Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - objectivist1

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]
1001
Politics & Religion / Mufreesboro, TN Mega-Mosque...
« on: June 26, 2012, 09:12:14 PM »
This is vital information that Americans need to pay attention to.  It is
not being covered by the major news media:

www.globalinfidel.tv/page/abdou-kattih

As always - for pertinent news regarding Islamic activity in the U.S. and
around the world, consult these two excellent web sites:

www.jihadwatch.org  (Robert Spencer)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/  (Pamela Geller)

1002
Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer weighs in on this issue...
« on: June 25, 2012, 10:48:23 AM »
Investigate Radical Christianity!

Posted By Robert Spencer On June 25, 2012

During last week’s House Homeland Security Committee hearing on “The Radicalization of Muslim-Americans,” Congressman Al Green (D-TX) took issue [1] with the hearing’s focus on Islam and Muslims, asking the witnesses testifying before the Committee: “If you agree that radicalization exists within all religions to some extent, would you kindly extend a hand into the air.” Noting triumphantly that “all the hands are raised,” Green then asked: “Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

The immediate answer is obvious. On the one hand we have recent jihad plotters in the U.S., including Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber.

All of them and many others invoked the Qur’an and Sunnah to explain and justify their deeds.

And on the other hand, we have recent “radical Christian” acts of violence committed by people who invoked the Bible and Church teaching to explain and justify their deeds, including — no one at all. Not one. Even the much-vaunted abortion clinic bombers number only a handful, versus nearly 19,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11, and have been repudiated by all Christian sects and leaders — as opposed to the many Islamic authorities that teach jihad warfare against unbelievers and exhort their faithful to commit acts of violent jihad.

Rosie O’Donnell enunciated the idea memorably a few years ago: “radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam.” Since then, this has become a commonplace of mainstream media political discourse — remarkably enough, since it has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Emblematic of how hard it is to find a “radical Christian” — that is, someone driven to violence by the teachings of Christianity, as opposed to genuinely radical Christians like Mother Teresa and the Amish — is that when Green spoke about “the radicalization of Christianity,” he was actually referring to Islamic jihadists, not to Christians at all.

This became clear when he said: “I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don’t focus on the entirety of radicalization. And if you agree that we have Christians, as has been mentioned by more than one member, Christians who become radicalized, they become part of Islam and they become radicalized as is being said, why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

Green’s statement is fundamentally incoherent. “Christians who become radicalized” and “become part of Islam” are not Christians at all, but converts to Islam. Thus a hearing on the radicalization of Muslims, and possibly of converts to Islam, would be needed, not a hearing on the radicalization of Christians. Green himself made this clear, after a fashion, as he continued, digging himself an ever-deeper hole: “I do think that it is a problem of perception. People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, ‘Why is this missing?’ Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing. That’s the problem.”

Green was apparently referring to Colleen LaRose, aka “Jihad Jane [2],” a convert to Islam from Pennsylvania who plotted to murder a Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks, for drawing a cartoon of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. If LaRose had remained a Christian, of course, she never would have been moved to kill by a cartoon of Muhammad; her crime has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with Islam. And so here again, the moral equivalence that Rosie O’Donnell stated baldly and that Green was apparently reaching for founders on the facts.

Yet Green soldiered on, concluding: “I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue. I look forward to the day that we’ll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America.”

So do I, in fact. Investigate radical Christianity! If such a hearing were held with any degree of honesty, it couldn’t help but shed light on the fact that Islam has a unique capacity to incite its adherents to violence today, in a way that neither Christianity nor any other religion shares. And that realization, contrary as it is to official government and media assumptions, could go a long way toward focusing law enforcement upon the real problem the nation faces today, instead of upon politically correct fictions. Much as that prospect may infuriate Congressman Al Green.

1003
Congressman Calls for Hearings on ‘Radicalization’ of White Christian Women

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 25, 2012

During a Homeland Security committee hearing last week on the “Radicalization of Muslim-Americans,” Texas Congressman Al Green (D) criticized the hearings as biased and unfair to Muslims, suggesting that the only way to justify such hearings is if Congress would also conduct a “hearing on the radicalization of Christians.”

Though his position may seem plausible and balanced, in fact, it reveals a dangerous mix of irrationality, moral relativism, and emotionalism—all disastrous traits in a U.S. Congressman.  Consider some of Green’s assertions:

I don’t think that most people oppose hearings on radicalization.  I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don’t focus on the entirety of radicalization….  [W]hy not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?… People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, “Why is this missing?”

Fair question—“Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”  Before responding, we must acknowledge that the word “radicalization” simply means “to go to the root or origin of something,” in this case, religion: a Muslim radical goes to the root teachings of Islam; a Christian radical goes to the root teachings of Christianity.  Accordingly, there are certainly “Christian radicals” in America.  The question is, do they pose the same risks to America as Muslim radicals?

Green and all moral relativists naturally do not want to pursue such a question, pretending that any form of “radicalization”—regardless of the “root teachings”—is evil.  They are certainly not interested in determining the root teachings of Christianity and Islam, and whether they are equally prone to violence, terrorism, conquest, etc.  While this is not the place to contrast modern Christianity’s apolitical and largely passive nature with modern Islam’s political and largely aggressive nature—a theme elaboratedhere—suffice it to say that, while thousands of modern-day Muslim leaders are on record quoting Islamic scriptures to justify violence and hate, one is hard pressed to find examples of Christian leaders preaching violence and hate—and justifying it through scripture.

The Saudi Grand Mufti, the highest religious official of Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holiest nation, called on the destruction of all regional churches, quoting Islamic texts. Can Green find an example of an equally authoritative Christian leader calling for the destruction of mosques—and supporting it through the Bible?

Green went on to ask “Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing. That’s the problem.”

Thus, not only does the Congressman irrationally conflate the teachings of all religions together, he also conflates religion with race and gender, implying that the only reason there are hearings on Muslim radicalization is because Muslims are not white, whereas those “equally-dangerous” blue-eyed, blond-haired female Christian “radicals” apparently get a free pass to terrorize America.

This logic is flawed on many levels.  Islam is not a race; there are Muslims of all colors, just like there are Christians of all colors.  Moreover, there are indeed “blue-eyed, blond-haired” terrorists in the world, including females—yet these, too, are overwhelmingly Muslim.  It is dishonest for Green to try to take the focus off of Islamic radicalization and pin it on that all-purpose bogeyman, “racism.”

Regardless, this argument that Islam is a race is popular and was, for example, used by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who also called these hearings “racist.” Likewise, a former American soldier discussing the Fort Hood shootings lamented that “When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal. But when a Muslim [namely, Nidal Hasan] does it, they call it jihad.”

Notice the confusion; as if a “white guy” and a “Muslim” represent different races.  Of course, if a person of any color goes on a random shooting spree, it would be racist to pin it on his race. But if a person of any color goes on a shooting spree—while waving the Koran, screaming the jihadi paean “Allahu Akbar!” or otherwise rationalizing his actions in Islamic terms, as did Nidal Hasan—then we are talking about a shooting spree motivated by a learned ideology or worldview that has nothing to do with the murderer’s race.

Finally, from beginning to end, Green—like his congressman colleague Keith Ellison, whose objection to these hearings culminated in ateary-eyed breakdown—relied on emotionalism to make his point: he opened  his statement by offering the Islamic greeting assalama alikum to Muslims present, dreamily observing: “Isn’t it wonderful that the grandson of a Christian minister can sit on the Homeland Security Committee and say assalama alikum?”—a meaningless point that does not change the fact that in Islam, Muslims are only allowed to say “Peace upon you” to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslim infidels.

Likewise, he concluded his sanctimonious attack by saying “I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue….  I look forward to the day that we’ll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America”—again, all meaningless race-related rhetoric and moral relativism, the sole value of which is to obfuscate the issue at hand: the “radicalization of Muslim-Americans.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

1004
Politics & Religion / More on the Evil that is Islam...
« on: June 21, 2012, 11:48:16 AM »
Daniel Greenfield, on his excellent blog "Sultan Knish," makes my earlier point that Islam itself is in fact the problem eloquently below:

"A Dark and Vengeful God"

Daniel Greenfield - Wednesday, June 20, 2012

At the beginning of Sweeney Todd, the chorus of his murdered victims sings, "He served a dark and a vengeful god." In Egypt, an Islamic Sweeney butchered his wife after an argument, cut her up and sold her mutilated body as lamb chops.


Around the same time as Mohammed Sweeney was selling pieces of his wife to customers stocking up on meat before Ramadan, Egyptian voters made their own offering to the dark and vengeful god by voting for Mohammed Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose offshoots such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda have a murder toll that beggars anything the real or fictional Sweeney could have aspired to.

Morsi's election platform was ending the last light of freedom in Egypt by implementing full Islamic law and in a country where 84 percent believe that heretics should be killed, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned and 77 percent believe that thieves should have their hands cut off, the candidate of Allah, the dark and vengeful god of Islam, was bound to win any democratic election.

As a god, Allah does not appear to be much of a lifegiver. Egypt has six times the infant mortality rate of the "Zionist Entity", five times that of the "Great Satan" and ten times that of the Japanese infidels. Indeed the country with the world's highest infant mortality rate is the devout home of the Taliban, Afghanistan, which has an infant mortality rate that is 50 percent higher than Rwanda.

Is Sharia law going to bring Egypt's infant mortality rate closer to that of Japan or Afghanistan? It isn't any good at that, but it will be good for beheading all sorts of people that the followers of the dark and vengeful god disprove of. Beginning with heretics.

Indonesia just sentenced a man to 2 years in jail for writing, "Allah doesn't exist" on Facebook. Thanks to Western innovation, Indonesia has Facebook. But it also has blasphemy laws, because if people started doubting the dark god, they might start asking why Indonesia has an infant mortality rate that is 13 times that of neighboring Singapore.

It's not that the Muslim world doesn't have doctors. They just tend to be doing other things, like Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a surgeon and the leader of Al-Qaeda; Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a surgeon and co-founder of Hamas; Dr. Fathi Shaqaqi, the co-founder of Islamic Jihad; and Dr. Abdel Rantissi, a pediatrician and co-founder of Hamas, who boasted, "We will kill Jews everywhere."

Who has the time to waste on pediatrics when you worship a dark and vengeful god who gave you a mission to kill as many infidels as possible? The only infant mortality rates they care about are the ones that they inflict.

The Taliban in North Waziristan, Pakistan have offered to allow polio vaccinations for their children only if the drone campaign against terrorists ends. This isn't the first time that Muslim terrorists have used children as human shields, though perhaps it's the first time that they used 161,000 children as human shields. The human shield principle depends on the Muslim knowledge that we care more about their children than they do. 

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and an infant mortality rate that is higher than that of Haiti, the Congo, Papua and some of the poorest and most desperate places in the world, as does Egypt.

The Egyptians could have gone into this election asking themselves why an Israeli child across the border is six times more likely to survive his birth than one of their children is. Instead they went into the election asking themselves how they could see more people beheaded for questioning their dark god. If they gave any thought to evening up the difference in infant mortality rates in the 264-mile distance between Cairo and Jerusalem, it was only by invading Israel or by supporting Hamas terrorists.

That is how followers of a dark and vengeful god think. They don't wonder how they can save the lives of their children, but how they can even the cosmic score by taking the lives of someone else's children. They don't think in terms of making their lives better, but their minds are fixed on the dark goal of making other people's lives worse.

Sweeney Todd was his own dark and vengeful god. So is Islam. Todd killed in his own name and Islam kills in its own name. Draw a mocking cartoon of Mohammed or burn a Koran and in a few hours there will be blood spilled in the streets of Muslim cities. Most of it will be their own blood, but that is what happens when you worship the dark and vengeful god inside you. When you bow before the rage churning in your own heart, then your sacrifice yourself to the hatred within.


Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, presented a slideshow explaining Jihad with the words, "We love death more than you love life." "The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them," Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah proclaimed. "We are going to win, because they love life and we love death." “We love death,” Adis Medunjanin, convicted of plotting to bomb the New York City subway, screeched at a 911 operator. "You love your life! There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger!”

When you worship death, then loving life becomes a sin, a blasphemy against the god of death whose worship is death.

"The Jihad is our way and death for Allah is our most exalted wish" are the words of the Muslim Brotherhood, the movement at the top of the Egyptian power pyramid, which is as obsessed with death as the ancient Pharaohs were. But the pyramids that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim groups construct are not tombs, but pyramids of corpses-- giant funerary chambers of bodies, those of their own Muslim martyrs and those of their non-Muslim victims, to transport themselves to paradise.

"Sweeney wishes the world away, Sweeney's weeping for yesterday," the chorus sings, "Hugging the blade, waiting the years, hearing the music that nobody hears." But these days everyone can hear the music and feel the blade. The Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for years to cut away the world and bring back the golden oldies of yesteryear. The greatest hits collection of albums from the invasions and subjugations, the genocides and exterminations of non-Muslims around the world.

Cults of death don't look to the present or the future, they look to the past, to the realm of the dead. They worship it and plot to bring it back. They despise the vitality of the living and the future, choosing instead the dirt and ash of the grave, the poisonous hatreds that never die, living on long after Mohammed rasped his last breath after telling his followers to drive out Christians and Jews from the Arabian Peninsula.   

Why bother lowering infant mortality rates when you can bring back the glorious past? Why care about the infants at all if their only purpose is to die in the way of Jihad? So what if they die when they're a few days old, instead of twenty years old. It saves time and their martyrdom can be blamed on the West, which is the source of all ills.

"The Prophet said, 'A single endeavor of fighting in Allah's Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.'" And that includes the children. It includes skyscrapers, paintings and books. It includes life itself. And then what's left except death?

By voting for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian people proclaimed that they love death more than life, that they love death more than the lives of their children. The ancient worshipers of Moloch passed their children between the flames, and the modern worshipers of Allah pass their children between the flames of Jihad.

The Egyptians have joined the Tunisians in the democracy of death, at the dark altar of the ballot box into which they drop their offerings that say, "We love death. More than life. More than our children. More than thoughts, books, freedom and civilization." And the world still does not understand what it is witnessing behind the outpourings of propaganda, the jubilant mobs and the analysts spluttering on behind the plastic desks and glowing logos of cable news shows.

