And I Said Obama Had No Gut's, No Ball's, Was Chicken S**t!!! And Here He Is Proving Me Wrong, Sending 450,000 More Troops To Help Stop ISIS?ISIL... No Wait It's Only 450 Troops, Sorry I Guess I Was Correct In The First Place... Don D.


Obama Approves Sending Up To 450 More US Troops To Iraq

Published June 10, 2015 - FoxNews.com


The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama has approved sending up to 450 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, in a bid to boost local forces fighting the Islamic State's advances.


The troops will be sent to help train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, at a base in eastern Anbar province.


"The President made this decision after a request from Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and upon the recommendation" of top U.S. military officials, the White House said in a statement.


The decision comes after recent ISIS gains, most significantly the takeover of the Anbar capital of Ramadi. Obama came under criticism earlier this week for saying his administration still did not have a "complete" strategy for ramping up training of Iraqi troops.


While the decision to send more trainers won praise in some corners -- House Speaker John Boehner called it a step in the right direction -- the administration continues to face accusations that its strategy in the region is rudderless.


Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was dismissive of Wednesday's decision. "This is incremental-ism at its best or worst, depending on how you describe it," McCain said.


Even Obama's former military intelligence chief, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said in Capitol Hill testimony Wednesday that there's "no clear U.S. policy" in Iraq and Syria.


Obama continues to resist demands for combat troops or for more U.S. soldiers on the ground to call in air strikes.


Under the latest plan, the number of U.S. training sites in Iraq would increase from four to five, enabling a larger number of Iraqis to join the fight against the Islamic militant group. Most of the fighters would be Sunni tribal volunteers, under the plan.


The Defense Department stressed in a written statement that the decision "does not represent a change in mission," but provides another location for DOD personnel.


The additional U.S. troops would join the roughly 3,100 U.S. troops already in Iraq. They are currently training about 3,000 Iraqi fighters.


ISIS' gains, though, have raised pressing questions about the ability of the Iraqis to blunt the terror network's advances. The Iraqi government, and the U.S., face the immediate challenge of recruiting enough Sunni fighters, to battle the Sunni-aligned terror group.


Most of those currently being trained are Kurd's or Shiite Muslims.


Obama earlier this week urged Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to allow more of the nation's Sunnis to join the campaign against the violent militant group.


Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said recommendations on how to improve and accelerate the Iraq training efforts were discussed at a White House meeting last week and said follow-up questions were asked about how the proposed changes would be implemented and what risks they would pose to U.S. troops and to U.S. commitments elsewhere in the world.


The Associated Press Contributed to this Report.

In 1970 when the Supreme Court tried to allow all that mixing by forcing busing my brother's kids, a 2nd grader, a 3rd grader and a 6th grader had to be bused all over Charlotte, NC. They had been in a school about three blocks from their house and all of a sudden were in three different elementary schools. The 3rd grader was sent to what had been a black school and the 6th grader sent clear to the other side of Charlotte in the same kind of school. The 2nd grader was in the old school with more b****s than w****s.

Now back in those days things didn't cost like they do today but Charlotte had to buy $1 million worth of buses to do what the Court seemed to think was necessary. I don't think many b****s who had to ride for long periods of time were very happy with that crap either.

This Harvard professor says a Chinese official who was at Harvard to confer with Harvard economists says it is the death of Christianity that we all see coming sooner than later. The c*******t official from China says he had studied and thought about the problem of what kept our government going so long had to do with Christianity. I am not sure he knew that people in our government today are trying very hard to destroy Christianity. Is that to replace it with Islam or just to destroy it so they can take over completely. This 90 second video is surely worth seeing by all.









http://www.youtube.com/embed/YjntXYDPw44

Case for Indictments !

Read it and keep spreading the word.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


The book that started the movement
Dumping Obama was unthinkable before 'Impeachable Offenses'

It was less than two years ago that a remarkable book called "Impeachable Offenses" was released nationwide in the U.S.

The media didn't give it the time of day.

But many Americans took notice – including many prominent Americans.

Within weeks, people started mentioning the "I" word – and it hasn't stopped. In fact, it's taking on a life of its own. There's almost no stopping it.

Public figures – from actor Steven Seagal and Ambassador Alan Keyes to Code Pink Co-founder Medea Benjamin and rock star Ted Nugent – have called for impeaching Barack Obama.

