Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 24, 2016, 01:42:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96625 Posts in 2320 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20
251  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / New York Times: Overpriced Bird Cage Liner...POTH turns down Mohammed ad. on: July 04, 2015, 08:15:17 AM

by PAMELA GELLER  1 Jul 2015 -

Last Monday, the New York Times ran a lavish full-color image of a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of condoms. If they thought twice about offending Roman Catholics’ religious sensibilities, they gave no public hint of doing so. And so my human rights organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), decided to test their commitment to free speech by submitting an ad featuring a cartoon of Muhammad – the winning cartoon from our free speech event in Garland, Texas, which the Times had refused to run in their coverage of the jihad terror attack on our event.

Predictably, it rejected our ad as well. AFDI submitted the ad, featuring Bosch Fawstin’s cartoon of Muhammad exclaiming, “You can’t draw me!” and the cartoonist answering, “That’s why I draw you,” with the caption “Support Free Speech,” to run on Sunday, July 5, at the staggering cost of over $40,000.

Our ad is not obscene or offensive in any objective sense. It is a statement about how free people are not going to submit to violent intimidation and allow bloodthirsty thugs to curtail our freedoms.

But for the Sharia-compliant New York Times, even that was too far over the line. The Times’ John Shaw wrote me: “I have checked with our advertising acceptability department and this ad does not comply with our acceptability standards because it is offensive on religious grounds. We thank you again, but we will not be able to accept the ad.”

Offensive on what religious grounds? Sharia. For years now, the New York Times has adhered to and enforced the strict code of Islamic law. Bowed and cowed, the Times will not violate the vicious and archaic blasphemy laws under the sharia: it will not criticize, mock or otherwise mock Islam, no matter how high the death toll or how gruesome the jihad.

Back in 2012, the New York Times ran a full-page ad calling for Christians to leave the Catholic Church. When AFDI submitted a mirror image of that same ad, making the exactly the same declaration concerning Islam, the ad was rejected out of hand. We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference was that ours was true and what we described about the mistreatment of women and non-Muslims under Islamic law was true. The anti-Catholic ad, by contrast, was written by fallacious feminazis. Nonetheless, in a craven capitulation to Sharia blasphemy laws, the Times rejected my ad.

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. Christie said that the Times would be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

During our conversation, I asked Christie, “If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Christie responded, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”

I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”

He said, “No, it’s not.” I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad. You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”

Christie then sent me a follow-up letter, claiming that the Times was going to “delay publication in light of recent events in Afghanistan, including the Quran burning and the alleged killings of Afghani [sic] civilians by a member of the U.S. military. It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the region in danger.”

The publication “delay” is, of course, still going on.

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post rejected the ad as well. Video here and here.

It was most disingenuous for the New York Times to refuse to run our counter-jihad ad based on their concern for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Liars. The New York Times has done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. Was the Times concerned that they were putting our troops’ live in danger when they ran front page articles on Abu Ghraib every day for a month? Starting on May 1, 2004, the New York Times had a front page article on Abu Ghraib every day for 32 days.

Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaida in the mountains of Pakistan?

The New York Times exposed SWIFT (which put military and civilians at great risk of jihad). SWIFT was a legal secret program that gave the government access to a massive database of international financial transactions, using “broad subpoenas to collect the financial records from an international system.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in 2006, “The president is concerned that, once again, the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is protecting the American people.”

Despite the obvious hypocrisy of the Times, the mainstream media fell into line. It took a couple of days to get their arms around how to frame the Times’ self-enforcing of Shariah, but the Huffington Post and the left lemmings soon began to follow the Times’ line, claiming that running my ad would endanger lives.

Really? What nerve. What is lower than using our brave men and women to cover for the Times’ cowardice and anti-freedom editorial policies? That is so … left.

And now, with their running the Pope condom “art” but refusing to run my free speech statement, their cowardice and hypocrisy are fully exposed.

252  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: July 02, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Thus - the reason that American Jews voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in the last two elections - despite the damage he is clearly inflicting on the country.  They share his communist view of America as a racist, bigoted, imperialist nation which needs to be cut down to size.
253  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: July 02, 2015, 06:53:26 PM
Spouting all of the facts and statistics Ann did in her column cannot be done in a sound bite.  Trump is the master of this - and he's not backing off of it, either.  Good for him.  Rush Limbaugh asked an open question of his listeners today - Is Donald Trump hurting the Republican "brand" with his comments - as so much of the media is claiming?  The overwhelming consensus from his listeners was - "Hell, no!  If anything - Trump is revealing in stark contrast the wimps and cowards the present crop of Republican "leaders" are for refusing to go anywhere near his commentary - much less agree with any of it."  I couldn't agree more.
254  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ann Coulter: Donald Trump is Right... on: July 02, 2015, 03:49:40 PM

July 1, 2015 -

When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media's response was to boycott him. One thing they didn't do was produce any facts showing he was wrong.

Trump said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


Wouldn't that make any person of average intelligence suspicious? Not our media. They're in on the cover-up.

A curious media might also wonder why any immigrants are committing crimes in America. A nation's immigration policy, like any other government policy, ought to be used to help the people already here -- including the immigrants, incidentally.

It's bad enough that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are accessing government benefits at far above the native rate, but why would any country be taking another country's criminals? We have our own criminals! No one asked for more.

Instead of counting the immigrant stock filling up our prisons, the government issues a series of comical reports claiming to tally immigrant crime. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants' self-reports of their citizenship. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates. The Government Accounting Office conducts its own analysis of Bureau of Prisons data.

In other words, the government hasn't the first idea how many prisoners are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or anchor babies.

But there are clues! Only about a quarter of California inmates are white, according to a major investigative piece in The Atlantic last year -- and that includes criminals convicted in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the vast majority of California's population was either black or white.

Do immigration enthusiasts imagine that more than 75 percent of the recent convicts are African-American? Blacks have high crime rates, but they make up only about 6 percent of California's entire population.

A casual perusal of the "Most Wanted" lists also suggests that the government may not have our best interests in mind when deciding who gets to live in America.

Here is the Los Angeles Police Department's list of "Most Wanted" criminal suspects:

-- Jesse Enrique Monarrez (murder),

-- Cesar Augusto Nistal (child molestation),

-- Jose A. Padilla (murder),

-- Demecio Carlos Perez (murder),

-- Ramon Reyes, (robbery and murder),

-- Victor Vargas (murder),

-- Ruben Villa (murder)

The full "Most Wanted" list doesn't get any better.

There aren't a lot of Mexicans in New York state -- half of all Mexican immigrants in the U.S. live in either Texas or California -- and yet there are more Mexican prisoners in New York than there are inmates from all of Western Europe.

As for the crime of rape specifically, different groups have different criminal proclivities, but no one takes a backseat to Hispanics in terms of sex crimes.

The rate of rape in Mexico is even higher than in India, according to Professor Carlos Javier Echarri Canovas of El Colegio de Mexico. A report from the Inter-American Children's Institute explains that in Latin America, women and children are "seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms."

All peasant cultures have non-progressive views on women, but Latin America happens to have the peasant culture that's closest to the United States.

The only reason our newspapers aren't chockablock with reports of Latino sexual predators is that they are too busy broadcasting hoax news stories about non-existent gang-rapes by white men: the Duke lacrosse team (Crystal Gail Mangum), University of Virginia fraternity members (Jackie Coakley) and military contractors in Iraq (Jamie Leigh Jones).

In fact, the main way we find out about Hispanic rapists is when the media report on dead or missing girls -- hoping against hope that the case will never be solved or the perp will look like the rapists on "Law and Order." When it turns out to be another Latino rapist, that fact is aggressively suppressed by the media.

New Yorkers were horrified by the case of "Baby Hope," a 4-year-old girl whose raped and murdered body turned up in an Igloo cooler off of the Henry Hudson Parkway in 1991. After a 20-year investigation, the police finally captured her rapist/murderer in 2013. It was her cousin, Conrado Juarez, an illegal alien from Mexico, who disposed of the girl's body with the help of his illegal alien sister.

New York City is the nation's media capital. But only The New York Post reported that the child rapist was a Mexican.

In 2001, the media were fixated on the case of Chandra Levy, a congressional intern who had gone missing. All eyes were on her boss and romantic partner, Democratic congressman Gary Condit. Then it turned out she was assaulted and murdered while jogging in Rock Creek Park by Ingmar Guandique -- an illegal alien from El Salvador.

There was a lot of press when three Cleveland women went missing a decade ago. By the time they escaped in 2013 from the sick sexual pervert who'd been holding them captive, it was too late for the media to ignore the story. The girls hadn't been kidnapped by the Duke lacrosse team, but by Ariel Castro.

Now, get this: While investigating Castro, the police discovered that he wasn't the only Hispanic raping young girls on his block. (All in all, it wasn't a great street for trick-or-treating.)

Castro's erstwhile neighbor, Elias Acevedo, had spent years raping, among many others, his own daughters when they were little girls. The New York Times' entire coverage of that case consisted of a tiny item on page A-18: "Ohio: Life Sentence in Murders and Rapes."

The media knew from the beginning that the monstrous gang-rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993 was instigated by Jose Ernesto Medellin, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. But over the next decade, with more than a thousand news stories on that case, the fact that the lead rapist was a Mexican was not mentioned once, according to the Nexis archives.

Only when Medellin's Mexicanness was used to try to overturn his death sentence did American news consumers finally find out he was an illegal alien from Mexico. (After years of wasted judicial resources and taxpayer money being spent on Medellin's appeals, he will now be spending eternity way, way south of the border.)

Who is this media cover-up helping? Not the American girls getting raped. But also not the Latina immigrants who came to the U.S., thinking they were escaping the Latin American rape culture. So as not to hurt the feelings of immigrant rapists, the media are willing to put all girls living here at risk.

No wonder the media is sputtering at Trump. He broke the embargo on unpleasant facts about what our immigration policies are doing to the country.
255  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / US Terror Threat Now Highest It's Ever Been... on: June 27, 2015, 08:40:12 AM
Rep. Nunes: America Faces Highest Terror Threat Level Ever

Posted By Michael Cutler On June 25, 2015

Usually the first challenge I face in writing my commentaries is to come up with a concise title that captures the most salient part of the issue I am writing about. Today I found this task easy, I simply borrowed the headline from CBS News’ Face the Nation article that quoted none other than Congressional Representative Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

That headline is concise and echoes the very same concerns I have had in reviewing all of the publicly available information on the issue of threats posed by international terrorists.

What is impossible to understand is how the administration, members of Congress, local and state politicians and journalists have been absolutely unwilling to “connect the impossible to ignore dots” that are flashing, not unlike the strobe lights on a police car or other emergency vehicle.

Here is the segment of the article that accompanied the headline and addressed the topic of the threat of terrorism in the United States today:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, said the nation faces “the highest threat level we have ever faced in this country” due to the flow of foreign fighters to and from Iraq and Syria and the radicalization of young people on the Internet.

U.S. officials have been warning for months about the threat posed by people from America or Western Europe who travel to the Middle East to fight with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS [2]) and then return to their home countries, where they may carry out attacks. Nunes said the U.S. is not aware of all the people who have made the trek or who have now come back, although FBI Director James Comey has said there are cases open in all 50 states.

Officials are increasingly looking for ways to combat radical jihadists’ effectiveness [3] in recruiting supporters through social media.

“They’re very good at communicating through separate avenues where it’s very difficult to track,” he said. “That’s why when you get a young person who is willing to get into these chat rooms, go on the Internet and get radicalized, it’s something we are not only unprepared [for], we are also not used to it in this country.”

He said that investigations often “do no good” in encrypted chat rooms where those communications take place, so Americans should be diligent about reporting suspicious activity to the proper authorities because “we are having a tough time tracking terrorist cells within the United States.”

The warnings are particularly pertinent with the July 4 holiday approaching. Nunes noted that there will be large gatherings in every city across America.

“It’s just tough to secure those types of areas if you have someone who wants to blow themselves up or open fire or other threats of that nature and we just don’t know or can track all of the bad guys that are out there today,” he said.

The famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw’s statement says it all:

“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

If our leaders were to seek to learn history’s lessons they should read the appropriate history books.

The 9/11 Commission Report [4] and the “9/11 and Terrorist Travel [5] – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” are the most complete and authoritative “history books” concerning the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and even included evaluations of vulnerabilities that led to previous terror attacks — both those that succeeded and those that failed. These books were prepared by the government of the United States in response to the horrific terror attacks that left more than 3,000 innocent victims dead.

My May 22, 2015 commentary for the Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) website, “Bin Laden, The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration [6],” addressed the fact that when the U.S. Navy SEALS raided the bin Laden compound, among the documents found in his library were a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and a copy of an application for United States citizenship. It must be presumed that he had no intentions of filing for U.S. citizenship himself, but was contemplating embedding his terrorist operatives in the United States through the naturalization process.

Presumably bin Laden read that report — the obvious question that has no obvious answer, is “how many member of the administration, Congress, political leaders in states and cities around the United States and journalists who are quick to chime in with their proclamations about how to ‘fix’ the ‘broken’ immigration system have actually read those reports?”

The damage inflicted on the United States and indeed the world by those attacks, has been inestimable and it continues to reverberate in so many ways. These reports both addressed the issue of the ways in which the 9/11 terrorists were able to enter the United States and embed themselves in the United States. The latter of those two reports (the Staff Report) obviously focused the ways that the terrorists were able to travel around the world as they went about their deadly preparation and on flaws and vulnerabilities in the immigration system that failed to prevent the entry and subsequent embedding of not only the 19 hijackers, but other terrorists who were identified as operating in the United States in the decade leading up to the attacks of 9/11.

In point of fact, the investigation upon which these reports were based determined that the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world and cross international borders, especially the borders of the United States, were essential to the ability of the terrorists to carry out those deadly attacks.

The preface of the report begins with the following three paragraphs and makes it clear that this report sought information from as many credible sources as possible:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Congress gave the Commission the mandate to study, evaluate, and report on “immigration, nonimmigrant visas and border security” as these areas relate to the events of 9/11. This staff report represents 14 months of such research. It is based on thousands of pages of documents we reviewed from the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, approximately 25 briefings on various border security topics, and more than 200 interviews. We are grateful to all who assisted and supported us along the way.

The story begins with “A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story.” This introduction summarizes many of the key facts of the hijackers’ entry into the United States. In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was “clean and legal.” It was not. Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained.

