The American Kafir


Video-Bill Maher: Obama’s Million Dollar Man-Watch It and Pass It On

Filed under: Barack Hussein Obama, Liberal, Lies, Obama — Tags: , , — - @ 6:48 pm


An Open Letter to the ‘Good Liberal’ Who Ignores Occupy Wall Street’s Jew Hatred

Source Article Link: Pajamas Media

An Open Letter to the ‘Good Liberal’ Who Ignores Occupy Wall Street’s Jew Hatred

Written by Phyllis Chesler

Dear Good Liberal People Who Are Unconcerned With Occupy Wall Street’s Naked Anti-Semitism,

I am writing to you about a “contagious” and dangerous plague of “hatred” that threatens the survival of the Jews, the Jewish state, and of all civilization.

Even if you are not Jewish, even if you do not support Israel, you should see Gloria Greenfield’s Unmasked: Judeophobia. This film directly concerns you. It is the visual antidote to this false hatred, which visually through the internet, in films, in the media, emblazoned on t-shirts and signs at every rally (no matter the topic) scapegoats Jews for the world’s every sorrow. The Big Lies against the Jewish people — really, blood libels — are perpetrated and paid for by the very people who are committing the most horrifying crimes against their own people and humanity as a whole.

I’m with Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, whose words open this compelling and important film: afraid. For example, I have been told that very few Jews went uptown to confront the three day hate-fest against Israel which went on at Columbia in preparation for Israel Apartheid week. However, many New York City Jews and human rights activists of all ages are visiting or helping the Occupy Wall Street activists in Zucotti Park, perhaps an idealistic group which has unfortunately and increasingly been inundated with the hardcore Marxists who often display anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish slogans.

Wiesel never expected to see the return of anti-Semitism in his lifetime — and with such a vengeance. Both Israel and America represent civilization at its imperfect but democratic best; both are universally “hated.” As such “hatred” escalates and “globalizes,” it invariably leads to pogroms, massacres, embassy and airplane hijackings, which in turn, are viewed as justified acts of “self-defense” against capitalist and colonial bloodsuckers, child killers, mass rapists, and racists.

Greenfield’s film carefully, patiently, artfully exposes and stands against this surreal increase in Jew-hatred (“Judeophobia”), and explains why it is a threat to Western civilization.
Unmasked presents 50 of the most sober, principled thinkers of our time – I am honored and humbled to be among them – all of whom understand that it is crucial to tell the truth about the massive misinformation campaign against the Jews and the West, and that we must do so with courage and boldness. We — and the filmmaker who is also the producer of The Case for Israel – believe that it is late, but never too late to do so. True, the demonization of Jews, Israel, and America has gone viral. Human mobs are “surging” across Israel’s borders and are “occupying” public spaces around the world in jihadic-like fashion.

Greenfield’s experts also understand that Jews are being blamed for the exact crimes committed by the Arabs and “Palestinians” against their own people and against the Jewish state.

Click Here To Read The Entire Article At Pajamas Media


The Bigotry anti-Semitic Occupy USA

Filed under: anti-Semitism, Liberal, Liberal Violence, Obama, Progressives, Protests — Tags: — - @ 5:30 pm

History can teach us about preventing its Evil past from repeating itself. Yet again, we have individuals blaming the Jews for all the worldly problems, these are the same people Obama and Pelosi are standing with…W


Leftists Claim Fire Bombs

Source Article Link: Spiegel
H/T Internet Haganah

Leftists Claim Fire Bombs

Police Foil Attack on Berlin’s Central Station

Photo Gallery: Fire Bombs Found in Berlin Train Tunnel
Police safely removed several fire bombs found in a tunnel near Berlin’s main train station on Monday. The foiled attack came after a fire set along the line between the capital and Hamburg Deutsch caused major disruption to rail traffic.

German police foiled a planned arson attack on Berlin’s main railway station on Monday and said a statement by left-wing extremists claiming responsibility Seemed authentic.

Explosives experts removed seven petrol bombs equipped with detonators that time had been found by a railway worker in a tunnel leading into the station.

The discovery followed in arson attack on signaling equipment along a rail line in the state of Brandenburg, Which surrounds the Deutsch capital, at around 4 pm The cable fire caused severe delays to local trains and to the mainline service between Berlin and Hamburg, railway operator German railway said.

Thousands of commuters and travelers were affected by delays and cancellations as a result of the attack in Brandenburg and the discovery of the devices in Berlin.

A statement calling itself left-wing group claimed responsibility for the Hekla fire bombs in Berlin online. The group condemned the army’s mission in Afghanistan Deutsch and Demanded the release of imprisoned U.S. soldier Bradley Manning , accused by the U.S. military of having leaked information to Wikileaks.

Possible Connection to May Arson

Police said they were not familiar with Hekla, Which is also the name of an Islenska volcano. There is a possible link with a similar arson attack that caused severe disruption to local train services in Berlin’s May The name of an Islenska volcano which therefore featured in the statement of responsibility issued after the May attack, local newspaper Tagesspiegel reported.

Police said railway passengers would not have been in danger if the bombs had gone off in Berlin on Monday, although the resulting damage to signaling equipment would have caused major problems.

German railway said it will take until Tuesday morning to repair the damaged line in Brandenburg between the stations of Brieselang and Finkenkrug. Delays of up to threequarters of an hour were likely for trips between Berlin and Hamburg until Wednesday because trains have to be rerouted, they said.

Berlin has also seen to increase in arson attacks on cars this year.

Left-Wing Extremism RSS

Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic.


Another Anti-Semitic Bigot From The Progressive Left

Filed under: anti-Semitism, Liberal, Liberal Violence, Progressives, Protests — - @ 6:29 pm

Glenn Beck has the article here- Disgusting anti-Semitism on Wall Street



American Liberals and Iranian Mullahs Peddle Fear

* To buy the pamphlet, click here.

