Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Surprise: People are cheating on their EBT Cards

Budget legislation passed by Congress last week includes cuts to some welfare programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The cuts have already attracted backlash from left wing activist groups like the feminist group UltraViolet, which launched a campaign to petition Congress to restore the funding.

“Overnight, the U.S. Senate voted for a budget that literally takes food away from hungry children,” UltraViolet’s campaign pleads. “The budgets that have now passed both the House and Senate make deep, painful cuts to the food stamps program.”

TurningPoint USA responded with a little digging. Here’s what they found: 

After a brief search on Twitter and Instagram, Turning Point USA uncovered more than one hundred documented examples of welfare recipients abusing, mocking, and making light of welfare programs. Ripe with abuse, Twitter users attempt to sell food stamps, trade the stamps for weed, and purchase expensive food items.

Several of the social media posts use the hashtags #EBT, #EBTgang, #EBTcard, #EBTsquad, and #TeamEBT – many of which depict a culture of glorifying the use of Electronic Benefit Transfers (EBTs.)

A few examples of the Instagram posts from TurningPoint’s investigation: 

The rest can be found here.

Indiana Story Is About Politics, Not Love

Indiana Story Is About Politics, Not Love

Tuesday - March 31, 2015

RUSH: We've had Josh Earnest weigh in on Mike Pence's remarks today in Indiana, talking about fixing the bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It's at the press briefing today, and Julie Pace from the AP said to Josh Earnest, "Okay, Governor Pence said earlier this morning that he wants to amend the legislation to clarify that it does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. Does the White House feel that that's the right approach, to amend the bill, or do you support a full repeal of the Indiana law?"

EARNEST: We've seen the governor and other Indiana officials in damage control mode here because this law has provoked an outcry from business leaders across the state of Indiana. Understandably, we see business leaders saying that they are reluctant to do business in a state where their customers, or even their employees, could be subjected to greater discrimination just because of who they love. That's not fair, it's not consistent with our values as a country that we --

RUSH: Ah, wait a minute. Stop the tape. We gotta deal with something else here 'cause I'm starting to see this phrase all over the place, "We can't allow these customers or employees to be subjected to greater discrimination just because of who they love." Who they love. It's not about who anybody loves. It's about gay marriage. It's about people who have religious prohibitions against it. It's about gay marriage. It's not about homosexuality. It's not about honoring disagreement, discrimination against homosexuality. It's about people whose religious beliefs prohibit them from 
engaging in activity which lends credence or support to gay marriage.

But this business of who you love, where does that stop? If you're gonna start throwing the phrase around "who you love," what happens if you love your dog, which we have had a story of a UK woman who wanted to marry her dog, I think, and did. Do you remember that? Married a dolphin. Okay. Whatever. She wanted marry an animal that was not a man. Where is this "who you love" business? That's a catchphrase, that's designed to silence all opposition because who opposes love? My God, we need more love in the world. What are you doing, you're against love? People love each other, it's horrible you're against love. We need more love in the world.

That's precisely why they use this phrase "who they love." But who they love, what does that mean? Where does that stop? Well, hey, I'm not the one using the phrase. Don't get mad at me for thinking about a woman who wanted to marry her, or did marry, a damn dolphin. I didn't. I'm not making it up. She loves the dolphin. Is it legit? So, anyway, that's not fair, that's not fair. The point here, Mike Pence, the point is -- oh, gosh, I just saw the clock.

Welcome New Democrsts

More Religious Freedom Laws

The Arkansas House has approved a religious freedom measure that mirrors the one signed into law last week in Indiana that opponents there say opens the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians. 

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Monday that he'd sign the measure.

Fourteen other states are considering similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

I Want a President Who Plays by the Rules

Christopher Chantrill

If you are a politician, why bother to play by the rules? Or if you are a citizen, why should you care whether the political leaders on your team play by the rules? (It goes without saying that we all care when the Other Guys break the rules.)

