Mediaboss Marketing

Continued below... While real refugees were kept out, Obama threw open the doors to Sunni Muslim migrants

Of the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrian Christians, Obama took in 125 in his final year.

While real refugees were kept out, Obama threw open the doors to Sunni Muslim migrants: many of whom sympathize with their Sunni Islamic terrorist side from Al Qaeda to ISIS. Obama had armed and aided the Sunni Islamic freedom fighters in Syria who were oppressing and displacing Christians.

These are the fake refugees on whose behalf the left is protesting at airports.

President Trump has pledged to overturn Obamas covert ban on Christian refugees. The leftist protesters arent there to support refugees, but to oppose his plan to help Christian refugees.

These arent pro-refugee protests. Theyre pro-migrant and anti-refugee tantrums. Their real message is to keep Obamas ban on Syrian Christian refugees while importing more migrant Muslim terror.

The left does not support actual refugees because the majority of those are fleeing either leftist or Islamist regimes. And the left is the unofficial lobby for the former and supports the latter.

Joe Biden, Jerry Brown and other leftists fought tooth and nail against bringing Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees to America. George McGovern insisted that they would be better off going back to their own land.

Amnesty International, which beats the Muslim refugee drum louder than anyone else, joined in the effort to cover up Communist genocide in Cambodia. Allegations made by refugees must be examined with care in view of their possible partiality, the left-wing organization warned. It claimed that it did not want to embarrass the Communist mass murderers by exposing their misdeeds in public.

Cambodian genocide denial lived on until the bodies could no longer be covered up.

The left has shamelessly invoked the plight of Jewish refugees from the USSR and Nazi Germany.

It was FDR, the great hero of the left, who sent Jewish refugees to die in Nazi concentration camps. While leftists like to place the blame on Congress, the FDR administration went to great lengths to keep out even those Jewish refugees that could have been legally admitted with security reviews.

These tactics were used to keep out as many as 117,000 Jews.

An administration memo called for removing discretion from consuls so that there would no Raoul Wallenbergs or Chiune Sugiharas on FDRs watch while advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.

The FDR administration even pressured other countries in the region not to accept Jews.

FDR had a long history of anti-Semitic remarks. He had even defended Nazi anti-Semitism in private conversations. The most horrifying of his remarks came when Stalin and FDR were discussing the Jewish problem. Stalin had already been engaged in massacring the Jews. FDR quipped to Stalin that he would give the six million Jews of the United States to King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile the left had spent a long time denying that Jews were even persecuted in the USSR.

The first boom in Soviet Jewish emigration occurred under Nixon. More Jews were able to leave the USSR in one year of Nixon than during LBJs entire term in office. In Nixons last full year in office, 35,000 Soviet Jews were allowed to leave. In Carters first year, the numbers were barely half that. There was an equally dramatic difference between Carters last year in office and Reagans first year in office.

Nixons Attorney General, John Mitchell, had intervened to offer parole to Soviet Jewish refugees while Carter had sought to suspend Jackson-Vanik which was forcing the USSR to free Soviet Jews.

It is the left that stands on the side of the leftist anti-Semites who oppress and persecute Jews.

When the Marxist Sandinistas persecuted Jews, they were the toast of the left. John Kerry lobbied for them and Bill de Blasio supported them. But President Reagan courageously denounced them.

The Nicaraguan Communists claim that theyre not anti-Semitic, theyre just anti-Zionist. Well, as anti-Zionists, they desecrated Managuas synagogue and drove the small Jewish community into exile, President Reagan said, describing graffiti reading, Death to the Jewish pigs.

Who cared about those Jewish exiles? Reagan. Not the left which glorified the Marxists scribbling, Death to the Jewish pigs on synagogue walls.

Today the left is doing the same thing to Christian refugees that it did to Jewish refugees.

Obamas people fought hard to prevent the Boko Haram terrorists who were massacring thousands of Christians and bombing churches in Nigeria from being named as a foreign terrorist organization. He sided with the Muslim Brotherhood church bombers in Egypt and with Palestinian Authority Jihadists killing Jews in Israel.

Everything Obama did is the policy of the left. Not just in America, but also in Europe and in Canada.

The left has formed an alliance with Islamic terrorists. Some of the lawyers who rush to airports to aid Muslims detained on immigration charges also rush to prisons to help Muslim terrorists detained in plots to massacre Americans. They dont love refugees. They hate America. They hate us.

The left hates real refugees. It hates them because real refugees want freedom.

Cuban and Soviet Jewish refugees voted for Trump because they know what its like to live under the left. The Christian refugees fleeing the Middle East are the first to warn about the dangers of Islam.

Thats why the left will do everything it can to keep them out of this country. There is nothing that a totalitarian movement hates and fears more than people who love freedom.