In late August, the Center for American Progress issued a 130-page pamphlet called Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamphobia Network in America.  It was filled with inaccuracy, misrepresentation and slander against American critics of Muslim extremism, especially those who have pointed out the efforts to make “Islamophobia,” a coinage of the Muslim Brotherhood, a “thought crime,” thereby silencing those who discuss Islamist violence against women, murder of homosexuals, etc. That this publication came from a George Soros-backed organization such as the CAP, deeply networked with leading figures in the Democratic Party establishment, rather than from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or one of its other front groups, was a tremendous victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and its effort to kill free speech on Islamic issues.  That the report was conceived of as a weapon in the attack on America was proven by the fact that its “findings” were immediately trumpeted by the Islamic Republic of Iran and reprinted by its state-run propaganda agency. The new section in our pamphlet, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, deals with this phenomenon. It is printed below:

American Liberals and Iranian Mullahs Peddle Fear

By David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

Continuing the train of attacks by American leftists on critics of Islamic misogyny and terror, the Center for American Progress issued a new Islamophobia report in August 2011, and received widespread publicity for its allegations on Internet sites like HuffingtonPost and cable news networks like MSNBC. The slickly produced 130-page document called Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America required a year to write, according to its authors, but followed the same basic lines of argument, repeated the same unsubstantiated accusations, and vilified the same “Islamophobes” as the “reports” by CAIR and FAIR.

A striking feature of the new report, on the other hand, was that it was not produced by a fringe leftist group like FAIR or a Muslim Brotherhood front like CAIR. The Center for American Progress is a Democratic Party brain trust headed by former White House chief of staff John Podesta, and funded by George Soros and others. Gaining the backing of the Democratic Party in its campaign to suppress its critics had to be ranked as one of the most significant victories to date for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose claims and concepts the new report rehashed.

One of the five authors of Fear, Inc. was Wajahat Ali, who had been featured on the Center for American Progress’s CAIR-inspired panel the year before. In college, Ali was a board member of the Muslim Students Association, which is, as previously noted, a Muslim Brotherhood front. Ali is a fanatic supporter of the Islamic jihad. When the U.S. prosecutors indicted the Holy Land Foundation for funding the terrorist organization Hamas, Ali denounced the prosecution as a pro-Israel policy and a notch on the Bush Administration’s “get a terrorist club.” He also rushed to the defense of Palestinian Islamic jihad leader Sami al-Arian when the latter was prosecuted (and eventually deported) for terrorist activities. Ali called him “one of the earliest victims of the ‘war on terror.” On his Internet blog, Ali also criticized certain elements of the left as Muslim-haters (i.e., Islamophobes) because they “have certain beliefs contradictory to radical feminist and gay ideologies.” Ali was thus a revealing choice as one of the authors of a report attacking critics of Islamic misogyny, gay-hatred and terror.

The glossy photograph on the cover of Fear, Inc. is a photograph of the building that houses the Islamic Center of North America (ICNA), with the words “Go Home” painted in red across its front. The photo encapsulates the report’s message that “Islamophobia” – or hatred directed against all Muslims — is a serious problem in America. But that is not what the photo shows. The Islamic Center of North America is not an unpolitical, inclusive Muslim group. Instead, ICNA is a well-known Muslim Brotherhood front, and a spearhead of the jihadist attack on America’s secular and inclusive civilization.

The theme of Fear, Inc. is that the movement to oppose attempts to institute Sharia law in the American legal system and to erect symbols of Islamic conquest like the Ground Zero Mosque are the work of a sinister cabal created by conservative foundations, largely Jewish, whose mission is to stir up hatred against all Muslims. The specifics of Fear, Inc.’s indictment imitate its CAIR and FAIR predecessors in distorting the positions of its victims, and twisting associated facts beyond recognition.

What distinguishes Fear, Inc., on the other hand, is its focus on the alleged financial “machine” behind the Islamophobia campaign. This is composed of seven foundations, many of which happen to be run by Jews – a point emphasized at several points by the authors. The recipients of the foundations’ largess are eight organizations, which according to the report have received $42 million for Islamophobia agendas over a nine-year period. But this figure represents the total funding received by organizations such as the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, while in fact these institutions devote many of their program activities – and funds received – to causes unrelated to the threat from the Islamic jihad. Moreover, the alleged sums are far smaller than the funds available to the Islamic supremacist groups and their progressive allies that have produced and promoted the “Islamophobia” reports.

At the time that Fear, Inc was published, for example, Hamas-linked CAIR announced that it had almost reached its goal of raising $650,000 during Ramadan – well over twice the annual budget of, one of the groups the report singles out for attack. The Center for American Progress receives $38 million per year, or almost 100 times the budget of from George Soros and other left-wing sources. As one of the report’s targets observed, “It’s pretty rich that the Center for American Progress, whose 2009 budget was $38,187,695, focuses on 8 organizations receiving about that sum over a period of nine years.

Fear, Inc. focuses on the funding received by five individuals – anti-Sharia attorney David Yerushalmi, scholars Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, investigative reporter Steven Emerson, and Center for American Security head Frank Gaffney. As journalist Daniel Greenfield notes, “ The Muslim world often blames its problems on the Jews, and Fear, Inc, … does the same thing by claiming that five men, three of whom are Jews (a fourth is employed by a Jew – as the report notes — and receives underwriting from two more Jews), have turned Americans against Islam.”

Fear, Inc.’s distortions start with the description of these five individuals as “the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report.” None of the named individuals has ever attacked Muslims as such, and no credible evidence is provided in the report that they have. All five have been critical of Islamic policies, regimes and political parties that oppress Muslim women, Muslim gays, Jews, Christians and other minorities, suppress freedom of speech and religion, and conduct or endorse terrorist attacks on their religious and political enemies.

Like the New York Times before it, the Center for American Progress attempts to establish guilt by association of its targets with the ravings of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik: “While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view held by this lone Norwegian gunman that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended.” But in fact it is Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Muslim Brotherhood who see Islam as at war with the West, and there is no patriotic American who does not recognize that America and the West need to be defended. There is no comment in the report on this, since its agenda, like the Brotherhood’s, is to silence critics, not to answer them.

Fear, Inc. singles out the most prominent moderate Muslim in America, Zuhdi Jasser, and condemns him because he “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim-American organizations as subversive.” But the mainstream Muslim-American organizations Jasser has criticized – CAIR, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Center of North America,” are all Muslim Brotherhood fronts. The report also calls “inaccurate and perverse” Robert Spencer’s statement that Islam is “the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world.” What the report does not do is offer evidence that this is not the case. This is particularly revealing since it is matter that can be objectively verified: all the mainstream Islamic sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence do indeed teach that the Islamic umma must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of law. The report does not – and cannot – produce evidence of mainstream Islamic sects or schools that do not teach this.

Scholar Daniel Pipes is accused of defaming CAIR, an organization four of whose top executives have been convicted of terrorist activities. “Without corroborating evidence, Pipes smeared the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, in an article called ‘CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment.’” No specifics are offered as to how Pipes smeared CAIR or how the 7700- word, heavily footnoted article failed to provide “corroborating evidence.”

