Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2014, 01:45:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81207 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
451  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.
452  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."
453  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.
454  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?
455  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
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/why-the-right-wing-blogosphere-doesnt-cover-islam.html
456  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 - www.loganswarning.com:

“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.
457  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.
458  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.
459  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.
460  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 www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com.

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 http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/21/rep-keith-ellison-rewrites-history-on-his-muslim-brotherhood-cair-ties/), 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.
461  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.
462  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
ALL DEATH THREATS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

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
463  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:
 
www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/if-you-ever-disrespect-islam-ever-again-im-going-to-personally-find-you-all-okyoull-fucking-die.html
464  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 www.obamasrealfather.com 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.
 
 

465  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

ObamasRealFather.com



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 Newsmax.com 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 Talkingpointsmemo.com. 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 obamasrealfather.com

Thank you, and God Bless America.
466  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:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/we-must-run-these-pro-israel-ads-.html

467  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:

www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/robert-spencer-on-mark-levin-speaks-about-bachmann-mccain-and-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

468  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.
469  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:  

www.sctimes.com/assets/pdf/DR192062714.PDF


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.
470  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.”
471  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.
472  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 - Jihadwatch.org - 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
473  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Conspiracy Theory, or real possibility? on: July 17, 2012, 12:54:43 PM
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO STAGE ‘REICHSTAG’ EVENT AS TRIGGER FOR MARTIAL LAW, DHS SOURCE WARNS

‘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.
474  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.
475  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.
476  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.
477  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:

www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/michael-coren-exposes-ground-zero-mosque-imam-rauf-robert-spencer-gives-postgame-analysis.html
478  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.
POLITICAL BACKLASH
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.
OVERWHELMING?
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.
479  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.
480  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.
481  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.
482  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: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/07/06/yasir-arafat-is-still-dead-and-we-know-who-really-did-him-in/
483  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 AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/07/why_so_many_people_think_obama_is_a_muslim.html at July 05, 2012 - 09:48:32 AM CDT
484  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.
485  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Enables America's Enemies. on: July 04, 2012, 07:28:52 PM
The Egyptian Disaster

By Robert Spencer - posted July 2, 2012

No sooner was Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi elected president of Egypt than he announced his determination to work for the freedom of an enemy of the United States: blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life term for his role in planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Not since Jimmy Carter helped usher in the Iranian Revolution has an American president done so much to aid those who are determined to destroy the United States.

In fact, the parallels are numerous. Carter betrayed the shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally who had a dismal human rights record but was generally loyal, and paved the way for the ascent to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian mullahcracy that quickly showed its gratitude to Carter by taking U.S. Embassy personnel hostage, and has maintained a war footing against the United States ever since.

Obama, for his part, betrayed Hosni Mubarak, another longtime U.S. ally with a record of repressive rule, paving the way for the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power. And now President Morsi has shown his gratitude to Obama by announcing his determination to free from prison a man who plotted to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans.

It is said that history repeats itself, but it doesn’t do so by means of some automatic, inexorable, deterministic process. History repeats itself because people refuse to study and learn its lessons, and to face the unpleasant facts it presents. Thus, they make the same mistakes their predecessors did. The Obama administration didn’t have to be Carter’s second term, but both Carter and Obama are the products of a political culture that consistently discounts the importance of religious motivations. Informed sources have noted that at the time of the Iranian Revolution, only one book by the Ayatollah Khomeini could be found in the State Department, and no one had read it: no one thought the rantings of an obscure fanatic exiled to far-off France were important. That was the manifestation of a willful blindness to rival that of James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, who famously labeled the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular.” In fact, it is the same willful blindness, and it has characterized the Washington establishment’s views on Islam and jihad from Carter’s day until now.

So secular is the Brotherhood that Morsi recently repeated its guiding motto to an enthusiastic crowd: “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” Last week, Yasser Borhamy, a Salafi leader, declared that the Muslim Brotherhood was planning to implement Sharia as the main source for Egyptian law. Noting opposition to Sharia in Egypt, Borhamy said: “What is disturbing in the Islamic Sharia law, is Sharia bothering anyone? We do not say ‘our views on Sharia,’ but we say that we want the Sharia law revealed by God. Would anyone be afraid of the Sharia that establishes justice, [public] interest and wisdom? This is very strange. How is it said that people are afraid of Sharia?”