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

By analyzing information available at the time, we identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with these earlier attacks in the United States.

The World Trade Center Bombing, February 1993. Three terrorists who were involved with the first World Trade Center bombing reportedly traveled on Saudi passports containing an indicator of possible terrorist affiliation. Three of the 9/11 hijackers also had passports containing this same possible indicator of terrorist affiliation.5

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150 With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

“Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.”

Both reports made it abundantly clear that had our immigration system worked, the attacks could not have been carried out.

Engineers use the term “root cause” to describe a fundamental failure from which all else that went wrong happened. For example, if a car’s brakes fail and the car hits a tree, the fact that the airbags failed to deploy is important, but the point is that the crash would not have happened in the first place if the brakes had worked.

Similarly, the terror attacks that have been carried out in the United States all resulted by the “root cause” of failures of the immigration system to prevent the terrorists from entering the United States in the first place.

The next failure of the immigration system occurred when terrorists were able to embed themselves in the United States. In this regard two factors came into play.

1. Terrorists who violated their immigration status were not apprehended even when they interacted with local police, leaving them free to remain at large.

2. Terrorists were able to acquire many identity documents — some actually issued by state governments — in false names, concealing their identities and movements.

Today most politicians have accepted the deceptive language first implemented by Carter administration when the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) mandated that its employees refer to aliens illegally present in the United States as being “undocumented immigrants,” an obfuscating and purposefully innocuous sounding term.

This was obviously done to create the misimpression that these individuals were simply immigrants who needed a piece of paper. Therefore the only thing we needed to do was give them the bureaucratic equivalent of a “hall pass” to make things okay.

The truth could not be more different from this lie that was and continues to be foisted on Americans by our own government. Aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry should be referred to by the term that immigration enforcement personnel use, “EWI (Entry Without Inspection). This is the equivalent of trespassing or “breaking and entering.”

Such aliens are unscreened. We have no record of their entry and they may well be fugitives from justice in other countries, may have links to criminal or terrorist organizations.

The 9/11 Commission Report [4] addressed the importance of the immigration inspections process conducted at ports of entry noting:

Inspectors at the ports of entry were not asked to focus on terrorists. Inspectors told us they were not even aware that when they checked the names of incoming passengers against the automated watchlist, they were checking in part for terrorists. In general, border inspectors also did not have the information they needed to make fact-based determinations of admissibility.The INS initiated but failed to bring to completion two efforts that would have provided inspectors with information relevant to counterterrorism—a proposed system to track foreign student visa compliance and a program to establish a way of tracking travelers’ entry to and exit from the United States.

The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel [5] detailed numerous examples of instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud, including political asylum fraud, to enter and embed themselves in the United States.

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Here is an excerpt from that report that makes the above issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Meanwhile there are mayors of some cities and even governors of some states that have created “sanctuaries” for aliens who evaded the inspections process at ports of entry that represent both our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals and others whose presence in the United States poses a threat to national security and the safety and well-being of Americans — and even members of the ethnic immigrant communities of which they are a part, irrespective of what their native countries might be. These politicians are even providing driver’s licenses and municipal identification documents, ignoring the fact that criminals and terrorists use changes in identity the way that chameleons use changes in coloration to hide in plain sight, often among their intended victims.

How can our nation’s leaders be so blind or corrupt as to ignore what should be commonsense issues that were clearly identified in the 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report I have noted above?

On July 27, 2006 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic: Whether the Attempted Implementation of the Reid-Kennedy Immigration Bill Will Result in an Administrative and National Security Nightmare. [7]

At that hearing I noted [8] that advocates for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens should get the “MVP Award” from al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. That statement applies today more than ever before.

256  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why American Jews Vote Liberal... on: June 25, 2015, 02:41:10 PM
The One Number That Shows Why Jews Really Vote Liberal

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 25, 2015

The debate over why Jews vote the way that they do is an old one, but it’s rarely backed by much data except the estimates of the Jewish vote from the last election.

There is, however, one piece of data [2] that currently predicts the Jewish vote. It’s religious attendance.

60 percent of Jews [3] that attend weekly religious services disapprove of Obama. Only 34 percent approve.

Among those who don’t attend religious services, approval of Obama stood at 58 percent to 38 percent.

There are really two Jewish votes; the religious Jewish vote and the secular Jewish vote.

Something similar happens when we break down Obama’s approval ratings [4] by church attendance. Among those who attend church weekly, Obama’s approval ratings hover between 39 percent and 46 percent. Among those who never attend church, between 53 to 57 percent approve of Obama.

These numbers come from a Gallup poll taken [2] this year that did what few polls of American Jews do in breaking down the seemingly monolithic vote to find some interesting things. The most interesting thing is that the Jewish vote is more demographically out of step with Americans than politically out of step.

When we break it down by behaviors and beliefs, the Jewish vote is not that different than the overall American vote. What is different is the balance of behaviors and beliefs in the Jewish community.

Only 11 percent of American Jews attend religious services weekly. Among Americans in general, it’s over 40 percent.

Recently I noted that American Jews had become a liberal outlier [5] globally as Jews in the UK, Canada, Israel and Australia were voting conservative. And Jewish communities in those countries also tend to be relatively more traditional and religious than in the United States.

UK Jews are more than [6] twice as likely to attend synagogue services weekly as American Jews.

63 percent of Israeli Jews “believe completely” that there is a G-d while only 34 percent of American Jews are certain that they believe in G-d, a universal spirit or something. 63 percent of Israeli Jews keep Kosher as do 52 percent of UK Jews and 22 percent of American Jews. Intermarriage is at 44 percent among American Jews, 26 percent among UK Jews and negligible among Israeli Jews.

Traditional religious values naturally align with conservative politics. And vice versa.

The political left with its messianic obsessions, environmental apocalypses and fanatical devotion to the cause occupies a space traditionally filled by religion.

When religion leaves, other things replace it instead. The Jewish left is the hole left by the absence of Judaism and any meaningful Jewish historical, national and cultural identity.

When asked what it means to be Jewish, 56 percent of American Jews mentioned social justice, 42 percent mentioned comedy and only 43 percent mentioned Israel. 28 percent mentioned being part of a Jewish community. Only 19 percent mentioned anything involving religion.

People with Jewish last names for whom being Jewish is leftist politics and a joke should not be expected to care about Israel. If being Jewish means nothing to them, why would the Jewish State?

However among UK Jews, 61 percent listed Jewish peoplehood, 40 percent mentioned social justice, 38 percent listed religion and 36 percent mentioned the Sabbath. Those are still poor numbers, but they explain why the UK Jewish community is politically healthier and saner than its American cousins.

The political results of that difference in worldviews expressed itself when 70 percent of UK Jews [7] voted conservative while 69 percent of Jews [8] voted for Obama. (Down to 61 percent Democrat [8] affiliation this year.)

It’s all a question of whether you think being Jewish means being part of a community, a nation and a religion… or laughing at Jon Stewart’s jokes.

Religion is a significant predictor of political orientation, but it’s not the only significant factor.

Obama’s biggest base of support is among Jewish college graduates. That’s where he enjoys a 54 to 43 percent approval rating. Among post-graduates that climbs to 62 percent against 36 percent.

That’s not too radically different from the overall Obama approval ratings for college graduates in the general population which has hovered between 53 percent and 46 percent [4].

Among Jews with only a high school diploma or less, 53 percent disapproved of Obama while only 39 percent approved. These numbers are far more negative on Obama than the national average, but those numbers are skewed by a disproportionate share of minority supporters in that category.

If Jews had the same percentage of college grads and post-grads as the rest of the country, the Jewish vote might be conservative. But while 29 percent of adults overall have a college degree and 10 percent have a post-graduate degree, 58 percent of Jews have a college degree and 28 percent have a post-graduate degree. The fundamental difference here isn’t so much political as demographic.

The problem with American Jews is an internal imbalance in which higher education has displaced traditional Jewish learning and the ideals of social justice have displaced Judaism. Jewish culture has been reduced to neurotic self-mockery and hipster knowingness.

This isn’t a purely Jewish problem. It’s a situation that exists among some non-Jewish elites whose Christianity doesn’t venture beyond social justice and whose identity is making fun of their own ‘whiteness’. It’s worse among Jews because a higher percentage of them live and think this way.

American Jews are more dysfunctional than Jews in the UK or Israel, because their leaders more enthusiastically adopted the worldview of the liberal Protestants they were trying to imitate.

The fight against slavery and then for civil rights that came to religiously define some liberal Protestant churches also became the closest thing to religion for liberal Jewish denominations. Abraham Joshua Heschel marching at Selma was a defining spiritual experience for them, incessantly referenced, but incapable of being repeated. It was a theology that depended on the vicarious experience of the otherness of others. Like their liberal Protestant cousins, a secular religious movement was desperately drawing on the religious tradition of another group of people while making oppression into their faith.

British Jews are rediscovering their religion and the focus on social justice is plummeting for those under 40. But British Jews never lost their sense of self to the same extent that American Jews did. That is why it will take more than the renewed threat to Israel to shift the American Jewish vote. Rising anti-Semitism on the left and the isolation of Jews in liberal spaces, on and off campus, will play its part as it has in Europe, but the European Jews have done a better job of holding on to what being Jewish means.

In both the UK and the US, the middle ground is vanishing with the secular social justice Jews leaving while the Orthodox population increases generationally. A third of Jewish children in the UK are being raised in Orthodox homes. New York City will have an Orthodox majority before too long.

An emerging Jewish conservative majority among American Jews will badly traumatize and infuriate a Jewish liberal consensus that views leftist politics as identity and religion. The fallout is already beginning and it will only get uglier. American Jewish leaders who want a united Jewish community will have to move to the middle. They will have to recognize that controversies such as the protests against UJA-Federation funding of anti-Israel groups [9] are a small taste of much larger things to come.

Jews around the world are living and voting conservative. American Jews may lose Woody Allen and Jon Stewart, but they will gain healthier communities and families. There will be fewer college graduates, but there will also be fewer screaming BDS activists smashing Jewish store windows. And American Jews will finally become part of the circle of Jewish communities around the world and in the Jewish State.
257  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Valerie Jarrett's Documented Communist Ties... on: June 25, 2015, 07:32:28 AM
FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family

JUNE 22, 2015

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.

JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.

258  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama and Hillary's Execrable Exploitation of Charleston Massacre... on: June 19, 2015, 11:18:14 AM
A National Tragedy and a Partisan Response

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 19, 2015

Why do black lives only seem to matter when white people take them? Why does the president of the United States think it’s proper to take a horrible racial tragedy in Charleston South Carolina as an excuse to bash America as the violence capital of the “advanced” world, and a prop for Democrats’  lust for gun control legislation in a state that already has it?

Last year 82 people were shot over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago. 16 of them died [2]. The victims and the shooters were black.

Now two 15-year-olds [3] have already been shot in a single Chicago neighborhood in two days.

These are tragedies every bit as terrible as what took place in a church in Charleston, but the mass shootings of black people doesn’t attract much national attention when white people aren’t involved.

Chicago’s bloody weekends show us that the politicians and reporters haven’t turned their attention to Charleston because they care about dead black people.

They are there for the psychotic killer, Dylann Storm Roof, not for his victims. They are there for a Southern state with a Republican governor who can be safely blamed the way that their Mayor of Chicago can’t. They are there to use the voiceless dead as convenient props in their campaign for gun control – in a state that already has [4] some of the toughest gun control laws in the South. They don’t care about black people. They care about their political agendas.

Obama made that clear when he blamed Republicans for the shootings in his statement. The formatting of the statement [5] on the White House website with its paragraphs about healing and the church in small print and the call for gun control and accusations of racism set out in giant bold type show with stark clarity what the president’s priorities are.

His priority is not, “Now is the time for mourning and for healing.” It is, “Someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun” and “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries” to impose his burden of collective guilt on all Americans.

By complaining that “the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues”, Obama blamed the Charleston shootings on Republicans even as he was hypocritically calling for “mourning and healing.” Six and a half years of divisive politics and disregard for representative government should show that the last thing Barack Obama wants is a national healing.

It is a shameless new frontier in the political exploitation of a human tragedy diminishing both the black victims and their black and white mourners alike. But for Obama, politics is the priority. The mourning is secondary. And forget about the healing.

Obama and Hillary insist that the country needs gun control, but what it really needs is a coming together of its ordinary citizens. It isn’t just Charleston that needs a new unity. It’s Democratic cities Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit – all centers of violence, all zones where strict gun laws rule that need it as well.

The world’s worst mass shootings have happened in other advanced societies – not America as Obama claims. They happen in countries like Norway, a social democracy, France, a country ruled by anti-gun socialists and South Korea. Making guns hard to get does not stop a determined killer. It prevents his victims from stopping the rampage. Dylaan Roof stopped to reload his gun 5 times in the Charleston AME Church. If only one of the bible study members had possessed a firearm, most of the victims would still be alive. The demonization of firearms takes place in societies that let go of personal responsibility. It leaves even law enforcement helpless down to the disarmed Paris police officer cringing before the heavily armed Charlie Hebdo Jihadists and the fumbling Norwegian police who let Breivik kill 69 people in one shooting before he was stopped.

Despite Obama’s slander of the country of which he is the putative president, the difference between America and the rest of the world is not that they have mass shootings and we don’t. Mass shootings have taken place in European countries with very tough gun laws. The difference is that when two terrorists with assault rifles dressed in body armor came for the Mohammed cartoonists in Texas, they were stopped by a middle-aged man with a handgun. Or when a jihadist beheaded a woman in Oklahoma and was slicing off the head of another, he was stopped by an individual who appeared with a rifle and took the law into his own hands.

America is a country where it is easier to buy a gun and where it is easier to stop an armed gunman. The victims in the church followed the law in South Carolina [6] and didn’t bring their guns into the church.

The gunman didn’t follow the law and killed them.

America is a nation with a boundless generosity of spirit as we have seen in Charleston and with leaders who are unworthy of their people as we have seen in Washington D.C.

Hillary Clinton decided to use the tragedy in her stump speech, insisting, “In the days ahead, we will again ask what led to this terrible tragedy and where we as a nation need to go. In order to make sense of it, we have to be honest. We have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division.”

The hard truth that Hillary does not want to face is that our division does not come from disturbed lone gunmen, but from politicians like her who turn every tragedy into a campaign speech. Hillary, who ran a divisive racial campaign against Obama, now wants to lecture the country on race and division.

