April 27th, 2015



The President Daydreams on Iran

Anyone who looks at the nuclear deal and sees success is living in a world of rainbows and unicorns


Mortimer Zuckerman Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.


The vaudeville song by Harry Carroll and Joseph McCarthy, popularized by Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand, is all too appropriate to this moment, as we consider the implications of a nuclear Iran and the prospect of mushroom clouds over the Middle East.

President Obama has been chasing a rainbow in his negotiations with Iran. He has forsaken decades of pledges to the civilized world from presidents of both parties. He has misled the American people in repeatedly affirming that the U.S. would never allow revolutionary Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, which would guarantee a new arms race. In fact, one has already started. Credible reports suggest Pakistan is ready to ship an atomic package to Saudi Arabia, the Sunni nation that stands opposed to Shiite Iran’s subversion throughout the region.

But Tehran is working across religious lines as well. Though Hamas is Sunni, Iran has sent millions of dollars to the terror group that controls Gaza to rebuild the tunnel network that the Israeli Defense Force destroyed last summer.

How far Mr. Obama is prepared to chase the negotiation dream is illustrated by the recent candor of his energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who has been party to the negotiations. In 2013 the president answered questions about Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons with these words: “Our assessment continues to be a year or more away, and in fact, actually our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services.”

Yet on Monday Mr. Moniz told reporters at Bloomberg a different story: “They are right now spinning. I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000,” he said. “It’s very little time to go forward. That’s two to three months.” How long has the administration held this view? “Oh, quite some time,” Mr. Moniz replied. The Bloomberg report suggests “several years.”

This stunningly casual remark was based on information apparently declassified on April 1. What is Mr. Obama up to? Why was he reassuring in 2013 when he knew it was misleading? Is the declassification intended to create a false sense of urgency?

Compare where we are today with the conditions Mr. Obama laid down two years ago. Referring to Iran’s smiling new president, Hasan Rouhani, Mr. Obama said: “If in fact he is able to present a credible plan that says Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy but we’re not pursuing nuclear weapons, and we are willing to be part of an internationally verified structure so that all other countries in the world know they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, then, in fact, they can improve relations, improve their economy. And we should test that.”

Sure—let’s test it:

Enrichment: Before the talks began, the Obama administration and U.N. Security Council insisted that Iran stop all uranium enrichment. So did the 2013 framework agreement. Now the deal enshrines Iran’s right to enrich. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark


April 26th, 2015


The following two articles give insight into a detailed history of the far reaching left-wing groups in North Carolina that are having an impact throughout our country.  Mapping the Left ( was created as an online database that helps to  “follow the dots”  that connect the left-wing groups and the activists that are attempting to  influence public policy.      Nancy 

David Neal and the Reynolds Family Connections

This is part one of a three-part series

Susan Myrick

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  His (David Neal) first involvement was starting at the top as the executive director of the Fair Trial Initiative from 2000 to 2006. The Fair Trial Initiative is a nonprofit activist group established to continually introduce “innovative approaches to the defense of death penalty cases.” Neal founded the group with, among others, Jonathan Soros, son of liberal billionaire George Soros, one of the wealthiest and most powerful liberal activists in history. Jonathan Soros is vice chairman and director of his father’s multibillion-dollar Open Society Foundation, a linchpin of left-wing activism across the globe.

It can be very difficult to grasp or visualize the vastness of the network of left-wing groups in North Carolina. But one way to start is with the key group on the left, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation – and the family that dominates it.

There are literally hundreds of liberal/progressive groups from different areas of the political, public, private and nonprofit sectors. Moreover, groups with different interests and missions work together at a moment’s notice to advocate for each other’s goals, as long as they serve the larger vision of the Left. In addition, many of these groups have carefully selected names that, while not completely lying about their mission, tend to cloak their true intent.

It is for all these reasons that we created Mapping the Left, an online database which helps make it easier to visualize the groups and the activists that make them work. Of special importance, Mapping the Left’s graphics illuminate the connections among these seemingly unconnected groups. The connections are so numerous and so deep that it is necessary to use images to help illustrate them.