It all started with "Impeachable Offenses," by Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott, the one and only complete and thorough documentation of the reasons Obama needs to go.

Oliver North recently remarked: "Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for. There's no doubt in my mind."

Get your copy of "Impeachable Offenses" today for only $4.99!

Seagal said: "Never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people like the people who are running it this day," said Seagal. "If the t***h about B******i were to come out now, I don't think that this man would make it through his term. I think he (Obama) would be impeached."

Riley's plans seems to align mostly with what another retired military leader, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, has advocated.

Other prominent advocated of impeachment now include retired senior military officials, constitutional scholars and a growing number of members of Congress.

Rep. Trey Gowdy is one outspoken member. But there are now dozens more speaking out – or at least mentioning the possibility of impeachment, which before this book, was an unmentionable word in Washington.

Then-Rep. Steve Stockman even handed out in Congress copies of "Impeachable Offenses," which has been described by its authors as the "articles of impeachment" for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations and possibly prosecutions are needed in response to Fast and Furious, B******i and other Obama scandals.

How did "Impeachable Offenses" start this stampede?

By simply presenting what amounts to the article of impeachment for Obama. The Daily Mail of London has called "Impeachable Offenses" "explosive," reporting that the book contains a "systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president's defenders will find troublesome."

Which leads to this question: Have you read it yet? Have you shared it with your neighbors and friends and family members? Is there anything you could do that is more important for the future of America than do so right now?

Get your copy of "Impeachable Offenses" today for only $4.99!

Due to the importance of the message WND Books put the title in the hands of every member of Congress at its own expense and now we want to put it in the hands of as many Americans as possible by providing it at just $4.99.

Click here to get your copy during this temporary price cut.

Watch the trailer here:

Any ‘right-minded’ person would consider me far-left of center.

By Ruth Lewis

Any ‘right-minded’ person would consider me far-left of center. This is certain. In fact, of all my left-leaning friends I am perhaps the one that most defends the political establishment, is amongst the most active and outspoken and arguably, argumentative. I have supported left-leaning and liberal NGOs for a good portion of my adult life both financially, when possible, and with quiet leadership and pro-bono professional advisement.

I believe in supporting causes that cause movement for people to attain greater political freedoms, enhanced human dignity, security and protection of minority rights, credible access to economic e******y, education, and housing.



As regards the Israel Palestine conflict I have always supported a two-state solution despite my extreme opposition to Islamic violence and sharia law. I have questioned the lack of e******ns in the Palestinian Authority for over 6 years now.

Yet, while my positions and the way in which I live my life are aligned with liberal principles recently I ran from their unwavering dogma as regards the breaking Israel news of the Western capitulation and acquiescence to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear energy, enriched uranium, and weaponized missile technology.

This threat is real and palpable.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has never been my candidate of choice for the role, has continued to speak out against the deal as not only a dangerous threat to Israel, but to the world. On security, I trust the man. He has access to information I cannot begin to imagine. One thing we have learned in the most egregious and gruesome of ways: when someone says they want to k**l the Jews -- believe him or her. They mean it.

I have not abandoned my liberal outlooks and perspectives, my support for causes and organizations, my hope that people and governments can be more tolerant -- even appreciative -- of each other. But as I ran the other day--from left to right--a gruesome nightmare appeared before my eyes -- the rainbow streaks and lines before my eyes became blurred, my breath short and labored, my brow perspired, my legs slow and tired, my mind awake, aware, and very, very scared.

In years past I have supported Greenpeace and The Sierra Club, gay rights (I am heterosexual) and supported local agriculture efforts worldwide. I have been vegetarian for more than 12 years to stem animal cruelty and industrial farming practices. I supported the efforts worldwide against the arms race and for cures for cancer and AIDS while a senior in high school. I believe anyone should be able to marry and anyone should be able share their sexual persuasion openly and worship the God or deity of their choice.

But Iran encourages murder. Genocide, actually.

Iran openly and excitedly calls the destruction of the Jewish people as “non-negotiable”. Ayatollahs--grand leaders of Iran’s despotic theocracy -- opine that it is not only their intention to commit genocide but their right and obligation; for all Iranians. How is this tolerated?

Could any Israeli politician echo such statements about any Arab or Muslim state?

See, I learned about the Holocaust when I was younger. From a very tender, young age. Not just in school but from my grandparents. Of four grandparents, three were survivors. All of them spoke about their experiences. One got out of Europe prior and returned to fight them on the battlefields of Europe and North Africa. My mind, young and adult could never fathom such: the painstaking effort, the h**e, the resources, the horror, the not fighting back. All of it.

