Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2014, 05:20:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82560 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12
451  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Liberal Jewish Denial... on: August 14, 2012, 01:40:38 PM
Jewicidals Condemn Pro-Israel Ads in San Francisco

Pamela Geller - August 14, 2012

Look how tough these Jews are when it comes to going after their own who are brave enough not to hide behind the genocidal rhetoric of the annihilators. Are we to understand that these liberal Jews sanction the jihad war on innocent civilians in Israel?

Where are their knee-jerk condemnations of the vile anti-Semitism on college campuses, in the Occupy movement, and in Muslim media? Why have they never condemned the anti-semitism in the quran?  It incites the Muslim world to Jewish genocide?  One Jew calls out annihilationists and this is their reaction? Even the Judenrat didn't protect and defend the Nazis' war on the Jews. They went along, but they didn't advance and promote it. This is just sick.

The Bay Area Jewish Community Condemns Anti-Muslim Muni Bus Ads
Statement from the Jewish Community Relations Council and the American Jewish Committee San Francisco

"Last week, a new advertisement appeared on Muni buses in San Francisco, placed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The Bay Area’s organized Jewish community takes great offense to the ad’s inflammatory and anti-Muslim language. We are steadfast in our support of Israel and our concern about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism, and steadfast in our opposition to anti- Muslim stereotypes.

We have long been concerned that the repeated appearance of offensive anti-Israel ads would turn our local public transit system into a battleground for the Israeli-Arab conflict; we are no less concerned by offensive anti-Muslim ads. We urge all transit authorities to reassess their policies and to construct advertising policies consistent with laws governing protected speech that preserve public transit as a safe space for all passengers."

It's a staple of enemedia coverage that these ads are "anti-Muslim," but actually the words Islam and Muslim never appear in the ads. Nor does the ad say that all Muslims are savages -- again, contrary to media myth. The premise of my ad was that a war on innocent civilians is savage. And that is a fact. As long as the Palestinian Authority continues its savage policy of fomenting violence, promoting hatred, and teaching Palestinian children to hate, the number of young Muslims willing to blow themselves up or to slit Israeli throats will continue to increase. That is savage. The Palestinian Authority propaganda of Holocaust-denial, calls for the killing of the Jews, and glorification of bloodthirsty jihadis is savage.

Tell me again why the word "savage" is inaccurate. The targeting of civilians is savage. The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage. The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage. The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.

But note that this is the only press release the JCRC has issued in all of 2012. These dhimmis have nothing whatsoever to say about the genocidal rhetoric broadcast on official "Palestinian" Authority TV on a regular basis. They have nothing to say about Obama's ongoing harassment of Israel. The increasing levels of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world? Not a word. The only thing that has moved the JCRC to speak are defiantly and forthrightly pro-Israel ads. The JCRC and AJC are a disgrace.

Supporters of the JCRC and the AJC who genuinely support Israel and the Jewish people should withdraw their support from those organizations -- and support AFDI.
452  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NJ Gov. Christie Hosts Radical Imam; Reaffirms Support. on: August 13, 2012, 11:37:20 PM
Christie Hosts Hamas-linked radical Imam - Sunday, July 29, 2012

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hasn’t commented on the case of Imam Mohammed Qatanani since the issue started getting attention, leaving open the question of whether he still stands by the radical imam that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport. We now know the answer. On July 24, Christie invited Qatanani to a Ramadan dinner at the Governor’s Mansion and he reaffirmed his support for the cleric, calling him a “friend.”

“In all my interactions with the imam, he has attempted to be a force for good in his community, in our state with law enforcement, with those of us who have gotten to know him for the years,” Christie said at the event in Princeton.  He continued:

“I hope that what you see is a constant strain of conduct for me. I will judge people based upon their relationships with me and the way I observe them conduct themselves, and while there may be other issues at play and I will certainly consider those if other facts come in, I will tell you the folks who are my friends will continue to be my friends as long as they continue to conduct themselves with integrity and honesty and faith in common value and the things that make our state a better place.”

This development isn’t terribly surprising, especially since reported that when Christie’s Attorney General met with Qatanani, Mohamed el-Filali, the executive director of Qatanani’s mosque and an official from the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ N.J. chapter.

A July 29, 2008 court filing said Qatanani was guilty of “material misrepresentation,” “has engaged in terrorist activity” and “engaging in unauthorized employment…by allowing an out-of-status alien to reside with him.”

“It is certainly suspicious when a person who has been convicted of being a member of, and providing services, to Hamas, who has personal ties to a Hamas militant leader, and a Hamas fundraiser also sends undisclosed cash to the West Bank,” the document reads.

Qatanani’s next hearing is scheduled for November 26.

For more background information on Imam Qatanani and his relationship with Governor Christie, read’s previous reports by clicking here, here and here.
453  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Salient observation regarding Paul Ryan... on: August 13, 2012, 11:26:53 AM
Rush Limbaugh just made an observation in his opening monologue today that I think is particularly on-point:

"We now have a CONSERVATIVE on the ticket, and not just a fiscal conservative - a SMALL GOVERNMENT conservative - the two don't always correspond.  Paul Ryan is a SMALL GOVERNMENT, unabashed, unapologetic, bold conservative who can take the fight directly to Obama and his failed government policies, and articulate this to the American people.  And I think he is energizing Romney to do the same."

454  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Defending Medicare Reform... on: August 13, 2012, 09:03:56 AM
Paul Ryan's Plan Can Be Effectively Defended

From The Heritage Foundation - August 13, 2012

Quick quiz: Who said this about Medicare? "With an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don't gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won't be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it."

It wasn't Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mitt Romney's new running mate, who has been vocal about the need for Medicare reform. It was President Barack Obama, just last year.

As the debate reignites over the government's health care plan for seniors, which has a long-term unfunded liability of nearly $37 trillion, two things are important to remember:

1. Obamacare has already "ended Medicare as we know it."

2. There is bipartisan consensus for moving Medicare toward a premium support model, meaning that the government would make a fixed contribution toward each enrollee's plan, but the enrollee would have the freedom to choose which health care plan he or she wants.

Medicare has been unsustainable for some time. The continued "plan" to deal with the entitlement's runaway growth has been to cut payments to health care providers—but because that would harm patients by reducing the number of doctors available, Congress keeps putting it off. As Heritage expert Bob Moffit explains:
Physicians, under current law, also face Medicare payment cuts that are so draconian—31 percent in 2013—that Congress once again will likely stop them from going into effect. Yet the prospects remain profoundly unfavorable for physicians. More seniors plus fewer providers does not—and cannot—equal "guaranteed" benefits.

The President and other supporters have claimed that Obamacare would help protect seniors. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just updated its estimate of the amount Obamacare steals from Medicare to fund itself—a whopping $716 billion between 2013 and 2022.

As Heritage's Alyene Senger wrote, "With a raid on Medicare of this magnitude, President Obama's assertion that his new law is protecting seniors and Medicare is astonishing. The truth is that Obamacare does the opposite."

If anyone starts talking about "ending Medicare as we know it," you can easily tell him that Obamacare already did that. In addition to robbing Medicare of its funding, Obamacare contains more than 160 provisions affecting Medicare.

The good news is that there are several strong plans for Medicare reform that could salvage the program for the next generation of retirees.

The Heritage Foundation has developed a Medicare premium support plan as part of its comprehensive budget reform, Saving the American Dream. With premium support, the government makes a fixed payment to a health plan chosen by an enrollee. If an enrollee wants to purchase a plan that is more expensive than the government payment, the enrollee may do so, paying the additional cost. If an enrollee wants to buy a less expensive plan, the enrollee may also do so, and keep the savings.

Under this model, health plans would compete directly with each other. Their ability to retain or expand their enrollment would depend solely on their ability to provide the best package of benefits and the highest quality of care at the most competitive price. The American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Progressive Policy Institute have all endorsed this general approach to comprehensive Medicare reform.

Some Members of Congress also have been forging a powerful consensus on reforming Medicare. Senators Richard Burr (R–NC) and Tom Coburn (R–OK), and Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden (D–OR) have put forth plans that would improve on the experience of defined-contribution ("premium support") financing that today characterizes the competitive private plan program in Medicare Part C and the Medicare drug program in Medicare Part D.

Without reform, Medicare is headed toward a crash landing, leaving America's seniors in the lurch. Heritage's Moffit asserts:
Medicare premium support, long a bipartisan proposal, is the best alternative to this unhappy scenario. It would improve the environment for medical practice, guarantee retirees better choices and broader access to quality care, encourage faster innovation in care delivery, and discourage waste and fraud in medical transactions. It would also deliver superior cost control. For the next generation of taxpayers and retirees alike, there is no better future.
455  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hamas-linked CAIR spokesperson encourages vandalism of pro-Israel ads... on: August 13, 2012, 07:28:43 AM
Cyrus McGoldrick of Hamas-linked CAIR calls for vandalism of AFDI pro-Israel ads

Robert Spencer - August 12, 2012

"I almost don't want to protest/vandalize them. But then again...."

Pamela Geller has the story

Cyrus McGoldrick is "Civil Rights Manager" of Hamas-CAIR, NY. He is urging anti-semitic violence and vandalism of our pro-Israel bus ads that just went up in California after our historic free speech win in court.
The scores of anti-Israel bus and subway campaigns that have run thoughout the United States were never met with calls for violence and destruction.

Indeed. But Hamas-linked CAIR has never shrunk from thuggish attempts to obstruct and deny the freedom of speech.
456  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Islamorealism Ads by Spencer and Geller up in NYC!!! on: August 11, 2012, 07:59:53 AM
AFDI/SIOA Islamorealism ads up in New York!

See here:

I am very pleased to report that for once the freedom of speech and the truth have triumphed over political correctness and submission to the Islamic supremacist agenda. Our AFDI/SIOA Islamorealism ads are up in New York Metropolitan Transit Authority stations from White Plains to the Bronx. I'm particularly proud of this as "Islamorealism" is a word I coined.

All kudos go to Pamela Geller, who originated this ad and all our brilliant AFDI/SIOA Islamic supremacist awareness ads, and who keeps pushing the politically correct establishment to grant us our free speech rights.

Posted by Robert on August 10, 2012 5:17 AM
457  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Preliminary response... on: August 10, 2012, 03:02:34 PM
Quoting JDN:  "Geller is a well known wacko and Grover Norquist, a prominent Republican strategist, dismissed Gaffney as a “sick, little bigot.”

Calling someone names, regardless of who makes the charge - doesn't make it so.  It's also worth pointing out that I haven't seen JDN - or anyone else on this forum, refute anything that Pamela Geller has said that I have posted.  Call her a "wacko" if you like - let's see the evidence.

As for Grover Norquist calling Frank Gaffney a "sick, little bigot," the same applies.  Gaffney has attacked Norquist repeatedly over his documented Islamist connections.  It's not surprising that Norquist wouldn't be pleased with this - however - Norquist hasn't refuted ANY of the charges Gaffney has made about him.

Again - I say - let's see the evidence that either of these individuals is making false charges.  What no one ACTUALLY cares to entertain on this forum is baseless name-calling.  Kindly present your evidence and engage in an honest debate, or stop wasting others' time here.  You'll simply be ignored going forward.
458  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 09, 2012, 06:25:03 PM
Also worth noting is that JDN makes absolutely NO attempt to refute anything contained in the Andrew McCarthy piece I posted earlier in this thread, which effectively destroys his laughable claim that this is simply a "witch hunt."  There are plenty of FACTS in that piece.  JDN evidently isn't interested in facts - only in character assassination.
459  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More disturbing details regarding Huma Abedin and her family... on: August 09, 2012, 02:58:21 PM
The Abedin Family’s Pro-Jihadist Journal

August 6th, 2012 by Andrew Bostom |

Steadily burgeoning evidence indicates that one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, despite Ms. Clinton’s protestation, was inadequately vetted for either family, or personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Diligent, open source investigation has already uncovered and documented numerous alarming connections. One can reasonably infer that a serious, formal Congressional investigation of the overall extent of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations—as requested by Representatives Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney—might yield even more disturbing findings.

Pending these sorely needed Congressional inquiries—replete with their probing investigative tools—much can still be gleaned from the public record. For example, over the past 33 years, Huma Abedin’s family has been responsible for the editorial production of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA)’s academic journal, known as Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Journal, from 1979-1995, and Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs [JMMA], from 1996. till now, starting with family patriarch Syed Z. Abedin’s, and Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin’s, founding involvement since 1979, and subsequently joined by Huma’s brother Hassan Abedin (1996 to present), Huma herself (1996 to 2008), and Huma’s sister, Heba (married name Khalid, or Khaled; 2002 to present).

Syed Abedin, in the inaugural edition of the IMMA journal, gives an effusive tribute to one of his IMMA co-founders, Dr. Abdullah Omar Nasseef, Chairman of the IMMA. During his concurrent tenure as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League—a combined Saudi Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood-dominated organization—in July, 1988, Naseef also created the Rabita Trust, and became its chairman. On October 12, 2001, then President George W. Bush’s Executive Order named Rabita Trust as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity, and the US Treasury Department froze its assets, while Naseef was still serving as the Trust’s chairman. Nasseef remained on the IMMA journal Editorial Board through 2003, overlapping Huma Abedin’s tenure for 7-years (i.e., 1996-2003).

The current (April/May 2012) issue of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs journal (JMMA) features two essays, introduced with lavish praise by Editor Saleha Abedin, which champion, unabashedly:

The global hegemonic aspirations of major 20th century Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, such as the eminent Muslim Brotherhood theoretician, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), and Abul Hasan Nadwi (d. 1999)
The more expansive application of Sharia within Muslim minority communities residing in the West, with the goal of replacing these non-Muslim governing systems, as advocated by contemporary Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Taha Jabir al-Alwani
One of these JMMA essays repeats, approvingly, Qutb’s pejorative characterization of the West as a “disastrous combination of avid materialism, and egoistic individualism.” Abul Hasan Nadwi, was a founding member of the Muslim World League, a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (now Cooperation), a member of the World Supreme Council of Mosques, and a member of the Fiqh Council of Rabita.  In a triumphal 1951 manifesto extolling Islamic supremacism, Nadwi had proclaimed  “Behold the world of man looking with rapture at the world of Islam as its savior, and behold the world of Islam fixing its gaze on the Arab world as its secular and spiritual leader. Will the world of Islam realize the hope of the world of men? And will the Arab world realize the hope of the Muslim world?” Citing Nadwi with admiration, the same JMMA article opines, “[T]he confrontation has taken the shape of an ‘Islamic project’ in the Muslim world against Western modernity…. The war that has been declared against Western modernity now seeks a new modernity…unlike Western modernity.”

Another featured essay from the current issue of the JMMA is a fitting complement to  the journal’s endorsement of the global Islamic supremacist agenda. This essay endorses the so-called “innovative” application of the  “Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities,” living, for example, in the West, whose stated purpose is, “enforcement of shari’ah on the Muslim communities.” However, by the essay’s own expressed standard: “The theory of the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities is most easily clarified by shedding light on its founders.”

The two founders of this legal doctrine, as the essay  notes, are Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Qatar, and Taha Jabir al-Alwani of Virginia, USA.