By “Sharia law revealed by God,” Borhamy meant the Sharia that stones adulterers, amputates thieves’ hands, mandates death for apostates from Islam, and institutionalizes subjugation of women and non-Muslims. If the Brotherhood does succeed in implementing this in Egypt, it will have Barack Obama to thank: his applause for the “Arab Spring” uprisings, coupled with the universal misrepresentation of them in the Western media as outpourings of a longing for democracy and pluralism, has brought us to the inception of an Egyptian regime that is almost certain to go to war with Israel and pursue a path of unrelenting hostility toward its erstwhile patrons in Washington.

Yet even the likelihood that Egypt, long a recipient of American largesse, will become an enemy of America is unlikely to shake those entrenched core assumptions in Washington that got us into this fix. The Obama administration rejects, as a matter of repeatedly stated policy, the idea that Islam has anything to do with terrorism, or warfare against unbelievers, or the legal subjugation of non-Muslims. An Obama official who opined that a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt would likely be an enemy of the United States because of Islam’s core doctrines regarding the evil of the society of unbelievers would be reprimanded or fired outright for “Islamophobia.”

And so what was old is new again: a man who owes his seat of power to the United States demonstrates his hostility to the ones who put him in place. Then it was Khomeini, now it is Morsi, but in both cases it is the same. One wonders how many times Washington will have the luxury of making this same mistake before the consequences become too terrible to bear.

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.
486  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Americans Who Risked Everything. on: July 04, 2012, 03:29:21 PM

THE AMERICANS WHO RISKED EVERYTHING

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."

"Most Glorious Service"

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

·   Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

·   William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

· Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

·   Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

·   John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

· Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."

·   William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.

· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. - (Father of the famous talk radio host)
487  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Interesting profiles of some of the Founders: on: July 04, 2012, 10:46:21 AM
The 7 Most Badass Founding Fathers

Posted By David Forsmark On July 4, 2012

They all pledged their “lives, fortunes and sacred honors,” and it was more than just an idle boast.

The Founding Fathers were committing treason against the most powerful empire that the world to date had ever seen.  It was also their Mother Country, to which many of their friends, family and neighbors were still loyal.

And while they certainly, in the words of Patrick Henry, “made the most” of their treason, the idea that they would establish the most free and powerful nation in the history of mankind was not the most likely outcome.

So in singling out these 7 men in standing out as badasses (and I am sure some of you will find a more worthy nominee or two that I should have thought of, so please feel free to enlighten me in the Comments section) I am not minimizing the notion that Ben Franklin was right — that they could most certainly “all hang separately” whether they all hung together as he urged them, or not.

However some men risked just a bit more, courted danger a little more closely, and were just a bit more reckless with their lives or fortunes. Here are 7 of them, and on this Independence Day, I hope I do these Founding Badasses justice.


7. Henry Laurens

Veteran Indian fighter Henry Laurens from the Cherokee campaign of the French and Indian War was a bit too old to serve in the Continental Army during the Revolution, but that didn’t stop him from being the only American to be imprisoned in the infamous Tower of London.

After that war, Laurens became a very wealthy rice planter, and was a continuously elected member of the South Carolina Assembly. Like most of the eventual revolutionaries, Laurens favored reconciliation with the Crown, even while advocating for more freedom for the colonists.

He became a prominent member of South Carolina’s revolutionary government, was elected to the Continental Congress, and eventually succeeded John Hancock as the President of the Revolution’s governing body.

Meanwhile Henry’s son John was making a name for himself as a soldier in  the Continental Army. John vociferously argued that slavery was anathema to the fledgling nation’s rhetoric about liberty, and was granted permission to offer South Carolina’s slaves freedom in exchange for military service.

He was vigorously opposed by Governor Rutledge, who was not quite as fierce in his defense of Charleston from the British. When Rutledge tried to surrender, John Laurens took on the defense of Charleston and repulsed the British forces.