And, yet in one tiny atomic reaction multiplied exponentially it can all happen again.

The same people steadfast against nuclear proliferation who stood side by side with me in high school now have no problem aiding and abetting and capitulating to Iran. We all thought with North Korea this would work. Can we say: epic fail?

And I also have my own fault lines. So I ran. I know what is next: after a “deal” with Iran the political push will begin to require Israel to allow IAEA inspectors.

If Iran is “complying,” Israel must.

On these points my l*****t-liberal family members (beside two!), friends, circles, professional organizations and alliances, and essentially every single person I know is: silent.

The silence we said would “Never Again” occur.

The silence we said was appalling: “How could they?!”

The silence we said was: “Institutionalized. Political. Anti-Semitic. Economic. Strategic!”

And I will not be silent. So I ran from left to right; on this matter.

I have traded a barrage of calls and emails with my two right-of-center family members.

I have run to speak with and connect with organizations who will not capitulate to this horror.

Because when I said “Never Again!” all these years: I meant it.

I cannot sit idly by while my l*****t-liberal cohorts and friends passively and flaccidly acquiesce to an agenda that threatens my existence, to a reality that could make the ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau look like tinder for a Sunday BBQ.

The only question now is whether the the Israel Defense Forces will initiate what could become an Israel-Iran War: larger, wider, more dangerous and deadly conflict than Israel and the world has seen in half a century. A much larger world involvement due to “alliances and interests” fills me with fear: for the safety of Jews in Israel, the safety of Jews worldwide.

I stand by my support for liberal causes, my liberal views, my liberal outlook on life in my personal “daled amos”, in business, in politics, in the United States, in Israel.

I will not and cannot stand with the liberal establishment in their promotion of a vile, vicious, suicidal enemy seeking my annihilation.

It’s like combining the Japanese Kamikazes with Hitler’s Jewish Obsession with Kim Jong Un’s nuclear arsenal.

It doesn’t make sense.

But my sprint does.

The day I ran I recall feeling a consciousness of intent and purpose I have not felt in ages.

Today, as we mourn and remember Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, as we continue the rampant repetition of that famous slogan I will be a voice from that void,

“Never Again” also means:

“Not Now!”

Any ‘right-minded’ person would consider me far-left of center. This is certain. In fact, of all my left-leaning friends I am perhaps the one that most defends the political establishment, is amongst the most active and outspoken and arguably, argumentative. I have supported left-leaning and liberal NGOs for a good portion of my adult life both financially, when possible, and with quiet leadership and pro-bono professional advisement.

I believe in supporting causes that cause movement for people to attain greater political freedoms, enhanced human dignity, security and protection of minority rights, credible access to economic e******y, education, and housing.

As regards the Israel Palestine conflict I have always supported a two-state solution despite my extreme opposition to Islamic violence and sharia law. I have questioned the lack of e******ns in the Palestinian Authority for over 6 years now.

Yet, while my positions and the way in which I live my life are aligned with liberal principles recently I ran from their unwavering dogma as regards the breaking Israel news of the Western capitulation and acquiescence to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear energy, enriched uranium, and weaponized missile technology.

This threat is real and palpable.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has never been my candidate of choice for the role, has continued to speak out against the deal as not only a dangerous threat to Israel, but to the world. On security, I trust the man. He has access to information I cannot begin to imagine. One thing we have learned in the most egregious and gruesome of ways: when someone says they want to k**l the Jews -- believe him or her. They mean it.

I have not abandoned my liberal outlooks and perspectives, my support for causes and organizations, my hope that people and governments can be more tolerant -- even appreciative -- of each other. But as I ran the other day--from left to right--a gruesome nightmare appeared before my eyes -- the rainbow streaks and lines before my eyes became blurred, my breath short and labored, my brow perspired, my legs slow and tired, my mind awake, aware, and very, very scared.

In years past I have supported Greenpeace and The Sierra Club, gay rights (I am heterosexual) and supported local agriculture efforts worldwide. I have been vegetarian for more than 12 years to stem animal cruelty and industrial farming practices. I supported the efforts worldwide against the arms race and for cures for cancer and AIDS while a senior in high school. I believe anyone should be able to marry and anyone should be able share their sexual persuasion openly and worship the God or deity of their choice.