Obama and Hillary managed to pull off a divisive racial campaign within their own party and now they sound as if Dylann Storm Roof represents a racist nation that needs their hypocritical lecturing.

While people in Charleston, black and white, have generously come together, Obama and Hillary selfishly pursue a divisive attack on the Second Amendment and their usual divisive racial program.

Obama paints America as a terrible place of mass shootings that is, as usual in his skewed view of the country, substantively worse than the rest of the world. Unlike the mass shootings in Europe, our mass shootings are a burden of collective guilt that he uses to reinforce a negative image of America. And, unlike the mass shootings in Chicago or Detroit, they are also a burden of collective racial guilt.

The solution to gun violence won’t be found in waging war on the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment does not kill people. America is not a violent place because of the Constitution.

And the solution can’t be and won’t be found in the rejection of personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility means accepting that Dylann Storm Roof was responsible for his actions, as the gang members in Chicago are responsible for their actions and as we are all responsible for our actions.

And it also means believing that black lives and all lives matter everywhere; not just when they’re convenient for scoring political points.

The life of a black woman killed in a church by a white gunman should not matter any less than the life of a black woman taken by a black gang member in Chicago over another bloody weekend.

To send any other kind of message is divisive and only contributes to the problem.

No group of worshipers should ever be massacred in a church, but the best way to fight violent bigots is not by pursuing divisive political programs. It is by uniting law abiding citizens against violence and hate.

True leaders do not respond to tragedy by dividing the nation along the lines of race or into the camp of those who believe in the Bill of Rights and the camp of those who do not. These divisive instincts have only helped lead to a fractured society in which violent killers filled with anger and hate proliferate.

There was a time when Americans looked to Obama for unity. Unfortunately he chose the path of division. Hillary had the opportunity to urge unity among Americans after this horrible massacre, chose instead to put her own agenda first and subordinate the tragedy to the talking points of her political campaign.


If the politicians exploiting the Charleston shootings really care when black people are murdered, they will have the opportunity to show it this weekend in Chicago. And if they remain silent and unheeding, then they will have demonstrated that they don’t really care about the victims in Charleston. At least not that much.

259  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Boston Muslims "struggle with image?" on: June 18, 2015, 10:39:58 AM
This is pure, unadulterated bullshit propaganda that these mosques put out, and gullible "news" outlets like the New York Times repeatedly swallow hook, line, and sinker.
This Boston mosque has very clear ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and has connections to several convicted terrorists, including the Boston Marathon bombers.  This is extensively documented at and

The question we should be asking is WHY is the NYT, nor any other establishment media outlet , NOR THE FBI - investigating this mosque, and the many like it, where this doctrine of violent jihad is being preached?  WHY?  There is a very deliberate cover-up going on here, and the Obama Justice Department is deeply involved.

260  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller: ISIS isn't just coming after me.... on: June 11, 2015, 09:43:45 AM
Pamela Geller: “The jihadists aren’t just coming for me, they are coming for all of us that believe in freedom.”


She is right, of course, not that Hollywood is on the case: Hollywood wouldn’t dare make a film that depicted Islamic jihadists honestly and accurately. She also says a great deal more that is on-point and important about the freedom of speech and more in this interview. “Pamela Geller: Hollywood Is “In the Pocket” of Jihadists (Q&A),” by Paul Bond, Hollywood Reporter, June 9, 2015 (thanks to Steve):

Pamela Geller has been on a rampage against radical Islam for years, beginning notably in 2010 by spearheading of the opposition to what she called the “Ground Zero Mega Mosque” near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. Her most recent controversy was the organization of a “Draw the Prophet Muhammad” contest in Texas.

A “rampage.” How ridiculous. Islamic jihadists have been on a rampage against free people. Pamela Geller is resisting them — and the Hollywood Reporter says she is the one on the rampage.

At the event, two self-described jihadists shot a security guard before police killed them. Then, on June 2, police killed a knife-wielding Muslim man in Boston whose goal was allegedly to behead Geller in retaliation for the contest. Even though the contest was a major news story, few media outlets published the winning cartoon. Geller’s group, American Freedom Defense Initiative, put the image on billboards, 100 of which debuted in St. Louis on Monday with the tagline “Support Free Speech.” She spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about how the (largely hostile) media is portraying these events.

HR: Why are you being overly provocative, purposely insulting Muslims?

I am not being overly provocative or purposely insulting Muslims. Islamic jihadists, not I, made Muhammad cartoons the flash point for the defense of the freedom of speech when they began killing over them. If we don’t stand against them on that point, the only alternative is surrender and submission. I did not make the cartoons a flash point, the jihadis did.

HR: But if you just don’t insult their prophet, they’ll leave you alone, no?

No. The death penalty for insulting Muhammad is just one aspect of Sharia. There is much, much more of infidel behavior that violates Sharia. If we refrain from drawing Muhammad, more demands to adhere to other aspects of Sharia will follow. Millions are suffering or have been slaughtered under Islamic Sharia law in Muslim countries. Islamic supremacists mean to impose it in the West.

HR: Why shouldn’t cartoons insulting a religion be regarded as hate speech instead of protected free speech?

There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. “Hate speech” is a subjective judgment. If it were outlawed, the authority with the power to decide what constitutes it would have the power to control the public debate.… If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others. Cartoons have been used as satire since the beginning of satire — especially in our country — and no one gets a pass. Not the Pope of Rome, president of the United States or Hollywood’s biggest movie stars.… If you don’t like it, don’t look at it, boycott the network that airs it, don’t buy the publication, make counter-images, make a million, fine, but you have to adjust to us, not we to you, and if that’s too much, don’t come here. Threaten violence? Commit violence? The consequences are yours to bear.

HR: It seems many media pundits who claim allegiance to the First Amendment aren’t persuaded by your arguments.

They are afraid of being killed by Islamic jihadists and camouflage their fear and cowardice as “respect” for Islam and Muslims.

HR: Are there any TV hosts who have been particularly hostile to you during interviews?

Yes. Martha MacCallum, Erin Burnett, Alisyn Camerota, Chris Cuomo — although he let me speak and make my case.

HR: How about behind your back?

Yes. Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham. They said I was insulting the entire religion, one held by our moderate allies such as Egypt and Qatar. They are wrong in assuming that we must submit to Sharia to placate moderates, rather than that moderates need to accept the freedom of speech. Roman Catholics don’t like their religion mocked or the mockery of other religions, but Roman Catholics don’t kill when their religion is mocked — and so no one talks about “provoking” them or “respecting” them. In any pluralistic society, we have to put up with being offended and even with our core beliefs being mocked. Roman Catholics have learned that. Mormons and others have learned that — look at The Book of Mormon on Broadway. Why must we condescend to Muslims and think they cannot learn that? It’s the low expectation of soft bigotry.

HR: So this isn’t entirely a partisan issue where conservatives stand by you and liberals don’t?

No. Chris Hayes stuck up for me on MSNBC. This is not a left/right split, it is a free person/slave split.

HR: Did any TV host say something that struck you as particularly wrongheaded?

They all say I have the right to draw Muhammad but shouldn’t out of respect. They don’t seem to realize that any surrender on this point will only be seen by the jihadists as a victory and embolden them to make more demands. CNN’s Erin Burnett said I relished being the target of a beheading. It’s madness. Who self-promotes to get killed?

HR: So you’re not purposely courting danger, as Burnett and others have insinuated?

Of course not. I love life. But I will not live as a slave.

HR: Are there any TV hosts you’d like to face off with but who won’t have you on?

Bill O’Reilly. I expect he knows he would be shown up.

HR: We know about the man arrested who intended to behead you. Any other threats you can share?

I have received many threats. The FBI and NYPD are aware of them and on the case.

HR: Anyone in Hollywood reach out to you to offer support?


HR: Should Hollywood care about threats against you?

They may think they’re exempt, but they aren’t. Islamic supremacists will be demanding they adhere to Sharia as well. Of course, most producers already are careful not to show anything that might offend Muslims, including accurate representations of jihad plotting and activity, so Hollywood is mostly already in their pocket. But this is their issue, and the entertainment industry should be on the front lines in the information battle space. The jihadists aren’t just coming for me, they are coming for all of us that believe in freedom.

HR: So why do you think Hollywood, which routinely claims to push the envelope in its art, hasn’t supported you?

They’re afraid of being ostracized.

HR: Your “Draw Muhammad” event certainly got a lot of news coverage. Should mainstream media outlets have published the winning cartoon?

Every media outlet should publish the Muhammad cartoons. They can’t kill us all. By kowtowing to violent intimidation, they are inviting more of it. Instead, they should be showing that we will all stand together for free speech. If the media had published the Danish cartoons back in 2005, this would never have become an issue. The submission by media, entertainment and academic elites empowered the savages.

HR: The Southern Poverty Law Center included you on their list of “hate groups.” Are they right?

Of course not. They’re the hate group, using that label to demonize and stigmatize all who don’t share their hard-left agenda. The SPLC smear machine does [not] profile jihad groups, but they target and libel patriots, veterans, Tea Party organizations and other groups that work in defense of freedom. They named [Republican presidential contender] Ben Carson as a hate group. That should tell you everything you need to know about them. Their [sympathizers] have violently attacked family groups, and one tried to assassinate Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. And a few months back an SPLC [sympathizer] killed three Muslims in a parking dispute in North Carolina.

261  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spencer: Australian Prime Minister Appears to Understand... on: June 11, 2015, 09:29:17 AM
Australia PM: Only effective defense against terror persuading people God doesn’t demand death to infidel


Abbott is right: the only effective defense against jihad terror will be to confront its ideology. I have no idea if Abbott himself realizes what this will entail, but it is encouraging at the very least that he has enunciated this, which no other Western leader is willing to acknowledge. Obama, Cameron and the others all pretend that there is nothing wrong with the Islamic ideology at all — they won’t even admit that Allah commands death to the Infidel. Their willful ignorance and denial will only ensure more deaths of more Infidels.

“Tony Abbott opens summit on countering terrorist propaganda,” by Michael Safi, Guardian, June 10, 2015:

Tony Abbott has opened a regional summit on countering terrorist propaganda in Sydney, telling delegates Islamic State “is coming if it can for every person and every government with a simple message: submit or die”.

Representatives from governments and civil society groups from 25 countries are meeting for two days to share ideas for challenging the appeal of Isis and other jihadi groups at the countering violent extremism (CVE) summit. More than 15,000 foreign fighters are estimated to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join the conflict, including at least 100 Australians.

The prime minister said waves of immigration had helped Australia flourish, “yet the tentacles of the death cult have extended even here as we discovered to our cost during the Martin Place siege last December”.

The prime minister also referenced claims of an Isis plot in Melbourne last year, likely to be the alleged stabbing of two police officers by 18-year-old Numan Haider in September.

He said Isis had inflicted death “mostly on Muslims in the Middle East”, but added: “This is what the death cult has in store for everyone if it has its way.”

“Daesh is coming if it can for every person and every government with a simple message: submit or die,” he said. “You can’t negotiate with an entity like this, you can only fight it.”

Abbott again paid tribute to the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for his call that “Islam needed nothing less than a religious revolution to reverse centuries of false thinking”.

“In the end though, the only really effective defence against terrorism is persuading people that it’s pointless, persuading people that God does not demand death to the infidel,” he said. “Above all we need idealistic young people to understand that joining this death cult is an ugly, misguided and wrong-headed way to express their desire to sacrifice.”

The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, also addressed the summit, revealing that 115 passports had been cancelled, nine had been suspended and 14 refused to Australians currently in Iraq and Syria or suspected of wishing to join the conflict in the region.

She said “it defies all comprehension” that women made up around one-fifth of those flocking to join Isis, “given that it is women who are disproportionately affected by extremist groups”.

There were between 30 and 40 women “known to be either engaging in or supporting activity in Iraq, Syria or here in Australia”, she said.

Over the next two days the summit will hear from intelligence chiefs, academics, leaders of Muslim organisations and representatives from Google and Facebook. The sessions are closed, but one of the speakers, Michele Grossman from Victoria University, told Guardian Australia she would emphasise the need to support the families of young people at risk.

“Families can be a frontline of defence,” she said. “Those who are closest to us are often the very first to see early or subtle changes in attitude, in behaviour, in social networks, and this means we really need to see some new ways about how we can educate families on how to read and how to act on such early warning signs….

That is assuming that Muslim families are against all this. An unproven assumption at best.
262  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Phony Earnings Numbers Fueling Stock Price Increase... on: June 09, 2015, 12:38:54 AM
Something I and many others here have been saying for some time now:


June 8, 2015

NEW YORK (AP) -- Those record profits that companies are reporting may not be all they're cracked up to be.

As the stock market climbs ever higher, professional investors are warning that companies are presenting misleading versions of their results that ignore a wide variety of normal costs of running a business to make it seem like they're doing better than they really are.

What's worse, the financial analysts who are supposed to fight corporate spin are often playing along. Instead of challenging the companies, they're largely passing along the rosy numbers in reports recommending stocks to investors.

"Companies are tilting the results," says fund manager Tom Brown of Second Curve Capital, "and the analysts are buying it."

An analysis of results from 500 major companies by The Associated Press, based on data provided by S&P Capital IQ, a research firm, found that the gap between the "adjusted" profits that analysts cite and bottom-line earnings figures that companies are legally obliged to report, or net income, has widened dramatically over the past five years.

At one of every five companies, these "adjusted" profits were higher than net income by 50 percent or more. Many more companies are in that category now than there were five years ago. And some companies that seem profitable on an adjusted basis are actually losing money.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. After the dot-com crash of 2000, companies and analysts vowed to clean up their act and avoid highlighting alternative versions of earnings in a way that could mislead investors.

But Lynn Turner, chief accountant at the Securities and Exchange Commission at the time, says companies are still touting "made-up, phony numbers" as much as they did 15 years ago, perhaps more, and few experts are calling them out on it.

"The analysts aren't doing enough to get behind the numbers that management gives them to find out what's really going on," Turner says.

Offering an alternative view of profits that leaves out various costs is not new. It's perfectly legal, and sometimes helpful as a tool for investors to gain insight into how a business is doing.

But with stocks breaking record after record and the current bull market entering its seventh year, there's more money riding on the assumption that the earnings figures being touted by companies and analysts are based on sound calculations.

"The longer the rally, the bigger the downside because of all the smoke and mirrors," says money manager John Del Vecchio, co-author of "What's Behind the Numbers?" a book on how profit reports can mislead.