Such false claims appear throughout the report with no attempt by the authors to substantiate them. “Numerous times,” as critic Mark Tapson observes, Fear, Inc. condemns the “Islamophobes” for claiming that the majority of American mosques are radicalized and preach violence.” The claim appears in David Yerulshami’s study “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques,” which Fear, Inc. says “speciously claims that more than 80 percent of U.S. mosques feature texts that promote or support violence,” – a claim that is hardly unique to Yerulshami. “How is the claim specious?” Tapson asks. “As usual, the report does not specify.”

Spencer’s scholarly credentials are attacked in the report on the authority of “Islamic scholar Carl W. Ernst, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,” Ernst claims that Spencer has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever. The claim is false and the authority, Ernst, is a man who flew to Teheran in December 2008 to accept an award from Iran’s Jew-hating, genocidal Islamic supremacist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It should hardly come as a surprise then, that the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately picked up the Center’s report, and its official English language press agency trumpeted the “findings” of the Center’s attack on critics of Iranian terrorism, Jew-hatred and anti-American ravings under the telling title “U.S. Empire Foments Islamophobia.” Terror analysts Clare M. Lopez and W. Thomas Smith, Jr., noted that the Iranian agency PressTV was “funded almost almost exclusively by Iranian petrodollars (oil profits) from the same regime that funds and directs global terrorist organizations like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC which is also known as the Pasdaran), the IRGCs Quds Force, Lebananon’s Hizballah, and others; all of which are designated foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. government and other countries.”

Commented Lopez and Smith, “The Press TV articles – to include those who funded and published it – should not be taken lightly. This was not simply an opinion piece. This was a list of names published in international media by a state-run news agency; a state designed by the U.S. State Department as a ‘state sponsor of terrorism.”

In other words, the Center for American Progress, a key component of the liberal establishment in America, published a “report” filled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and false accusations, which the chief terrorist state in the Middle East has authenticated as a document identifying the enemies of Islam.  This could be counted a perfect score for the Muslim Brotherhood and its campaign in the West to silence the critics of the Islamic jihad.


Liberal Dems in uproar over Libya

““They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House”.

It is because Obama and Holder think they are the Law of the Land and do NOT have to abide by the United States Constitution. It is called the Obama-Holder Constitution. Some people have been very slow at figuring this out, MAYBE they have finally, that however is a big MAYBE…Walt

Source Link: Politico
By: John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen
March 19, 2011 04:27 PM EDT

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.

(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)

U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.

Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.

“Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.”

The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded.

The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission.

The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement.

With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass.

They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be.

Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat.

Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger.

Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.

A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure.

On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.


Americans Maintain Broad Support for Israel

Filed under: Conservatives, Israel, Liberal, Republicans — Tags: — - @ 4:54 pm

Source Link: Gallup

U.S. adults nearly four times as likely to side with Israelis as with Palestinians

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.

Middle East Sympathies, Full Trend, 1988-2011

In measuring Americans’ sympathies toward the disputants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1988, Gallup has found support for Israel consistently exceeding support for the Palestinians. However, the percentage who are neutral — saying they sympathize equally with both, sympathize with neither, or expressing no opinion — has shifted, with corresponding changes in support for Israel. While the reasons for these changes are not always evident, public neutrality was generally higher in the 1990s as the Palestinians and the Israelis often met at Clinton administration-sponsored peace summits.

Conversely, support for Israel increased during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, as well as immediately after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war — all events that may have enhanced Israel’s perceived value to the U.S. as a Mideast ally. Sympathy toward Israel was also higher in polling conducted shortly after Hamas’ victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections compared with the year prior, perhaps for the same reason.

The new results are from Gallup’s Feb. 2-5, 2011, update of the annual Gallup World Affairs survey, conducted as the citizen uprising in Egypt was unfolding.

In addition to the heavy tilt toward Israel in U.S. public sympathies, the poll finds a wide gap in Americans’ overall views of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, according to a question asking separately whether they view each very favorably, mostly favorably, mostly unfavorably, or very unfavorably. About two-thirds of Americans have a favorable opinion of Israel and 19% have a favorable opinion of the Palestinian Authority — largely unchanged from February 2010.

Favorable Views Toward Israel and the Palestinian Authority, 2000-2011 Trend

Range of Sympathy for Israel Bounded by Republicans and Liberals

Republicans continue to be Israel’s strongest U.S. supporters: 80% sympathize more with the Israelis in the conflict, substantially higher than the 57% of independents and Democrats sharing this view. A similar pattern is seen by political ideology, ranging from 74% among conservatives to 49% among liberals — with liberals the least supportive of Israel of any group Gallup measured.

Over the past decade, Republicans have consistently shown greater support than Democrats for Israel; however, the partisan gap has widened, with Republicans becoming even more supportive between 2001 and 2003 and since 2009. Independents’ support for Israel also increased to around 60% in recent years, up from 42% in 2001. At the same time, Democrats’ support for Israel has been fairly flat. (emphasis added)

Sympathy for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast Situation, by Party ID, 2001-2011 Trend

All major U.S. population subgroups show greater sympathy for the Israelis than for the Palestinians. However, on a relative basis, Palestinians’ greatest support is found among liberals (30%), followed by Democrats and those with postgraduate education (24% each).

Additionally, adults aged 18 to 34 are slightly less likely than those 55 and older to sympathize with the Israelis.

Sympathies in Middle East Situation More With Israelis or Palestinians? February 2011, by Demographic Categories

Bottom Line

In recent years, with no major breakthroughs in the Mideast peace process and no resolution to the Hamas vs. Fatah political rift in the Palestinian territories, Americans’ sympathies toward the conflict’s players have leaned heavily toward the Israelis. In fact, with more than 60% of Americans sympathizing with Israel since 2010, public support for the Jewish state has been stronger than at any time other than in 1991, when Israel was hit by Iraqi Scud missiles during the Gulf War.

Israel currently enjoys popular U.S. support across all major party groups and most major societal subgroups; however, sympathy for it is particularly strong among Republicans and, relatedly, among conservatives.

Survey MethodsResults for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 2-5, 2011, with a random sample of 1,015 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup’s polling methodology, visit


International Crisis Group (ICG)

View this document on Scribd


Roster of Shame: 65 Known JournoListas

Filed under: Corruption, Liberal, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives — Tags: , , — - @ 6:55 pm

Source: American Thinker

By Clarice Feldman

A Free Republic poster compiled this list of known members of the Journolist

The following 65 names are confirmed members of the now-defunct JournoList listserv.