Shortly thereafter, he was captured by the British and shipped to Philadelphia, just as his father Henry was leaving that city for a secret mission to convince the Netherlands to help the American cause financially. Henry’s diplomatic mission was successful, but he was himself captured by the British on his second voyage to Amsterdam and tossed into the abysmal conditions of the Tower.

Eventually both Laurens were freed in prisoner exchanges (Henry for Lord Cornwallis himself), and, undaunted, John went back to fighting Redcoats and Henry back to get money from the Dutch. John was killed in a skirmish late in the war in 1782; but his father honored his principles by manumitting all 260 of their slaves after the war.


6. Patrick Henry

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”

When Patrick Henry delivered those words, they were not just a political slogan, a t-shirt or the motto on a license plate, they were reflective of a potential reality.

Quite possibly the rhetorician who lit the revolutionary fires in a young Thomas Jefferson, Henry was perhaps the most passionate defender of individual rights of the Founding Fathers.  In fact, after winning the war for liberty against King George, Henry became involved in the Constitutional Convention to keep George Washington and his colleagues honest in Philadelphia, fearing a too-powerful central government might result.

Henry practiced law and served in Virginia’s House of Burgesses where he advocated for the state to join the Committees of Correspondence. Organized by Samuel Adams, the goal was for the colonies to present a united face to the Crown.

His most famous speech, with its immortal line excerpted above, was Henry’s second consequential address. In the other, he introduced the Virginia Stamp Act resolutions, whose language was so defiant it made even many sympathetic members of the assembly squirm, while others loudly accused Henry of treason.

“If this be treason,” he retorted, “then make the most of it.”

The day after Lexington and Concord, Henry, a colonel in the militia, led troops in what became known as “the Gunpowder Incident,” when Lord Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, fearing his own unruly colonists, attempted to disarm them by commandeering the colony’s gunpowder stores. Henry intervened and the governor backed down without bloodshed.

Henry was not an advocate of a Constitution setting up a more powerful federal government. In fact, he set out for Philadelphia worried that liberty was again under assault. Henry was the most influential voice in the adoption of the Bill of Rights — which while it might not have been needed under Washington’s administration, has certainly acted as a bulwark against the encroachments of plenty of others, since.



5. Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton may have lost the most famous duel in American history but at least he showed up for it. That’s got to count for something.

But then whatever else Hamilton was short of, guts would not make the list. Unlike modern politicians who get caught in compromising positions with women, Hamilton, unlike fellow New Yorker Eliot Spitzer, did not use his wife as a human shield. He stood alone and admitted what he’d done, albeit in uncomfortable and inappropriate detail.

Of all the Founders, Hamilton may have traveled the furthest to reach the pinnacle of success. Illegitimately born and on his own from age 11, young Hamilton’s sheer brilliance made others believe in him and invest in his future.

While at King’s College, Hamilton published articles in favor of the Revolution, and then quit to join the militia. He quickly rose through the ranks and eventually became part of George Washington’s staff. Though he was involved in everything from diplomacy to espionage to strategic planning, Hamilton badgered Washington throughout the war for the chance to return to a battlefield command. His mentor finally relented near the war’s end, and Hamilton again served with distinction.

Between serving in the war, and joining Washinton’s cabinet, Hamilton founded the Bank of New York. He was the first Secretary of the Treasury, and fought the likes of Thomas Jefferson in establishing a true national economy — particularly nationalizing the debt incurred by states in the Revolutionary War.

He founded the United States Mint, the Coast Guard, and took effective command of, and developed, the U.S. Army during the quasi-war with France.

Unfortunately, even with all of that, the man considered the most dashing of the Founders, still found time to have a scandalous affair with Maria Reynolds that ended his public life for awhile.

Never a uniting figure, Hamilton’s legacy is still fiercely debated, with some sure we would be living in a libertarian paradise today, if not for his evil centralized bank; while Pat Buchanan types are equally sure if we had taken his theories on tariffs and protectionism more seriously, we would be manufacturing the bulk of the world’s goods today.