This issue is a particularly emotional one for conservatives and Republicans because of the two great presidential rule-breakings in our era. Back in the 1970s President Nixon broke the rules and lied about it, and there came a day when the top Republican senators went down Pennsylvania Avenue to tell the president that he had to go, and he went. In the 1990s President Clinton broke the rules, and there came a time right after the impeachment of the president when the Democrats held a rally at the White House in support of the Liar in Chief, and he stayed.

To conservatives this injustice rankles, not just because Nixon went and Clinton stayed, but because Clinton skated on sexual harassment at work, a matter every man knows could cost him his job.

Now we have President Obama, whose formative years have seemed to be an education in leftist activism, where the governing principle is a strategic application of rule-breaking: in "non-violent protest," in making the powerful follow their own rules while you get to break them, in "occupations," in "fundamental transformation."

For President Obama it doesn't matter if you rescue General Motors from bankruptcy by driving over the bankruptcy laws, as long as you pay off your union supporters. It doesn't matter what procedural shenanigans it takes to pass ObamaCare, as long as it passes. But every American that doesn't have their brain numbed by the New York Times and NPR knows that if he tried anything like that, he'd go to jail.

So with Hillary Clinton. I get that, for Clinton, it is essential to control the documentary record, because a lot of politics and governing is political sausage-making and you never know when some opposition researcher will dig up something to embarrass you. But average Americans know that, if they started "losing" their emails, they'd lose their jobs.

There's an honorable reason why the rulers should play by the rules. It is a noble and honorable thing for a great man to honor the little people that must play by the government's rules, or else.

But there's also a practical political reason to play by the rules. If the team that's in the lead in a game doesn't play by the rules then there's no reason for the losing side to stay in the game. They might as well start breaking the rules as well. When that happens in politics then you are taking the first step to civil war.

We know that liberals really care about the rules when they are in the opposition. They were all over President Bush for any undotted "i" or uncrossed "t" in the road to war in 2003.

But when it comes to themselves, the rules do not apply. The whole idea of the Sixties was to ditch the conformist Fifties and "do your own thing." But the Irish in South Boston had to obey the rules and bus their kids to integrated schools, or else.

The Sixties ought to provide a terrifying lesson to liberals. Their hippie culture broke the back of the old FDR Democratic coalition and spawned a law-and-order wave that Republicans used to win a landslide presidential election in 1972. It took 20 years before Bill Clinton managed to neutralize it.

Now we have the social justice warriors, the rape culture feminists, the diversity culture, political correctness, and the phone-and-pen president. Liberals get to change the rules to change the world, but ordinary people know that if they say the wrong thing in the classroom or the workplace in Obama's America they could lose their jobs.

In a piece last week, uber-liberal Robert Kuttner couldn't understand "Why the 99 Percent Keeps Losing" and didn't rise up and overturn the system after 2008.

The vast majority of Americans keep falling behind economically because of changes in society's ground rules, while the rich get even richer -- yet this situation doesn't translate into a winning politics [for Democrats].

Maybe there's a reason for that, Mr. Kuttner. Maybe it's because the American people are not going to risk everything following a president and a liberal ruling class that doesn't play by the rules. Most Americans live by following the rules, going to work, and obeying the laws. They really have a problem with people that break the rules -- Nixons, Clintons, Obamas, Sharptons, political cronies – and get away with it.

I want a president who follows the rules, and I suspect the American people do too.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

Rubio:the future of this country will depend on the next election

Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL) stopped by Fox News' The Five yesterday to discuss his presidential plans and the state of the country moving forward.

"I strongly believe that the future of this country will depend on the next election and what's at stake in 2016 is not simply what party is going to win or the candidate. The fundamental question in 2016 is what kind of country do we want to be in this new century? Do we want to remain an exceptional country, a land of equality of opportunity, the strongest nation on earth, or are we prepared to diminish and decline? And decline is a choice, it's not our destiny," Rubio said. "The country is really at a hinge point in terms of moving forward into the future. We are really transitioning from out of the 20th century, well into the 21st century, a dramatically different world. Globalization has changed the nature of our economy, technology has changed the nature of work, the entire global order that we've had since the end of World War II is now in flux and I think it's really important we move in the right direction as a country by not just confronting the challenges of this new era, but increasing its opportunities."