1. Ezra Klein
2. Dave Weigel
3. Matthew Yglesias
4. David Dayen
5. Spencer Ackerman
6. Jeffrey Toobin
7. Eric Alterman
8. Paul Krugman
9. John Judis
10. Eve Fairbanks
11. Mike Allen
12. Ben Smith
13. Lisa Lerer
14. Joe Klein
15. Brad DeLong
16. Chris Hayes
17. Matt Duss
18. Jonathan Chait
19. Jesse Singal
20. Michael Cohen
21. Isaac Chotiner
22. Katha Pollitt
23. Alyssa Rosenberg
24. Rick Perlstein
25. Alex Rossmiller
26. Ed Kilgore
27. Walter Shapiro
28. Noam Scheiber
29. Michael Tomasky
30. Rich Yesels
31. Tim Fernholz
32. Dana Goldstein
33. Jonathan Cohn
34. Scott Winship
35. David Roberts
36. Luke Mitchell
37. John Blevins
38. Moira Whelan
39. Henry Farrell
40. Josh Bearman
41. Alec McGillis
42. Greg Anrig
43. Adele Stan
44. Steven Teles
45. Harold Pollack
46. Adam Serwer
47. Ryan Donmoyer
48. Seth Michaels
49. Kate Steadman
50. Matt Duss
51. Laura Rozen
52. Jesse Taylor
53. Michael Hirsh
54. Daniel Davies
55. Jonathan Zasloff
56. Richard Kim
57. Thomas Schaller
58. Jared Bernstein
59. Holly Yeager
60. Joe Conason
61. David Greenberg
62. Todd Gitlin
63. Mark Schmitt
64. Kevin Drum
65. Sarah Spitz



Joe Klein’s Upside-Down View Of Evil

Source: NewsRealBlog

by Joseph Klein

Cordoba Center Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

After childishly mocking Sarah Palin’s use of the term “refudiate” in her appeal to “peace-loving Muslims” to oppose the building of a huge mosque and community center within the vicinity of Ground Zero, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein turns serious in calling Palin’s position “totally evil.”

Joe, I am afraid you have it all wrong as usual. You see, total evil was committed on 9/11, and many of us who lived through it and experienced the horror first-hand share Ms. Palin’s concerns. Some don’t, of course, and that is OK.  But to cheapen the word “evil” and turn it into something you disagree with is far worse an abuse of language than “refudiate.”

Joe Klein just couldn’t help himself in his latest rant against Sarah Palin on the Swampland blog:

If there ever was a place to demonstrate this country’s core value of religious tolerance, it is at the site of the World Trade Center. As regular readers know, I am an intensely proud New Yorker–from the outer boroughs, even–and Palin’s intolerance runs counter to my all-American value system
Joe Klein and the other defenders of the Cordoba House, as the proposed mosque and community center complex is called, confuse skepticism with intolerance.  They believe that building this massive $100 million, 13-story complex in the vicinity of Ground Zero will show how enlightened we are  in bridging the divide with so-called “moderate” Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11 andwho just want to pray in peace.

Here’s a new flash for Joe Klein. Muslims have more freedom today to assemble and pray as they wish in this country than they would in many Muslim-majority countries. And that freedom includes the center of diversity, New York.  However, we have a right to question the bona fides of the backers of this particular complex, given its huge size and its proximity to what many Americans consider to be a sacred site for remembering those who perished on 9/11.

If Klein were doing his homework as a journalist rather than lecturing us about tolerance, he would want answers to such questions as the following:

  1. Where is the funding for the Cordoba House coming from?  Has any of it come from Islamic countries (and, if so, which ones) or from Islamic organizations with ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood? Are there any strings attached to the funding?
  2. What did the leader of the Cordoba House initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, mean when he said shortly after 9/11 that the attacks were “a reaction against the U.S. government politically” and that the U.S. “policies were an accessory to the crime that happened?”  Rauf even expressed skepticism as to whether Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks:  ”Some people say it was Muslims who attacked on 9/11,” he declared. How do these sentiments square with the good faith intention to heal the wounds and bridge the divide that Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan profess?
  3. Does Rauf’s belief that the “American political structure is Shariah-compliant”  mean that he will expect special accommodations for the community center that will be an integral part of the Cordoba House complex? For example, will the swimming pool be segregated by gender? It looks that way given Rauf’s quip that “one young American Jewish woman came up to me recently and said she would be so pleased if she could attend a pool and gym that was segregated for men and women!”

Joe Klein, along with his politically correct multicultural pals, may think that healthy skepticism in the face of such unanswered questions is “totally evil.” Most Americans with any common sense, who are truly concerned about protecting  their “all-American value system,” would think otherwise.


2008 – The year journalism really died

Source: Daily Caller

By Myra Adams

Is anyone honestly surprised by the revelations that members of the liberal left media plotted to kill stories about Reverend Jeremiah Wright during the 2008 presidential campaign? (I know I am not, but it is actually great to have the proof to verify what we all suspected all along. Like the administration the media has been covering up there is nothing but corruption. It is a sad day for freedom when TRUTH is removed from our society, like all lies they eventually catch up with you.)

For the now-defunct Journolist, a once powerful listserv, its members’ greatest fear was if Obama’s pastor story ran unchecked by them, re-plays of Reverend Wright’s sermons would be aired continuously during the primary battles, thus hurting the chances of The Chosen One, (chosen by us, of course.)   Then, if Obama cleared the Hillary hurdle, voters would be hearing those sermons up until Election Day. This they knew would ultimately hurt the potential electability of the first African American president, who happened to be sitting in the pews for 20 years listening to these unspeakable sermons.

But no worry, candidate Obama never actually heard any of those sermons.  So let’s just drop it, OK?  Meanwhile let’s call all those nasty Republicans “racists” for wanting to explore this story.  That will stop them!  So now you know Journolist group think, circa 2008.

Now thanks to The Daily Caller, truth has come from darkness.  Which makes me realize this is the best time to be Sean Hannity, for he has been supremely vindicated and here’s why.

During the 2008 campaign I was a frequent listener to his radio show. So I remember when Hannity first reported about Obama’s radical pastor back in mid – 2007, when no one was paying any attention to a freshman senator who had no chance of ever defeating Queen Hillary.

Then in 2008, Obama rose in stature, and unrelated to Hannity, the Reverend Wright story “broke.”  Did it ever —- and then it just went away, except on the Sean Hannity Show.

After Obama won the nomination, Hannity would rant and rave about how Barack Obama was a leftist, socialist, radical with a questionable history of friendships and associations.