But Iran encourages murder. Genocide, actually.

Iran openly and excitedly calls the destruction of the Jewish people as “non-negotiable”. Ayatollahs--grand leaders of Iran’s despotic theocracy -- opine that it is not only their intention to commit genocide but their right and obligation; for all Iranians. How is this tolerated?

Could any Israeli politician echo such statements about any Arab or Muslim state?

See, I learned about the Holocaust when I was younger. From a very tender, young age. Not just in school but from my grandparents. Of four grandparents, three were survivors. All of them spoke about their experiences. One got out of Europe prior and returned to fight them on the battlefields of Europe and North Africa. My mind, young and adult could never fathom such: the painstaking effort, the h**e, the resources, the horror, the not fighting back. All of it.

And, yet in one tiny atomic reaction multiplied exponentially it can all happen again.

The same people steadfast against nuclear proliferation who stood side by side with me in high school now have no problem aiding and abetting and capitulating to Iran. We all thought with North Korea this would work. Can we say: epic fail?

And I also have my own fault lines. So I ran. I know what is next: after a “deal” with Iran the political push will begin to require Israel to allow IAEA inspectors.

If Iran is “complying,” Israel must.

On these points my l*****t-liberal family members (beside two!), friends, circles, professional organizations and alliances, and essentially every single person I know is: silent.

The silence we said would “Never Again” occur.

The silence we said was appalling: “How could they?!”

The silence we said was: “Institutionalized. Political. Anti-Semitic. Economic. Strategic!”

And I will not be silent. So I ran from left to right; on this matter.

I have traded a barrage of calls and emails with my two right-of-center family members.

I have run to speak with and connect with organizations who will not capitulate to this horror.

Because when I said “Never Again!” all these years: I meant it.

I cannot sit idly by while my l*****t-liberal cohorts and friends passively and flaccidly acquiesce to an agenda that threatens my existence, to a reality that could make the ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau look like tinder for a Sunday BBQ.

The only question now is whether the the Israel Defense Forces will initiate what could become an Israel-Iran War: larger, wider, more dangerous and deadly conflict than Israel and the world has seen in half a century. A much larger world involvement due to “alliances and interests” fills me with fear: for the safety of Jews in Israel, the safety of Jews worldwide.

I stand by my support for liberal causes, my liberal views, my liberal outlook on life in my personal “daled amos”, in business, in politics, in the United States, in Israel.

I will not and cannot stand with the liberal establishment in their promotion of a vile, vicious, suicidal enemy seeking my annihilation.

It’s like combining the Japanese Kamikazes with Hitler’s Jewish Obsession with Kim Jong Un’s nuclear arsenal.

It doesn’t make sense.

But my sprint does.

The day I ran I recall feeling a consciousness of intent and purpose I have not felt in ages.

Today, as we mourn and remember Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, as we continue the rampant repetition of that famous slogan I will be a voice from that void,

“Never Again” also means:

“Not Now!”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_day_i_ran_from_left_to_right.html#ixzz3cZJy4rOv

Making the Middle East worse succeeded where trying to make it better failed.

In Washington D.C., the new director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and a former Saudi Major General, both of whom run think tanks with close ties to their respective governments, shook hands.

It wasn’t their first time.

Obama wasn’t there when it happened, but in a way he was responsible for it.

Both men are foreign policy experts who help shape the foreign policies of their countries and had conducted five previous meetings. The topic of the meetings was Iran.

Obama wouldn’t have been pleased by their meeting or by what it represented, but he had brought them together. While Dore Gold, the Israeli, insisted that they had common ground because “We’re both allies of the United States”, it was Obama’s betrayal of both countries that had led them here.

While Obama likes to talk about making peace in the region, his only successful peace effort was this accidental byproduct of his disastrous policies. He had unintentionally managed to bring the Israelis and the Saudis together by alienating both countries with his permission slip for a nuclear Iran.

It was not a peace that he was likely to claim credit for.

Saudi Arabia was Israel’s oldest and most venomous enemy. Ibn Saud had called the Jews, “a race accursed by Allah according to his Koran, and destined to final destruction.” He had vowed to be content eating nothing but “camel’s meat” rather than give up hating the Jews.

“The word of Allah teaches us, and we implicitly believe this O Dickson, that for a Muslim to k**l a Jew, or for him to be k**led by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Paradise and into the august presence of Allah. What more then can a Muslim want in this hard world,” he had added.