As he said in the interview, Rubio will make an announcement about his presidential plans on April 13, 2015.

Indiana is experiencing its two minutes of hate.

In Defense of Indiana

By Rich Lowry - March 31, 2015

Indiana is experiencing its two minutes of hate.

It is doubtful that since its admittance into the union in 1816, the heretofore inoffensive Midwestern state has ever been showered with so much elite obloquy.

Indiana is experiencing its two minutes of hate.

It is doubtful that since its admittance into the union in 1816, the heretofore inoffensive Midwestern state has ever been showered with so much elite obloquy.

To listen to the critics, you’d think the law was drafted by a joint committee of attorneys from the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church.

The enlightened are stumbling over themselves in their rush to boycott Indiana. Seattle and San Francisco are banning official travel there, and Connecticut is following suit. In a Washington Post op-ed, Apple CEO Tim Cook pronounced the Indiana law part of a “very dangerous” trend that allows “people to discriminate against their neighbors” (never mind that his company is happy to do business in Communist China).

The anti-Indiana backlash is a perfect storm of hysteria and legal ignorance, supercharged by the particularly censorious self-righteousness of the Left.

All the Indiana law says is that the state can’t substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling governmental interest at stake and it is pursued by the least restrictive means. The law doesn’t mandate any particular outcome; it simply provides a test for the courts in those rare instances when a person’s exercise of religion clashes with a law.

Nineteen other states have similar protections, and they are all modeled on a federal version of the law that passed Congress with near unanimity in 1993 (Indiana’s law is arguably a little more robust than the federal version, because it also applies to private suits). If these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were the enablers of discrimination they are portrayed as, much of the country would already have sunk into a dystopian pit of hatred.

Legal historians a century from now may be mystified by how a measure that was uncontroversial for so long suddenly became a mark of shame. They will find their answer in the Left’s drive to crush any dissent from its cultural agenda, especially on gay marriage.

The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad.

Why? It’s a large, diverse country, with many people of differing faiths and different points of view. More specifically, the country has an enormous wedding industry not known for its hostility to gays. The burgeoning institution of gay marriage will surely survive the occasional florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.

As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesn’t make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, it’s the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question — individual conscience be damned. So it isn’t bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.

It’s not clear that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will shield these kinds of business people (they haven’t, to this point). It might be that more specific exemptions are necessary. But the mere possibility that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect a baker opposed to gay marriage is enough to create a furious, unhinged reaction.

Yes, there is intolerance afoot in the debate over Indiana, but it’s not on the part of Indianans. 

The End of Tolerance And Enforced Morality

The End of Tolerance And Enforced Morality

Are you having a fun Culture War 4.0? It’s certainly been a crazy ride for Indiana state representatives, who appear to be caving to pressure to “clarify” RFRA language after being assaulted for being anti-gay. Across the country, the opportunity for grandstanding has been seized by the sort of unserious people you would expect: the Washington governor and Seattle mayor have banned official travel to Indiana in the wake of the law. Connecticut’s governor displayed his own inability to understand the law in his state by banning travel there as well. And I’m fine with that, because hey, government officials shouldn’t be using taxpayer money to travel all over the place anyway, even if it does mean Washington and Connecticut officials will miss out on the memorial service for Lil’ Sebastian

The notable thing about Culture War 4.0 is its consistent rejection of tolerance in favor of government enforced morality. Remember your Muad’Dib: “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.” The peaceful tolerance for those who are different now extends too far, for it encompasses people who do not abide by or fully appreciate gay marriages. The people must be brought to heel, and the new morality enforced by government over their religious objections.