Our research has confirmed that the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation has changed radically from its inception as a tribute to Zachary Smith Reynolds, the son of R.J. Reynolds. (Zachary was shot dead in a mysterious incident at their home in Winston-Salem when he was 20.) Over time the foundation has abandoned its original mission and has turned into an organization bent on reshaping NC governance, culture and society. Once it was one of North Carolina’s oldest and most well-regarded philanthropic foundations, known for building schools and hospitals all across our state. But in the latter half of the 20th century, it morphed into a radical activist organization that now leads the charge for public policy that will grow government, increase regulation and weaken the family.

The foundation’s board members have connections to various left-wing organizations, making it not only a microcosm of the liberal/Left in our State, but an integral part of the national progressive movement. Our challenge in the Mapping the Left project is to illustrate these connections, and where better to begin than with the members of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation Board of Trustees: They were, and are, unquestionably the most important single force behind the liberal/progressive movement in North Carolina.

David Neal, Hillsborough NC

DavidNeal-citywebsite    Let’s start with an individual at the core of this group and its drive to reshape North Carolina.

That would be David Neal, a member of the Reynolds family and the founder of Blueprint NC – the organization that rallied the Left in North Carolina to “eviscerate, litigate, mitigate, cogitate and agitate” the state’s leaders.

David Neal calls himself an “accidental philanthropist,” but a look at his resume suggests otherwise. While Neal is not a direct descendant of R.J. Reynolds or the Z. Smith Reynolds family, he is related. His great-great grandmother, Mary Joyce Reynolds, was R.J. Reynolds’ sister. Neal is the immediate past president of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation’s board of trustees (2010-2014), and has been a board member since 2001.

His life is interwoven with liberal causes and organizations. After graduating from Oberlin College in 1995, Neal served as a volunteer in the Peace Corps in the former Soviet country of Turkmenistan. On his return to North Carolina, he started law school at the University of North Carolina in 1998 and began his active involvement in the work of left-wing nonprofits, inside and outside of North Carolina.

His first involvement was starting at the top as the executive director of the Fair Trial Initiative from 2000 to 2006. The Fair Trial Initiative is a nonprofit activist group established to continually introduce “innovative approaches to the defense of death penalty cases.” Neal founded the group with, among others, Jonathan Soros, son of liberal billionaire George Soros, one of the wealthiest and most powerful liberal activists in history. Jonathan Soros is vice chairman and director of his father’s multibillion-dollar Open Society Foundation, a linchpin of left-wing activism across the globe. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark


April 23rd, 2015


TPP = Mass Immigration

Published on on April 21, 2015

Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free-trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to control immigration policy. We could find ourselves back in the era before there were restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping President Obama achieve this goal.

The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.

The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation.

In seeking approval of the TPP, the Obama administration has proposed giving it fast-track authority to conclude trade deals – a power that would restrict Congress’s ability to amend the deal, allowing only an up-or-down vote. Led by Republicans, the Senate is moving toward passage of the fast-track authority as a precursor to ratification of the TPP treaty, immigration provisions and all. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark


April 23rd, 2015


Lynch vs. the Constitution
The Senate must vote no.
By Andrew C. McCarthy — April 22, 2015

Although Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Republicans who control the Senate are under no obligation to do so, they have agreed to grant a confirmation vote to Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as United States Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has testified that she supports and would implement President Obama’s executive action providing de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants. This edict, which blatantly violates Obama’s oath to execute the laws faithfully, also unconstitutionally confers positive legal benefits on illegal aliens, something only Congress has the authority to do.

Yet, five Republican senators have announced that they will vote to confirm Ms. Lynch. Three have already supported her in the Judiciary Committee: Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Jeff Flake (Ariz). The two others are Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Susan Collins (Maine). If they follow through in the vote now scheduled for Thursday, Ms. Lynch would almost certainly have the 51 votes needed to be confirmed.

There are six points to be made about this.

1. Violation of the Senatorial Oath of Office

As mandated by the Constitution, every United States senator takes a solemn oath to support the Constitution and to bear it true faith and allegiance.

Ms. Lynch has forthrightly told the Senate, under oath, that she will undermine the Constitution. A senator cannot support and defend the Constitution by voting to confirm — to the highest law-enforcement position in the federal government, no less — a nominee who has announced that she intends to undermine the Constitution. A vote to confirm such a person, therefore, would plainly violate the senator’s oath.