Qaradawi has publicly advocated:

The re-creation of a formal transnational United Islamic State (Islamic Caliphate)
The jihad conquests of Europe, and the Americas
Universal application of the Sharia, including Islamic blasphemy law, and the hadd punishments (for example, notably, executing so-called “apostates” from Islam)
Al-Alwani, writing as president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a think tank created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, stated, regarding a (then) new English translation of the classic Shafiite manual of Islamic jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveller,  “from a purely academic point of view, this translation is superior to anything produced by orientalists in the way of translations of major Islamic works.” Notwithstanding al-Alwani’s glowing tribute,  Reliance of the Traveller sanctions open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic Caliphate; rejection of bedrock Western liberties—including freedom of conscience and speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel (who must be segregated and undergo female genital mutilation); and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Moreover,

Al-Alwani wished Islamized Spain had conquered America and spread Islam in our hemisphere, not Christianity. He stated,  “Perhaps some of them [Muslims from Spain] would have been the ones who discovered America, not someone else, and America could have possibly been today among the lands of the Muslims”
Al-Alwani was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami Al-Arian who pled guilty to conspiracy to aid the terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
al-Alwani published an essay online, discovered (and translated from Arabic to English) in July 2011, entitled “The Great Haughtiness”, which promoted conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred replete with Koranic references, conjoined to modern “Zionist conspiracies”
The Abedin family “academic” journal is a thinly veiled mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sharia-supremacist agenda.  One can now add this conclusive, public record evidence to a host of other bona fide justifications for the Congressional inquiry demanded by Representative Bachmann, and her four intrepid colleagues.

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2012 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.
460  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Occupy Movement Unmasked... on: August 09, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
Occupy Unmasked

Posted By Ben Shapiro On August 9, 2012

This week, Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner’s Magnet Releasing revealed that they had purchased the rights to Occupy Unmasked, a Citizens United production, also produced by Andrew Breitbart, and created by Stephen K. Bannon. About a month ago, I had the opportunity to pre-screen the film along with the attendees of the Right Online conference.

Full disclosure: I’m editor-at-large of Breitbart News; I was a close friend of Andrew’s; I’m a Shillman Journalism Fellow with the Freedom Center. Leaving all that aside, Occupy Unmasked is a thought-provoking and powerful piece of work that will make you worry for your country.

The film itself explores the deep, dark crevices of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Where did it come from? What are its ideological and philosophical roots? And what was the goal of the movement?

Occupy Unmasked uncovers the answers through exclusive footage of the Occupy movement – footage that will leave your skin crawling and your stomach writhing. This was not a peaceful, hippie movement of the 1960s, with thousands of grassroots turning out for drug-induced love-ins. This was a top-down, insidiously planned movement with a set of very real goals: chaos, political pressure, undermining the existing constitutional order. Occupy was dangerous, and it was purposefully designed to be dangerous.

Through all of this, Andrew Breitbart acts as guide. Andrew was a larger-than-life figure – a passionate advocate for what he believed, and a deep believer in the great hope that is America. And you can see the fire in his eyes when he describes the shameful dreams and tactics of Occupy. The rapes, the assaults, the property damage; the smear campaigns; the media complicity. It’s all there.

When we get to the ideological roots of the movement, David Horowitz takes the fore. As a former leftist radical, Horowitz understands the motives of the thwarted ‘60s radicals standing behind the Occupy movement. He understands the underpinnings of an astroturfed operation, and he details how Occupy stole the Marxist philosophy of the 1930s radicals, combined them with the sit-in politics of the 1960s radicals, and then added a patina of legitimacy provided by a compliant mainstream media. There is a history to Occupy. It did not spring from the mind of Zeus, full-blown. It sprang from a hundred-year history of class and race discontent; it was fruit of the poisonous tree. Horowitz explains all that, and he also explains how so many Americans were duped into believing that Occupy was simply an innocent movement frustrated with the workings of the political machinery.

The film isn’t just commentary. It features undercover work by video journalists including Brandon Darby, Lee Stranahan, Pam Keys, and Mandy Nagy. It allows viewers to enter deep into the heart of a movement that wasn’t a joke, no matter how much it may seem so in retrospect.

And today, that is the true danger of Occupy: that we will take it too lightly, pretend that it meant nothing. In truth, it meant everything to the left. That’s why the Obama administration defended it. This week, Judicial Watch announced that it had obtained access to Obama administration Department of Homeland Security documents showing that the General Services Administration told law enforcement to “stand down” and allow Occupy Portland protesters to violate the law. As Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said, “These documents clearly show that federal agencies colluded with the Obama White House to allow the Occupy Wall Street protestors to violate the law with impunity. These documents tell us that the GSA and DHS can’t be relied upon to protect federal workers or property.”

Occupy may not be the first radical movement to seize the imaginations of millions of Americans. And it won’t be the last. But it may have been the first fully produced mass movement in American history – a movement created in back rooms, to specific ends. Occupy Unmasked documents the evolution of the Occupy movement in all its horrific detail.

And you can guarantee that we haven’t seen the last of Occupy. Not yet.

Watch the trailer of Occupy Unmasked here:

461  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Administration Denies Gutting Welfare Reform... on: August 08, 2012, 09:47:30 AM
Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform

Amy Payne  August 8, 2012
The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful 1996 reform’s work requirements is “categorically false” and “blatantly dishonest.” Even former President Bill Clinton, who signed the reform into law, came out parroting the Obama team’s talking points and saying the charge was “not true.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley first broke the story on July 12 that Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) had rewritten the Clinton-era reform to undo the work requirements, in a move that legal experts Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt determined was patently illegal.

The Administration’s new argument has two parts: denying the Obama Administration’s actions and claiming that Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, tried to do the same thing. In essence, “We did not do what you’re saying, but even if we did, some Republicans did it, too.” Both parts of this argument are easily debunked.

Obama Administration Claim #1: We Didn’t Gut Work Requirements

Ever since the 1996 law passed, Democratic leaders have attempted (unsuccessfully) to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) and attempting to weaken the requirements. Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Obama HHS claimed authority to grant waivers that allow states to get around the work requirements.
Humorously, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now asserts that the Administration abolished the TANF work requirements to increase work.
HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s prior performance.” But given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of people moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place.
Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. The law curtailed use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.
Obama’s HHS claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (contained in section 407), including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates.” In other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can design any policy it chooses.

Obama Administration Claim #2: Even If We Did, the Republicans Tried It, Too

Though the Obama Administration is claiming it is not trying to get around the work requirements, it is also claiming that a group of Republican governors tried to do the same thing in 2005. Clinton also said in his statement yesterday that “the recently announced waiver policy was originally requested” by Republican governors.

Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector addressed this claim back on July 19. As Rector explains:
But [the governors'] letter makes no mention at all of waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have toughened the federal work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity.
The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?
Two reasons: First, it has been clear for 15 years that the TANF law did not permit HHS to waive the work requirements. Second, the Republican governors were not seeking to waive the work requirements in the first place.

Obama’s Evolution from Welfare to Work and Back
President Obama had a convenient change of heart regarding welfare reform when it was time to run for President. In 1998, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said:
I was not a huge supporter of the federal plan that was signed in 1996. Having said that, I do think that there is a potential political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform. And that is to desegregate the welfare population—meaning the undeserving poor, black folks in cities, from the working poor—deserving, white, rural as well as suburban.
The same year, he reiterated that “the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level.”
But in 2008, when he was running for President, Obama said he had changed his mind about welfare reform: “I was much more concerned 10 years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results….It had—it worked better than, I think, a lot of people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy.”
One of his 2008 campaign ads touted “the Obama record: moved people from welfare to work” and promised that as President, he would “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”
This evolution is unsurprising, considering the vast majority of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to work.
President Obama has finally accomplished what Democrats have been trying to do for years. He has even gotten President Clinton to turn his back on one of the signature achievements of his Administration to give him political cover—which Clinton was quick to do. In 1996, Clinton had to compromise and allow the tough work requirements to get the legislation passed.
Both Presidents have now revealed their true feelings about welfare—and there’s no denying it.
462  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Suicide as a Jewish Value... on: August 08, 2012, 07:37:01 AM
Suicide as a Jewish Value

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On August 8, 2012

A month ago, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sat down with the host of a Jewish television channel and could not name any reason for Jews to vote for Obama except for his support for abortion. Which is to say that the favorite muppet of the Democratic Party could not think of any reason to support B.O. except a mutual commitment that fewer Jews be born.

It is a little-known fact that Margaret Sanger, that pioneer of eugenic solutions to “racial, political, and social problems,” began by targeting Jews, opening her first center in Brownsville, Brooklyn, complete with Yiddish and Italian flyers, aiming for the two immigrant groups whose high reproduction rates were considered a social problem.

Abortion as a liberal Jewish value has been a stunning success. In New York City, where Sanger first set up shop, 74 percent of all Jewish children are members of the traditionalist Orthodox religious group. Liberal Jews are already panicking over the prospect of a future Jewish population in New York City that is staunchly conservative and religious.

A recent survey of New York City Jews also shows a nearly even split between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. 46 percent of New York Jews are planning to vote against Obama, and a majority of New York City Jews think that Romney would be better at fixing the economy than B.O. But it is only to be expected that the group for whom abortion isn’t a Jewish value would come to outnumber the group for whom abortion is a Jewish value.

The problem with values is that you have to live with their consequences. When your values dictate that terrorists deserve all the protections of the civilian justice system, then you have to be ready to live with the explosions. If your values dictate minimal population growth, then you have to accept the consequences of extinction. Values that are contrary to survival carry their own natural cost. And when your values are at odds with your interests, then your values might as well be an open window, a loaded revolver or a dose of strychnine.

Liberal Jews like to talk about Jewish values rather than Jewish interests, because their values are incompatible with Jewish interests — even as a matter of simple survival. The usual liberal grab bag of values that are represented by the Jewish hand puppets of liberalism, like Wasserman-Schultz, aren’t just alien, they threaten the basic survival of the Jewish People.

When asked to justify what interests the Democratic Party and American Jews have in common, the Jewish liberal dives into a copy of the New York Times and comes up with illegal immigration, abortion, gay rights and support for peace in the Middle East.

That list of liberal Jewish values not only fails to align with a single Jewish interest, but each of them threatens Jewish interests… that is if survival is to be considered a Jewish interest.

Peace in the Middle East means aborting Israel, dissecting it into small pieces and repeating the process until there is no country left. It’s another case of liberal Jews trying to do to Israel what they have already done to themselves. To believe that pressuring Israel into making a non-stop roll of concessions to Muslim terrorists is a Jewish value is to believe that suicide is a Jewish value.

Illegal immigration, a cause that virtually every major Jewish organization has signed on to, means the mass migration of Mexicans to the United States. The ADL’s own survey shows that nearly half of foreign-born Latinos rate as strongly anti-Semitic, over three times the rate of white Americans. (Bad news for the glorious civil rights alliance; the ADL’s strongly anti-Semitic ratings are 12 percent for white Americans, 35 percent for African-Americans and 44 percent for foreign-born Latinos.) The only way to make sense of this is that liberal Jewish groups believe that increasing anti-Semitism in America is actually a Jewish value.

But liberals of all creeds need more Mexican illegal aliens and immigrants from all across the Third World to compensate for the good work of Sanger. Liberal Christians fear the reproduction rates of Conservative Christians as liberal Jews fear the reproduction rates of Orthodox Jews. The only way out of the demographic race is to import “ringers” who will have the children that they won’t. The new eugenics is political eugenics. Birth control is no longer for the people that Sanger considered the “unfit”; they’re valued now for their reproductive rates which help the “fit” stay in power.

Growing anti-Semitism is a small price to pay for the liberal values of having people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sitting in Congress instead of selling tie-dyed t-shirts and hand-painted seashell bongs in a flea market. And like all the wages of liberalism, the price for it isn’t paid by the people on top, but by those at the bottom: Those Jews living next to the 44 percent in New York City or on farms in the West Bank within firing range of their Palestinian Muslim peace partners. The Jews whom Sanger and Schultz consider “unfit.”

There is a fundamental gap between the interests of those Jews and those of a liberal elite who claim that their liberal values are our Jewish values. The values of the elite are linked to power while those of the population are linked to survival. The power of liberal Jewish elites is inextricably linked to the decimation of Jewish populations, whether in the United States, Europe or Israel.

Jews who have grown up within the bubble of liberal Jewish values are repeatedly asked to choose between their own interests, their physical, social and economic welfare, and the values that have been presented to them as Jewish values. They are encouraged to believe that betraying their own interests is a noble act of self-sacrifice for the greater good.

This is the same false choice between interests and values, between the low ground of survival and the high ground of moral superiority, that the left subjects all Americans and Europeans to on a regular basis. What all the lecturers on the theme of the moral high ground and the new value system have forgotten to mention is that a value system that is incapable of perpetuating itself is of very little use to anyone. It isn’t even any good as an act of martyrdom because martyrs are remembered by the people who share their beliefs.

Martyrs that live on die for a faith, not for the extinction of a faith. And that is what liberal Jewish values are. The extinction of a faith and a people in the name of a better faith in liberalism and a better people in the form of a multicultural rainbow of other people who have children, but still vote Democratic, because their religious values have not yet been submerged within a liberal identity.

The paradox of the multicultural alliance is that the political survival of the narrow wedge of liberals at the top depends on a larger wedge of non-liberals who vote for them but don’t share their values. If the minority communities adopted the full panoply of liberal values, they would be on the same path to extinction as the people for whom they have been taught to pull the lever on Election Day.

That is what makes the multicultural alliance into a frighteningly unstable beast which is always at risk of either breaking left or breaking right and must be constantly replenished through fresh supplies of immigrants who are still economically liberal and socially conservative enough to keep the system going.

Jewish liberals are stuck in a particularly hellish version of this paradox preaching an extinction-based value system that is doomed to lose the race to traditionalists. And the only way out is to try and suborn and break down the values of Jewish traditionalists more aggressively in order to gain fresh recruits for their zombie army of the living dead.

Margaret Sanger at least understood that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ … can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes.” Birth control teaching without eugenics would never be enough, but the age when the government can mandate a One Child Policy is not yet here. And even if it did arrive, it would still lead to a higher birth rate for couples in traditional marriages.

The race between traditional Jewish values and liberal Jewish values must always end in the same way over and over again. Suicide can never become a Jewish value unless it is universalized and it can never be universalized until every traditional group is broken down. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has already lost and she probably knows it. If she doesn’t, the Jewish Federations who are busy typing up the survey results certainly do. And while that will lead them to redirect more money to groups such as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Uri L’Tzedek which act as leftist outposts of the war on traditional Judaism — that too is another race they cannot win.

In Israel and America, the proponents of Jewish suicide are successfully wiping themselves out, while the proponents of Jewish survival are filling up cradles. The race between the Jewish values of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and their values is already being won.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle:
463  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Islamic manipulation... on: August 07, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
The Blue Belt in Olympic Judo

By Robert Spencer - 8-5-2012

Now the whole story of the Saudi girl who got Olympic rules changed so she could compete in judo wearing a hijab has finally come out. Wojdan Shaherkani, who forced a rule change in the Olympics so she could compete in judo while wearing a hijab, which previously had been banned for safety reasons, has only been practicing judo for two years, and is only a blue belt. She was only in the Olympics by special invitation.

This is like grabbing some guy from the local karate school, some guy who has been stopping in on Fridays for awhile to get back into shape, and throwing him into the Olympics. Shaherkani demonstrated this by lasting only 82 seconds in her Olympic bout. Nothing could have illustrated more vividly that the purpose of this pudgy girl’s Olympic appearance was not to bring home a medal to happy Saudi judo fans.

