Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy Of Appeasement And Broken Promise To The Armenians

In his initial 2008 run for office presidential candidate Barack Obama said this to the Armenian community: “Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term ‘genocide’ to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

In a transcript posted on his own website (it’s now deleted and only viewable on the internet archives) Obama states:

Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common security and common humanity. Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics – displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter – that were used by the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915 … America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.

This was Obama’s great paean to morality and human rights back in 2008 – Prior to him officially taking office.

Before I break down why this is one of the biggest letdowns of the Obama legacy (yes, bigger than Obamacare), here’s a quick history lesson.

As of 301 A.D., Armenia became the first Christian nation in history. For centuries, the country flourished and grew. Things took a turn for the worse roughly around the 15th century, when Armenia was absorbed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

As the Ottoman empire crumbled through the 1800’s, Armenians grew weary living as second-class citizens under the Islamic regime. As they pushed for independence, the Ottoman Turks objected violently. In the mid-1890’s, the Sultan unleashed an armada, massacring some 300,000 Armenians in what would be called Hamidian massacres.

Years later, during the early 20th century, Ottoman reformers known as the Young Turks ousted the Sultan. Eventually, a trio of Islamists from the Young Turks, known as the Pashas, seized power. Perceiving the resilient Christian Armenian population as a threat, they set out to exterminate them. On April 24, 1915, 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders were rounded up and shipped off to be executed.  Through the First World War, the Ottoman Turks carried out what became the first genocide of the 20th century, wiping out 75 percent of the Armenian population – a million and a half human beings.

Being masked by the scope and scale of the First World War, the unspeakable Ottoman atrocity was not instantly known to the rest of the world.

The phrase “Armenian genocide” did not even appear in the New York Times until 2004. (The New York Times taking 89 years to accurately report something is actually better than their usual record.)

Read More >>

A Complete Timeline of Race Relations Under Obama

President Barack Obama marketed himself to the American people as penicillin to the nation’s racial woes. A vote for Obama was a vote for unity! How could you vote against that?

And so, a self-serving slice of the electorate indulged their virtuous exigencies, casting their ballot for what they perceived to be “something bigger.” Obama’s gleeful cry for “hope and change.”

Prior to the Obama presidency, President George W. Bush united Americans as… Americans through 9/11. He kept us safe, and unapologetically defended our common values of freedom and self-governance. But according to our national media, race relations prior to Obama’s presidency were like our healthcare system. Worse than Zimbabwe’s.

How successful was President Obama in mending these supposedly broken bonds? Here’s a comprehensive timeline of all the racial healing in the past eight years.

President Obama’s first headline hobnob with race-in-America dates back to the early days of his presidency. In 2009, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrived home to find his front door lock jammed. He opted to force his way in through the back door. Worried neighbors weren’t sure what was happening, and in good faith alerted the police.

Upon arrival, the officers – one of whom was black – asked Gates for ID, to which Gates then infuriatingly exploded, accusing the officers of racial profiling. “This is what it means to be black in America! … Do you even know how many graduate degrees I have! Do you know who you’re dealing with here!? … I’m a professor at Harvard. CAN YOU EVEN SPELL HARVARD?”

The befuddled, browbeaten officer arrested Gates on charges of disorderly conduct for his shrieking tirade.

The newly elected President disregarded the facts, kicking off what would be a long 8 years of poisonous rhetoric aimed at law enforcement. Joining the Cambridge coterie in haranguing the white working-class officer, Obama said: “he acted stupidly.”

Fast forward three years, and the glare of the national spotlight is on Sanford, Florida. In February of 2012, Hispanic-American George Zimmerman – leader of his community’s neighborhood watch – saw a young black man, Trayvon Martin, lurking around his community. Zimmerman called the police, reporting that the man appeared to be on drugs (autopsy confirmed this) and was urinating in front of a house.

After being instructed not to pursue the suspect, Zimmerman hung up. The initial confrontation between the two remains a mystery. However, all the available evidence aligned with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin attacked him, knocking him to the ground. Jumping on top of him, Martin allegedly began beating Zimmerman, pounding his head into the pavement. Zimmerman subsequently reached for his gun, and shot Martin, killing him.

America’s racial-healer-in-chief Barack Obama responded to the incident, saying “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Busy acting as the pillars for Obama’s skewed racial narrative, the media failed to ask why exactly the President’s son would be high, lurking around neighborhoods and beating heads onto pavements.

When Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges, riots broke out across the country. Police cars were smashed and stomped on; windows were broken. A random white guy was robbed, the assailants yelling “this is for Trayvon!”

In November 2013, police officers shot and killed 16-year-old black teenager Kimani Gray in Brooklyn, New York. After observing suspicious behavior, the officers approached Gray, and he responded by drawing a firearm, pointing it squarely at the officers. (Not a good idea).

Despite the damning evidence that the officers were fully justified in shooting the suspect, riots ensued. Between 60 and 100 people took to the streets looting shops and smashing windows, allegedly chanting “NYPD, KKK, how many kids did you kill today”. Really all the hallmarks of a post-racial Obama America.

