Wednesday, February 03, 2016
About That Mosque Our Non-Muslim President is Visiting
President Obama is visiting a mosque today, namely the Islamic Society of Baltimore. His purpose? In the White House’s own words, to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and
reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”
guess those “contributions” must include support for terrorist groups, because
the Islamic Society of Baltimore has a record of that:
An imam who served at ISB for a total of 15 years
has also been a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood network and has worked
for an Islamic relief group that was designated as a terrorist organization by
the Treasury Department in 2004. Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh, who served two stints
as ISB’s imam, from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003, was a member of the
Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan in the 1970s. He also co-founded the Muslim
American Society, a Falls Church, Va.-based group that is controlled by the
While in Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as a regional
director for the Islamic American Relief Agency. That group’s parent
organization is the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the Treasury
Department says provided funds to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas and other
I will try to be charitable
– it’s the Pre-Lent season after all – and say this shows egregious
incompetence and sloppiness on the part of the Obama Administration. After all, there are mosques in the
United States that do not support terrorism. Could the President and his people not find one?
But is it not strange that
again and again the decisions of this non-Muslim
President enable Islamic terror?
The Obama Administration cheerleaded the Muslim Brotherhood coming to
power in Egypt. It supported
taking Qaddafi out in Libya, creating a power vacuum terrorists walked right
into. It withdrew us completely
from Iraq, creating a vacuum ISIS walked right into. It let right on in the San Bernardino terrorists. It turned full on the money spigot to
Like I said, charity calls
for saying this is all just incompetence – horrible, destructive incompetence,
but incompetence nonetheless.
But if he had a soft spot
for Islamic terrorism, would he be acting any differently?
Labels: Islam, Obama, terrorism
Monday, February 01, 2016
Why Oriel College Oxford Backed Down from Taking Down Rhodes
Many of you by now are
already aware that the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College Oxford will
stay. But you may not be aware
that moneyed alumni putting their foot down is a big reason why. Many were furious that Oriel was
considering taking down the statue in the face of pressure from Social Justice
Warrior students (I use that last word loosely, by the way.) and were putting
their money where their fury was.
At a meeting on Wednesday the governing
body was told that because of its ambiguous position on the removal of the
statue, “at least one major donation of £500,000” that was expected this year
has been cancelled.
In addition, a “potential £750,000 donor” has
stopped responding to messages from the college, and several alumni have
written to Oriel to say “they are disinheriting the college from their wills”.
One of those who has already cancelled their legacy
was going to leave a “seven figure sum” and the college is aware that “another
major donor is furious with the College… whose legacy could be in excess of
The report warns that there will now "almost
certainly" be "one or two redundancies" in its Development
Office team because of the collapse in donations. And it has cancelled an annual
fundraising drive that should have taken place in April. The report also warns
that Oriel's development office could now make an operating loss of around
£200,000 this year.
Now some sensitive souls
may be appalled that alumni were so throwing the weight of their money around. But what is appalling is that said
pressure was needful in assisting Oriel College to see the light.
Moreover, this is a
textbook case of how the students of times past can assist their alma maters
from becoming too married to the madnesses of times present. And alumni usually have a little
more perspective than callow students and those ensconced in the ivory towers
of academia and can and should on occasion put that perspective to good effect,
backed with the hard reality of filthy lucre if need be.
So good on those Oriel
alumni – or old members, as they say in England – who assisted their beloved
college from turning away from what would have been an odious decision.
If only more American
alumni had that much backbone.
For those who think Cecil
Rhodes was an awful racist – or that I am for defending his statue, a little history is in order.
The Cape Colony under Rhodes was liberal
for its day. Africans could vote if they met the same property-holding or
income requirements as whites. Rhodes might have bent too far to placate the
Boers, the Dutch settlers whose support he needed to rule the colony. But at
the end of his political career, Rhodes opposed a Boer plan to submit Africans
to a literacy test before they could vote. Only after Rhodes left office did
the Boers establish apartheid as official policy.
When Rhodes created his scholarship in 1902, he
included a clause far ahead of its time. His will specifies that no student
will be “qualified or disqualified on account of his race or religious
The above is not well known, and I did not know it until very recently. So trust me that I understand if one is not well disposed towards Rhodes. But really, Cecil Rhodes was
more enlightened on race than many 20th Century heroes of the Left.
Labels: education, history, Oxford
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Will the Supreme Court Spank Obama For Violating the Rule of Law?
Yes, my headline may seem
an exercise in wishful thinking.
And perhaps it is.
But when the Supreme Court
decided to hear a challenge of Obama’s Immigration Action from 26 states, it asked
something that was both overlooked and rare. As noted by George Will (Emphasis mine.):
The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the
administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested
that the court not insert a “constitutional question” into the case. The question the court will consider is:
Did Obama’s action violate the “take
Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution,” which says the president shall “take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.” Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in
Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on
the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never
asked for a briefing on this clause.
It seems at least some on
the Supreme Court are ready to give Obama a dressing down on his willfully
violating the Rule of Law in the area of immigration, and one the Courts have
rarely given a President before.
I hope I am not engaging in
wishful thinking, but, at the least, this is certainly a case to watch.
Labels: Constitution, immigration, Obama, rule of law, Supreme Court
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
A Petition Against Houston’s Unequal Justice
I confess I don’t have much
value-added to say about the indictment of two video journalists from the
Center for Medical Progress. Here are the basics of the case. In
short, they exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in baby parts, but those
two courageous investigators, not Planned Parenthood, are the ones
indicted. Outrageous, and yet more
shame from the armpit of Texas, Houston.