2. Aiding and Abetting Unconstitutional Conduct Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark


April 23rd, 2015


The latest downward slide for Girl Scouts: ‘Girl’ is now optional traditional values leader is exposing the Girl Scouts for its continued move toward far-left causes.

The latest announcement, says Linda Harvey of Mission America, is that little boys from kindergarten through high school can join the Girl Scouts, if the boy considers himself a girl.

“In other words, he calls the shots,” Harvey says of young males. “He is the one that determines the rights and privacy of authentic girls.”

Regarding transgender youth, the website for the Scouts states that if a boy is recognized as living as a girl, “then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.”

The Girl Scouts began the move by pushing liberal sex education, although some local groups refuse to follow along, and then the Scouts decided the girls could define God as they wish – or deny Him.

OneNewsNow reported last year that the CEO of the Girl Scouts was trying to deflect ties to Planned Parenthood but pro-family watchdog groups, already tracking the association, reported otherwise.

The Girl Scouts were the targets of a “cookie boycott” last year after the group was accused of trumpeing Wendy Davis, the pro-abortion Democrat who ran for Texas governor.

In the latest news, a chapter is being organized for homosexual and lesbian families at the Utah Pride Center.

What the Girl Scouts are advocating, says Harvey, is “anything that is anti-Christian, and anything that would dishonor girls.”

Meanwhile, a pro-family rival organization to the Girl Scouts, American Heritage Girls, is celebrating 20 years this year.



  • Share/Bookmark


April 21st, 2015


  • Share/Bookmark


April 17th, 2015


Islam’s Message to “Islamophobes” – Shut Up or Else

  By JG   John Guandolo   •April 16, 2015 

In a number of interviews and presentations recently, Understanding the Threat (UTT) has received questions about how our enemy uses the label of “Islamophobe” to silence and threaten those who speak honestly and factually about the threat of the Islamic Movement here and abroad.

In a brief attempt to review, we will simply look at three key pieces of information:  the Islamic Law of Slander, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Cairo Declaration, and the OIC’s 10 Year Programme of Action.

In Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as to say anything about a Muslim or Islam he would dislike. (Umdat al Salik, Holding One’s Tongue).  Veracity of the statement is irrelevant.  Therefore, to factually explain to people that Sharia obliges Muslims to wage jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until the entire world is under the rule of Sharia, can be considered “Slander” because the Muslim community does not want non-Muslims to know this right now.  You will know everything you need to know about Sharia when you are under the weight of it.

Slander is a capital crime in Islamic Law.

The OIC is the largest international body in the world, second only to the UN, and is made up of all 57 Islamic States on the planet.  Yes, 57 states. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark


April 17th, 2015


Published on The Weekly Standard (

The Closing of the Campus Mind

Schools of social work are silencing conservatives.

Devorah Goldman

April 6 – April 13, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 29

“I can’t have you participate in class anymore.”

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Lukianoff discovered the abusive culture fostered by CSWE after several students complained about their treatment in social work programs. Emily Brooker, a Christian student at Missouri State University’s School of Social Work in 2006, was asked by her professor to sign a letter to the Missouri legislature in favor of homosexual adoption. When she explained that doing so would violate her religious beliefs and requested a different assignment, she was subjected to a two-and-a-half-hour interrogation by an ethics committee and charged with a “Level Three Grievance” (the most severe kind). Brooker was not permitted to have an advocate or a tape recorder with her at the ethics meeting, during which she was told to sign a contract promising that she would “close the gap” between her religious beliefs and the values of the social work profession. At the risk of having her degree withheld, Brooker acquiesced. 

Bill Felkner, a student at Rhode Island College’s School of Social Work, was instructed to lobby the Rhode Island legislature for several policies he did not support. In addition, RIC’s policy internship requirements for graduate students included forcing students to advance policies that would further “progressive social change.” When Felkner accepted an internship in the policy department of Republican Rhode Island governor Don Carcieri’s office, he received a letter from Lenore Olsen, chair of the Social Work Department, informing him that he had violated their requirements and could no longer pursue a master’s degree in social work policy. 

I was on my way out of class when my social welfare and policy professor casually called me over to tell me this. The friendliness of her tone did not match her words, and I attempted a shocked, confused apology. It was my first semester at the Hunter College School of Social Work, and I was as yet unfamiliar with the consistent, underlying threat that characterized much of the school’s policy and atmosphere. This professor was simply more open and direct than most.