He did not let up day after day. As a result Hannity’s ratings went through the roof. I believe this was because most listeners believed what he said was true, and they were not getting much truth almost anywhere else in a media landscape completely smitten by Barack Obama.  And yes, Hannity was not afraid to play “the best of” Reverend Wright’s sermons on a regular basis.

I was struck by how Hannity would always say 2008 was the year journalism died.

He was always talking about how the main stream media were NOT doing their job investigating this man who came from nowhere, who we did not know, and now was about to be elected President of Hannity’s America.

So fast forward to The Daily Caller’s revelations about the Journolist’s media manipulations and now we can declare with great certainty, that 2008 was in fact The Year Journalism Died.

It’s not just for Sean Hannity listeners anymore.

Most important, this tawdry tale must serve as a wake up call for our nation, and these questions must be raised: Is our free press really free if it’s able to be manipulated by powerful journalists, whose names we do not know, who have pre-determined who should hold the highest office in the land? If presidential campaign coverage can be manipulated, can you imagine how easy other issues can be manipulated by the media?  Is our nation really ruled by a small group of media liberals who know what is best for us?  God help us if that is true and God Bless Sean Hannity for staying true to truth.

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer. Her media clients have included national associations, political interest groups and corporations. She was on the creative team with Mark McKinnon that created the now infamous John Kerry “Windsurfing” ad for the Bush 2004 presidential campaign and served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign. Myra’s web site contributes all profits to Christian charity.

A few excerpts from JournoList journalists

Source: Daily Caller

By The Daily Caller

Daniel Davies – The Guardian

John Judis – The New Republic

Michael Scherer – Time

David Weigel – The Washington Post

Jonathan Zasloff – UCLA law professor

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox

Source: Daily Caller

By Jonathan Strong

#Fox vs White HouseFILE – In this Jan. 22, 2009 file photo, President Barack Obama, center, stands near Fox News’ Major Garrett, left, in the kitchen of the Brady press briefing room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)Read more:

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.

E-mail Jonathan Strong and follow him on Twitter

Saying “Damn your Constitution” Pelosi illegally uses House “Observers” to beat anti moratorium act

Filed under: Laws, Liberal, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives, Uncategorized — Tags: , — - @ 5:52 pm

Source: Coach Collins

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Shameless puppets from four nonvoting American territories plus the District of Columbia have been used by Nancy Pelosi in a desperate move to kill an effort to stop Barack Obama from reissuing his moratorium on Gulf drilling and oil exploration.

On July 12 when the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Barack Obama could not place a moratorium on drilling for oil in America’s offshore fields we thought this would be the end of this particular attack. It did seemed like America had won.

In order to permanently end this threat to our economy, Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy of Louisiana’s 6th district offered an amendment that would prohibit Obama from reissuing his destructive moratorium.

Cassidy’s amendment was offered and defeated last week during a meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee. The vote tally went against America although it carried 22 to 21 among elected Representatives! “How could this be?” you ask.

It’s who counts the votes…

The Democrats followed their hero Joseph Stalin’s way of “handling” elections. He said, “The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”

Although Section two, clause one of the Constitution provides for voting members of the House of Representatives to be elected by the states they represent, the Constitution is always only an obstacle to be stepped around for Democrats. Since they are not elected Representatives, the people sent to Washing to by Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, America Samoa and the Virgin Islands are Constitutionally barred from casting meaningful votes. Nevertheless Nancy Pelosi looks at this bunch as five more Democrat votes in the various Committees they are assigned to.

These “observers” were never supposed to be a factor in Congressional business, but when Democrats lost 12 seats in 1992 and could see what was coming in 1994 they gave the Observers a vote in Committees. Originally if their votes changed the outcome of a tally, there was to be a second vote without them.

This vote was a big win – win for Nancy Pelosi. By using the votes of this gang of freeloading clowns, she was able to offer “CYA” coverage to Nick Rahall (W.V.), Jim Costa (Calif.) and Dan Boren (Okla), all Democrats from energy producing districts, and “let” them vote “Yes.”. They can now claim they “worked” to defend their constituent’s jobs.

Those who can’t get angry about this and the fact that insignificant people from the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have told us we can’t drill off our own shores, don’t have a patriotic bone their body.

Putting the Congress back on a Constitutional footing has to be done on day one in the new Congress.

Pledge your support to America. Pray for America. Stand and fight now or there will be no chance to do so ever again in our lifetimes.

Our enemies are motivated by fear of freedom. Let’s defeat them with love of country!
What have you done lately to defend our country?
In January the taxes we warned Obama would shove down our throats are coming. They will be killers to all middle class American families. Go to the tool bar at the top of the Collins Report and read about them.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative.

Knowledge is power.
Learn the truth so you can teach our children the truth. To read more about this story go to this Collins Report source:

Yesterday’s Rasmussen Presidential Index had Obama at –17
This day in history July 21
1925: The “Monkey Trial” defendant John T. Scopes was found guilty of violating Tennessee law against teaching the theory of evolution.

Have you read this week’s “Betcha didn’t know this..” page? It’s loaded with interesting little “bite size” items you’re bound to enjoy.

Comments on this or any other Collins Report essay can be sent to kcoachc “at”

Sarah Palin Rightly Rejects Ground Zero Mosque; Bloomberg and Aide Reject Her. And Sanity

I knew in some way the Racist Card would be played into all of this. It seems every time the left, progressives and/or liberals are on the losing end of a debate, they always and I mean always, will call you out as being a racist. What part of the Islamic Terrorism that murdered thousands of our citizens, in the very spot this mosque will be built, do the people like Bloomberg not get?

Source: NewsRealBlog

by Lori Ziganto

On Sunday Sarah Palin, exhibiting common sense and courage of her convictions, called for a rejection of the planned mosque at Ground Zero. The planned mosque has been causing controversy, controversy that was easily foreseen by anyone with a brain and, you know, an ounce of true as opposed to feigned sensitivity. Apparently, this does not include a New York City Community Board nor Mayor Bloomberg.

Nearly two months ago, Manhattan Community Board 1 voted to approve the plans for a mosque to be built at ground zero. The vote was 29 to 1 in favor, although 10 chose to “vote present” by abstaining. Suffice it to say, the public had a few things to say about it.