The purpose of Wojdan Shaherkani's Olympic appearance was twofold: to comply with International Olympic Committee (IOC) pressure for female athletes from Sharia states like Saudi Arabia, and to turn that situation into a victory by pressuring the IOC for a concession on hijabs, thereby reinforcing the principle that wherever Islamic law and Infidel laws and practices conflict, it is Infidel laws and practices that must give way. Throwing this unprepared girl into Olympic competition was a cynical ploy to show yet again that the West must submit to the demands of Muslims and of Islamic law.

It was to reinforce Islamic supremacism that the world was treated to the spectacle of an inexperienced blue belt competing in Olympic judo. This is in line with long-standing initiatives in Europe, Canada, and the United States, where groups of Muslims are increasingly demanding that local custom accommodate to them, rather than the other way around, and are doing so based on the proposition that Islamic culture is superior to Western culture, and that Western culture must ultimately give way to it.

One notorious example came last October, when the Obama Department of Justice settled a Muslim woman’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the Berkeley School District. The DoJ forced the school district to pay Safoorah Khan $75,000 for denying her nearly three weeks of vacation during the school year so that she could go on the hajj.

Safoorah Khan asked for "almost three weeks of unpaid leave" so that she could go on the hajj. She wrote that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj," although since a Muslim has his or her entire lifetime to perform the hajj, it's unclear what would have made it impossible for her to justify delaying doing so -- was she in imminent danger of death?

If she wasn't, there was no reason why she had to go on the hajj at that time. And since the Islamic calendar is a lunar one with a year of 355 days, the time to perform the hajj moves by ten days every year. All she had to do was wait until the time for the hajj fell during summer vacation, and then there would have been no problem.

But instead, she demanded three weeks of leave. Yet three weeks of leave, even unpaid, out of the school year is a significant chunk of time -- after all, the school year is only about nine months long. So she is essentially demanding to keep her job despite being away for nearly a tenth of the time during which the job is to be performed.

Yet Obama's Justice Department, ever accommodating to Islamic demands, is forcing the school district to make a big payout to her. And you can be sure there will be more cases like this one. Said Khan: "I’m glad that we settled and I hope this does set a precedent...I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests."

Oh, it certainly will. For the current guardians of Western culture and civilization are all too willing to comply with these “requests,” having been convinced after years of mainstream media indoctrination that not to do so would be to would constitute an unacceptable “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.” They are unable or unwilling to see that the outcome of the myriad small accommodations to a supremacist and intolerant ideology will be the destruction of the very basis of their tolerance and openness. But by then it will be too late.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.
464  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Andrew McCarthy to present briefing tomorrow on this subject... on: August 07, 2012, 08:49:04 AM
Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy Briefs on
Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations

When:  11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m., August 8, 2012
Where:  Edward R. Murrow Room, National Press Club
               529 14th Street Northwest, 13th Floor
               Washington, DC 20045
Who:  Andrew C. McCarthy: Prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman
What: A presentation of new information concerning Muslim Brotherhood influence operations inside and aimed at the Obama administration and their impact on U.S. policy. The briefing will include additional revelations concerning Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
            Ever since five Members of Congress – Representatives Michele Bachmann (MN) Louie Gohmert (TX), Trent Franks (AZ), Lynn Montgomery (GA) and Tom Rooney (FL) – were attacked by their colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison (MN), for asking the Inspectors General of federal departments to investigate evidence of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations within the U.S. government, there has been much heat and relatively little light on the subject.  The group that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has dubbed “the National Security Five” has been subjected to character assassination, had its motives and integrity impugned and been ridiculed for acting irresponsibly, without any basis for its request to the IGs.  In fact, it has been the five legislators’ critics of both parties who have failed to do their homework.
            Fortunately one of the Nation’s most knowledgeable and respected authorities regarding the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” - former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy - has done his due diligence. In successive articles at National Review Online and PJMedia, Mr. McCarthy has explored some of the evidence that individuals with ties to the Brotherhood are working inside or advising the Obama administration.  He shares – and, with his characteristic rigor, further validates – the concerns expressed by Mrs. Bachmann et al. that American policy may be influenced by such officials, advisors and “liaisons” to the Muslim-American community.
            Mr. McCarthy’s briefing will address several examples of this phenomenon, including additional information developed in recent days concerning Huma Abedin’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
            Please RSVP to Adam Savit, or 202-719-2413.
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
For more information visit
465  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why haven't the REST of the House Republicans joined with Bachmann, et. al..? on: August 06, 2012, 06:21:27 PM
Lest there be any doubt about the legitimacy of the concerns expressed regarding Hillary Clinton's advisor Huma Abedin:

Huma Abedin’s Brotherhood Ties Are Not Just a Family Affair

Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On July 27, 2012

Senator John McCain’s claim that concerns about Huma Abedin are a smear based on “a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations” proves more embarrassing by the day. In fact, to the extent it addressed Ms. Abedin, the letter sent to the State Department’s inspector general by five House conservatives actually understated the case.

The letter averred that Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin. Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda.

You ought to be able to stop right there.

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

Government jobs and access to the nation’s secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn’t stem from one’s own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one’s parents’ connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.

In this instance, however, before you even start probing the extensive, disturbing Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin should have been ineligible for any significant government position based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef’s organization.

Specifically, Ms. Abedeen was affiliated with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

The IMMA was founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was then the vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The IMMA’s chief product was to be its journal. For the important position of managing editor, Naseef recruited his fellow academic Zyed Abedin, who had been a visiting professor at the university in the early 1970s.

To join the IMMA, Dr. Abedin moved his family, including infant daughter Huma (born in 1976), to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Zyed’s wife, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (Huma’s mother), is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take it over after her husband died in 1993, and she remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin’s brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal.

The journal began publishing in 1979. For its initial edition, Abdullah Omar Naseef — identified in the masthead as “Chairman, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs” — penned a brief introduction relating the IMMA’s vision for the journal. Zyed Abedin appeared as managing editor in the journal’s second edition in 1979, proclaiming in a short introduction his “deep appreciation to H.E. Dr. Abdullah O. Naseef, President, King Abdulaziz University, for his continued guidance, support, and encouragement.” (I am indebted to the Center for Security Policy, which obtained some copies of the journal, going back many years.)

Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League, the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.

We are not talking here about some random imam in the dizzying alphabet soup of Islamist entities. In the pantheon of Islamic supremacism, there are few positions more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL’s founders was Sa’id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s legendary founder.

The MWL manages the “civilization jihad” — the Brotherhood’s commitment to destroy the West from within, and to “conquer” it by sharia proselytism (or dawa), as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s top sharia jurist, puts it.
Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well.

It was under MWL auspices in 1988 that Naseef created a “charity” called the Rabita Trust. The scare-quotes around “charity” are intentional. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. A few years earlier, Jalaidan had joined with Osama bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.

This would surprise you only if you waste your time listening to John McCain, Version 2012 — as opposed to John McCain, Version 2011, who professed himself “unalterably opposed” to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Under the Brotherhood’s interpretation of sharia, which is explained in such works as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, all Muslims are supposed to donate a portion of their income. This obligation, known as zakat, is usually referred to as “charity” by Islamists and their Western pom-pom waivers. But it is not charity; it is fortification of the ummah – the notional global community of Muslims.

As Reliance instructs, zakat can only be given to Muslims, and one-eighth of it is supposed to be donated to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster.” Remember that the next time you hear the ubiquitous claim that Muslim charities are being misused as “fronts” for terrorism. This is not a “misuse” and they are not “fronts.” Under sharia, the streaming of donations to violent jihadists is quite intentional.

A month after the 9/11 attacks, Naseef’s Rabitah Trust was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States government. Ultimately, branches of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the International Islamic Relief Organization – other “charities” with roots in the MWL — were also designated as foreign terrorist organizations under federal law. This, too, should have not been a surprise. In 2003, in connection with a terrorism prosecution in Chicago, the Justice Department proffered that Osama bin Laden had told his aide Jamal al-Fadl that the Muslim World League was one of al-Qaeda’s three top funding sources. (Fadl later renounced al-Qaeda and cooperated with federal prosecutors.)

Throughout the time that he ran the MWL and the Rabita Trust, Naseef kept his hand in at the IMMA. In fact, he continued to be listed on the masthead as a member of the “advisory editorial board” at the IMMA’s journal until 2003. We might hazard a guess why his name disappeared after that: in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)

Huma Abedin was affiliated with the IMMA’s journal for a dozen years, from 1996 through 2008. She overlapped with its founder, Naseef, for at least seven years — it could be more, but I am assuming for argument’s sake that Naseef had no further involvement in his institute once his name was removed from the masthead.

The case against Ms. Abedin’s suitability for a high-level position with access to the nation’s secrets gets much worse if you add in her family ties.

To summarize what I’ve already outlined here at Ordered Liberty: her parents were recruited by Naseef to head up the IMMA; her mother is an active member of Muslim Brotherhood organizations — including the Muslim Sisterhood and two entities that are part of Sheikh Qaradawi’s Union of Good, another designated terrorist organization; there is persuasive evidence that her father was a member of the Brotherhood — e.g., the intimate tie to Naseef and his widow’s membership in the Muslim Sisterhood (which is substantially comprised of wives and female relatives of prominent Muslim Brothers); her mother is a tireless advocate of sharia law as preached by Qaradawi and the Brotherhood; and her brother, who is also affiliated with the IMMA’s journal, was a fellow at an Islamist institute (the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies) on whose board sat both Naseef and Qaradawi.

Nevertheless, the family ties to the Brotherhood only further elucidate what is already patent: Huma Abedin’s connection to Abdullah Omar Naseef, by itself, would have been more than enough justification to deny her a security clearance. That would have made it inconceivable that she could serve as deputy chief of staff to the secretary of state.

Ms. Abedin has very disturbing connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Though she is not a policymaker, she is an important adviser, and during her three-year tenure, federal government policy has radically shifted in the Brotherhood’s favor, to the point that the Obama administration is not only embracing the previously shunned Brotherhood but issuing visas to members of formally designated terrorist organizations.

The question is not whether the five House conservatives were off-base in asking for an investigation into ties between administration officials and Islamist organizations. The question is why the other 430 members of the House haven’t joined them — and why John McCain, John Boehner, and other Republican establishment luminaries are championing the Muslim Brotherhood’s side of the dispute.

Article printed from Ordered Liberty:
466  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Barone on recent examples of media's selective reporting... on: August 06, 2012, 03:53:37 PM
Supporters of Ted Cruz and Chick-fil-A Break News

By Michael Barone - August 6, 2012


Americans keep behaving in ways that baffle the liberal mainstream media. Two examples figured prominently -- or should have -- in last week's news.

One is the runoff primary for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Texas. Former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz thumped incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, 57 to 43 percent.

Cruz won even though the Texas Republican establishment, from Gov. Rick Perry on down, endorsed Dewhurst. So did the Austin lobbying community, since Dewhurst as lieutenant governor has run the state Senate for the last 10 years (and, having lost this race, will do so for at least the next two).

Dewhurst has had a generally conservative record and had no problem getting elected and re-elected statewide four times. And he spent liberally from the fortune he made in the private sector.

To be fair, some MSM outlets did run stories on Cruz's rise in the polls since he ran behind Dewhurst by a 45 to 34 percent margin in the May 29 primary. And it's not uncommon for a second-place finisher to overcome the primary winner in a runoff.

But there's a pattern here that the big liberal press has been reluctant to recognize: Candidates from the GOP establishment are getting knocked off by challengers with less name recognition, far less money and the support of the tea party movement. The tea party was supposed to be dead and gone, you know.

There were two such victories in May, when six-term Sen. Richard Lugar was upset by state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in Indiana and when state Sen. Deb Fischer beat two well-known contenders for the open seat nomination in Nebraska.

Cruz, who is the odds-on favorite in November, has the credentials and policy positions to be a figure of national importance for many years. At 41, he could represent the second-largest state in the Senate for decades.

And there's a tradition of Texas senators taking the lead in public policy, from the days of Tom Connally and Lyndon Johnson and including John Tower, Lloyd Bentsen and Phil Gramm.

Cruz has a fine legal pedigree. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and argued nine cases (and won five) in the U.S. Supreme Court representing Texas. As a teenager, he memorized and gave lectures on the Constitution, and on the stump he emphasized the founding document's limits on the power of government.

The big media has assumed that tea partiers are potentially violent despite the lack of evidence of any violent behavior. That's why ABC's Brian Ross mentioned on-air an Aurora, Colo., tea partier with the same name as the movie theater murderer, although it's a common name and Aurora has 325,000 people.

In contrast, the MSM has been happy to celebrate the much smaller and often violent Occupy movement and characterize it as "mostly nonviolent."

Texas showed once again that many voters are eager to turn out and vote for tea party-backed candidates. Cruz won by about 2 to 1 in fast-growing exurban counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and metro Houston.

The MSM could hardly avoid reporting Cruz's victory Tuesday. But many news outlets ignored Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day Wednesday.

There were big crowds, long drive-up lines and record sales at the chain's stores, in response to the declarations by the mayors of Chicago, Boston and Washington that they would keep the restaurant out because of its owners' opposition to same-sex marriage.

That's not "Chicago values," said Mayor Rahm Emanuel, although there are many Chicagoans on both sides of this issue, just as many are on both sides, in varying proportions, throughout the country. But even many supporters of same-sex marriage like me were appalled at the spectacle of public officials barring businesses because of the religious or political beliefs of their owners.

In Huntsville, Ala., YouTube celebrity Antoine Dodson, who is openly gay, dined at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday. "That's what freedom is. We don't all have to believe in the same things," he told a Huntsville Times reporter.

"We all have our different beliefs and can still come together and still be friends and be cool with each other," he said. "So I'm here to be in support of the employees, and I'm also coming to get that spicy chicken sandwich."

Dodson presumably is not an expert on the Constitution like Ted Cruz. But he has something to teach the liberal mainstream media about the spirit of the Founders.

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.
467  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GOP's "one-legged stool?" on: August 06, 2012, 02:55:25 PM
The G.O.P.'s One-Legged Stool?

Center for Security Policy | Aug 06, 2012

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Ronald Reagan forged a winning electoral majority on the stable foundation of what he described as a three-legged stool: fiscal discipline, traditional values and peace through strength.  He understood it to be an appealing platform to the American people writ large, including of course economic, social and national security conservatives and the rest of his Republican Party.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly, that today's Republicans want to bet that they can regain the White House by cutting off two legs from that stool - disregarding, if not dismissing outright conservative social issues and national security themes.

 A case in point came last week as the G.O.P.'s 2012 presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, declared that his campaign was "not going to talk about" the Left's attempt to punish the owners of Chick-fil-A for their stand on gay marriage.  Neither would it be talking about the request made by Rep. Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations that appear with increasing success to be targeting the Obama administration.

Whatever one thinks about marriage between people of the same sex, surely a man running as a business-friendly candidate would say whether he favors boycotts of privately owned businesses on the basis of the beliefs of their shareholders?

Similarly, the Republican standard-bearer could surely observe that there are statutes and administrative guidelines designed to protect individuals and the government from the possibility that foreign associates may seek to exercise influence on family members, friends, colleagues or their federal agencies that employ them.  He could make clear that he supports the rights of members of the House of Representatives to inquire whether there have been breaches of those rules.  He can say that he's reserving judgment on their concerns until we learn the results of the requested Inspector General inquiries.

Instead, Gov. Romney is signaling an indifference to these topics - and, in the process, sending a message that can only alienate those for whom such issues are not just important but determinative of their votes.