It’s instructive to observe George Stephanopoulos’s behavior on this topic, given his role as a very public shill for the Democratic Party. He’s not interested in having a debate on the subject or in acknowledging the importance of RFRAs – something he obviously did two decades ago while working for President Clinton. He’s interested in spouting aggressive talking points to frame Republicans as bigots for giving people the ability to defend their religious freedom in the courts. That’s the entire goal here: turn religious liberty into something that lives within the bounds of scare quotes.

And this goal is motivated not just by the political aims of the left, but by a broad rejection of tolerance as a virtue. It was all well and good when tolerance was about conservatives and religious types swallowing their objections and going along with things – but now that the left is being asked to do the same thing? Forget about it.

“The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage. Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party… The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”

Instead of reinvigorating public discourse about how we value religious liberty and tolerance in the public square, the left’s interest is in shutting it down. As Hans Fiene writes today on the motivations involved: “in order to keep our righteousness shiny, someone had to play the role of Bull Connor, and you were the best fit we could find.” 

As I’ve been writing in recent years about the renewal of the culture wars, I’ve received some steady pushback from many readers on both sides of the marriage issue who believe that such talk is overblown. The lesson of Indiana’s RFRA controversy is that if anything, we have underestimated the commitment of the secular left to enforce fealty within a naked public square, where tolerance is no longer a virtue and the power of government must be used to stamp out dissent. For all their complaints over the years about social conservatives’ use of government to enforce morality, the secular left is more eager than ever to engineer the society they seek, no matter the cost.

Ben Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist. Sign up for a free trial of his daily newsletter, The Transom.

Former Terror Insider Reveals Islam’s True Nature In Six Words That Destroy Obama’s Lie

He’s the son of a founding member of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic terrorist organization (as designated by the United States government) that’s in constant conflict with the state of Israel.

He’s also an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity after realizing the ideology in which he had been raised left him in a deceit-filled “state of delusion,” not understanding then what he understands now — that Islam is “a very dark theory.”

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the author of the best-selling book, “Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices.”

In an interview with Glenn Beck that aired on TheBlaze TV, Yousef summarized his sense of Islam in six words that completely destroy what President Obama and others have long maintained.

Those six words: “Islam is the religion of war.”

Yousef charged that Obama’s position on the “religion of war” and his often stated belief that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam is a “big problem.”

“When the president of the free world misleads the public, this is a big, big problem I believe,” he said. “ISIS is the real face of Islam. ISIS is the real manifestation of the Islamic ideology, of the Islamic theory.”

You can watch a portion of Glenn Beck’s riveting interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef by clicking on the video above, courtesy of TheBlaze TV.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism - Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Downsize the Federal Government

Downsize the Federal Government

David Coughlin

The size of the federal government has exploded over the last century. The legislative and judicial branches of government have grown to serve the increased number of states and its growing population. The size and scope of the executive branch has grown to reflect an expanded role of the federal government over the last 100 years. Apparently the staffing of fourteen separate cabinet departments were not enough to manage the current executive branch, so Barack Obama felt the need to appoint a number of "czars" to focus on special emphasis areas. Recent studies have found that economic growth rates decline when relative government spending exceeds 26% of GDP, and the United States government current spending is close to 40% of GDP. The Republican Party claims the core principle of limited government, but has actively participated in this growth in both size and scope of the federal government. There is still the question of constitutionality why the federal government has expanded into areas not explicitly called out for in the 10th Amendment. Ronald Reagan diagnosed this problem with "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem"

The executive branch of government has grown over time with it greatest growth period last century. George Washington appointed a cabinet of four departments: State, Treasury, War (now Defense), and Attorney General (now Justice). Departments of Interior (1849) and Agriculture (1862) were added in the 19th century. In the first half of the 20th century, Commerce (1913) and Labor (1913) were added. In the second half of the 20th century, the executive branch exploded well beyond the original enumerated powers with Health and Human Services (1953), Housing and Human Development (1965), Transportation (1966), Energy (1974), Education (1979), and Veterans Affairs (1989). Homeland Security was created in 2002. The role of these departments has also increased from overseeing industry, to participating in select niches of industry, and even virtual nationalization of select industry segments. Government monopolies are notoriously inefficient. Revenues are collected not just to pay for government services, but now departments redistribute funds between people, between states, and even between countries. The problem is that government execution gets worse the bigger it gets. The federal budget deficits have caused the national debt to skyrocket over $18 trillion, with no end in sight.