If any Founder followed the motto “Go big or go home,” it was Alexander Hamilton. If only he had been a better shot…


4. Benjamin Franklin

Merely listing the accomplishments of Benjamin Franklin in the areas of science, politics, writing, philosophy, journalism or diplomacy would take more room than this column allows. But the fact that he was the American equivalent of Leonardo DaVinci — and then some — is not what makes him a badass.

In an age when we are bombarded with commercials asking us if age has slowed us down and offering testosterone supplements, consider this: At the age of 70, which was considerably older than the average lifespan of his time, Benjamin Franklin not only undertook the arduous ocean voyage to France to negotiate the military alliance that would save the Revolution, he had a good enough time doing it, that it royally pissed off John Adams’s puritan sensibilities.

Franklin was nearly as influential in establishing the American character as Washington was in establishing how it would be governed. His observations and one-liners still permeate the American lexicon today. Far from the lofty public utterances of many public speakers of the time, Franklin dazzled with a brilliant, yet down to earth, wit and wisdom that came from the working class roots he stayed proudly true to no matter how far he climbed in the social stratosphere.

Even while he preached unity among the colonies and independence from the Crown, Franklin was a wildly popular figure in England — and also in it’s most bitter enemy, France. While on his mission to make France an ally of the fledgling United States, Franklin managed to help end discrimination against non-Catholics by the French government — in his spare time, I suppose.

For succeeding in nearly everything he put his hand or mind to, and for doing it for pretty much all of his 84 years, Ben Franklin gets to add one more title to his dozens — that of genuine badass.


3. John Paul Jones

“I have not yet begun to fight!” may only be the second most badass line of the Revolutionary War, but when he delivered it, John Paul Jones was literally looking down the barrels of a broadside of British battleship cannons.

In his first command mission as the captain of the 21 gun sloop Providence, Jones took command of no less than 16 British vessels.   Later, Jones actually attacked a British coastal town which rattled the enemy considerably. Then, of course, there is his comeback victory as the captain of the Bonnehomme Richard after being offered a chance to surrender which led to his immortal, defiant response.

While the Continental Navy hardly swept the mighty Royal Navy from the seas, it was an important factor in making the war against the colonists simply too costly for the British to continue.

It would be nearly 200 years before another man rose from the enlisted ranks to command an American warship in wartime (my friend the late Lt. Command Henry Dale); but John Paul Jones is more than just a war hero.

While some might be surprised to see him in a list of Founding Fathers, John Paul Jones is certainly the founding father of the United States Navy. Unfortunately, the Continental Navy was disbanded after the war — despite Jones’s urging that the ability to project naval power would be a deterrent to future aggression — but Jones would be considered the inspirational father of the United States Navy, without which the young nation would have had no means of projecting power in a hostile world.


2. Samuel Adams

Of all of the Founders of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams was perhaps the revolutionary-est. And if for nothing else, the fact that his revolutionary fervor and tactics toward Loyalists during the Revolution has some modern day liberals blasting him as no more than a common thug, Samuel Adams gets the title of badass.

It was Adams’s letter calling for cooperation among the colonies that led the British to send troops to occupy Boston in the first place.  Adams’s response: to quit calling for cooperation and start coordinating it. His “committee of correspondence” system linked patriots throughout the colonies and formed the organizational basis for the Revolution to come.

Stories of the extent of Sam Adams’s involvement in the Boston Tea Party range from one of his fiery speeches merely being the accidental inspiration for it, to his actually putting on war paint and throwing crates into the harbor.

“No taxation without representation” was the unifying theme behind much of Adams’s rhetoric, including this line from his speech protesting the Sugar Act:

For if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & everything we possess or make use of?

John Roberts, call your office.

Thomas Jefferson called Samuel Adams “truly the Man of the Revolution.” For his fearless and tireless efforts to form a new nation, no matter how many troops King George sent to quiet things down, Samuel Adams was a badass.


1. George Washington

If you had any doubt where this was ending up, then you probably don’t care enough about the topic to make it this far. Yes, our first founding father defined the term “badass.” You could even consider him an action hero whose commanding presence and calmness under fire would be worthy of a John Wayne movie.

But aside from the fact that this President would have regarded “leading from the rear” with utter contempt, or the number of horses he had shot out from under him and the bullet ridden coat you can still see on display, what proves George Washington is not only the Number 1 Badass of the Founding Fathers, but possibly in American history, is the reaction of his contemporaries.

This is a guy who could settle an argument among a room full of the best and brightest men in the world with a simple declaration of how things should be. (At least 2 of those men had the hubris to rewrite the Bible the way they thought it should be, and all of them had risked hanging to establish a new form of government.)

And when you think of the contentious fights between those egos over who would be the succeeding Presidents to Washington, the idea that he would be the not only unanimous — but obvious — choice of this group to lead them, is just mind-boggling.

Without the rhetorical flourishes of a Henry or a Paine, Washington could enter a room full of possibly rebellious soldiers whose rightful pay was being withheld by the Congress and leave them weeping simply by the force of his character.

And last, but not least, nearly everything he did to establish how a President should act and lead (basically on the fly and by instinct) was naturally accepted as correct and proper by his peers, and established precedent for centuries.

And for at least a hundred years after his death, political arguments could be settled by the mere fact that “Washington said so.”

Arguments among “historians” that any other President should be placed at the top of the list of American greats are plain ignorant.  Of the Top 10, the first 9 places should be occupied by George Washington.

Article printed from PJ Lifestyle: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle
488  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dr. Larry Arnn on the Declaration of Independence... on: July 04, 2012, 10:03:55 AM
From Townhall Magazine's July feature, "How to Celebrate the Fourth of July," by Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College:
 
Two hundred thirty-six years ago this Fourth of July, 57 men signed the document that created the American republic. They represented a people of about 3 million grouped in a series of 13 colonies along the eastern seaboard of the United States. They were all wanted men, sought by the commander of the British forces in North America for sedition and treason. He had behind him the resources of the greatest military power on earth. They had behind them the bare beginnings of a government, hardly anything of an army, but something mighty in the way of an idea.

This nation had therefore a desperate beginning. Who but the boldest could believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were laying the foundation of the greatest constitutional republic in history? Now that republic has spread across the continent, and its influence reaches around the world. Its population has increased a hundredfold. Its Constitution has provided government to a free people constantly growing in size and territory, each new state joining the union as an equal, its citizens never subjects, its people ever free. There is no story close to it in the history of man.

Statesmen and thinkers have attributed the strength and goodness of the nation to the principles in the Declaration. Many others have denied this. Statesmen and thinkers have proclaimed the Constitution a just and beautiful implementation of the principles of the Declaration. Many others have denied this. These denials are more common in times of crisis in our country. They are very common now.

It is a sign of our time that the sitting chief executive of our country eschews the permanent meaning of the Declaration and the idea of fixity in the Constitution. In the “Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama writes: “Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course. …”

Obama has stuck to this theme during his presidency. This May at Barnard College, he proclaimed the great virtue of the Constitution to be its openness to change: “It allowed for protests, movements, and the assimilation of new ideas that would repeatedly, decade after decade, change the world—a constant forward movement that continues to this day.” There is neither form nor firmness. All is fluid, according to Obama, and this liberates us to do whatever we will.

America has gone very far down the trail that Obama is blazing. Right now, the expenditures of all government—state, local and federal—exceed 40 percent of the gross domestic product. If trends continue, the public sector will soon grow larger than the private sector, and then the government will have more resources than those it governs.
Moreover, it governs increasingly without authority from the branches that are elected by the people. The new Dodd- Frank finance law creates something called a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This agency does not get its budget from Congress. Rather, its money comes from a guaranteed percentage of the budget of the Federal Reserve, which gets its money from its operations as a bank. Congress is even specifically forbidden in the law to hold hearings into the budget of the new CPFB. And it has wide examining power over every form of consumer finance in the nation. In unfettered scope of authority, and in near perfect separation from popular control, it is different from anything before it in America.
Because we have come so far from the founding institutions, it is worthwhile to remind ourselves what they are. This anniversary of the Declaration of Independence provides a splendid occasion, because both the principles of the nation and its institutions are summarized beautifully in its 1,300 words. Let us then read it for a moment.
Notice first of all how remarkable it is that the document should begin universally. The authors were obviously mindful of the fact they were wanted men. They conclude the Declaration with a solemn promise, made to each other in the mood of soldiers facing battle: “In support of this Declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” (emphasis added). The particularity of this commitment, each man speaking for himself in promise to the others in the room, is what one might expect of legislation passed on the eve of a war, legislation that is itself a written act of treason.
If these men were in a situation urgent unto death, how can we account for the abstract and universal nature of the beginning of the Declaration? It begins with an “absolute truth” (to use the president’s term) expressed in words that have rung around the world: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which theLaws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …” (emphasis added).
Notice that this quotation refers to no particular time, but to any time in the course of human events. Notice that it refers not to the American people, but to “one people,” meaning any people. It is a very absolute and universal way of talking. It issues immediately a proclamation of truth: “We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Just as the Founders did, so may anyone look for his rights under these “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Anyone whose rights are denied will feel their weight. The Jew rounded up by the Nazis, the black slave held in Mississippi in 1840, may both look to this document as the charter by which he can advance. Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, was aware of this and wrote that indeed, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” These principles place every man and woman deprived of their rights in the same place that the Founders occupied on July 4, 1776: they may appeal to an absolute truth, written in the nature of man and in the nature of things, against any power that will offend their rights. Perhaps they cannot find the strength to overcome their oppression. Never mind: their cause is still the just one. They will see, and even in moments of clarity their oppressors will see, that the great self-evident truth that all men are created equal means nothing more nor less than that all men are men. It means nothing less than that no one may rightly govern another except by his consent. It means that the purpose of government is to “secure these rights”: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
These are the principles of the United States. The fact that they were announced at the onset of its revolution, and the fact that the revolution proceeded in their name, seals them in the blood and the history of this land.
The Declaration is not only about principles; it also describes institutions, the kind of institutions best adapted to protect the rights of a people. These institutions are expressed in the middle section of the document, the section in which the specific crimes and injustices of the king of England are described. The three broad constitutional principles that he violated form the backbone of the later Constitution of the United States. The first step in understanding that Constitution is not to learn its details, although they are relatively few. The first step is to understand the grand arrangements of government necessary to constitutional rule.
The first of these three principles is representation. The king is said to have interfered with the representatives of the people in their attempt to pass laws “most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” The Declaration recognizes that human beings are made to live under law, and they have a right for those laws to be passed by people who represent them. This right is not to be interfered with by any force. Any force doing so interferes with the consent of the governed and cannot rightfully claim obedience. Violation of the representative principle is, by itself, cause for revolution.
The second of these principles is separation of powers. At the outset of the American Revolution, the king and his governors were the executive branch. By interfering with the legislature, the king violated not only the right of the people to representative government but also the necessity for separation of powers. He violated this necessity also by making “judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” God is named four times in the Declaration, once as each of the three branches of government, and once as a founder. The lesson is simple: God may well be the maker of the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and He may well be at the same time the Supreme Judge of the world, and He may also be Divine Providence. But no man or small group of men may rightly combine in their own hands all the powers of government. That is for God alone.
Finally, the Declaration calls for a limited government. The king was taxing America’s forefathers without their consent, and he was using the money, among other things, to pay for a hired army to oppress them. He sent many officials to make sure that his will was followed on all occasions, whatever the commoners may wish. The Declaration charges him with erecting “a multitude of new offices, and [sending] hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” In other words, the king offended against the principle of limited government. He was building a structure too strong for the people to manage.
The modern bureaucratic state reproduces many of the features that led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and that gave shape to the Constitution of the United States, which follows these three basic principles in its entire structure. Go before the bureaucracy and see that it is arranged both to make and enforce its own rules, and if one objects he must appear first before a judge who is employed by that same bureaucracy. And now a bureaucracy has been created that operates on a budget outside the control of the Congress.
This Fourth of July, we might well remind ourselves of the beauty, the greatness and the long serviceability of our constitutional institutions and of the principles from which they flow. This Fourth of July is a great time to recall these things, because the Declaration gives the Constitution its cause and also its basic form and function. We Americans may choose to discard this legacy and give up our birthright. Let us at least know what we are doing.
Celebrate the Declaration, and also remember its meaning. It is what a citizen does on the Fourth of July.
489  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer... on: July 01, 2012, 10:30:08 AM
Both are reporters of truth and of the highest character.  Their web sites - far from being "garbage" or "UFO-type sites" as JDN describes them, are among the most informative and accurate sources of information regarding Islam available anywhere.
I urge readers to investigate and judge for yourselves - JDN clearly doesn't know what he is talking about and has preconceived ideas about Islam which he is unwilling to examine.  Further - quoting Abraham Foxman, Oren Segal or anyone else at the Anti-Defamation League with regard to the accuracy of information about Islam is almost as bad as consulting an Arab Mufti.  This organization, led by Abe Foxman, actually defended the liars and thugs involved with the Ground Zero Mosque, joining with NYC Mayor Bloomberg, for God's sake!  That they despise Geller and Spencer is no secret.  Crafty is correct that the ADL has become laughably "progressive" to the point of working with those who seek to eradicate Israel (though the ADL and its lackeys are so stupid as to not realize this.)

Here again are the URLs for these two SUPERB web sites:

www.jihadwatch.org

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
490  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Levin makes another excellent point regarding the Obamacare decision. on: June 29, 2012, 06:07:19 PM
OBAMACARE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND SUPREME COURT DECISION

by Mark Levin on Friday, June 29, 2012 at 11:15am

This may seem a little technical, but it is necessary.  So follow along with me.  A number of politicians and commentators are claiming that the Supreme Court in the Obamacare case "limited" the reach of the commerce clause, i.e., five justices held that individuals cannot be mandated to buy insurance under the commerce clause.  Actually, the five justices did not limit anything.  They simply did not accept the Obama administration's ridiculous argument that inactivity is commerce.  The status quo stands.  However, the bigger point is this.
 
When a court issues an opinion, it is said to be the "Opinion of the Court."  The Opinion of the Court is the controlling precedent.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court for Parts I (background on the Obamacare law), II (the Anti-Injunction Act is not a bar to the lawsuit proceeding and being decided) and III-C (Obamacare is valid under the tax power).
 
But respecting Parts III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section,  Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority.
 
Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is Not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.
 
You can’t say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which isn’t formally joined Robert’s writing), is writing for itself.
Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:
 “The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor­rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
 
Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause (or necessary and proper clause).
If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause (and necessary and proper clause) to be controlling as the majority view, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others' parts.  They didn't.  So, while we can cobble them together, as a formal legal matter, it is a troubling issue.  While the status quo stands re the commerce clause (and necessary and proper clause), there was no formal majority on those issues.
 
491  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mark Levin makes another point regarding yesterday's SCOTUS decision. on: June 29, 2012, 04:05:22 PM
OBAMACARE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND SUPREME COURT DECISION

by Mark Levin on Friday, June 29, 2012 at 11:15am

This may seem a little technical, but it is necessary.  So follow along with me.  A number of politicians and commentators are claiming that the Supreme Court in the Obamacare case "limited" the reach of the commerce clause, i.e., five justices held that individuals cannot be mandated to buy insurance under the commerce clause.  Actually, the five justices did not limit anything.  They simply did not accept the Obama administration's ridiculous argument that inactivity is commerce.  The status quo stands.  However, the bigger point is this.
 
When a court issues an opinion, it is said to be the "Opinion of the Court."  The Opinion of the Court is the controlling precedent.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court for Parts I (background on the Obamacare law), II (the Anti-Injunction Act is not a bar to the lawsuit proceeding and being decided) and III-C (Obamacare is valid under the tax power).
 
But respecting Parts III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section,  Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority.
 
Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is Not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.
 
You can’t say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which isn’t formally joined Robert’s writing), is writing for itself.
Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:
 “The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor­rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
 
Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause (or necessary and proper clause).
If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause (and necessary and proper clause) to be controlling as the majority view, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others' parts.  They didn't.  So, while we can cobble them together, as a formal legal matter, it is a troubling issue.  While the status quo stands re the commerce clause (and necessary and proper clause), there was no formal majority on those issues.
 