The alleged purpose of the mosque was to spread “healing.” The actual result? Not so much. So, you’d think that the plans would have been scrapped once that was crystal clear. But, nope. Of course not. Because it’s always sensitivity for me, but not for thee, to those on the Left. Enter Sarah Palin, who once again is displaying her uncanny ability of creating a national dialogue via social media postings.  But she’s just a dum-dum, right? She tweeted this on Sunday:

“Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing,” she tweeted Sunday.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? Not if you are an aide in Nanny Mayor Bloomberg’s office.

While a recent poll showed a majority of New Yorkers oppose the plan to build the mosque built near Ground Zero, an aide in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s City Hall hit back at Palin, first tweeting “@SarahPalinUSA mind your business.”

The aide, policy hand Andrea Batista Schlesinger, followed that up with:

“@SarahPalinUSA whose hearts? Racist hearts?”

Schlesinger deleted both tweets shortly after posting them.

“Andrea was only speaking for herself, and she has the right to her own opinions,” said Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser.

Schlesinger posted threee new tweets Sunday evening, explaining why she wrote, and took down, her Palin response:

“Deleted post bc I regretted curt response. But fact is, I believe this city belongs to everyone – and no one more than another”

“Unlike @SarahPalinUSA, I was born here grew up here. Was showing off to a visitor today – look at how beautiful and diverse my city is.”

“I felt pain of 9/11, the trauma. I got through it by believing in my city. Not through fear and hate.”

Sigh. Firstly, “mind your business” is hilariously ironic coming from Bloomberg’s administration. An administration that is striving to stick it’s nanny nose in every aspect of everyone’s business, down to how much salt they use. Furthermore, this was, of course, followed by the good old “you haters! So Racist ™ !” narrative. Not surprising, coming from an aide for Mayor Bloomberg. Remember, when the car bomb was found it Times Square, Mayor Bloomberg went on air and accused “somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something” as the perpetrator. Then, when even he could no longer deny the obvious and was forced to admit that it was an attempted terrorist attack, he fretted about a “backlash” against Muslims. His first thought was that Americans are racist and bullies. I’ve always said that everyone has the right to be stupid, but Mayor Bloomberg totally abuses the privilege.

After Palin’s tweet, a fracas on Twitter ensued, with the most prevalent, and intellectually dishonest straw man being “It’s not at Ground Zero! Stop discriminating, you discriminator-y wing nuts!” Only, it is at Ground Zero and only someone suffering from acute moral relativism and cognitive dissonance wouldn’t recognize that fact. The mosque is to be built at the site of the destroyed Burlington Coat Factory. The building was destroyed by fuselage from one of the planes that were purposely flown into the World Trade Center, by Islamic terrorists, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

There is another fact conveniently overlooked by those who wish to sanctimoniously condemn others as haters while patting themselves on the back for being oh-so-faux-tolerant, even at the expense of human decency. In Islam, a religion that demands the conquering and conversion of those it deems to be infidels, “mosques of war” are often built at the sites of odiously perceived victories over infidels. Even if this particular mosque isn’t being built for that reason, to the jihadists that is exactly what it will be. A shrine of conquer and honor. Where almost 3,000 innocent ‘infidels” were killed.

Mayor Bloomberg supports this. Until now, it has remained primarily a local New York City issue. Sarah Palin, once again bravely speaking her mind without fear of being not politically correct,  has hopefully brought this to the forefront nationally. This mosque must not be built. We must stop cowering in fear of the politically correct and we must stop condoning blatant provocations as a form of deluded tolerance and appeasement. Instead of busily demonizing American citizens, apologizing to those who wish to kill us, and frantically avoiding perceived “profiling” out of the insane fear of looking non-politically correct, Nanny Bloomberg can learn from the Mama Grizzly. Let’s hope that he does.


Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld , Right Wing News and Red State.


Video: NAACP Plays the Race Card, Exhibits Racism

Filed under: Liberal, Liberal Violence, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives — Tags: , — - @ 4:19 pm

Source: Impeach Obama Campaign

In recent weeks, the Democratic party has unveiled their newest and best strategy to win in the November elections: call everyone else racist.

The group spearheading this effort is the NAACP, which is undeniably a tool of the Democratic Party. In recent days they have upped their attack on the Tea Party, issuing a formal demand to the tea party that they condemn racist elements in their own party.

The Mainstream Media has only been too happy to carry the torch for the NAACP’s unconscionable use of the race card for political gain, ignoring Tea Party pleas of innocence.

For the Mainstream Media, the Tea Party is guilty until proven innocent, and they have no desire to show evidence of innocence.

But the bloggers are fighting back.

Now that the NAACP has brought up the race card, they have opened themselves up to attacks that they are racist as well.

Andrew Brietbart of Big Government today released a video of Shirley Sherrod, the USDA Georgia director of Rural Development, speaking at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia.

In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

[…]Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

The NAACP is being incredibly shortsighted in their new strategy of using the race card. They are going to incite a race war if they keep this up. This battle is not about race, and if we allow them to define the lines as one between blacks and whites, they will defeat us, and in the end defeat what makes America great. This battle is between those who desire Government to be involved and controlling every facet of their lies, and those who see what is happening to our freedom and have drawn a line in the sand.

Opposition to a black president is not racism. Opposition to socialism is not racism. If we let them bait us into making it about race rather than the truth of our claims, it will not bode well for the future of this country.


George Soros’ New Plan for Globalism and Crony Capitalism

Filed under: Corruption, Liberal, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives — Tags: , , , — - @ 1:39 pm

Source: NLPC

Submitted by Ben Johnson

Soros photoWhen George Soros invests $50 million to revolutionize the way Americans think about a certain issue, it would normally be deemed newsworthy. Not so with the formation of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET). Three months after a summit in New York state last July, Soros pledged $50 million to INET, which promises “to promote changes in economic theory and practice” by “providing the proper guidance” to “the next generation.”

Despite its name, its philosophy is nearly a century old. The group blames the economic crisis on free market capitalism and promotes a return to the theories of John Maynard Keynes. INET hosted its inaugural conference April 8-10 at King’s College, Keynes’ school, and called on economists to “apply the same Keynesian courage and innovation” to ending the worldwide recession.

That conference’s proceedings reveal INET is applying its talent to “contracting” the U.S. economy, redistributing its wealth, and creating a new world body to “supervise” global financial transactions – a body its elite membership intends to influence.

One of the conference attendees essentially spelled out its agenda in print. Andre Wilkens, who represented the prestigious German foundation Siftung Mercator at INET’s conference, was formerly “director of the Open Society Institute Brussels (OSI-Brussels) and a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).” Wilkens wrote just after the election of Barack Obama:

The challenge ahead is to manage a peaceful decline of the west while rescuing as many of the west’s liberal political and economic values as possible…We need new global governance which can both manage the ascent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the relative decline of the United States and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values within it, while they still have some power to do so.