Behind the moral theater of the editorial page and the sanctimonious circus at the airport is a horrific crime. The left has aided and abetted genocide from the USSR to Nazi Germany, from Asia to the Middle East, while providing aid and comfort to the monsters behind these horrors. The greatest intellectuals of the left defended the horrific crimes of Communism as they whitewash Islamist crimes today.

Nothing has changed.

Leftists are really protesting at airports for the continuation of Obamas Christian refugee ban. They are screaming their lungs out to keep the Christian refugees fleeing Islamic terror out of this country.

The left hasnt turned out in force to save Muslims. It has marshaled its haters to kill Christian refugees.

Excerpt from:
The Left's Persecution of Real Refugees from Islam and Communism - Canada Free Press

During CNNs town hall last Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Minority Leader, took a question from college student Trevor Hill.

Hill cited a Harvard University poll showing 51 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29not just Democrats, not just leftistsno longer support the system of capitalism.

Pelosi had an immediate, physical, reaction; she recoiled at the mere suggestion capitalism is losing favor among large swaths of the population. Hill continued, noting that, as a gay man, he has been excited to see Democrats move left on social issues.

But his question for Pelosi was: Are Democrats open to moving farther left to a more populist message on economic issues, creating a more stark contrast to right-wing economics?

Pelosis response was quick and sure. After all, she couldnt let anyone get the wrong impression. Well I thank you for your question, she said, but I have to say, were capitalist, and thats just the way it is.

The House Minority Leader went on to tell a story whose motive was to distinguish between two different capitalisms, one that is good to those at the bottom of income distribution and one that is not. We have entered the age of shareholder capitalism, Pelosi alleged, and that is why CEO pay continues to climb while the average worker sees little to no income growth.

She went on to argue the income inequality we see today is an immorality, the free market remains a place that can do good things.

Theres a reason such talk sounds shallow: For a majority of the population, the so-called free market hasnt worked for a long time. For millennials like Trevor, capitalism appears to have outlived its usefulness; as Fredrik deBoer noted, only about half of 30-year-old workers in America earn more than their parents did at the same age.

Compare that to previous generations, deBoer added. In 1940, 92% of Americans in their 30s earned more than their parents did at the same age. Thats a vast drop.

And, to be sure, its not just young people who are feeling the pain of stagnation and decline. As the economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman noted in a recent report, For the 117 million U.S. adults in the bottom half of the income distribution, growth has been non-existent for a generation. It is, they concluded, a tale of two countries one enriched by the current order, one excluded entirely.

There are multiple factors at play here: Tax cuts for the rich, the decline of unions, a slow-growth economy. The financial collapse eliminated the wealth of middle- and low-income homeowners, and many have yet to regain their footing. Wage growth has been largely stagnant since the 1970s.

And Democrats particularly corporate-wing Democrats like Nancy Pelosi have failed to offer sufficiently ambitious solutions these crises. Hillary Clintons anti-poverty program is a case in point. Instead of offering a robust agenda, she put forward the usual technocratic, means-tested policies that would merely tinker around the edges while leaving the larger structural issues intact.

There was, however, a candidate who represented a significant departure from the status quo. Bernie Sanderscalled for a $15 minimum wage (Clinton, along with many other Democrats, pushed for $12), far higher taxes on the wealthy, a crackdown on Wall Street, free public college tuition, and single-payer health care.

In short, the Sanders agenda was one placing aggressive redistribution of wealth and power at the center. It was an approach that didnt avoid class war, but recognized a vicious war has been waged from above for decades and urged the 99 percent to fight back. He called this program democratic socialism.

In direct contrast to Pelosi, Sanders, when asked by Chuck Todd in 2015 if he is a capitalist, responded with a blunt, No, Im a democratic socialist.

One can argue the meaning of the label is Sanders in fact a democratic socialist, or is he really a social democrat?

The significant point is Sanders garnered rather incredible enthusiasm, and tangible results, by alleging capitalism as such is ineffective at addressing the needs of most of the population. It has been ineffective for a long time and a new imagination is necessary if we are to tackle head-on the immense crises we face, from rampant poverty to climate change.

Despite what his critics alleged throughout the Democratic primaries, the Sanders coalition was quite diverse, and the most prominent dividing line between those who voted for the Vermont senator and those who voted for Clinton was not race or gender but age.

The young voters who overwhelmingly favored Sanders will shape the future political landscape. No longer will they tolerate answers like thats just the way it is from Democrats who have for too long failed to address the failures of the status quo.

Writing in 1970, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith lamented the state of the Democratic Party of his time. He wrote that if the test of the success of a party is the quality and number of its office holders, the Democrats are not doing well.