In its study, AP compared bottom-line profit figures that follow rules called generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, to the adjusted profit figures calculated by financial analysts and collected by S&P Capital IQ. AP looked at companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Most of the time, the adjustments made companies look better by leaving out things like costs related to laying off workers, a decline in the value of patents or other "intangible" assets, the value of company stock distributed to employees, or losses from a failed venture. Critics argue that these are regular costs and shouldn't be excluded.

Key findings

- Seventy-two percent of the companies reviewed by AP had adjusted profits that were higher than net income in the first quarter of this year. That's about the same as in the comparable period five years earlier, but the gap between the adjusted and net income figures has widened considerably: adjusted earnings were typically 16 percent higher than net income in the most recent period versus 9 percent five years ago.

For a smaller group of the companies reviewed, 21 percent of the total, adjusted profits soared 50 percent or more over net income. This was true of just 13 percent of the group in the same period five years ago.

- Quarter after quarter, the differences between the adjusted and bottom-line figures are adding up. From 2010 through 2014, adjusted profits for the S&P 500 came in $583 billion higher than net income. It's as if each company in the S&P 500 got a check in the mail for an extra eight months of earnings.

Fifteen companies with adjusted profits actually had bottom-line losses over the five years. Investors have poured money into their stocks just the same.

- Stocks are getting more expensive, meaning there could be a greater risk of stocks falling if the earnings figures being used to justify buying them are questionable. One measure of how richly priced stocks are suggests trouble. Three years ago, investors paid $13.50 for every dollar of adjusted profits for companies in the S&P 500 index, according to S&P Capital IQ. Now, they're paying nearly $18.

In a crackdown after the dot-com crash, regulators required companies to lay out clearly in their financial reports how they arrived at alternative versions of their profits. The bottom-line figures have to be prominently reported, too. But it's not clear the extra details have helped.

"The data is more confusing than it's been in a long time, and the reason is all the junk they put in the numbers," says fund manager Michael Lewitt of the Credit Strategist Group. He says analyst reports don't help, and finds himself spending too much time sifting through the same "nonsense" figures he confronted back in the dot-com days.

Michelle Leder, founder of, which produces detailed analyses of financial statements, says most investors don't even bother to sift, preferring instead to seize upon a single number, often the wrong one.

"People just want to know the number," she says. "They don't care how the sausage is made."

Frequent adjustments

Boston Scientific, a maker of medical devices like stents used to prop open arteries, had adjusted profits of $3.6 billion in the five years through 2014, according to analysts' calculations. But if you include a write-off for a failed acquisition, various "restructuring" charges and costs stemming from layoffs and lawsuits, it's a different picture entirely: $4.9 billion in net losses.

In a brief talk to analysts in April, the chief financial officer at Boston Scientific used the word "adjusted" in referring to results 34 times, twice every minute, on average. The word is also littered throughout the company's presentations and financial reports. In recent years rivals Medtronic, Stryker and Zimmer have also highlighted their results this way, says Raj Denhoy, an analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank.

Aluminum giant Alcoa has taken "restructuring" and related charges in 20 of the past 21 quarters. The company reported net losses of more than $900 million in the five years through 2014, but analysts have largely shrugged them off because they're tied to a strategic shift that involves getting rid of unwanted businesses. Analysts prefer to point to the $3.1 billion in adjusted profits during that time.

To be fair, analysts see the adjusted figures more as a tool for helping estimate future profits than as a judgment on the past. They say many losses and charges are not likely to recur and shouldn't be included in their calculations.

But in an age of constant change, when some companies revamp their business repeatedly, many one-time items are starting to seem not so one-time anymore.

"If you have to reinvent the company every couple of quarters, then it's not a one-off," says accounting expert Jack Ciesielski, longtime publisher of The Analyst's Accounting Observer, a newsletter.

What to count

For their part, Boston Scientific and Alcoa say the extra figures they provide help shed more light on their companies. Boston Scientific says the numbers allow investors to see the company "through the eyes of management" because they are the same ones its executives use in making decisions. Alcoa says its financial results reflect a "significant transformation" to make it more competitive.

Another number often missing in adjusted profit figures is the value of stock awarded to employees. This stock-based pay, the argument goes, requires no exchange of cash, so it doesn't affect a company's earnings power. Critics say stock distributions are a part of compensation and should be counted as an expense.

"What if they said they're going to pay for rent by issuing stock?" asks Brown of Second Curve Capital. "Would you then (exclude) rent" in calculating earnings?, a leader in cloud computing, routinely excludes the cost of stock compensation from figures it touts to investors, and analysts largely do the same. Analysts say the company earned $1.2 billion in adjusted profits in the five years through 2014. Its bottom-line result, including stock pay and other costs, was a $712 million loss.

Brian Rauscher, chief portfolio strategist at Robert W. Baird & Co., says stocks can continue to rise based on an inflated account of company profits for months or even years, but not indefinitely. He says it's like a bomb no one can see has been placed under the market: You know it's there, but you're not sure when it will go off.

"We don't know if the fuse is a few inches or a few miles," he says.
263  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / First They Came for Pamela Geller, and I Did Not Speak Out... on: June 08, 2015, 11:11:34 AM
First They Came for Pamela Geller, and I Did Not Speak Out

Posted By Robert Spencer On June 7, 2015 @

“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Pamela Geller [1] about the abortive jihad beheading plot against her, and she was right. The showdown is right upon them now, and mainstream media talking heads have no idea of the significance of what is happening.

“They targeted me for violating sharia blasphemy laws. They mean to kill everyone who doesn’t do their bidding and abide by them voluntarily,” Geller added.

“It’s just beginning,” she warned. “ISIS is here. Islamic terrorism is here.”

That is all true. The jihad plot against Pamela Geller was an attempt to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws upon someone who does not accept them. If it had succeeded, it would have shown Americans that no one who deviates from Sharia norms is safe. It would have been a staggering blow to the continuation of the U.S. as a free society.

Heedless of these manifest implications, however, the mainstream media hasn’t caught on. The execrable New York Daily News [1] couldn’t stop sneering at the heroic Pamela Geller — “conservative firebrand,” “Upper East Side right-winger” — even when she was a direct target of an Islamic State-inspired murder plot.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo, interviewing Geller [2], lectured her:

You can show the cartoon. People have the equal right to criticize your showing the cartoon as an overt provocation of a religion.

And he asked her:

Why not do what we often teach as a function of virtue — when we’re dealing with savagery — which is show that we are better than this? Not show that we can poke them in the eye in a way they don’t like it.

Geller rightly responded:

That’s not what you’re doing. You are submitting, and you are kowtowing. And they’re saying to you, if you draw a little cartoon; if you draw a stick figure and say it’s Mohammed, we’re going to come and kill you. And so you say, okay, we won’t — we won’t draw it. CNN won’t show it.

The Daily News and Chris Cuomo and the rest at CNN, along with their many colleagues among the comfortable media and political elites, are happy to throw her under the bus. They effectively say: “Free speech? Yes, of course, but not deliberate provocation.”

They don’t realize that whatever distaste they may have for Pamela Geller (and that distaste ultimately derives from the fact that she speaks truths they would rather ignore and deny), she stands for all of us now. Whether you’re as proud to stand with her as I am, or whether you wish she would go away, she is the figure today about whom one must decide: will I stand for freedom, or kowtow to violent intimidation? Will I submit to the tyranny of violence, or defend free society?

Remember Pastor Niemöller from World War II?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Well, here we are. Those days are upon us again, and as few, or fewer, people are paying attention to what is happening as were in those days.

First they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out, because they didn’t like “right-wingers.” Or because they wanted to keep appearing on CNN, or because they didn’t want to offend Islamic supremacists, or because they thought her ads were in poor taste, or because they wanted to keep getting invited to the best parties, or because their Leftist Alinskyite friends would have laughed at them.

So first they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out. What they do not realize, or do not care to acknowledge, is that the jihadists will not stop with Pamela Geller. They will not stop with those who had something to do with showing Muhammad cartoons. They will not stop. It is stand now, or surrender.

“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Geller. Yes, it is.

264  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Directive 11: Obama's Secret Islamist Plan... on: June 08, 2015, 10:37:42 AM
Directive 11: Obama’s Secret Islamist Plan

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 8, 2015

Behind the rise of ISIS, the Libyan Civil War, the unrest in Egypt, Yemen and across the region may be a single classified document.

That document is Presidential Study Directive 11.

You can download Presidential Study Directive 10 on “Preventing Mass Atrocities” from the White House website, but as of yet no one has been able to properly pry number 11 out of Obama Inc.

Presidential Study Directive 10, in which Obama asked for non-military options for stopping genocide, proved to be a miserable failure. The Atrocities Prevention Board’s only use was as a fig leaf for a policy that had caused the atrocities. And the cause of those atrocities is buried inside Directive 11.

With Obama’s typical use of technicalities to avoid transparency, Directive 11 was used to guide policy in the Middle East without being officially submitted. It is possible that it will never be submitted. And yet the Directive 11 group was described [2] as “just finishing its work” when the Arab Spring began.

That is certainly one way of looking at it.

Directive 11 brought together activists and operatives at multiple agencies to come up with a “tailored” approach for regime change in each country. The goal was to “manage” the political transitions. It tossed aside American national security interests by insisting that Islamist regimes would be equally committed to fighting terrorism and cooperating with Israel. Its greatest gymnastic feat may have been arguing that the best way to achieve political stability in the region was through regime change.

What little we know [3] about the resulting classified 18-page report is that it used euphemisms to call for aiding Islamist takeovers in parts of the Middle East. Four countries were targeted. Of those four, we only know for certain that Egypt and Yemen were on the list. But we do know for certain the outcome.

Egypt fell to the Muslim Brotherhood, which collaborated with Al Qaeda, Hamas and Iran, before being undone by a counterrevolution. Yemen is currently controlled by Iran’s Houthi terrorists and Al Qaeda.

According to a New York Times story, Obama’s Directive 11 agenda appeared to resemble Che or Castro as he “pressed his advisers to study popular uprisings in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia to determine which ones worked and which did not.”

The story also noted that he “is drawn to Indonesia, where he spent several years as a child, which ousted its longtime leader, Suharto, in 1998.”

The coup against Mubarak with its coordination of liberals, Islamists and the military did strongly resemble what happened in Indonesia. The most ominous similarity may be that the Muslim mobs in Indonesia targeted the Chinese, many of whom are Christians, while the Muslim mobs in Egypt targeted Coptic Christians.

Both were talented groups that were disproportionately successful because they lacked the traditional Islamic hostility to education, integrity and achievement. Islamist demagogues had succeeded in associating them with the regime and promoted attacks on them as part of the anti-regime protests.

Chinese stores were looted and thousands of Chinese women were raped by rampaging Muslims. Just as in Egypt, the protesters and their media allies spread the claim that these atrocities committed by Muslim protesters were the work of the regime’s secret police. That remains the official story today.

Suharto’s fall paved the way for the rise of the Prosperous Justice Party, which was founded a few months after his resignation and has become one of the largest parties in the Indonesian parliament. PJP was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s local arm in Indonesia.

His successor, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, was more explicitly Islamist than Suharto and his Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) conducted a campaign against Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. It helped purge non-Muslims from government while Islamizing the government and Indonesia’s key institutions.

Habibie had been the Chairman of ICMI and ICMI’s Islamists played a key role in moving Suharto out and moving him in. It was obvious why Obama would have considered the Islamization of Indonesia and the purge of Christians under the guise of democratic political change to be a fine example for Egypt.

While we don’t know the full contents of Directive 11 and unless a new administration decides to open the vaults of the old regime, we may never know. But we do know a good deal about the results.

In its own way, PSD-10 tells us something about PSD-11.

Obama’s insistence that human rights be made a core national security interest paved the way for political and military interventions on behalf of Islamists. Obama had never been interested in human rights; his record of pandering to the world’s worst genocide plotters and perpetrators from Iran to Turkey to Sudan made that clear. When he said “human rights”, Obama really meant “Islamist power”.

That was why Obama refused to intervene when the Muslim Brotherhood conducted real genocide in Sudan, but did interfere in Libya on behalf of the Brotherhood using a phony claim of genocide.

Positioning Samantha Power in the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council was part of the process that made over the NSC from national security to servicing a progressive wish list of Islamist terrorist groups that were to be transformed into national governments.

Power, along with Gayle Smith and Dennis Ross, led the Directive 11 project.

Secret proceedings were used to spawn regime change infrastructure. Some of these tools had official names, such as “The Office of The Special Coordinator For Middle East Transitions” which currently reports directly to former ambassador Anne Patterson who told Coptic Christians not to protest against Morsi. After being driven out of the country by angry mobs over her support for the Muslim Brotherhood tyranny, she was promoted to Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

“The Office” is still focused on “outreach to emergent political, economic and social forces in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya” even though counterrevolutions have pushed out Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia, while Libya is in the middle of a bloody civil war in which an alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda controls the nation’s capital.

But even as Morsi’s abuses of power were driving outraged Egyptians into the streets, Gayle Smith [4], one of the three leaders of Directive 11, reached out to the “International Union of Muslim Scholars [5]”, a Muslim Brotherhood group that supported terrorism against American soldiers [6] in Iraq and which was now looking for American support for its Islamist terrorist brigades in the Syrian Civil War.

The men and women responsible for Directive 11 were making it clear that they had learned nothing.

Directive 11 ended up giving us the Islamic State through its Arab Spring. PSD-11’s twisted claim that regional stability could only be achieved through Islamist regime change tore apart the region and turned it into a playground for terrorists. ISIS is simply the biggest and toughest of the terror groups that were able to thrive in the environment of violent civil wars created by Obama’s Directive 11.

During the Arab Spring protests, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit had told Hillary Clinton that his government could not hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood. “My daughter gets to go out at night. And, God damn it, I’m not going to turn this country over to people who will turn back the clock on her rights.”

But that was exactly what Hillary Clinton and Obama were after. And they got it. Countless women were raped in Egypt. Beyond Egypt, Hillary and Obama’s policy saw Yazidi women actually sold into slavery.

Directive 11 codified the left’s dirty alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood into our foreign policy. Its support for Islamist takeovers paved the way for riots and civil wars culminating in the violence that birthed ISIS and covered the region in blood.

And it remains secret to this day.