And he meant it.

The origins of most of the anti-Israel activities in the Muslim world and the West can be found in Saudi Arabia. The poisoning of academia was funded by Saudi Arabia. The diplomatic and military leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom were turned against Israel by the Saudis. Anti-Israel narratives wound their way into the press and the public forums courtesy of their hired gun PR agencies.

Even BDS has its heavily disguised origins in the boycott of Israel promoted and enforced by the Saudis.

The Saudis haven’t stopped any of this. They are still waging Ibn Saud’s Koranic war against the Jews using academics, retired politicians, diplomats and generals, along with think tanks and PR agencies as their fronts, but they have found something that they h**e and fear even more than the Jews.

The Sunni hatred of Shiites is nearly as old as the Islamic hatred of Jews and the Wahhabi forces of the Saudis had conducted massacres of Shiites that closely resemble ISIS actions today.

But this is more than hatred. The Saudis are afraid.

Obama’s appeasement of Iran has already led to the fall of Yemen and Iranian naval attacks in international waters in the Persian Gulf. And everyone knows that worse is yet to come.

While the Saudis rush to frantically go nuclear before Iran does, their military, despite its billions in American equipment is unreliable. Obama has aligned with the Iran-Syria-Russia axis despite its members being even more hostile to the United States than the Saudis.

The Saudis have far more influence in Washington than the Israelis ever did, though their influence is subtle and understated, without the gaucherie of an AIPAC dinner. But Obama won’t be moved by the slow infusion of subtle narratives from think tanks, retired diplomats and assorted insiders that the Saudis have ably used to turn American politicians around on issues like the War on Terror or Israel.

Obama has decided what he wants to do and the Saudi-orchestrated drumbeat of criticism, like Netanyahu’s speeches, is an irritant that won’t change his worldview.

The Saudis have tried to play a variety of cards. They tried and failed to cut a deal with Putin. They likely played a significant role in removing Morsi from power in Egypt after his flirtation with Iran. That gave them access to a more reliable military than their own force of princes, but the best proven air force in the region still belongs to Israel.

If there is to be any non-American action against Iran’s nuclear program, it will come from Israel.

The United States has spent generations trying to push for peace between Sunni Muslim states and Israel. Perversely, Obama has come closest to achieving that peace by abandoning both sides while backing Jihadist groups and states hostile to both Israel and Sunni Muslim governments.

Obama’s backing for the Muslim Brotherhood ended up bringing Egypt and Israel closer together. Now his backing for Iran is bringing Israel and the Saudis together.

These relationships are not the final and ultimate peace solutions rhapsodized over by naïve crowds and politicians. Those will never come as long as tribalism and theocracy rule the day. They are pragmatic and temporary interactions made necessary by Obama’s t***sformation of American foreign policy.

The wave of instability created by Obama’s backing for Muslim Brotherhood regime change and then Iranian expansionism has made even formerly stable countries feel insecure. Israel’s best asset in this crisis is its invulnerability to the sectarian waves of Shiite and Sunni conflicts and the rising tide of the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islamism. While there are a few Muslim Brotherhood members in Israel’s Knesset under the United Arab List banner, there is no risk of them taking over the country.

Even Netanyahu’s ree******n has improved Israel’s standing in the Middle East by demonstrating that it has a reliable and steady government that is publicly at odds with Barack Obama.

For the Saudis, the Israeli option is the final option. And it’s not clear that they are doing anything more than exploring it to send a very particular message to Obama and Iran. But in a region swiftly being divided between Iran and various Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups, including Al Qaeda and ISIS, the Jewish State may have become the most reliable counterweight to Iran and Obama.

The old American strategy had sought to create peace between Jew and Muslim under the security umbrella of the Pax Americana. Instead it’s the collapse of the umbrella that has come closest to bringing peace through war against common enemies. By destabilizing the Middle East and turning on the Saudis and Egyptians, Obama accidentally made Israel seem like a more credible partner.

Making the Middle East worse succeeded where trying to make it better had failed.

The post-American world that Obama has been building is a very different place. It is a world in which aggressors like Russia and China are reshaping regions to their liking through conquest and intimidation, but it is also a world in which former allies of the United States are trying to build dams against the tide.

If Hillary succeeds Obama, the resulting post-American world will be a very dangerous place, but like the countryside after the flood waters have washed much of it away, it may also be an interesting place.