It is easy to analyze politics but difficult to analyze evil. Talk about a cult of death has no place in the modern world, where it is a firm article of faith that everyone wants two turkeys in every pot and a car in every Cairo garage. Every intelligent person knows that all religions are the same. That democracy is good because all people are good. Leaders like Mubarak may be bad, but an entire people can't be bad. All religions celebrate life, and no matter how often they say, "We love death while you love life", they can't possibly mean it.


But what if they do? What if the dark and vengeful god that the vast majority of Egyptians want to see executing blasphemers and mutilating thieves has been set loose by the ballot box? What if Allah is the dark half that civilized people and governments keep locked away. The part that tells butchers to chop up their wives and sell them to their customers, that tells merchants to turn into bandits, that tells Meccans to rape the wives of their neighbors and that commands a thousand other atrocities?

What if all our democracy promotion efforts unlocked that dark side, let the beast out of its cage and set it loose to kill? What if Islam's dark and vengeful god is a chimera made out of the worst parts of his followers, their murderous instincts, their self-despite, their hatreds, lusts and obsessions? What does it say about a people that proclaim their darkest selves to be their god?

"We love death" is the anthem of Jihad. It was the anthem of a butcher who chopped up his wife and served her corpse to his customers. It is the song of millions of Egyptians who chose death over life once they were given the freedom to do it. The death of life for the worship of the dark god who dwells in the darkest places of the human heart.

1005
Politics & Religion / Re: University Campaign Promotes White Guilt...
« on: June 21, 2012, 11:28:34 AM »
These videos really need to be seen to be believed - along with the accompanying text - so I'm simply posting the link here:

www.theblaze.com/stories/not-fair-to-be-white-see-the-unbelievable-new-campaign-sponsored-by-the-university-of-minnesota-duluth/

1006
Politics & Religion / Re: Obama fabrications...
« on: June 21, 2012, 10:35:21 AM »
Well - I'd qualify that by saying "everyone who knows anything about "Dreams From My Father."  The minority of the American public that is informed.  The fact remains that the mainstream media remains to this day completely uninterested in reporting on any of this.  Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw famously opined that "There is a lot we don't know about Obama."  They fail to mention that they haven't even attempted to do any investigative reporting to find out.  To them the only item of importance is that Obama has dark skin and he is our first "black President."  Nothing else matters.

I might add that several experts in textual analysis have examined "Dreams From My Father," and compared it to verified writings of Obama, and concluded that there is NO WAY Obama wrote that book.  The most likely candidate (with whom the style most closely matches) is William Ayers.  What a surprise that whole sections are fabrications designed to advance the fraud that is Barack Obama!

1007
Obama's grandfather tortured by the British? A fantasy (like most of the President’s own memoir)
By TOBY HARNDEN
PUBLISHED: 17:15 EST, 19 June 2012

 
A new biography of Barack Obama has established that his grandfather was not, as is related in the President’s own memoir, detained by the British in Kenya and found that claims that he was tortured were a fabrication.
'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life.
One of the enduring myths of Obama’s ancestry is that his paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama, who served as a cook in the British Army, was imprisoned in 1949 by the British for helping the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebels and held for several months.

Family tree: Barack Obama (centre) with his maternal grandparents Stanley Armour Dunham, (left) and Madelyn Dunham in New York City in the 1980s
Obama’s step-grandmother Sarah, Onyango wife, who is still living, is quoted in the future President’s memoir, as saying: ‘One day, the white man’s askaris came to take Onyango away, and he was placed in a detention camp.
 
More...
Michelle Obama savages the pursuit of 'fat paychecks and nice offices' (despite her past life as a high-flying corporate lawyer)
Revealed: Michelle Obama's WHITE distant cousins... and how the First Lady's great-great-great grandmother had a relationship with a slave owner's son
‘But he had been in the camp for over six months, and when he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. He was so ashamed, he refused to enter his house or tell us what happened.’
In a 2008 interview, Sarah Obama claimed that he was ‘whipped every morning and evening’ by the British. ‘They would sometimes squeeze his testicles with metal rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together. He was lucky to survive. Some of his fellow inmates were mutilated with castration pliers and beaten to death with clubs.’
But Maraniss, who researched Obama’s life in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and the mainland United States, found that there were ‘no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama’. He interviewed five people who knew Obama’s grandfather, who died in 1979, who ‘doubted the story or were certain it did not happen’.

Fabricated?: 'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book
This undermines the received wisdom that Obama’s grandfather was a victim of oppression, an assumption that has in turn fuelled theories that Obama harbours an animus towards Britain based on a deeply-rooted rage about the way Onyango was treated.
John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with Onyango before the alleged imprisonment and was in touch with him weekly afterwards said he 'knew nothing' about any detention and would have noticed if he had gone missing for several months.
Zablon Okatch, who worked with Onyango as a servant to American diplomats after the supposed incarceration, said: ‘Hussein was never jailed. I know that for a fact. It would have been difficult for him to get a job with a white family, let alone a diplomat, if he once served in jail.’
Charles Oluoch, whose father was adopted by Onyango, said that ‘he did not have any trouble with the government in any way'.
Dick Opar, a relative by marriage to Onyango and a senior Kenyan police official, gave what Maraniss judged to be the most authoritative word. ‘People make up stories,’ he said. ‘If you get arrested, you say it was the fight for independence, but they are arrested for another thing.
‘I would have known. I would have known. If he was in Kamiti Prison for only a day, even if for a day, I would have known.’
Maraniss also casts a sceptical eye on Obama’s grandmother’s tales of racism in Kansas, doubting whether she was ever chastised for addressing a black janitor as ‘Mister’ or ridiculed for playing with a black girl.
Obama himself, Maraniss finds, deliberately distorted elements of his own life to fit into a racial narrative. The author writes that Obama presents himself in his memoir as ‘blacker and more disaffected’ than he really was.
The memoir ‘accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white’.


Researched: David Maraniss (left) found that there were 'no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama', the President's grandfather
In the forward to his memoir, Obama wrote that ‘for the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology’.
But Maraniss writes that Obama’s book is ‘literature and memoir, not history and autobiography’ and concludes: ‘The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive.’
Writing about his schooldays, Obama created a friend called Regina, a symbol of the authentic black American experience that Obama yearns for.
Maraniss found, however, that Regina was based on Caroline Boss, a white student leader at Occidental College. Regina was the name of Boss’s Swiss grandmother.
The book also notes that Obama removed two white roommates in Los Angeles and New York from his story. Obama himself told Maraniss in a 90-minute interview that a racial incident involving a New York girlfriend had in fact happened in Chicago.
A tale of the father of Obama’s Indonesian stepfather Soewarno Martodihardjo being killed by Dutch soldiers as he fought for Indonesian independence turns out to be ‘a concocted myth in almost all respects’, Maraniss finds.
According to the book, both Obama’s father and his paternal grandfather were abusive towards women and Maraniss finds that Obama’s story that he was abandoned by his father when he was two was false – in fact, Obama’s mother fled to Washington state a year earlier, possibly because she was being beaten.
A character in Obama’s memoir called Ray, portrayed as a symbol of young blackness, is in fact based on a fellow pupil who was half Japanese, part native American and part black and was not a close friend.
‘In the memoir Barry and Ray, could be heard complaining about how rich white haole [upper class white Hawaiian] girls would never date them. In fact, neither had much trouble in that regard.’
Obama notes of his own grandfather that he was apt to create ‘history to conform with the image he wished for himself’.
Maraniss, who also wrote an acclaimed biography of Bill Clinton, suggests that throughout his life Obama himself, following on from his forbears on both sides,  has done the same thing.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161817/Obamas-grandfather-Stanley-Armour-Dunham-tortured-British.html#ixzz1yMiZhwIj

1008
Morris is correct.  Romney has done a very poor job of defending his record at Bain Capital.  There is no reason for this oversight.  His record there is superb - vs. Obama's dismal record with all of his failed government investments in private-sector companies.  The Romney campaign needs to hammer this point relentlessly:

www.dickmorris.com/obamas-emerging-strategy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

1009
Politics & Religion / Re: "Moderate Islam"
« on: June 19, 2012, 02:02:36 PM »
I think I've made my point as clearly as is possible in my previous post.  Either you accept that Islam inherently teaches these things or you don't.  If you don't - you are clearly ignorant of the holy books of Islam, Islamic jurisprudence, and the teachings of every major school of Islam on the planet.

I didn't say that there can NEVER BE a "moderate Islam," only that it doesn't exist now.  Frankly, given the fact that all current Muslim leaders agree that there can be no deviation from the current teaching - I am not optimistic about this "moderate Islam" developing any time soon.  Did the world wait for a "moderate Nazism" to evolve?  No - any rational person at the time thought that - rightly - to be suicidal.

And make no mistake - Islam is not simply a religion - it is a comprehensive totalitarian ideology dictating every aspect of its subjects' lives and governance.  It is a socio-political system every bit as much as Communism or Nazism.  That you fail to understand this is simply illustrative of your ignorance of the subject.

Therefore we are left with the simple fact that Islam itself is the problem.  Conflating the explicit official teachings of Islam with those who call themselves Muslims but in fact may be either entirely ignorant of these teachings or simply practicing taqiyya - an official doctrine of sanctioned deception to infidels - is simply not valid.  

As I said before - there is no mainstream Christian or Jewish denomination that teaches the inherent incompatibility of individual freedom with its doctrine.  Islam does EXACTLY THIS.  Until you understand the nature of Islam and its explicit teachings - for example that approximately 85% of the Qu'ran deals with how to treat UNBELIEVERS - not Muslims - and it isn't pretty - you will continue to labor in your fog of ignorance.  I find it amazing that there is such resistance among those who claim to want to defend individual freedom to learning about a doctrine - Islam - that is diametrically opposed to that principle.

Frankly, it is eerily analogous to the behavior of the Jews in Germany who chose to live in denial of what Hitler had in store for them until it was too late.  At least they could be partly forgiven due to the fact that Hitler did not openly advertise his "final solution."  Muslim leaders around the world ROUTINELY call for the annihilation of Israel and the United States.

1010
Politics & Religion / Re: Muslims vs. Islam...
« on: June 19, 2012, 12:17:44 PM »
JDN and DougMacG:

NOWHERE did I state that all Muslims are the problem or that we are or should be at war with all Muslims.  Neither did the article which I first posted which started this discussion.  ISLAM is the problem.  Clearly there are many who consider themselves Muslim who are not inclined to follow Islamic law.  However - Islamic jurisprudence is what it is - and by definition re: The Qu'ran, aHadith and Sira - it is NON-SUBJECT to revision or change.  This is what both of you are missing and why I say that anyone who believes in a "Moderate Islam" is ignorant and/or living in fantasy land.  There is no such thing.  Yes - there are peace-loving Muslims, but they are not the problem.  As a good friend of mine says - they are infinitely superior morally to the man who - again by Islamic definition - is the supreme model of moral behavior - the "prophet" Muhammad.

ISLAM teaches that there are only three ways to deal with infidels:  1) Forced conversion to Islam 2)Permanent "dhimmi" or second-class status with no equality to Muslims in society in terms of treatment of the law, or 3) Payment of the "jizzya" or "infidel tax" which in effect accomplishes #2.  There are no other options.

There are also NO MOSQUES that teach this so-called "moderate Islam."  Not all of those calling themselves Muslim may be aware of these mandates, or wish to impose them on the rest of the world - but this IS official Islamic doctrine.  Therefore Islam IS the problem.  Not "Islamofascism" or " Islamic extremism" or "Islamic terrorism."  Islam is the problem - just as Nazism and Communism are problems intrinsically.  They are anti-freedom, anti-individualist totalitarian ideologies.  Referring to "moderate Islam" is as laughable as speaking of "moderate Nazism."  It not only doesn't exist - it never has.

1011
Politics & Religion / Re: Islamic Holy Books...
« on: June 19, 2012, 09:25:56 AM »
JDN:

If you have no interest in learning about these books you are by definition willfully ignorant about Islam.  If you educated yourself, you would see that the article I posted is 100% correct. 

As far as your Old Testament citations, I misstated my point - what I meant to say is that there is currently no major Christian denomination or Judaic one, for that matter - which teaches that it is the duty of Jews or Christians to go out and murder unbelievers.  EVERY major school of Islam teaches this.  This is a simple fact.

You ARE, btw drawing a moral equivalency when you point out "atrocities" committed by Christians in the past as evidence that Islam itself is not the problem we face.  Any "Muslim" who is not following Sharia is an apostate - which btw, according to Islamic teaching of ALL major schools - carries the death penalty.

You sir are speaking from ignorance.

1012
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: June 19, 2012, 08:55:35 AM »
JDN:

I strongly disagree.  There are no present-day Christian crusades (which were, by the way a justified response to MUSLIM aggression which threatened to eradicate Christendom at the time) - and there is nothing in either the Old or New Testaments which exhorts believers to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them."  Clearly you have not educated yourself on the Qu'ran, aHadith, and Sira if you are drawing any sort of moral equivalency between Christianity or Judaism and Islam.

1013
How do you win a war, When you Have no Answers?

May 2, 2012
By admin

Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and the rest of the FAILED “moderate Islam” campaign.

For over 10 years I have been speaking out against the threat of Islam. When I first started  though, I remember numerous non-Muslims telling me that I should not say Islam itself is the problem. To use the term “Islamofascism” (which I admittedly did use for a short period of time), or “radical Islam”. Another popular term is “Islamism”. I did not really care for using the term “Islamofascism”, as in the back of my mind I knew Islam itself was the problem.

After a short while I decided to go against the wishes of many friends and go with the truth. The truth being that Islam itself is the problem. My line of thinking is, how can we defeat an enemy if we cannot even bring ourselves to name that enemy? Now it is over a decade later and the situation with Islam in America has gotten worse, much worse.