He suggested the world’s elites create piecemeal “global governance based on global financial governance and then move ahead in ways that echo the EU’s evolution” from the European Economic Community (EEC) to a full political union with a centralized parliament, open borders, and a common currency. He concluded by echoing Rahm Emanuel: “The importance is to understand the crisis as an opportunity which should not be wasted.”

The speakers at INET’s inaugural conference wasted no time fleshing out each of these themes into a program for action.

The Decline of the West

Kate Pickett, a professor of epidemiology at the University of York, who once equated the American desire for good service in restaurants with “servitude,” spent her talk arguing for a socialist West. Reviewing data drawn from her book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, she assessed neither life expectancy nor “happiness” could be improved through increased wealth creation, and that “greater equality” (e.g., reduced purchasing power) “may be leverage” to “rein in carbon emissions.” She expounded:

In terms of global wealth, those who look at the need to change the economic structure of the world to cope with climate change talk about contraction and conver[gence], that we must raise the standards of living and the wealth of the developing world while sort of contracting the consumption and wealth of the developed world…The optimistic message from our work is that that will not compromise our health or happiness. And so, contraction and convergence for climate change reasons is actually likely to bring us social benefits, and we can have a high quality of life and sacrifice.

This sacrifice would be borne only by “the rich, developed economies,” where “a bit more poverty for those who have far too much I think would be a very good thing.”

Pickett suggested “three things” to equalize wealth inside the UK: “a land value tax,” “a massively increased inheritance tax,” and “the abolition of private education.”

The Dragon Ascends

Other speakers planned the displacement of American hegemony by other nations. Franklin Allen of the University of Pennsylvania wrote that Chinese “proposals for a global currency to replace the dollar” have a “great long run advantage.” However, this entails the “need for an institution to implement the currency.” Luckily, there is a second choice. “A more likely medium term scenario is that the Chinese Rmb becomes fully convertible and joins the U.S. dollar and the euro as the third major reserve currency.” That “solution” would result in drastically higher interest rates and massive devaluation of our currency.

World Government

The INET conference’s session on “Global Governance?” focused on building Wilkens’ world government, beginning with the financial sector – with ample room for special interests to exert their influence. Charles Dallara, head of the Institute of International Finance (IIF), insisted a global crisis required “adaptations of global architecture. I think we are reluctant to do that because we have been captured by the notion of sovereignty.” Dallara wants to implement a “regime” of “global regulation, global supervision, and global risk management.” He emphasized global supervision – allowing a world body to see how each major firm in the world does business – by noting “framework of regulation is one thing, actually engaging in supervising financial institutions and the conduct of their business is another thing.” He suggested “a global treaty for financial services” and “a new global institution to manage the regulatory, supervisory, and risk management framework” as part of a “cross-border resolution regime.” In an accompanying paper Dallara calls for “a Global Macroeconomic Coordinating Council” that encourages “global coordination” of fiscal policy and reports only to the G-20 Summit. Echoing Wilkens, he told his audience, “if we do not embed this in a broader framework of” global government, “then I’m afraid we would have missed a major opportunity.”

Progressive Policies

These international institutions would embody “progressive” values. Franklin Allen proposed something like Affirmative Action for the IMF. He argued the Fund required harsh measures during the 1997 Asian crisis only “because the Asians are underrepresented in the IMF” and recommended the IMF “reform its governance structure…accompanied by an increase in Asian staff at all levels.”

Kate Pickett gave another view of the progressive values Soros, et. al., wish to implement globally. She rhapsodized about her college days:

When I was here at Cambridge in the 1980s, Kings was known as The People’s Republic of King’s. The student union actually voted that the union leader must change his name from Shaun Waterman to Shaun Waterperson. It was a radical place then. Places can change, societies can change, and thinking can change.

Revolving Doors

INET’s agenda sounds like that of John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar and the onetime protégé of Paul and Annie Erhlich. I was the first writer to expose Holdren’s book Ecoscience, in which he called for ending global inequality, reducing Western living standards for environmental reasons, promoting left-wing social policies (in his case, compulsory abortion), and creating “a comprehensive global regime” to monitor all world commerce. Yet even he did not envision a further proposal at INET’s conference: enshrining crony capitalism.

In his paper, Dallara extolled the IIF, which he heads, as “the center of an extensive network of information and well-informed views,” yet he worries “we are not taking full advantage of the potential for public-private sector dialogue.” He points to an IIF organ, the Market Monitoring Group, which “has established a dialogue…with official bodies, including the FSB [Financial Stability Board] and the IMF, and we would like to see the institutionalization of regular, structured exchanges.” He pointed out private-public consultations have not taken place, in part, because of “public suspicion,” but reassured that “my interest in more systematic interaction…[is] not about regulatory capture or revolving doors.”

Yet Dallara is an example of such a revolving door. Before joining the IIF in 1993, “he was managing director at J.P. Morgan & Co…During the 1980s, he served in a variety of senior financial positions in the US government,” including a concurrent stint in the Treasury Department and the IMF during the Reagan administration, then served “as assistant secretary of the US Treasury for International Affairs in 1989–1991.” He has participated in a number of private organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Private Export Funding Corporation (PEFCO).

The IIF represents “multinational corporations, trading companies, export credit agencies, and multilateral agencies” based in 70 countries (half of them in Europe) and advocates for its members interests.

Despite the potential for abuse, another presenter, Franklin Allen, proposed creating a Financial Stability Board within the U.S. Federal Reserve System with several votes in Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

This means individuals with longstanding ties to corporate, banking, or financial interests would be in a position to view and grade their longtime competitors’ internal compensation and corporate risk-taking policies – and vote on matters affecting their bottom line.

This brings to mind FDR inviting the titans of industry to write the National Recovery Administration’s business regulations during the Great Depression. They immediately set price, wage, and production standards to their advantage. The potential for corruption in a less accountable global body would be immense. If there is to be a global financial superstructure, this conference demonstrates George Soros is trying to put himself at its center.

Ben Johnson is an Associate Fellow at NLPC. His personal website is


Ground Zero Mosque – Daisy, Daisy, Give Us Your Answer Do…

Source: Family Security Matters

By The Family Security Matters Editor

A TV advertisement, which argues against the Ground Zero Mosque, has been refused an airing by two major American TV networks. The video can be seen below:

Entitled “Kill the Ground Zero Mosque”, the advertisement is the handiwork of a group called “The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee”, run by Scott L. Wheeler. The YouTube version of the advertisement has been seen by 100,000 people.