If our federal government is really too large, where to begin? The first step is to convene a Committee Against Government Waste, much like under President Reagan, to develop plans to eliminate duplication, inefficiency, and waste. For example, there is no reason for 24 education and job training programs to be scattered among seven different federal departments and agencies. The next step is to reorganize the Executive branch to eliminate duplication and waste between departments, such as folding Veterans affairs into Defense, and moving the Coast Guard from Homeland Security into Defense. Homeland Security could then be folded under Justice to focus on enforcement. The next step is to privatize work done by the public sector that should rightly be in the private sector, such as: Federal Reserve Banks, Export-Import Bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, PBGC, Amtrak, TSA, TVA, Medicare, and Social Security. The federal government does not need to own so much park land, and should devolve this land back to the states so they can manage its use for parks and resource exploitation. The next step is to eliminate transfer (redistribution) payments between states to decentralize investment decision making back to the states, which represents 17% of the federal budget. Finally, plans must be put in place to dismantle or devolve the functions of the Departments of Education, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Human Development, and Health and Human Services. The 80-plus means-tested welfare programs are so vast and complex, that they are unmanageablefrom a system-wide perspective. Cabinet secretaries should be measured by how much they downsized their departments and how many regulations have been repealed. Republicans have talked a good game of limited government, but pragmatic leadership is missing. Constitutional grounding will provide the framework for long overdue downsizing of our federal government beginning now.

The American people have identified government as our most important domestic problem, so maybe it is time to relook at the size and scope of the federal government. After all of these changes are made, there should be half as many cabinet departments and the cost of the federal government could also be halved. This is the vision I would like to see in a presidential candidate campaign because it is transformational and returns to the fundamentals outlined in our original Constitution. We can hope that Ted Cruz will not be the only presidential candidate who will offer radical reform ideas to begin the repair and realignment of our federal government.

Obama wants to turn America against Israel

Obama wants to turn America against Israel

Ed Lasky

Barack Obama wants to fundamentally transform something besides America.

As most informed Americans know by now, Barack Obama is a man with grandiose visions of himself.

According to Barack Obama, President Obama's accomplishments have vaulted him into the pantheon of the greats: Lincoln, Roosevelt and Johnson. His nomination victory speech marked the moment "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" according to, once again, Barack Obama. He was a better political director than his political director and a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, reported…Barack Obama. The sense of grandiosity is dangerous in any president as is the view that a president can do whatever he wants -- the conception of the presidency as held by …you guessed it…Barack Obama. When Barack Obama declared he yearned to go full Bulworth in his second term when he would no longer be on the ballot, pundits pondered how he would wield his power.

One primary goal has become increasingly apparent. He wants to fundamentally transform America's feelings towards and support of Israel, one of our most reliable and key allies. He has been doing so in ways that should offend every America, because the methods he has used are contrary to our best and most honored traditions.

When questions first arose regarding his controversial relationship with the anti-American, anti-white, and anti-Semitic Jeremiah Wright (whom he called his "moral compass" and "political mentor"), the media were eager to dismiss allegations that he shared -- or even heard Wright express -- such beliefs. This was so despite Barack Obama having previously said he attended almost every sermon Wright gave; despite having his daughters baptized by Wright; despite giving the bulk of his charitable donations to Wright's church; despite borrowing one of Wright's favorite phrases, (not "God Damn America" and not any of the many anti-Israel tropes) "Audacity of Hope," for the title of one of his books; and despite approvingly quoting Wright's "white man's greed runs a world in need" in the same book. (A sampling of Wright's anti-Israel hits be found in Barack Obama and Israel.) Among a raft of other screeds, Wright complained that America was too close to Israel. Later, Wright's anti-Semitism became clearer when he blasted "them Jews" for keeping him from talking with Obama once he became president. The New York Times quoted Wright as predicting that if more people knew about his closeness to Barack Obama and his own views, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." 