Obama has destroyed the international accomplishments of Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Reagan while claiming to be their rightful successor. The world is returning to where it was a century ago. And on this new map of the world, an alliance between Israel and the Saudis is only one more strange new territory.

By Daniel Greenfield

After two decades of falling crime rates nationwide, rising levels of intense cop-hatred across America appear to be contributing to a spike in violent crime in major cities, according to leading scholar Heather Mac Donald.

The “most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months,” writes Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-Ed.

Some of the anger in the streets that has turned into r**ting and l**ting sprees is concocted, bought and paid for by radical anti-American financier George Soros. Much of the rest of it has been inspired by the community organizer in the White House and his minion, the former Attorney General Eric Holder. The mainstream media has been playing a supporting role, turning every police shooting of a person of color into a cause célèbre, regardless of the circumstances leading to the shooting.

“Gun violence in particular is spiraling upward in cities across America,” Mac Donald contends.

“In Baltimore, the most pressing question every morning is how many people were shot the previous night,” she writes. “Gun violence is up more than 60% compared with this time last year, according to Baltimore police, with 32 shootings over Memorial Day weekend. May has been the most violent month the city has seen in 15 years.”

Mac Donald continued:

In Milwaukee, homicides were up 180% by May 17 over the same period the previous year. Through April, shootings in St. Louis were up 39%, robberies 43%, and homicides 25% … Murders in Atlanta were up 32% as of mid-May. Shootings in Chicago had increased 24% and homicides 17%. Shootings and other violent felonies in Los Angeles had spiked by 25%; in New York, murder was up nearly 13%, and gun violence 7%. Those citywide statistics from law-enforcement officials mask even more startling neighborhood-level increases. Shooting incidents are up 500% in an East Harlem precinct compared with last year; in a South Central Los Angeles police division, shooting victims are up 100%.

Many of these murder victims are b***k A******ns, Mac Donald said last week on Sean Hannity’s TV show.

These are the black lives that should matter to the Al Sharptons of the world. When the police back off, innocent black people get k**led. And my speculation — and I don’t know this for sure, but we’ve been enduring nine months of really extreme anti-cop hysteria that is premised on the falsehood that the police are the biggest threat facing young black men today.

That police are the greatest threat to young black males is not supported by the evidence but police officers respond to public pressure like members of any other profession. Cops are “hearing the message that when they engage in proactive policing, they are abusing the community,” she said.

“They’re fearful of being caught on a cell phone video that will not show the full engagement with a resisting suspect,” Mac Donald explained. “And I think that they may be backing off on discretionary policing, the low-level misdemeanor offenses. They’re still responding to 9-1-1 calls for violent felonies, but they’re backing off, and criminals are getting emboldened.”

“Any cop who uses his gun now has to worry about being indicted and losing his job and family,” a New York City cop confided in Mac Donald. “Everything has the potential to be recorded. A lot of cops feel that the climate for the next couple of years is going to be nonstop protests.”

This never-ending drumbeat against the police has caused what St. Louis, Mo., police chief Sam Dotson calls the “Ferguson effect.” He was referring to the civil unrest last fall in Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb, both before and after a grand jury decided not to indict white police officer Darren Wilson for k*****g young black male Michael Brown. Brown, who had just held up a convenience store minutes before, battered the policeman and tried to grab his handgun. Wilson shot Brown in self-defense but the politically motivated lie that Wilson gunned him down while he was trying to surrender persists. Left-wingers and activists across America accused decorated officer Wilson, without any evidence whatsoever, of being an out-of-control r****t intent on slaughtering black people.

So a backlash is in progress. Police officers are laying off of discretionary enforcement activity and the “criminal element is feeling empowered,” Dotson said.

The r****t Black L***s M****r movement has also been working hard since the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Fla., to inflame racial tensions. And the Obama administration sent taxpayer-supporter community organizers from within the Department of Justice to Sanford and other racial hotspots across the country to help cause mayhem, Judicial Watch discovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

Mac Donald cautioned that this trend of rising violent crime isn’t rearing its head in every city. “There are cities where crime has not gone up, but I think what we’re seeing is, is the advance,” she told Sean Hannity. “If we continue down this path, I think the 20-year crime decline that the country has benefited from, and above all, inner city communities will be in threat.”

Left-wing journalists wasted no time in accusing Mac Donald of fear-mongering about crime.