In past elections since the Reagan era, Republican establishment candidates and their strategists have taken the support of conservatives of all stripes for granted, sometimes contemptuously declaring "they have nowhere else to go."  Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (during his reelection race) and John McCain are testament to the failure to appreciate that, while conservatives may not vote for their opponent, they do have somewhere to be on election day:  They can stay home

Mitt Romney is not exactly enjoying a surfeit of enthusiasm for his candidacy as it is.  Failing to address matters of concern to the various parts of the Republican base - and to the future of our nation - is a formula for his defeat, no matter how compelling his position may be on economic and fiscal matters, the one leg of the stool on which his campaign currently rests.

It happens that there is another powerful reason for addressing in particular the national security portfolio and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The next Commander-in-Chief will inherit a world substantially remade by the Obama Doctrine: "emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country."

Arguably, nowhere is that more true than in the parts of the globe where the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are ascendant.  That rise - and all that it portends for our one reliable ally, Israel, and what remains of our "friends" in the Mideast, South Asia, North and sub-Saharan Africa - will present grave challenges to our security and other interests.

We need to know how the man who would replace President Obama will contend with such a threat.  To do so, we at least need to understand whether he regards it as such.  And, if so, whether he is going to allow some of the factors that appear to have contributed to it - namely, the access the Obama administration has afforded to its councils to individuals with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood - to operate in his campaign and White House.

It is gratifying that Mitt Romney did not join some other Republicans in denouncing Representatives Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney for seeking answers to these sorts of questions as they relate to the present administration.  Still, if he wants to become the leader of the Free World in the next one, Gov. Romney is going to have to address the mortal threat to it posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its civilization jihad - a stealthy, insidious form of subversion that will, unless checked, remove all three legs of the Reagan "stool" and the constitutional republic it has helped build and preserve.
468  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Notice to JDN: Engage in the debate or be ignored. on: August 03, 2012, 08:26:50 AM
It's interesting to note that JDN seems to delight in name-calling and ad hominem attacks.  Funny how he never seems to actually engage in a dialogue or actual evidence-based debate.
This forum is populated overwhelmingly by thoughtful, intelligent individuals who are ready and willing to back up their arguments with evidence.  I and many others here choose not to respond to JDN's inanity because, as Mark Twain famously observed:  "Never argue with a fool.  Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
469  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bachmann's letter... on: August 02, 2012, 04:40:58 PM
Glad to see this posted, Crafty.  I also am acquainted with the author of this article - Ryan Mauro - and know him to be a very credible and thorough source.  You beat me to the punch by posting his article. My own Congressman, who is supposedly a conservative Republican, dismissed Bachmann's and her co-signers' letter along with Boehner and John McCain.  They all took the knee-jerk, ignorant position of assuming this is some sort of religious bigotry.  These folks need to be voted out of their jobs sooner rather than later.  Unfortunately Rob Woodall - my Congressman - survived his primary challenge on Tuesday, but the good news is that about 30% of the votes went to his challenger - who was expected to garner less than 5%.  The rumors of the death of the Tea Party have been greatly exaggerated, I assure you.
470  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Corrupt Media and the election... on: August 01, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Curious to hear from Crafty's "pack" here what you think about the serious problem we currently face regarding the "Voluntarily State-Controlled Media" as  Rush Limbaugh calls it.  What is the solution?  We have legions of "journalists" working today who are nothing more than political hacks.  They trade in propaganda and selective reporting of news stories to promote their leftist agenda.  Granted, we have conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel to counter them - but it appears the overwhelming majority of the public still gets their "news" - either directly or indirectly - from this volunteer "Pravda" network of "reporters."  I'm not sure the Framers ever envisioned such a scenario.

What do you folks think?
471  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Here is Geller's post to which Logan refers: on: August 01, 2012, 11:05:57 AM
472  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Conservative Bloggers Knuckling Under to Islamic Pressure... on: August 01, 2012, 10:56:51 AM
This was posted today by Chris Logan at his excellent blog -

“Conservative” Bloggers and Political Commentators Surrendering Their Free Speech to Islam

July 31, 2012
By Chris Logan

The other day I was alerted to an article that my anti-Sharia sister Pamela Geller, had written which mentioned Logan’s Warning. Basically the article was on the issue of some big name bloggers and political commentators who have already surrendered their freedom of speech to Islam. Some of what Pamela stated was a bit surprising. I was not aware how some of the most popular bloggers had run away from her and Robert Spencer. (Please click HERE to see the article on Atlas Shrugs.) Apparently the heat is either too much for them, or the money they bring in by toeing the politically correct line is more important than saving their future generations from Islamic rule. I would just like to add a few things to Pamela’s article. In regards to Weasel Zippers: They used to be on my email list, and approximately a year and a half ago I received an email from them asking me to remove them from my list. I asked why, and was never sent a response. Is it just for money? Is it because of my friendship with Pamela? Or maybe they just run from people who are not afraid to speak about the actual tough answers that are needed to win this war? Either way, this goes for everyone mentioned in her article who has abandoned them. Pamela and Mr. Spencer have had some major victories recently, can you say the same?

This is a war, and in order to win it we are going to have to take some heat. That means we should be supporting Pamela and Mr. Spencer. Not running to make some extra money, or running because of some verbal attacks on you. Big deal, toughen up! This is a war!

Coming up next: I will name some more “conservatives” who have run from this issue.
473  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Statist/collectivist ideology... on: July 31, 2012, 01:00:32 PM
DMG:  I'm not suggesting that we use this as our sole or even primary argument.  What I am saying is that without acknowledging the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism vs. statism, and being able to identify an individual's adherence to one or the other, in the long run we are doomed.  As Ayn Rand so aptly put it:  "The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power."  Nothing could be more true.  Citizens absorb the philosophy by which they live and accept/reject ideas from the culture around them.  To the extent that we fail to identify philosophical systems and call them by their right names, we allow the enemy to continue its slow but steady subterfuge and destruction of the Framers' vision.  Mark Levin's recent book "Ameritopia" does a superb job of explaining these competing philosophical systems.
474  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Obama's economic policies... on: July 31, 2012, 11:34:29 AM
I think it's vitally important to point out here that Obama is clearly a Marxist/Communist ideologically, and as such, HIS PLAN FOR AMERICA IS UNFOLDING BEFORE OUR EYES.  As Rush Limbaugh famously said (and was viciously attacked for saying) shortly after Obama's election, "I hope he fails."  Limbaugh knew as many of us who had paid attention to Obama's history and writings that he WANTED to fundamentally transform our economy into a socialist/Marxist model, which would mandate the destruction of the existing system.  Obama is not some hapless misguided fool who wants to lower unemployment and government dependence, but simply can't figure out how.  The destruction of this economy and ever-increasing government dependence is DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL.  It amazes me that so many fail to realize this even now.
475  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Frank Gaffney, Keith Ellison... on: July 31, 2012, 11:27:43 AM
Frank Gaffney has TREMENDOUS credibility with me - I've met and spoken with him on several occasions, and his work is exemplary in this area.  He has done yeoman's work in exposing and trying to publicize Grover Norquist's Islamist ties and assistance in getting stealth jihadists into government positions of influence.  As for the comment about Anderson Cooper being a "cheap shot," I disagree completely.  It's a very valid point, and one that is played out within most of the gay community, where like within much of the black community, "groupthink" is encouraged and conservatives are considered traitors.  Unfortunately, like Jews in 1930's Germany who failed to see the serious nature of Hitler's threats, many gays in this country mindlessly defend Islam, completely ignorant of the fact that Islamic law explicitly condemns homosexuals to death.  These executions are routinely carried out in Iran and other Islamic countries.  It's even more obscene in my opinion with regard to gay support of Islam, because Islamic clerics make no secret of their belief that gays ought to be executed.  At least Hitler kept his "final solution" secret as long as he was able.

As for Keith Ellison "supporting" gay marriage - Islam is MOST DEFINITELY NOT more tolerant on this issue than any other religion - it is more OPPRESSIVE.  There is a doctrine in Islam known as taqiyya, which is exactly what Ellison is now practicing.  It states that it is not only permissible, but a DUTY of Muslims to lie to and deceive non-believers for the purpose of gaining power and influence over their institutions to destroy them from within.  Ellison's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are very well-documented and beyond argument.  He is a bald-faced liar.
476  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Anderson Cooper Crosses the Line - (hardly the first time)... on: July 30, 2012, 10:42:26 PM
Anderson Cooper Crosses the Line

Center for Security Policy | Jul 30, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

         Anderson Cooper closed one of five segments of his weeknightly CNN show that he recently devoted to attacking principally Rep. Michele Bachmann with a genuflection towards an iconic newsman, Edward R. Murrow.  He deployed against her the gauntlet Murrow threw down to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in March 1954: “The line between investigating and persecuting is a [very] fine one.”  If anyone has stepped over that line, however, it is Cooper himself, rather than the Minnesota congresswoman.

            Night after night during the week of July 16th, the host of “Anderson Cooper 360” failed to meet even the most basic standards of investigative journalism.  The irony is that, in his ill-concealed persecution of Mrs. Bachmann, Cooper has serially engaged in precisely the practices he pillories her and others for allegedly using, by his account, to destroy the reputation of the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Muslim-American woman named Huma Abedin.  Let us count the ways:

Anderson Cooper insists that Michele Bachmann (who he singles out for most of his criticism, despite the fact that she was but one of five Members of Congress to raise concerns not only about Ms. Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but those of a number of others the Obama administration has enlisted as officials, advisors and/or liaisons to “the Muslim community”) failed to do her homework. Yet, Cooper repeatedly showed his ignorance of the extensive evidence cited by the legislators, even as he mentioned the website where some of it resides: the Center for Security Policy’s online video course at

As he accused Rep. Bachmann of playing fast and loose with the facts, Cooper repeatedly mischaracterized the nature of the legislators’ request for five federal inspectors general to conduct investigations.  He or his echo-chamber of exclusively like-minded guests complained that Ms. Abedin is accused of being a “spy” and engaging in “treason” and that she has been subjected to a groundless, bigoted and McCarthyite witch-hunt. Several of the reporters and interested parties who added color commentary (sometimes repeatedly) further demeaned Congresswoman Bachmann by asserting that she is simply engaging in partisan politics and fund-raising for her reelection campaign.

As with the Congresswoman and to a lesser extent her colleagues, Cooper also made a point of going after this columnist.  If anyone is guilty of “McCarthyism,” though, it is the journalistic poseur who specializes in shooting the messenger and buying into and tendentiously proclaiming that there are “no facts” supporting the unwanted message – rather than rigorously examining and accurately reporting on the vast amount of evidence that inconveniently does exist.

While portraying Huma Abedin as an innocent victim of smears, Cooper engaged in his own smearing – occasionally through his rants on the subject, often by citing others who have indulged in ad hominem attacks against the congresswoman and her team.  He repeatedly showcased such attacks by individuals in her own party, even though they were clearly were unfamiliar with the actual nature of the legislators’ concerns and the abundant grounds for raising them.

One of the prominent figures in this televised persecution of Michele Bachmann was the man who kicked it off:  Her colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota and the first Muslim Member of Congress.  As it happens, according to the public record (recently brilliantly distilled by counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole at PJ Media, Mr. Ellison has himself been closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood – a natty problem Rep. Bachmann has noted, to Cooper’s horror.

So, the “360” host had Keith Ellison on to help deflect that charge.  When the congressman blithely denied that he was a Muslim Brother or, for that matter, that he even knew very much about the Brotherhood, well, that was good enough for crack investigative journalist Anderson Cooper.  Back to the persecution of Michele Bachmann, with Cooper egging on Minnesota’s Muslim congressman.

Anderson Cooper further discredited his claim to be an independent, let alone exacting, journalist by taking at face value the FBI’s assurances that it had not dealt with Muslim Brothers or other “extremists” in the recent purge of its training materials and files.  The evidence of that falsehood is readily available.  Yet, the FBI statement was taken – and presented – as though gospel by a credulous host whose only skepticism was reserved for why Michele Bachmann had been charged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers with investigating the extent of the Brotherhood’s influence operations inside the Bureau.]

Perhaps most distressing was the service Anderson Cooper has provided to the Islamists by promoting the meme that inquiries about specific Muslims with demonstrable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood amount to attacks on all Muslims.  This plays into the victimhood mantra Islamists use to justify their jihadism undertaken ostensibly for the purpose of defending beleaguered co-religionists.

Applying Cooper’s logic, every Muslim – even those whose associations (personal, familial, professional or other) with an organization like the Brotherhood that is sworn to our destruction clearly violate the government’s own guidelines for security clearances, to say nothing of the oath of office to support the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic – are to be given an automatic pass.  That may also be the view of the Obama administration, but it is a formula for disaster for the country.

There is a particular irony to Anderson Cooper’s, well, jihad against those who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood.  For an avowedly gay man, Anderson Cooper is rooting for the wrong team.  If the Islamists have their way here, he will not simply be on the wrong side of the line.  He’ll be toast.
477  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: George Will's commentary... on: July 29, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Leaving aside the fact that George Will is a member of the Washington, D.C. elite and is NOT in my opinion a true conservative (his chief desire seems to be accepted within the cocktail party circuit inside the beltway), this comment vividly illustrates the complete IDIOCY and deliberate obfuscation of government-speak.  In short - THERE IS NO RECOVERY IF WE ARE NOT CREATING JOBS FAST ENOUGH EVEN TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH OF THE WORKFORCE.  This is not rocket science - and it is not lost on the average American who can't find a job, or if they can, only a part-time job which doesn't utilize their education or skills.  These people who live their lives mainly inside the D.C. beltway (and I happen to personally know a few of them) really do not have any idea of what the great majority of this nation's citizens think, or how they view events.  They exist in an almost hermetically-sealed bubble or alternate universe where all they hear is each others' perspectives and only imagine what it's like in the heartland.  They never actually travel there and ASK anyone what they think.  It's a very serious problem, not just with bureaucrats, but many of our representatives, who get to D.C. and then completely lose touch with their constituents.  IMHO all Congress people ought to be REQUIRED to spend x number of days IN THEIR OWN DISTRICTS, interacting with those they represent.
478  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller note on Huffington Post's selective reporting... on: July 27, 2012, 12:45:23 PM

The Huffington Post has written an entire article on Ground Zero mosque imam Rauf's claim that he got a threat during the mega-mosque controversy at Ground Zero (which we soundly defeated).

"Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Public Face Of 'Ground Zero Mosque,' Says Life Was Threatened"

Really, puff hos?

I have a file of death threats two inches thick. My peers like Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, et al have death threats that could fill a library. Just ask Salman Rushdie and Asia Bibi.

Is the Puffington Ho kidding?