Now why would that be? Perhaps he thought the media might pick up on Wright's close friendship with Louis Farrakhan, who said Hitler was a great man and Judaism was a gutter religion. Or the fact that the two of them went on a fundraising mission to seek money from Libyan dictator, terror-supporting Muammar Gaddafi. Or that Wright decided to bestow an award on Farrakhan. His church's magazine also published anti-Semitic screeds from Hamas leadership. Perhaps that was the reason that Barack Obama told a Palestinian activist in Chicago that he had to tone down his views towards Israel for campaign reasons and his campaign joined with a compliant media to obscure this history and his relationship with Wright and to attack the messengers who wanted to make these facts more transparent.

His plan to pursue policies inimical to the America-Israel relationship was clear form the earliest days of his presidency. In July, 2009, he had Jewish leaders at the White House, reportedly telling them that he sought to put "daylight" between America and Israel. There has been a lot of coverage over his treatment of Israel over the last few years (a chronology of those actions can be found here and another treatment can be found here).

The Democratic Party has been moving away from support for Israel for years. This has been proven by poll after poll regarding the party affiliation of those who sympathize and support Israel. There was a visual manifestation of this reality three years ago. During the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama had maneuvered through his minions to remove from the plank longstanding support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Reacting to criticism from the Republican Party, efforts were made to restore the language. Pandemoniumensued, since many delegates objected to the restoration, and made their anger known. Other changes were made that escaped the radar screen but signaled diminished support for Israel by Democrats. However, Obama is acting as an accelerant; as president he has demanded all Democrats support his anti-Israel policies, pulling them farther away from supporting America's one true ally in the region as he has led the liberal breakup with Israel. Will Democrats continue to be AWOL when it comes to defending Israel from their president?

However his plan to turn other Americans against Israel has received scant attention. His agenda is to permanently drive a wedge between Israel and Americans that will last many years after he has left the Oval Office.

He chose as an early adviser Daniel Kurtzer, who had co-written a book advocating that the way to weaken and pressure Israel was to take steps to weaken its support among Americans. A similar course of action was seemingly advocated by Samantha Power, also a key foreign policy adviser during his campaign (she complained about criticismof Obama being all about "what was good for the Jews") is and now America's Ambassador to the United Nations.

So how has he sought to turn Americans against Israel? Barack Obama seems determined to portray Israel as a racist nation.

In 2006 when "flying over the Palestinian territories" he used the term "separation barrier" when describing the security fence that was erected to stop the massive number of suicide attacks that were killing so many Israelis. Separation barrier is redolent of racism -- as in "keeping the races separate," as in "separate but equal." Most people refer to it as a security fence or, in some areas, a wall. His comment elicited little response at the time but given what followed maybe more people should have been alerted to the use of such loaded words.

What followed? John Kerry's description of an Israel he said was at risk of becoming an "apartheid nation." Administration spokesman Jay Carney confirmed that President Obama shared John Kerry's views.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted an invitation to speak before a joint session of Congress, Barack Obama worked to ensure that many members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) would boycott the speech. Obama and company created a racial controversy over a petulant political spat. Obama is a master of manufacturing outrage.

According to Newsweek's Jonathan Broder, South Carolina Democrat James Clyburn, a powerful Congressman and a long-time member of the CBC, Netanyahu's speech was an "affront to America's first black president." A Democratic Congressional aide says "the Congressional Black Caucus is gone" [for Israel].

