Screen Shot 2015-01-26 at 4.44.31 PM

U.S. establishment continues praise of tyrannical dictator

Pentagon officials announced the creation of an essay competition Monday to honor recently deceased Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

According to a press release from the U.S. Department of Defense, attendees of the National Defense University have been tasked with formulating a written tribute to the “life and leadership” of the “Saudi Arabian monarch.”

“The king, who died Jan. 23 at age 90, oversaw the modernization of his country’s military during the time he spent as commander of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, a position he held from 1963 until he became king in 2005,” the press release states.

Headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, the essay contest will focus on both Abdullah and the region as a whole.

“This is an important opportunity to honor the memory of the king, while also fostering scholarly research on the Arab-Muslim world, and I can think of no better home for such an initiative than NDU,” Dempsey said.

Marine Corps Major General and National Defense University President Frederick M. Padilla had no issue with praising the late King, calling the competition a unique research opportunity.

“This scholarly research competition presents NDU students with a unique opportunity to focus their research and writing efforts on relevant issues at the intersection of U.S. security interests and the Arab-Muslim world,” Padilla said.

Dempsey went one step further in his idolization of the ex-ruler by calling him a man of “remarkable character and courage.”

“In my job to train and advise his military forces, and in our relationship since, I found the king to be a man of remarkable character and courage,” Dempsey said.

Since Abdullah’s passing, members of the U.S. establishment have given endless praise to the former dictator, seemingly ignoring his barbaric rule and world-renowned brutality.

As noted by the Intercept’s Murtaza Hussain, prominent U.S. leaders such as John McCain, Joe Biden and John Kerry wasted no time in highlighting Abdullah’s alleged accomplishments following his death.

In a statement last night Senator John McCain eulogized Abdullah as ‘a vocal advocate for peace, speaking out against violence in the Middle East.’ John Kerry described the late monarch as ‘a brave partner in fighting violent extremism’ and ‘a proponent of peace.’ Not to be outdone, Vice President Joe Biden released a statement mourning Abdullah and announced that he would be personally leading a presidential delegation to offer condolences on his passing.
Similarly, President Obama expressed his grief over the loss of Abdullah as well, ridiculously pointing to his so-called “search for peace.”

“He took bold steps in advancing the Arab Peace Initiative, an endeavor that will outlive him as an enduring contribution to the search for peace in the region,” the President said. “At home, King Abdullah’s vision was dedicated to the education of his people and to greater engagement with the world.”

The British government and the Royal Family paid their respects to the dictator by ordering all flags over state buildings and palaces to be flown at half mast, a move which produced an almost immediate backlash.

In reality, King Abdullah’s leadership produced atrocities nearly identical to that of alleged U.S.-enemies in the Islamic State.

Western leaders made no mention of the country’s “record level” beheadings in 2014 for crimes such as adultery, apostasy and “sorcery.”

Self proclaimed women’s rights supporter Hillary Clinton, who publicly praised the Saudi king last week, had no issue with two females being taken to terrorism court last month over the offense of driving a vehicle.

Many politicians who claim to support free speech were silent as a Saudi court sentenced a human rights lawyer to 15 years in prison for “inciting public opinion” last July.

Dem. Rep. Barbara Lee: Calling terrorists ‘Islamic extremists’ would anger them

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 12.05.26 PM

    Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., says Obama administration correct not to call terrorism Islamic extremism.

While appearing on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes,” Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said the Obama administration was correct in refusing to refer to Islamic terrorists as “Islamic extremists,” the Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday. The reason, she explained, is that doing so would anger them and possibly cause them to engage in even more terrorism.

“They’re responsible for ensuring our national security. We have to be careful in our language and how we — I don’t want to see any more anger and hostility or violence in the world,” she said. “Our response to terrorism is a response that makes us safer that begins to dismantle and degrade terrorist organizations, not create more havoc, anger, and hostility in the world.”

Apparently, that means not saying anything that might hurt their feelings or make them angry. The Free Beacon noted that the administration’s “acquiescence” on calling Islamic terror what it is has been the subject of hot debate over the last week. “The catered response signals a fear of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and their extremist allies,” the Free Beacon said.

Not concerned with the feelings of those who support the recent attacks against the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, France has strongly responded in both words and action. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for example, said France is at war with radical Islam, jihadism and “against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

“We are not a collection of communities, we are one nation, a Republic with values: generosity, solidarity, fraternity, secularism,” he added. “We must also be lucid: antisemitism, racism, hatred of the other, these things are intolerable… Journalists were killed for drawing, police were killed for protecting us, and Jews were killed because they were Jewish. This is what is intolerable. The indignation must be total and permanent.”

The administration, on the other hand, has taken a much quieter stance. While appearing to condemn Islamic terror, it has bent over backwards to remain politically correct. Last weekend, the administration refused to send a high-level representative to join 50 world leaders in a march against terrorism in Paris, choosing instead to send an ambassador. The administration later said that was a mistake after coming under fire from both liberals and conservatives.

On Friday, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh discussed the left’s refusal to call Islamic terror what it is. He encouraged his listeners to “remember everything you’ve heard over the last 20 years about liberals and bad guys. Let’s not criticize them. Let’s not demean them.” He then cited former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Americans must “empathize with our enemy.”

While speaking at a Georgetown University event last December, Clinton said that so-called “smart power” means “showing respect, even for one’s enemies; trying to understand and, insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.” This, Limbaugh said, “is what we have brought to the State Department.”

Liberal politicians aren’t the only ones who suffer from what Greg Gutfeld called “truthophobia” regarding Islam. A number of so-called “mainstream media” outlets suffer from what appears to be a “fear of the facts,” smearing anyone sounding the alarm against Islamic extremism as Islamophobes.

Radical Muslims like Anjem Choudary, however, haven’t felt the need to restrain their speech. As we reported this week, Choudary blamed freedom for the Paris terrorism and said anyone who insults Islam or Mohammed — even the Pope — faces death. A number of people in Muslim countries around the world celebrated the attacks and called the killers heroes, unconcerned that their rhetoric would anger those who oppose Islamic terrorism.

The Free Beacon said that Lee’s comments are not surprising. “She was the only member of Congress to vote against the authorization to use military force to invade Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks,” the Free Beacon added.

Americans Make It Surprisingly Clear Who They Don’t Want to See Running in 2016


By Kevin Boyd (6 hours ago) |

In the new year, the 2016 presidential race is going to start sorting itself out. Both parties are expected to have competitive contests, but more attention is likely to be paid to the GOP field.

Two of the most discussed potential candidates are not exactly fresh faces on the political scene: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Yet, in two recent polls, the American people say they aren’t interested in a retread from the past and want someone new.

According to Rasmussen Reports, most Americans believe that Republicans should seek a fresh face to run for president:

Most voters – including Republicans – think the GOP should start fresh during the next presidential election. But a sizable number of voters also express concern about families from both sides of the political aisle holding too much influence.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Republicans should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2016. Just 10% think the GOP should promote a candidate who has run in the past. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not sure.

In addition, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the American people are generally not interested in either a Jeb Bush or a Mitt Romney candidacy.

Just 31 percent of all voters say they could see themselves supporting Bush in 2016, while 57 percent say they couldn’t support him;
33 percent could possibly support 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, versus 60 percent who oppose him;

If the American people really do desire a break from the political status quo, the Republican party will have a difficult time selling two possible nominees that come from well-known, unpopular political dynasties.