265  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POWERFUL interview of Pamela Geller by CNN's Chris Cuomo... on: June 05, 2015, 03:42:39 PM
Cuomo - like so many in the media - just doesn't get it.  He is completely clueless.  Watch as Pamela articulates her position perfectly.  Cuomo simply doesn't want to hear it:

266  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: June 04, 2015, 03:56:32 PM
GM is correct.  This is a simple matter of being willing to identify the enemy properly, and engage them.  Political correctness is suicide in this situation.  This administration has exactly ZERO interest in investigating what goes on in American mosques, where most of these terrorists are getting taught what is right and proper under Islam.  Until we are willing to make a differentiation between Muslims who practice and support violent jihad and other Muslims, we are doomed.  That is where we are today.  The FBI, CIA, NSA, and Pentagon training manuals on terrorism have all been purged - at this administration's behest - of all references to Islam and jihad as they relate to terrorism.  If we refuse to even acknowledge the motivating ideology of our enemy, we cannot possibly fight, let alone defeat him.

We are on the road to mass killings in shopping malls, office buildings, schools, large public sports-related gatherings, etc.  Slavish adherence to politically-correct notions of "diversity," "non-discrimination," and profiling have rendered us defenseless against this threat.  Our government authorities will do nothing but react AFTER THE FACT.  And no doubt, they will use the opportunity to impose draconian restrictions on our freedom, if not outright martial law.  This is not some nutty conspiracy theory.  It is the natural and ineluctable consequence of the failure to identify and target the enemy, coupled with the staggering corruption and desire for centralized control of 95% of the inside-the-beltway D.C. elite.  We have unilaterally disarmed, and are about to pay a very heavy price.
267  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / CNN Interview - Robert Spencer on targeting of Pamela Geller... on: June 04, 2015, 02:24:13 PM
The male host questioning Robert shows the typical media skepticism about the seriousness of the threat, and a complete lack of interest in investigating what is being taught in 80% of the mosques in America:

268  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslima humiliated by "Islamophobic" flight attendant... on: June 03, 2015, 03:58:11 PM
UPDATE:  Believe it or not - United Airlines has now FIRED this flight attendant for denying this Muslim woman an unopened can of Diet Coke.  See for details.

The Islamophobia Revolution Will Be Brought to You by Diet Coke

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 2, 2015

While Americans yawned through another weekend, watching television or playing catch with their kids, the greatest human rights violation in our nation’s troubled history took place in the sky above Chicago.

Tahera Ahmad, a Muslim chaplain at Northwestern University who has participated in MSA and ISNA events, and gotten her photo taken with Obama, was denied an unopened Diet Coke.

“Muslim Chaplain Tahera Ahmad Denied Diet Coke,” NBC News blared. “I Can’t Help But Cry,” the CNN headline declaims.  “’No Diet Coke for you': Islamophobia at 30000 feet,” bleated The Guardian.

“Outrage after United Airlines refuses Muslim woman Diet Coke,” the Mirror chimed in.

The Diet Coke crisis was upon us. Islamists called for a boycott of United Airlines and #unitedfortahera became a trending hashtag as random idiots denounced racism and commiserated with the horror of being denied a Diet Coke and pledged not to fly United until they actually need to use their airline miles.

Most of the rest of us would have to lose our legs in an airplane engine to get this much publicity and even if that happened, we would still be stuck crawling across the tarmac while the media eagerly converged on a Muslim passenger who had gotten an Islamophobic eyelash caught in her eye.

But that’s Muslim Privilege. It means that your whiny complaints about airline service suddenly become an international incident. A million people complain about airline service, but tag your complaint with #IslamophobiaISREAL, as Tahera Ahmad did, and suddenly your Diet Coke denial is a hate crime.

According to Tahera Ahmad, the flight attendant wanted to open her Diet Coke for her instead of giving her an unopened can. On a scale of hate crimes this is somewhere between 0 and -0.02. About the only person who could possibly complain about it is a celebrity whose color allotment of M&Ms is specified in a rider to their contract or a professional Islamic grievance-monger looking for any excuse to play victim.

And yet Ahmad’s Diet Coke tribulation was covered by more media outlets than the Muslim rape of thousands of girls in the UK or the suffering of Yazidi girls in Iraq. Her demand for a Diet Coke was compared to Rosa Parks and her tweet about it was launched with the hashtag #IslamophobiaISREAL.

The Islamophobia revolution will be brought to you by Diet Coke.

The TSA isn’t too fond of passengers having closed cans of soda on them. It may have something to do with when a Muslim woman attempted to bring down a China Southern Airlines flight to Beijing using soda cans that she had injected with flammable liquid and dropped in the bathroom trash can.

It’s unknown whether they were Diet Coke cans. But what was in them probably tasted like Diet Coke.

Tahera Ahmad’s Diet Coke crisis is a study in Muslim entitlement. Not just in the scope of it, but in the pettiness of it.

Of all the petty complaints about airline service, hers may be the single pettiest complaint in history. Tahera Ahmad isn’t even complaining that she didn’t get a soda. She’s complaining that she had to endure the filthy impure infidel fingers of the flight attendant groping her Diet Coke can.

And it’s equally a study in the media’s rush to take her ridiculous soda martyrdom and turn into it yet another piece of evidence that Muslims in America are oppressed by the Christian Diet Coke patriarchy.

Tahera Ahmad had appeared at an ISNA convention. She had been to the White House and had her photo taken with Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Not to mention Tariq Ramadan [2]; an open supporter of terrorism against Americans and other non-Muslims around the world.

Despite being a product of traditionalist Islamic institutions like Al-Azhar, the media was eager to buy into the idea that Tahera Ahmad was a reformist.

Her recital of the Koran at an ISNA convention was hailed as a breakthrough without anyone asking how that can be said of reciting a creed that deems women and Muslims to be inferior at a convention for a Muslim Brotherhood front group, one of whose officials has stated [3], “Islam will prevail over other religions”.

On her Twitter account, Tahera Ahmad had retweeted a call to deny an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a human rights activist who was raised a Muslim, but left Islam after recognizing the violent text of the Koran. Ayaan Hirsi Ali suffered through many challenges. None of them involved a Diet Coke.

Instead Ayaan Hirsi Ali had FGM inflicted on her. As an adult, she had to deal with death threats. Her response to them was to continue speaking out. And yet the media prefers the entitled bleating of Tahera Ahmad’s Diet Coke crisis to a serious ex-Muslim intellectual who risks her life every day.

Tahera Ahmad’s sense of entitlement echoes that of her progressive allies. As feminism has taken a dumpster dive into pettiness and entitlement, it has little room for a woman like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who speaks to them about a world in which women are raped and murdered by Islamic Jihadists. They prefer to instead turn minor inconveniences into micro-aggressions to their swollen egos.

In Ahmad’s world, not getting exactly what she wants is a hate crime. And Tahera Ahmad’s whining embodies the torrent of petty Muslim complaints about America in microcosm.

Muslims claim that they’re most oppressed group in the country, but so far that oppression isn’t reflected in such objective metrics as hate crime statistics or actual incidents of oppression.

The banner Islamophobic hate crimes never seem to pan out either.

Shaima Alawadi was supposedly murdered by a racist American because she wore a hijab. The perpetrator left behind a note on the floor reading, “Go back to your country, you terrorist.”

A social media campaign complete with hijabis making duckfaces at the camera while holding up signs reading, “I am Shaima” was launched.  The campaign had to be scrapped when it turned out that she had been murdered by her Muslim husband. But it did give “I am Shaima” a new authentic meaning.

The Chapel Hill shootings turned out to be just a parking dispute no matter how desperately Islamist groups and their lefty accomplices tried to turn the perpetrator’s atheism into evidence of a hate crime.

There isn’t a single fatal anti-Muslim hate crime on record. Islamophobia has never killed anyone [4]. The average anti-Muslim hate crime is committed by other Muslims [5].

What’s a good Islamist to do? Try to spin complaints about airline service into oppression. No one likes air travel, especially since Muslim terrorism inflicted the humiliating regimen of the TSA on the entire country. But Muslim complaints about it get a unique hearing because of their Muslim privilege.

Islamophobia is a self-reinforcing myth. The Americans groped at TSA checkpoints aren’t victims, but when a Muslim who has had a photo taken with Obama can’t get her Diet Coke the way she wants it, then it’s the worst soft-drink related human rights incident since Gitmo stopped serving Crystal Pepsi.

Muslim oppression of non-Muslims requires a narrative of victimhood to grease the wheels. So does leftist subversion of America under the guise of aiding the oppressed. And if that victimhood sometimes has to be found at the bottom of an unopened can of Diet Coke, that’s the fizz of the Jihad.

269  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: May 30, 2015, 04:01:11 PM

I wouldn't want to go up against you in a physical fight (God help me - I want you on MY side!)  BUT - I don't think I would swap places with you financially either - if these are the prognosticators you are listening to smiley
270  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Wesbury doesn't rattle easily... on: May 29, 2015, 01:41:59 PM
Of course he doesn't.  He's a paid hack for those who wish to promote the illusion that this economy is growing.  As I've stated here ad nausem, anyone with a room-temperature IQ (let alone one of 130+, which I believe more than a few of our members would test at) can see by simple observation that the economy is NOT growing, and hasn't been for the duration of this Presidency.  Observe, once again, that there are 93 MILLION able-bodied Americans of working age NOT EVEN LOOKING FOR A JOB.  They are not counted in these patently fraudulent unemployment statistics the government is promulgating, and suggesting that they are somehow directly comparable to unemployment rate statistics issued many decades ago.  This is an obscene joke.  Work-force participation rate is at its lowest level since 1978.  Hillary Clinton, for God's sake - is saying that she has been "shocked" to discover recently that small business creation has "stalled out" under this administration.

The "real" unemployment rate, I submit - along with many other traditional/conservative economists - is currently hovering at or above 15%.  The reason this doesn't manifest itself as obviously as the soup lines of the 1930s is because all of these non-working people are still eating, they are still driving their cars, they are still watching their cable television, still using their smart phones - ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE INCREASINGLY FEW OF US WHO ARE ACTUALLY WORKING, and fiat money created out of thin air, i.e., printed by the Treasury.  Fueled, I might add, by MASSIVE multi-trillion-dollar debt.

CLEARLY, this is unsustainable, and it is only a matter of time before the economic collapse happens.  Of course when it does, the likes of Wesbury, et. al. won't give a damn, because (assuming they don't believe their own b.s.) they will have placed the vast majority of their personal wealth into hard assets - not those such as stocks - which are dollar-denominated - as they tiresomely continue to urge everyone else to do.  It is staggering to watch as otherwise intelligent people fall victim to this sophistry.  I suppose there is no limit to the capacity for human reality-denial when it comes to ugly truths, no matter how obvious those truths happen to be.  

271  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Now D.C. Transit System has banned Mohammad Ads... on: May 29, 2015, 11:06:12 AM
Pamela is exactly correct - by refusing to publish or display these images of Mohammed, we are submitting to intimidation and ultimately - Sharia Law.  This is was the cowardly media - the vast majority of it - would have us do.  When did we lose a sense of moral clarity in this nation?  It appears to be in precious short supply.  See story below:

272  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dennis Prager: Left vs. Right: Part One... on: May 27, 2015, 06:38:36 AM
The Differences Between Left and Right: Part I

Posted By Dennis Prager On May 27, 2015

Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to explain their position or the position they oppose.

But if you can’t explain both sides, how do you know you’re right?

At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

I grew up in a liberal world — New York, Jewish and Ivy League graduate school. I was an 8-year-old when President Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election against the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. I knew nothing about politics and had little interest in the subject. But I well recall knowing — knowing, not merely believing — that Democrats were “for the little guy” and Republicans were “for the rich guys.”

I voted Democrat through Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976. He was the last Democrat for which I voted.

Obviously, I underwent an intellectual change. And it wasn’t easy. Becoming a Republican was emotionally and psychologically like converting to another religion.

In fact, when I first voted Republican I felt as if I had abandoned the Jewish people. To be a Jew meant being a Democrat. It was that simple. It was — and remains — that fundamental to many American Jews’ identity.

Therefore, it took a lot of thought to undergo this conversion. I had to understand both liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, I have spent a lifetime in a quest to do so.

The fruit of that quest will appear in a series of columns explaining the differences between left and right.

I hope it will benefit conservatives in better understanding why they are conservative, and enable liberals to understand why someone who deeply cares about the “little guy” holds conservative — or what today are labeled as conservative — views.

Difference No. 1: Is Man Basically Good?

Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good. On the other side, conservative doctrines hold that man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil, but surely not born good. Yes, we are born innocent — babies don’t commit crimes, after all — but we are not born good. Whether it is the Christian belief in Original Sin or the Jewish belief that we are all born with a yetzer tov (good inclination) and a yetzer ra (bad inclination) that are in constant conflict, the root value systems of the West never held that we are naturally good.

To those who argue that we all have goodness within us, two responses:

First, no religion or ideology denies that we have goodness within us; the problem is with denying that we have badness within us.

Second, it is often very challenging to express that goodness. Human goodness is like gold. It needs to be mined — and like gold mining, mining for our goodness can be very difficult.

This so important to understanding the left-right divide because so many fundamental left-right differences emanate from this divide.

Perhaps the most obvious one is that conservatives blame those who engage in violent criminal activity for their behavior more than liberals do. Liberals argue that poverty, despair, and hopelessness cause poor people, especially poor blacks — in which case racism is added to the list — to riot and commit violent crimes.

Here is President Barack Obama on May 18, 2015:

“In some communities, that sense of unfairness and powerlessness has contributed to dysfunction in those communities. … Where people don’t feel a sense of hope and opportunity, then a lot of times that can fuel crime and that can fuel unrest. We’ve seen it in places like Baltimore and Ferguson and New York. And it has many causes — from a basic lack of opportunity to some groups feeling unfairly targeted by their police forces.”

So, poor blacks who riot and commit other acts of violence do so largely because they feel neglected and suffer from deprivations.

Since people are basically good, their acts of evil must be explained by factors beyond their control. Their behavior is not really their fault; and when conservatives blame blacks for rioting and other criminal behavior, liberals accuse them of “blaming the victim.”

In the conservative view, people who do evil are to be blamed because they made bad choices — and they did so because they either have little self-control or a dysfunctional conscience. In either case, they are to blame. That’s why the vast majority of equally poor people — black or white — do not riot or commit violent crimes.