When, during the closing days of Netanyahu's campaign, a Facebook posting on his campaign website tried to motivate his supporters to vote by conveying the message that Arab citizens of Israel were coming out in "droves" (helped along by Obama's machinations within Israel to bring down Netanyahu, including the use of taxpayer money to do so). The language may not be the most felicitous, but similar rhetoric warning of massive turnout in support of opponents is a common practice during campaigns -- certainly Barack Obama himself has done the same during his campaigns-without eliciting charges of racism. As Jeff Jacobywrote in Obama's Hypocrisy with Netanyahu:

The candidate who captivated America with his promise to transcend partisan and racial rancor turned out to be the most consistently polarizing president in modern history. He hasn't scrupled to inject barbed racial comments into the nation's political discourse, but if he has ever candidly apologized for doing so, it must have been on deep background. Obama's contempt for Netanyahu is nothing new, but before he lambastes other political leaders for their "divisive rhetoric," the president really ought to take a good look in the mirror.

But Barack Obama has pounced on this posting and has refused to listen to Netanyahu's repeated apologies and clarifications. Obama, who focuses on polls, surely knows that African-American support for Israel is declining. Is he trying accelerate that downward trend? Was Obama playing the race card?

He also wants to portray Israelis as opponents of a two-state solution with the Palestinians by seizing on a mistaken media report that seemed to indicate Netanyahu was backtracking on his previous support of a two-state solution. He was not; Netanyahu merely stated that given the chaos that rages across the region and the repeated Palestinian rejection of peace deals, he could not see the conditions as being ripe "today" for a Palestinian state. But the facts did not matter, nor did repeated clarifications and corrections of that mistaken report. The White House did not even reach out to the Israelis to confirm the report. Obama saw an opportunity to tar all Israelis as rejecting the possibility of a Palestinian state and willfully promoted this distortion. As Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico wrote:

Obama went further than he or anyone around him had before. Then just when he seemed to be wrapping up, he dug in some more.

"I took him at his word that that's what he meant, and I think that a lot of voters inside of Israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally," Obama said.

Therefore, from his bully pulpit (and bully is the right word) he castigates Israelis as being opposed to a Palestinian state.

Polls have shown for many years that Israelis want a two-state solution but they have learned through the bitter experience (and many wounded and killed) of giving up Gaza to the Palestinians that, given current reality, Palestine is likely to become another terror state.

There are certainly signs that he sees Israelis as being oppressors, colonialists and imperialists and now he wants to use his powers of persuasion to promote those views to other Americans. He may use proxies to do so. A recent example was his Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough telling J Street (an anti-Israel group posing as a pro-Israel group) that Israel's "occupation that has lasted for 50 years must end."

Barack Obama's relationship with J Street shows his desire to conquer and divide the Jewish community and turn American Jews against Israel. He has actively courted and promoted J Street and close allies were among its founders. George Soros, an early and generous supporter of Obama's nascent political career, hid his pivotal funding of J Street at its inception from prying eyes (and J Street lied about Soros's funding when asked) until the disclosure of his support was unwittingly disclosed. Obama has given respectability and influence to J Street that it had previously lacked; sending top officials to address their conferences and inviting its leadership into the inner sanctum of the White House.

There are more problematic aspects of Barack Obama's campaign to turn Americans against Israel. He and his proxies have indulged in tropes that have a doleful history. For hundreds of years Jews have been accused of being warmongers, leading the nations they reside in to war. When Congressional opponents of Obama's appeasement of Iran suggested his "negotiations" were heading in the direction of arming the mullahs with nuclear weapons, the White House dared them to admit they want war:

"If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Otherwise, it's not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran's nuclear program to proceed".

Of course, they do not want war, they want a tougher agreement that may prevent war. But Obama laid down the gauntlet and accused them of wanting to wage war on Iran. Given Obama's history of eagerly surrendering to tyrants (Assad, Castro, Putin) people are fearful he will do so with the number one terror-sponsoring nation on earth, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Jews are often the first target in such campaigns. Obama gave a speech in 2006 against the Iraq War and pointed fingers at who was responsible:

"Opposed to the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in the administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throat…."

This is disturbing. Obama ignored the role of Colin Powell, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and other movers and shakers in the Administration. But Perle (who never even served in the Administration) and Wolfowitz (who was a Deputy Secretary) have been lumped together by many anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists as Jews who led us into the Iraq War to serve the interests of Israel. Why make 2 Jews, one of whom had zero role in the government, as the "culprits" behind the war?