I asked if I had said or done anything inappropriate or disrespectful, and she was quick to assure me that it was not my behavior that was the problem. No: It was my opinions. Or, as she put it, “I have to give over this information as is.”

I spent the rest of that semester mostly quiet, frustrated, and missing my undergraduate days, when my professors encouraged intellectual diversity and give-and-take. I attempted to take my case to a higher-up at school, an extremely nice, fair professor who insisted that it was in my own best interest not to rock the boat. I was doing well in his class, and I believed him when he told me he wanted me to continue doing well. He explained to me that people who were viewed as too conservative had had problems graduating in the past, and he didn’t want that to happen to me. I thought he was joking .  .  . until I realized he wasn’t. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark


April 16th, 2015


High Frontier, by Henry F. Cooper, April 13, 2015:

150414_0-150x150The Pentagon recently announced that Raytheon is receiving a $700 million contract to prep the Cheyenne Mountain base in Colorado for the return of US Aerospace Command, built in the 1960s to respond to a Soviet nuclear strike; this new plan is to help counter a possible EMP attack by a rogue nation. This explicit acknowledgement of the EMP threat is a most welcome development.  Hopefully, the U.S. “powers that be” will also take complementary steps to assure the survival of the American people in case of such an attack—and here are some hopeful signs this may be possible.

Several recent reports apparently stem from a very informative Pentagon press conference by the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), Adm. Bill Gortney. (Click here for the transcript). They reinforce a well-known assessment that the first step to solving any problem, is to understand and define the problem. 

So far the essence and importance of these comments have not reached the mainstream press, but many have been picked up and reliably elaborated by the defense publications, Defense News and Defense One. From my perspective, their most important observations are:

  • The shift to the Cheyenne Mountain base in Colorado is designed to safeguard the command’s sensitive sensors and servers from a potential electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.
  • In 2006, officials decided to move the Cold War operations to Petersen Air Force base in Colorado Springs, but retained the Cheyenne bunker as an alternative command center if needed. That move followed hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-worth of modernization work at Cheyenne after 9/11 that can now be exploited by supplementing pertinent communications gear, hardened to withstand EMP, which can occur naturally or result from a high-altitude nuclear explosion. The suggestion is that communications is the primary concern, associated with providing accurate, timely and unambiguous Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment (ITW/AA) of air, missile and space threats. Air Force Space Command is responsible for these operations.
  • Under the 10-year contract, Raytheon is supposed to deliver “sustainment” services and also unspecified work at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.
  • In June 2013, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking on the roadway leading into the mountain, stated, “These facilities and the entire complex of NORAD and NORTHCOM represent the nerve center of defense for North America.”  Read the rest of this entry »
  • Share/Bookmark


April 16th, 2015


A man crosses the Central Intelligence A

Many of CIA Director John Brennan’s gaffes over the years have raised eyebrows, but none has suggested the need for a legislative remedy—until the one he launched at Harvard last week.

His past indiscretions have included, in 2010 when he was a counterterrorism adviser at the White House, referring to Jerusalem by its Arabic name, “al Quds”; referring to the “moderate” elements in Hezbollah, the Iran surrogate in Lebanon and a group the U.S. designates a terrorist organization; and insisting that our enemies should not be called “jihadists” because jihad is “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.”

There was also the time in 2010 when he derided the notion of a war on terrorism or terror because “terrorism is but a tactic” and “terror is a state of mind.” Given that evidence, one might have had a general concern about his competence to lead a U.S. intelligence organization, but not a focused concern about the damage any one statement could cause.

But then, in an interview last week at Harvard’s Institute for Politics, Mr. Brennan said that anyone who both knew the facts surrounding the Obama administration’s “framework” agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and said that it “provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb,” was being “wholly disingenuous.” That was foolish, insofar as it applied to many serious-minded people in and out of government, but it was also dangerous.

Picture CIA analysts and other officers charged with weighing and interpreting Iran’s nuclear program in relation to the recently concluded negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland; that is, CIA analysts who have families and mortgages. Their solemn charge is to report and analyze facts straight-on—the good, the bad and the ugly. Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark