Rush Limbaugh Gives Breitbart TV Shout Out for Obama’s Bad ISIS Intel Remarks

Monday on his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh read Breitbart TV’s post on President Barack Obama blaming bad “intelligence estimates” for not anticipating the speed in which ISIS would capture large sections of Iraq.

According to Limbaugh, Obama is blaming bad intelligence not only to cover up his underestimation of ISIS taking Iraq but also to hide the United States was supporting ISIS in its fight against Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN




Source: Breitbart Feed

Red State Democrats Running from Their Gun Control Votes

Red state Democrats who voted for the failed Senate gun control bill in April 2013 have been scrambling lately to focus their campaigns on anything but guns and gun control. With November closing in, they’ve even asked Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly to stay out of their states to avoid a shift in focus to guns or gun control. 

But the reality is that Senators Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and Al Franken (D-MN) all voted for the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill in 2013–a bill that would have ended the private gun sales which free people have enjoyed in this country for nearly 220 years. It would have implemented an expansion of background checks from retail sales to private and forced every would-be gun owner to pass the same background checks Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara), Ivan Lopez (Ft. Hood 2014), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), James Holmes (Aurora theater), and Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood 2009) passed, to name a few. 

When Hagan voted for gun control, those around her said that doing so would bolster her chances of re-election in 2014. But by the end of last year, she was already losing ground because of the vote. It is, therefore, not surprising that she doesn’t want a photo-op with Giffords and Kelly right now.

And Senator Udall certainly doesn’t want gun control to become the topic of conversation in his state of Colorado, where successful recall elections cost two pro-gun control state senators their jobs and forced a third to resign.

The situation is so politically perilous for red state Democrats that even senators who didn’t vote for Manchin-Toomey are staying as far away from Giffords and Kelly as possible. 

As early as July of last year, as The Washington Post reportedGiffords and Kelly traveled to Alaska to talk to Senator Mark Begich (D-AL) about supporting gun control–only to find he was on vacation in an area too remote for phone service. 

So Kelly spent time with Begich’s brother, Tom Begich, who made it clear he “did not officially work for his brother or represent his views.” He also suggested that Giffords and Kelly should not ask his opinion on background checks. 

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.  Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Sebastian Gorka: Ignoring ISIS Threat Is ‘National Security Malpractice’

Dr. Sebastian Gorka reacted to President Obama’s do-nothing approach to the ongoing genocide of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq at the hands of Islamic State (formerly ISIS) by quoting Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is definitely interested in you.”

Gorka, who heads up Breitbart’s National Security team, made the remark while appearing on Breitbart News Sunday when Breitbart Executive Chairman and host Stephen K. Bannon asked him, “What do you say to those who think ISIS is a problem, but it’s not our fight?” 

The counterinsurgency expert likened this kind of thinking to how Neville Chamberlain thought about the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1938.

Moreover, the asymmetrical warfare specialist was appalled by the Deputy National Security Advisor‘s comment this week that the “Islamic State” is not a threat to the United States. By making that claim, Gorka said it was cause for firing and labeled it “national security malpractice.” Not recognizing the threat is “like telling a cancer patient, ‘don’t worry that metastasizing cancer, that’s not going to be bad for you,'” he said. 

Gorka explained that the first thing you do when you are preparing an IPB (intelligence preparation of the battlefield) for a potential conflict is to “read what the enemy writes.” He noted that when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of Islamic State, on the first Friday of Ramadan “got up on the pulpit in the mosque in Mosul in a black turban and a black robe” and gave a sermon not about Iraq, but about the caliphate.

They do not just want to conquer Iraq, or Syria and Iraq, claimed Dr. Gorka. He and the Breitbart National Security team, unveiled ISIS’s map for the New Caliphate while monitoring their twitter feeds. “It was most of the known world including the whole of Spain, half of Africa, and into the Indian subcontinent… they believe everyone who disagrees with them, Jews, Christians, atheists, Zoroastrians, Yazidis… must convert or be killed,” he insisted. “The idea that their goals don’t affect America’s national interests… I don’t care who you are, you have to be smoking something and it isn’t tobacco, if you believe that.”

Gorka pointed out that Islamic State has $800 million in assets in the bank of Iraq. Given that the bombing of the World Trade Center cost the jihadists about $500,000, that gives Islamic State the ability to level about 1,600 terrorist acts equivalent to the 9/11 attacks. What sets the new Islamic State into a class well beyond Al Qaeda is the thousands of Westerners they have recruited to take part in the jihad, including those from the UK and America.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Why I Won’t Be Renewing My Subscription to The Times

I was involved in a very minor spat on Twitter last week. On the day Forest and the Hands Off Our Packs campaign delivered 53,000 letters to Downing Street opposing plain packaging of tobacco, journalist Pat Long tweeted: 

A Guardian journalist, perhaps? A writer for the New Statesman or BMJ? Not a bit of it. One glance at his Twitter profile revealed all and Forest responded accordingly:

Long then retweeted a five day old Hands Off Our Packs tweet, prefacing it with his own partisan comment:

Again, Forest replied in kind:

Within minutes another News UK journalist added her tuppence worth:

Meanwhile Long wasn’t finished. His next tweet read:

He followed this with:

At which point a third News UK journalist, who describes herself as an “Award winning journalist (currently on Times sports desk)”, tweeted:

Ha ha, very droll.

I now tweeted:

And there it ended. A typical Twitter squall, over in a matter of minutes. Or so I thought.

The following day however Long was back, sounding slightly querulous:

Odd? Not really, Pat. Let me spell it out for you.

I have no problem with anyone having opinions, personal or professional. If they’re newspaper columnists or leader writers they’re paid to have opinions, which I respect.

But you’re not a columnist or leader writer. You’re ‘Head of News Development’ (whatever that is) so I expect a degree of impartiality on issues like this.

You accuse Forest of being “corporate stooges” which implies we’re only doing this for the money and we only do what big business tells us to do.

You don’t know me or anyone else who works for Forest or what our personal beliefs are.

Nor, unless you are telepathic, do you have the faintest idea what our relationship is with the tobacco companies, apart from the fact that they support Forest with donations.

You and your colleagues work for and are therefore paid by News UK (formally News International), a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corp, one of the largest media companies in the world.

Does that make you a “corporate stooge”? Unlike you I wouldn’t dream of making an accusation like that without knowing the facts.

As it happens I’m quite a fan of Rupert Murdoch so you won’t find me criticising him or the corporation he owns.

But I do find it strange that with News UK’s recent history (yes, I’m talking about phone hacking and the News of the World) you have the cheek to adopt a morally superior position to Forest and the tobacco companies.

Accusing us of being “a tool for big business ruining lives” is pretty rich, don’t you think, given some of the allegations against the NOTW and News International.

If you were a columnist paid to provoke a response I would understand it. As ‘Head of News Development’ you should be above cheap shots.

Last week Forest delivered a message to government from over 150,000 people. That doesn’t happen every day.

Instead of making snide comments on social media perhaps your newspapers should have reported that news.

So, Pat, the reason I’m not renewing my subscription to the online Times and Sunday Times when it comes up for renewal this month is simple.

I have no wish to subscribe to newspapers whose ‘Head of News Development’ is so prejudiced and, frankly, juvenile.

In case you’re wondering, cancelling my subscription won’t stop me doing my job – which includes monitoring the media for tobacco and nicotine-related stories – because Forest gets all the relevant cuttings from an agency.

I’ll still read what I have to read but in future I’ll get my general news from other sources – the Mail, Telegraph, Financial Times, even the Guardian.

PS. Just discovered via LinkedIn that Pat was assistant editor of NME from 2002-2008.

In 2012, to mark its 60th birthday, the Guardian asked whether its influence in the music world had waned. It includes this damning appraisal of the music weekly during that period:

“It’s a pretty good magazine at the moment,” says Geoff Travis, the founder of Rough Trade – a label whose successes, including the Smiths, the Strokes and the Libertines, have been closely identified with the NME.

But there is also a sense that it lost its way under the editorship of [Krissi] Murison’s predecessor, Conor McNicholas (2002-2009), during which time it entered a spiral from which some fear it will never recover.

“I do think Conor’s editorship seemed to be more about brand sponsorship and selling things that weren’t to do with music in a way that probably harmed the integrity of the magazine,” Travis says.

“There was too much focus on expanding into some kind of empire while their core thing was being challenged,” says Ollie Jacob, co-founder of the Memphis Industries label. “Their core thing should be good writing and finding new bands.”

No further comment, m’lud.

Simon Clark is Director of the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest)




Source: Breitbart Feed

Barack, We Hardly Knew Ye—And That’s the Problem!

If President Obama has taught us nothing else, he has reminded us of the old wisdom: Character is destiny. That is, you will become what you are.

One who has a special insight into Obama’s youthful character is Wayne Allyn Root.  He is the same age as Obama, and they graduated from the same university.  And so while much of what he of what he asserts can’t be proven, it’s a darn persuasive hypothesis.  

Root grew up in suburban New York as a Republican, then moved to Nevada and for a few years  became a member of the Libertarian Party (LP).   He was actually the LP vice presidential candidate in 2008.   But Root has recently rejoined the GOP; the biggest single reason for his return, he told Breitbart News in an interview, was the LP’s laissez-faire stance on border security.  Once again a Republican, Root says that we need a foolproof fence, not just to deal with illegals coming from Mexico and Central and South America, but also to stop would-be terrorists from Muslim countries. 

Yes, we might observe, the LP is hard-pressed to explain its continued support for open borders in a dangerous world.  Does the LP really think that a flood of new Americans would continue to support libertarian policies?  Isn’t it more likely that we would be importing the politics of Mexico—or Venezuela?  