The Puff Hos suffer from extreme bigotry and islamophobia, since they obviously expect Muslims to be violent and make death threats; therefore, it's not news. But radical Rauf gets one (and honestly, who believes this serial liar?) and they are all over it like maggots on dead flesh.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
479  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Death Threats to those who simply speak the truth about Islam... on: July 27, 2012, 11:08:05 AM
This is the type of threat Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller routinely deal with from these savages.  They are both to be commended for their courage:
480  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Frank Marshall Davis - Barack's biological father? on: July 25, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
Actually FMD had extensive documented contacts with the Communist Party USA.  Wikipedia is generally of questionable reliability.  Here is some additional detail about Frank Marshall Davis (see the web site for much more detail on the evidence that he is Obama's biological father):

Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) was a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) propagandist in Chicago and Hawaii, as well as a writer and poet. The FBI had Davis under investigation or surveillance for 19 years, compiling a 600-page FBI file. He was on the FBI's 'Security Index A', meaning he would be arrested in the event of national emergency.
In 1930's Chicago, CPUSA recruited journalists to help spread Soviet influence in American public opinion. Frank Marshall Davis was one of them. A graduate of Kansas State Journalism School, Frank Marshall Davis joined the Communist Party and began writing for The Chicago Star. He was a colleague of journalist Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett. Davis also taught at Chicago's Abraham Lincoln School, a Communist run training school run by CPUSA. Davis authored three major volumes of poetry, and later an autobiographical sex novel under a pseudonym.
In 1948, the Kremlin ordered CPUSA to facilitate a US withdrawal from the Hawaii as US naval forces were considered an obstacle to Soviet expansion in Asia. CPUSA assigned Frank Marshall Davis to Honolulu where he began writing for the Communist Newspaper, the Honolulu Record in 1948. In his columns, Davis flawlessly mirrored official Soviet propaganda - he blamed American capitalism for starting World War II, denounced the Marshall Plan, preached wealth redistribution, nationalization of industry and government healthcare, while bashing Wall Street. Davis also helped organize the Communist controlled ILWU (union) in a failed effort to take over the Hawaiian government in 1949. The Hawaii NAACP chapter complained to its national office, "Comrade Frank Marshall Davis suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership with the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." In 1956, Davis was subpoenaed by the Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities and pleaded the fifth. Dreams from My Real Father makes the case that on August 4, 1961, Frank Marshall Davis became the father of the future 44th President of the United States and indoctrinated him with a Marxist ideology during his formative years.

481  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Real Father Exposed... on: July 24, 2012, 09:56:20 PM
It Matters Who Obama’s Father Is

National Press Club
Washington DC
July 19, 2012

Speech by
Joel Gilbert

Highway 61 Entertainment

Director of

Dreams from My Real Father

Opening Comments

Why does it matter who Barak Obama’s father really is ?

It matters because Barack Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. His father was a goat herder from Kenya, so he would bring people together, so the story went. As a result, the public perceived Barack Obama as a nice man with an inspiring family story.

However, as shown in Dreams from My Real Father, Barack Obama in fact has a deeply disturbing family background, which he intentionally hid, in order to obscure a Marxist political foundation. While voters will overlook some fudging by politicians, promoting a false family background to hide a Marxist agenda irreconcilable with American values is a totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate.

At age 18, Barack Obama admittedly arrived at Occidental College a committed revolutionary Marxist. Based on Obama’s own accounts, there can be no doubt that Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA Propagandist, and former Soviet Agent, indoctrinated Obama with a Marxist world view during his formative years. This is a known phenomenon amongst the radical left, referred to as “Red Diaper Babies” or “hand-me-down Marxism.” Much of the leadership of the SDS and Weather Underground were children of Communist Party USA members, including Katherine Boudin, Jeff Jones, and many more. David Axelrod is also a “Red Diaper Baby”, his mother was a Red journalist.

The Journalist’s Creed

Obama’s election was not a sudden political phenomenon. It was the culmination of an American socialist movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media for decades.

As I speak today, here at the National Press Club in Washington DC, what strikes me as most disturbing is that any one of the hundreds of American journalists in this building could win the Pulitzer Prize, just by writing about the evidence presented in Dreams from My Real Father.

So today, here at the National Press Club, a great American Institution, I would like to recall the Journalist’s Creed. The Journalist’s Creed is a code of ethics for the profession of Journalism. It is posted on the wall in the lobby of this building in bronze. It was written by Walter Williams in 1906, when he founded the Missouri School of Journalism. The Journalist’s Creed stipulates:

1) That journalists must be public trustees with the full measure of responsibility to the public

2) That accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism

3) That a single standard of truth must prevail for all

4) That suppression of the news is indefensible

5) And that journalism must be independent, unbiased by personal opinion, and always unafraid.

I Accuse

I accuse all major American Television networks and most Cable News networks of gross violations of the Journalists Creed.

I accuse ABC, NBC, and CBS network news Divisions of violating the public trust by refusing to cover my documentary film, and for ignoring all the revelations about Obama’s background that other researchers have produced.

I accuse MSNBC of an intentional and often vile campaign of lies and misrepresentations to protect Barack Obama’s false narrative.

I accuse of censorship and suppression of the news. On May 2 of this year, I paid Newsmax $ 4,350, in advance, for an advertising campaign. They pulled it at the last second. “Why?” They said it was because they wanted “to move to the Center”.

I accuse all leftist website-based news organizations of intentional bias – like On April 26th, they requested a review copy of Dreams from My Real Father, which we provided, but instead they illegally copied parts of the film and put them on YouTube, and wrote that now people don’t need to buy the film.

I also accuse all the mainstream print media, like the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, all their ilk, of intentionally suppressing the truth about Barack Obama’s history and agenda and refusal to cover my findings.

The public looks to all of the news organizations in this building, the National Press Club, for truth. However, an astounding number, almost all of them, have failed to live up to the Journalist’s Creed, and thus failed in their responsibility to the public. Only a very few news organizations, like WorldNet Daily, Drudge Report, USA Survival and a handful of independent journalists like Jack Cashill, have done their jobs as journalists – with courage and honesty.

Report the Truth Now

My message to the journalists, then, here at the National Press Club is:

Don’t suppress the truth, it is vitally important.

America needs a truthful press, unafraid.

America is worth it!

Take any risk to expose the truth, about a candidate or even a sitting President.

And what is the truth?

- All evidence points to Barack Obama building his political career upon a fairy tale. There was no Obama family, he is not the son of a Kenyan goat herder.

- All evidence points to a sham marriage to cover an illicit affair between Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis.

- All evidence indicates that Barack Obama was raised and indoctrinated by Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA Propagandist, during his formative years.

- All evidence indicates Barack Obama has pursued the Dreams from his Real Father.

And what are those dreams?

They are the forced imposition of a classic Stalinist Marxist agenda upon America at home and abroad.

And what is the history of Marxism?

Ladies and Gentlemen, the results are already in!

Marxism leads to economic ruin, and the biological destruction of the populations in societies that have employed the Marxist model.

American Journalists have a key role to play in revealing the truth, and they must do so immediately without further delay. Obama’s style is to minimize, misdirect, and outright lie about damaging information about his past. America needs honest journalism now more than ever, so the public can understand what Obama means by “change” and “fundamentally transforming America.”

I call upon all news organizations and journalists in this building, the National Press Club, to live up to the Journalists creed. Nothing is more important at this late hour – not playing it safe, not worrying about advertising contracts for medications, nothing. The future of America is at stake.

Obama and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Not only does the media refuse to look at Obama’s personal and political foundations, they refuse to even look at simple facts of the current campaign. For example, when speaking of the economy, Obama says:

“My opponent wants to go back to the policies which got us into this mess.” and

“The Free Market doesn’t work”

A journalist only has to recite simple facts:

1 – The major cause of the economic meltdown was the subprime mortgage debacle, and Obama was in on it, on the ground floor.

2 – Obama was asked about his role with Acorn during the 2008 campaign.  He was not truthful when he said his law firm only represented Acorn to sue the State of Illinois to implement the Motor-Voter Act – and recall that nine of the 9/11 hijackers used this to register to vote, allowing them to get US identification.

2 – In 1995 Obama also represented Acorn in suing Citibank, forcing them to lower their lending standards to lend to minorities even if they were unqualified borrowers. Acorn immediately took this model to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who convinced President Clinton to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force all banks across the system to lower their lending standards. This Acorn model, that Obama helped create, crashed the economy 12 years later, not the free markets.

This was all by design. It was part of the socialist strategy taught at the socialist conferences Obama attended in the early 1980’s, to use minorities and the poor to “collapse capitalism”. “Problem solving” and “fair play” were the new code words that socialists learned. The strategy was to move the Democratic party to the far left, and embrace socialism as their natural ideology. Obama now uses terms like “helping middle class families”. Simply speaking, socialist economies do not have a middle class! They have just one big lower class with a handful of political elites controlling the wealth.

Going Direct to the American People

I have received hundreds of emails from concerned Americans. The following is from a Vietnam Veteran:

Dear Mr. Gilbert,

I was very mad after I watched your DVD. You have cracked the code surrounding Obama and the Marxist mission he is on.

We are the verge of losing the constitution. Freedom and liberty are in jeopardy. As a Vietnam war veteran, I ask, what did I fight for?

Please, can you get this information out to millions? We Americans need it. It is our only hope!

Bern Nilson

Denver, Colorado

Because of great Americans like Bern, and because almost all levels of the media are suppressing the information in Dreams from My Real Father, I am announcing today that my distribution company is planning to send a free copy of the DVD in the US mail direct to millions of households. The process has already begun. Within three weeks, hundreds of thousands of DVDs will be mailed across the United States until every American sees this DVD and understands the deadly Marxist dreams Obama has for us, from his real father, Frank Marshall Davis.

Again, for any journalist in this building, here at the National Press Club, a Pulitzer Prize can be yours, just report the facts.

Please visit the film website, there is the breaking news every week, and you can also order the DVD at

Thank you, and God Bless America.
482  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Urgent Plea for Pro-Israel Ad Funding... on: July 23, 2012, 01:34:20 PM
Please send any amount via PayPal to the addresses listed if you agree and can afford to do so:

483  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mark Levin Interviews Robert Spencer re: Bachmann letter, etc... on: July 22, 2012, 09:51:32 AM
Robert Spencer is interviewed by the superb Mark Levin on his national radio show this past Friday:

484  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillary on the ticket vs. Obama... on: July 21, 2012, 11:44:07 AM
The birth certificate issue is a moot point in my opinion now, and really has been since Obama was elected.  It will be of historical significance if it can be proven he was not born in the U.S.  However, I have to disagree that putting Hillary on the ticket in his place would necessarily translate to a win for the Democrats.  I think the die has been cast, and there are enough people who understand that the current economic disaster is directly tied not only to Obama, but Democrat Party policies in general.  I predict a big win for Romney - but not because there is any real enthusiasm for him per se, rather voters will be voting AGAINST current policies.  We still must fight all the way to the election to get Romney in, and then continue to pressure him and Congress to enact constitutionally conservative policies.  It won't be easy - our work will have only begun if Romney wins.  But - the alternative is the end of America as we know it.
485  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bachman's SUPERB letter to Keith Ellison. on: July 20, 2012, 08:52:38 AM
Note that the full text of Bachman's letter in the form of a pdf file can be found here.  Bachmann is spot-on with her analysis here.  Again I urge all readers to read the letter, check her references, and draw your own conclusions:

GOP Blasts Bachmann for Attack on Abedin

House Speaker John Boehner defended a senior adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after five members of his caucus claimed her relatives had ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington today that while he doesn’t know Huma Abedin personally, his impression is that she has a “sterling character.” The accusations made against her in a June 13 letter to the State Department were “pretty dangerous,” the speaker said.

A day earlier Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., criticized five House Republicans, including former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who sent the letter alleging Abedin’s family had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and questioning whether she promoted the organization’s cause within the U.S. government.

McCain, in a Senate floor speech yesterday, called the allegations “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable citizen, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant.”

“When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it,” McCain said, adding that he has known Abedin for more than a decade.

In the letter, Bachmann and the other House Republicans cited a report from the Center for Security Policy, a Washington policy group, claiming that Abedin’s mother, brother and late father had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is Egypt’s largest Islamist organization, from whose ranks the country’s new president, Mohamed Mursi, was selected.

The letter said Abedin’s position “affords her routine access to the secretary and to policymaking” and that the State Department has “taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”

Bachmann yesterday said she stood by her inquiries, which she said “are unfortunately being distorted.”

“The intention of the letters was to outline the serious national security concerns I had and ask for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups’ access to top Obama administration officials,” she said in a statement.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said today in an interview with National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm that he didn’t “share the feelings that are in that letter.”

“I am very, very careful and cautious about ever making accusations like that about anybody,” said Rubio, a Tea Party- backed member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Abedin, the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D.-NY, has been an aide to Clinton since 1996.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters yesterday, “The secretary very much values her wise counsel and support, and we think that these allegations are preposterous.”

Weiner resigned from Congress in June 2011 after a lewd picture of himself that he had sent to another woman was posted on the Internet.

Weiner, Abedin and their six-month-old son were featured in a July 18 People Magazine article in which the former congressman said he was “very happy” and “not doing anything to plan a campaign” for future public office.

© 2012 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
486  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Former Navy SEAL forms PAC to defeat Obama. on: July 19, 2012, 09:52:32 AM
"Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama"
Politicker, July 17, 2012

Today, Ryan Zinke, an ex-Navy SEAL and Montana State Senator, announced the launch of Special Operations for America, a political action committee dedicated to “the election of Mitt Romney and like-minded candidates.”
“Navy SEAL’s, Special Operations Personnel and Veteran’s across America have been outraged since Barack Obama conveniently took credit for killing Osama Bin Laden for political gain,” a statement announcing the launch of SOFA said. “The active duty military has no voice as they are forbidden to publicly engage in the political campaign process and it is career suicide for senior military leaders to speak out against the President.”

Mr. Zinke, who has frequently slammed the president’s handling of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, reiterated his criticisms of the operation.

“The President has failed and he is jeopardizing the safety of our troops, their families and our National security for political gain. Obama has exposed the identity of special operations units, leaked classified information, and limited the rules of engagement of forces on the ground,” said Mr. Zinke. “For those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, it is a call of duty to take back America from a Commander-in-Chief that is incapable of understanding the sacrifices that have been made for the values that have made America great.”

Mr. Zinke has served in the Montana State Senate since 2009. According to Afghanistan and Iraq Veterans for Congress, a political action committee dedicated to electing Republican vets, Mr. Zinke was a member of SEAL Team Six, the elite unit that killed Bin Laden, from 1990 until 1993 and from 1996 until 1999. He held several titles including Task Force Commander. In 2004, In 2004, was named “Deputy and acting Commander, Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM” in that capacity he “led a force of over 3500 Special Operations personnel in Iraq in the conduct of 360 combat patrols, 48 Direct Action missions, and hundreds of sensitive operations” and “was responsible for killing or capturing 72 known enemy insurgents and terrorists.”
487  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I urge readers to examine Zafar's original article and Geller's response. on: July 17, 2012, 04:45:12 PM
As JDN snidely suggests below.  It will become quickly evident who is telling the truth, and who is dealing in misrepresentation, distortion, and outright lies.
Pamela Geller defends herself quite effectively against Zafar's dishonest hit piece in the response I originally posted.  Yes, DO read "both sides."  One is truth - the other is falsehood.
488  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer Confront Huffington Post. on: July 17, 2012, 01:44:17 PM
Pamela Geller: Confronting the Huffington Post

Robert Spencer - - July 16, 2012

In PJ Media today I wrote about the mainstream media's eagerness to carry water for Islamic supremacists, and have noted several times recently the tendency of Ahmadi spokesmen in the U.S. to defend those who are persecuting and killing their people in Pakistan and Indonesia. This story combines both: a clearly unscrupulous and dishonest Ahmadi, Harris Zafar, attacking not the persecutors of the Ahmadis, but Pamela Geller and me in the Huffington Post, which of course eagerly gave him space, but when Geller sent in a rebuttal piece, the HuffPo, true to form, dragged its feet about publishing it and finally put it up today only as an addendum to Zafar's dishonest screed, and only after receiving an avalanche of tweets and emails from Atlas Shrugs readers.

The whole incident is typical of the Leftist media's and the Ahmadiyya's odd and ultimately suicidal willingness to front for Islamic supremacists and jihadists.

"Confronting Harris Zafar," by Pamela Geller, Huffington Post (via Atlas Shrugs), July 16:

The Huffington Post received a response to Harris Zafar from Pamela Geller, which was published below in full on July 16, 2012.
Confronting Harris Zafar

By Pamela Geller

Typical of the dishonesty and disingenuousness of Harris Zafar's attack piece on me in the Huffington Post is his opening claim that "Geller takes exception with Islam's acceptance of the prophethood of Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ." He complains that "paradoxically, her ignorance has no problem granting Christians the right to invoke Moses and Abraham without delegitimizing Judaism." He does not mention that while Christianity acknowledges the Jewishness of Moses, Abraham, and the other Jewish prophets, Islam denies it: "No; Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one pure of faith; certainly he was never of the idolaters." (Quran 3:67).

Zafar never explains that Islam doesn't just "accept the prophethood of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ," but completely recasts them as Muslim prophets who decisively rejected the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity: the Quran even depicts Jesus rejecting the core Christian belief of the divinity of Christ (5:116). Islam thereby completely delegitimizes Judaism and Christianity and presents itself as the true religion of the Biblical prophets -- but instead of admitting this, Harris Zafar blames me for noting it.

And in the rest of his piece, he doesn't get any more honest. While affecting a posture of wounded sanctimony, he levies vicious attacks against my work ("mostly outrageous and irrational") and claims to know my motives: "Geller searched for reasons to loathe the Islamic faith." He is no more objective regarding others he identifies as my influences, particularly the world-renowned historian Bat Ye'or, whom he characterizes as "a Jewish-Egyptian French writer who imputes Christian and Jewish suffering to the theological beliefs of Islam," without mentioning that the Muslims who cause Christian and Jewish suffering invoked the theological beliefs of Islam to explain and justify their actions.

Zafar then offers a list of what he calls my "outlandish statements," which he makes outlandish by misrepresenting, distorting, and outright lying about.
"She has falsely claimed that President Obama is a Muslim with the aim of fostering America's submission to Islam": actually, I have never claimed Obama was a Muslim, and just recently published an article in which I pointed out that "the reason why people think Obama is a Muslim is because of how he acts" -- in other words, because of his policies, which have been consistently pro-Islam, not because of his personal faith.
Zafar says I claimed that "Arabic is not a language but 'the spearhead of an ideological project that is deeply opposed to the United States.'" In reality, I have never said that "Arabic is not a language"; Zafar has to resort to outright lies to make his case that my work is "outrageous and irrational." Here is the actual quote: "Arabic is not just another language like French or Italian, it is the spearhead of an ideological project that is deeply opposed to the United States." And who said it? Not I, but Mark Steyn. That's right: so desperate is Zafar to smear me that he is attributing statements by other people to me.
Zafar claims that I say that "Hitler and Nazism were inspired by Islam (therefore 'devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service')." In reality, that quote comes from an article I wrote that touched on the Fort Hood jihad murderer and the devout Muslim faith of jihadists worldwide. Never do I say that devout Muslims should be excluded from the military because of Hitler, but because so many devout Muslims commit violent attacks against infidels without any warning.
And were Hitler and the Nazis inspired by Islam? Don't believe me, believe Eichmann's assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, who testified at Nuremberg that the Mufti of Jerusalem was a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews: "The Grand Mufti has repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities -- including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler -- the extermination of European Jewry. ... The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan."
Zafar says that I say that "Islam is the most anti-Semitic, genocidal ideology in the world." Maybe Zafar can name another ideology whose founder, leader and guide said something as anti-Semitic and genocidal as this, but I can't top this from Muhammad, Zafar's beloved prophet: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." (Sahih Muslim 6985).
Zafar says I "called for the removal of the Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem," and I stand by that. But once again he doesn't give you all the information: I never said it should be removed by violence, and I said this in response to repeated jihadi attacks on Muslims at the Temple Mount. Zafar never bothers to condemn those attacks or even mention them.
Zafar says I "bought bus ads offering Muslims an opportunity to leave Islam." In reality, my bus ads offered help to ex-Muslims threatened with death for leaving Islam -- help Zafar's group has never offered, despite his claim to reject Islam's death penalty for apostasy.
Zafar says I "called for boycotts of both Campbell's soup and Butterball turkeys for offering a certified halaal food line." In reality, I called for the Campbell's boycott not because of that halal line as such but because Campbell's was using a Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to certify its halal line. Regarding Butterball, my complaint was that all its turkeys are halal, but aren't labelled as such, so consumers can't make informed choices.

After all those distortions, fabrications, and lies about my writings and activities, it's no wonder that Zafar says that my "claims are so bizarre that one struggles to understand whether they are worthy of a response." But only by dishonesty can Zafar get there.

Zafar then goes on to claim that "one common allegation the two [Robert Spencer and I] have advanced together is that Islam prescribes a death penalty for apostasy" -- as if we made this up. Then he claims that "there is nothing contained within the Holy Quran -- the highest authoritative source in Islam -- that sanctions any punishment for apostasy," and that "the Quran contains at least 10 verses about those who leave Islam, none of which sanction death in response." He never mentions that all the schools of Islamic law mandate death for apostasy, and that many Muslims base this on Quran 4:89, which tells Muslims to kill those who "emigrate in the way of God" -- that is, become Muslim and move to a Muslim land -- "if they turn their backs," i.e., leave Islam.

Then Zafar claims that "Muhammad never ordered any person to be killed for apostasy," but ignores that Muhammad said "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9.84.57). Nor does Zafar mention that in one tradition, a Muslim leader, Muadh Jabal, refused to sit down until an apostate brought before him had been killed "in accordance with the decision of Allah and of His Apostle." He doesn't mention the Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of the Quran, which says:

Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent.
Zafar claims that "no punishment exists for apostasy" -- in other words, he thinks that all the schools of Islamic law and all the sects of Islam other than Zafar's own Ahmadi sect, which is violently persecuted as heretical by Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia, got Islamic teaching on apostasy wrong, and only his group has gotten it right. He claims that the death penalty for apostasy is an example of "radical interpretations of Islam" and implies it originated with the twentieth century Islamic leader Maududi -- but he must know about these traditions of Muhammad and understandings of the Quran, even if he rejects them. Thus this is more evidence of his dishonesty.

By now it is clear that Zafar's words on taqiyya, Islamic religious deception, can't be trusted any more than the rest of what he claims. He again acts as if I have originated the idea that it is "the practice of lying to non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam" and claims that "no verse from the Quran is provided" in my writings or Spencer's "as a clear instruction for this practice." In reality, Spencer has written this:

Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the familiar term taqiyya.

The renowned Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir says that the phrase "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Quran 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.
After that, Zafar's hit piece gets really bizarre: he likens Robert Spencer and me to Abu Lahab and his wife, early foes of Muhammad "driven by their fiery hatred of Islam and its Prophet." Zafar says that "fittingly, Chapter 111 of the Quran (entitled al-Lahab) predicts that the plotting of such nefarious enemies of Islam would appear but ultimately fail miserably, and their wealth will not avail them." Once again, he whitewashes Islam: Zafar doesn't mention that that chapter says that Abu Lahab and his wife are burning in hellfire.

Zafar ends his crudely deceptive and dishonest screed by claiming that I am "practicing deception" and saying he wants to debate me. The worst part about his piece is that Zafar's Ahmadi brethren are being viciously persecuted by Muslims who deem them heretics. I have spoken out in their defense, and instead of thanking me, Zafar sides with his persecutors. He should be debating the mainstream Muslims whom he claims have misunderstood Islam, not me. But clearly he is suffering from a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by Robert on July 16, 2012
489  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Conspiracy Theory, or real possibility? on: July 17, 2012, 12:54:43 PM

‘Reichstag’ event could involve false assassination attempt blamed on “white supremacists”
Incited racial riots would lead to calls for government “crackdown”
Civil unrest would lead to martial law, DHS travel checkpoints, indefinite delay of elections

Washington, DC – The Obama agents, through the DHS and other assorted colluders, are plotting a major ‘Reichstag’ event to generate racial riots and produce the justification for martial law, delaying the November 2012 elections, possibly indefinitely, a DHS whistleblower informed the Canada Free Press on Tuesday.
The ‘Reichstag Event’ would take the form of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama, “carefully choreographed” and manufactured by Obama operatives. It would subsequently be blamed on “white supremacists” and used to enrage the black community to rioting and looting, the DHS source warned.
The Obama administration would then use the violence and chaos they created as justification for the imposition of martial law in major urban cities in America, the creation of DHS checkpoints, restriction of travel, and the indefinite delay of the November 2012 elections.
The Reichstag event refers to a fire started during Hitler’s rise to power. The fire allowed him to grab emergency powers and murder his opposition. Historians have long believed that Hitler started the fire himself, while he blamed it on the Communists.
The anonymous whistleblower elaborated on how the Obama administration is using the Occupy movement, labor unions, and other assorted subversive groups to create massive chaos within the nation.
“Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” the DHS source shared.
“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”
The recent revelations appeared to complement warnings given by other government insiders, who alleged that Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson were all agent provocateurs whose mission was to inflame racial tensions and spark open conflict in the streets of America.
According to the DHS source, a global economic collapse is coming, which the Obama administration is well aware of. They wish to build a system of global governance from the ashes of the previous financial system. In order for this mission to be completed, the Obama administration needs more time at the helm of power. Their reasons for concern are justified; as recently as May 8, influential political prognosticator Dick Morris predicted a Romney landslide if the election were held today.

The shocking news also seemed to confirm recent actions taken by the DHS, such as their purchase of 450 million rounds of ammunition and their recent BlackHawk helicopters operation in Chicago, which looked frighteningly similar to a civil unrest exercise, but was described as “routine training”.
The concept of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama is not new as well and was first voiced by a knowledgeable White House insider known only as “WHI”.
Ulsterman:  So what is it?  Pull what off?
Insider:  A manufactured threat against the President of the United States.  Something easily digested by the media and the American public.  Not a real threat – something totally of their own making. They will use it if they need to – got no doubt whatsoever about that.  Jarrett has approved the idea…and did so a long time ago.  There were whispers of it during the 2008 campaign.  McCain was so god-awful it never reached a serious consideration…but the plan was discussed.  If needed – they were willing to go that route.  It would be the ultimate use of the race card in the history of American politics.  And…it would likely work if they got away with it.
Ulsterman:  They would go that far? Risk something like that?
Insider:  You don’t need to ask that question.  Not after what we’ve discussed this past year.  Not after what I’ve told you has proven out over and over again.  So stop asking the fu—ing question.  You need to accept the fact…if you haven’t done so yet – you need to accept the fact these people are playing for keeps.  I told you – how many times?  How many times have I said it?  These are not Democrats.  These folks are something else entirely.  And they are willing to push the country – all of us, right against the fu—ing wall.  Hard.  I’m pushing back.  Others are too.  All of this is part of that effort.  A small part, but an important one.
As with the Occupy movement, it appears as if the Obama administration executed a test-run of the plot, with a “shot being fired” at the White House. This would lend credibility when they choreographed the attempt for the masses.
As early as August 2011, WHI also predicted race riots coming in the summer of 2012. The use of the Trayvon Martin death and the subsequent incitements to violence by the media, Obama operatives, and useful idiots, followed by the subsequent threats by the NBPP of a coming “race war” appear to have been merely a sign of what’s to come.
Middle-class American citizens were shocked and appalled at the allegations, with many hoping they were not true. Some said they had harbored similar suspicions for quite some time, due to the many anomalies and inaccuracies emanating from the current operatives inhabiting the White House.
The DHS source claimed that campaign funds were being directly used to fund the incitements to violence and rioting that the Obama administration was seeking to spark.
“Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source.
“He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives.”

The use of campaign funds, funneled through DHS agents to street-level agitators for the purpose of fomenting violence, would be extremely legally questionable, if not outright illegal, certain legal experts shared.
Intelligence officials said that if the allegations were true, the degree to which extremists had penetrated the upper echelons of the American government, finance, and security structure was unparalleled.
“Let’s just say that we are not taking these accusations lightly,” one official remarked on condition of anonymity. “Certain figures will be placed under a microscope, along with their associates.”
Valerie Jarrett, the shadowy figure always at Obama’s side, has been accused by some of “manipulating” or “controlling’ the President. Just who does she work for? Who does she take orders from?
The possibility that Barack Obama’s operatives, under the direction of Valerie Jarrett, was actively involved in the facilitation of street violence and mob chaos disturbed citizens, with many deeming it unpatriotic, subversive, and possibly seditious.

“Isn’t this why HUAC was created?”, one middle-class citizen angrily questioned. “Congress must re-instate HUAC, hold hearings, and find out if there is any truth to this.”
The intensely close co-ordination of seemingly separate entities confirmed the suspicions of many that communist agents had infiltrated major institutions, organizations, and trade unions, and were working together to sabotage America.
Who is Valerie Jarrett?
“Their apparatus can be seen as a type of octupus, having many tentacles,” one intelligence source confided on condition of anonymity. “Occupy is one tentacle, the unions are another, the Black Panthers are another, the radical black/islamic supremacists(Wright, Farrakhan, Van Jones, Sharpton) are another, DHS and its’ umbrella agencies are another, the mainstream press is another,” the source explained. “These tentacles are all working together, seemingly separate, but eventually they are controlled by the same small group of people. They receive their directives and marching orders and mindlessly execute them.”
The intelligence official predicted that in the very near future, all of the seemingly separate entities would be clearly exposed as working together, co-ordinating their activities together, and driving for the same goal – the destruction of America as a constitutional republic, the destruction of its capitalist system, and the dethroning of the U.S. as a superpower.
490  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Leftist Third Party History - Ignored By The Media... on: July 16, 2012, 01:59:37 PM
Another story that has received virtually zero coverage in the mainstream news media - even on Fox News Channel.  The public needs to know this:

Obama’s Third-Party History

By Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online.
June 7, 2012

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.

The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.

When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”

This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.

In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.

In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.

At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.

Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.

The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.

To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.

I have more to say on the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.

In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters  — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming June 25 issue of National Review.
491  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / OBAMA GUTS WELFARE REFORM LAW WORK REQUIREMENTS. on: July 16, 2012, 10:43:22 AM
What is even more shocking than what Obama did here, which was totally lawless, is the the fact that no mainstream media is covering the story!

People can now literally sit on thier butts and collect welfare - all in the interest of more votes for Obama.

The Welfare Work Requirement: Obama Obliterates Clinton’s Best Achievement

By Herman Cain
July 16, 2012

President Obama likes to blame everything on George W. Bush, but apparently he does not discriminate. This week, Obama obliterated one of the best things Bill Clinton ever did.
Conservatives don’t look back fondly at the Clinton years, and for good reason, although he looks decent compared to what we have today. But you have to give credit where it’s due: Clinton did some good things, and one of the best – at the prodding of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress to be sure – was the signing of the 1996 welfare reform act.
The bill “ended warfare as we know it” as Clinton liked to say, and introduced stringent requirements that able-bodied welfare recipients either work or spend time preparing for work. It was a good idea and it reversed the expansion of the welfare rolls for the first time in decades. The key was that states were not allowed to waive the work requirements. Congress wrote this section of the law very carefully because they knew that some state bureaucrats would try to do just that.
Now the work requirement is gone, not because new legislation was passed to remove it, but because Obama once again decided the law does not apply to him.
On Thursday, the Obama Administration issued a directive allowing states to waive the work requirement – and only the work requirement. The directive explains: “The Secretary (Kathleen Sebelius) is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment.”
In fact, Sebelius has no authority to grant such waivers. The bill makes that very clear by limiting the allowance of waivers to one section only, and it very explicitly excludes the work requirement from that section. This was not an accident. The power of the bill, and of the whole idea, was that it would only succeed if the work requirement was mandatory for all states and for all recipients.
And there’s no need for the Obama Administration to “find more effective mechanisms.” Welfare reform has been a roaring success.
Of course, that depends how you define success. It only took four years after the bill had eliminated the old Aid for Families with Dependent Children program, and replaced it with the new Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, for poverty to plummet while welfare caseloads were cut in half, according to a report from the Heritage Foundation.
So why would Obama get rid of the work requirements? I can think of two reasons – one ideological and the other political.
The ideological reason is that liberals hated welfare reform from day one. They predicted it would push millions more children into poverty. When it did exactly the opposite, their hatred was not abated in the slightest. They are convinced that the only way for people to get by is the reliability of a check from the government, and to them, the notion that you would replace this security blanket with this strange thing called a job is simply absurd.
The political reason is cynical but simple. People who depend on the government to be their primary benefactor vote Democratic, and if their dependence is permanent, then they vote Democratic for life. Even if these folks don’t vote, expanding the welfare rolls will allow for the expansion of the programs all across the country – and the newly hired welfare bureaucrats will vote Democratic, because their subsistence is dependent on the government as well.
Ronald Reagan liked to say that he defined compassion not by how many people we help, but by how many people no longer need our help. Obviously, and not surprisingly, Barack Obama’s view is exactly the opposite. The more people who depend on government largesse, and the easier it is for them to get it and keep getting it, the more job security he creates – for himself.
And he’s even willing to grant waivers that the law expressly forbids in order to make it happen.
I wonder what Bill Clinton thinks about what Obama did to one of his most positive achievements. After all, Clinton (who was re-elected the same year he signed welfare reform) worked with a Republican Congress to pass this bill, to cut the capital gains tax and to balance the budget for several years running.
Now the first Democratic president to follow him is undoing all of the above, or trying to. It’s almost enough to make you wonder, when Clinton walks into that voting booth in November and closes the curtain behind him . . . what he will really do.
492  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sodomy "For the sake of Islam"... on: July 15, 2012, 04:21:30 PM
Notice how literally ANYTHING is permitted "for the sake of jihad" according to the overwhelming majority of Muslim clerics, and every major school of Islamic jurisprudence:

Sodomy "For the Sake of Islam"

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
July 12, 2012

Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old Asiri "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but this "holy-warrior" apparently had fellow jihadists repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus to fit the explosives—and all in accordance with the fatwas of Islamic clerics.

A 2010 Arabic news video that aired on Fadak TV gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed al-Asiri and other jihadis of an "innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives."

Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for "martyrdom and the virgins of paradise," one jihadi (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?"

After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,

However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that 'necessity makes permissible the prohibited.' And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.

Two important and complementary points emerge from this matter: 1) that jihad is the "pinnacle" of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a Muhammad hadith); and 2) that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries ago, agreed to by the ulema, or Islam's leading doctrinaires.

The result is that, because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority, anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one's intention, or niyya.

From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad; suicide is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad, called "martyrdom."

Indeed, the Five Pillars of Islam—including prayer and fasting—may be ignored during the jihad. (So important was the duty of jihad that the Ottoman sultans, who often spent half their lives on the battlefield, were not permitted to perform the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.)

More recently, these ideas appeared in different form during Egypt's elections, when Islamic leaders portrayed voting as a form of jihad—leading to the abuse and even killing of those not voting for the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to these two doctrines—which culminate in empowering Islam, no matter how—one may expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how dubious the effort may otherwise seem.

Even so, this uncompromising mentality, which is prevalent throughout the Islamic world, especially along the frontlines of the jihad, is the same mentality that many Western leaders and politicians think can be appeased with just a bit more respect, well-wishing, and concessions from the West.

Such are the great, and disastrous, disconnects of our time.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
493  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ground Zero Mosque Imam Rauf Exposed... on: July 14, 2012, 12:17:21 AM
Canadian journalist Michael Coren masterfully rips the mask from Imam Faisal Rauf and exposes his deception.  Be sure to watch Coren's discussion with Robert Spencer afterward:
494  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The European Union is Fragmenting. Global Economic Consequences WILL Follow... on: July 12, 2012, 03:48:49 PM
Placing a large portion of your liquid assets into physical gold and silver has never been more advisable.  Time is growing short.  The writing is on the wall in giant red letters:

Analysis: Euro zone fragmenting faster than EU can act

Mon, Jul 9 2012

By Paul Taylor

PARIS (Reuters) - Signs are growing that Europe's economic and monetary union may be fragmenting faster than policymakers can repair it.
Euro zone leaders agreed in principle on June 29 to establish a joint banking supervisor for the 17-nation single currency area, based on the European Central Bank, although most of the crucial details remain to be worked out.
The proposal was a tentative first step towards a European banking union that could eventually feature a joint deposit guarantee and a bank resolution fund, to prevent bank runs or collapses sending shock waves around the continent.
The leaders agreed that the euro zone's permanent bailout fund, the 500 billion euro ($620 billion) European Stability Mechanism, would be able to inject capital directly into banks on strict conditions once the joint supervisor is established.
But the rush to put first elements of such a system in place by next year may come too late.
Deposit flight from Spanish banks has been gaining pace and it is not clear a euro zone agreement to lend Madrid up to 100 billion euros in rescue funds will reverse the flows if investors fear Spain may face a full sovereign bailout.
Many banks are reorganizing, or being forced to reorganize, along national lines, accentuating a deepening north-south divide within the currency bloc.
An invisible financial wall, potentially as dangerous as the Iron Curtain that once divided eastern and western Europe, is slowly going up inside the euro area.
The interest rate gap between north European creditor countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, whose borrowing costs are at an all-time low, and southern debtor countries like Spain and Italy, where bond yields have risen to near pre-euro levels, threatens to entrench a lasting divergence.
Since government credit ratings and bond yields effectively set a floor for the borrowing costs of banks and businesses in their jurisdiction, the best-managed Spanish or Italian banks or companies have to pay far more for loans, if they can get them, than their worst-managed German or Dutch peers.
The longer that situation goes on, the less chance there is of a recovery in southern Europe and the bigger will grow the wealth gap between north and south.
With ever-higher unemployment and poverty levels in southern countries, a political backlash, already fierce in Greece and seething in Spain and Italy, seems inexorable.
European Central Bank President Mario Draghi acknowledged as he cut interest rates last week that the north-south disconnect was making it more difficult to run a single monetary policy.
Two huge injections of cheap three-year loans into the euro zone banking system this year, amounting to 1 trillion euros, bought only a few months' respite.
"It is not clear that there are measures that can be effective in a highly fragmented area," Draghi told journalists.
Conservative German economists led by Hans-Werner Sinn, head of the Ifo institute, are warning of dire consequences for Germany from ballooning claims via the ECB's system for settling payments among national central banks, known as TARGET2.
If a southern country were to default or leave the euro, they contend, Germany would be left with an astronomical bill, far beyond its theoretical limit of 211 billion euros liability for euro zone bailout funds.
As long as European monetary union is permanent and irreversible, such cross-border claims and capital flows within the currency area should not matter any more than money moving between Texas and California does.
But even the faintest prospect of a Day of Reckoning changes that calculus radically.
In that case, money would flood into German assets considered "safe" and out of securities and deposits in countries seen as at risk of leaving the monetary union. Some pessimists reckon we are already witnessing the early signs of such a process.
Any event that makes a euro exit by Greece - the most heavily indebted member state, which is off track on its second bailout program and in the fifth year of a recession - look more likely seems bound to accelerate those flows, despite repeated statements by EU leaders that Greece is a unique case.
"If it does occur, a crisis will propagate itself through the TARGET payments system of the European System of Central Banks," U.S. economist Peter Garber, now a global strategist with Deutsche Bank, wrote in a prophetic 1999 research paper.
Either member governments would always be willing to let their national central banks give unlimited credit to each other, in which case a collapse would be impossible, or they might be unwilling to provide boundless credit, "and this will set the parameters for the dynamics of collapse", Garber warned.
"The problem is that at the time of a sovereign debt crisis, large portions of a national balance sheet may suddenly flee to the ECB's books, possibly overwhelming the capacity of a bailout fund to absorb the entire hit," he wrote in 2010, after the start of the Greek crisis, in a report for Deutsche Bank.
European officials tend to roll their eyes at such theories, insisting the euro is forever, so the issue does not arise.
In practice, national regulators in some EU countries are moving quietly to try to reduce their home banks' exposure to such an eventuality. The ECB itself last week set a limit on the amount of state-backed bank bonds that banks could use as collateral in its lending operations.
In one high-profile case, Germany's financial regulator Bafin ordered HypoVereinsbank (HVB), the German subsidiary of UniCredit (CRDI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), to curb transfers to its parent bank in Italy last year, people familiar with the case said.
Such restrictions are legal, since bank supervision is at national level, but they run counter to the principle of the free movement of capital in the European Union's single market and to an integrated currency union.
Whether a single euro zone banking supervisor would be able to overrule those curbs is one of the many uncertainties left by the summit deal. In any case, common supervision without joint deposit insurance may be insufficient to reverse capital flight.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, keen to shield her grumpy taxpayers, has so far rejected any sharing of liability for guaranteeing bank deposits or winding up failed banks.
Veteran EU watchers say political determination to make the single currency irreversible will drive euro zone leaders to give birth to a full banking union, and the decision to create a joint supervisor effectively got them pregnant.
But for now, Europe's financial disintegration seems to be moving faster than the forces of financial integration.
(Editing by David Holmes)
© Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved.
495  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Touts General Motors' "Success" (What a Fraud!) on: July 12, 2012, 02:54:57 PM
GM’s Government Fleet Sales and Truck Inventory Rise

Submitted by Mark Modica on Thu, 07/05/2012

It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers. Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the "success" of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests. We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.

The discovery of the pick-up in government fleet purchases at the taxpayers' expense comes just weeks before GM announces its second quarter earnings. Overall fleet sales (which are typically less profitable than retail sales) at Government Motors rose a full 36% for the month, helping to drive decent sales improvements year over year.

GM claimed that sales increases did not rely on incentive spending, which appeared to remain in check, but one analyst during GM's sales conference call questioned whether the company's "stair step" incentive spending was accurately depicted. This incentive spending kicks in after dealerships report final sales figures for the month and may be yet another deceptive way for GM to fudge its numbers. Not mentioned was GM card rewards programs that do not get counted as incentive spending.

The government's increased spending on GM vehicle purchases presents yet another conflict of interest as Treasury refuses to sell taxpayers' stake in GM and Obama campaigns on the auto bailouts. It does not appear that any members of Congress (from either party) are questioning the increased spending. Also ignored was the Department of Energy's gifting of $2.7 million of taxpayer money to GM to reduce energy consumption in its door manufacturing process by 50%. The DOE seems to be one of the main conduits to funnel taxpayer funds to cronies of the Administration. The $2.7 million contribution to GM comes after additional millions of dollars were spent by the DOE on advisory fees paid to legal firms that helped smooth the way for the GM bankruptcy process (as reported here); another move that went unquestioned.

The upcoming earnings announcement by GM is, politically, the most important to date. The pressure is on Government Motors to appear financially strong as this may be the last earnings report before November elections and sets the stage for how "successful" GM is. One of GM's past tricks to help fudge earnings numbers has been to stuff truck inventory channels. Old habits die hard at GM. According to a Bloomberg report, "GM said inventory of its full-size pickups, which will be refreshed next year, climbed to 238,194 at the end of June, a 135 days supply, up from 116 days at the end of May." 135 days supply is huge, the accepted norm is a 60 day supply. The trick here is that GM records revenue when vehicles go into dealership inventories, not when actually sold to consumers.

The article goes on to quote Kelley Blue Book's Alec Gutierrez who stated "They're (GM) likely going to have a relatively high days supply of trucks moving forward and they're already placing some pretty aggressive cash incentives on the hood. It's going to eat into their profit margins..."

GM's earnings announcement comes on August 2nd. The main headwinds will be weak European operations and growing pension liabilities. The headline number for earnings should be viewed skeptically and an eye kept on the share price reaction after the conference call. Expect Government Motors to put a positive spin on its financial health as the stakes are now at their highest. The long-term health of GM remains in question and the true financial picture may not surface until well after voters decide who will be running our country. Eventually we will see just how successful GM really is.

Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
496  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Horowitz's "Party of Defeat" on: July 07, 2012, 01:59:20 PM
Here is my brief review of the book written shortly after its publication:

Brilliant, Concise and Cogent...

June 18, 2008

In this thoroughly researched and heavily footnoted book, Horowitz and Johnson set forth and explicate with exacting precision the relentless campaign the American Left and the Democratic Party have pursued to discredit George W. Bush and the War on Islamic Fascism. Unfortunately many, if not most Americans have forgotten the details of how the Democrats and the Left have undermined our country's response to Islamic radicals beginning with the Carter administration.

The authors clearly organize their thesis into 5 sections: The Path to 9-11, The Response to 9-11, Why America Went to War, The War Against the War, and Conclusion. They demonstrate with unassailable factual narrative how Presidents Carter and Clinton, in concert with an anti-war leftist establishment and willing accomplices both in the mainstream media and the Democratic Party refused to confront our enemies, leading inexorably to the 9-11 attacks.

This was itself inexcusable, but it was unfortunately only a prelude to the shocking and unprecedented betrayal of our forces in the field - first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. The Democrats first voted to authorize military action in Iraq using the same intelligence information the President had at his disposal, and then not only rescinded their support of our military while they were actively engaged in battle, but launched a full-scale political attack on their commander-in-chief, branding him a liar and a war criminal. This despicable and treasonous behavior has fractured America's resolve, damaged our troops' morale, and weakened the President's ability to prosecute the war. Top-ranking Democratic leaders have demonstrated by their statements and actions that they fail utterly to understand the nature of this war and its implications.

Every American owes it to themselves to become familiar with this material so that they can combat the misinformation campaign being waged internally - if unwittingly by some - on behalf of our enemies. Horowitz and Johnson have produced a tour de force analysis of what is quite possibly the most serious political betrayal in American history.
497  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some actual scholarship from a professor on the taxation issue re: Obamacare. on: July 07, 2012, 01:52:21 PM
A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax

The Supreme Court has long distinguished the regulatory from the taxing power.

By PAUL MORENO - July 6, 2012 - Wall Street Journal

In 1935, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins was fretting about finding a constitutional basis for the Social Security Act. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone advised her, "The taxing power, my dear, the taxing power. You can do anything under the taxing power."

Last week, in his ObamaCare opinion, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts gave Congress the same advice—just enact regulatory legislation and tack on a financial penalty, as in failure to comply with the individual insurance mandate. So how did the power to tax under the Constitution become unbounded?

The first enumerated power that the Constitution grants to Congress is the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The text indicates that the taxing power is not plenary, but can be used only for defined ends and objects—since a comma, not a semicolon, separated the clauses on means (taxes) and ends (debts, defense, welfare).

Editorial board member Joe Rago on how Chief Justice John Roberts's rewrite of ObamaCare weakens the Constitution's federalist structure. Photo: Associated Press

This punctuation was no small matter. In 1798, Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin said that fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Gouverneur Morris, chairman of the Committee on Style at the Constitutional Convention, had smuggled in the semicolon in order to make Congress's taxing power limitless, but that the alert Roger Sherman had the comma restored. The altered punctuation, Gallatin said, would have turned "words [that] had originally been inserted in the Constitution as a limitation to the power of levying taxes" into "a distinct power." Thirty years later, Virginia Rep. Mark Alexander accused Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of doing the same thing after Congress instructed the administration to print copies of the Constitution.

The punctuation debate simply reinforced James Madison's point in Federalist No. 41 that Congress could tax and spend only for those objects enumerated, primarily in Article I, Section 8.

Congress enacted very few taxes up to the end of the Civil War, and none that was a pretext for regulating things that the Constitution gave it no power to regulate. True, the purpose of tariffs was to protect domestic industry from foreign competition, not raise revenue. But the Constitution grants Congress a plenary power to regulate commerce with other nations.

Congress also enacted a tax to destroy state bank notes in 1866, but this could be seen as a "necessary and proper" means to stop the states from usurping Congress's monetary or currency power. It was upheld in Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869).

The first unabashed use of the taxing power for regulatory purposes came when Congress enacted a tax on "oleomargarine" in 1886. Dairy farmers tried to drive this cheaper butter substitute from the market but could only get Congress to adopt a mild tax, based on the claim that margarine was often artificially colored and fraudulently sold as butter. President Grover Cleveland reluctantly signed the bill, saying that if he were convinced the revenue aspect was simply a pretext "to destroy . . . one industry of our people for the protection and benefit of another," he would have vetoed it.

Congress imposed another tax on margarine in 1902, which the Supreme Court upheld (U.S. v. McCray, 1904). Three justices dissented, but without writing an opinion.

Then, in 1914, Congress imposed taxes on druggists' sales of opiates as a way to regulate their use. Five years later, in U.S. v. Doremus , the Supreme Court upheld the levy under Congress's express power to impose excise taxes.

Then, in 1922, the court rejected Congress's attempt to prohibit child labor by imposing a tax on companies that employed children. An earlier attempt to accomplish this, by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods made by child labor, was struck down as unconstitutional—since it was understood since the earliest days of the republic that Congress had the power to regulate commerce but not manufacturing. "A Court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax is imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed," Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. "Its prohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable." Even liberal justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis concurred in Taft's opinion.

Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the "general welfare" beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be "general" and not transfer payments from one group to another. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937, it accepted such transfer payments in Mulford v. Smith (1939), so long as the taxes were paid into the general treasury and not earmarked for farmers.

And now, in 2012, Justice Roberts has confirmed that there are no limits to regulatory taxation as long as the revenue is deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

Are there any other limits? Article I, Section 2 says that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states" according to population. This is repeated in Article I, Section 9, which says that "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid," unless apportioned.

The Supreme Court struck down income taxes in 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.), on the ground that they were "direct" taxes but not apportioned by population. Apportioning an income tax would defeat the purpose of the relatively poorer Southern and Western states, who wanted the relatively richer states of the Northeast to pay the bulk of the tax. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to tax incomes without apportionment.

Other direct taxes should presumably have to be apportioned according to the Constitution. Justice Roberts quickly dismissed the notion that the individual mandate penalty-tax is not a direct tax "under this Court's precedents." To any sentient adult, it looks like a "capitation" or head tax, imposed upon individuals directly. Unfortunately, having plenty of other reasons to object to ObamaCare, the four dissenting justices in NFIB v. Sebelius did not explore this point.

Some conservatives have cheered that part of Justice Roberts's decision that limits Congress's Commerce Clause power. But an unlimited taxing power is equally dangerous to constitutional government.

Mr. Moreno is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and the author of "The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal," forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.
498  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Yasir Arafat and the myths surrounding his death... on: July 06, 2012, 02:16:36 PM
Yasir Arafat Is Still Dead and We Know Who Really Did Him In

Posted By Barry Rubin On July 6, 2012

Yasir Arafat is still dead. True, he was once alive. I sat across from him in his Gaza office, for example. And he even had a copy of my history of the PLO on his bookshelf so he must have been of sound mind at the time. It’s not my fault. I told him to start jogging and cut down on sweets. But he didn’t listen. On November 4, 2004, he died, a fate he previously delivered to thousands of far more innocent people.

The effort now by various Palestinian factions to imply Israel killed him is the funniest thing in the Middle East since the U.S. director of national intelligence’s congressional briefing when he said the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular democratic organization. What’s dismaying is how much play Western media are giving this charge as if it should be taken seriously. When the West behaves in this way it signals at the least a dangerously naive credulousness and at worst a profound anti-Jewish and anti-Israel complex. The New York Times and Washington Post take this nonsense seriously.

But there’s something else in this story, something very chilling indeed. Revolutionary Islamists especially, but many Muslims otherwise, believe that Jews tried to murder Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and even if they failed that the poison shortened his life. The accusation that Jews are the murderer of prophets — with Muslims throwing in the founder of Christianity also — is a phrase that derives from this story. It is frequently heard from Hamas and others. This is a blood libel, an alleged crime that then leads to the view that Jews are absolutely evil and should be wiped out. In short, it is a rationale for genocide. When Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood say that Israel should be wiped off the map and Jews generally should be murdered that incitement is the inevitable consequence of this line of thinking.

That Western observers are unaware of all of this history — repeated daily in inciteful sermons found in Middle East mosques — is quite evident. Such a lack of knowledge leads them to believe that the conflicts they say are easily resolvable, quickly settled by more Israeli concessions or still continuing because of Israeli actions when the causes are much deeper and the solutions far more remote. Western societies today are obsessed with searching everywhere for racism and hate speech. Well, the idea that the Jews murdered Arafat (rather than that Arafat spent most of his career murdering Jews) falls into that category.

As for the specific claims in the Arafat case, they are easily disposed of:

First of all, anyone who saw Arafat during the last year of his life knew he was seriously ill and steadily worsening. His lips trembled, he looked disoriented, and he wasn’t as articulate as usual. Even on television you couldn’t possibly miss his distress. Parkinson’s disease was a likely diagnosis though Crohn’s disease was said to be another probable medical problem for the dictator.

His doctors obviously knew that he was in bad shape. But, and this is what’s most important, they didn’t do anything about it. The prospect of Arafat’s death was so traumatic for the movement — which had known no other leader during 43 years for Fatah, 36 years for the PLO, and its entire ten year life for the Palestinian Authority. By not taking serious action and giving him better treatment, the key to the mystery is this: His own doctors and movement killed Arafat. So if Israel killed Arafat then his own doctors and the entire PLO, Fatah, and PA leadership were in on the conspiracy. Indeed, Arafat himself, by not more actively seeking medical help or speaking about his problems was also in on the conspiracy. This is unlikely.

Second, the doctors were shut up and the report of his death was kept secret by Arafat’s widow Suha Arafat. Since his colleagues had access to a lot of this information they also kept quiet. In other words, we are supposed to believe that those in the world who most hated Israel had evidence that Israel had something to do with his death but they kept it secret?

Third, suddenly, almost eight years later Suha and other Arafat loyalists are making claims. But there is no new evidence whatsoever. Obviously, this is a publicity stunt. Let them release the huge medical report on his death. Let them permit the French doctors to have a press conference. Let them dig up Arafat. Until one of those things happens why should the Western media fall for this trick? So again, if there was the slightest suspicion that Arafat was being murdered, Arafat’s wife, doctors, and all of the Palestinian leadership were helping the conspiracy. This is also unlikely.

Fourth, the claims that Arafat was poisoned by Israel using some exotic radioactive means has been made from the day Arafat was planted but have always faded away, at least internationally, because no evidence was offered. Old fables are being treated like new revelations. Such claims of Zionist conspiracies are always promoted in order to slander and discredit Israel when just about anyone significant dies in the Arab world.

Fifth, if Arafat had been poisoned by radioactive substances his symptoms would have been extreme and evident. They include nausea, hair loss, throat swelling and paleness. Moreover, Arafat would have died really fast, but he lingered for a long time.

The history of this myth shows that it is the Palestinian leadership, not Israel, that has something to hide, that has kept everything secret. I suspect the secret is the incompetence of his own doctors.

So did Arafat die of AIDs? After my own serious research on this matter I could find no evidence for this assertion. And I know that both Israeli and U.S. intelligence had no evidence that Arafat was homosexual either on the basis of in-depth discussions over many years. Sources like Ahmad Jibril — a life-long enemy of Arafat — and other unreliable sources cited are not impressive. If there is evidence to the contrary I will certainly revise my view. But you should know that the Israeli government and intelligence position–privately as well as publicly–is that they have no evidence of Arafat being a homosexual or suffering from AIDs.

The rumor began with an article by Oriana Fallaci whose only evidence was that his bodyguards at the time were extremely handsome young men. (By the time I was seeing him in the 1990s that was certainly not true at all.)

Of course, Arafat was a weird person and in our biography, Arafat: A Political Biography, Judith Colp Rubin and myself explain his psychology and personality. One of my favorite Palestinian jokes about Arafat recounts that he is patting the head of a little girl and asks her, “Whose daughter are you?”

She answers, “Yours.” Arafat was considered by his countrymen to be so cold that he didn’t recognize his own begotten daughter. The story is almost plausible.

But I repeat: there is no reason to think Arafat was a homosexual or died of AIDs or poisoning. He was overweight, ate an unhealthy diet, worked long hours, didn’t take care of himself (he believed eating honey would keep him healthy), and had very bad doctors despite their local reputations.

So we know who killed Arafat: his doctors, entourage, movement, and of course his own body. Yet when I go to Yahoo what do I see but Arafat’s “mysterious” death as the lead story in the entire world, as if any accusation made against Israel must be true.

Note: Here’s a history of the Israel-killed-Arafat tale in Palestinian Media Watch. For more analysis of why the claims are absurd see here and here. Note: Here’s a history of the Israel-killed-Arafat tale in Palestinian Media Watch. For more analysis of why the claims are absurd see here and here. Here’s some more information about the Israeli decision to let Arafat go to Paris. One interesting point is that it implies the French doctors took some action which might have been correct but could also imply that they are at fault for Arafat’s turn for the worse, giving them a motive for not revealing details of his treatment.

Article printed from Rubin Reports:

URL to article:
499  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Typically excellent Geller piece... on: July 05, 2012, 10:31:35 AM
July 3, 2012
Why So Many People Think Obama Is a Muslim

By Pamela Geller

A new Gallup poll shows that 11% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, and the leftist media just can't figure out why anyone would get that idea.  Slate concluded that it must be because of "his exotic name and background, the color of his skin, or (most likely) some combination of the two."  But in reality, the reason why people think Obama is a Muslim is because of how he acts.

Why do people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim?  Here's why: after the Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian presidency, the military moved to curb the president's powers in order to stave off sharia rule in Egypt.  But then Obama warned the military that they better hand over power quickly, or Egypt would lose billions in U.S. aid.

It wasn't enough that Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his submission speech in Cairo in June 2009, despite the fact that the group was banned at that time for obvious reasons: they wanted to install a sharia government, and the draconian, barbaric code of sharia, in Egypt.  It wasn't enough that after he invited the Brotherhood to his speech; he had officials in his administration meeting with this Islamic supremacist group.  It wasn't enough that he abandoned the true freedom movement, when the women of Iran and Persians and Zoroastrians rose up after 30 years of oppressive sharia rule.  Obama spit on them and left them to die.  They met bullets with bare flesh and broken bricks.

It was a squandered historical moment: by supporting the demonstrators in Iran, Obama could have done much to remove the head of the snake of Hezb'allah, Hamas, the Shi'ites fighting American soldiers in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Shia agitation in Bahrain.  Obama could have saved the free world and gone down in history as one of the magnificent heroes for good.  But that is not who he is.  He is a tool, a malevolent subversive who managed to seize the most powerful office in the world with the PR expertise of the enemedia.

Obama's war on the good continued.  It wasn't enough that he abandoned Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, the first Muslim country to make peace with the Jewish people despite the Jew-hatred mandated in the Quran.  It wasn't enough that he threw our great friend and ally out with both hands, a man who for all his undeniable faults was the most liberal of reformers in the Muslim countries in that region.  And here we are with the Brotherhood victorious, and what does the leader of the free world do?  He threatens to withhold all U.S. aid to anyone who stops the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power.

Does he threaten to withhold aid from the Muslims in Gaza who daily talk about their desire to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews, and who glory in the murders of young families with their children, and lob rockets into civilian areas so that the people there have to live in terror going to work and to school?  Of course not -- he increases the aid to the annihilationists who thirst for genocide in their mad Islamic Jew-hatred.

And the media wonders why so many people think Obama is a Muslim?  Obama has banned the word "jihad" and any discussion of Islam from State, Defense, and Justice Department vernacular and counter-terrorism materials.  He is denying that jihad is the enemy, while his Justice Department acts as the de facto legal arm for Muslim Brotherhood groups in America.  And the Obama administration has held hundreds of meetings with U.S. Hamas front groups.

Obama is withholding evidence in the Fort Hood jihad that has held up the court case of the single worst act of war on a military base in U.S. history.  The Obama administration refers to the Fort Hood jihad as "workplace violence."  The trial of the Fort Hood jihadi (who was screaming "Allahu akbar" as he mowed down 13 U.S. soldiers) has been delayed repeatedly because Major Hasan came in sporting the religious beard of the devout Muslim.

The appeaser-in-chief excoriates America for Guantánamo, which provides its enemy combatants with Korans, laptops, duck à l'orange, and my, oh my, the inhumanity of it all.  He flogged and beat us with his wet waterboarding noodle.  He cried for Khalid Sheik Muhammad's nose -- despite the fact that the enhanced interrogations saved the lives of thousands in Los Angeles.  Three mass murderers were waterboarded (along with scores of CIA and military folks), and Obama was shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

Obama has made several Muslim Brotherhood appointments to key high-level, sensitive positions.  Obama has told us time and time again that "we will never be at war with Islam" (even if Muslims are at war with us).  He has removed the sanctions covering religious freedom from the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights -- and it just so happens that the worst offenders against religious freedom are Muslim countries.

In June 2010 I wrote an article containing a long list of the things Obama had done since becoming president that made people think he was a Muslim.  I wrote: "Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law)."  Since then, he has continued to do so.  He keeps fueling the impression that he is a Muslim by his actions, which have been consistent.  He killed Osama and Awlaki?  Sure...but he has never moved against pro-sharia Islamic supremacists.  Quite the contrary.

By their fruits ye shall know them, and so we know him.  The left media should stop beating people up for being logical.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of and the author of the WND Books title Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Page Printed from: at July 05, 2012 - 09:48:32 AM CDT
500  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Enabling our enemies... on: July 05, 2012, 10:28:00 AM
Marc is correct, and I share both his outrage and his opinion that treason was committed by the political opposition during this period.  For the full, disgusting story of the Democrat Party's transgressions in the lead-up to the Iraq War, read David Horowitz's excellent book "Party of Defeat."  It chronicles the entire sordid affair, and will enrage anyone who loves this nation and its founding principles.  Unfortunately, and as usual, neither the press nor the impotent Republican "leadership" will bring these facts up and remind the American people (as they ought to be - and OFTEN) of these despicable actions.  Another example of just why we need more individuals like Allen West in Congress.  If the public were reminded of these damning facts, Obama would lose lose in a landslide, and Mitt Romney would not be the Republican nominee.  I strongly encourage freedom-loving people to read Horowitz's book - (or review it again if you've read it.)  It will remind you of just what we are up against - the enemy within.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!