Read More >>

Here are 5 New Year’s Resolutions that Leftists Should Live By in 2017

Note: This column was co-written with Elliott Hamilton

Like it or not, we do have to share the country with Democrats. Sure, there’s been talk of California seceding from the Union–and reading strange headlines like “California Democrats legalize child prostitution” you almost feel inclined to push them out. But the fact is, for all their preening over transgender bathrooms and gluten-free goodness, deep down, leftists know that Whole Foods can’t supplant aircraft carriers, and they need God-fearing men with scary guns to secure their freedoms.

So here a list of New Year’s Resolutions for our friends on the other side of the aisle – the self-proclaimed tolerant – to make them more… tolerable. Who knows, follow these, and you may yet win elections.

  1. Tell Lena Dunham to go away.

Just one question: Which aspect of Lena Dunham’s persona did Hillary Clinton perceive as an asset to her campaign?

Was it the fact that she fabricated a story about being raped by a college Republican? Or perhaps how she described sexually abusing her own sister in the pages of her memoir? Maybe Hillary just wanted another multi-millionaire celebrity who revels in self-victimization to reach out to working-class Americans in the rust belt?

This was said after the election, but it’s an actual, direct quote from Lena Dunham: “…I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”

Lena Dunham didn’t win Hillary a single voter (including Lena Dunham herself who hilariously didn’t vote) who wasn’t already a lifelong Democrat. Her blunt moral delinquency was a bigger liability to the Clinton campaign than pneumonia.

Juxtapose these two headlines from CNN.

October 29, 2016: Lena Dunham to campaign for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina

November 9, 2016: How Trump Won

  1. Don’t overuse intersectionality. Gendering glaciers makes you sound out of touch with reality.

It seems very easy to claim that various groups of people are being oppressed by shadowy figures and that everything bad in this world is connected by some evil masculine entity maliciously known as “the patriarchy.” However, when you start claiming that environmental issues can be connected to sexism, you start running down a rabbit hole that would make Alice’s journey seem like a walk in the park. There are ways to address issues of racism and sexism in this country, but there’s a better chance that pigs will fly rocket ships to Pluto than that someone will find legitimate evidence to back a theory that attempts to link the two.

Read More >>

Obama’s ‘Pro-Israel’ Presidency Is Fake News

The most asinine, demonstrable falsehoods of the 2016 presidential election is the idea that anti-Semitism is a prevailing concern in the left’s moral universe. Coming in at a close second is the notion that widespread “fake news” is what bludgeoned Hillary Clinton, leading to her electoral demise.

This earnestness to investigate, report on, and speak out against anti-Semitism from the mainstream media is oddly confined to headlines consisting solely of the words “Donald Trump” – or his occasional cabinet nominees.

Take for instance this gem from the Huffington Post. Actual headline: “How It’s ‘Absolutely’ Possible For Steve Bannon To Be Pro-Israel And Anti-Semitic”. Never mind the fact that the Huffington Post has no evidence.

Self-satire news outlet Salon chimed in with, “Jewish Americans are worried about the rise in anti-Semitism after this election cycle.”

Fake news isn’t a new phenomenon. In fact, for the mainstream news media, it’s practically a business model. The media’s propagation of fake news vis-à-vis the notion that Barack Obama and his administration are remotely pro-Israel dates back to his initial run for office.

Obama’s close ties to former Jimmy Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski – who in an interview with Salon, accused Israeli Jews of “buying Congress’s influence” – were effectively ignored. Obama is on record (in 2007) praising Brzezinski as “someone I have learned an immense amount from.”

The Los Angeles Times to this day refuses to release a 2003 tape of Barack Obama praising virulent anti-Semite and Palestinian-terrorism apologist Rashid Khalidi – whom the LA Times instead referred to as “a harsh critic of Israel”, and the New York Times dubs, “a passionate defender of Palestinian rights.”

When Jeremiah Wright – whose church Obama attended for two decades – said in an interview, “them Jews ain’t going to let him [Obama] talk to me,” CNN’s Jake Tapper simply tweeted, “Rev Wright clarifies – meant to say ZIONISTS are keeping him fr talking to POTUS, not ‘Jews.’”

In the summer of 2014, when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped three Israeli teenagers, the State Department issued a statement calling “on all sides to exercise restraint.” Nowhere to be found was the mainstream media probing the Obama Administration’s unspeakable gall to treat genocidal zealots and a free society as moral equals.

More recently, Barack Obama and John Kerry unveiled their diplomatic climax, the Iran Deal. When it was revealed that the terror-sponsoring regime of Tehran would receive 150 billion dollars a year in sanctions relief, lifting of arms and missile embargoes (and more) all while the Mullah’s chanted “death to Israel,” the media was again on the job, acting as Obama’s personal PR firm. Abnegating any responsibility to report on the deal’s bleak implications, CNN instead focused their ire on Republican reaction to Obama’s diplomatic debacle with headlines like: “Huckabee Invokes Holocaust when Talking Iran Deal.”

Most recently, New York Times’ Thomas Friedman wrote a column in response to John Kerry’s late-December speech on his proposed plan for peace between Israelis and Arabs.