There is some good news though, and that is that the voices of non-Muslims are on the rise. But after that there is a major problem. The voices of most of the “leaders” on this issue do not get to the root of the problem, and have no real long term answers. Apparently the best they can do is continue to fantasize about “moderate” Muslims/Islam coming to the rescue. Ignoring the fact that “moderates” did not save Europe and that more and more aspects of Sharia are seeping into America. In other words, what is being done is not working.

As many of you know, for over a year I have been exposing the weak kneed stance of the “leaders” of ACT!, their support of so called “moderate” Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, and Muslim immigration. Unfortunately ACT! is not the only cheerleader of Jasser. There are other big names in this battle that are also living in the “moderates” are going to save the day fantasy.

5. Clarion Fund: Over a year ago they asked me to remove them from my email list. I asked them why, and they never responded. Here is what they have to say about Jasser.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser Founder and President, American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). Jasser is a devout practicing Muslim practicing internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix. He is the immediate-Past President of the Arizona Medical Association.

Reading such a comment leads me to believe that they are ignorant on Islam itself. Because Muslims want Sharia. I receive occasional emails from their founder Raphael Shore. I politely asked him if he has ever read a Koran and Sahih Ahadith. He will not respond. I guess the truth is too much for them to deal with.

4. Walid Phares: Sometime within the last year he defriended me on Facebook, and then ran to the hills when I asked why he did so. Phares is frequently on the news, but is another one who has his Jasser pom poms out. Only Phares is so foolish, that he actually wants Jasser who tries to cover for Islam, in our government.

(Click on picture to enlarge)


Just what we need….Jasser getting more politicians to believe that Islam itself is not the problem, and “moderates” are coming to the rescue.

3. Steve Emerson: Emerson does a good job exposing the threat of Islamic terrorism, but does not seem to have any long term answers on the legal jihad that is taking place across America. Earlier I stated that ACT! was in favor of Muslim immigration. Emerson is no better, as he even supports Mosques being built is America!



Steve Emerson: Jasser is a Muslim. Though he opposed the proposed Ground Zero mosque, his record and that of his family has been in helping build mosques in Wisconsin and Arizona.

Maybe Emerson and the rest of the Jasser cheer leaders would like to explain how adding more Islam is going to help defeat Islam?! Oh I forgot, I am not supposed to say Islam itself is the problem….

2. Daniel Pipes: Looking at Pipes we see the ultimate failure of the “moderate” Muslim campaign.



Calling Islamism the Enemy
by Daniel Pipes
December 1, 2001
President Bush and others were properly careful not to foster or be seen as fostering the idea that Islam—a faith observed by more than one billion people across the world—was our enemy.

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 23, 2004

There is good news to report: The idea that “militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution” is finding greater acceptance over time.

We also see that Pipes does not care that he is misleading America, as he is carrying the same message today!

APRIL 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has said, “The problem is radical Islam. The solution is moderate Islam.”

1. The Capo of the “moderate” Muslim campaign,Mr Frank Gaffney himself. Gaffney has been telling America that “moderates” are coming to the rescue since at least 2007.



Frank Gaffney, one of the summit panelists and the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, was the most explicit proponent of this view. Gaffney used Ronald Reagan’s strategy in bringing down the Berlin Wall as a model for how we should engage the Muslims today, saying that, like Reagan’s empowerment of natural allies within Communism, “we must empower our allies within Islam.”

Well Frank, those within Islam stand with Islam.

In 2008 Frank had presented his “hero” Jasser with a “Defender of the Home Front” award. Under Gaffney’s and Pipes’ watch things have gotten worse, much worse.How much more of America has to be changed to suit Islam, before Gaffney and his puppets stop misleading America?

Gaffney also makes the following bold statement:

Gaffney replied that such wasn’t the case and that he knows that there are millions of Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia — Muslims who came to the U.S. to get away from sharia-based governments.


So Frank, are you saying that about half the Muslims here do not want it? (Technically if they do not want Sharia they have apostated, but I will give you a pass on that for now.) Where is your proof? You are starting to sound like a Muslim sympathizer like ACT!’s Guy Rodgers.

What is so ludicrous about the “moderate” Muslim campaign is that it is being lead by mostly non-Muslims. Did any of the above ever ask themselves why Jasser spends so much time with non-Muslims, instead of Muslims?

I proudly stand with colleagues Pamela Geller and Mr. Spencer on the issue of “moderate Islam”.



Pamela Geller: I have long derided the “moderate Islam” meme as a theory with no basis in reality or history. It’s wishful thinking, dangerous, and suicidal.

Robert Spencer:I recently participated in a FrontPage Symposium, “The World’s Most Wanted: A ‘Moderate Islam,’” about that great unicorn in which everyone believes and depends upon but which no one has ever actually seen, moderate Islam. (R.S.)

I entitled this article “How do you win a war, When you Have no Answers?” because, “moderate” Muslims/Islam is not an answer. It is a fantasy! Either we end up dealing with Muslim immigration, and Islam, or it is just a matter of time until we lose this war. As they will never stop pushing.

Coming up next on Logan’s Warning: Europe: The Rise of the Anti-Islam Campaign… something Gaffney and his friends might want to pay attention to.

1014
Jesus Akbar

Bill Warner - Center for the Study of Political Islam

Recently a Yale theologian, Miroslav Volf, came to a Christian school, Lipscomb University, and talked about how Islam and Christianity can live in harmony and respect. He is part of a new industry in America, Christians constructing beautiful lies about Islam. Fundamentally, he says that we all worship the same god.

Volf says, “one of the best ways for people of different faiths to get along is to study their scriptures together.”

If we want to get along, then looking at looking at scriptures is indeed a most excellent way to get to know each other. The problem is that the only scripture Volf wants to study is the Koran. Any time that someone wants to explain Islam by the Koran, you are dealing with someone who is ignorant or a deceiver.

The Koran proclaims in 91 verses that every Muslim is to model their life after the example (Sunna) of Mohammed, but the Sunna of Mohammed is found only in the Sira and the Hadith. The Koran is only 14% of the Islamic sacred texts. Mohammed, not Allah, is 86% of the textual doctrine. Volf, however, ignores Mohammed and only wants to talk about Allah. There is a very good reason for this. Allah is so conveniently abstract that he can construct his Allah-equals-the-Trinity-god by cherry-picking verses and muddle through as if he were in a dormitory philosophy bull session.

While Volf is comparing scriptures, he should point out that the Koran says that Jesus of the Bible is a fraud and that the Gospels, Psalms and Torah are corrupt. That inconvenient Koranic detail was not mentioned.

Volf ignores a 1400 year history of Islam and Christianity and all other religions. The jihad doctrine found in the Koran is the foundation for the murder of 270 million Kafirs (non-Muslims, including Christians). He also ignores the over 18,000 Islamic terror attacks since September 11, 2001. Why refer to a 1400 year history of continuous persecution if it gets in the way of your arguments? What are ugly facts in the face of a beautiful lie?

Volf: Two faiths, worshipping the same God, can work toward the common good under a single government.

Hello, the only government that Allah wants is the Sharia. The place for Christianity and Judaism in the Sharia is as the dhimmi, a semi-slave. History is very clear that when the Sharia is put into place, Christianity dies. It takes centuries, but Christianity is annihilated. Christianity can survive Communism and Nazism, but it cannot survive the Sharia. When Islam invaded what is now Turkey and installed Sharia, it was 100% Christian. Here is a graph of what Sharia law did to the Christian population.



Volf : Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the “our God vs. their God” premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates strife.

Mohammed, the prophet of Allah, did not just destroy bridges, he destroyed civilizations. Mohammed attacked each and every neighbor until the day he died. That is the Sunna of Mohammed (perfect example of a sacred life). After he died, his Companions (Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman) followed his Sunna just as he demonstrated, and they killed Christians as fast as they could and placed them under Sharia law as dhimmis. By the time the Companion caliphs died, they had destroyed the classical civilization of the Greeks and Romans that was the matrix of Christianity. The classical church in the Middle East with its incredible variety of Christianity was annihilated by Mohammed and his personal students of jihad. The Christianity of today is a stump of the Christianity of the year 630 AD when jihad began. Whole forms of early Christianity were annihilated by Islamic jihad.

And the Koran spoke wonderfully of Mohammed’s jihad. In the Koran written in Medina, about 24% is devoted to “fighting in Allah’s cause”, jihad.

Volf said, “Faith is often misused for political ends, which frequently leads to violence.”

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 converts. After he turned to politics and jihad and when he died every Arab was a Muslim. It was politics and jihad which made him successful.

The moral demand on Muslims is to practice jihad, deceive Kafirs and impose Sharia law. Islamic morality is dualistic. Islamic ethics have one set of rules for Muslims and a second set of rules for Kafirs. Ethics based on the Golden Rule have only one set of rules.

Thick spirituality, Volf said, is faith combined with morality, which treats all people as equal in God’s sight.

Yet we have Allah who hates Kafirs and who does not have a Golden Rule. Only the Golden Rule makes people equal in God’s sight. Allah denies the Golden Rule. Go ahead, plow through the Koran and find the Golden Rule. Do the same for the Sira and the Hadith. No, the way Mohammed treated you depended upon who you are. A Muslim is treated well, and a Kafir is treated to murder, rape, enslavement and deceit.

A religion of the Golden Rule can lead to peace. A religion of jihad and political Sharia leads to war. Islam will not admit to any fault or take any credit for 270,000,000 dead over the last 1400 years. Look at Islamic Turkey—Turkish Muslims murdered a million Armenians in 20th century, but will not admit to this annihilation and genocide.

Lipscomb professor David Fleer, one of the conference organizers, said that Volf’s experiences in Yugoslavia and his scholarship made him the perfect speaker to address how religion and reconciliation intersect. “He set forth the theological foundation for us,” Fleer said.

Exactly why is this man an expert? An expert is made only by studying the Sira, Hadith, Koran and Sharia—not his zip code. There is one, and only one criteria for being expert on Islam—knowledge about Allah and Mohammed. Volf only talks about Allah.

But the real tragedy is that a religion professor thinks that Volf’s inventions are a solid foundation. Contemporary Christian and Jewish theology has become mere philosophy and has its foundation in Leftist social justice doctrine, not scriptures.

Volf said one of the keys to people of different faiths getting along is for each side to admit that those of other faiths are real members of the community. “It’s not just creating space for them physically,” he said. “You have to create space for them in your own cultural self-perception.”

But Islam insists that Kafirs are not part of the umma (Islamic community) which is pure Islamic doctrine. There are 11 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not even the friend of a Kafir, much less a member of the community.

Islam comes into our civilization and demands the political Sharia. Notice that the accommodation is that we submit to the political Sharia and we have to create a space for it in our culture. And the political Sharia has a definite space for the Kafir, called dhimmi. What is disgusting is that Volf makes submitting to political Sharia seem like a blessing to us and our country.

There is a certain class consciousness in the article, Volf’s Yale elitism is all over the copy. Why is it that the elites are such believers? Why do those who understand the threat of Islam and Sharia called “haters” by the media? The elites control the venue. There is no space in the print media, except for Islam and its apologists. The knowledgeable opposition never gets to debate, is never invited to the party. The elites have ruled that the only views that are legal are Muslims and apologists. Those who disagree are immoral bigots and Islamophobes.

Here is the final test of the “we-all-worship-the-same-god” school of theology. What was the last time that a Christian yelled, “Jesus Akbar” before he blew himself up? What was the last time that a Muslim yelled, “Allahu Akbar”, before he murdered a Kafir?

Sure, all gods are the same.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-kafir-brotherhood/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

1015
Politics & Religion / 89-Year-Old WWII Veteran Needs Your Help:
« on: June 18, 2012, 11:20:30 AM »
Warren C. Bodeker is an 89 year old World War II Army Airborne combat veteran and war hero, living in Montana, who is being thrown off of his own land and thrown out of his own house, by Montana Federal Bankruptcy Trustee, Christy Brandon, with the approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Montana. And to make matters worse, Warren’s wife Lorna just died of cancer this past year, and is buried there on their land, right next to the house. Warren had planned to live there till he died and then be buried right next to his wife, there on their property at 11 Freedom Lane, in the town of Plains, Montana, but now, not only is he being forced off his land, he is being forced to exhume his wife’s body and take her with him.
This is the most disgusting, callous, brutal, and unjust treatment of a WWII veteran by the “justice” system we have ever heard of. Here is a man who stepped up and went to war at the age of 19 to fight against the Japanese in the Pacific. When we say he is a war hero, we are not exaggerating. Serving in Co. B, 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 11th Airborne Division (see discharge papers below), Warren earned two bronze starts while making three combat jumps in the Philippine Islands in 1945.
One of those combat jumps was the daring rescue of prisoners of war at the Los Banos Internment Camp on the Island of Luzon, Philippines, February 23, 1945, where Warren and his brother paratroopers of Co. B, 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment parachuted in at dawn’s early light, 40 kilometers behind enemy lines, and rescued over 2,000 prisoners of war – men, women, and children – from their brutal Imperial Japanese guards, before those guards could slaughter them (as they had planned). Not one prisoner was killed in the raid (though many of the Japanese guards were). Private Warren Bodeker was there. He was one of those brave young paratroopers who the grateful prisoners truly considered heaven sent from above. As one of the prisoners, a missionary, described it in his diary:
“at 7:00 a.m. sharp, we heard and saw nine large transport planes flying low, and passing close to the camp; perhaps one mile to the east. Even as we all watched, we saw doors open and paratroopers came tumbling out. OH WHAT A SIGHT! With a tropical sunrise for a background, we saw about 150 parachutes open one after another and settle slowly earth-ward out of our sight behind the distant trees. We knew help had come.” From the book, Deliverance! It Has Come! By John S. Beaber.
(http://ithascome.bravehost.com/index.html)
The Los Banos Raid is of the most celebrated textbook examples of a perfect rescue operation in military history. Read about it here: http://www.rememberlosbanos1945.com/
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_at_Los_Ba%C3%B1os
and here: http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-liberating-los-banos-internment-camp.htm
Go here to watch some film footage of the camp and rescued prisoners:
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675040427_Los-Banos-Internment-Camp_internees_burning-barracks_internment-camps
Warren Bodeker and his surviving Airborne brothers came home to a grateful nation and settled down to a peaceful life. Warren lived happily as a law-abiding citizen on Freedom Lane in Montana, until he had to endure the great loss of his beloved wife Lorna this past year, after her five year battle against cancer, but Warren was still looking forward to being buried next to her on their property when he died, knowing that their land and home (which he and his wife built together) would be kept in the family.
But Warren had a pile of medical and credit card bills to deal with and filed for bankruptcy, and that is when his nightmare began. According to Warren and several witnesses, though Warren had utterly no intention of ever selling his land and home, and planned to die there and be buried next to his wife at 11 Freedom Lane,  he was pressured and coerced into entering into a “stipulation” denying his bankruptcy discharge and waiving his homestead exemption, and thus coerced into selling his home, because he had failed to disclose some silver and gold he and his wife had set aside for their old age – which he considered a retirement fund that he did not have to disclose. Once that failure to disclose was discovered by the Trustee, Christy Brandon (a lawyer in Bigfork Montana who also works as a trustee for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court), Warren was pressured into signing the stipulation under threat of prosecution and under threat of having his home and land taken by means of adversarial proceedings with any left-over proceeds being consumed by lawyers fees and costs (with Christy Brandon serving as both the trustee for the estate and also as the lawyer for the estate, and also as the attorney for herself, as trustee).  According to Warren and several witnesses, he was essentially told that the Trustee would take his land and home anyway, and if he resisted, he would wind up penniless. Unfortunately, his own lawyer at the time went along with the stipulation, and did not fight hard to keep Warren in his home. Watch the above video interview to learn the details.
Warren really did not understand what was going on in the complex legal world of bankruptcy, and did not understand his rights. In addition to the diminished mental capacity that so often occurs in someone nearly 90 years old, Warren is also hard of hearing and needs an assistant to help him keep track of what is being said during hearings. Much of the time, he just does not understand what is going on.
And even if Warren was wrong in not disclosing the silver and gold coins, the just and proper way to handle it would have been, at most, to deny him the discharge and require him to use the coins to pay off his creditors. The trustee didn’t  have to pressure Warren into waiving his homestead exemption, by threatening to void it through an adversarial proceeding which would eat up the estate through legal fees and costs, and thus force him to sell his home and land. Forcing him off his land, and forcing him to exhume his wife’s body, in the last years of his life – kicking him homeless to the curb with his wife’s casket – is an egregious, unnecessary, gross act of tyranny and injustice, in our opinion.
This is a callous act of brutality, devoid of human compassion, devoid of all sense of proportionality, devoid of any sense of decency, charity, justice or well-deserved respect of an elder veteran – much more like something the brutal Imperial Japanese internment camp guards would have done to Warren if they could than what his own country should do to a winner of two Bronze Stars who risked all, in combat, for this nation.
Warren’s lawyer withdrew from his case last month, and he has been trying to find a new bankruptcy lawyer, but then Warren was hospitalized with what was thought to be kidney stones, but which has now been discovered to be advanced prostate cancer, which is spreading throughout his body. There was a hearing held this past Tuesday, June 12, 2012, on Trustee Christy Brandon’s motion to have Warren removed from his home. Warren had been flown to the VA Hospital in Helena, Montana last week and was still hospitalized on the 12th and could not attend the hearing. From his hospital bed, Warren sent in a pro se motion for a continuance, telling the court that he was hospitalized and could not attend the hearing. He asked the court to continue the hearing until after he was discharged from the hospital. Warren also informed the court that his friend Roxsanna Ryan (whom Warren gave power of attorney) had scheduled an appointment for him with a psychologist so a competency exam could be done, and that he intended to challenge the validity of the stipulation based on his a lack of capacity to understand what he was agreeing to.
But despite the well established fact that Mr. Bodeker was in the hospital, the trustee, Christy Brandon, opposed the motion to continue the hearing. And even after knowing that Warren Bodeker was in the hospital and that he was set to undergo a competency examination which could show that he lacked the capacity to enter into the stipulation, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, the Honorable Ralph B. Kirscher, denied Warren’s motion to continue the hearing and granted the Trustee’s motion for an order for Warren to vacate the property. The trustee, Christy Brandon,   then emailed Warren to tell him that she would be there at the home on Monday, June 18, 2012, accompanied by a Sheriff’s deputy, to kick him out of his home and have the locks changed.
This man  risked his life in a daring combat jump from the low altitude of 500 feet (so low that reserve parachutes are useless, and a chute malfunction meant death) to rescue 2,000 innocent men, women, and children who faced certain death if he and his Airborne brothers had not made that jump that morning, February 23, 1945 (after the rescue, the Japanese returned to the area and massacred 1,500 local Filipino civilians, killing men, women, and children). And this is how the U.S. government thanks this man for his service?
We will post more details on this disgraceful travesty as they become known, but what is most important right now is that we have a duty to help this WWII hero in his time of need. Warren Bodeker needs:
1.       LEGAL HELP.   First of all, he needs a competent, tenacious bankruptcy lawyer to assist him in challenging the stipulation which waived his homestead exemption, and challenging the forced sale of his home and land.  We are calling on any and all bankruptcy lawyers across the United States to step up and help this man.    If you are an attorney who can help, please email us at:  contact@oathkeepers.org and put “LAWYER” and “WWII vet” in the subject line.   As noted above, Warren has an appointment scheduled with a psychologist who will conduct an assessment of his mental capacity to understand complex legal issues and his capacity and competency to enter into the stipulation which waived his homestead right.   But he will need a real fighter of a bankruptcy lawyer who is willing to help him challenge the validity of that stipulation once the evaluation is done.
2.       FINANCIAL HELP. Warren will need assistance to pay for that lawyer.  There is a legal defense fund set up for him by close friends in Plains who are helping him (a truly wonderful family, Dan and Roxsanna Ryan, has stepped up to help him, including offering him a room in their home once he is kicked out of his home).    They have set up a paypal account for him and a legal defense bank account.  If you would like to donate directly to that legal defense fund, click here:  www.oathkeepers.org

1016
Conservatives for Shariah

Center for Security Policy | Jun 18, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group's stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian,supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah.  Particularly unsettling is evidence of the group's goal in America, namely of "destroying Western civilization from within," as documented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008.
 
But for some prominent conservatives, such facts are not just inconvenient.  They - and any who point them out - must be denied, ignored or suppressed.
 
The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right's most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online.  The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman (http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2012/06/10/the_bogus_threat_from_shariah_law/page/2).  He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302280).  Both caricatured the "bogus" threat of "creeping shariah" as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.
 
Schmitz went further, wrongly describing shariah as "not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings."  In fact, shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that has simply been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world.  Its Brotherhood and other adherents are now aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, in Iraq, in Indonesia and, in due course, here.  Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as "anti-Muslim bigots" who are "undermin[ing] our national security."
 
Specifically, Messrs. Chapman and Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts.  It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) - a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more.  ALAC prevents foreign laws, including but not limited to shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights.  Incredibly, the authors contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.
 
Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about shariah's advent in America.  As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum entitled "The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within" (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), some are actually enabling the Brotherhood's influence operations.  This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitating their access toother conservatives and promotion of their agendas.
 
Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior.  They have engaged in purges from some of the Right's conclaves.  They have also sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is "inside the wire" - including, in at least one instance, a formal condemnation for raising the alarm.
 
The good news is that five leading Members of Congress have recently joined theranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood's influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms. They are: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus; Rep. Louie Gohmert,Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee's Oversight Subcommittee; and Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee.
 
In a joint press release (http://bachmann.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=299447) dated June 13, each of these influential legislators made clear their view that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a serious threat here in America.  They expressed a determination to establish the nature and extent of the Brotherhood's "civilization jihad" inside the United States and to counter it.
 
To that end, the Members of Congress last week drew on evidence presented in the Center for Security Policy's course to ask the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Judiciary, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the extent and impact of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of their agencies.  They requested that the IGs provide their findings within ninety days.
 
In addition, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the House Appropriations State, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, is pressing the Department of Justice toensure compliance with the FBI's stated policy of not dealing in non-investigative contexts with one of the Muslim Brotherhood's most notorious fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  This effort took on even greater urgency in light of the revelation earlier this month by a White House official that the administration had had "hundreds of meetings" with CAIR.
 
Conservatives and other Republicans face, in short, a time of choosing.  Are they going to ignore the real and present danger posed by shariah and its adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood?  Will they therefore be recorded by history as having enabled, whether directly or indirectly, such stealthy threats to our republic and its government society?
 
Or are prominent conservatives going to help our countrymen of all political stripes understand the challenge we face and lead in developing and executing strategies for defeating it?
 
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

1017
Will Obama Get Latinos?

By Dick Morris on June 18, 2012
   
President Obama’s surprise announcement of de facto amnesty for children of illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and have lived in the U.S. for five years will reap big dividends among Latino voters. So intertwined is the Hispanic community that everyone knows young people who will be spared the ongoing terror of deportation by the president’s largesse. His new policy, while obviously an election year pander, will reap him votes among Latinos and could spur a significantly higher turnout.
All this makes the case for Senator Marco Rubio for Vice President all the more urgent. Only a Latino on the ticket can offset the march Obama has now stolen on Romney for the Hispanic vote. Rubio on the ticket could well make the difference between carrying and losing New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. And, it could possibly be necessary even in Florida.
Unlike the African-American population, the Latino vote is heavily concentrated in certain states. Seventy-five percent live in only five states – California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois – which together have only about a third of our total population. More are concentrated in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. Their populations in these states are significant enough, in some cases, to deliver the state to one side or the other.
Rubio belongs on the ticket. He is articulate, conservative, hard working, charismatic, and geographically well positioned. With the Hispanic vote so pivotal in the future of our politics, he offers the best potential for a growing Republican Party in the future.
Obama can hardly object to Rubio’s inexperience since they will both have served only a few years in the Senate before their elevation to national office. But Rubio would run for vice-president not president. The years of seasoning and training can only do him good and groom him for ultimately running for the top job.
Selecting Rubio was important before. It’s vital now.

1018
Politics & Religion / Re: Establishment Republicans...
« on: June 15, 2012, 06:13:05 PM »
I think one makes a grave error in thinking that the Republican establishment will be persuaded by anything other than a massive grassroots uprising such as that which is in progress with the Tea Party.  As we saw in the case of Richard Lugar - they are actually quite entrenched and will fight bitterly to avoid losing their grip on power, despite the will of the people they purport to represent.  These people are not interested in doing what is best for the country, only in what helps them retain their tenure.  I'm not optimistic about the chances of persuading Mitt Romney, his campaign staff, or his cheerleaders among the establishment that they are following the wrong path. Nothing other than continued victories at the local and state level (driven by well-organized conservative tea party conservatives) will achieve this. It's  going to be a long slog - a slow, hard battle to replace as many members of Congress with constitutional conservatives as we can.  My own representative - freshman Rob Woodall (R-GA) has been a grave disappointment in my estimation, content to curry favor with John Boehner and not make any bold moves.  It's way past the point where this type of political impotence can be tolerated if the nation is to be saved.

Political eunuchs such as Boehner and McConnell who don't have a clue how to lead the party to victory by embracing core constitutionalism need to go.  As things stand now, I think that enough people are suffering in this economy that the polls are flat wrong and Romney will win handily. That's not to say we can let our guard down for a moment, or stop continuing to educate others and make sure they vote and don't stay home.  Romney's choice for VP will tell us volumes about how he intends to govern.  My first choice would be Allen West, but Marco Rubio would be acceptable as well.  Chris Christie would be a disaster in the making, as would any other Republican with a less-than-solid conservative record.

This is however only the first step in restoring the Republic the Framers created.  There really is no short-term solution - only long-term.  That happens to be once again making constitutional conservatism the dominant guiding principle in Congress.  It won't be achieved in one election.  Thus the need for those of us who understand this to work unceasingly in our efforts to achieve it.  God knows the Left has been relentless over the past 60+ years.  The Obama administration is their crowning achievement.  If Obama is not removed in this election it will be the end of this nation as founded. My point is that even if he is replaced (and I believe he will be) our work has only begun.

1019
Politics & Religion / Re: Current polling, etc...
« on: June 15, 2012, 11:14:35 AM »
Marc:

You're not connecting the dots.  It is PRECISELY BECAUSE Romney and the Republican establishment who pushed for his nomination ARE NOT conservatives that they have no will to hammer home the points you correctly identify as needing to be made.  They simply don't have it in them.  This Republican inside-the-beltway party establishment doesn't see our current situation as all that critical.  Frankly, I believe that they would be satisfied with gaining control of both houses of Congress and forfeiting the White House.  The so-called mainstream media - true to form - is of course playing along.  They've wanted Romney all along as well - as I believe, has the Obama campaign - because he is essentially another milquetoast "moderate" Republican they can much more easily defeat than a real conservative such as Ronald Reagan was.  BOLD CONTRASTS - not pastels, as Reagan used to say - THAT is what wins elections.  To the extent that the polls are accurate and the election really is as close as it is being reported (doubtful in my opinion) it's due to a FAILURE of Republican leadership in communicating conservative ideas.  Pure and simple.  Liberalism is "intuitive,"  Conservatism is NOT.  It requires rational thought and is essentially an intellectual exercise - as William F. Buckley pointed out.  To the extent people are not persuaded of conservative ideas - they are by default liberals - and therein lies the problem in which we find ourselves.

1020
Politics & Religion / Re: Mitt Romney is NOT a conservative...
« on: June 15, 2012, 10:52:23 AM »
Marc:

That is the simple answer to your question.  Mitt Romney is not, and never has been a true conservative.  That is why so many of us fought NOT to have him become the Republican nominee.  I grew up in CT as you know, and still have family and many friends up there and in MA.  Romney governed there as a New England Republican - i.e., DEMOCRAT.  As Mark Levin has repeatedly and forcefully pointed out on his radio show, we are going to have to fight like hell to get Romney elected, and then IF we are successful at that - continue to fight like hell to drag him to the right after he gets into office.  I have NO CONFIDENCE that he will take actions that are anywhere near what is actually needed to turn this ship around - although it goes without saying that any pro-American non-Marxist is better than what we currently have in the White House.

Far too many Americans are, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

I fear this situation will have to become MUCH more severe than it is already before enough Americans "wake up and smell the coffee" and demand appropriate action from Congress and the President.


1021
Are American Jews Waking Up?

Posted By Ben Shapiro On June 15, 2012

This week, a Gallup poll showed that President Obama’s support level among American Jews had dropped from 74 percent in 2008 to 64 percent. That drop is twice as large as the drop for any other racial or ethnic group. It still leaves two-thirds of Jews standing in support of a President who will not  stand by the Jewish State. But it does mean that a growing population of Jewish voters understand the threat that Obama poses – even if they had supported his socialistic domestic agenda.

The Obama administration proved again last week just why Jewish voters should be troubled. On Friday, June 7, the Obama administration blocked an Israeli request to join the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) in Istanbul, Turkey. Now, for the past several years, Turkish sentiment has been turning against Israel.  Once the two countries’ had a vibrant defense relationship, but Israel now has to fight off flotillas of armed terror-supporters launched from Turkey. Turkey’s Head of state, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is living proof of what happens to a heretofore secular state falls to the scourge of Islamism.

Instead of seeing Turkey as a threat, however, the Obama administration sees it as a model for the Middle East. Egypt has been allowed to go Islamist; so has Iraq (which now has Shariah law as its default under its constitution); so have Libya and Tunisia. All, like Turkey, went Islamist by popular demand. And all, like Turkey, have become radically anti-Israel.

When faced with the intransigence of Islamism, the West has two choices: they can call upon the Islamists to drop the nonsense and begin dealing reasonably with the Jewish State. Or they can cave.

The Obama administration caved.

The GCTF, a crowning achievement of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, was opened in September 2011; it was the United States that chose Turkey as the site of this month’s conference. So when Israel asked to join, America could have told the Turks to deal with it.

Instead, they told Israel to get out, even as they invited Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Non-Middle Eastern nations like China, Russia, and countries of West Europe showed up, too.

Not Israel, however. “The GCTF sought from the outset to bridge old and deep divides in the international community between Western donor nations and Muslim majority nations,” said one U.S. official. “And it has, I think, done that quite effectively.”

Not that effectively. Israel remains a bridge too far for the Arab and Muslim world, which seeks its destruction above all else. And yet the Obama administration acts as though the international scene is one big happy family, anti-terror to the core.

The truth is far more sinister. Holding an antiterrorism conference in Turkey is like holding a women’s conference in Sudan or a gay and lesbian conference in Saudi Arabia. It’s an oxymoron. And the fact that the Turkish won’t let the Jews in shows just what a mockery the entire spectacle is in the first place.

This isn’t the first time the United States has created a coalition of the willing that included a fair number of bad apples. During the First Gulf War, George H.W. Bush could have included Israel in the alliance against Saddam Hussein. He chose not to do so, fearful that he would alienate the rest of the Arab world. It was a tragic mistake, since for the first time, the Arab states would have been forced to work with Israel, or watch Iraq become the regional powerhouse.

But at least in that case, there was a larger goal: the freeing of an oil-rich state. In this case, the larger goal – fighting terrorism – is inseparable from the need to bring Israel into the fold. Any attempt to fight Islamic terror that forces Israel out is not truly fighting Islamic terror – it’s kicking the can down the road. In the short term, terrorists may be stopped. In the long term, they’ll be emboldened.

American Jews instinctively know this. Banning Israel from an antiterrorism conference to cater to the sensitivities of Muslims treads on anti-Semitic ground. But that’s familiar ground for the Obama administration, which has routinely leaked crucial national security information to the press that would undercut Israel’s ability to defend itself. It’s no wonder Jews in the United States – at least the ones who care about Israel – are beginning to see the light about President Obama. All they have to do is read the papers.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here. 

1022
Politics & Religion / Muslims Demand More Accommodation...
« on: June 14, 2012, 10:52:51 AM »
Sent out today from ACT! for America:

What would happen to a business owner who failed to institute a safety policy and an employee was injured as a result? Asked another way, how quickly would a lawsuit be filed?

Muslim employees at a Minnesota business have gone to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) asking for help in their opposition to just such a safety-inspired policy. (See the KSMP-TV story below.)

They claim the policy infringes on their beliefs.

But what if one of them got injured if the owner did NOT institute the safety policy? They would sue the owner!

A few years ago Muslim organizations in the UK protested a policy that required surgical staff to thoroughly sterilize up to their elbows. They protested because they said it required Muslim women to expose their arms.

The policy was rescinded. Accommodating unreasonable Muslim demands trumped sound public health policies, putting patients at risk.

Now these Minnesota Muslim employees are demanding that the business owner be put in an impossible situation—rescind the safety requirement and risk being sued if someone is injured, or keep the requirement and get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit.


LE CENTER, Minn. (KMSP) –

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/18716382/2012/06/06/burqa-ban-prompts-somali-walk-out-from-minn-business


More than 30 Somali employees walked out in protest of dress code changes at a privately-owned business in Le Center, Minn.

The former employees of Dianne's Fine Desserts claim a new uniform policy was instituted to force them off the job because of their Islamic beliefs.

The owner of the bakery, Mike Knowles, told the Faribault Daily News a woman's long dress recently got caught in a boot washer and the new guidelines were instated over safety concerns.

Knowles, who bought the business just 11 days before the accident, said the company leaders went out of their way to try to work with the Somali Community. Originally, they had recommended knee-high skirts but later agreed to boot-high or mid-calf skirts before making the policy public at a meeting on Friday.

On Monday, many devout women reported back to work in their full-length attire, saying the new dress code conflicts with their religious beliefs. They were then given the option adjust their skirt lengths or leave.

Eleven women walked out and were joined by about 20 Somali men.

The workers have asked the Council on American-Islamic Relations to intercede, and CAIR has previously helped 25 Muslim employees who were terminated in December 2010.

At the time, the business was called Dianne's Gourmet Desserts and was under a different owner who fired the employees after the break schedule was altered into conflict with employees' prayer schedule, but employees prayed anyway. A complaint was forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the workers were reinstated.

The walk-off has also been brought to the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union.

1023
Politics & Religion / Thomas Sowell on Obama's Agenda:
« on: June 13, 2012, 07:47:41 AM »
Socialist or Fascist?
Posted By Thomas Sowell On June 13, 2012

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left.

Jonah Goldberg’s great book “Liberal Fascism” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot — and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People…”

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

1024
These groups - which involve many entertainers - refer to Israel as an "Apartheid State."  How ignorant can they possibly be?

Time for Israel Supporters to Fight Back
Posted By Sammy Levine On June 8, 2012 Frontpagemag.com

With Israel’s vast military supremacy over its enemies—including Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran—the only effective weapon these Israel-haters currently have is the delegitimization of the Jewish State. This delegitimization campaign, which seeks to isolate Israel as a unique menace in the world, utilizes the media, world bodies such as the U.N., professors and entertainers, and complicit “peace activists” to tarnish Israel’s image and reputation. This campaign makes Israel out to be the aggressor and the obstacle to peace, in contrast to the poor Palestinians who just want their land back.

Perhaps it is no surprise then that Israel’s borders have been relatively quiet during the last couple years, as Hamas and Hezbollah are happy to let this worldwide public relations campaign—buttressed by the political left—play out. After all, why waste valuable resources and suicide bombers, when you can rely on Western “pro-peace” organizations and “useful idiots” to chip away at Israel bit by bit, to the point where the country is coerced into making one-sided concessions that embolden its genocidal enemies?

Left-wing, self-proclaimed “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organizations such as J-Street and Americans for Peace Now, are unintentional accomplices to this cultural war against Israel, by placing most of the blame for the conflict on Israeli “settlements.” But blaming the Israeli “settlements” for the Israel/Palestinian conflict is like blaming Britain’s fire bombing of Dresden for World War II.

The Israeli “occupation” started 20 years after the failed genocidal war against Israel in 1948. The building of the “settlements” was initiated after the “Six Day War” of 1967, in an attempt to buffer the heart of Israel from its war-hungry enemies. The “settlements” are not the cause of the conflict, but rather a consequence of it.

Picking up on this false narrative, organizations such as “Big Campaign” are spearheading a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which seeks to destroy Israel economically. Many popular entertainers, such as the Pixies, have cancelled their performances in Israel because of pressure from these anti-Israel hate groups.

Macy Grey had this to say before her performance in Israel: “I’m getting a lot of letters from activists urging/begging me to boycott by NOT performing.” She decided to perform, but other acts, such as U2, Coldplay and Bruce Springsteen, are simply refusing invitations to perform in Israel, in order to avoid aggravation from the Israel haters.

Roger Waters, former front man of Pink Floyd, has embraced the BDS campaign, and is encouraging others to join him. He said this about his decision to boycott Israel:

In my view, the abhorrent and draconian control that Israel wields over the besieged Palestinians In Gaza, and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem), coupled with its denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes in Israel, demands that fair minded people around the world support the Palestinians in their civil, nonviolent resistance…For me it means declaring my intention to stand in solidarity, not only with the people of Palestine, but also with the many thousands of Israelis who disagree with their governments racist and colonial policies, by joining a campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, until it satisfies three basic human rights demanded in international law.

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied since 1967] and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

It is important to note Roger Waters’ 3rd demand, the right of return, which would destroy Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and turn it into another Muslim-dominated country in the Middle East.

Elvis Costello also cancelled his scheduled performance in Israel a couple years ago, saying:

There are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act … and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent…I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security[.]

Israel supporters must fight back against Roger Waters, Elvis Costello and the many others who are engaging in this cultural war against Israel. It is not enough to just fight back in the realm of ideas, although this is essential to combat misguided organizations such as J-Street. We must also fight fire with fire.

That is why I created Counter-Boycott, an organization that will inform Israel supporters about those who wish to economically destroy Israel.

Counter-Boycott will take out advertisements in cities where boycotting artists are performing, to encourage consumers not to purchase tickets to their shows. Lastly, Counter-Boycott will highlight those courageous musicians, such as Madonna and Elton John, who perform in Israel despite the onslaught of hate from the boycott organizations.

Of course, the ultimate goal is to remove the disgusting stigma of Israel as a racist, oppressive country. Performing in Israel should not be perceived as a political act. Artists should not be fearful or ashamed of performing in Israel.

With enough help, we can push back against those who are pressuring many entertainers to cancel their performances in Israel. We must make it clear that seeking to delegitimize and isolate Israel will not go unnoticed.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

1025
This is really quite something.  I look forward to reading this man's book.  Be sure to click on the video "trailer" where he explains his reasoning:

www.theblaze.com/stories/jesus-in-drag-this-is-why-a-straight-christian-lived-as-a-gay-man-for-one-year/

1026
Here is Frank Gaffney's excellent latest article - the "mainstream" press clearly could not care less about this issue - as it benefits Obama:

Hold Obama Accountable

Center for Security Policy | Jun 11, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Suddenly, congressional leaders of both parties are demanding investigations into serial disclosures of national security secrets on President Obama's watch.  The truth of the matter is that we already know what we need to about these leaks.  The question is:  Will anybody do anything about it?

Of course, the leaks themselves are already out there - prominently featured, for example, on the front pages of the New York Times.  We know of the compromise of techniques used to defend our country through cyberwarfare, drone attacks, covert operations and what turned out to be other nations' successful penetration of terrorist cells.

We also know that, in every case, the leakers' handiwork portrayed Barack Obama as a highly effective, decisive, muscular and hands-on Commander-in-Chief.  Sadly, the President's overall record shows him to have been anything but, hence the need to pump up his street creds as part of the reelection campaign.

If the damage done for what are, on their face, nakedly political purposes were not so serious, the President's remark last week that he finds "offensive" suggestions that "his White House" could have been responsible would be hilarious.  Yet, it seems certain that his Justice Department's investigation will shed no helpful light on the degree of involvement by the Executive Office of the President or, in case he was parsing his words deliberately, the culpability of those who work for him elsewhere in the government.  At a minimum, that will certainly be true between now and the November election.

As former federal prosecutor-turned-bestselling author Andrew McCarthy has observed (http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/06/09/latest-in-leak-farce-the-special-counsel-folly/), Attorney General Eric Holder has jujitsued legislators' demands for a special prosecutor into a review by two U.S. Attorneys that will not only take, in all likelihood, a year or more to complete.  Worse yet, their investigation will also be used as a pretext to thwart congressional inquiries into the leaks for the duration of that probe.

This is all the more ridiculous in light of what we already know:  People working for Barack Obama have been talking to the media.  Some, like longtime Democratic political operative and current National Security Advisor to the President Tom Donilon, have actually allowed themselves to be named as sources.

In other cases, the leakers are part of a very small universe, making a swift and rigorous investigation manageable.  For instance, some of the leaks were attributed to officials among the presumably quite restricted number of subordinates who participate in highly classified meetings with Mr. Obama to target terrorists for assassination.  One of these turns out to be none other than presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod.  It really should not take long to ferret out who among this small group said what on an off-the-record basis.   

More importantly, the bottom line is also clear:  President Obama is the beneficiary of the spin associated with these leaks, not the American people.  And that truly is offensive.

Unfortunately, the same can be said of a number of other actions for which the President can - and must - be held directly accountable.  These include, for example:

President Obama's deliberate and far-reaching unilateral disarmament of both U.S. conventional and nuclear forces through budgetary actions and malign neglect.
President Obama's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood - bringing them to power in the Mideast and encouraging their efforts to insinuate shariah here.  In fact, Mr. Donilon's deputy, Dennis McDonough, was in Qatar last week meeting with senior operatives of America's two most prominent Brotherhood front groups, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), toward that end.  We also just learned that his administration has had "hundreds of meetings" with CAIR.
President Obama's buying time for Iran to complete its decades-long drive to acquire nuclear weapons and eviscerating the U.S. missile defenses needed to protect against that growing threat.
President Obama's alienating of Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and other allies in the vain hope of currying favor with their foes, and ours.
President Obama's encouraging other adversaries, from Russia to China to North Korea to Chavismo in our hemisphere, thanks to the weakness and irresolution that have characterized his policies to date and that his team now feels the need to obscure with heavy spinning of the leaked secrets.  And,
President Obama's diminishing of our sovereignty, notably by trying to ram through the Senate the Law of the Sea Treaty - the subject of two more hearings this week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including the first in which opponents have been allowed to testify, led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Despite the likelihood that the American people will not learn who has been responsible for the damage done to our security through the serial leaks of highly classified information until well after November 6th - if then, they are on notice about his priorities:  Emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country.  We simply cannot afford four more years of unaccountable and dangerous malpractice on the part of a Commander-in-Chief.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

1027
Politics & Religion / Are American Jews Finally Waking Up?
« on: June 10, 2012, 11:45:43 AM »
Obama in 10-Point Drop among Jews
Among U.S. Jews, 64% support Obama, down from 74% in 2008 and similar to what Dukakis got in 1988.

By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 6/10/2012, 5:55 PM


Reuters
U.S. President Barack Obama currently has the support of 64% of Jewish registered voters, according to the Gallup polling agency. This is 10% less than the percentage of Jews who voted for Obama in 2008, and is similar to the percentage of Jews who voted for Michael Dukakis when he contended for the presidency against George Bush in 1988. Republican Mitt Romney enjoys 29% support among Jews.

Gallup notes the 10-point drop is "five points worse than his decline among all registered voters compared with 2008.”

A recent poll by the liberal Jewish Workman's Circle has shown even worse numbers for Obama, yet how the numbers are to interpreted depends on the interpreters. Some Democrats see the latest Gallup poll as a sign Obama's support among Jews is now rising.

The conservative Hot Air blog points out, however, that since 1988, all Democratic nominees have received more than 64% of the Jewish vote: "…Kerry, Gore, and Clinton all cracked 75 percent, and Jimmy Carter raked in 71 percent when he was elected in 1976. The only nominees who failed to reach 70 percent in the past 35 years were, er, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter in 1980, the last of whom nearly lost the Jewish vote to Reagan."

The Republican Jewish Coalition notes the 29% of Jewish voters who support Romney, represents the “highest level of Jewish support for a Republican presidential candidate in 24 years.” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said that if the numbers hold in November, they would spell "a disaster" for Obama and his party.

However, Gallup polls also indicate that Obama held only 62% of the Jewish vote in June of 2008, before the final number rose to 74% in November. A similar dynamic could kick in this year, too.

1028
Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian
« on: June 09, 2012, 10:23:19 AM »
Marc:

Thank you for the compliment.  I'm sure among some gay activists civil unions would be seen as only a step toward gay marriage.  I know individuals who believe that nothing less than extending the same nomenclature to the same-sex union would be acceptable.  I disagree strongly with that position.  My only concern is that I have equal protection under the law without being forced to spend thousands of dollars to have an attorney draft contracts to secure certain rights that still might not be recognized by the state.

I don't understand your question "does the state have the right to make this thought illegal?"  No one - certainly not I - is proposing that any thought be made illegal. There are plenty of people who believe today that blacks and Jews, for example, are inherently inferior in certain respects and/or evil, and such opinions are not illegal.  What IS illegal is violating another's right to life, liberty and property - racist opinions notwithstanding.  I have always strongly opposed the concept of "hate crimes" legislation for exactly this reason - it creates a "thought crime," making the identical crime more serious because it is committed against a member of a privileged group.  This is in direct opposition to the idea of equal justice under the law.  I might add that "some people" will always find certain behaviors objectionable. I'm not proposing outlawing opinions.

1029
Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian
« on: June 08, 2012, 12:22:58 PM »
Marc - very thought-provoking article indeed - with entirely valid conclusions in one respect - the concept of marriage most probably arose among humans as a result of the special importance rightly placed on children and their welfare.  "Among humans" is the operative clause here, as clearly other species have no similar ritual recognition of such a union.  Such is the consequence of our ability to reason and contemplate abstract ideas.

I've never been passionately in favor of the idea of same-sex marriage, because from where I stand, the only advantage to it being recognized is that certain legal and inheritance rights flow from it in our society.  But the same could be accomplished - if a society wanted to confer those benefits on same-sex couples - by calling the arrangement a "civil union" or something else to recognize it, but simultaneously distinguish it from marriage.  It's certainly true that the civil society has a vested interest in promoting marriage, less so -if at all - in promoting same-sex unions.  It therefore becomes a matter of equal treatment under the law by my reasoning.  This equal treatment could be accomplished by revising laws that restrict visitation and inheritance rights to blood relatives or spouses in the traditional sense.

And here lies the crux of the problem (and really the only problem) I have with the author's argument:  It is very clear, in fact it has been observed and documented in hundreds of animal species to date, that same-sex couplings, though a definite minority - do form and often exist in a sexually-monogamous state.  It's also been the case throughout recorded history that about the same percentage of homosexual individuals have existed in human societies.  Clearly therefore - it is not simply a matter of a "thought error" on the part of human beings that some of us desire such couplings and the societal accommodation/recognition/respect which ought to logically accrue to same.

1030
Politics & Religion / Important New Film coming...
« on: February 20, 2012, 08:48:06 PM »
Watch D'nesh D'Souza's excellent presentation at CPAC earlier this month - along with a trailer for the film:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6QOscKvUjU



1031
Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer on why "Islamist" is misleading.
« on: February 20, 2012, 08:20:41 PM »
Why We Don’t Need Words Like ‘Islamist’
Posted By Robert Spencer On February 20, 2012


Since I previously had an exchange with Andy McCarthy about the utility of the term “Islamist” (article here; video with transcript here); I read Raymond Ibrahim’s new piece, “Why We Need Words Like ‘Islamist,’” with great interest.

Raymond initially states the controversy this way:

Is the problem Islam or Islamism? Muslims or Islamists?These and related questions regularly foster debate (see the exchange between Robert Spencer and Andrew McCarthy for a recent example). The greatest obstacle on the road to consensus is what such words imply; namely, that Islamism and Islamists are “bad,” and Islam and Muslims are good (or simply neutral).

That is a bit caricatured, but it does express what is essentially the disagreement: is Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists (the “Islamists,”) or are supremacism and violence part of the core and mainstream teachings of Islam, in all its various sects and manifestations?

Several factors make the question more complicated: one is that many analysts use the term “Islamist” to mean an adherent of the tenets of political Islam. And certainly, as Raymond points out in his piece here, some term is needed for such people: for example, a follower of Mubarak in Egypt would likely be a Muslim but not an “Islamist”: i.e., not a proponent of Sharia rule. But because of the baggage that is attached to the word “Islamist,” and the misleading way it is used in order to deny or downplay the violence, hatred, and supremacism that is in core Islamic texts and teachings, I generally use “Islamic supremacist” instead for the adherents of Sharia and political Islam.

Andy McCarthy, meanwhile, acknowledges the violence in Islamic texts and teachings but uses the term “Islamist” for those acting upon that violence, so as not to discourage moderate Muslim reformers. This is a strange tactic, since genuine reform cannot proceed without an honest acknowledgment of the fact that there is something that needs reforming, and yet McCarthy’s usage is intended to distance the problem within Islam from Islam itself — a comforting fiction that will only discourage genuine reform and make it more difficult.

Here again, the problem with the terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” is that they mislead the uninformed into thinking that the problem of jihad and Islamic supremacism is not as large as it really is, not as deeply rooted within Islam as it really is, and more easily solved than it really is.

Raymond goes on:


 
Islamism is a distinct phenomenon and, to an extent, different from historic Islam. The staunch literalness of today’s Islamists is so artificial and anachronistic that, if only in this way, it contradicts the practices of medieval Muslims, which often came natural and better fit their historical context.

There is some truth to this, but here again, one would be in dangerous waters if one takes Raymond’s statement that “Islamism is a distinct phenomenon and, to an extent, different from historic Islam” as meaning that Islam in its various mainstream forms has not always been political and supremacist. Take, for instance, the medieval Muslim Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, who was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Another medieval Muslim, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

In light of that, whether or not they are, as Raymond goes on to argue, “influenced by Westernization,” even before these Westernizing influences entered in, they were energized by an imperative to make war against and subjugate unbelievers.

Raymond thus quite rightly goes on to point out that “Islam proper” is not “trouble-free.” I agree with those whose views he characterizes this way: “one might argue that use of words like ‘Islamist,’ while valid, are ultimately academic and have the potential further to confuse the layman.” He then goes on to argue for the need for a term for the adherents of political Islam — and there again, I propose the term “Islamic supremacist,” which does not have the baggage of “Islamist,” and leads no one to believe that Islam itself is “trouble-free.”

Raymond concludes: “why insist on a language that is easily misunderstood and even has the potential to backfire?”

Indeed. And that’s why I reject the term “Islamist.”

1032
"Islamophobia" filmmaker refuses to answer questions

As I noted here, Dean Obeidallah is making a film about the trumped-up concept of "Islamophobia," and he would really like to interview me for it. So after I wrote this yesterday, we had another exchange, and I thought there might be an opportunity for some honest dialogue. So I asked Obeidallah to answer these questions, and told him I'd be interviewed for his film if he did so:

1. True or false: No comedy show, no matter how clever or winning, is going to eradicate the suspicion that many Americans have of Muslims. This is because Americans are concerned about Islam not because of the work of greasy Islamophobes, but because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.
2. True or false: The fact that there are other Muslims not fighting jihad is just great, but it doesn't mean that the jihad isn't happening. This comedy show simply doesn't address the problem of jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism.

3. What do you make of the fact that Islamic supremacists from the Muslim Brotherhood invented the term "Islamophobia" in order to deflect attention away from jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, and intimidate opponents thereof?

4. What do you have to say about the fact that FBI statistics show that there is no "Islamophobia"?

5. What do you have to say about the fact that many "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have been faked by Muslims, and that Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

6. True or false? Since the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within," one easy way to do that would be to guilt-trip non-Muslims into being ashamed of resisting jihad activity and Islamic supremacism, for fear of being accused of "Islamophobia."

7. True or false: Negin Farsad, with her "eye-catching mini dresses," etc., has more to worry about from observant Muslims than she does from "Islamophobes."

8. What do you think of this: When you call Geller (and by implication, me) a "Muslim hater," I believe that you are ascribing people's legitimate concerns about jihad and Islamic supremacism to "hate," and that the only effect of this will be to make people who have those legitimate concerns to be even more suspicious of Muslims, which will only lead to more of what you call "Islamophobia."

9. Is there a plan behind your demonizing and smearing of all anti-jihadists? Do you want to create "Islamophobia" in order to claim privileged victim status for Muslims and exempt them from reasonable law enforcement scrutiny?

10. What kind of work have you done to raise awareness about the escalating persecution of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim societies, which is far worse in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere than Muslims have it here? Why not?

11. On what basis do you imply that those who are defending freedom against jihad are "exhibiting behavior which is less than consistent with the values of this nation"? What have you done to resist the Muslim Brotherhood's stated agenda of "sabotaging" this nation "from within"?

12. Aside from the murder of a Sikh by an idiot shortly after 9/11, what evidence do you have of any backlash against Muslims to which you refer so off-handedly in the WaPo? Where are Muslims suffering violence, discrimination, harassment of any kind? Even you expected far worse than you got when you went to the South -- and the level of harassment you did get was no worse than what I get in my email every day. So why the overblown claims about it?

13. And yes, what do you think about these recommendations?

Do Negin Farsad and Dean Obeidallah really want to eradicate "Islamophobia"? As long as Islamic jihad and supremacism continue, a comedy tour will never do the trick. But here is an easy way. They can call on Muslims in the U.S. to do these things:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Obeidallah refused to answer the questions. And so I put it to you: why not? Is there something wrong with them? Why do Islamic supremacists always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?

Posted by Robert on December 29, 2011 6:16 PM

1033
Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom
« on: December 28, 2011, 08:31:12 PM »
It has always surprised and infuriated me how many otherwise honest people seem to think there is nothing wrong with stealing intellectual property.  Music, software, anything that is produced by the sweat of one's brow ought to be protected, and penalties exacted for theft thereof.  I fail to see what about this is wither complicated or difficult to understand.

1034
Politics & Religion / Ron Paul's Insanity...
« on: December 26, 2011, 09:01:57 AM »
Important information regarding Ron Paul, written by a former staffer.  I'm curious to know what others here think about whether there is in fact a meaningful distinction between "Anti-Zionist" or "Anti-Israel" and "Anti-Jew."  I'm not certain that such a distinction exists in any meaningful form:

Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism
Written By : Eric Dondero

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88

I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.

One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).

On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.

There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.

(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)

In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”

The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.

Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s. On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys, accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other papers.

Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in restitution to Ron.

There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the “coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.

It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently had some serious financial problems.

Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.

I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.

On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.

If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net

1035
Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews
« on: December 26, 2011, 08:58:18 AM »
I agree fully with Crafty's last statement.  Btw - I'm speaking as a Christian.  I'm interested in forum members' opinions regarding my next post here.

1036
Politics & Religion / Israel Develops Cancer Vaccine
« on: November 14, 2011, 04:53:39 AM »
ISRAEL DEVELOPS CANCER VACCINE  (From Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" web site)

In between ducking bombs from a culture that creates nothing, invents nothing, produces nothing, and aspires to nothing except genocide. That's their major industry -- annihilation of the Jewish people. But Israel is the problem.

Israel Develops Cancer Vaccine

Vaxil's groundbreaking therapeutic vaccine, developed in Israel, could keep about 90 percent of cancers from coming back.
As the world's population lives longer than ever, if we don't succumb to heart disease, strokes or accidents, it is more likely that cancer will get us one way or another. Cancer is tough to fight, as the body learns how to outsmart medical approaches that often kill normal cells while targeting the malignant ones. In a breakthrough development, an Israeli company  has formulated a therapeutic cancer vaccine, now in clinical trials at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem.


There are a 12 Million Jews in the world, and yet they have received 192 Nobel Prizes. The Muslims number 1.4 Billion ... or 117 times the number of Jews! Based upon this 117:1 Muslim-to-Jewish ratio, one might expect the Muslims to have 22,464 Nobel Laureates. They have nine, including the prize awarded to the pedophile godfather of modern terror, Yaser Arafat.

Unless the Swedes and Norwegians start awarding Nobel Prizes for plane hijackings, pizza shop bombings, civilian bus attacks, Jihad suicides/homicides, drive-by shootings, throat-slittings, embassy attacks and other such acts of barbarisms, the embarrassing low level of contribution to the welfare of civilization and mankind by the [Arab] Muslim world will continue. The Jewish People, meanwhile, will continue being the Lights Unto All Nations.

And the world is licking their boots and doing their bidding, turning the homeland and its inhabitants over as ransom, as if that would slake their bloodlust.

In the words of the American Enterprise Institute’s political scientist Charles Murray, “In the first half of the 20th century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology. In the second half of the 20th century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure rose to 29 percent. So far, in the 21st century, it has been 32 percent.”1 Jews constitute about 0.2 percent of the world’s population.

1037
Politics & Religion / Keith Ellison/ Grover Norquist.
« on: November 11, 2011, 09:39:30 PM »
DMG:  I stand corrected, and have stricken that sentence from my earlier post.  I was confusing Ellison with someone else.  Ellison has actually been quite critical of Norquist's calls for smaller government, as any good Democrat would be.  However, I don't trust anything he says until/unless I see it backed up by actions.  Taqiyya is actively employed by Muslims in non-Muslim countries precisely to infiltrate themselves and sabotage non-Sharia-compliant governments from within.  Whether this is being done by someone calling themselves a Democrat or a Republican is irrelevant.  CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are clearly working within both major parties to advance their agenda of undermining the U.S. Constitution.

1038
Politics & Religion / Grover Norquist.
« on: November 11, 2011, 08:26:40 PM »
As it happens, Norquist worked to help get Ellison elected.  Norquist is nothing less than a stealth jihadist who is actively working to infiltrate the U.S. government with Islamist sympathizers.  Re-read the interview by Glazov I posted earlier in this thread and that fact is immediately evident.  He is married to a Pakistani Muslim woman, and has consistently refused to answer questions about his religious affiliation.  However, we know that apostasy is punishable by death according to Sharia law.  So any Muslim woman who would dare to marry a non-Muslim man would be disowned by her family.  She would face the death penalty in a country governed by Sharia.  This has not happened to Norquist's wife.  She has no problem traveling to Pakistan or other Islamic countries.  David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy have had the courage to expose Norquist and call him out.  Few others have.  Notably - Grover has never directly repudiated any of the allegations any of them have made.  His response has essentially been limited to "it's not worth my time to respond to that," in so many words.

This man is a dangerous enabler of enemy sympathizers.  We ignore that fact at our peril.  Robert Spencer has done yeoman's work in exposing the deception explicitly sanctioned by Islam, and how many of its practitioners in the United States are pursuing this doctrine of "Taqiyya" in his excellent book Stealth Jihad.  Pamela Geller regularly writes about the activities of Islamic jihadis on our soil.  Her book Stop the Islamization of America is a must-read.  I might add that both Spencer and Geller have repeatedly called out Norquist and his traitorous activities.

1039
Obama, Sarkozy’s Contempt for Netanyahu Exposed
Posted By Joseph Klein On November 9, 2011


It has been evident for some time that President Obama intensely dislikes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Then again, Obama does not have much use for Israel altogether.

The latest example occurred during an unscripted moment when microphones were accidentally left on after a G-20 press conference in Cannes last week had concluded. They picked up a private conversation between Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy exchanging bitter words about Netanyahu.

Sarkozy went first. He said, “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.”

Obama couldn’t help himself. He tried to outdo Sarkozy in expressing his displeasure with Netanyahu. “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day,” Obama replied spontaneously without his usual teleprompter to guide him.

Reporters heard the two leaders’ childish insults because the microphones were inadvertently still operating. They were asked afterwards not to disclose what they heard, and many of the journalists went along with the gag request. Fortunately, there are at least a few honest journalists who don’t much like government censorship of a legitimate news story.

France had just voted in favor of the Palestinians’ full membership in UNESCO. It also has reportedly decided to abstain, rather than vote no, when the Security Council takes up consideration of the Palestinian bid for full UN membership.

The United States voted no in UNESCO. It will, if necessary, also veto any Security Council resolution recommending full state membership for the Palestinians in the entire UN system. Obama knows that to do otherwise would cost him dearly in next year’s presidential election amongst Jewish voters whom would normally be in his corner.

However, we all know what Obama really thinks. This is a president who has gone out of his way to visit Muslim countries in the same region as Israel, but has yet to visit Israel itself since taking office. Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king, while insulting the Israeli prime minister at every turn.

Obama’s latest blast at Netanyahu recalls his snub of Netanyahu during the prime minister’s first visit to the Obama White House in March 2010. Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of demands, including a halt to all settlement construction in East Jerusalem. When Netanyahu resisted Obama’s charms, Obama picked up his marbles. He stormed out of the meeting and declared, “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.” Obama also refused the normal protocol of a joint photograph with the Israeli leader.

  “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage,” Israel’s Maariv newspaper reported on the treatment of the leader of our closest ally and only genuine democracy in the Middle East. “Bibi received in the White House         the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”
A little more than a year later, on the eve of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington to address a joint session of Congress, Obama tried to upstage him by proposing that Israel, without receiving any meaningful concession in return, offer to start negotiations based on Israel’s shrinking back to the indefensible pre-1967 lines with some unspecified minor mutual land swaps. Once again, Netanyahu would not play along with Obama’s shenanigans. During a joint news conference, Netanyahu was the grown-up in the room and delivered a candid, strongly worded rebuke to Obama’s demand for Israeli concessions that left Obama squirming:

This is something that we want to have accomplished.  Israel wants peace.  I want peace.  What we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure.  And I think that the — we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakeable facts.

I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities.  The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines — because these lines are indefensible…Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide.  It was half the width of the Washington Beltway.  And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.

After pointing out that Palestinian President Abbas was making negotiations more difficult by announcing his intention to form a unity government with Hamas, which he called the “Palestinian version of al Qaeda,” Netanyahu discussed the Palestinians’ insistence on the right of return of millions of Palestinian refugees to pre-1967 Israel. “Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel, accept the grandchildren, really, and the great grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel’s future as a Jewish state,” said Netanyahu. “I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”

Obama and Sarkozy do not like dealing with uncomfortable truths when it comes to defining what it will really take to reach a genuine, secure peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a “liar” for telling the truth, and Obama complains that he has to listen to the unvarnished truth from Netanyahu “every day.”

But, as the saying goes, know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Here are four fundamental and undeniable truths for Obama and Sarkozy to consider:

The truth about the risks for peace Israel has already taken to no avail, as jihadist terrorists launch waves of rockets from Gaza aimed at killing innocent Israeli civilians including children.
The truth about Hamas, with whom the more “moderate” Abbas wants to form a unity government.
The truth about the Palestinians’ denial of Israel’s basic right to exist as the only Jewish state in the world – a policy of rejectionism that led directly to the Palestinians’ present stateless condition and which their leaders continue to propound today.
The truth about the Palestinians’ insistence on the “right of return,” which is intended to destroy the Jewish character of whatever remains of Israel after reaching agreement with the Palestinians on borders. On this point, Obama should face the truth that his demand that Israel essentially return to the pre-1967 lines, while not simultaneously insisting to the Palestinians that they take the “right of return” of millions of Palestinian refugees to pre-1967 Israel off the table for good, is self-contradictory at best.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly in his September 23rd speech, “I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes.” Whether or not they “cannot stand” Netanyahu, it’s time for Obama, Sarkozy and other world leaders to stop whitewashing the truth.

1040
Politics & Religion / Newt's Lincoln-Douglas debate challenge...
« on: November 11, 2011, 09:22:32 AM »
Crafty:  While I certainly agree with you that this would be beautiful to watch, and would love to see it happen - I think you and Newt are overlooking two important factors:

1)  Obama and his handlers will simply claim that agreeing to such a format would be "beneath the office of President" and the media echo chamber will repeat it endlessly.
2)  The so-called "mainstream" media - quite unlike the media in Lincoln's day - will simply refuse to cover Newt's response speeches, or possibly replay/print only small sound    bites.  

I think Newt's quite naive to think that this strategy is going to be successful in today's media environment, much as I wish it were otherwise.

1041
Politics & Religion / Herman and Newt...
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:54:50 PM »
JDN:  I second Crafty's admonishment.  My own sister makes your argument, which is essentially "where there is smoke there is usually fire."  Said sister is a staunch conservative and wants to believe Cain.  My response to her is similar to Crafty's response to you.  Examine the evidence before you jump to an emotionally-based conclusion.  There is plenty of evidence posted in this thread which casts serious doubt on the credibility of Cain's accusers.  If you are unpersuaded after actually reviewing said evidence, then you are - quite frankly - not thinking clearly.

Crafty:  I would pay big money to watch a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style debates between Newt and Obama.  I think everyone knows that Newt would wipe the floor with Obama in such a setting, (as would Mark Levin, to mention just one other) and as such, Obama would sooner resign from the presidency than agree to this.  I.E. - it ain't EVER going to happen.

1042
Politics & Religion / Coulter on Cain's Accusers...
« on: November 10, 2011, 08:58:28 AM »
DAVID AXELROD'S PATTERN OF SEXUAL MISBEHAVIOR
By Ann Coulter - November 9, 2011


Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

1043
Politics & Religion / The Left's Effort to Destroy Cain - It's Not Working:
« on: November 10, 2011, 03:00:20 AM »
The Left’s Special Hatred of Herman Cain
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On November 10, 2011


In his press conference on Nov. 8, Tuesday afternoon, Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain defiantly addressed the claims against him, rejecting them in full. “The machine to keep a businessman out of the White House is going to be relentless,” Cain robustly affirmed. But the machine Cain referred to is not overly concerned with his business acumen. Rather, the leftist media hit squad, personified by celebrity sleaze lawyer Gloria Allred, has mobilized for the primary objective of destroying the most prominent African-American conservative on the scene today. This is not coincidental. The Left reserves a special destructive zeal for Republican minorities of any variety.

The Left’s distinct hatred of Herman Cain has been transparently evident for some time now. Its assaults rely on classic racist stereotypes of black stupidity and sexual preoccupation. The belittling of Cain’s intelligence and achievement has taken especially appalling and humiliating forms. In August, on Keith Olbermann’s newly resuscitated “Countdown” show, now on Current TV, progressive harridan Janeane Garofalo neatly summarized how such white leftists view any black American who dares to eschew progressive ideology. “[Cain's] a businessman,” she said sarcastically, continuing:

Whoever pays him. And he may have a touch of Stockholm syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm syndrome, or does somebody pay them?

Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological condition in which hostages express sympathy and/or empathy with their captors. Thus for Garofalo and her odious ilk, Herman Cain couldn’t possibly be a free-thinking individual. He’s either mentally impaired or simply so stupid as to be exploited by his oppressors for pay.

Garofalo is hardly alone. Speaking on Martin Bashir’s program on MSNBC, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney offers a similar take on Mr. Cain: “One of the things about Herman Cain is I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” she explains. “I think he is giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

HBO’s Bill Maher, offering a rundown of Republican presidential candidates last May, offered the same rationale to his viewers. “Herman Cain, I never heard of this guy, but apparently he ran Godfather’s Pizza, and Republicans say they love him so they’re not racist–right.” And MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell took Herman Cain to task, insinuating that he and his father were little more than house Negroes. MSNBC host Ed Schultz contended Herman Cain panders to “white Republicans out there who don’t like black folks” while “The View’s” Joy Behar warned Herman Cain that the Republican party “hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country,” a statement of stunning historical ignorance. Jon Stewart mocked Cain’s manner of speaking and said he didn’t like to read.

What’s telling is that every one of the above statements and interviews occurred before the first story about Cain’s alleged sexual harassment was reported by Politico. The fix has always been in.

The Politico stories–more than 90 and still counting since last week–represent an interesting shift. Two nameless women accusing Cain of “sexually suggestive behavior…that made them angry and uncomfortable” turns Cain into a potential predator. When Sharon Bialek appeared on the scene on Monday the accusations moved from sexual harassment to those that could be construed as sexual assault. As a result, the alleged predator becomes a potential criminal.

From what we know so far, Cain’s description of Bialek as a “troubled woman” is putting it politely. If it were a left-wing politician in the crosshairs, when it is the accusers who are actually on trial, Politico would probably have run 90 stories on her chronic failure at life management and record of desperate living standards. Despite claiming she isn’t in it for the money, a friend described her as “a complete gold digger. It’s all about the money.” She has also declared bankruptcy twice, lost several court judgments for large debts, hasn’t held a job for two years and lives with her fiance–who said he only learned of the allegations as recently as last Friday. Furthermore, a witness who saw her encounter with Cain last month at a Tea Party event claims Bialek and Cain “hugged like old friends.” Not exactly as tantalizing to the media as the number of anonymous sources Politico has talked to, which talk show hosts endlessly repeat.

Just as curious and unsavory is the involvement of Gloria Allred in this case. She is a staunch Democratic supporter, having donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and party committees, according to Federal Election Commission records dating back to 1998. Her role in the controversy is somewhat unclear — If Bialek’s claim that she has no intention of filing either criminal or civil litigation is true, why does she need a lawyer? How exactly did they become involved together? The answer to those questions might be far more enlightening than anything revealed by either woman so far.