If they are to recover, Galbraith argued, they must condemn the current order as toxic and ineffective, and rather than urging we return to what was, they must move in an entirely new direction.

The Democratic Party must henceforth use the word socialism, he argued. It describes what is needed.

For how much longer will Galbraiths advice be ignored?

Jake Johnson is a freelance writer. Follow him on Twitter: @johnsonjakep

Excerpt from:
"We're Capitalist" Doesn't Cut It, Nancy Pelosi - Paste Magazine

Unaffordable Socialism in Sri Lanka

(February 7, 2017, Boston Hong Kong SAR, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka is a no-growth welfare state, which until recently could get by with minimal foreign assistance. This situation is changing, in part because of Colombos chronic neglect of its key agriculturalsector, in part because of the higher costs of Imported oil and grain, a declassified CIA paper noted.

Rice production, which increased steadily during l 965-70, has failed to increase further since 1970. The countrys heavy dependence on imported grain and petroleum and its inability to expand exports have forced stringent controls on nonfood imports and an increased reliance on short-term foreign loans, it added.

The government shows no signs of shifting toward growth-oriented policies. Failure to generate growth has worsened widespread unemployment and has eroded welfare programme, the paper monitored.

The declassified paper is reproduced below;

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Read the original here:
Why Sri Lanka failed in Socialism CIA viewpoint - Sri Lanka Guardian

(Updated at 1:58 p.m.) A new grassroots organizationin Arlington hopes to obstruct President Trumps actions by usingsome familiar tactics.

The groupis called Indivisible Arlington, and its quickly becoming a focal point for local political frustrations.The organization gets its name from the Indivisible Guide, an online resource thatborrows protest tacticsfrom the Tea Party, the right-wing protest group that helped reshape the U.S. political landscape after the election of President Obama.

The goal of the Indivisible movementis to act as a kind of Tea Party of the left, said Arlington chapter co-organizer David Robeck.

The Tea Party had very effective ways to obstruct things, he added. We wanted to learn from what they did.

In the months ahead, Indivisible Arlington members will speak up at town hall meetings, call or meet their congressional representatives and show up en masse to events and organized rallies or protests.

The idea seems to be resonating among locals. Though Indivisible Arlington only formed last month, it already has more than400 members.The group is composed of people from all walks of life, including local students, longtime activists and retired federal employees, Robeck said.

So many people showed up to the groups first meeting at the Arlington Central Library last weekend that the meeting had to bemovedto nearby Quincy Park.

Despite the cold weather, 106 people gathered to participate, reads a press release about the groups first meeting. The discussion included a wide range of issues such as cabinet nominees, refugees, and womens rights.

But its not just Arlington thats riding the wave of political activism. Similar protest groups are popping up all across the country.

There was outrage right away and that mobilized people to demonstrate everywhere, Robeck said. Were stronger when we unite together.

Those interested in attending Indivisible Arlington meetings can request access tothe groupsFacebook page.

View post:
Arlington Group Borrows Tea Party Tactics to Oppose Trump ... - ARL now

Culture Beat Feb. 6, 2017

With the all the protesting and rioting across the country since Donald Trumps election, some in the mainstream media have suggested that this is evidence of a leftist grassroots political movement akin to a progressive tea party. While there is little question these protests and riots attract a lot of media attention, is what Americans see occurring an organized grassroots cohesive movement? Not likely.

There is a profound and fundamental difference between the Tea Party movement and the current leftist resistance temper tantrum. The Tea Party was truly a grassroots movement born out of serious concerns over the ballooning national debt, government spending and the need to lower taxes the very ideas of Liberty that lit the fires of the American Revolution. It was mixture of traditional socially minded conservatives and libertarians both concerned over the perceived loss of individual liberty and the growing creep of socialism. It was the passage of ObamaCare that saw the Tea Party come into its own as a truly potent political force that helped lead to the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate with the goal of being reformers, not revolutionaries.

Those on the Left or more accurately far-left currently protesting and rioting arent interested in connecting with traditional American values, though they like to throw around terms like un-American. They see traditional American values as simply codes for racism, bigotry and sexism. To this leftist grievance class everything is about equality or the lack thereof an inequity of outcome, not opportunity. In reality, what the Left is after is a neo-Marxism. When they talk of a grassroots movement, they are speaking of the rise of a new proletariat. They seek a complete re-ordering of society around their leftist concepts of social justice equality. In reality, these protesters are hoping to birth a revolution, not a reformation.

Individual freedom versus collectivism; American history has shown time and again that Americans prefer individual liberty over and against collectivist tyranny. It seems to us there is no comparison between these movements, only contrast.

The rest is here:
The Left's Tea Party? - Patriot Post