Friedman opens by “simplifying” for readers, the current tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the soon-to-be Former-President of the United States.

“Barack Obama and John Kerry admire and want to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel.” 

If you’ve read this far, you understand why if there ever was one exemplar of fake news being propagated by the media, this is it.

He continues,

“…He [Benjamin Netanyahu] is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership of Israel’s right-wing coalition or forces him to confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.”

This is the biggest falsehood about the Israeli/Arab conflict perpetuated by the left, ad nauseum. For all their preening over fake news, the left does an admirable job of spreading it themselves. Friedman suggests that Netanyahu’s steadfast persistence to put up condos in Israel’s capital, East Jerusalem, or claim to ownership of the Western Wall – which Barack Obama himself visited, shamefully wearing a yarmulke – is a greater roadblock in the peace process to the waves of rocket fire, stabbings, shootings and terror both incited and carried out by the Palestinian Arabs.

Read More >>

Welcome to Canada, Where Truth is a Human Rights Violation

In late 2016, Canada’s Liberal government officially passed legislation amending its Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to include perceived transgressions against transgender individuals. The bill passed with no recorded votes — meaning the publicly elected legislators passed it via secret ballot. The bill’s implications were largely lost in the news cycle amidst the heated US presidential election.

In summary, Bill C-16 amends the CHRA, adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Going further, the bill also amends the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) by extending protections against ‘hate propagada” to individuals who distinguish themselves by “gender identity” or “gender expression”

The bill can be read here in its entirety.

After actually reading it, you will notice that the bill does not even attempt to define “gender identity” or “gender expression.” Basically the Canadian version of, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Liberal Member of Parliament Jody Wilson–Raybould originally introduced the bill back in May. She elaborated on its vagaries:

“Gender identity is a person’s internal and individual experience of their gender. It is the deeply-felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum.”

Well, it’s comforting to know that the governing Liberal Party is amending the CCC based on people’s “internal feelings.” I suddenly feel like I fit into the lowest income tax bracket. Will that be okay, Canada Revenue Agency?

Raybould continued her elaboration on gender:

“Conversely, gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is the external and outward presentation of gender through aspects such as dress, hair, make-up, body language, and voice.”

As made clear by its author, Bill C-16 legally recognizes that one’s outfit and hairstyle supersede one’s biology as defining characteristics of gender. It’s a human rights violation to argue that a man – with all male parts – in a wig and dress is still a man. Apparently, the only thing that sets women apart from men is a ten-dollar Walmart shopping list.

Read More >>

REVIEW: ‘Rogue One’ Is Far More Conservative Than Liberal

It’s here! Rogue One is the new Star Wars movie you’ve been longing for since Return of the Jedi. This is truly the prequel fans of the series deserve.

Albeit still a great movie, last year’s Star Wars: Force Awakens was effectively a shot-for-shot remake of A New Hope. Where Force Awakens fell short on originality, Rogue One more than makes up.

I will keep this review as spoiler-free as possible, giving nothing significant away that’s not in the trailer.

Rogue One takes place just before Episode IV, A New Hope and after Episode III, Revenge of the Sith.

The plot centers around The Rebel Alliance, a coalition of tribes across the galaxy who’ve banded together in the face of the tyrannical, oppressive Galactic Empire and its expansionist ambitions.

With their very own Igor Kurchatov, the Galactic Empire’s ultimate weapon, the Death Star is nearly complete. Capable of destroying entire planets, the weapon poses an existential threat to the Empire’s dissidents.

And so, the Rebel Alliance forms a special team to track down and retrieve the Death Star’s blueprints to find a weakness in the superweapon and give the Rebellion a fighting chance.

Read More>>

Muslim Student Group Blocks Holocaust Education Proposal

A motion commemorating Holocaust Education Week at a Canadian University was forcefully halted and shot down on Wednesday via protest jointly organized by the school’s Muslim Student Association (MSA) in conjunction with the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

Drafted by Ryerson University’s chapter of Hillel (the world’s largest Jewish student organization), the motion proposed sponsorship of Holocaust Education Week across campus via the school’s students’ union. In so doing, it would have provided college students of eclectic backgrounds an opportunity to further their knowledge of the Holocaust while raising awareness of anti-Semitism – the most prevalent bigotry associated with hate crimes in Toronto and broader Canada.

Nonetheless, Holocaust education was deemed unacceptable to the school’s Palestinian nationalism advocates. The Daily Wire reached out to them for comment, but have not heard back.

The Daily Wire also reached out to Aedan O’Connor, an executive of Ryerson’s Hillel chapter and a pro-Israel Ryerson student. O’Connor witnessed the events and was kind enough to provide us with details.

As O’Connor was presenting the motion, the opposing students “snickered” and were “laughing and jeering.” Using their mobile phones to actively coordinate a walk-out, pressuring others to join in. During their stunt, they were presumably muttering amongst themselves, “Ok, they ACTUALLY want to educate people about the Holocaust. What are they? Fascists? This injustice cannot stand!”

Read More >>