However, CBS and NBC have refused to show the advertisement on their TV networks.

The video of the commercial could be seen as emotive, but the issue of the Ground Zero Mosque has been emotive. The authorities – including the bizarre “Community Council” that approved the mosque plans – are either singularly lacking realistic emotions or they have no respect for the wounded emotions of those who had lost relatives on 9/11.

Daisy Khan is the Executive Director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), the group which plans to construct a mosque and 13-story Islamic center at the Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place. This building is so close to Ground Zero that the fuselage of one of the planes that flew into the Twin Towers fell onto the building and damaged it.

Daisy Khan said: “For us, it’s a symbol, a platform that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan.”

If Daisy Khan and her husband really cared about the silent majority of Muslims who “suffer at the hands of extremists” then they would have signed the Freedom Pledge that was sent to them by the group “Former Muslims United” (FMU), which  includes apostates Amil Imani, Nonie Darwish, Mohammed Asghar, Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan.

In essence, the Freedom Pledge is about ensuring that Muslim groups in America support the democratic rights of Muslims to leave their faith without receiving any threats from other Muslims. As reported on Family Security Matters by Alyssa A. Lappen, Daisy Khan and her husband Feisal Abdul Rauf refused to sign the pledge.

Daisy Khan’s claim that the Ground Zero Mosque will give “voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists” becomes more curious. She does not seem to believe that Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremist Muslims should be defended or protected – if she had, she and her husband would have signed the Freedom Pledge.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were behind projects to put banner advertisements onto buses. These buses carried the message:  “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Got Questions? Get Answers.”

In May this year, 30 buses in New York City carried the posters. Daisy Khan appears to have been offended by these posters. She has called Pamela Geller “ignorant…. of who our community is” and has denied that in New York or in any other American city that anyone would be harmed or threatened for leaving Islam. Khan said: “It is always hurtful when your entire community is always judged on the actions of a few.”

Khan said she believes in free speech but believes the advertisements are divisive, and along with their creator, are tasteless. “I think Pamela should take the time to find out there are 1.5 billion Muslims, the majority of whom have nothing to do with extremism.”

To quote Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

The statement made elsewhere by Daisy Khan in which she claims “extremists” have caused the “silent majority of Muslims” to suffer seems to have another meaning. The extremists have caused Muslims to suffer because ordinary Muslims have been targeted by non-Muslims, who then label all Muslims. Her claims that no Muslims in America would be at risk for leaving Islam seems to be based upon ignorance, denial or political dishonesty. Is this “taqiyya”?

In this edition of Family Security Matters, we have a story about Somalis arriving in large numbers in America. An upcoming link is something that you should follow only if you have a very strong stomach. I cannot watch the entire video, though I have seen the start, the middle and the end. Mansur Mohamed was a Muslim in Somalia who decided to change his religion from Islam to Christianity. In 2008, he was decapitated, following edicts written in the Koran and the Hadiths (see the documentation in Alyssa A. Lappen’s article). The video of Mansur’s beheading for becoming an apostate is here. It is barbaric. It is ghastly, but it is still “Islamic”, in the most literal sense. The prophet of Islam himself said that apostates should be killed.

Officially, as a direct consequence of Islamic tradition set out by the prophet Mohammed, the death penalty is a legal punishment for Muslim apostates in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, in 12 states in the north of Nigeria, in Yemen, Qatar, Sudan and Mauritania.

Most of these countries signed the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where Article 18 states:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari states (Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57):

according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

And again in Bukhari’s collection of Hadiths, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

Somalis are arriving in larger numbers than ever before, coming from a culture where Sharia law has been exercised in regions controlled by Sharia councils in 2006, and more recently by regions under the control of Al Shabaab. If Daisy Khan really does not think that any Muslim will be killed for leaving their faith in any American city, she is ignoring existing examples from Europe which has had a far larger concentration of Muslim immigrants, and where so-called honor killings related to Islam have happened in almost every European nation.

And in North America, honor killings appear to be getting worse. Last month the father and brother of a young Canadian woman were given life sentences for her murder, with no parole for 18 years. In December 2007, 16-year old Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death in her family home at Mississauga. Muhammed Parvez, aged 57 and her 26-year old brother Waqas, were arrested. They admitted killing Aqsa, for the “crime” of being too “Western”.

An Egyptian man called Yaser Abdel-Said who was living in Texas is still wanted by the FBI for the murder of his two daughters, Amina and Sarah, at their home in Irvine. The girls were murdered apparently for being too “Western” in their outlook.

The case of Riqfa Barry also involved alleged threats of death from her family against a young girl in Florida who converted to Christianity from Islam.

Daisy Khan should accept that people really are concerned about what Islam will bring into America. Denying that killing happens – when it does, throughout the Muslim world – is NOT an honest response to a problem. It is the response of a politician, not the response of a “spiritually honest” person.

Perhaps – after condemning the bus advertisement campaign of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer – Daisy Khan could at least make a statement denouncing aspects of sharia law that call for the murder of apostates from Islam.

She and her husband, Feisal Abdul Rauf, could also do the decent thing and reassure New Yorkers by signing the Freedom Pledge. Failure to do so only proves that the mosque leaders have an agenda only to “advance” Islam, and that they have no respect for the feelings and sensitivities of non-Muslims.

If a Ground Zero Mosque goes ahead, even though it is an obvious affront and insult to the lives of those who lives were destroyed on 9/11, it is vitally important that those who are building such a mosque are honest, and do not engage in religious “politics”. If they believe that they are providing some spiritual healing to the region, they must act accordingly, and not dissemble and act as political fronts. They should also be entirely clear as to the exact sources of their funds.

Anything less than full financial disclosure and a complete repudiation of any sharia laws that contradict the basic rights of Americans (as contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) will show that Daisy Khan and Feisal Abdul Rauf’s intentions with this Ground Zero Mosque are not honorable, and certainly not American.

It is a simple question – “Do you uphold the values of the American Constitution and its definitions of freedom of religious conscience over the capital punishments of Sharia law?”

Daisy Khan and Feisal Abdul Rauf have hitherto avoided answering this important question or gone on the offensive and attacked those who question their intentions.

If ASMA cannot reassure its critics that it cherishes Americanism above the more barbaric practices of Sharia law, every decent American should campaign to have the Ground Zero Mosque banned.

The Editor,

Older Posts »