest against the narrowness of middle-class life. We were also escaping from the demands of a world growing increasingly complicated.” It was in fact a world which they largely disdained, full of varied responsibilities and demands of them which they would rather not do. In their mind, such an ‘artificial’ world could be overcome through mountain climbing, “often, from the mountain tops, we looked down upon a gray layer of cloud over the distant plain. Down there lived what to our minds were wretched people; we thought we stood high above them in every sense.”

(See Musser’s book Nazi Oaks for an in-depth study of Nazi environmentalism.)

Ideas do not go away, they are either fully discredited over time or undergo a metamorphosis’. In the case of Fascist/Nazi thinking the case can be made that it – along with it’s poison-kissing cousin Marxism – has gone into the Green movement. The Marxists used to say “first Brown then Red”, well now it’s “first Green then Brown then Red”. Certainly the goal of the Gang Green is to redistribute wealth, to establish crony capitalism (the economics of Fascism) and empower world government. While Fascism did not go in for Internationalism, it was quite gung-ho on crony capitalism, regulation, and redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps the most evil idea to take root under National Socialism was the concept of “Blood and Soil”, an idea stemming from Darwinian Natural Selection. “Blood and Soil” was the romantic notion that a People were evolved by the climate, landscape, and general environment to be what they are, and in the case of Germany many believed the deep, dark forests, the oaks and pines, the mountains and streams, had shaped the German People in character and indeed even in racial aspects. Blood and Soil meant that the People and the land were one. Part of the hatred of the Jews (and Gypsies, and other “outsiders”) was that they were invasive species, rather like Kudzu or Zebra Mussels, imported from abroad. The Jews were seen as not just invasive rivals but particularly artificial, having inhabited close-knit communities usually in cities in Europe. The Nazis saw them as having been molded and shaped by a pathological and artificial environment, and believed they were soiling the pure Germanic blood.

In Missouri the Department of Conservation encourages fishermen to catch as many Kentucky Bass as possible, and if they aren’t going to keep them to toss them on the banks; they are an aggressive feeding species that crowds out the Large and Small Mouthed cousins. “Blood and Soil” sought to do likewise, exterminating the human “weeds”.


“Blood and Soil” is making it’s grand return! It’s called Climate Reductionism. and it is nothing but a new spin on an old, terrible idea.

In a research paper by Mike Hulme, courtesy of Judith Curry:

“This paper traces how climate has moved from playing a deterministic to a reductionist role in discourses about environment, society and the future. Climate determinism previously offered an explanation, and hence a justification, for the superiority of certain imperial races and cultures. The argument put forward here is that the new climate reductionism is driven by the hegemony exercised by the predictive natural sciences over contingent, imaginative and humanistic accounts of social life and visions of the future. It is a hegemony which lends disproportionate power in political and social discourse to model-based descriptions of putative future climates. Some possible reasons for this climate reductionism, as well as some of the limitations and dangers of this position for human relationships with the future, are suggested.”

So “Blood and Soil” are making a comeback! It would seem Green is the new Brown!

Timothy Birdnow is a St. Louis based writer. His website is

"Pressure and shame" to stop free speech – Clinton

Editor’s Note – It would be most interesting to listen to Hillary Clinton describe for us the meaning, direction, goals, and methods of Islam as she sees them. It wouldn’t take long we are sure, since she has no clue. Like so many in this administration, they appease and bend over backwards to Islamic propaganda and its infiltration of America, if not openly supporting all their world wide efforts. Like John Brennan, Chief Counter-terrorism Adviser to Obama, she must also think the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular group and the IRGC can be invited to discuss world peace ala Neville Chamberlain.

Worse though, is her desire to shut down our unalienable right to free speech:

“… use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Well Mrs. Clinton, those of us who do know the history, desires, goals, and propaganda of Islam – abhor you!

We at SUA have repeatedly pointed out that the number one diplomat of the United States of America should at least know these things because she speaks for us, yet, by her words and deeds, its clear she does not understand her counterparts from the east, because she thinks in ‘western liberalism’ – a patsy of the most gullible sort.

Since her long time number one aid, Huma Abedin, is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, questions are more numerous than answers.

A Shameful State Department Initiative

By Pamela Geller

Conservatives for America/American Thinker

Today the Islamized State Department will be meeting with the Islamic supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss strategies and develop action plans in which to impose the restriction of free speech (or blasphemy, as truthful speech about Islam is considered in Islamic law) under the Sharia here in America.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Photos accompanying news reports about the upcoming meeting shows at a meeting last summer in Istanbul. Such prominence is given to this totalitarian organization. That photo reminds me of Neville and Adolf.

The respect and deference that the United States is paying to the OIC amounts to surrender in installments. The very idea that the U.S. Secretary of State is meeting with the OIC to discuss “religious tolerance” is like having Himmler meeting with Jews to condemn Jew-hatred. Under Islam. there is a complete and utter absence of “religious tolerance” of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries under the Sharia.

The call for “respect and empathy and tolerance,” coming from the most brutal and oppressive ideology on the face of the earth, reminds me of the “peace and equality” that was promised in Hitler’s campaign posters for the Nationalist Socialist Workers (Nazi) party.

The OIC is comprised of 56 governments along with the Palestinian Authority.

It also asserts authority over the Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, claiming that “Muslim immigrant communities in Europe are part of the Islamic nation.” It also recommends, according to the renowned historian Bat Ye’or, “a series of steps to prevent the integration and assimilation of Muslims into European culture.”

The OIC’s foremost target is truthful dialogue about Islam, which it calls “Islamophobia” and claims hysterically is a “a crime against humanity” that must be criminalized. In line with that initiative, back in July, Obama’s State Department reached a Sharia blasphemy agreement with OIC in Turkey. Hillary Clinton actually said this to the OIC:

We each have to work to do more to promote respect for religious differences in our own countries. In the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance.

She wasn’t referring to Islamic jihadists. Clinton meant that the “ripples of intolerance” were those fighting against those jihadists.

Clinton went on to say:

We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

“Peer pressure and shaming.” That is exactly what these useful idiots try to do with anyone and everyone who tells the truth about Islam and jihad: me, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, and more.

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition and James Lafferty, a Board member of my organization Stop Islamization Of America (SIOA), have been covering the preparations for Monday’s meeting closely.