Likewise, many liberals believe that most of the Muslims who engage in terror do so because of the poverty and especially because of the high unemployment rate for young men in the Arab world. Yet, it turns out that most terrorists come from middle class homes. All the 9/11 terrorists came from middle- and upper-class homes. And of course Osama bin Laden was a billionaire.

Material poverty doesn’t cause murder, rape or terror. Moral poverty does. That’s one of the great divides between left and right. And it largely emanates from their differing views about whether human nature is innately good.
273  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 81% of respondents to Al-Jazeera poll support ISIS... on: May 26, 2015, 10:03:24 AM
Note Robert's comments regarding Bill O'Reilly - fool that he is:

274  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: May 25, 2015, 11:50:34 PM
GM is correct.  We are at war with those who practice orthodox Islamic ideology, as expressed in the Koran.  (If you haven't yet read it, I HIGHLY recommend "A Simple Koran" edited by Bill Warner.)  It is critical to understand that the later verses abrogate the earlier, more peaceful verses, for example.  It's also critical to understand the doctrine of taqiyya - the idea that it is not only OK, it is a true believer's DUTY to deceive - to lie to - non-believers, in order to gain the upper hand.  To the extent that self-identified Muslims are not actively involved in jihad against us, we have no issue with them. 

We must attack those who are actively targeting and attacking us.  ISIS and the government of Iran, for example.  This certainly does not encompass 1.7 Billion Muslims.  Most of them are not actively targeting us.  To the extent that they disavow the many explicit passages in the Koran and Hadith which mandate warfare upon unbelievers - we have no problem with them.  However - those that hold to and act upon this belief system - are our mortal enemies and we must crush them, every bit as ruthlessly and decisively as we crushed Imperial Japan and the Nazis.  There is simply no alternative.  They stand against Western civilization.  Churchill recognized this long before WWII - when he was serving in the British military in India.

275  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islamic training centers being built on U.S. soil... on: May 25, 2015, 08:24:46 PM
Crafty:  PRECISELY.  This IS the reality.  Unless and until we face this reality as a nation - and that will take the leadership of a prominent Republican (possibly Ted Cruz?) this war is lost.  Period.  You can not defeat an enemy you refuse to accurately define.  Islam is a totalitarian ideology of world-domination.  It is antithetical to the founding principles of this nation and therefore, it follows - to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

Abolishing 501c3 organizations would be a baby-step in the right direction.  Islam should NOT enjoy the protected status of a "religion."  Does the Nazi Party or the KKK enjoy tax-exempt status?  But this is arguably a side issue.  Until it seeps into - or is burned into (possibly by a nuclear attack on one of our cities) the American consciousness that Islam is not a "religion" like any other, but in fact a repressive, totalitarian ideology bent on world conquest, we cannot possibly fight - let alone win - this war.  And make no mistake.  The war has begun.  They have declared it against us - whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.  Garland, TX was just the latest demonstration of this fact.

Sadly, I see America in the same state of denial as the nation was in prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  A huge majority of the American people were opposed to getting involved.  We saw much the same in Europe - in Great Britain - until Churchill came along.  We are on the path to a VERY ugly awakening.  I fear thousands, if not tens of thousands will die before we wake up as a nation and engage in this fight.  The enemy is HERE.  They have infiltrated the Department of Homeland Security, for God's sake.  Obama (along with Grover Norquist) has facilitated this.  What more needs to be said?

276  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why I love "Hate Speech"... on: May 25, 2015, 07:21:59 AM

Why I love 'hate speech'

By Mallory Millett - posted at: - May 24, 2015

I love Pamela Geller.  I have known and loved her for years.  She is a great American!  If only everyone who has the honor of calling himself American could grow courage like hers we would be un-terrorizable as a nation.  Pamela gets that we are at war and stands as an example for those of us who have lost our way. 

Many of you under fifty have been educated by the whackerino indoctrinators crowding reality out of our High Schools and Universities.  These liars and fantasists are so busy obliterating, truncating or revising history (when they're not entirely ignoring it), that our true history has drifted out the window like so much smoke wafting in the wind. As a consequence there are few Americans left to say, "Hey, whoa, that's not the way it goes...that's not the way it is"; especially when it comes to our Constitution.

The First Amendment is in the Constitution because not one scintilla of it could be taken for granted; it's an anomaly which needed to be boldly, emphatically, unequivocally stated due to it's being nonexistent in all of the places from which we ran to reach sanctuary on this continent.  There seems to be some grand misunderstanding that human rights or free speech has ever existed anywhere else

But, the thing didn't!

Forget about Greece.  I'm talking post-ancient.

The first time such rights came to be was the English Magna Carta, which mildly inspired such thinking. (Remember, many in 16th Century England lost their heads over "thought crimes.") It was America which took rights from that document and others and greatly elaborated on them. For this reason, the First Amendment needed to be drawn out most carefully so as not to be misconstrued. 

The entire point is that we have freedom of thought which flowers into freedom of speech.  Otherwise, if my speech can be curbed then so may my thought be curbed and then, of necessity, we will have "thought police."  America is where one comes to escape "thought police" who, to this day, predominate in the world.

Millions have died over this exact amendment. And here's the kicker:  the whole point is to cover detestable speech, the most hateful speech.  There would be no reason for its formation, were it just to cover acceptable speech.  It had to be put in there first and laid out meticulously as all the other freedoms are dependent upon it. 

Jonah Goldberg says, "She (Pamela) is contending that in America people are allowed to say offensive things (i..e. hate speech) without risking execution.  I am at a loss as to why anyone would disagree with that".

I wholeheartedly stand behind that along with Judith Miller and Alan Dershowitz. As Jeanine Piro says, "The First Amendment is "an ABSOLUTE".  This is contrary to Leftists, who would  re conform our culture of liberty to please the tastes of savage, knife-wielding hordes. According to a report, one-half of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to ban "hate-speech".  Whaaaa? Let’s just get rid of our sacred free thought amendment?


Has everyone forgotten Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie?  The KKK has the right of assembly and, by the way, Broadway just hauled in millions and many awards ridiculing, mocking and mercilessly pillorying The Book of Mormon.  If we harbored constraints against such stuff Don Rickles would have been separated from his head before we knew of him (wouldn’t you love to hear his riff on this?)


What is this new idea being put out by that wrecking-ball throng of teachers that anything is all right except hate speech!  Hate speech is the most protected speech. We're at liberty to spew hate-speech at anyone or anything.

Except the Muslims? ...because they are threatening to murder us because we object to their murdering us?  You are kidding me! We are free to object to whatever we wish and to hate whomever we wish. Because some primitives are holding a knife to our throats we should just throw it in and say, "Aw, shucks, guys, we never really meant free-free?

The smartest thing to get rid of these clowns and their love of menace would be regularly to hold a "Mohammad cartoon contest" in every town in the USA with every newspaper and outlet publishing them.  They will either go away and show themselves so we can dispatch them; or develop an ability to laugh at themselves and their shibboleths like every other person living in this motley nation.  We've had the foul-mouthed "Book of Mormon", the infamous piss-Christ, the Polish jokes, the Irishmen jokes, the Jewish and Catholic jokes.  It's an all-inclusive culture.  Everyone and everything is fair game in America.

We should become a nation of Pamela Gellers.  "Je sius Pamela Geller" needs to be our battle cry just as "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" came out of Paris in the same fashion as the Danes in WWII, who, to the one, put on The Star of David to stymie the Nazis.  Oops! I forgot history's been erased from our mind-screens.  Look it up. Denmark, WWII, Star of David.  Google it, millennials.   

Pamela sussed these beasts out of the woodwork.  They were here and planning horrific violence.  Let us drag the "lone wolves" and “terror-cells” who have come to invade and butcher us out into the open so we can weed them from our garden.

They came to kill and got killed.  Perfect! 

Pamela saved each life of those they would have massacred in whichever mall, theatre, school, hospital, church or gathering they had in their sights.  These men were planning a big hit like the ones in Australia or Paris; the bazaars, mosques and schools where they've wreaked havoc on their fellow Muslims.  Never forget: they are murdering Muslims by the hundreds of thousands.  But Pamela brilliantly provoked them and voila! they showed themselves. She deserves a medal. 

That's well-executed warfare.

Where are the men?  Where are the Christians?  Where are the Jews?  Where are the sane non-homicidal Muslims about whom we hear?  The war is upon us now and we have no choice but to win. Who, in this nation, is ready to face losing to these cutthroats?  They are already secreted among us.  Daily, hourly, we are being infiltrated...Ann Arbor, Florida, Minnesota, Idaho, the more innocent the place the better for entrenchment.

To win we must become inventive and clever like Pamela.

We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with her just as the Obamaless heads of state marched shoulder to shoulder through Paris. And anyway, this has nothing to do with speech. These radicals are here for the express purpose of murdering every one of us at random regardless of who we are, what we have done or what we say! 

What has happened to Americans? You listened to the liberals for forty years and now you have Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the radical jihadists.  Oh, yeah, you liberals, you "free thinkers" who never saw provocative art you didn't now have the gall to denounce Pamela?  Yeah, we want you governing us as we face marauders...we want to stand shoulder to shoulder through the Revolutionary, Civil, and WWs I & II with such as you?

An Imam, in defending the fatwa on Pamela, had the gall to say, "You have to know that when you say such things there will be consequences!"  Pamela exploded, "Not in America, sir!  There are no punishing consequences for speech here."  She was forced to talk over his incessant shrieking to be heard.  "I am an American, sir, and, in America, you don't threaten my life over something I say."  The Imam was covering her words because the very idea of such freedom makes him hysterical.  He can't stop chattering as it's unbearably threatening to him.  Terrorists are terrified people.

There is only one thing we tolerant Americans absolutely will not tolerate and that is the startling intolerance of these religious radicals. We are in the throes of a great war, perhaps one of the last great wars on Earth and we must win it at all costs...but never at the cost of our consciences, standards or souls.

We, every man and woman, must be ready to rise to the occasion, well-armed, to defend our dear land. We got relaxed; brain-washed by fools in our Universities and Media which opened up voluminous vacuums and, of course, the rapacious invaders have arrived.  It's a simple law of physics:  "Nature abhors a vacuum." Nothing new!  Millennia old!  Are we really so ignorant as to insist on turning a blind eye to this monstrous assault?  We owe it to everyone who’s given life or limb in preserving this exact same liberty to close ranks against our predators.

The other day a Japanese statesman was quoted as saying that the thing the Japanese most feared about America throughout WWII was that so many individuals were armed.  They said they believed they could never conquer a country where every citizen was armed and ready.  Nuff said!

Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years.  She has lived, studied and traveled extensively throughout the Third World. CFO for several corporations, she is a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy.
277  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Turkish Mosque in Lanham, Maryland... on: May 25, 2015, 07:07:16 AM
This will be the largest mosque in the Western Hemisphere.  Erdogan - Turkey's head of state - has ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.  Obama is not only looking the other way - he is enabling this.  It is telling that Erdogan seems to be the only foreign leader with whom Obama has a close relationship.

The enemy is infiltrating and setting up base camps and training centers right here in our midst.  We ought to be EXTREMELY concerned - but with the exception of a handful of members of Congress - including Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann - the vast majority of our "leaders" seem to be asleep at the wheel.

This is not going to end well.  God help us.

278  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Great Interview with Bosch Fawstin - Winning Cartoonist... on: May 22, 2015, 12:59:42 PM
This interview appeared in The Objective Standard recently:

279  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why "Jade Helm" Operation Is A Problem... on: May 22, 2015, 07:03:30 AM
The Problem with Jade Helm

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 22, 2015 @

Jade Helm 15, a large-scale military operation conducted [2] by U.S. Army Special Operations Command and service members from the military’s four branches, scheduled to take place in several states [3] between July 15 and September 15, 2015, has elicited a firestorm of criticism. Many have gone so far as to claim the exercises are a prelude to the imposition [4] of martial law, especially in Texas, one of the states designated [5] as “hostile” territory. However, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) puts [6] the issue in the proper perspective, noting why it’s reasonable that Americans would be concerned about the operation.

Gohmert first reveals his office “has been inundated with calls” regarding the mission, and acknowledges that this “military practice has some concerned that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law.” “Certainly, I can understand these concerns,” he writes. “When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned.”

Gohmert is spot on. In February, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence assessment focused [7] on the threat posed by right-wing, sovereign citizen extremist groups. As reported by the Washington Times, some law enforcement officials believe the threat posed by these groups “is equal to, and occasionally greater than, the threat from Islamic extremist groups.”

It’s not the first time DHS has made such a delusional assessment. In 2009 the agency was worried about the possible recruitment of military veterans into such groups, eliciting blowback from rightly offended veterans. Adding to the absurdity (and hypocrisy as well) the February report was released while Obama was conducting [8] his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, during which the president took great pains to separate [9] such extremism from all things Islamic.

That would be the same president who demonstrated no similar reticence whatsoever with regard to Christianity. At the National Prayer Breakfast that same month, Obama was more than willing to remind [10] Americans “that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.” In over six years in office there hasn’t been a single occasion when Obama referred to any of the innumerable depredations committed by Muslim extremists as being perpetrated “in the name of Mohammed.”

Thus, when Gohmert addresses “the contempt and antipathy for the true patriots or even Christian saints persecuted for their Christian beliefs,” demonstrated by this administration, he correctly asserts “it is no surprise that those who have experienced or noticed such persecution are legitimately suspicious.”

The Congressman acknowledges the need for training and that part of it requires Special Forces to move unobserved among civilian populations absent their discovery, as well as the need to handle various threat scenarios. However, like many of his constituents, he is appalled by the idea that portions of the country have been deemed “hostile,” adding that designation has never been employed before. Citing his own experience in military science classes and active duty, Gohmert explained the military would “use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.” Moreover, he can’t help noticing “the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution,” he states sarcastically.

He also believes such labeling raises suspicions among people regarding “whether their big brother government anticipates certain states may start another civil war or be overtaken by foreign radical Islamist elements which have been reported to be just across our border,” and that it “is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as hostile, as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them.”