Root has a new book, The Murder of the Middle Class: How to Save Yourself and Your Family from the Criminal Conspiracy of the Century, which offers both an effective critique and a powerful manifesto.  It’s an effective critique of big government and its handmaiden, crony capitalism, and it’s a powerful manifesto on behalf of the Constitution and limited government.    

In addition, we watch as Root’s theatrical imagination takes flight: He declares that the middle class has been “murdered,” then walks us through the “evidence,” the “crime scene,” the “motive,” and the “murder weapon.”  And of course, he identifies the “chief suspect,”and the “accomplices.”  It’s a scenario that’s amusing, disturbing, and compelling—all at once.   

Yet perhaps the most interesting part of the book is Root’s analysis of Obama—where he came from, and who he is.     

Root, born in 1961, is just a few weeks older than Obama, and, in fact, they both graduated, in 1983, from Columbia University.    

So Root has a good understanding of Obama, albeit not in the way you might think.   Root never, in fact, met Obama in school.  And that’s what’s so interesting.   As in the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze, it’s not the dog barking in the night that reveals the truth, it’s fact that the dog did not bark.   

As Root says, “I was very active at Columbia, and I thought I knew everyone in poly sci and pre-law.  But not only did I not know Barack Obama, I never heard of him.”   And that is rather remarkable: To spend any time with Root is to know that he has an outgoing, voluble, even boisterous, personality.   He is the ultimate people person: It’s easy to see that he would get around a lot on campus.   And yet he never knew, or knew of, Obama. 

Root doesn’t claim that Obama was not a student at Columbia, but he says that his low profile there is a mystery that deserves to be unraveled.  Why?  Because, he says, Obama’s record at Columbia eerily anticipates his record as President.    So in pulling out these clues, Root declares, “We can see him as the Manchurian Candidate.”  “Or maybe,” he adds slyly, “the Manchurian Machiavellian.”   

So what’s the Obama story at Columbia?  The official record is astonishingly thin, because Obama has refused to release any of his grades or academic records—and a supine MSM, of course, has never pushed to see them.    

Root’s answer comes in three parts: 

First, Obama was invisible because he simply wasn’t on campus very much.  So where was he?  Some have argued that he was into the drug scene, or more, but as Root sees it, he was more interested in far-left causes than in going to class.   And in fact, one of the few solid clues that we have about him in those years is  a 1983 essay that appeared under his name in a student magazine, entitled, “Breaking the War Mentality.”  That is, breaking the war mentality of the United States in the Reagan era: No good leftist would worry much about, say, the Soviet Union.   

So that was Obama the student, not interested in being a student.   Now let’s fast forward three decades: Obama the president doesn’t seem very interested in being the president.   

So score one for the Root Thesis.  

Second, Obama doesn’t talk about his record in college, Root asserts, because he doesn’t have a very good record to talk about.   That Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action is beyond question, but Root wonders if he was accepted as a foreign student.  One can believe, as Root does, that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, and yet still allow for the possibility that he gained admission as a foreign student; after all, his mother moved him to Indonesia as a child, where he was adopted and renamed by his new Indonesian step-father.   So did Obama lie on his application to Columbia?  Or on his student-aid form?  Once again, we don’t know, but if he did fib, it’s suddenly easy to see why he would be so secretive about his student career.  And of course, in the White House, Obama has been more secretive than any previous president.   

So score two for the Root Thesis.  

Third, the attitude and tactics that Obama learned at Columbia helped him in his subsequent political career.  As Root recalls, the politics of the campus were so hard-left that in 1981, when the news that Ronald Reagan had been shot rippled through the campus, most of the students in Root’s classroom stood up and applauded.  Indeed, we can be sure that Obama wasn’t just a “progressive,” he was a part of the hard-left subculture that soon took him to Chicago as a “neighborhood organizer.”   

Columbia was, in fact, an east-coast outpost of Saul Alinsky-type thinking—and  Alinskyism is a major part, of course, of Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary, America: Imagine The World Without Her;  the major tenet of such lefty politics is that the world would be better off without America.  So here Root and D’Souza agree: In his bones, Obama views America as a mistake, or worse, and would be happy enough to see America disappear.  
And of course, now that Obama is in the White House, he has a chance to turn his America-death-wish into a reality—the evidence is all around us.   

Root’s book is a must-read.  The Murder of the Middle Class is written as energetically and punchily as the author talks, and it is filled with righteous indignation about what has happened to this country in the past few years.  

Yet most of all, Root’s book is a shrewd assessment of our 44th President, and a lesson for all of us: Nothing Obama is doing today should have come as a surprise to those who knew him 30 years ago.  But of course, few knew him 30 years ago.   And that was part of the problem.  If only we had known.  




Source: Breitbart Feed