Recently, Barack Obama gave us further insight into his views when he publicly lashed out at Senator Robert Menendez for supporting a tougher approach towards Iran by accusing him of acting at the behest of "donors."

Barack Obama is trafficking in tropes and canards -- dog whistling to the anti-Semitically inclined -- that he (as a self-declared "student of history") should know have a tragic history. Casting aspersions such as these canards has, finally, raised concerns "about the intentions being signaled by the language the White House is using" While some have questioned whether Barack Obama is anti-Semitic and others declare him to be, as has Mark Levin, one should recall that during the campaign in 2008, when controversy arose over his views towards Israel, he boasted "nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have." He was ridiculed by Jake Tapper of ABC News for the claim. But he does have a funny way of showing his bona fides as the world's greatest fighter against anti-Semitism.

Why welcome of Al Sharpton, with a long history of anti-Semitism and with an American-style pogrom to his credit, to the White House as his point man on race? One of his favorite bloggers is Andrew Sullivan, who traffics in anti-Semitic tropes. Why call Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan among his closest friendsamong world leaders when Erdogan has been on a non-stop campaign to spread anti-Semitism throughout the region?

Furthermore, the White House leaked to the media a story that Israel was "spying" on America and "stealing our secrets" during the "negotiations" with Iran. Israel denied the allegations. Information gleaned from the Iran talks likely came from eavesdropping on the Iranians and disclosures from the French -- who have serious problems with the weak approach Obama has taken with the Iranians. Allies, by the way, spy on one another all the time. America spied on Angela Merkel and the story the White House leaked about "Israel spying on America" came from American spying on Israel. But the image of the perfidious Israelis spying on America is indelible -- and shameful. There are reasons people feel that "the claims of Israeli spying are part of an intentional American campaign to undermine Israel's standing among the American public and their elected officials." Investors Business Daily titled an editorial against this outrage "Libel is Obama's Latest Weapon in his War on Israel" for a good reason.

Earlier in his presidency, when there were future campaigns to come, Barack Obama agreed that policy differences with Israel were to be dealt with diplomatically and privately, free from the glare of klieg lights. Now that he is no longer on the ballot he has been shining a bright line on them and focused his ire and anger not just on Netanyahu and not just on Israel but on American supporters of Israel. He has been portraying Israel in a way that he has not portrayed Putin's Russia, the mullahs of Iran, and radical Islamic terrorists. Why the disparate treatment?

His goal is to undermine support for Israel among Americans, and he intends to carry on not just until the end of his presidency but, taking a leaf from former President Jimmy Carter, will do so for many years after he leaves office as part of his Grand Plan to continue to fundamentally transform America and Americans' views of Israel.

Uncertain of Obama, Arab States Gear Up for War

A pan-Arab coalition with a patchy record steps up as Yemen falls apart and U.S. policy remains unclear.

Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, left, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri give a press conference at the conclusion of an Arab summit meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, South Sinai, Egypt, Sunday, March 29, 2015. ENLARGE
Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, left, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri give a press conference at the conclusion of an Arab summit meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, South Sinai, Egypt, Sunday, March 29, 2015. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Few organizations boast a reputation of dysfunction comparable to the Arab League’s. Over seven decades the Arab League has distinguished itself through infighting and fecklessness. But now, with the Obamaadministration seen as missing in action in the Middle East, the alliance of 22 countries is undergoing a renaissance. Over the weekend, the Arab League met in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and endorsed the creation of an intervention force to fight terrorism in the Middle East.

Regional backing for the force came days after a mostly Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes targeting the Iran-backed, nominally Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, who last week sacked the provisional capital of Aden and drove Yemen President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi into exile.

While developments in Yemen added to the urgency, discussions about a pan-Arab force have been under way for months. The main driver is Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, whose country faces a terrorism problem, and he is supported by such key Sunni Arab leaders as King Abdullah II of Jordan and King Salman of Saudi Arabia.