The Huffington Post’s holier-than-though Jason Linkins put his own spin on the facts. His chaotic published screed attacking Mac Donald is a case study in media-orchestrated deceit. It also a reminder that whenever you read something written by a left-winger, it is important to read it slowly and carefully so you can be on guard against deceptive propaganda techniques and rhetorical sleights-of-hand.

Linkins readily concedes that Mac Donald’s statistics are “mostly in the ballpark” but pillories her anyway. This crime wave Mac Donald warns of “is all a load of hot nonsense,” he writes without actually proving it is nonsense, hot or otherwise.

There is no denying “that there are a number of urban police departments that have themselves some problems,” he writes. “But does all of this add up to a ‘new nationwide crime wave’? I’m afraid not. Further examination tells a story of cherry-picking.”

By this point Linkins is phoning it in as he goes into a dry discussion, comparing statistics for murders against those for violent crimes in general, without actually refuting what Mac Donald has presented.

“New York City’s scary stat, to Mac Donald, is the murder rate,” Linkins opines. “I can see why: according to CompStat, homicides thus far this year are up in comparison to the rate over a comparable period of time last year.”

He doesn’t deny that so far in 2015 there have been more homicides in New York City compared to the same date in the previous year, as Mac Donald writes. Instead he engages in misdirection, downplaying the rising homicide rate this year by comparing it to previous years when it was significantly higher.

“And yet, if you just glance over to right of the spreadsheet, you’ll also learn that the homicide rate in New York City is down 32 percent when compared to five years ago, and down 83 percent compared to 22 years ago,” Linkins writes. “All of which indicates that New York City’s darkest days are well in the past, regardless of this year’s slight spike.”

In other words, the slippery Linkins begrudgingly admits that Mac Donald is right about the homicide rate rising in the Big Apple. Mac Donald, of course, never argued that New York’s “darkest days are well in the past” — this is an example of goalpost-shifting by Linkins. He can’t disprove what Mac Donald says so he sets up a straw man, shifting the focus to something she did not say. Linkins self-servingly selected the homicide rate of 22 years ago as a reference point. Of course that was 1993 when Republican Rudy Giuliani ousted pro-criminal liberal Democrat mayor David Dinkins, a move that led to the rebirth of what had long been a troubled city.

Showing that the “darkest days” were some time ago wasn’t the point of Mac Donald’s column, which was about current affairs, not distant history. Mac Donald wanted to let readers know that the homicide rate at the moment is rising and she suspects it is related to the “extreme anti-cop hysteria” of the past nine months. In an example of scholarly humility, something rarely seen in l*****t academics, Mac Donald even admitted on TV that she was engaging in “speculation” as to what was driving crime rates that seem to be rising. Linkins ought to know that fear-mongering doesn’t come with caveats.

Mac Donald was t***sparent; Linkins spent his time scheming and using tricks to make Mac Donald look bad. If things don’t pan out for Linkins at the Huffington Post, he can always get a job writing fiction at the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America.

All of this reminds me of an amusing anecdote I uncovered while researching the work of Marxist agitator-academic Richard Cloward, the late husband of fellow agitator Frances Fox Piven.

As I wrote in Subversion Inc., my book about Barack Obama, Saul Alinsky, and ACORN, in 1965 Cloward argued that America didn’t have a crime problem—it had a law problem.

Laws enforcing an unjust social order were oppressing the poor, he pontificated. “The problems are being greatly exaggerated,” said the criminal-loving professor who spent much of his career making excuses for recidivists. “The American people are more lawful today than ever before.”

A month after the statement, Cloward visited Philadelphia to address a peace corps gathering. After the speech ended around 10 p.m. he visited a bad neighborhood. While there two men bummed a cigarette off him. Cloward was then shot from behind as he walked away.

A 22-caliber bullet was removed from his shoulder at Temple University Hospital. “The fact that I got hurt doesn’t mean we are in the midst of a crime wave,” said Cloward, his appreciation of criminals undiminished. “The vast majority of people are law abiding citizens,” he added, frustrated.

Perhaps Cloward would have shrugged were it not for the fresh bullet hole the poor oppressed victims of American society made in his shoulder.

Heather Mac Donald seems unlikely to do something as reckless as Cloward did in the City of Brotherly Love.

Jason Linkins? I’m not so sure. He has an arsenal of excuses in his quiver to explain away wh**ever happens.