Indeed, the Obama administration has demonstrated an undue level of antipathy towards the Lone Star State on a number of occasions. In 2011, the Department of Justice threatened [11] a complete suspension of air travel in and out of Texas if the state Senate approved HB 1937 [12]. That bill would have banned “intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation,” aimed at derailing the TSA’s intimate pat-downs absent the probable cause guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment [13]. The bill was ultimately shelved. In August of 2013, the administration sued [14] the state because it passed a voter ID law. The suit was in complete defiance of a Supreme Court decision the previous June striking down portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts that had required states to “preclear” any changes to their voting laws. And when the border surge of illegals crossing into Texas occurred last year, and then-Gov. Rick Perry sent Texas National Guard troops there to deal with the onslaught, Obama made it clear [15] he would not take unilateral action to stem the tide.

On April 27, the military sent Army Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a spokesman for Army Special Operations Command, to Bastrop, TX on April 27 in an effort to address [16] local concerns. He explained that Jade Helm 15 is a routine, but necessary endeavor, because modern warfare requires soldiers to maneuver through civilian populations rather than fight on a battlefield. He further insisted Texas provided the ideal terrain for such an exercise, and noted that soldiers will wear either uniforms or orange arm bands to show that they are part of it, and there will be no attempt to move through the population undetected.

Newly-elected Texas Governor Greg Abbott nonetheless expressed concerns. He has sent a letter [17] to Maj. Gen. Gerald Betty, commander of the Texas State Guard, directing the Guard to monitor Jade Helm 15. “During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed,” Abbott wrote. “By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communication between my office and commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.”

Gohmert has another idea that might assuage a number of concerns. “The map of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change, and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states,” he declared.

While some of the concern over Jade Helm might be misguided, none of it has occurred in a vacuum. It arises from more than six years of an administration that has demonstrated an overt willingness to squander the trust of millions of Americans in pursuit of its agenda—by any means necessary. Americans would much prefer to see the military training to defend the homeland against ISIS rather than engage in insulting exercises against the “hostile” heartland of liberty.
280  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Knew Benghazi Attack Was Planned 10 Days In Advance... on: May 19, 2015, 12:28:01 PM
In another era, this alone would have assured the demise of a presidency.  Nixon was forced out over issues that barely rise to the level of unethical in comparison - let alone criminal and treasonous:

281  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Another Dose of Reality for those still untethered to it... on: May 18, 2015, 09:26:24 PM

282  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wesbury is peddling intentionally misleading GARBAGE ANALYSIS... on: May 14, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
The most important economic news today was new claims for unemployment insurance dropping 1,000 last week to 264,000. The four week average declined to 272,000, the lowest level in 15 years. Continuing unemployment claims were unchanged at 2.23 million, also the lowest since 2000. These data point to another solid payroll number in May.

Without even addressing the rest of the complete bulls**t that is Wesbury's analysis, the statement above is asinine.  He presents this as some sort of good news.  "another solid payroll number in May"?  REALLY???  There are over 92 MILLION working-age Americans who have DROPPED OFF THE UNEMPLOYMENT ROLLS.  THEY ARE NOT BEING COUNTED.  AS FAR AS WESBURY AND THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ARE CONCERNED - THEY DON'T EXIST.  THE LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE IS THE LOWEST IT HAS BEEN SINCE 1978.  HOW IS THIS GOOD NEWS?
283  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NYT (a.k.a. here as "Pravda on the Hudson") Hypocrisy regarding Garland Event... on: May 12, 2015, 12:56:13 PM
This is an excellent, incisive piece, demonstrating admittedly, what we already know about The New York Times - fit only for a bird-cage liner:

‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 8, 2015 @

[1]When it comes to rank hypocrisy and leftist-inspired double-standards, there’s nothing quite like the New York Times. Despite the reality two Islamist gunmen would have undoubtedly killed as many participants attending Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, TX,  as possible, the so-called paper of record chose to excoriate [2] those exercising their freedom of speech.

“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times editorial board condescendingly concedes. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”

“But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the board concludes.

For the pseudo-moralists who run the Times, such indignation is highly selective. In 1989, Arts Section contributor Michael Brenson was highly effusive when it came to defending [3] and praising artist Andres Serrano whose ostensible cutting-edge brilliance consisted of a photograph entitled “Piss Christ,” depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. He described the photo as a “religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze.” Moreover, Brenson was upset the about ensuing uproar over the original showing of the photograph. That unveiling took place at a group show underwritten by government grants and caused the National Endowment for the Arts to change its policy to one restricting endowments for projects the agency considered obscene. “People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect?” Brenson wondered. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.” (Italics mine.)

In 1998 the paper criticized [4] the withdrawal of playwright Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” from the Manhattan Theater Club, due to threats of violence. Corpus Christi was about [5] a gay Jesus, with a plot line that included the Christian Son of God performing a same-sex marriage, and Judas betraying him due to romantic jealousy. “What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America,” the paper stated. “The practitioners and beneficiaries of religious freedom attack the practitioners of artistic freedom–freedom of speech–without seeing that the freedoms they enjoy cannot be defended separately.”

One year later, Arts Section contributor Michael Kimmelman wondered [6] how artist Chris Ofili’s ”Holy Virgin Mary,’’ showing the mother of Christ replete with small cutouts of vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines, and a ball of dung representing one of her breasts, “could cause so much fuss.” “One of the casualties of political debates about art is always a complexity of interpretation, both sides needing to simplify the meaning of the work because contradictory connotations would undermine their arguments even though those contradictions make art art and not a political tract,” he explains. “People want a straight answer — is it good or bad? — which misses the point about how art functions, especially in a divisive context.”

In 2011 Theater Section reviewer Ben Brantley was especially delighted [7] by “The Book of Mormon,” a musical dedicated to the mockery of the Mormon religion. It contains a song entitled Hasa Diga Eebowai [8] sung by blighted Africans in a made up Ugandan language intended to translate into “F**k you, God, in the ass, mouth, and c**t!” Brantley addresses all the “doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up,” he gushes. “I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water.”

In short, the New York Times is very much in favor, if not downright ecstatic about, overt Christian-bashing. But not just Christians. Last year the paper was equally determined to defend [9] the “principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures” regarding the Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists — terrorists who shot the wheelchair-bound Jewish American and tossed him overboard. The Times insisted Met general manager Peter Gelb “should not have yielded to its critics” even as Gelb  himself  canceled live broadcast of the opera due to what he perceived as rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Times remained resolute about the importance of freedom. “Viewers may have different reactions and responses to such an ambitious and painfully contemporary work, but the arts can only be harmed by retreating from controversy,” the  editorial board asserted.

Nonetheless, the same board contends that Geller’s exercise of a far more benign expression of freedom in comparison to any of the aforementioned examples is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Sadly, the contemptible notion that Geller is engaged in what the Times and others define as hate speech resonates with a number of Americans. An Economist/YouGov Poll reveals [10] only a small plurality of Americans would be against a law criminalizing hate speech. Only 38 percent of Americans would oppose enacting such a law, while 36 percent would support it, with 26 percent of Americans undecided. When political affiliation enters the picture, the results are as follows: Independents, 53 percent opposed, 27 percent in favor and 20 percent are not sure. For Republicans its 49 percent opposed, 25 percent in favor and 26 percent unsure. Democrats are a different story. A 51 percent majority of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate” speech, while 21 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are unsure.

Perhaps the Times is playing to its core support group. Regardless, the editorial board remains oblivious to the reality they favor the very same “right” not to be offended that ostensibly animates not just Islamists, but supposedly all “offended” Muslims. The paper may differ with Islamists on how to respond to such offenses, choosing to excoriate Geller and company rather than kill them, but their insistence that some sort of anti-Constitutional line be drawn between “freedom” and “hate” is to share the same totalitarian ambitions that form the heart of Sharia Law.

And while that alignment may constitute an alliance of convenience, it is no accident. The Times would like nothing more than to crack down on America’s “bitter clingers.” Thus progressives will temporarily embrace Islamists in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. That is why the Times and other equally feckless [11] mainstream media outlets  are now wondering aloud [12] where the nonexistent  “fine line” between free speech ends and hate speech begins. And it is occurring even as these leftist provocateurs devote far more time to undercutting the First Amendment than they do chronicling the wholesale extermination of Christians or the oppression of gays and women in the Islamic world.

How softly do they trod? “If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” wonders [13] radio host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to aiding the agenda of the jihadists, there is no one the Left wouldn’t throw under the bus.

284  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Breitbart: Why Garland, TX Event was no different than 1965 Selma Event... on: May 11, 2015, 01:55:47 PM
285  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Economy heading for collapse. Ignore at your peril... on: May 08, 2015, 04:29:15 PM
There IS NO RECOVERY HAPPENING, despite what the talking heads in the media - Wesbury being a rather egregious example - will tell you:

286  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick Defends Pamela Geller in Jerusalem Post... on: May 08, 2015, 12:18:40 PM
Siding With The Victims of Aggression

By CAROLINE B. GLICK - Jerusalem Post
Last Sunday, two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.
The notion that a rape victim deserved to be raped because she was wearing a tight outfit lights up all our red lights.

This is the case first and foremost because it absolves the rapist of responsibility for his crime.

Then too, attempts to blame a rape victim for her victimization infuriate us because they are substantively untrue. If men are more likely to rape women in tight clothing then rape should be all but non-existent in traditional Islamic societies. Yet the opposite is the case. Rape and sexual abuse are endemic to such societies. According to the UN, a whopping 99.3 percent of Egyptian women report having suffered sexual abuse.

There is a third, more general reason that we recoil from the thought of blaming rape victims for their suffering. One of the foundations of liberal societies has always been that victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ behavior.

See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page

Over the past few days, we have witnessed a dangerous erosion of this principle among American elites.

Last Sunday two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammed cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.

The goal of the contest was self-evident. The organizers wished to defend the freedom of speech – and the right to life – of critics of Islamic totalitarianism.

Rather than standing with the contest’s organizers and participants, the US media from MSNBC to Fox News attacked Pamela Geller, the event’s main organizer and accused her of responsibility for the attack.

For its part, the White House has refused to condemn the attack.

The White House failed to condemn the terror attack, and the media continued their offensive against Geller even after ISIS claimed credit for the assault, promised to “slaughter” Geller and anyone who shelters her or gives her a microphone, and announced it has a formidable infrastructure across the US it will use to launch more attacks against Americans.

To a degree, the White House’s refusal to condemn the attack, like the media’s pile-on against Geller is understandable. Most Americans ascribe to the overarching notion of “Live and let live.” And it is a good thing they do. It is impossible to maintain a liberal society without a basic tolerance of differences between its members.

But there are groups that a liberal society cannot tolerate without ceasing to be liberal.

When a group says that society as a whole must constrain its freedoms so its members can feel comfortable, it crosses a boundary that cannot be crossed. So too, when a group demands that society choose between it and another group that is not issuing a similar ultimatum, it is crossing the line. In other words, any group that demands a limit on liberty and rights of others is harming the foundations of liberal society. If a society wishes to remain liberal, it must constrain such groups.

Champions of totalitarian Islam test the strength of liberal societies because they force them to choose. Distressingly, as we see with the refusal of the White House and media elites to recognize that like the rape victim with tight clothes, Geller isn’t responsible for the jihadists’ decision to kill her and the participants at her event, elite American society is failing this test.

Geller and her colleagues aren’t the only victims that America’s elites refuse to side with against aggressors. In recent years, on college campuses across America, university authorities have failed to distinguish between tolerant and intolerant groups and so have effectively sided with the intolerant against their victims.

The primary victims of this abdication of moral responsibility on the part of administrators have not been counter-jihad activists like Geller and her colleagues. The primary victims have been Jews.

According to a study conducted by the Louis Brandeis Center in Washington last year, more than half of Jewish students at US universities suffered or witnessed anti-Semitism during the preceding year.

This week, Mosaic, the online journal of Jewish affairs published an essay by Prof. Ruth Wisse from Harvard describing the rise and spread of anti-Semitism on campuses throughout the US. To exemplify the process Wisse discussed at length the rapid rise of anti-Semitism at UCLA.

Jew hatred at UCLA burst into the headlines in March when it was reported that members of the student government initially rejected a student’s application to serve on an influential board because she was “very active in the Jewish community.”

The story caused waves of indignation and revulsion from all the right corners. But the incident was not exceptional. A similar incident occurred last month at Stanford. And more no doubt occur regularly under the radar.

These open anti-Semitic assaults are the foreseeable consequence of campus cultures sympathetic to anti-Semitism.

Wisse recalled that at the start of the year, a consortium of anti-Israel organizations asked that candidates for the student council sign a “statement of ethics.” The statement included a pledge not to participate in trips to Israel organized by Zionist groups including the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowships.

One of the candidates that signed on was elected president of the student council.

A group of pro-Israel organizations asked that UCLA’s chancellor officially condemn the so-called “statement of ethics.” Chancellor Gene Block refused, claiming it was “protected speech.”

Block’s response was shockingly hypocritical. Statements of opposition to homosexuals, women, Muslims, blacks, and any number of other groups are not considered protected speech at UCLA. His claim that anti-Jewish speech is protected when speech against other groups is not is itself a bigoted statement.

Moreover, his claim that the “statement of ethics” is protected speech is intrinsically false. The content of that “statement” was itself an assault on freedom of expression. Its authors and supporters sought to coerce candidates for student leadership into agreeing not to expose themselves to Zionist ideas, and so silence Zionist voices and prevent open debate.

Block made a mockery of free speech by claiming that the “statement of ethics” was protected speech.

A straight line connects Block’s refusal distinguish between anti-Israel aggressors and their pro-Israel victims and the student council’s rejection of a student’s candidacy for office because she is “too Jewish.”

Block made it acceptable to blame the victim at UCLA, as long as the victim is a Jew.

In campuses throughout America, anti-Semitism is legitimate. Anti-Israel goons do not always win their battles for campus boycotts of the Jewish state. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t achieving their what they have set out to accomplish. The primary purpose of anti-Israel groups on campus is not to pass boycott resolutions. Their goal is first and foremost to normalize anti-Semitism by normalizing the libelous claim that there is something intrinsically controversial if not evil about Zionism, Israel, and Jews who support Israel. 

Just as the media claims that Geller is responsible for the jihadist attack against her own event, so at US universities, pro-Israel activists -- and even non-activist Jewish students and professors who refuse to condemn Israel -- are accused of racism. According to the prevailing wisdom, the Jews are the bigots and the aggressors because they refuse to condemn Israel and even dare to support it. In so doing, they hurt the feelings of the anti-Israel activists that cannot peacefully coexist with people who support Israel’s right to exist.

The opposite of course is the case.