But others are covering
this better than I can. What I can
do is point you to a petition to urge the Harris County D.A. to drop these
absurd charges and instead do a real investigation of Planned Parenthood. I’ve signed the petition and urge all
readers to do likewise.
I could also rant about
unequal justice in this country.
But I will save that for another day.
Labels: Houston, Planned Parenthood
Friday, January 22, 2016
Hillary Intel “Smoking Gun” May Mean Turmoil Ahead
I am no intelligence
expert, but the following is becoming clear even to your very humble blogger.
Hillary Clinton seriously
violated the law concerning handling of national secrets. Yes, it may have only been negligence
on her part - although willful negligence is likely here - but it is serious
nonetheless, involving intelligence more secret than Top Secret. I am not exaggerating. Investigators have had to up their
clearance to look into this. Hillary's nonchalance with national secrets is inexcusable, dangerous, and, yes, criminal.
So we will soon find out
if, in Hillary’s own words, “No one is too big for jail.” There will either be an indictment of
Hillary Clinton or there will be a revolt within the FBI. The evidence is that damning. And that revolt could be big enough to
bring about no small scandal.
Or this could all blow over
and become yet another outrage Obama and Clinton get away with. We shall see.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Obama
A Salute to the March for Lifers
Today in Washington, in the
midst of predicted awful weather, tens of thousands will march on behalf of
those who cannot defend themselves, unborn children.
This past Marcher salutes
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
The Revenge of the Unrepresented
This past weekend, a new
online Texas newspaper began publication – The Paper Trail. I was honored to
be asked to be one of their writers.
Yes, they are brave.
If you are reading this new
and erudite newspaper, you make a point to be informed. So you may have noticed that these are
odd times in politics. What, Trump
the Republican frontrunner for President while Jeb! languishes in the single
But I can make matters simpler
to understand, if still odd. We
are experiencing the Revenge of the Unrepresented. Our English friends some 240 years ago found out the hard
way that taxing people without representing them may not evoke a happy
response. Today’s Washington
establishment politicians are finding out the same thing, yes, the hard way.
Rewind to 2010. Obama was determined to cram Obamacare
down our throats in spite of half or more of Americans clearly not wanting
it. In January, Massachusetts
elected a Republican for the U. S. Senate largely because of opposition to Obamacare. Yes, Massachusetts. That’s not an autotypo.
Yet Obama and Congressional
Democrats ignored that warning shot and marched forward in passing
Obamacare. The result was a historic
political bloodbath in the November 2010 elections, handing the U. S. House and
any number of state houses to the Republicans with a clear and simple mandate –
But that teary-eyed
orange-skinned drunk Republican Speaker Boehner and other RINOs did little to
stop Obama and instead enabled him.
And that included funding, of all things, Obamacare. Thus the Republican establishment
joined Democrats in virtually ignoring the 2010 elections.
Fast forward to 2014. Again Americans gave Obama’s Democrats
a good pasting at the polls, handing now the U. S. Senate over to the
Republicans. Again, Republicans
had a clear mandate to Stop Obama, particularly on the presenting issue of
defending our borders and restraining illegal immigration.
But, again, Republican
leaders did little to stop Obama and again enabled him, including on
immigration. In fact, Congress,
with the support of the establishment Republican leaders, just voted to fund
Obama’s illegal immigration programs.
(And when I say illegal, I mean both the programs and the immigration
are illegal. I would say “illegal
illegal”, but that would make me appear to be ranting, not to mention
ungrammatical, God forbid.)
So, yet again, about half
the country finds themselves utterly unrepresented by either party. This is not only bad policy; it is
stupid politics particularly on the part of Republicans. It is asking, nay, begging for trouble.
And then here comes trouble
with funny hair. And in his very
announcement speech for President, he came down hard on illegal immigration to
the point of being crude and unrealistic to put it nicely…
And millions loved it. Immediately, Trump had high poll
numbers, and they have gotten higher.
Finally, millions found that someone powerful seemed to represent them
on illegal immigration and other issues.
(Note I wrote, “seemed.” I will leave aside the question of whether
Trump should be trusted.)
Now are there more sensible
ways to fight the establishment of both parties who are so intent on not representing Americans? I certainly think so. That’s why I support Ted Cruz, by the
way. But is there a more clear way
than Trump to give the establishment of both parties an affectionate one finger
And, yes, Americans are
that angry at the political establishment. Not just Trump’s numbers reveal that. Here is what I see looking at the Real Clear Politics poll averages as I write this in early January.
Anti-establishment candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Huckabee, and
Santorum) have a combined 68% support among Republicans. Jeb!? Just over 4%. In desperation, the establishment wing
of the GOP is turning to Rubio, but he polls only 11.5% compared to Trump at
35% and Cruz at 19.5%.
Can it be any clearer that
a lot of people out there are angry at being unrepresented by the
establishments of both parties?
So I’ve got a 2016
prediction you can add to the zillions you’ve heard already ‘cept mine is
better. 2016 will be the Revenge
of the Unrepresented. One
result will be the nomination of Donald Trump this summer or the defeat of
Hillary Clinton this November.
And do not be too shocked
if it will be both.
Labels: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, politics, Republicans, Ted Cruz, The Paper Trail