One of the original anonymous women cited in the Politico stories stepped forward on Tuesday. Yet much like Bialek, 24 hours after Karen Kraushaar went public, she appeared less credible as well. The Associated Press revealed that Ms. Kraushaar, who settled her complaint against Cain with the NRA, filed another complaint three years later, when she was working as a spokesperson for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She demanded to be allowed to work at home after a car accident, and accused a manager of circulating a “sexually charged email.” Other initial demands, filed by the same lawyer she used against Cain, included thousands of dollars in payments, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident, a promotion, and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly,” Kraushaar contended. Ironically, considering the details the media expect Cain to remember about 14-year-old charges, Kraushaar, claimed she didn’t remember any of the details of her second complaint. Perhaps the memories of some complaints are more vivid than others.

America is witnessing the grim determination of a movement that cannot countenance the idea that a black American could possibly embrace conservative values. Such an embrace is a mortal threat to a political party that must continually convince black America that any ideology that steers individuals away from lives of government dependency and low expectations is something to fear. Like Clarence Thomas before him, Mr. Cain has been charged with the one type of allegation that the Left couldn’t have cared less about when Bill Clinton was under the microscope.

The effort to smear both Cain and the Republican party continued on NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday. In response to a question from Ann Curry, who contended that Republicans want Cain to “go away” because he’s “continuing to suck the air out of the narrative the Republican party really wants to tell,” David Gregory, host NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there is no “Grand Wizard in the party right now who can really force the issue.” Someone might want to remind Gregory that the most recent member of the KKK to inhabit the federal government was the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Later in the day Gregory tweeted an apology saying he didn’t mean to “make the connection at all.” Sure he didn’t. Perhaps the best statement to sum up the ongoing progressive attempts to take down yet another black conservative was made by one of their own.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, “leftists aren’t racist–right.”

1044
The Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates the GOP
Posted By Jamie Glazov On November 8, 2011 @ 12:27 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 2 Comments


Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration and Muslim Mafia. The latter, co-authored with P. David Gaubatz, exposes the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts in the United States.

FP: Paul Sperry, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Sperry: Always a pleasure, Jamie. Quick congratulations on another commendable work, Showdown With Evil.

FP: Thank you Paul.

I would like to talk to you today about how the Muslim Brotherhood penetrates the Republican Party and especially the latest disturbing evidence you have on Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan in this context. As you know, David Horowitz called out both Khan and Norquist on this issue in his speech at CPAC on Feb. 12, 2011.

First, let’s begin with your knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the United States in general and what you know about it its front groups on our soil.

Sperry: Thanks Jamie.

As you know, the Brotherhood is a worldwide jihadist movement based in Cairo. It’s the parent of Hamas and al-Qaida and the source of most of the jihadist ideology and related terror throughout the world today. After 9/11, FBI agents discovered the founding archives of its U.S. operations during a raid of a terrorist suspect’s home in  Annandale, Va. The secret papers revealed that the Brotherhood, which was set up in America with millions in Saudi cash, has a plan to “destroy” America and other Western nations “from within,” and is using its agents and front groups in the U.S. to carry out that strategy.

The secret papers also revealed that virtually every major Muslim group in America is a front for the radical Brotherhood, and they’ve raised millions of dollars for Hamas and al-Qaida right here inside America. They also control most of the major mosques, including the 9/11 mosque just outside Washington that found housing for some of the hijackers and helped prepare them for their martyrdom operation.

FP: What’s been done about them?

Sperry: Until recent years, their leaders operated with virtual impunity. But 9/11 broke the PC handcuffs on investigators. Several major U.S. Brotherhood figures — including Abdurahman Alamoudi, Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, Anwar Awlaki, Sami al-Arian — are now either behind bars or dead. Major front groups have been blacklisted as unindicted co-conspirators. And a key front, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which we expose in our book, has been banned by the FBI from outreach functions and stripped by the IRS of its nonprofit status following our investigation. But the handcuffs haven’t come off completely.

FP: How haven¹t the handcuffs come off completely?

Sperry: The Islamic Society of North America is the leading edge of the Brotherhood movement here, yet it remains a formal outreach partner of the government even though ISNA was implicated in a criminal scheme to funnel over $12 million to Hamas terrorists. Its president, in fact, just spoke at a Justice Department conference on “post-9/11 discrimination.” Mohamed Magid also prayed with Obama in the White House. It’s not just Obama though. I’ve seen the matrix with all the names of the leaders in the U.S. Brotherhood’s Shurah Council. They include people Bush prayed with after 9/11. The enemy has been inside the wire for quite some time. It’s just making deeper inroads now.

FP: Ok let’s get to Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist. What information do you have on them?

Sperry: Let me start with some background regarding Norquist. Though he’s known as the Beltway’s top antitax lobbyist, he’s also a paid lobbyist for enemies of the United States. Prior to 9/11, he was bankrolled by the General Masul of the U.S. Brotherhood — the same Alamoudi I mentioned earlier — who also happened to be al-Qaida’s top bagman in America.

FP: Evidence?

Sperry: A July 14, 2005, U.S. Treasury Department press release stated: “According to information available to the U.S. government, the September 2003 arrest of Alamoudi was a severe blow to al-Qaida, as Alamoudi had a close relationship with al-Qaida and had raised money for al-Qaida in the United States.”

In addition, I asked an FBI official who worked the Alamoudi case to elaborate on the information cited in the Treasury statement. He told me (as I reported in Muslim Mafia) that at the time of Alamoudi’s arrest, U.S. intelligence had intercepted al-Qaida chatter out of Saudi Arabia lamenting that “one of our main financiers has been taken out.”

I have no evidence Norquist knew Alamoudi was laundering Saudi cash for al-Qaida at the time he was taking his own cash from him. But he knew Alamoudi was, at a minimum, making statements in support of terrorists. Now his financier and silent partner is sitting behind bars as a convicted terrorist.

FP: What kind of money changed hands?

Sperry: As I reported in my first book, “Infiltration,” Norquist’s old lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt, was a registered agent for Alamoudi, and received some $40,000 from that dubious client. (Norquist and his Muslim partner at the firm also represented the Pakistani government on military aid.) In addition, Alamoudi gave Norquist at least $20,000 in seed money to start up an outwardly Republican front for the Brotherhood called the Islamic Free Market Institute, which was run by Alamoudi’s deputy and later appeared on a JTTF threat matrix.

FP: And that’s when Khan enters the picture?

Sperry: Right. Alamoudi sponsored Khan — Khan being the eldest son of one of the founding fathers of the Brotherhood in America. Norquist got Khan into the Bush White House as the gatekeeper for Muslims, whereupon he got al-Arian and other senior Brotherhood figures past security.

FP: What were they trying to do?

Sperry: The top of their agenda was convincing the president to eliminate the Justice Department’s use of undisclosed evidence in deportation cases against Arabs suspected of terrorism. On the eve of 9/11, Norquist personally went to the Hill and lobbied to, in his words, “get rid of the secret evidence laws which have been used to discriminate against Muslims and Arabs in this country.” After 9/11, he and his Islamic Institute lobbied against the Patriot Act. He didn’t miss a beat trying to deny law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on Muslim terrorists, even after they slaughtered 3,000 Americans and attacked the Pentagon.

FP: Where’s Khan now?

Sperry: Thanks to Norquist’s sponsorship, Khan has also been able to infiltrate other Republican circles, including the American Conservative Union. Meanwhile, he’s teamed up with Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s Muslim outreach partner, to do interfaith outreach with evangelical Christian leaders in the South.


 
FP: How is that possible?

Sperry: What Norquist does, and this is truly sinister business, is dress up Brotherhood agents who underwrite him as patriotic conservatives in order to give them political cover and gain the trust of the GOP establishment. Then with the backing of duped party leaders secured, he promotes these neo-Islamists to positions of power inside government.

His latest project is Imad “David” Ramadan.

FP: Tell us about him.

Sperry: Well, he’s running for the Virginia state legislature with breathless boosterism from Norquist, which is your first red flag. Last year, Ramadan signed an open letter to Republicans in support of the Ground Zero mosque. He signed it with Khan and Norquist’s wife, who happens to be a Palestinian Muslim.

There are other red flags. Ramadan, who’s a Lebanese immigrant, is a shadowy figure with suspicious holes in his resume. He says he’s involved in various “consulting” businesses in the Middle East. He also processes U.S. visas and green cards for Muslim immigrants. But the source of his sudden wealth is largely unknown for someone who declared bankruptcy. He’s given large sums of cash to GOP officials, to shore up their support, as well as to his own campaign.

Based on who’s been donating to his campaign, Ramadan would represent the interests of Islamists should he win the Northern Virginia seat he’s running for. Of particular note from the long list of his Muslim contributors is a $5,000 political donation he received from something called the Virginia Muslim PAC. Its president is Mukit Hossain. Turns out Hossain also runs a charitable front for the Muslim Brotherhood in Herndon, Va., called FAITH. A few years ago, Wachovia bank closed FAITH’s accounts due to suspicious activity related to possible money-laundering. A year earlier, the so-called charity received a $150,000 donation from Brotherhood leader and Saudi bagman M. Yacub Mirza, whose home and offices were raided by the feds after 9/11. Hossain keeps his FAITH office in the same raided building. Hossain’s benefactor was close to Alamoudi before Alamoudi landed in the slammer.

FP: The evidence?

Sperry: According to a federal affidavit (unsealed Oct 2003) for a search warrant of Mirza’s Herndon, Va., residence and offices, Mirza is president of SAAR Foundation, a suspected charitable front for al-Qaida founded by Saudi billionaire Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al-Rajhi (S.A.A.R.), one of the original Golden Chain sponsors of bin Laden.


According to page 53 of the affidavit, written by special agent David C. Kane: “I believe that one source of funds flowing through (Mirza’s offices) is from the wealthy Al-Rajhi family in Saudi Arabia.” He cites one transaction of $3,388,000, along with others in the millions. The affidavit says Mirza has “signatory authority” over the bank accounts. SAAR had an active account with Wachovia before closing it within weeks of the 9/11 attacks. Some checks also were drawn on a bank account in the name of Al-Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Now let’s tie it all together: Hossain serves on the board of a nearby mosque run by imam Magid, the ISNA chief working with Khan and Obama. This Ramadan donor is also active in the Muslim American Society, which prosecutors say is a key node in the Muslim Brotherhood’s network here.

Another Muslim listed as a donor to Ramadan’s campaign is Norquist protege Ali Tulbah, who replaced Khan at the White House when Khan landed a high-level spot at the Transportation Department. Tulbah’s father helps run a Brotherhood mosque in Houston.

FP: So Ramadan is part of the same Islamist influence operation run out of Grover’s office?

Sperry: You got it.

FP: How dangerous is Grover Norquist?

Sperry: Very dangerous. Here you have a “conservative” who built the Trojan Horse that the enemy is using to infiltrate, sabotage and destroy the U.S. from within. Norquist is helping the U.S. Brotherhood accomplish the “Grand Jihad” spelled out in its founding archives. In fact, he’s helping pull them through the gates. I think it’s fairly plain now that he knows he’s undermining U.S. security, and that he’s doing so in a time of war.

FP: So why is he still accepted in conservative circles?

Sperry: Some Republican leaders are starting to speak out publicly against him, lawmakers like Coburn and Wolf (although Wolf endorsed his protégé Ramadan after Ramadan gave him $4,700 in campaign cash). But others still see him as just a small-government libertarian who wants to widen the GOP tent. Make no mistake: Norquist is not some random deficit hawk eyeing the bloated defense budget for cuts. Nor is he some innocuous misguided Ron Paul dove. He’s something far different, far more pernicious. He’s virulently anti-military, anti-borders, anti-security. He’s a saboteur aiding and abetting groups hostile to U.S. interests. And now that he’s married to a Muslim, I doubt money is the only motivating factor behind his decidedly anti-American behavior.

If by now Republicans can’t smell a rat — a Pied Piper of rats, no less — they have failed miserably in their constitutional duty to “defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” If the Republican Party can’t stop an Islamist Fifth Column within its own ranks, my word, we’re all doomed.

FP: What’s the status of CAIR’s “trespassing” suit against your co-author and his son, Chris, who snuck behind enemy lines as a CAIR intern and walked out with boxes of incriminating evidence that CAIR ordered him to shred?

Sperry: The most extraordinary thing about that complaint — and so far only Politico.com has picked up on this angle — is that CAIR never defends itself against the book’s claims, never alleges libel. It stipulates everything in “Muslim Mafia” to be true — which is why in its complaint, it seeks to confiscate all copies of “Muslim Mafia” in an attempt to censor the book. Of course, it cannot dispute its own internal documents, which are so damning that federal prosecutors have seized them, several boxes full, as part of a grand jury investigation of CAIR. Still, it’s highly newsworthy given the seriousness of the charges in the book.

CAIR has hit several potholes in filing its case. First it filed under a false name and had to refile. Then it ran out of money and had to replace its outside lawyers with a CAIR legal staffer who has a glaring personal conflict, given her role in overseeing the destruction of evidence Chris tried to preserve while working inside CAIR’s offices. Then CAIR failed to produce for the court a confidentiality agreement it claims Chris signed. Even so, the Clinton-appointed judge, who has ruled in favor of Gitmo detainees, has let the case go forward, and the defense is looking forward to deposing CAIR leaders. It will be the first time Nihad Awad, for one, will have to explain, under oath, why he attended a secret meeting with Hamas leaders in Philly just months before forming CAIR.

What’s more, CAIR’s executive director will have to explain why CAIR, if it’s not Hamas, would appear on a Hamas meeting agenda. The smoking-gun exhibit is reproduced in the appendix of “Muslim Mafia.” It’s a 1994 meeting agenda listing CAIR among member “organizations” of the U.S. “Palestine Committee” of Hamas. CAIR was put in charge of “coordination” among the Hamas front groups.

This document — in addition to others, including ones unearthed from CAIR’s own files – speaks materially to CAIR being founded by Hamas, controlled by Hamas, and carrying out Hamas’ agenda inside the United States. So stay tuned for the deposition transcripts.

FP: Paul Sperry, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

1045
Politics & Religion / Scrapping and replacing the current U.S. tax code.
« on: October 30, 2011, 11:42:46 AM »
Neal Boortz explains one reason he believes there is so much resistance to doing what would be so clearly advantageous to the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers:

www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/21/recording-video-today/

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]