The anti-Israel students, like the terrorists in Texas cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a liberal society. By demanding that wider society on and off campus choose between them and the Jews who make no parallel demand, they demand that American society side with intolerance and against its foundational principle of “Live and let live.”

One of the great difficulties that those who fight the anti-Semites on campuses face is the fact that a significant number of Jews have joined the anti-Semites in their quest to expel Jews from the public square. Organizations like J Street and Jewish Voices for Peace were established to give a Jewish stamp of approval to anti-Israel campaigns. And they aren’t the only Jews stymying efforts to force university administrations to side with the Jews against their attackers.

Last month, the heads of the Jewish Federation in Orange County reportedly interfered with student celebrations of Yom Haatzmaut at University of California at Irvine on behalf of Muslim anti-Israel protesters who sought to ruin the festivities. According to a report of the events at the online Frontpage Magazine, the pro-Israel students separated participants in their event from Muslim student protesters by placing a line of students waving Israeli and American flags between them.

The move was angrily opposed by Federation Director Lisa Armony and Federation President Shalom Elcott. They reportedly insisted that the Israeli flags be taken down because they were “antagonizing” the anti-Israel protesters.

Next week a consortium of Zionist groups will be demonstrating outside the UJA-Federation building in New York to protest its promotion of groups that support boycotting Israel. The President of the UJA-Federation Alisa Doctoroff is reportedly a major donor to the New Israel Fund which funds pro-boycott groups.

The American elites’ – including the Jewish elites -- willingness to accept anti-Jewish discrimination on US campuses, like their willingness to accept attacks on anti-jihad activists like Geller is devastating for the American Jewish community and for America as a whole.

Their refusal to distinguish between the victim and the aggressor, not to mention their willingness to stand with the aggressor against the victim threatens the American Jewish community and weakens the liberal foundations of American society.

The rise and spread of anti-Semitism in elite circles in the US of course also threatens Israel.

What can the government of Israel do to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in America? How can the object of the demonization defeat those who demonize it?

Although its bare 61 seat majority makes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government unstable, a narrow coalition has a clear advantage over a unity government with the Left. If it wishes to defeat this threat, Israel cannot continue to speak in two voices.

Israel cannot fight the this fight when government ministers participate in J Street conferences. It cannot defend its defenders when members of the government say that Israel is only legitimate if it works actively to cede its capital city to terrorist groups that seek its annihilation.

The government’s response to this onslaught must be clear and uncompromising: The freedom of American Jewry to be Jewish, like the ability of the US to remain a liberal democracy is dependent on restoring the ability of Jewish Americans and American elites to distinguish between victims and aggressors and on their willingness to side with the victims.

287  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: "Je Suis Pamela Geller"... on: May 08, 2015, 07:00:53 AM
Je Suis Pamela Geller

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 8, 2015

I was standing next to Pamela Geller just after our American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest ended last Sunday in Garland, Texas when one of our security team ran in and told us that there had been a shooting outside. As the audience was led to another area inside the building and the outside was swept for bombs and additional jihadis, Geller and I were hurried to a safe room. It was the last time since then that Pamela Geller has been safe.

The Islamic State quickly issued a communiqué that included this:

The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [actually wilayah, administrative district] in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer [pig] Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.

On top of that, instead of rallying to her defense and to that of the freedom of speech, the mainstream media, both on the Left and on the Right, has spent the week excoriating Pamela Geller for daring to “provoke” the poor jihadis, as if the two Muslim gunmen who showed up at our event would have become fiercely patriotic stockbrokers if only we hadn’t shown those cartoons.

It is therefore clear that if, God forbid, anything does happen to Pamela Geller, the talking heads will look soulfully into the cameras and say, Of course we are shocked…Of course we condemn….but…wellllll…she had it coming…she should have submitted to Sharia blasphemy restrictions like the rest of us…

The reality is that if the gunmen were “provoked” by the Muhammad cartoons, they would have been “provoked” by something else. What had the Jews in the Hyper Cacher supermarket in January done to “provoke” the Muslims? They dared to be Jews. What had the people in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Australia done to “provoke” the Muslims? Dared to be non-Muslims.

People who say our cartoon contest deliberately tried to provoke a violent reaction are under the apparent delusion that if we abide by Muhammad Atta’s advice to the passengers on his doomed plane on September 11, 2001, all will be well. Atta told the passengers, “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.”

They weren’t.

The jihadis are already “provoked.” As I show in my forthcoming book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS [2], they were already planning and preparing for massive jihad attacks in the United States long before our cartoon show was ever considered. No amount of submission on our part is going to change that. In fact, the more we submit to violent intimidation, the more violent intimidation we are going to get. Why should the jihadis abandon a winning formula?

The world rallied to proclaim “Je suis Charlie” after the massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in Paris in January. But when those jihadis targeted our Muhammad cartoon event last Sunday, few were saying “Je suis Pamela Geller.” What’s the difference? The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were reliably Leftist, while Geller is identified with the Right. And now it is clear: the Leftist intelligentsia would rather see the freedom of speech restricted, and Sharia censorship imposed, rather than stand with someone whose opinions they find unacceptable.

That really isn’t any surprise. The Left in America is increasingly authoritarian, intolerant, and opposed to the freedom of speech. Leftist thinkers speak only to each other, dismissing challenges from the Right with ad hominem attacks or ignoring them altogether. It would be easy for those who live in that echo chamber to think of the Garland jihadi gunmen, Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, as ideological kin: assassins rather than character assassins, but with the same goal in mind.

Those who understand, however, that the freedom of speech, and free society in general, cannot possibly survive the imposition of censorship to avoid offending a group that reacts with murderous violence to being offended, are indeed saying Je Suis Pamela Geller today. If the free world ever remembers that obeying someone who will kill you if you disobey only reinforces your slavery, it will owe her a debt of gratitude of awesome proportions.
288  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / FBI, Dept. of Homeland Security Have Not Bothered to Contact Geller... on: May 07, 2015, 03:25:21 PM
This ought to tell you everything you need to know about this administration, who as Pamela points out, has created an environment which has raised the stakes.
Absolutely inexcusable:

289  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / MUST-WATCH Video - Geller vs. Imam on Hannity... on: May 07, 2015, 10:50:33 AM
Radical Imam tells Pamela to her face that she deserves death penalty for sponsoring event in Garland, TX.  This is what we are dealing with.  Pamela responds with aplomb and dignity as she speaks truth to this savage:
290  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Another Nasty Hit-Piece on Pamela Geller from New York Daily News Today... on: May 06, 2015, 10:29:19 PM
291  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Pamela Geller... on: May 06, 2015, 11:23:26 AM

Both Pamela and Robert Spencer have had "targets on their backs" for many years now.  Both have received countless death threats, and have to travel with armed bodyguards routinely.  As for ISIS having reach here, this is a moot point.   The war IS HERE.  IT IS NOW.  Whether these two jihadists were directly or indirectly connected to ISIS is really irrelevant.  They were following the same sick, evil and repressive ideology.  Americans need to wake up and understand that despite what this President and most of our media would have us think - these people are here now, and are prepared to slaughter us at any opportunity.  This incident proves the point.  Take heed.  Be prepared.  You will be made to care about this situation. (Not that I'm implying you don't care about it, CCP - just making a general statement.)
292  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller's CNN Interview... on: May 05, 2015, 11:05:16 PM
Yes I agree, Crafty - Pamela is an impressive woman and an excellent debater.  She defends herself quite eloquently and without malice to her accusers such as this idiot reporter.  Sadly, this is the state of our media today.  I attended this event in Garland because I am as passionate about the First Amendment as Pamela.  Her cause is righteous.  Americans need to wake up, as Pamela says, and fight back - not submit to this savagery, as this President and our media would have us do.  Freedom vs. slavery - it really is that simple.  I for one, will NEVER submit. I have and will continue to support both Pamela and Robert Spencer 100%, including but not limited to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them at these sorts of events.
293  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / FBI Under Increased Scrutiny For Failing to Prevent Texas Attack... on: May 05, 2015, 10:33:23 PM
As if this Administration gives a crap:

294  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller Tested First Amendment and America Failed... on: May 05, 2015, 08:50:18 PM
The writer makes an excellent point.  The cowardice of most of our media sickens me - this is just the latest and most egregious example:

295  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Winner of Cartoon Contest Goes Into Hiding... on: May 05, 2015, 08:43:56 PM
And still the cowardly media refuses to even show this man's winning drawing:

296  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fox News' Martha MacCallum vs. Pamela Geller... on: May 05, 2015, 08:38:24 PM
This is the sad state of our media and our intellectual discourse today.  Yes - I was at the event, and will post here what I experienced soon.  I haven't been home more than a few hours.  In the mean time, watch this interview with Pamela Geller (who I consider a friend and support 110% in this cause.)  It's very disappointing and adversarial on MacCallum's part, in my opinion.

297  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NY Daily News: Submit to the Jihad Bullies... on: April 27, 2015, 03:24:06 PM
New York Daily News: AFDI ad criticizing Hamas is “outrageous drivel” that “would offend many Muslims”


It is no doubt guided by Society of Professional Journalists policy that requires journalists never to state or imply any link between Islam and terrorism, but for Leftist journalists (i.e., almost all of them) these days, it’s a kneejerk reaction: when they see an Islamic jihadist vowing blood and murder, they immediately frame it in their report in terms of Muslims being victimized. So when there is a jihad mass murder attack or foiled plot, we get the stories about Muslim communities fearing a “backlash” against innocent Muslims. And in this execrable New York Daily News editorial, the first and only reaction to the genocidal antisemitic statement from Hamas that is depicted in our ad is to note that “the message would offend many Muslims.”

The Daily News means they will be offended at Pamela Geller, of course, not at Hamas. They should be offended at Hamas, if what we’re constantly told about the vast majority of Muslims being moderate, democratic, tolerant and pluralistic were true. They should see the ad and call upon Hamas and other Muslim groups to stop the jihad against Israel, drop the genocidal rhetoric, and teach against Islamic antisemitism in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. The Daily News should be calling upon them to do those things. Instead, it smears Pamela Geller as a “hatemonger” (in the photo caption) for pointing out that this genocidal antisemitic statement was made, and that nothing is being done about it.

More below.

“The First Amendment train: Despite Pamela Geller’s offensive nonsense, the MTA should continue to allow political ads on buses and subways,” New York Daily News, April 24, 2015:

After being forced by a court to run an inflammatory, anti-Muslim ad on the city’s buses and subways, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority aims to get out of the political advertising business.

Hamas is a Muslim group. It made the statement that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” in a video that also said: “Repeat in the name of your Jihad: Death to Israel!” Our AFDI ad was meant to counter Hamas-linked CAIR’s cynical and deceptive campaign trying to fool Americans into thinking that jihad was romping through the daisies and blowing milk bubbles through a straw. The ad counters these comforting fictions with reality, making the point that for all too many Muslims, jihad is something more lethal. The implication is that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be calling upon Hamas and other Muslim entities to drop this hateful rhetoric. Instead, the Daily News shoots the messenger, referring to the ad as “Pamela Geller’s hateful nonsense” and as an “inflammatory, anti-Muslim ad.”

With sympathy for the MTA’s tough spot, the agency is mistaken in trying to eliminate issue-oriented ads as a way to swat one annoying gadfly.

Pamela Geller makes a habit of throwing rhetorical bombs. She’s written books like “Stop the Islamization of America” and argued that President Obama is “consistently on the side of Islamic supremacist regimes.”

What, he isn’t? Where? When?

One of her latest proposed ads quotes a Palestinian TV station run by Hamas as stating that “Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah,” alongside the image of a young man in a headscarf. “That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”

Understanding that the message would offend many Muslims and arguing that it might even incite violence, the MTA rejected the campaign.

Why would the ad offend many Muslims? Because they condemn Hamas and its genocidal rhetoric, and back up their condemnation with real action to teach against these attitudes in Muslim communities? Where? When? Do they have a different idea of jihad and consider Hamas and its antisemitic jihad to be un-Islamic? Even if that were true, Hamas presents itself as Muslim group waging jihad in cause of Islam, and justifying its actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings. Do Americans not need to know this? Does no one need to call attention to it or endeavor to counter it? Everything the ad says is true: Hamas made this statement, and did so in the context of jihad. Muslims who oppose this view of jihad and this hateful antisemitism should be siding with Pamela Geller and criticizing Hamas, not her. And the Daily News should be more concerned about the fact that there are Muslims who actually believe this than about the Muslims who claim to be so offended by it that they want it off the buses, but don’t lift a finger to counter these attitudes within Muslim communities.

And the idea that it “might even incite violence” is also nonsense. The ad ran in San Francisco and Chicago without incident. The MTA claimed it would incite violence but could not adduce even one example of its doing so. And the violence would be from Islamic jihadists who would presumably mistake it for a pro-jihad ad. You’d have to be quite dim to do that, but if someone did, the focus should be on protecting people from violence, not on curtailing speech in light of the possibility that violence could ensue — for once we do that, we enable any thug to shut down any speech he dislikes by threatening violence over it.

…It’s well and good, and constitutional, to ban ads that could reasonably incite violence — say, with mocking images of the Prophet Mohammed.

In this, the Daily News is essentially counseling surrender to the jihad. Instead of standing up against violent intimidation, the Daily News is saying, Give in to the bullies and thugs. They will kill us if we say something they dislike, so let’s not say anything they dislike. That is the coward’s way, the path of capitulation and submission. What ever happened to, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? Gone and forgotten. And so also, before too long, will be our freedom of speech, and with it our other freedoms.

Beyond that, viewpoints should be welcome. New Yorkers are big boys and girls. If swallowing some outrageous drivel is the cost of preserving other worthwhile advertising in one of the city’s most important gathering places, so be it. One hater shouldn’t spoil things for everyone else.

So it’s “outrageous drivel” now to call attention to Hamas’ genocidal rhetoric. Which only ensures that we will get more such rhetoric.

298  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GREAT Interview with David Horowitz by Larry King... on: April 22, 2015, 10:18:30 AM
I never thought I'd be complementing Larry King - frankly I'm shocked he agreed to have David on his show - but this is a good interview which gives you insight into David's background and his current campaign against Jew-hatred on college campuses.

299  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller Interviewed on Philly TV station... on: April 22, 2015, 07:43:40 AM

300  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller Wins AGAIN in NYC! on: April 22, 2015, 07:41:58 AM
This is fantastic.  Predictably, CAIR and the media are in an uproar:
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!