492  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Story on Muslim violence against Christians in Dearborn, MI. on: June 29, 2012, 01:44:10 PM
Here is a story from The Blaze on this incident:

www.theblaze.com/stories/allahu-akbar-shock-video-shows-muslims-allegedly-stoning-christian-protesters-in-michigan/

I will add that JDN's characterization of www.jihadwatch.org and http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ as "garbage" is laughable.  He cites no "evidence" for this other than a quote by a Jewish woman criticizing Pamela Geller.  Well now, it hardly needs pointing out - though I will for JDN's benefit - that anyone can characterize anyone else as "bigoted," "racist," "a hatemonger" or use any other ad hominem attack one wishes to cite.  Stating it doesn't make it so. Both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer deal in truth.  That many apologists for Islam hate them both and regularly attack them using such epithets has no relevance regarding the truth or accuracy of what either of them report on their respective sites.  As Pamela Geller has rightly stated on many occasions: "Truth has become the new hate speech when it comes to Islam."
493  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mark Levin Eviscerates the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision. on: June 29, 2012, 01:28:39 PM
Just the beginning of an excellent show yesterday:

www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364
494  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glenn Beck interviews David Horowitz about his latest book... on: June 27, 2012, 12:38:47 PM
Fascinating discussion.  Contrasts the financial resources of leftist vs. conservative organizations:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=78NQRDNlUsQ&feature=youtu.be
495  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: June 27, 2012, 09:49:05 AM
Marc is correct.  NOWHERE did I state that Islam is not a religion.  I said it is not SIMPLY a religion.  JDN misquotes me and then attacks a straw man.  Clearly JDN has not read many of the posts on this thread which amply demonstrate the points I have made.  He isn't interested in facts, nor in any information that might contradict his predetermined idea of what Islam is.
496  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: June 27, 2012, 09:19:19 AM
JDN:

Evidently it's YOU who need to learn about Islam, as I have already stated.  The information on the sites I cited in my previous post are backed by solid evidence and are 100% reliable sources of information.  You choose to ignore and/or dismiss them as "silly" at your peril.  Again I stand in amazement as someone who admits he has not read, and has no interest in investigating the holy books of Islam wants to argue with me out of his admitted ignorance.  Until you can specifically address the factual statements I have made about Islam with facts and evidence, I have no interest in continuing this dialogue with you.  If you're not interested, that is your choice - but then keep your mouth shut and don't attempt to argue with someone who IS interested and has done his research.
497  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mufreesboro, TN Mega-Mosque... on: June 26, 2012, 11:12:14 PM
This is vital information that Americans need to pay attention to.  It is
not being covered by the major news media:

www.globalinfidel.tv/page/abdou-kattih

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

www.jihadwatch.org  (Robert Spencer)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/  (Pamela Geller)
498  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer weighs in on this issue... on: June 25, 2012, 12:48:23 PM
Investigate Radical Christianity!

Posted By Robert Spencer On June 25, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So do I, in fact. Investigate radical Christianity! If such a hearing were held with any degree of honesty, it couldn’t help but shed light on the fact that Islam has a unique capacity to incite its adherents to violence today, in a way that neither Christianity nor any other religion shares. And that realization, contrary as it is to official government and media assumptions, could go a long way toward focusing law enforcement upon the real problem the nation faces today, instead of upon politically correct fictions. Much as that prospect may infuriate Congressman Al Green.
499  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More on the NON-moral equivalency of Islamic and Judeo-Christian teachings. on: June 25, 2012, 10:50:22 AM
Congressman Calls for Hearings on ‘Radicalization’ of White Christian Women

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 25, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
500  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More on the Evil that is Islam... on: June 21, 2012, 01:48:16 PM
Daniel Greenfield, on his excellent blog "Sultan Knish," makes my earlier point that Islam itself is in fact the problem eloquently below:

"A Dark and Vengeful God"

Daniel Greenfield - Wednesday, June 20, 2012

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

"We love death" is the anthem of Jihad. It was the anthem of a butcher who chopped up his wife and served her corpse to his customers. It is the song of millions of Egyptians who chose death over life once they were given the freedom to do it. The death of life for the worship of the dark god who dwells in the darkest places of the human heart.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!